Should the U.S. Navy’s Use of Sonar Be Restricted to Protect Whales and Dolphins?

March 06, 2008

My guess is that most of us have a soft spot in our hearts for cetaceans, those highly intelligent fellow mammals who have adapted themselves to life in the water. Remember, for example, the tremendous international outpouring of sympathy and support for Keiko, the orca who was rescued from theme-park captivity and rehabilitated — albeit, not quite successfully — to return to the wild. There are probably nearly as many vehicles emblazoned with "Save the Whales" bumper stickers on American highways as minivan bumpers that tout the achievements of honor roll students. And the 1960s TV series Flipper is still on the air in reruns. (It should be mentioned that the aquatic animal star’s trainer subsequently renounced the practice of coaching dolphins to perform for humans, and became an outspoken animal rights activist.)

That’s why it may come as a surprise that the Pentagon has a long and troubled relationship with cetaceans. During the 1980s, for example, the U.S. Navy spent $30 million in an effort to train bottlenose dolphins as underwater sentries, ignoring animal rights and environmentalists’ protests that the animals were being abused. (Here’s a 1989 New York Times article on the ensuing controversy.)  Dolphins also were put to military uses during the Vietnam War, though that effort remains shrouded in secrecy.

More recently, a major controversy has developed over naval vessels’ use of low-frequency active sonar and its possible role in the mass deaths of whales. After 14 beaked whales went aground after a multinational naval exercise in the Canary Islands in 2002, scientists found that sonar may have startled the marine animals and caused them to come to the surface too quickly, causing them to develop fatal decompression sickness (what in human divers is known as “the bends.”) “Our findings suggest that naval sonar could be killing whales," Spanish veterinary pathologist Antonio Fernández told the journal New Scientist. Scientists also suspect U.S. Navy use of sonar in the deaths of 20 dolphins in the Florida Keys in 2005.

The issue came to a head in the U.S. in 2006, when the U.S. Navy submitted plans for training exercises off the southern California coast to the California Coastal Commission, which has regulatory authority under both state and federal law. The commission insisted on safeguards to protect marine mammals from the effects of sonar, but the Navy declined, so the commission and environmental activists filed a federal lawsuit. A federal judge subsequently issued an injunction, banning the Navy from using sonar within 12 nautical miles of the coast and requiring vessels to monitor for marine animals and shut down their sonar equipment if whales or other mammals come within 2,200 yards. President Bush then decided to intervene and exempt the Navy from pertinent environmental laws, on the grounds that the restrictions “undermine the Navy's ability to conduct realistic training exercises that are necessary to ensure the combat effectiveness of carrier and expeditionary strike groups." Sonar opponents called the move an attempt to make an end run around the rule of law, and in February 2008, a federal judge seemed to agree, saying that the Bush order was “constitutionally suspect.” (Here’s a Los Angeles Times article on her ruling.)

So what do you think? Should the Navy’s use of sonar be restricted to protect marine animals? Or does national security in a time of war trump environmental concerns and animal rights? Express your opinion below.

Comments

[Peacenik]

Since Al Qaeda and the Iraqi militias don't have ships or submarines, wartime necessity isn't a very good justification for sonar testing off the California coast. Basically, the Pentagon and the Bush Administration just think they can do whatever they want, regardless of the environmental impact. I'm glad that the courts are resisting them, because Congress is too spineless to do anything about it.

[Curtis]

Is there a technological fix for this? Is there a way to use sonar without harming whales and dolphins?

[Mothra]

I understand that the Navy needs to use it to navigate and stuff, but it's messing up the communication of whales and dolphins. I don't know what the other options are, but they need to figure out some other kind of method for navigating.

[Cynic]

There really isn't a technology to replace Sonar, because both light and radar attenuate (taper off) as they travel through water. Sound is a more reliable method.

I'm wondering if the problem is the particular frequencies used by the Navy, or active vs. passive sonar, rather than sonar in general. Does anyone out there know more about this?

[Caffeine Driven Stress Magnet]

I think the restrictions imposed by the federal judge strike a reasonable balance between protecting marine mammals and national security needs. Why can't the Bush Administration ever compromise on anything?

[Greenpeace member]

Sonar and noise from ships has totally disrupted the system of communication that marine mammals have been using for millions of years. We are going to destroy these species completely if we don't stop what we are doing.

[Protect Whales and Dolphins]

It's not just sonar that is endangering whales and dolphins. Their survival is threatened by increasing levels of noise in the oceans from human activity, including oil and gas exploration and noise from ships.

Intense underwater noise can harm marine life in many ways. In the darkness of the sea, whales, dolphins and other marine animals use sound to navigate while migrating, to locate each other over great distances for mating, to find food, avoid predators, and care for their young. Manmade noise can interfere with all of these activities, testing the ability of marine animals to survive.

But many scientists believe the greatest threat is the cumulative impact of subtle behavioral change caused by the rising level of ocean noise from a range of sources. In deep water, background noise is growing by three to five decibels per decade in the band occupied by commercial ships. (The decibel scale is logarithmic, so that is a huge increase.)
Ocean noise is growing from a gamut of military, commercial and industrial sources including dredgers that clear the seabed for ship traffic; high explosives for removing oil platforms and testing naval vessels; construction pile drivers; harassment devices for fisheries; tunnel borers; drilling platforms; oil-and-gas surveys; ships; and commercial and military sonar.

Mass stranding and mortality events associated with mid-frequency sonar exercises have occurred, among other places, in North Carolina (2005), Alaska (2004), Hawaii (2004), the Canary Islands (2004, 2002, 1991, 1989, 1986, 1985); Madeira (2000), the Bahamas (2000), the U.S. Virgin Islands (1999), and Greece (1997, 1996).

Despite mounting evidence of harm, there are virtually no safeguards in place to protect marine life. In fact, the U.S. government is blocking international efforts to control the problem. The Bush administration is attacking laws such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act, which have been used to mitigate harm from ocean noise, and has formally opposed "any international regulatory framework addressing military use of active sonar," no matter what the science may now or in the future suggest.

I got most of this information from the Natural Resources Defense Council (http://www.nrdc.org).

[Realist]

These dolphin huggers want to force the Navy to sail blind, shut down the oil and gas industry, and cripple international commerce. Marine mammals have managed to survive so far. If they don't adapt to human activity in the oceans, so be it. That's what survival of the fittest is about.

[Anna]

It's that precisely sort of ignorant, arrogant attitude that has put our planet in such dire jeopardy. You can't go on killing off entire species forever, without triggering a wide-ranging, catastrophic ecological collapse that will have devastating impacts on people as well as marine life.

Dolphins are endangered by human activity not just off the U.S. coast, but in the Mediterranean as well. Here's a link to a European documentary entitled "Disappearing Dolphins"....

http://www.earthocean.tv/series/whalesmed_part4.html

[The Mac is Back!]

Boo hoo, boo hoo. Liberals need to quit whining about the ecosystem and show some patriotic concern for national security. Whales and dolphins arent going to protect us against the Chinese, Russians and Iranians.

[Natural Man]

Over the years you have been hunted
By the men who threw harpoons
And the long run we will kill you
Just to feed the pets we raise
Grow the flowers for our vase
And put the lipstick on your face

Under the bridges, over the foam
Wind on the water, carry me home
Carry me home

Over the years you swam the oceans
Following feelings of your own
And now you are washed up on the shoreline
I can see your body lie, it's a shame you have to die
To put the shadow on our eye

Maybe we'll go, maybe we'll disappear
It's not that we don't know
It's not just we don't want to care
Under the bridges, over the foam
Wind on the water, carry me home

--David Crosby and Graham Nash

[News Junkie]

At least when the Japanese kill whales, they eat them.

[Stop Japanese Whaling]

You can do something to stop the slaughter of whales! Go to
http://www.seashepherd.org for more information....

[Whaling is Evil]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/12/eawhale112.xml

Japan might kill world's only white whale
By Nick Squires in Sydney
Last Updated: 3:01pm GMT 12/11/2007

[JYD]

Where is all of your concern for the much more dramatic effect that commercial air travel has on avian populations and migrations. Oh, since you need to get around the world and air travel is the fastest best means for this, then it is ok, right tree hugger? Besides birds aren't nearly as cute as whales, and they aren't mammals anyway, right. The fact of the matter is that all your efforts to thwart the US use of this technology only serves to allow our enemies around the world who you have no voice for; to grow their technologies. Attention stupid people, China is a huge threat and has a massive navy. Just look at the dozens of spy operation that we have recently discovered all linked to china. Don't be so easily distracted with the war on terror as to allow your full attention to be focused there. The other answer to the non-technically oriented folks about different frequencies is that in order to have to the level of granularity or resolution in the return signal you have a limited number of workable frequencies. But on the other hand, active sonar is of limited use to those who really rely on sonar most, submarines. They need and use sonar far more than the surface fleet and they use primarily passive sonar for their needs. Passive sonar puts out no sound or signals; it is really a sophisticated microphone (hydrophone) system. Active sonar tells any one around you your location. Not really what you want when you are traveling in sub. The only really necessary use of sonar is for two things; mine detection and a fathometer for distance to depth of floor readings. You have to allow for intermittent testing by the Navy for these systems to keep our forces safe and able to conduct safe navigation, but the mine sweep sonar needs to only be tested very intermittently and for short duration when tested. I still think that you efforts are misguided, and quite honestly naïve. To think that the US faces only enemies that run around with laundry on their heads and blow themselves up and having no navy is just plain uniformed. Also, is the idea that military as this unfeeling, uncaring, unconcerned about the planet that we live on bunch is equally as uniformed and naïve. I have many years at sea, and a lot of salt on my shoulder and believe me the US Navy is one of the most carefully operating, ecologically minded entities operating on our seas. Take a hard look at the rattle trap Green Peace diesel POS floating around belching black filth into the sky while they protest environmental pollution, and you will see just how this sort of self-stroking mentality allows for far worse insults to our planet than those who are actually acting as good stewards of the planet and not just preaching it.

[Bird Lover]

I don't know that much about whales and dolphins, but I do know something about avian ecology, and I would disagree with the previous poster's comments. First, he's exaggerating the impact of commercial air travel upon birds, compared to other human impacts. Second, environmentalists have been pushing the airline industry to reduce the impact that it makes, not just upon birds but other animals and humans as well.

Actually, cars and trucks on the ground have a bigger impact upon bird populations than commercial airliners, because there are a lot more of them, and they inject high levels of noise and pollution into bird habitats. Bird collisions with aircraft are increasing, but that's because climate change is causing certain species (such as Canadian geese) to overpopulate. About a third of the bird collisions in the U.S. involve military aircraft, so you can't blame that problem strictly on commercial air travel.

It is true that commercial air travel harms the avian ecological balance to the extent that it contributes to global warming, which is the biggest threat by far. While the latest generation of airliners is cleaner than older planes were, the increase in the number of planes is partly counteracting the reduction. The International Air Transport Association estimates that commercial aircraft contribute about 2 percent of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions, but they predict a rise to 3 percent.

As a result, environmentalists and legislators on both sides of the Atlantic are pressing to force additional reductions in aircraft emissions. The European Union plans to impose a cap-and-trade system upon air travel to Europe by 2011--a move, btw, that is bitterly opposed by the same Bush Administration that doesn't want restrictions on military sonar use.

Most environmentalists--or "tree huggers" if you will--that I know don't travel by air or automobile that much. And when they do, they attempt to counteract the impact by subsidizing a carbon reduction effort from some other source. The goal is to have a carbon-neutral lifestyle. (Al Gore, who does travel a lot, does this.)

[Joey]

JYD's description of the Greenpeace ship is completely inaccurate. The current Rainbow Warrior, like the original one that was sunk by the French commandos in 1985, is a three-masted sailing ship, though it does have two diesel engines as backup.

[Beth]

Simple answer: Unequivocal "Yes."
The painful severe damage these weapons cause are unacceptable.
We cannot be so arrogant as to abuse every level of living creature in the pursuit of weapons training regardless of the consequences.
It has to stop....both the use and the mentality.

[yuriria lara]

i really think that navy sonar is SOOOOO cOOOl!