Navy data omissions and data inadequacies regarding the MITT
In response to the well-written May 22, 2015, article by Dennis B. Chan, titled “MITT findings vulnerable to lawsuit,” it is also noteworthy and important to convey the fact that the Navy, in its request to seek a letter of authorization seeking waiver from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to increase incidental takings of marine mammals, is replete with omissions of historical data to directly support just how likely the over 17,000 hours of active sonar training each year and the over 12,000 underwater explosion events to be performed each year will devastate marine mammal and undersea ecosystems through the Marianas Islands region. This is unacceptable and constitutes one of several reasons why NOAA should deny the Navy’s request for waiver.
Instead, the Navy in its request to NOAA last year, piled on reams of theoretical examples of how this military service branch guesses marine mammals may or may not become injured or killed. There is no scientific data contained in the report to draw conclusions that Navy claims for additional training are reasonable, justifiable, or safe to the undersea environment nor does the Navy provide any information on how they have effectively self-enforced their undersea training iterations in the past to in fact protect or prevent marine mammal harm, injury or death. There is not one example to reference as direct evidence to support Navy claims.
The Navy fails to spell out for the American general public how many kinds and levels of contingency training will be performed throughout the undersea domain and omits any mention of how Mariana Islands residents feel about these undersea training activities that will damage or kill marine mammals, some of which are Endangered Species Act listed. The recent court ruling in Hawaii related to the Hawaii – Southern California Training and Testing Training Study Area, will open up the floodgates to future litigation against the Navy. All these developments signal that our nation’s Navy may not have the appropriate anti-submarine warfare capabilities to successfully detect and track Chinese or Russian subs, which are known to be relatively quieter because they are diesel powered. If our nation had the right kinds of anti-submarine capabilities, why would we need so much active sonar and undersea explosion training and testing to be performed throughout the Pacific?
Rick Perez
Hanover, NH
All I can say about this writer is that he is full of baloney and has not done his research. He writes well enough but spouts untruths in the hopes that his wild claims will be taken as fact by an unsuspecting audience. I did go online and review the Navy’s LOA request and found that there are ample examples of scientific evidence and data. Anyone else who wishes to can go here and look for themselves.
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/permits/mitt_loa_application2013.pdf
Further, the Navy has never stated that the required training is completely “safe” for marine mammals. It is a known fact that there will be marine mammals killed and injured by the testing. However distasteful that may be it is allowed as long as there are no long term impacts to the species.
Humans have gotten creative in the spin of acceptable collateral damage to other species they don’t OWN yet declare supremacy over them. Dead is dead and I am sure long term impacts include being killed by the thousands. Your last statement says how despicable you truly are to easily accept this as inevitable. You don’t know anything about long term impacts until you have lived on contaminated land the Navy “forgot” to mention or clean up. Better yet, how about moving over here with your family to grow your salad on PCB soil and drink the water from the well nearby? C’mon rcguam, take a risk, after all, your future poor health and death will have no long term impact to the species.
I didn’t create the law. I just read it and understand it. Too bad you seem to think that you yourself don’t impact the environment. Don’t worry, I’ll be dead someday. You too by the way.
RC, you smarter than that! NOAA is a government agency brotha’.. While there are good aspects of it; ultimately, it will lean towards Navy/DOD. Your so ardently defending the Navy. Are you one that has “special interest group” in ensuring that the Navy expands into Pagan and Tinian so your pocket gets lined with “greens”? This issue is for CNMI people to decide not you.
So what non government agency should determine how to manage the Marine Mammals? And if they are non government how would they enforce their regulations? I’d like to know what are the other options.
I have no special interest other than my own principles of supporting the military, but if I did so what. Does that mean I can’t have an opinion?
Quite frankly the CNMI people will not decide what the military does or does not do. Their input will be considered heavily but in the end the Federal Government will decide what happens.
How is having me get to my grave sooner rather than later going to help you with your cause? I don’t agree with your position yet I am not mad at you nor do I wish you ill.
Hey rcgnat, pro-live fire training on my islands is wishing a whole lot of us ill, so don’t bother with your fake sentiments and I really don’t care if you get mad at me. I am mad as hell at anybody who is promoting this as a good thing for our islands.
Well, the Genie is out of the bottle. I found this article recently. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/29/pagan-island-marines-military_n_7342168.html