Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Navy's use of sonar halted, to spare whales
The Seattle Times ^ | Nov 01, 2002 | Kenneth R. Weiss

Posted on 11/01/2002 4:37:34 AM PST by Pern

A federal judge yesterday prohibited the U.S. Navy from combing the world's oceans with a powerful new sonar, ruling the booming sounds meant to detect enemy submarines could cause irreparable harm to whales.

The temporary injunction bans a type of low-frequency sonar that has not been conclusively linked to marine-mammal deaths.

Although the ruling could allow the Navy to resume using the sonar in some places, U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth LaPorte imposed a worldwide ban until Navy brass and environmental experts can agree on a list of spots where sailors can deploy the sonar without harming marine life.

In her 58-page opinion, the judge, who is based in San Francisco, said the Navy may use the sonar to detect enemy submarines during wartime and must be allowed to train with it beforehand.

She gave the Navy and environmental groups that filed the lawsuit until Nov. 7 to report back to her with an interim solution.

The Navy and federal marine-fisheries officials declined comment.

But environmental groups were elated. They had sued to overturn the Bush administration's decision in July that gave the Navy permission to "harass" or injure whales in training missions using the sonar designed to search for super-quiet diesel submarines.

"There was no justification for giving the Navy a blank check to operate this sonar in 75 percent of the world's oceans," said Joel Reynolds, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Yesterday's ruling is the most recent legal victory for environmental groups trying to rein in powerful sonar and other loud sounds that science is increasingly linking to deaths and injuries of marine mammals.

The Bush administration is pushing to exempt military activities from a variety of environmental constraints. In September, a federal judge rejected arguments that sonar use in the deep ocean was exempt from the National Environmental Policy Act.

In early 2000, 16 beaked whales beached themselves in the Bahamas in a mass-stranding that the Navy and other authorities have linked to bursts of midfrequency sonar. A similar die-off of whales occurred in September in the Canary Islands after naval operations by warships from the United States and about 12 NATO allies.

"From a scientific point of view, there is very little question that, given the right set of circumstances, active sonar can kill marine life," said Naomi Rose, a marine-mammal scientist with the U.S. Humane Society.

Yet military officials point out that naval operations in the Bahamas and Canary Islands were not using the new Surveillance Towed Array Sonar System banned yesterday. That system broadcasts low-frequency sonic waves through 18 speakers dangled behind a ship on cables hundreds of feet long.

Such active sonar emits 215-decibel bursts of low-frequency waves that can "light up" enemy submarines with acoustics, much the way a floodlight can light up an intruder in a darkened back yard. These intense waves travel 300 miles through the ocean before dissipating. As such, they are much more effective at detecting submarines than passive listening devices.

Environmentalists say that frequency of the sonic waves matters less than intensity and that the new low-frequency system spreads intensely loud sound farther than any other sonar.

The National Marine Fisheries Service decided in July that the sonar would have "negligible impact" on any marine species so long as it operated at least 12 miles from shore and was shut down if sailors detected any whales.

Environmentalists sued, saying the federal government violated federal laws designed to protect whales and endangered species.

Yesterday, LaPorte wrote that environmentalists were likely to win their lawsuit: "It is undisputed that marine mammals ... will at a minimum be harassed by the extremely loud and far traveling (low-frequency) sonar."

The judge said she intends to modify her injunction to balance the public interest in "the survival and flourishing of marine mammals and endangered species" with "ensuring military preparedness and safety of those serving in the military from attacks by hostile submarines."

To achieve that balance, she ordered the Navy to meet with environmentalists and work out specific places acceptable to both sides.

The lawsuit focuses only on peacetime training and testing of the sonar, the judge noted.


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: navy; sonar; whales
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 last
To: AppyPappy
Sonobuoys are usually passive devices. Drop them in a known pattern, listen, and you can tell if someone is there, where they are going, and how fast. But the target has to be making noise.
21 posted on 11/01/2002 6:40:46 AM PST by stuartcr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head; Poohbah
FYI ping.

This is complete BS. A judge can dictate the operational procedures for the U.S. military?
22 posted on 11/01/2002 6:49:23 AM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
See SURTASS LFA for complete info on this subject.
23 posted on 11/01/2002 7:00:50 AM PST by stuartcr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: free me
Not even a real judge. The federal courts have propogated themselves by creating (with the connivance of Congress) a class of under-judges who actually do a lot of the real judges' work. They are not appointed by the president.
24 posted on 11/01/2002 7:09:49 AM PST by Stingray51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr; AppyPappy; grobdriver; All
Okay, understand that my comments here are EXTREMELY limited, for reasons which will become obvious.

I am in the business of subhunting myself, aboard the mighty P-3 ORION ASW aircraft. In particular, I work with underwater acoustics and sonar. Matter of fact, I am an Instructor of them.

Rest easy if y'all are worried. This descision will NOT bother us to any great extent. That's all I can say.


25 posted on 11/01/2002 7:14:17 AM PST by Long Cut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Stingray51
I know. Fake judges appointed by judges. Who are they accountable to I don't know.
26 posted on 11/01/2002 7:19:58 AM PST by free me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Pern
...and in other news, the Air Force was denied airspace near 12 bird sanctuaries where the loud jets had scared migrant birds. The jets may fly only during war.

The Army, today, also announced that training with those nasty cannons and tanks would halt for they scare ground hogs on the firing range. The guns may only be fired during war.
27 posted on 11/01/2002 7:25:13 AM PST by PatrioticAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
I am in the business of subhunting myself, aboard the mighty P-3 ORION ASW aircraft. In particular, I work with underwater acoustics and sonar. Matter of fact, I am an Instructor of them. Rest easy if y'all are worried. This descision will NOT bother us to any great extent. That's all I can say.

Hey, shipmate.
Ex-AX1 IFT NATOPS instructor here. -Bs, B-MODs and Charlie Update IIs (what a piece of junk - but you may know that).

Glad to hear the Do What's Right attitude is alive and well in my Navy.

Pull chocks. Fly Safe.

28 posted on 11/01/2002 7:25:39 AM PST by grobdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
Thank you for your service and 'quiet' remarks.
29 posted on 11/01/2002 7:26:17 AM PST by B4Ranch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut; Grampa Dave; Poohbah
Perhaps, but I do not like the notion of judges making major decisions about operational procedures.

And this qualifies as one case where there is severe overreach. The Greens have not proven there is a link between the LFA sonar and harm to marine mammals. Hopefully, this decision will be overturned. I can see the military being told to monitor the effects better, but taking this tool out of their hands is NOT a good thing.

I can imagine the paraphrased line from Blackhawk Down used in a briefing: "Now, we have a couple of SURTASS LFA arrays that we wanted to use, but a federal judge, in all his wisdom, rejected that request. Too dangerous for the whales. So the advance ASW warning will have to come from P-3s and a small group of frigates ahead of the main convoy."
30 posted on 11/01/2002 7:26:31 AM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: grobdriver
Nice to "meet" you, grob. AW1, Update III, UYS-1, AIP USQ-78A,B SENSOR-1 Instructor BUMP to ya, Shippy!


31 posted on 11/01/2002 7:30:06 AM PST by Long Cut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: free me

Elizabeth LaPorte

Somehow, she looks exactly like I expcted her to.

32 posted on 11/01/2002 7:31:23 AM PST by Cincinatus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pern
Just where in the Constitution does it say that some judge can stop the navy from doing anything outside our borders? If Bush has any balls left he will tell this pig to cram her order in a stinky place.
33 posted on 11/01/2002 7:42:53 AM PST by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hchutch; All
Oh, don't get me wrong, I strongly dislike the idea, myself. As noted, we on active duty must deal with the watermelons and their nonsense on a constant basis.

All I'm saying is, don't sweat THIS one. We've got your back, America. BTW, ORIONs are more than up to the task, thank you. My life and career are devoted to just that goal, and there are a LOT like me.

Slick didn't drive us ALL away...


34 posted on 11/01/2002 7:52:07 AM PST by Long Cut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus
LOL! Hey, she said they could use it if we were at war. Aren't we at war now?
35 posted on 11/01/2002 8:00:46 AM PST by free me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: All
This is a prime example of why every enviral organization in American needs to have their books audited to see how much money has come from the Opecker Princes and the Mullahs of Iran and maybe the Mass Murderers of Iraq.

Natural Resources Defense Council would appear to have received funding from Iran or the ChiComs to push this in a court.

If we can ever open the books of the Enviral Whacko Organizations to follow the money of who contributes to them, a lot of eyes will be opened.
36 posted on 11/01/2002 8:23:21 AM PST by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
If you truly want to track subs, and not have to go home and re-fuel for 2 or 3 months, then you should ride a SURTASS boat.
37 posted on 11/01/2002 9:26:52 AM PST by stuartcr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson