Navy sonar newspeak
Propaganda soft-pedals sonar impacts on marine mammals 12
-
Posted 11:12 PM on 2 Mar 2008
by Erik Hoffner -
Posted in
Read More About
Erik Hoffner is the coordinator of the Orion Grassroots Network which supports the work of hundreds of grassroots groups and which connects the green leaders of tomorrow with good work today via the Grassroots Jobsource. Based in Massachusetts, he is also a freelance photographer.
Related Stories
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Tweet for the bees
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
caniscandida Posted 5:33 pm
02 Mar 2008
Sadly, like just about everything else, this issue too is an intractable source of political polarization. No doubt those of us who want the US Navy to cease their sonar exercises, out of consideration for the health and welfare of cetaceans (and other ocean animals), have already been called by our very dear friends on the right such names as dishonorers of our American heroes in the military, America-haters, and even humanity-haters.
Oh well, we learn to live with such abuse. We never learn to like it; but we learn that it is on its way, and so we may harden ourselves against its onrush.
On the other hand, from the other direction, it is always good to remind all of us who do wish that the sonar exercises be ceased, for the sake of the cetaceans, that the truly big animal-welfare issue that most certainly needs to be worked on has to do with the billions of animals entrapped in the meat industry -- including the pigs, the countless intelligent and sensitive pigs, who arguably suffer more than any other regularly exploited animal.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
TokyoTom Posted 10:07 pm
02 Mar 2008
A few suggestions:
Who makes the sound generating devices for the Navy? The directors, officers and shareholders should be publicized and sued.
Some should do a few more necropsies and make the results public. And maybe someone in some other countries should start making a fuss and file a few lawsuits?
Permalink
mstocker Posted 3:50 am
03 Mar 2008
The evidence of tissue damage due to acoustic trauma as a result of extremely loud noise implies an exposure threshold that we want to really avoid. Unfortunately behavioral reactions to extreme noises are not always evident in strandings - except where the behavioral reactions lead to a physiological trauma.
The Navy maintains that the six (or seven) Beaked Whales that stranded and died coincident to the Bahamas excercise in 2000 "died due to stranding" or "Hyperthermia from being out of the water."
This is a bit like the old "dying of lead poisoning" explaining a shooting death, or "spaitial conflict between a knife blade and body" explaining a stabbing.
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[17]='\"';l[18]=' 103';l[19]=' 114';l[20]=' 111';l[21]=' 46';l[22]=' 82';l[23]=' 67';l[24]=' 79';l[25]=' 64';l[26]=' 111';l[27]=' 102';l[28]=' 110';l[29]=' 105';l[30]=':';l[31]='o';l[32]='t';l[33]='l';l[34]='i';l[35]='a';l[36]='m';l[37]='\"';l[38]='=';l[39]='f';l[40]='e';l[41]='r';l[42]='h';l[43]='a ';l[44]='
Permalink
Tracey Moriarty Posted 2:14 am
05 Mar 2008
These are the facts:
(1) The Sonar Ping: Sonar pings are typically one second long and are repeated twice per minute. Over the course of one minute, ship and animal movement at sea would make it very unlikely that a marine mammal would be exposed to even two sonar pings. Per the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 215 decibels is the threshold for physical injury to marine mammals. It is extremely difficult for a marine mammal to reach that threshold - the marine mammal would have to be nearly touching a ship's sonar dome to receive that level of sonar sound. Common sense would dictate that a whale or dolphin would move away from the ship long before that happens.
(2) Whale Strandings: With the Bahamas and similar incidents in mind, sonar has been implicated in the stranding of about 50 marine mammals worldwide from 1996 to 2006, an average of about five strandings per year. Compare that number with the 3,600 marine mammal strandings per year on U.S. shores. In most cases, the cause of the stranding is unknown, but common causes have included disease, parasite infestation, harmful algal blooms, injuries due to ship strikes or fishery entanglements, pollution exposure, trauma, and starvation. (See National Marine Fisheries Service website at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/strandings.htm.) Furthermore, more than 600,000 marine mammals are killed each year by commercial fishing interests (Read, Drinker, Northridge. 2006. Bycatch of Marine Mammals in U.S. and Global Fisheries. Conservation Biology 20: 163-9). Common sense would dictate that marine mammals have bigger problems than Navy sonar.
(3) Marine Mammal Protection: A marine mammal stranding that occurs during a major training exercise - regardless of whether it is attributed to active sonar - is bad for business. That is why the Navy spends a lot of time and money to do everything reasonably possible to protect marine mammals, including stationing trained shipboard lookouts, reducing sonar levels to 25% of operating power if whales or dolphins are detected within the safety zone, and ceasing use of active sonar altogether if a marine mammal is detected within 200 meters.
(4) Marine Mammal Research: The Navy is a world leader in marine mammal research, and will spend approximately $19 million annually from FY07-09 on research. The majority of this funding is provided through grants to universities and science institutions, such as the University of Hawaii, Boston University, University of California Santa Cruz, Duke University, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
The Office of Naval Research (ONR), which administers the majority of the grants, encourages independent peer review of the science and does not attempt to control the research outcomes.
Navy-sponsored marine mammal research presently focuses on (1) determining the distribution and abundance of protected marine species and their habitats; (2) establishing criteria and thresholds to measure potential effects of Navy training operations on marine mammals; (3) developing improved marine mammal protection measures to lessen such effects; (4) improving passive acoustic monitoring techniques to detect and localize marine species, particularly on Navy undersea ranges; and (5) improving the understanding of effects of sound on marine mammals.
This type of research will help the Navy to maintain our ability to train effectively with active sonar while achieving long-term environmental compliance. We are committed to following the science wherever it may lead. The challenge is that some of the groups that are suing us are resistant to scientific facts that get in the way of their strongly held opinions.
Feel free to contact me with any questions or requests for additional information regarding the Navy's environmental stewardship efforts, including marine mammal protection, at (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[29]='\"';l[30]=' 108';l[31]=' 105';l[32]=' 109';l[33]=' 46';l[34]=' 121';l[35]=' 118';l[36]=' 97';l[37]=' 110';l[38]=' 64';l[39]=' 121';l[40]=' 116';l[41]=' 114';l[42]=' 97';l[43]=' 105';l[44]=' 114';l[45]=' 111';l[46]=' 109';l[47]=' 46';l[48]=' 121';l[49]=' 101';l[50]=' 99';l[51]=' 97';l[52]=' 114';l[53]=' 116';l[54]=':';l[55]='o';l[56]='t';l[57]='l';l[58]='i';l[59]='a';l[60]='m';l[61]='\"';l[62]='=';l[63]='f';l[64]='e';l[65]='r';l[66]='h';l[67]='a ';l[68]='
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 2:41 am
05 Mar 2008
Is that for permanent damage, or just damage in general? You are aware that the threshold is different for every species, correct? Some species can tolerate noise at different levels than others. So how can you apply a universal standard to that situation?
Also, the noise doesn't necessarily haveta cause physical injuries in order to harm marine mammals. It just has to disorient/upset 'em enough that they may accidentally beach themselves, or rise to the surface too quickly in an attempt to escape the noise.
Whale Strandings: With the Bahamas and similar incidents in mind, sonar has been implicated in the stranding of about 50 marine mammals worldwide from 1996 to 2006, an average of about five strandings per year.
What's misleading 'bout that statement is that there weren't 5 deaths a year. These were high-number events, where several dozen animals died/stranded at the same time. Several dozen at time per incident over a several year period. That indicates that each incident has the potential to harm a large number of animals.
What was that statement 'bout no propoganda you were saying earlier? Better get your facts straight.
(3) Marine Mammal Protection: A marine mammal stranding that occurs during a major training exercise - regardless of whether it is attributed to active sonar - is bad for business. That is why the Navy spends a lot of time and money to do everything reasonably possible to protect marine mammals, including stationing trained shipboard lookouts, reducing sonar levels to 25% of operating power if whales or dolphins are detected within the safety zone, and ceasing use of active sonar altogether if a marine mammal is detected within 200 meters.
If it really wanted to do everything possible, then why is the Navy trying to fight those very restrictions that you just listed in the first place? If it was ruled that they didn't haveta follow those restrictions, but that doing so would reduce animal strandings, do you honestly think the Navy would still do it?
Somehow, I doubt they'll do anything other than what they're required to by law in this case, even it means a reduction in strandings.
Marine Mammal Research: The Navy is a world leader in marine mammal research, and will spend approximately $19 million annually from FY07-09 on research.
Is the money for the dolphins and seals in the Navy's mine-seeking program included in that figure for research?
Also, on the subject of averages, 19 million spread out over three years is only a little over 6 million a year, on average. Given the sophistication behind the research focuses that you stated earlier, that doesn't seem like a very large amount of funding.
This type of research will help the Navy to maintain our ability to train effectively with active sonar while achieving long-term environmental compliance.
What 'bout short-term environmental compliance? And does the situation with sonar and marine mammals qualify as short-term or long-term compliance under the Navy's plan?
Permalink
mstocker Posted 7:45 am
05 Mar 2008
First off, I would like to thank Ms. Moriarty for taking the time to engage in this discussion. Few organizations have the resources to follow the press on these issues, so I am glad to know that the Navy is keeping informed on the public discussion of their work. Discussions such as these will ultimately result in coming to resolutions on the issue.
I know that it is difficult to be accused of issuing "propaganda" though what constitutes propaganda is of course a matter of framing. For the 15 years I have been engaged in the ocean noise pollution issue it has been a strict matter of policy and personal integrity to accept the framing of the Navy and other ocean noise generators at face value and not question their perspective. This piece was the first time that I chose to put that position aside because I have noticed an increasing degree of "soft-pedaling" from the Navy on the issue. I have also noticed a high degree of coordination amongst the various Navy representatives speaking about it.
Ms. Moriarty has provided a good summary of the current Navy position - with the same compliment of "mitigating" and distracting elements that have been popping up with some regularity in the last six months in the public and trade press. While it may not be too useful to refute each of Ms. Moriarty's "facts" blow-by-blow, I will comment on some of her positions:
"(1) The Sonar Ping: Sonar pings are typically one second long and are repeated twice per minute. Over the course of one minute, ship and animal movement at sea would make it very unlikely that a marine mammal would be exposed to even two sonar pings. Per the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 215 decibels is the threshold for physical injury to marine mammals. It is extremely difficult for a marine mammal to reach that threshold - the marine mammal would have to be nearly touching a ship's sonar dome to receive that level of sonar sound. Common sense would dictate that a whale or dolphin would move away from the ship long before that happens."
A ping is not necessarily a one second long event, and they do not necessarily repeat just twice per minute. In the January 2001 Environmental Impact Statement for the Low Frequency Active Sonar Towed Array System, (SURTASS-LFA), a "ping" could last as long as 120 seconds. The typical ranging sonar "ping" is much shorter in duration as the Navy claims, but this is a characteristic of one type ranging and navigation sonar only, and as I indicated in my piece (with examples) that the newer communication sonars are not as tidy. Perhaps the Navy does not call these communication sonars "pings" - but semantics aside, the exposures to various and often overlapping sonars in a naval exercise (or action) would expose animals to much more noise than just the simple ranging signals.
Getting into the exposure levels and impacts is probably a bit academic for the purpose of this discussion; suffice it to say that there are many factors (and many opinions) about what constitutes a damaging exposure.
"(2) Whale Strandings: With the Bahamas and similar incidents in mind, sonar has been implicated in the stranding of about 50 marine mammals worldwide from 1996 to 2006, an average of about five strandings per year. Compare that number with the 3,600 marine mammal strandings per year on U.S. shores. In most cases, the cause of the stranding is unknown, but common causes have included disease, parasite infestation, harmful algal blooms, injuries due to ship strikes or fishery entanglements, pollution exposure, trauma, and starvation.... Furthermore, more than 600,000 marine mammals are killed each year by commercial fishing interests Common sense would dictate that marine mammals have bigger problems than Navy sonar."
There are quite a few studies that equate military activities with strandings that, depending on framing and "certainty" bring the "50 marine mammals worldwide" to question. (e.g.: the reports on Hanalei Bay Melon Headed Whale "embayment," the Haro Strait USS Shoup event, Brownell IWC Report SC63/E7, etc). But the larger framing here is that while marine mammals are subject to quite a number of stresses and incidents that lead to mortality, these examples do not diminish the fact that marine mammals are dying as a result of military sonar - so citing mortalities as a consequence of "commercial fishing" is a distraction from the noise issue (not really propaganda, but...). Just because more people die of malaria than from auto accidents doesn't mean that we should stop using seatbelts.
"(3) Marine Mammal Protection: A marine mammal stranding that occurs during a major training exercise - regardless of whether it is attributed to active sonar - is bad for business. That is why the Navy spends a lot of time and money to do everything reasonably possible to protect marine mammals, including stationing trained shipboard lookouts, reducing sonar levels to 25% of operating power if whales or dolphins are detected within the safety zone, and ceasing use of active sonar altogether if a marine mammal is detected within 200 meters."
These mitigations were a product of challenging and difficult court hearings involving the Navy and NRDC. There is no indication that the Navy would willingly comply with these mitigations if they had the choice. I suspect that we will see these mitigations challenged in court again by the Navy in the near future. That being said, I do not want to completely vilify the Navy here; it was Navy shore personnel that recently salvaged a dolphin that stranded on San Nicholas island during Navy maneuvers and sent it to a lab for a necropsy.
"(4) Marine Mammal Research: The Navy is a world leader in marine mammal research, and will spend approximately $19 million annually from FY07-09 on research....The Office of Naval Research (ONR), which administers the majority of the grants, encourages independent peer review of the science and does not attempt to control the research outcomes."
The Navy is sponsoring a majority of marine bio-acoustic work being done worldwide. This is all good and needed science, employing all of the best minds in the business. My only complaint here is that ONR chooses what - and more importantly, what not to sponsor. While I know that there is absolutely no meddling in the outcomes, there is an ONR research pedigree that has science following the funding, so the chances of our organization (for example) getting ONR funding is remote.
Finally, regarding the correlation of solar flares and strandings paper; I would like to read the original peer reviewed paper to confirm the correlations. Unfortunately the link given was in a public newspaper article that had a few oddities in it - such as the reference to the 2003 Canary Island beaked whale stranding - caused by a Navy sonar operations in the area.
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[17]='\"';l[18]=' 103';l[19]=' 114';l[20]=' 111';l[21]=' 46';l[22]=' 82';l[23]=' 67';l[24]=' 79';l[25]=' 64';l[26]=' 111';l[27]=' 102';l[28]=' 110';l[29]=' 105';l[30]=':';l[31]='o';l[32]='t';l[33]='l';l[34]='i';l[35]='a';l[36]='m';l[37]='\"';l[38]='=';l[39]='f';l[40]='e';l[41]='r';l[42]='h';l[43]='a ';l[44]='
Permalink
Tracey Moriarty Posted 2:56 am
10 Mar 2008
1: Is the 215 decibel threshold for permanent damage, or just damage in general?
A: The 215 decibel threshold refers to permanent physical injury of marine mammals (otherwise known as permanent threshold shift or PTS). This threshold serves as the lower limit for Level A Harassment (which is legally defined to have the "potential to injure a marine mammal") under the MMPA. Because there are ethical issues associated with doing research that purposely exposes marine mammals to sound levels that could cause PTS, NMFS proposed the use of 215 dB as the acoustic threshold for PTS.
This threshold is conservative and applicable to even the most acoustically sensitive marine mammals, such as beaked whales. I can provide some of Navy's environmental planning documents upon request, which will provide detailed information regarding how this threshold was determined.
2: Noise doesn't necessarily haveta cause physical injuries in order to harm marine mammals. It just has to disorient/upset 'em enough that they may accidentally beach themselves, or rise to the surface too quickly in an attempt to escape the noise.
A: The Navy recognizes that different marine mammals react to active sonar differently, depending on the species of the marine mammals and the underwater conditions of the training area. While some marine mammals (e.g., beaked whales) may react to avoid sonar pings, other species may not react at all (e.g., such as dolphins purposefully riding the bow waves of a vessel). The Navy is doing everything it can to understand the effects of sound on marine mammals, which is why it is dedicating approximately $19 million each year from FY07-FY09 for scientific research.
The Navy is also working hard to get all of its environmental planning documents completed - to ensure that its training exercises can be conducted with minimal impacts to marine mammals.
3: A ping is not necessarily a one second long event, and they do not necessarily repeat just twice per minute. In the January 2001 Environmental Impact Statement for the Low Frequency Active Sonar Towed Array System, (SURTASS-LFA), a "ping" could last as long as 120 seconds. The typical ranging sonar "ping" is much shorter in duration as the Navy claims, but this is a characteristic of one type ranging and navigation sonar only...
A: My comments were directed at mid-frequency active (MFA) sonar, because (1) the initial blog entry appeared to be concerned with MFA (based on references made about the CNN report and Admiral Rice, which were both regarding MFA), and (2) this is the type of sonar receiving the most media attention.
Low-frequency active (LFA) sonar, mentioned by Mr. Stocker above, is used on only two Navy vessels worldwide. The Navy has conducted more than 15 SURTASS LFA operational missions since January 2003. LFA sonar has never been implicated in a stranding event. (Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations.)
The Navy has made a tremendous effort to ensure that the LFA system does not pose a risk to marine life. As part of the 2001 EIS process, a two-year, $16 million independent scientific research program led by world-renowned scientists was conducted to determine the potential effects of SURTASS LFA on marine mammals. The study considered the protective measures employed by the Navy and concluded that the potential physiological effects to marine mammals were negligible and the possibility of significant behavioral effects was minimal. For more information about LFA, please see http://www.surtass-lfa-eis.com/FAQ/index.htm.
4: There are quite a few studies that equate military activities with strandings that, depending on framing and "certainty" bring the "50 marine mammals worldwide" to question. (e.g.: the reports on Hanalei Bay Melon Headed Whale "embayment," the Haro Strait USS Shoup event, Brownell IWC Report SC63/E7, etc).
A: I stand by the statement that sonar has been implicated in the stranding of about 50 marine mammals worldwide from 1996 to 2006, which equates to an average of about 5 a year. Regarding your references to Hanalei Bay, Haro Strait, and the IWC report, please note the following:
Hanalei Bay: On July 3, 2004, 150-200 melon-headed whales were observed congregating in the shallow waters of Hanalei Bay, HI. The following day, volunteers using kayaks urged the whales back to open sea. On July 5, a calf was found deceased on the shore, likely from maternal separation, poor nutrition, and dehydration.
On July 2 and 3, 2004, Navy vessels participated in a multi-national naval exercise that included the use of MFA sonar. All active sonar operation on July 2 occurred on the opposite side of the island in relation to Hanalei Bay and active sonar operation on July 3 did not begin until after the whales were observed entering the Bay and never occurred closer than 20 NM from the Bay.
A NOAA report on the event, finalized in 2006, did not reach a conclusive finding on the cause of the melon-headed whales' behavior. NOAA postulated that active sonar could have been a contributing factor in a confluence of events. The Navy disputes this conclusion based on (1) scientific evidence of a similar melon-headed whale event (involving 500-700 whales and an unidentified number of rough-toothed dolphins) that occurred simultaneously several thousand miles away with no sonar activity, and (2) the lack of scientific evidence indicating that MFA sonar was a contributing factor in either Hanalei Bay event.
USS Shoup event in Haro Strait: NMFS' final report on harbor porpoise strandings in Haro Strait in May 2003 concluded that USS SHOUP's sonar use did not cause the strandings. Necropsy examinations revealed no definitive signs of acoustic trauma in any of the porpoises.
NMFS conducted necropsies on 11 porpoises, concluding that two died from blunt trauma and three from illness. The cause of the other six deaths could not be determined. The report stated that the middle ears of virtually all of the porpoises appeared normal.
Brownell IWC Report: The U.S. Navy disagrees with the findings of the IWC. The report was not externally peer-reviewed before publication and offers no verifiable evidence to explain a correlation between active sonar use and marine mammal strandings.
5: My only complaint here is that ONR chooses what -and more importantly, what not to sponsor. While I know that there is absolutely no meddling in the outcomes, there is an ONR research pedigree that has science following the funding, so the chances of our organization (for example) getting ONR funding is remote.
A: The Navy has a finite amount of money and must prioritize which research to fund based on its mission and compliance requirements. For example, for the purposes of its environmental planning documents required for major training exercises using active sonar, the Navy must be able to mitigate potential effects of active sonar on marine mammals. In order to do this, the Navy must first determine what the potential "effects" of mid-frequency active sonar are on marine mammals. Once the effects are established, such results are expected to impact future training exercises and marine mammal protective measures.
If your organization were to propose research, that would meet our mission and compliance objectives, then you should submit your proposal for consideration.
Permalink
mstocker Posted 7:57 am
17 Mar 2008
Thanks again for taking the time to continue this discussion. I do wish that OCR had the resources to pursue this further in print, but we need to focus our limited resources where we feel they will most successfully drive solutions to ocean noise pollution. Suffice it to say that in an open discussion we would likely not come to the same conclusions on the evidence. This is why after 15 years I am still working on the issue, and why the Navy has been spending quite a few millions of dollars on it every year - particularly since the public became aware of the impacts of Navy sonar on marine mammals.
While I have not been encouraged by my previous attempts to run funding ideas by Office of Naval Research (ONR) marine mammal administrator Bob Gisiner, I do have some programs in the pipeline that might meet the Navy's "mission and compliance objectives." Perhaps I could use your name?
Regards,
Michael Stocker
Ocean Conservation Research
http://www.OCR.org
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[17]='\"';l[18]=' 103';l[19]=' 114';l[20]=' 111';l[21]=' 46';l[22]=' 82';l[23]=' 67';l[24]=' 79';l[25]=' 64';l[26]=' 111';l[27]=' 102';l[28]=' 110';l[29]=' 105';l[30]=':';l[31]='o';l[32]='t';l[33]='l';l[34]='i';l[35]='a';l[36]='m';l[37]='\"';l[38]='=';l[39]='f';l[40]='e';l[41]='r';l[42]='h';l[43]='a ';l[44]='
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 5:38 pm
23 Mar 2008
I still take issue with this statement. Though it is technically true, it does not reflect the reality of the events.
The death toll was not 5 whales a year, spread over a the period of year. Though ya didn't state this, the statement that "the average was about 5 per year" or similar statements will most likely be misinterpreted by the general public, or a person with little knowledge of the subject, to mean as such.
The reality is that these were high-kill events where dozens of mammals stranded themselves all at the same time as a result of a single or series of closely-timed tests.
The average of 5 per year comes from the fact that tests which resulted in high-kills were often months apart from each other.
The statement on averages however, would make it appear otherwise to a less-informed individual.
I would consider such a thing to be propoganda at worst, and gross negligance to provide full information at best.
A better number, refering to averages, would be the avergae number of kills per test, not for overall time period, including the time in-between tests. That seems to artifically downtrend the numbers.
Please explain if you interpret this differently.
Permalink
deafwhale Posted 7:45 pm
04 Apr 2008
In fact, I was the first person to publish a paper using the words "deafness" and "auditory trauma" and "barotrauma" in association with whales and dolphins. Prior to my "Auditory Trauma as the Major Factor is Whale Strandings" published in 1987, acoustic injury was NEVER mentioned is scientific papers about whales and dolphin.
But back to the issue of Navy sonar. This tool was not really to blame for the Bahama's incident. Nor did Navy sonar cause the 200 melon-headed whales to go ashore in Hawaii. And, Navy sonar had nothing to do with the strandings on the outer banks in 2005.
It is true that at certain times beaked whales are vulnerable to cavitation injury when exposed to high powered sonar; however, cavitation in these animals can easily be avoided with the advance knowledge of their special vulnerability.
The good news is that I am now able to predict stranding 30 to 60 days in advance and within 200 miles of the stranding site. I envision that within a few years, rescue teams using my prediction methods will be able to zoom in on injured pods with Google Earth or some other similar satellite and follow these pods all the way to the shore. Pods will be turned away from the beach by small boats similar to how fishermen in Japan and in the Faeroe Islands now drive injured pods ashore.
The future looks bright for pelagic pods.
Captain David Williams
Deafwhale Society, Inc.
Permalink
zoesah Posted 9:51 am
09 Apr 2008
My problem with the rhetoric she copies from her website and manuals (which I've read the same thing over and over again) is that she is a public affairs officer, not a biologist, and the "facts" that the Navy claims are not the "facts" to real scientists. There is not enough research that has been done and all their "established facts" are based primarily off a few short-termed studies back in the late 90's (these can be found on the military LFA website and sonar website). That info is referenced again and again and again. Oddly enough, the agency overseeing all the federal agencies about noise pollution and marine mammals actually came up with a different conclusion from the one the Navy put together and stated there wasn't enough information to make the claims the Navy is making
---- from the same info!
When the Navy wants something, they get it. This is the same Navy that would punch holes in aerosol cans out at see so they would sink better. The same Navy that would throw the trash overboard at night. Granted, some of these things have changed, but ultimately, the Navy could care less about marine mammals or whales. Their claims that they do are absolutely not believable. If they actually showed some kind interest and provided funding for people that didn't say what they wanted them to say, then perhaps there would be hope. But they are the greatest entity in the United States - scary!
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 7:22 am
12 Jun 2008
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7011220487
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/10/2269612.htm ...
Also, links to another current stranding of dolphins in Cornwall associated with Royal Navy operations.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1025219/Navy-ship ...
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/double-dolphin ...
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink