Photo: The right whale. Credit: Photograph courtesy NOAA
With recent breaches in national security, the U.S. Navy continue to find ways to try and protect this country, however the extent to which they go about doing so and at the expense of what is not exactly known. The article Environmental groups: Navy training plans endanger whales, dolphins by Gordon Jackson, gives an insight to the recent activities the Navy plans to undergo and the marine animals at risk.
A lawsuit between the U.S Navy and The Southern Environmental Law Center is currently being held up in court. Although it is still underway, it is known that the U.S. Navy plan to conduct undersea training exercises using sonar and live explosives located off the coast of Southeast Georgia. These plans will undoubtedly endanger sea animals, killing a number and making life extremely uncomfortable for the remaining. An example of species which will be affected by the training exercises are right whales. The Humane Society of the United States believes that calving of waters will most definitely ensue. This environmental issue is extremely controversial because the Navy is essential in national protection, however the question "At the expense of what?" is still very much important. Should the Government be allowed to choose if sea animals should die?
The Navy's plans for the sea activities will include the use of 500 square miles of sea, up to 480 times a year varying from one to six hours at a time. This is undoubtedly a huge amount of resources being spent on the activities which will risk the lives of the already endangered right whales who are presently at population of 350-400.
It has been acknowledged by the government that there will be quite a number of casualties to the sea animals including the endangered right whales such as the death of 2,000 marine animals and the permanent deafening of about 16,000.
Should the U.S. Navy still carry out the undersea activities in this area, despite the amount of marine animals that will die or become permanently and temporarily disabled? Is it possible that there are other locations where sea animals will not be at risk, after all the sea as far as it stretches is home to a large amount of animals? What safety precautions and measurements can be undertaken to prevent the loss of marine animals? Which is more important the security of the country or loss of an endangered species?
This article made me think of Tainted Desert in how the American government continues to fund these kind of defense programs and testing sites when they know the damage it brings to the environment and the animals in it. I think it was interesting to see the connection between Tainted Desert back in the 1950's and to today when it is still going on with these right whales. I feel like the government does not feel as obligated in protecting these endangered right whales as they would feel if it were the same situation today with Native American tribes.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that the U.S. Navy should do any testing near or in places where there is human or animal activity. If there were no other options pertaining to location that was not inhabited, then the U.S. should put the human race first. Testing should only be done in the most drastic cases, for example if it were being tested in order to protect the human race. Ultimately the U.S. has the power to basically conduct tests in any area that they please. They should be more conscious of all living things in our world. Nothing should have to be sacrificed.
ReplyDeleteIt's unfortunate that we have to compromise on the safety of animals, but it seems inevitable if we want to protect the citizens of the U.S. then some sacrifices must be made. On one hand, I don't think it's right to perform these missions because they do endanger wildlife, but at the same time these training simulations are essential to the safety of our nation. I do agree though they do need to be more cognizant of the areas they conduct their training missions, maybe in areas not so populated with wildlife, but at the same time one also must be realistic about the situation, because in the end our safety is the number one priority, even at the cost of animals and the environment.
ReplyDeleteThis article sheds light on the ongoing struggle that is human encroachment in nature. When thinking about this article in the context of the "Tainted Desert" one can see where the government uses the premise of "protecting our safety" in a way that harms the natural enviornment around us. In the case of the southwestern region, not only was the natural enviornment being harmed but so were the people due to the nuclear sites. In this case, the navy's training would not only endager species, but would vastly change the existing ecosystem, which would alter the region forever. While i do feel that it is necesssary for the navy to have these training programs, if at all possible it would be best do them in an area where no species was being endangered.
ReplyDeleteThis article begs the question of what to call this practice of ignoring animal rights in the pursuit of continued military domination. Our previous readings showed the US glossing over the rights of Native Americans, leading to the team "environmental racism." Then what do you call the practice of discriminating against a group of species? This practice of ignoring the habitual needs of other species is not new, we have been intentionally or unintentionally harming sea creatures for years, but to me the magnitude of this particular operation (500 square miles of sea potentially killing 2,000 animals) makes the ends not enough to justify the means.
ReplyDelete