Love For Animals

Oceans cover approximately 71% of the world’s surface and nurture the majority of this planet’s living matter. More than 90% of this habitat exists in the dark abyss. Scientists have estimated that only 5% of the oceans have been explored so far. That’s incredible. We are so lucky to get the opportunity to study and discover sea creatures that have been around for ages. So it’s probably not a surprise to know that I’d be very interested in the case, Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council.

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council is a case that was brought to the U.S. Supreme Court on October 8, 2008. The case was heard by the Supreme Court as a result of a ruling by an appellate court. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of environmentalist concerns that the use of sonar by the navy may adversely affect marine mammals, particularly beaked whales. Therefore, an injunction was placed on navy drills taking place in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Southern California. This injunction orders that the navy must cease their use of sonar during training exercises if they detect any whales within a certain proximity.

Environmentalists are linking mass whale strandings with the navy’s sonar, saying that sonar can confuse whales on a level that interferes with the mammal’s ability to navigate. They note that there have been patterns among many whale strandings that happen soon after the navy engages in exercises involving sonar usage. It has also been observed that beached whales show signs of experiencing a form of decompression sickness as these whales show gas-bubble lesions and bleeding from the eyes and mouth. Although environmental concerns over the sonar harming whales are circumstantial, conservationists warn that there is a definite link between sonar and injured beached whales.

The government is arguing that national security is put at risk when they cannot perform their training exercises in its entirety. The Bush Administration explains that it puts the nation at risk against outside terrorist threats and hinders the effectiveness of navy procedures, which are thought to be critical measures necessary for public safety. When asked why the government did not provide an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) before they initiated their training drills last year, they simply said that they didn’t think it was necessary because they felt it wouldn’t affect marine mammals. However, federal law requires an EIS for any action that could noticeably affect the environment.

The decision now rests with the Supreme Court on whether the injunction should be moderated or thrown out completely. I have to say that I’m quite interested to know how the decision will turn out. On one hand, if the injunction gets overturned, I fear that the government will use the idea of national security easily thereafter (whether the claimed threat is actually real is unbeknownst to us). Thus, the navy would be legally sanctioned to engage in activity thought to be detrimental to the environment without fully understanding the effects. On the other hand, you have environmental laws obstructing “crucial” military practices that the national security relies on to protect people. There will be people who will wonder to the extreme on why we are risking human lives for marine mammals. Hopefully, both sides will be able to meet somewhere in the middle.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS