Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Navy Limits Use of Whale-Harming Sonar

Posted by samzenpus on from the won't-somebody-please-think-of-the-cetaceans? dept.

An anonymous reader writes: The U.S. Navy has agreed to new limits on its use of sonar and explosives in certain areas of the Pacific. Sonar is known to be capable of disrupting communication between whales and other sea life. There have also been incidents in the past where explosives have killed dolphins that got too close to a training exercise. A Navy spokesperson said, "Recognizing our environmental responsibilities, the Navy has been, and will continue to be, good environmental stewards as we prepare for and conduct missions in support of our national security." The new agreement (PDF) also requires quick reviews of the Navy's activities if there are marine-life deaths in the future.

35 comments

  1. This looks fishy by lazy+genes · · Score: 0

    Maybe they have finally completed mapping every inch of the sea floor, and they want others to stop.

    1. Re:This looks fishy by phantomfive · · Score: 0

      It might as well say, "Judge compels Navy to stop using whale-harming sonar," because it was the result of a lawsuit that the Navy made this change. My understanding is that not every type of sonar is damaging to whales, just some types.

      This change has been coming for several years now, it's not really a surprise.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:This looks fishy by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 2

      Maybe they have finally completed mapping every inch of the sea floor, and they want others to stop.

      It's clearly an effort to conceal an underwater base created by the aliens running the Illuminati.

    3. Re:This looks fishy by meadow · · Score: 1

      After decades of inflicting massive harm upon sentient marine life, now in 2015 they say they are going to limit it and have the audacity to make it seem like they're being environmentally responsible. Totally disgusting.

    4. Re:This looks fishy by vandelais · · Score: 1

      They're mammals.

      --
      Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
    5. Re:This looks fishy by Noah+Haders · · Score: 0

      "When I'm president, we're going to have the biggest, best navy in the world, and it won't kowtow to losers like activist judges, dolphins, and whales."

      -Donald Trump

    6. Re:This looks fishy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US Navy contributed *heavily* to the major advancements in whale song research.

      They had been listening to the songs for years on submarine patrols. When environmentalist Roger Payne casually mentioned his theory to a submariner, he provided an enormous amount of knowledge the Navy already knew about from land and submarine based hydrophone technology.

      The US Navy has helped the environmental movement and cetacean research much more than they have hurt.

    7. Re:This looks fishy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a member of the Illuminati, I deny this.

    8. Re:This looks fishy by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that not every type of sonar is damaging to whales, just some types.

      I have never heard about "types" of navy sonar. All I am aware of is that the navy has jacked up the volume of their sonar to catch those stealthy Russian subs that don't exist any more.

      As this page explains, they use ultra LOUD sonar. 235 decibels...with every 10 dB being ten times louder...and 120dB being a jet taking off. Let's say a trillion times as much sound energy (per area) as a jet taking off. Yeah, that might be a tad more than whales would prefer to hear.

      --
      I come here for the love
    9. Re:This looks fishy by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      Your alien overlords keep you just as in the dark as you keep the general population.

  2. in "certain areas of the Pacific" by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    Whale real estate values just went up

    1. Re:in "certain areas of the Pacific" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you be more pacific please?

  3. Nuclear testing last century by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Poor little fuckers

  4. PR only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's no history of them doing one thing and saying another. /sarcasm

    This is just lip-service, there's really no way to verify. Why should the worlds largest navy limit themselves?

    1. Re:PR only by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      The Navy is a big organization made up of a fairly diverse set of military and civilian types. While nothing specific is stopping the Navy from continuing to test it, chances are, someone would report that and heads would eventually roll. They could try and classify it, but once it is known to be illegal, any order to cover up such a test would be an illegal order and no member of the military would be bound to comply with it.

      And chances are good, the figured out a way to test it in another manner.

      Fear not. If war broke out, those sonar would be pinging their hearts out no matter what some judge said.

  5. Obligatory Dilbert reference by Nutria · · Score: 1

    http://dilbert.com/strip/1989-11-17
    All mammals have hair.
    Whales are mammals.
    Therefore, whales have hair.
    Shave the whales!

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    1. Re:Obligatory Dilbert reference by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      I'm not an expert when it comes to whales, but I think they only have "hair" (as opposed to fur) on their buttholes.

    2. Re:Obligatory Dilbert reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What shitty ancestor gave all us mammals hair on our buttholes anyway!? Seriously, who thought that was a good idea enough to propagate it to future species.

    3. Re:Obligatory Dilbert reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they only have "hair" (as opposed to fur)

      There's no scientific distinction between hair and fur are the same thing. As far as common usage, I don't think there is one for whale butt hair.

  6. Actually ... by PPH · · Score: 0

    ... the navy probably figured out that several kilowatts of sonar was just a great beacon for enemy anti ship weapons.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Actually ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sonar is known to be capable of disrupting communication between whales and other sea life

      Wow!. Talk about a sugar-coated undrerstatement! The sonar they're talking about here is known to permanently disrupt the communication and entire auditory and positioning sense of entire pods of whales permanently, leading inevitably to their deaths. Probably after beaching themselves somewhere.

    2. Re:Actually ... by cyn1c77 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Pretty much this. I've been confused as to why this was an issue ever since it was. The navy *HATES* to go active on sonar, as it instantly gives away your position at a distance far longer than you'll get any information back. Active sonar is reserved for localizing a target that's close-in immediately before firing a torpedo, and often not even then. They also have a special high-frequency sonar specifically for under-ice operations. But for general searching in the open ocean? It's all passive. (My dad was a sonar guy almost his entire 20; starting out in GUPPYs all the way up through 688s.)

      If you read the article, (I know, I know...) you would have learned that the Navy uses active sonar and explosives during training exercises to practice combat tactics.

      (You probably could have also figured this out yourself since you appear to be a pro at sonar.)

      So yes, you would use passive detection techniques hunting another sub, and then switch to active sonar just before firing a simulated torpedo at a simulated target. This is why they are only limiting their use near Hawaii and the US coast... because we generally don't do a lot of sub attacks in that region. However, when the Navy is training, they generally like to do it in a safe area that will not alarm other countries and where they can respond to accidents quickly... which is why they were doing it near the US coast.

    3. Re:Actually ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      coz that active sonar is from more expendable stuff in the sea and not actually the subs themselves?

      e.g. something else is holding and shining the searchlights while the subs themselves are dark and observing what the light reveals - reflections etc.

      The searchlights (sonar arrays) could be on US territory while the subs far away elsewhere. And that could be why they are so loud.

    4. Re:Actually ... by PPH · · Score: 1

      "One ping only, please."

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:Actually ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems that active sonar could be replaced with something like the FAA uses for planes in these types of exercises.

      That is a radio ping saying "where are you" that triggers a "I am here" ping back.

      Since they are technically friendly even if they are at 'war' this should work, the trick would be to simulate the response active radar gets from the "I am here" ping.

    6. Re:Actually ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US Navy would just need to get the friendly nations with whom we might be in conflict to put responders in their mines and subs.

  7. Kudos to NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL et al! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    This is an awesome agreement, amazing that they Navy did agree to anything. Yet also amazing how limited it is in scope, time, and expiry provisions.

    The agreement here is not just about SONAR but also about:
      pp 7 - Not ramming whales head on during training exercises
      pp 8 - Not dropping explosives in prime ecological areas known to be heavily populated with whales.
      pp 9 - Not using hull mounted mid-frequency sonar

    The SONAR levels the Navy use for sonar is actually so loud that mass strandings regular occur with US Navy war games, see http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/mjasny/us_navy_implicated_in_new_mass.htm. The beached whales have bleeding ears and cracked skulls. And those are just the ones that made it to shore.

    Many comments here suggest the Navy avoids SONAR for fear of giving away position. It's not subs that use the high-power sonar, it's destroyers. Destroyers are not terribly worried about giving away their position. They use high-energy sonar for many things, including mine detection. See this video of a destroyer using sonar so loud people on whale watching boats could hear it above water, taken in the Orcas Islands north of Seattle, a very well known and sensititive whale breeding area. https://vimeo.com/35584781

    Another thing they do is put incredibly loud sonar from a point in the south Indian Ocean, a location that has near line-of-sound to most other continents, and so loud it can be picked by receivers across the globe, providing like a CT scan of the ocean. That doesn't seem covered by this agreement.

    However, it looks (from pp 3) like much of this agreement (pp 8 through 36 and 40) expires given just one opinion of “not likely to adversely affect” by US Fisheries department.

  8. Killing Whales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's about time that the US Navy stops using Whale Killer Sonars.

  9. What are the odds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are the odds that an opponent was funding, at least in part, this lawsuit in order to prevent our navy from getting effective training?

  10. Also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There will be so much winning, that you'll get tired of winning.

    And before I'm even in office, the whales will give up our prisoners, because they won't want to mess with us.

      - Trump/Hogan for presidency (Yes, that's Hulk Hogan to you plebes.)

  11. Mammals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who cares? I eat mammals every day - why should whales and dolphins be any different?

  12. terrible idea by lastlivingsoul · · Score: 1

    if we appease the whales after one attacks a kayaker, we are inviting more kayak attacks

  13. Re:Kudos to NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL et a by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    The agreement here is not just about SONAR but also about:
        pp 7 - Not ramming whales head on during training exercises

    This raises so many questions. Were they doing this before? Why? Is slamming into the sides of whales still allowed?

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  14. reality of the matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a stipulation and not legally binding read numbers 46 and 47.. Oil companies, along with US military the scum they are doing this and worse on a massive scale, destroying the hearing and sonar sense of animals everywhere. This is like a high decibel noise being done right next to your your ears. It will cripple you for life, this is what humans do. This vile animal torture needs to be stopped. Turn off your air conditioning, take public transport and stop breeding.