Camden Commentary: Right whale population is slowly increasing.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Right whale population is slowly increasing.

http://savannahnow.com/latest-news/2010-03-26/after-baby-boom-right-whales-have-average-season

17 comments:

Anonymous said...: The 2% growth is slow but it is good news. I have to applaud the efforts of the marine biologists and environmentalists. The whole "Save the Whales" effort is big and expensive but it seems to be working.; March 27, 2010 at 8:41 AM
Jay Moreno said...: The suspension of whaling, the notices to mariners, and the efforts to untangle whales tangled in fishing gear are all laudable efforts. Note that these efforts are not anti-capitlist, anti-man efforts in nature and are therefor reasonaable.; March 27, 2010 at 9:13 AM
Anonymous said...: And your opinion of the proposed Naval sonar range adjacent to the only known calving grounds of the right whales?; March 27, 2010 at 10:35 AM
Jay Moreno said...: Use it during the time of the year when the whales are up north.; March 27, 2010 at 12:32 PM
Anonymous said...: You obviously haven't done any research on this. The Navy did not include the environment in its site selection criteria and decided to move ahead with the project before completing the necessary surveys of marine life within its selected 500-square mile location.
According to the Navy, the $100 million undersea range would be used for anti-submarine warfare training for periods up to six hours about 470 times a year - all year.; March 27, 2010 at 1:52 PM
Anonymous said...: "Use it during the time of the year when the whales are up north."

Excellent idea. Is this a part of the Navy's plan?; March 27, 2010 at 2:43 PM
Anonymous said...: "The suspension of whaling, the notices to mariners, and the efforts to untangle whales tangled in fishing gear are all laudable efforts. Note that these efforts are not anti-capitlist, anti-man efforts in nature and are therefor reasonaable."

Well, there you go. These laudable efforts were initiated by, worked for, and brought to fruition by environmental groups, what you like to call "eco-weenies".; March 27, 2010 at 2:46 PM
Jay Moreno said...: My guess is that the Navy wants to test during different times of the year when the water temps and acoustic bending thermoclimes are different. As a RATIONAL ENVIRONMENTALIST - not an anticapitalist, anti-American Marxist, as the vast majority of radical Greens are - I am not automatically against anything the Navy needs.

Now, if the research shows that the whales, to wax anthropomorphic, will simply have a "What in the hell was that?" moment every time ASW sonar goes active, then I say the Navy should go full speed ahead with the project. On the other hand, if research shows that the whales hearing is impaired to the point that it impairs their ability to hear each other over great distances during mating season or causes them navigational problems, then I would say build two ranges -a southern and a northern. Use each one when the whales are not there.

And no, I haven't done any research on it because I know the Navy and I know radical Green eco-weenies.; March 27, 2010 at 4:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Again, your ignorance is showing, Jay. There is a vast body of research regarding the effects of naval sonar on cetaceans. Cerebral bleeding, beaching, disorientation and death are among the common reactions.

In a technical letter to the Navy, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said the Navy had neglected to address the likelihood that its mid-frequency sonar would kill some whales and that the highly endangered right whale makes its annual migrations near the proposed site off North Carolina and could be threatened. But most telling, the NOAA letter said that the Navy had used a measure for allowable noise 100 times as high as the level recommended by the agency.

The final Environmental Impact Statement for the off-shore Jacksonville sonar site is a massive document. I have tried, here, to share some of the more pertinent sections (though they're all pertinent really). If the water quality is compromised, so too, is the future of the marine species.

From the EIS (http://www.jacksonvillerangecomplexeis.com/documents/Jacksonville_Range_Complex_FEIS_OEIS_Volume_1_Chapter3.pdf).

Use of material with potential to impact water quality under Alternative 1, as compared to the No
Action Alternative would be as follows:
. use of high explosive bombs would remain the same;
. use of non-explosive practice bombs would remain the same;
. use of high explosive missiles would increase by 136 percent;
. use of non-explosive practice missiles would increase by 7 percent;
. use of expended targets would increase by 10 percent;
. use of marine markers (smoke floats) would remain the same;
. use of high-explosive naval gun ammunition rounds would remain the same;
. use of non-explosive practice naval gun ammunition would increase by 9 percent;
. the use of grenades would remain the same;
. use of chaff would increase by 12 percent;
. use of defensive/decoy flares would increase by 42 percent; and
. use of 20-lbs charges would decrease from the No Action Alternative by 33 percent.

From Chapter 3:

As identified in Table 3.7-3, seven marine mammal species listed as endangered under the ESA may be affected by the proposed activities that occur within in the JAX Study Area. These mammals include five baleen whale species (blue, fin, humpback, North Atlantic right, and sei), one toothed whale species (sperm whale), and one manatee species (West Indian manatee).
Status, habitat, and distribution of each species are provided below.

Most of the sounds produced by right whales range in frequency from 0.02 to 15 kHz (dominant frequency range from 0.02 to less than 2 kHz; durations typically range from 0.01 to multiple seconds) with some sounds having multiple harmonics (Parks and Tyack, 2005). Recent morphometric analyses of northern right whale inner ears estimates a hearing range of approximately 0.01 to 22 kHz based on established marine mammal models (Parks et al., 2004;
Parks and Tyack, 2005; Parks et al., 2007). In addition, Parks et al. (2007) estimated the functional hearing range for right whales to be 15 Hz to 18 kHz. Nowacek et al. (2004) observed that exposure to short tones and down sweeps, ranging in frequency from 0.5 to 4.5 kHz, induced an alteration in behavior (received levels of 133 to 148 dB).

One calving and two feeding areas in U.S. waters are designated as critical habitat for the North Atlantic right whale (NMFS, 1994; NMFS, 2005b) (Figure 3.7-1). The coastal waters off Georgia and northern Florida are the only known calving ground for the North Atlantic right whale. Designated critical habitat, which encompasses the core of the calving ground, is essential to the conservation of this species. Revision of the critical habitat boundary is currently being considered by NMFS, since there are many additional sightings outside the bounds of the current critical habitat.; March 27, 2010 at 5:39 PM
Jay Moreno said...: But, Alex, the difference is that as a single-allegiance patriotic American, I'm in favor of seeing what can be done to accommodate both he cetaceans AND the legitimate needs of the Navy to maintian a high state of readiness for ASW.

You, on the other hand, are just delighted that the presence of the cetaceans gives you and your anti-U.S.A. ilk a way to thwart the maintence of U.S. military readiness and superiority in any way posible.; March 27, 2010 at 5:48 PM
Anonymous said...: "...I'm in favor of seeing what can be done to accommodate both he cetaceans AND the legitimate needs of the Navy..."

I completely agree. What do you propose might be done?; March 27, 2010 at 9:03 PM
Jay Moreno said...: I'm not all sure, but I trust the Navy will find a solution.

I suspect that more than one such range may well turn out to be the answer.; March 27, 2010 at 9:29 PM
Anonymous said...: "I'm not all sure, but I trust the Navy will find a solution."

"I trust Big Brother." That's not like you, Jay.; March 27, 2010 at 9:32 PM
Jay Moreno said...: The armed forces of the U.S.A. do not legislate, nor do they run roughshod over the will of the people.; March 27, 2010 at 9:36 PM
Anonymous said...: "The armed forces of the U.S.A. do not legislate, nor do they run roughshod over the will of the people."

And they are always reliable and they never make mistakes and they always tell us the truth. And my cat just hacked up a solid gold hairball.; March 27, 2010 at 11:02 PM
Jay Moreno said...: The armed forces of the U.S.A. do not legislate, nor do they run roughshod over the will of the people.; March 28, 2010 at 7:39 AM
Anonymous said...: In 2008 the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in the Navy's favor in a case involving the harm done to marine species by the use of high-powered sonar in training exercises off the coast of California. Oddly (even after voting in favor of the Navy) Chief Justice John Roberts said that "military interests do not always trump other considerations." Apparently they do. It seems illogical (and against the existing laws) for the Navy to build a $100 million+ training range before they know if they can even use it.; March 28, 2010 at 9:45 AM