National security, 1; whales, 0
The far Left 9th Circuit Court of Appeals finally makes some sense:
A federal appeals court allowed the Navy today to resume using underwater sonar blasts in anti-submarine warfare tests off the Channel Islands in Southern California, saying the nation’s military needs outweigh the safety of endangered whales.
In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco suspended an April 6 injunction by a federal judge in Los Angeles that ordered the Navy to halt the sonar experiments during training exercises scheduled through 2009.
In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper said the underwater sound waves could harm nearly 30 species of marine mammals, including five species of endangered whales.
The Navy had earlier been allowed to conduct sonar tests in the area while taking steps to protect the whales, such as posting lookouts and reducing sound levels when whales were present. Navy officials have not proposed those measures this time.
In today’s ruling to lift the injunction while the case continues, Judge Andrew Kleinfeld said Cooper had failed to consider the national interest in military preparedness.
“We are currently engaged in war, in two countries,” said Kleinfeld, joined by Judge Consuelo Callahan. “There are no guarantees extending from 2007 to 2009 or at any other time against other countries deciding to engage us, or our determining that it is necessary to engage other countries.
“The safety of the whales must be weighed, and so must the safety of our warriors. And of our country.”
The court majority said the tests should be allowed to resume because the government will probably be able to show that sonar can be used safely, with protective measures similar to what the Navy used earlier.
My previous blogging/columnizing on this case:
2006 - Eco-zealots vs. the Navy
2002 - Protecting squid before sailors
The conclusion of my column five years ago:
Despite numerous precautions and mitigation measures being taken by the Navy, Mark Palmer of the San Francisco-based Earth Island Institute fretted on CNN…that the system is a “sonar bomb” developed by the Navy “to attack whales and other sorts of things in the name of finding submarines, and we don’t think it’s appropriate. We know very little about the effects on fish, on squid, on other types of marine organisms.”
Foreign enemies invaded our borders and murdered over 3,000 men, women and children on Sept. 11. Hundreds of thousands of young men and women have volunteered to make sure it doesn’t happen again. And all this guy can worry about is the comfort level of squid and plankton?
Of course, Navy planners should be conscientious environmental stewards. They are. The branch will spend upwards of $700 million next year on environmental protection alone. But the balance between environmental protection and military effectiveness is out of whack. Isn’t it time to put American lives over spineless invertebrates-human and otherwise?
We’ll see how long this ruling lasts…
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Animal rights wackos
Blog Maverick
» My FCC Presentation on the Future of Digital Media
JustOneMinute
» The Surge Started Before The Surge? Well...NewsBusters.org
» Letterman: 'Bush's Administration is Clearly Guilty of War Crimes?'Gateway Pundit
» Obama's Wailing Wall Rally a Bust--- Turns Into Mob Scene-- Worshippers Scream at Obama!! ...Update: VideoWeekly Standard
» McCain Defends Statement on the Surge and the Anbar AwakeningJustOneMinute
» Klein v. KleinNewsBusters.org
» CBS Frets Obama Can't Escape 'Hussein' Middle Name in IsraelPower Line
» Three Related StoriesBetsys Page
» The Obamas should make up their minds if they're for or against exploiting their children
The 9/11 terrorists (15 of whom were Saudi Arabian and non were Iraqi) flew here in air planes and used air planes to reak havoc upon us, they did not come in submarines. Using 9/11 in an arguement to support sonar testing is a reach and is the cause of cynicism (at least on my part).
Sonar testing is necessary. Period. As is Naval gunfire testing. As is maneuvers in the desert that might threaten an iguana. Our defense is necessary and invoking 9/11 to justify it is unnecessary.
What will be said about a air capable submersible air craft carrier? Yes a flying aircraft carrier that can go under water. We need it because we were attacked on 9/11? What hasn’t 9/11 been used for? I recall some Congressmen saying we needed to subsidize the peanut crop because of 9/11.
Please stop. Be honest. Be truthful. Be reasonable. We need alot of things and not just because of 9/11, and those things have their own merit.
I am completely shocked and pleasantly surprised that the 9th Circus Court actually made a ruling in favor of the U.S. Military. Has some form of common sense and/or patriotism actually found it’s way into the mushy brains of this select group of nitwits who routinely legislate from the bench. I am shocked I tell you shocked!
zyzzyg
Had this case been in most any other court in this land other than the 9th Circus of Appeasement it might have had a chance of succeeding on its merits without the National Security card being played …
That is exactly why the lawyers for all of these groups file cases like this in the part of the country so that the appeals process will go through that court …
If all we needed was reason upheld by merit we would have had more sensible rulings of this type going against the ECO-fanatics and PETAs of this world for many years now …
We need to take care of our world but not at the expense of our way of life or our security … on that I believe we can all agree …
As an argument 9/11 in and of itself is not the panacea that trumps all other reason … but at times it is the only thing that will get the required attention …
Now I think I have heard everything. The last sentence especially, responce, then just shut up and let the Navy do their job you imbucile.
How did these eco-maniacs find out about this Naval excercise in the first place?
But..but..but…Whales aren’t (9th)Circus animals.I,like don’t think I understand,but it is like really AWESOME,like.The Paris
Hiltons of the judiciary made a ruling that actally makes sense.Sorry about the Paris comment,I just couldn’t help myself.
ajmontana
I guess he doesn’t know that sonar equipment has been around since 1913 … first called “hydrophones” by the British Navy for detecting submarines in 1915 … in the form we know it today since 1931 … so after nearly 100 years they don’t know anything aobut its effects … so that tells me there aren’t any … if there were we would have heard about it by now … end of story …
Also … first attempts at hearing underwater were done by none other than Leonardo da Vinci in 1490 … 2 years before columbus arrived here … so I think Mark Palmer of the San Francisco-based Earth Island Institute needs to go back to school and get his facts straight …
Translation:
Pull his head out of his Rump.
hehe
Expect an appeal to the en banc full appellate court and/or the US Supreme Court.
Expect to see Greenpeace thugs attempt to interfere at sea. It wouldn’t be the first time that they’ve tried.
sounds like the norm for them … I think a few well placed warning shots across the bow for entering a restricted area should at least get their attention … don’t you?
rofl, yeah a couple of 16 inchers across the bow would definetely do the trick.
corr. definitely
I would be surprised if there haven’t been advances since 1931, perhaps in power output. You think?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonar
In the Bahamas in 2000, a sonar trial by the United States Navy of transmitters in the frequency range 3–8 kHz at a source level of 223–235 decibels re 1 μPa (scaled to a distance of 1 m) resulted in the beaching of seventeen whales, seven of which were found dead. The Navy accepted blame in a report, which found the dead whales to have experienced acoustically-induced hemorrhages around the ears. The resulting disorientation may have led to the stranding.
How far from a high powered sonar unit would you be willing to put your head in the water if there are “no effects”?
Who’d uh thunk it!
I personally have dreamed that Congress had dismantled the 9th circuit for many many horrid decisions.
Now there’s a clue for the left.
We can hope that the Chronicle will print the appeals court findings.
For those of you who are so myopic to think that we, as a country, do not face a potential submerged threat from other countries, get a clue. Do a search on AIP diesels or just plain diesels, especially those from Germany and Russia, and the countries that purchase them. Iran, of all countries, even has 3 Kilos. This does not take into account the fleets of more developed countries.
Our ASW (or USW, if you are PC) training capability has been hampered significantly by these loons for quite some time. In order to “train like you fight”, you have to use the gear. There are so many environmental variables involved with ASW that training with it in the real world is a must.
For Alphonse, the power output of modern sonar is adjustable. Do a search for SQS-53 (surface sonar) or BQQ-5 (submerged). While you are correct that a high-powered waveform could cause some damage to organic life, what makes you think active sonar is always employed at full power? It depends on the tactical situation. Passive is usually the way to go unless you want/need to unzip your fly.
AJ #5:
Would you believe that the Navy has to file an Environmental Impact Statement with all appropriate agencies? These are public records and are pored over by enviro-whackos to see how much trouble they can cause the government.
Strange but true…
Yep.
I am still in shock that the 9th Circuit sided with the warfighters for a change.
Alphonse,
If this is true I’m sure the Navy is taking precautions now. As far as wikipedia goes anyone can edit content, and why wouldnt Mark Palmer of the earth island institute bring this up? Heres his quote “We know very little about the effects on fish, on squid, on other types of marine organisms.” Saving Whales and US Citizens are both good causes. I prefer the later. After October whales arent even sited in So. California.
Rick thanks, I figured top-secret material might not have to go through this scrutiny. go figure. silly me.
Who said it is top secret?
Not necessarily this particular event just talking in general if it were top-secret, do they have to under law file every mission?
I for one sure as heck hope not.
Training evolutions need to be coordinated and reported, not just for environmental reasons. I assure you, we don’t say anything more than is required and none of it is Top Secret. We don’t make capabilities and limitations of the sonar or ASW tactics public knowledge via these reports.
Without sounding crass imho the US Navy owns the ocean and can do whatever they need to do to protect the USA. But that’s just me.
Sad to see another display of indifference to the environment that is our life-support system, and especially because the victims are among the most intelligent and beautiful of the mammals that share our planet.
We can look forward to a planet that is devoid of many of today’s species, overcrowded by ourselves and our meat animals and crops, and heavily polluted, instead of the beautiful planet we could have if we lived sustainably and properly cared for our most precious resource and treasure, our environment. We will live in a sterile world in which artifical entertainments are all that is available, and enjoyment of nature will be limited or nonexistent.
I hope we enjoy it for the short time it will last.
Are those things STILL endangered? After 30+ years of us not eating them? It’s time to face facts. Whales are wusses. Make some babies you lazy good for nothing blobs of blubber!
How’s that Kool Aid?
Precisely the caliber of response I mostly expected, but if only one of you will open your eyes to what is happening to our planet, the post will be worthwhile.
Cheers.
Wow, how uppity of you.
Got any hard data showing how active sonar exercises are sterilizing our oceans and bringing about the end of the natural world?
I didn’t think so.
Cheerio.
Well greenlibertarian … I for one have planted a very good sized garden … not because of you and your friends eco-extremism … but for my own survival … because of you and your cohorts constant harassment of the food and meat growers in this world the prices on everything I need to continue to exist have skyrocketed …
what are you going to do to all those creatures no one has ever heard of when they are the only things left on this earth to eat? …
Hey DesertLover, planting a garden is a very good idea, home-grown organic food.
I am a pragmatist, not an extremist, I want my life support system working and robust, you are stereotyping environmentalists.
If we were to become a largely agrarian society, with all of our tech processes sustainable, and maintain a stable population, we would not have to worry about precisely what animals we ate or about making any species extinct: we would maintain the natural balance that worked for thousands-millions of years before we industrialized.
Greenlib,
Yeah lets just sit back and watch the beautiful trees grow and get blown to crap. Life must be good looking through rose colored glasses. Wake up and smell the Caramel Mochawhatevertheyare.
Now that is a legitimate concern. I favor pre-emptive strikes, using weapons that will not destroy the environment irreversibly - e.g. neutron bombs, biological/chemical agents, …, against any groups/countries/… that will eventually strike us. We can live sustainably and maintain strong offensive and defensive forces and systems.
The 9th circuit? Hey Rick, have you looked outside? Pigs are flying. Oink!!!!
greenLibertarian said:
so tech processes huh? … do you have the foggiest notion what all of the high tech farm equipment costs that makes all that food appear on your grocery store shelves? …
a new combine to harvest wheat so you can have flour and bread and such costs between $150K and $200K …
add in the tractors, plows and other equipment and you just upped the costs to at least double the combine …
want veggies … some can be picked with machinery … others only by hand … and they require daily attention …
want to raise your own beef … well … first you have to find some healthy starter calves … these are a couple of months old and cost around $250 each …
Now you have to feed, water and shelter just to get off the ground … to get a calf to about 18 months old and up to a proper weight for butchering will take:
about 1 ton of hay
locally ground grain mix consisting of:
1000 lbs. corn
100 lbs. beef supplement
50 lbs. molasses feed
5 lbs. salt
add into all of this the veterinarian costs of keeping the stock healthy … around $25 per month for basics … more if there are any problems …
oh … sorry … you want pork and mutton and chicken and eggs and milk … gee … let’s at least quadruple the list up to this point …
sorry my friend … I lived like that growing up and I have no desire to go back to those days …
As Mr. Ted Nugent says, kill it and grill it. I do not favor using meat animals like cows that are very inefficient food sources. I believe there is a 10:1 ratio between what cow feed can supply us and what the cow itself can provide us.
If we return to older times, and have a sustainable population, we would not need high-tech farm equipment.
Sorry, return to older times in terms of our population size and how we feed ourselves, I don’t mean no internet!
btw … anyone that doubts my numbers is welcome to research at any state university that has an agricultural service department … you will find my numbers to be very ball park and on the low side in each case …
josetheguerilla
Now I know what that was that just buzzed the house … lol …
greenLibertarian said:
You obviously have no idea at all what it takes to grow enough food for a family …
this isn’t the Clampetts or Green Acres here …
the world you are wanting means the task of feeding your family is your full time job …
wake up and smell the coffee …
this is not a weekend farmer you are suggesting …
so quit your day job now because the one you want us to go back to is an 18 hour a day full time job …
been there … done that … no thanks …
Precisely why I don’t think they are good food animals, DL.
The one time I hoped the 9th ckt would act as they usually do …
greenlib,
You’re not an extreamist but believe in pre emptive strikes? and whats up with a sustainable population, how would you pull that off? Return to older times? huh? you have me shaking my head, I’m going to watch a game. Peace love and baseball everyone. lmao
and dl, its wake up and smell the caramel mochichachi’s. or whatever they call em….
ajmontana
watch for me too … will ya … lol
ajmontana
was that a mocha triple latte expresso to go?
say goodnight to ellie may for me dl, night…
rofl
ajmontana
ok … once I get past all the critters … lol
1. not an environmental extremist
2. advocating a necessary response to extreme threats, which we face, is not being extremist.
3. Limiting birth rate, which has worked for China.
greenLibertarian
I’ll give you # 1 and # 2 … but not # 3
The people of China are laughing in the face of the government child limits and simply paying the fines for having more kids than they want them to have …
that’s why they have a population several times what our is … and it isn’t slowing down …
True, not everyone adheres to it in China, but it has saved them 250 million births, that is a substantial number.
Hmm, I’m guessing you believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny too.
.
I wonder why these cautions cannot be continued? I don’t know that acting in a conservationist manner and killing the bad guys need to be two mutually exclusive goals, at least in this case.
Government has its place, GL, but determining how many children a couple may have is not one of those places.
You have to also consider the fact illegals and Islamists have zero inclination to hold back in the reproductive area. Europe is just now finding that out and in Russia people are given a day off for the sole purpose of making babies.
The Navy doesn’t target wildlife. The goals aren’t mutually exclusive under this ruling, but they were before when the eco-zealots took an irrational and unjustifiably biased stance. In their eyes, training with sonar=killing whales, no matter what is done in the way of safeguards.
Hi PB -
I’m curious why the Navy would be against continuing taking the precautions they had been taking. I’m not sure why it’s a problem to do so. Maybe I missed it, PB. If you can educate me on that account, I’d appreciate it.
PP, the Navy isn’t against taking -reasonable- precautions and I don’t know where you saw it spelled out that way. I think you would be pleasantly surprised by what the military does as far as conservation efforts.
NOT using sonar at all is not a reasonable precaution, but that is what the eco-zealots want.
Err, call me “peep” for short instead, lol.
Yeah, the info in this and the other columns & news article just mentions:
“The court majority said the tests should be allowed to resume because the government will probably be able to show that sonar can be used safely, with protective measures similar to what the Navy used earlier.”
If we’re looking at being open as to when/where the sonar is tested full-blast and having a seaman as a lookout to yell “Yo, gam of whales starboard!”, as the article seems to indicate, that doesn’t seem like a big deal to my thinkin’. Kind of a “least we can do” type of thing.
No doubt. I imagine there are a few truly sincere and thoughtful people in the group. But I suspect it’s the usual suspects who belong to a laundry list of goofy fringe and anything anti-US groups who make up the bulk of their ranks.
Thanks for the input.
I am well aware of that, PP, but as BO says, bad behavior does not justify more bad behavior. Limiting our birthrate will help regardless of whether others have the foresight to follow suit.
And if you understand ecosystems, you know that we can NOT increase our population and poison and otherwise weaken the environment, our life support system, forever. We will suffer dire consequences, and during our lifetimes I believe.
GL and others that agree with that logic …
soon the only thing threatened with extinction will be the USA … while the rest of the world explodes its population and technology you want us to go back 200 years and withdraw from the rest of the world … we won’t be able to defend ourselves against the military advances of other countries with all the hoes and shovels we’ll have on all those farms …
sorry but it seems many of you were born into this world 200 years too late
Coming in a little late, reading this thread it’s taken a major detour from the original topic.
I agree with PBoilermaker’s point in comment #15. The trouble with other, potentially hostile countries employing improved diesel-electric and air-independent propulsion technology is that it makes the latest-generation non-nuclear subs extremely difficult to detect with passive sonar.
It sent a chill up my spine when I read the account from a few months ago of a Chinese submarine surfacing within firing range of one of our carriers. Why it surfaced wasn’t clear, but the fact that it popped up when we evidently didn’t even know it was around is the best argument I can think of for having improved active sonar in the Navy’s toolbox.
Not that we’d use it all the time, but if things get hot against an adversary with quiet subs, risking our carriers to appease enviro-sensibilities would be insanity encapuslated.
Now, back to the detour:
In other words, preservation of the species is “bad behavior?” Wow. Reminds me of that “Humans are like a virus” speech from The Matrix; mildly persuasive as long as you are willing to ignore the fact that it was made by an artificial life form bent on enslaving humanity.
There are a lot of things to be said for population control as an ideology, none of them good:
1. The argument is inherently prejudiced against the world’s poorer populations. Present-day Western societies are already mostly below the birth-rate level needed to sustain their populations; the USA is barely holding its own, and that largely because of immigrant populations whose higher birth rates make up for the locals’ failure to maintain the sufficiency level.
The “problem” with increasing global population is occurring in the poorest societies. We in the West can’t “solve” it by voluntarily going extinct, which is what the Europeans, Japanese and Russians are already doing anyway. If you really think that population control is the “answer,” then you have to focus on forcing other societies to limit their population growth - a new form of imperialism, in other words, since these societies aren’t willing to do that on their own and see attempts by outsiders to impose it on them as nothing more than neo-colonialism and yes, racism.
2. The only way you’re going to get people in poorer societies to adopt things like a “one-child” rule is through totalitarian measures. You can’t “educate” them to adopt behaviors they see as counter-intuitive if not nonsensical. Enforced population control is totalitarianism meant not only to crush the human spirit, but attempts to achieve it by denying and attempting to overcome human nature (like all leftist economic and social philosophies eventually end up attempting, with the result being mass murder).
3. Again, take a look at the European model: declining, rapidly aging populations who cannot sustain their nanny-state government benefit programs without having to import breeders who won’t assimilate - and whose children are increasingly hostile to their host societies. Result = steadily lowering standards of living in the West. This is where “sustainability” eventually leads: a sustainable level of misery, poverty, anger, resentment, conflict, tyranny and death.
Sorry, no sale.
GL, making babies isn’t “bad behavior” - doing it in other people’s countires is. If illegals or Islamists wanna have dozens of kids on their own turf, more power to ‘em. I’m one of 10 kids and highly approve of and recommend big families.
I been around the block & traveled ’round the sun more times than I like to fess up to and there’s always been one doomsday or another “just around the corner’, GL. I made through “global cooling”, Y2K, swine flu and other countless end-of-the-worlds, so I just can’t get shook up by whatever the peril du jour.
Yup. Many, if not most, environment-kooks actually subscribe to the notion that people are the cancer of earth.
Such lunacy. I wonder if it stems from an extremely bad self image/guilt trip or a bizarrely inflated ego that really believes it can exact God-like damage on a global (perhsps universal) level? Or a wild push-pull emotional trip between those two?
Sad to hear, PP. If your mind is open to the possibility, study any ecosystem in which the top predator increases its population without checks. None of them last.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Or, travel to China, as I have four times, and experience what massive overpopulation is like, the terrible pollution of air, water, and land, the overcrowding, the need to use dangerous chemicals to produce foods, the damage to the coastal environment, …
Re: greenLiberaltarian….
Gosh, I didn’t know they let Ted Kazinski use the net…
Please, if you hate industrialized society so much, give up your internet connection, move to an impoverished agrarian village somewhere and scratch out enough food to survive if you can. Leave all that evil technology to those of us who’d rather live longer, healthier more productive lives.
Haven’t been there myself, but have spoken with another individual who related much the same concerning widespread environmental damage coupled with a blase attitude about it among the locals.
My question is, how much of that is due to a high population, and how much is due to having a communist political and economic system? I suspect that the latter is much more to blame than the former, especially given how the Soviets also turned large tracts of their own territory into ecological disaster areas (e.g., the destruction of the Aral Sea and their incredibly wasteful and destructive mining and oil drilling practices).
The points I raised above remain unanswered: Given that the West is already in long-term population decline, how does one get the non-West societies to go along with zero-growth “sustainability” practices short of imposing brutal and totalitarian measures like the Chinese?
And if they predictably refuse to impose such draconian restrictions on themselves, who is supposed to impose it upon them from the outside, and how?
There is an air of unreality evident in the line of reasoning behind proponents of population control, that goes beyond wishful thinking and approaches perilously close to anti-humanism.
Or, as I have observed in more sardonic moments, it seems like there are some people who really won’t be happy until what’s left of mankind is swinging from tree branches again.
Population growth presents real challenges; what I’d be interested in are realistic solutions. But short of a world in which everyone lives a lifestyle that is as comfortable and materially prosperous as those of the West - which also isn’t realistic anytime soon - that is what I never see.