Although I have not thoroughly reviewed the application to expose
beaked whales to naval sonar in the AUTEC naval training range in the
Bahamas, I think I understand enough to be able to form an opinion
that this research is very ill-advised. Training maneuvers with
naval sonar have occurred in this AUTEC range for many years, the
range is well-equipped with a large array of bottom-mounted
hydrophones, and beaked whales are present. Thus, I am sure that
years of archived audio recordings exist of these naval maneuvers
which could be analyzed to see how beaked whales react to the
sonar. Vocalizing beaked whales could be tracked acoustically to see
if there is spatial avoidance of the sonar, vocalizations could be
analyzed to determine whether they change when the sonar is present
vs. absent, and a wealth of other information must be available in
these recordings which would illuminate the potential reaction of
beaked whales to sonar. Naturally, there are security restrictions
to this information, and the tactical maneuvers must be kept
classified, but I am sure there is a way around this
problem. Surely, random subsamples can be taken which would not
compromise security but would allow useful biological data to be
analyzed. My question thus is: why wouldn't these data be analyzed
first before putting more beaked whales at risk unnecessarily? And
if there are really no archived recordings available (hard to
believe), then why not make recordings of future naval maneuvers,
which are ongoing? Ideally, naval maneuvers involving sonar should
not take place in an area of known beaked whale abundance, but as
they are occurring anyway, why not take advantage of the
situation? If the Navy is unwilling to move its range to protect
beaked whales, why not at least gain useful information that could
help the whales? However, as WDCS rightfully points out, these
whales cannot be considered naive to sonar and thus could not
possibly represent beaked whale populations in general. The most
sensitive individuals have probably long since left the AUTEC range.
I am also profoundly disturbed that NMFS personell are the holder of
this permit (Boreman) and PI (Southall). This appears to me to be a
conflict-of-interest situation, and at the very least, provides a
very poor example for a regulator of research ostensibly used to
protect marine mammals. If the Co-PIs (Boyd, Clark, Ketten, Tyack,
Frankel, and Claridge) are so sure that this research will not
disturb or endanger whales, then they should take on the primary
responsibility and accountability themselves, and be permit holders.
I urge other marine mammalogists to comment on this application before May 17.
Lindy Weilgart, Ph.D.
Dept. of Biology
Dalhousie University
For more details, visit the website of the permit application:
<http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/permits/1121-1900_application.pdf>http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/permits/1121-1900_application.pdf
and draft Environmental Assessment:
<http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/permits/1121-1900_ea_draft.pdf>http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/permits/1121-1900_ea_draft.pdf
Lindy Weilgart, Ph.D.
Research Associate and Assistant Professor
Department of Biology
Dalhousie University
Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 4J1 Canada
Ph.: (902) 494-3723
Fax: (902) 494-3736
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
MARMAM mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/marmam
