Saving the seas for marine mammals
by Erich Hoyt
As the world marks the first UN Oceans Day, marine scientist Erich Hoyt says too little of the oceans has been set aside to protect marine life. In this week's Green Room, he explains why vast protected areas are needed to ensure the long term survival of marine mammals such as whales and dolphins.
“ If we can make homes for whales and dolphins, the ocean may just have a chance ”
Where do whales live? In the sea, of course; but the sea is ever changing.
We know that sperm whales search for squid in the dark canyons off the continental shelf.
We know that other whales and dolphins feed along massive seasonal upwellings fuelled by plankton explosions that attract vast schools of fish, which in turn attract seabirds, sharks and turtles, too.
We know that whales travel from feeding areas near the Arctic and Antarctic to warm equatorial regions where they breed and raise their calves.
So where precisely do whales live?
Well, this is the starting point for marine habitat-related research on whales and dolphins. We are still in the process of determining the fine points based on ocean depth, slope, temperature, currents and other factors; but we are learning.
And the more we learn, the more we realise how important it is to know where everything lives and how it functions in the dynamic environment of the sea; not just whales and dolphins but all marine life.
Habitats for a lifetime
Since the 1960s' save-the-whale movement started in California, we have made some progress reversing the momentum toward extinction that came from centuries of whaling.
There are still great threats to whales and dolphins as some countries continue to go whaling and dolphin hunting.
Hundreds of thousands of whales and dolphins are killed every year as bycatch and as a result of becoming tangled in fishing gear.
Also, overfishing has damaged ecosystems and food chains; the escalating noise in the sea from shipping, military sonar and hydrocarbon exploration has invaded their habitats.
On top of all this, there is the silent kill from chemical pollution and the effects of climate change.
Meanwhile, oil, gas and mining industries have their sights set on the vast ocean seabed.
If the lessons of intensification during the previous century show us anything, it is that we need to make a place in the sea for marine life.
We cannot save the whales unless we save their habitat.
To read the full article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8089122.stm
Showing posts with label animals: marine mammals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label animals: marine mammals. Show all posts
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Thursday, November 13, 2008
US Supreme Court Rules For Navy In Whales Sonar Case - Whales to receive no protection
U.S. top court rules for Navy in whales-sonar case
Wed Nov 12, 2008 7:25pm GMT
source: http://uk.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=UKTRE4AB51L20081112
By James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Navy can conduct sonar training exercises off the southern California coast without restrictions designed to protect whales, dolphins and other marine mammals, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday in a defeat for environmentalists.
In the most significant environmental case of its new term and its first ruling of the term, the high court threw out a federal judge's injunction that had required the Navy to take precautions during submarine-hunting exercises.
Environmental groups brought the lawsuit and said the intense sound waves can harm or even kill 37 species of marine mammals, including sea lions and endangered blue whales, by interfering with their ability to navigate and communicate.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the opinion for the court's conservative majority, said the overall public interest in the case tipped strongly in favor of the Navy.
He said the Navy's need to conduct realistic training with active sonar to respond to the threat posed by enemy submarines outweighed the interests advanced by the environmentalists.
The court lifted the restrictions in the injunction that the Navy had challenged, including a requirement that it stop using sonar when marine mammals are spotted within 2,200 yards and to reduce sonar decibel levels under certain ocean conditions.
Liberal Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer dissented in part and agreed in part with the ruling, while Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter disagreed with the entire decision.
The dispute involved 14 training exercises off the California coast that began in February of last year and are scheduled to end in January.
President George W. Bush intervened in the dispute by citing the national security necessity of the training and exempting the Navy from the environmental laws at the heart of the legal challenge.
But a U.S. appeals court rejected the White House's effort to exempt the Navy from the laws, prompting the administration to appeal to the Supreme Court and to argue that the judges should have deferred to the judgment of the Navy and Bush.
'SECOND-GUESSING THE NAVY'
In reading part of his ruling from the bench, Roberts agreed with the administration and criticized the judges in California for "second-guessing" the views of the Navy.
The Bush administration argued that there has been no documented case of sonar-related injury to marine mammals in the 40 years of exercises off the southern California coast.
Roberts said the Navy had previously taken voluntary measures to address concerns about marine mammals.
He said the court did not address the ultimate underlying legal claim that the Navy must prepare an environmental impact statement. Such an assessment is expected to be completed early next year.
In her written dissent, Justice Ginsburg cited the substantial and irreparable harm to marine mammals, saying sonar has been linked to mass strandings and hemorrhaging around the brain and ears.
She said the training exercises serve critical interests, but they do not authorize the Navy to violate the environmental laws.
Joel Reynolds of the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the groups that brought the lawsuit, called it a "narrow ruling" and told reporters it would have minimal practical impact as only one training exercise remains.
(Editing by David Alexander and Cynthia Osterman)
Wed Nov 12, 2008 7:25pm GMT
source: http://uk.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=UKTRE4AB51L20081112
By James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Navy can conduct sonar training exercises off the southern California coast without restrictions designed to protect whales, dolphins and other marine mammals, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday in a defeat for environmentalists.
In the most significant environmental case of its new term and its first ruling of the term, the high court threw out a federal judge's injunction that had required the Navy to take precautions during submarine-hunting exercises.
Environmental groups brought the lawsuit and said the intense sound waves can harm or even kill 37 species of marine mammals, including sea lions and endangered blue whales, by interfering with their ability to navigate and communicate.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the opinion for the court's conservative majority, said the overall public interest in the case tipped strongly in favor of the Navy.
He said the Navy's need to conduct realistic training with active sonar to respond to the threat posed by enemy submarines outweighed the interests advanced by the environmentalists.
The court lifted the restrictions in the injunction that the Navy had challenged, including a requirement that it stop using sonar when marine mammals are spotted within 2,200 yards and to reduce sonar decibel levels under certain ocean conditions.
Liberal Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer dissented in part and agreed in part with the ruling, while Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter disagreed with the entire decision.
The dispute involved 14 training exercises off the California coast that began in February of last year and are scheduled to end in January.
President George W. Bush intervened in the dispute by citing the national security necessity of the training and exempting the Navy from the environmental laws at the heart of the legal challenge.
But a U.S. appeals court rejected the White House's effort to exempt the Navy from the laws, prompting the administration to appeal to the Supreme Court and to argue that the judges should have deferred to the judgment of the Navy and Bush.
'SECOND-GUESSING THE NAVY'
In reading part of his ruling from the bench, Roberts agreed with the administration and criticized the judges in California for "second-guessing" the views of the Navy.
The Bush administration argued that there has been no documented case of sonar-related injury to marine mammals in the 40 years of exercises off the southern California coast.
Roberts said the Navy had previously taken voluntary measures to address concerns about marine mammals.
He said the court did not address the ultimate underlying legal claim that the Navy must prepare an environmental impact statement. Such an assessment is expected to be completed early next year.
In her written dissent, Justice Ginsburg cited the substantial and irreparable harm to marine mammals, saying sonar has been linked to mass strandings and hemorrhaging around the brain and ears.
She said the training exercises serve critical interests, but they do not authorize the Navy to violate the environmental laws.
Joel Reynolds of the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the groups that brought the lawsuit, called it a "narrow ruling" and told reporters it would have minimal practical impact as only one training exercise remains.
(Editing by David Alexander and Cynthia Osterman)
Friday, October 10, 2008
NOAA, Court Focus on Marine Mammals
http://webmail.aol.com/39155/aol/en-us/Suite.aspx
NOAA, Court Focus On Marine Mammals
Ship Speed Limited; Sonar Use Debated
By Jerry Markon and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, October 9, 2008; Page A02
The government yesterday issued a long-delayed regulation imposing speed limits on East Coast ship traffic that threatens the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale, while barely a mile away the Supreme Court wrestled with a dispute between the Navy and environmentalists over the impact of sonar exercises on whales and other marine mammals.
North Atlantic right whales, which were intensely hunted in the 1800s during the height of the U.S. whaling boom, now number fewer than 400 and rank among the most endangered animals in the world. The rule issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration requires large ships to slow to 10 knots (11.5 mph) during parts of the year when they come within 20 nautical miles of several East Coast ports in areas where the whales feed, reproduce and migrate.
In July 2006, NOAA scientists proposed buffer areas extending 30 nautical miles, but shipping interests said that would cost them too much time and money, and they lobbied the White House to scale back the regulation. Aides to Vice President Cheney and National Economic Council Director Keith Hennessey weighed in on the issue, questioning the benefits of establishing a wider buffer.
NOAA Administrator Conrad C. Lautenbacher said the new rule, along with existing measures aimed at preventing the whales from becoming entangled in fishing gear, would help protect the species. "The ship strike rule, based on science, is a major addition to NOAA's arsenal of protections for this endangered species," he said in a statement.
Researchers at NOAA's Fisheries Service estimate that about 83 percent of right whale sightings in the mid-Atlantic region are within 20 nautical miles of shore, while the 30-mile limit would encompass 90 percent of all sightings.
Scientific experts said yesterday that the rule, which will go into effect in early December, could help protect the right whales even if it does not go far enough. On Monday, the International Union for Conservation of Nature cited ship strikes as a major factor in why nearly a third of the world's marine mammals are at risk of extinction.
Randall Reeves, chairman of the union's cetacean specialist group, praised the 10-knot restriction in an interview, saying that a 30-nautical mile buffer "would have been nice, but 20 is better than nothing."
Since NOAA first proposed the regulation in 2006, at least three right whales have died from ship strikes, and two have been wounded by propellers.
During oral arguments before the Supreme Court yesterday, Justice Stephen G. Breyer expressed frustration at the dispute over the Navy's use of loud, mid-frequency sonar during submarine exercises off the Southern California coast.
Environmental advocates say the exercises violate the law, citing evidence showing that the sonar disorients whales and other marine mammals, sometimes leading them to strand themselves and die. The Navy says the exercises are needed to train sonar operators to detect quiet new submarines deployed by China, North Korea and other potential adversaries. It calls the training vital to national security in a time of war.
"I don't know anything about this. I'm not a naval officer," Breyer told an environmental lawyer during the arguments. He later said: "Why couldn't you work this thing out? . . . You are asking us -- who know nothing about whales and less about the military -- to start reading all these documents to try to figure out who's right."
As laughter echoed in the marble-and-velvet courtroom, Breyer added: "I think the whole point of the armed forces is to hurt the environment. . . . On a bombing mission, do they have to prepare an environmental impact statement first?"
The comments from Breyer, a member of the court's liberal wing, indicated that the decision in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council might not fall along ideological lines. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. sharply questioned both sides, calling a key part of the Navy's argument "odd" but said environmentalists are being "very unfair" because the Navy is trying not to cause harm.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. questioned whether a lower court judge who halted the use of sonar, but then allowed it with restrictions that the Navy opposes, is "an expert on anti-submarine warfare."
"Isn't there something incredibly odd about a single district judge making a determination on that defense question that is contrary" to the Navy's, he said.
Although much of the argument focused on the potential harm to whales, legal experts said the case raises broader questions about the military's obligation to obey environmental laws as well as the constitutional separation of powers.
The dispute centers on 14 training exercises off the California coast that began in February 2007 and are scheduled to end in January. The Natural Resources Defense Council filed suit in federal court to stop or modify the use of sonar.
The Bush administration, seeking to overturn an appellate court ruling that upheld the restrictions on sonar use, is relying on arguments it has offered in other national security cases since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The administration's attorneys said the judiciary must defer to its determination that the exercises constitute a national security emergency that overrides the requirements of several environmental laws.
Environmentalists say the Navy must adhere to the law. They say that an adverse ruling could free the government to take
other actions that could harm the environment without studying their effects.
-------------------------
Sandy Burns
The Furry Godmother (Companion Animal Sitting and Transportation Service)
Hollywood, FL
954-929-8896
VIDEO: A LIFE CONNECTED
http://www.nonviolenceunited.org/veganvideo.html
NOAA, Court Focus On Marine Mammals
Ship Speed Limited; Sonar Use Debated
By Jerry Markon and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, October 9, 2008; Page A02
The government yesterday issued a long-delayed regulation imposing speed limits on East Coast ship traffic that threatens the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale, while barely a mile away the Supreme Court wrestled with a dispute between the Navy and environmentalists over the impact of sonar exercises on whales and other marine mammals.
North Atlantic right whales, which were intensely hunted in the 1800s during the height of the U.S. whaling boom, now number fewer than 400 and rank among the most endangered animals in the world. The rule issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration requires large ships to slow to 10 knots (11.5 mph) during parts of the year when they come within 20 nautical miles of several East Coast ports in areas where the whales feed, reproduce and migrate.
In July 2006, NOAA scientists proposed buffer areas extending 30 nautical miles, but shipping interests said that would cost them too much time and money, and they lobbied the White House to scale back the regulation. Aides to Vice President Cheney and National Economic Council Director Keith Hennessey weighed in on the issue, questioning the benefits of establishing a wider buffer.
NOAA Administrator Conrad C. Lautenbacher said the new rule, along with existing measures aimed at preventing the whales from becoming entangled in fishing gear, would help protect the species. "The ship strike rule, based on science, is a major addition to NOAA's arsenal of protections for this endangered species," he said in a statement.
Researchers at NOAA's Fisheries Service estimate that about 83 percent of right whale sightings in the mid-Atlantic region are within 20 nautical miles of shore, while the 30-mile limit would encompass 90 percent of all sightings.
Scientific experts said yesterday that the rule, which will go into effect in early December, could help protect the right whales even if it does not go far enough. On Monday, the International Union for Conservation of Nature cited ship strikes as a major factor in why nearly a third of the world's marine mammals are at risk of extinction.
Randall Reeves, chairman of the union's cetacean specialist group, praised the 10-knot restriction in an interview, saying that a 30-nautical mile buffer "would have been nice, but 20 is better than nothing."
Since NOAA first proposed the regulation in 2006, at least three right whales have died from ship strikes, and two have been wounded by propellers.
During oral arguments before the Supreme Court yesterday, Justice Stephen G. Breyer expressed frustration at the dispute over the Navy's use of loud, mid-frequency sonar during submarine exercises off the Southern California coast.
Environmental advocates say the exercises violate the law, citing evidence showing that the sonar disorients whales and other marine mammals, sometimes leading them to strand themselves and die. The Navy says the exercises are needed to train sonar operators to detect quiet new submarines deployed by China, North Korea and other potential adversaries. It calls the training vital to national security in a time of war.
"I don't know anything about this. I'm not a naval officer," Breyer told an environmental lawyer during the arguments. He later said: "Why couldn't you work this thing out? . . . You are asking us -- who know nothing about whales and less about the military -- to start reading all these documents to try to figure out who's right."
As laughter echoed in the marble-and-velvet courtroom, Breyer added: "I think the whole point of the armed forces is to hurt the environment. . . . On a bombing mission, do they have to prepare an environmental impact statement first?"
The comments from Breyer, a member of the court's liberal wing, indicated that the decision in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council might not fall along ideological lines. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. sharply questioned both sides, calling a key part of the Navy's argument "odd" but said environmentalists are being "very unfair" because the Navy is trying not to cause harm.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. questioned whether a lower court judge who halted the use of sonar, but then allowed it with restrictions that the Navy opposes, is "an expert on anti-submarine warfare."
"Isn't there something incredibly odd about a single district judge making a determination on that defense question that is contrary" to the Navy's, he said.
Although much of the argument focused on the potential harm to whales, legal experts said the case raises broader questions about the military's obligation to obey environmental laws as well as the constitutional separation of powers.
The dispute centers on 14 training exercises off the California coast that began in February 2007 and are scheduled to end in January. The Natural Resources Defense Council filed suit in federal court to stop or modify the use of sonar.
The Bush administration, seeking to overturn an appellate court ruling that upheld the restrictions on sonar use, is relying on arguments it has offered in other national security cases since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The administration's attorneys said the judiciary must defer to its determination that the exercises constitute a national security emergency that overrides the requirements of several environmental laws.
Environmentalists say the Navy must adhere to the law. They say that an adverse ruling could free the government to take
other actions that could harm the environment without studying their effects.
-------------------------
Sandy Burns
The Furry Godmother (Companion Animal Sitting and Transportation Service)
Hollywood, FL
954-929-8896
VIDEO: A LIFE CONNECTED
http://www.nonviolenceunited.org/veganvideo.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
