More Anti-Science Eco-Activism in British Columbia

Here's an update from August 23: "The (Canadian) federal government has granted an American research ship permission to conduct seismic blasts in a protected marine area off Vancouver Island, despite warnings from environmental groups that it will threaten endangered whales. ... Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon gave the go-ahead Friday night for the government-owned RV Marcus Langseth to conduct blasts... The ship set sail from Astoria, Ore. Saturday morning..." - full story at http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/Ottawa+permits+ship+seismic+test+protected+waters/1922430/story.html

? Seismic air bursts? Underwater? Or under the sea floor? How does that work?

fnxtr said: ? Seismic air bursts? Underwater? Or under the sea floor? How does that work?

The cruise plans to sink 64 portable seismometers near the Endeavour vent field, fire airguns into the water for 10 days, then retrieve the data-laden seismometers that pop to the surface.

Ecojustice statements are full of typical inaccuracies. Sound levels in air are not at all comparable to soundlevels in the ocean - see http://www.acousticecology.org/oceanother.html

The MPA in question was created to protect forms of plant life that live at the sea floor. Its area is so much smaller than any large mammal habitat that it's ridiculous to connect it with protection of mammals.

Green ideologues are religious fundamentalists like any other.

The environmental organizations repeatedly demonstrate that they do not know what they are talking about. They continue to feed the press with absolutely false statements (like “louder than a jet engine”) and the press prints them unknowingly.

The "Langseth" is a research ship used by primarily university-based scientists of all nations who are working on global environmental problems. It is an international treasure. Canada-based researchers have a big stake in preserving the integrity of the Endeavour project. The loss of this cruise would be a tactical blow to ongoing and future research of Canadians around its huge marine frontier. The US and Canada have further cooperative seismic work planned in the Arctic in 2010. This is now on the line. The notion of a US vessel doing dastardly things in Canada rather than in the US is a new low in nationalistic hyperbole.

The environmental groups seem to imply the MPA was set up solely for the protection of whales. In propagating this false notion they have given us a seemingly wonderful picture of the Endeavour MPA as a safe haven for whales, and why of all places would scientists want to "blast away" in "whale park." Well, marine mammals are going through this small area the same as through any other part of the greater non-MPA seas around it. This is not some last green space in a city centre. At most, marine mammals and fish will locally divert as the ship approaches, as they do everywhere else on the globe. Under the procedures directed by DFO for the Endeavour project, there will be NO impact of any kind on marine mammals.

Some supposedly informed people seem absolutely convinced airguns really will kill animals out there, in spite of abundant evidence to the contrary. If noise from airguns would kill whales, there would be no whales in the Endeavour MPA because noise from the earthquakes in the area, which are MUCH louder than the airguns, would have wiped out everything eons ago.

The experts who reviewed the proposal saw this as good science posing little to no risk to the environment. The environmental groups who have gone to court have defined their concerns as a whale problem. Totally ignored are the scientific objectives of the project! Scientists are studying the geological processes that led to the area becoming an MPA in the first place. The project has direct relevance to understanding earthquakes in the area. This is a fact that has been missed in the lawsuit of the environmental groups, and by the press in reporting of the lawsuit.

The environmental groups, running high on emotions and low on understanding, are discrediting environmentalism.

Marine geophysicist said: The MPA in question was created to protect forms of plant life that live at the sea floor. ...

Hmmm. I know of a few scientists in the US in similar situations, their work is being delayed or derailed by "environmentalist" lawsuits.
That said, it was just such lawsuits that shut down many of the environmentally damaging activities in the 60's and 70's, and continue to keep loggers, miners and others acting responsibly with our national treasures.
Generally the problem occurs when the people doing the work haven't dotted the i's and crossed the t's. Don't know if it is the same in Canada, but if you have the proper permits then the worst they can usually do is call for a review, which courts can expedite if time is of the essence, and then you're on your way.
I'd hate to see the baby thrown out with the bath water here - there is a reason you have to jump through all those hoops, and the fact that the work is being done for scientific reasons doesn't shield you from oversight. If the problem is speedy resolution of challenges, change that, but don't gut laws that protect our natural resources - even if a scientist "assures" us that no harm can come from their work.

Humans, including environmentalists, tend to favor warm-blooded, attractive, "intelligent" species.

This bias explains the occasional deviations of environmentalists from a perfectly rational approach.

A lot more people care about protecting wolves, cats, whales, dolphins, apes and parrots than care directly about plants and insects. Issues involving the former types of organisms can draw the attention of some people without rigorous scientific training.

Having said that, environmentalists as a group are still largely on the right side scientifically, assuming that we consider indefinite continuation of human life on earth, and respect for other forms of life, to be a "good" thing.

Climate change denialists and other anti-environmental types are far, far more harmful.

I agree with Phaedrus's statement.

The threat of lawsuit is often the only recourse available to protect the environment, especially in instances when government agencies view exploitation and development as being higher priorities than conservation.

My ideology is as Green as anyone's, but I'm also a skeptic and a strong supporter of the scientific worldview. I don't support the anti-scientific elements who claim to be "Green", and I won't accept any responsibility for them.

WRT lawsuits as a tool for "Green" obtructionists, I agree with Phaedrus. If you don't want any trouble, just make sure your project conforms with the laws.

In the interest of fairness, the federal institutions are sometimes put in an no-win situation. Many of the programs that our last administration required the Forest Service to implement were obviously and flagrantly in violation of legal requirements, and so employees had to choose between a pointless program (leading to inevitable challenge and overturn in court) or fight their bosses - easy to see why the programs got implemented, challenged, and killed.
The scientific community is under no such mandate, generally. The problems I've seen occur in those cases are usually due to ignorance - unknowing violations of the migratory bird act, or trapping certain species without knowing the licenses required... In the cases where large multi-year projects were involved, the scientists had time to educate themselves and work with the agencies to perform the required studies and obtain the needed permits. There, when the inevitable environmental challenge came (I love/hate the Sierra Club) it caused a blip, but soon the work was back on track.

Dear Phaedrus and other commentators,

There is no argument that the appropriate environmental laws and protocols must be followed in any science study, and university-based earth scientists are, by nature, exceedingly environmentally aware.

The case in Canada, however, involves misuse of the laws of physics to raise an alarm where there was no need for alarm. The environmental organizations thought they had found a loophole by which they could stop a project that had been put together over a number of years by a couple of university professors. The fine details of law are not the responsibility of university scientists. They need to assume that the institutions involved will see that the laws are followed. The institutions on the US side of the border did just that, but a critical Canadian federal administration misplaced the application..it was reportedly lost for 6 months! This created the loophole for the environmental organizations.

Then, to compound the error, the environmental organizations have now demonstrated in court that they do not understand the physics of sound generation and of sound propagation in water. They have fed wrong and misleading information to their membership and to unknowing (in science) reporters to create a nationalistic feeding frenzy of environmentally concerned Canadians against those evil oil hogs from USA. To try and give a sense of rationality to their cause, they even created a myth that a volcanic vent field on the sea bottom was specially set aside as an area for the protection of whales.

The environmental groups even insisted in court that the study was really a cover for oil exploration.

The environmental movement has been set back seriously by these rogue environmental groups. However, it is not just a couple of small groups in British Columbia making havoc on university-based science (including Canadian university based science). These small groups are supported by some well-known international environmental groups.

The Canadian Press report on the court hearing on Tuesday is:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gsSLfPE2y2ah0Z9qrV_xPERQlKSQ

A very interesting analysis of the damage to science being done by the environmental groups is this from an environmental group that focuses on underwater noise issues:

http://aeinews.org/archives/326

Finally, the ecojustice facebook page has interesting discussions on the issue:

http://www.facebook.com/ecojustice

There is also the Ecojustice Blog, which reacts defensively to a Daily Kos post. These aren't very informative, but it is sad reading nonetheless.

Entitled, "Blinded and deafened by science" they write: "We pride ourselves on our junk-free scientific approach to complex environmental issues."

Considering the aggression of this and other legal actions, many have taken this on as a rallying cry, of "Science free junk."

Maybe there is a better way to engage with these commentaries?

http://blog.ecojustice.ca/2009/08/blinded-and-deafened-by-science.html

To me key factors on the EcoJustice and friends views are, all science aside, the researchers are going out there and blast a whale refuge, they are really engaging in oil and gas activities, stopping this effort is really stopping industry, and there seems to be absolutely no recognition on what seismic research really contributes to understanding the environment. How much of this is genuine, limited understand or how much is intentional tactics where researchers are expendable pawns is important to sort out. If the latter, the rift between science and conservation will only widen. If not, then some constructive interaction is desperately needed. When they announce they like scientists and have a junk-free scientific approach - yeah, right.

lincoln S Hollister said: The environmental groups even insisted in court that the study was really a cover for oil exploration.

Late afternoon (ET) news:

The effort to enjoin is over - entire application was dismissed. EcoJustice will now have a fight over the amount they must pay for court costs.

The Federal Court dismissed Thursday a request by environmental groups for a stay of the federal government's authorization of U.S. scientific marine seismic surveys off the B.C. coast. Justice Michael Kelen said he is not satisfied that the surveys would harm marine life based on new federal requirements imposed since the legal action was launched. The requirements include a reduction in the 180-decible level of the survey's airguns to 160 decibels, an increase in marine mammal observers, and a stipulation that no testing occur within about seven kilometres of a whale.

A view from the front line:

As PI on the seismic project in question, it has been a fascinating, frustrating, and (I keep hoping for this one) enlightening episode.

I think all can understand the frustration easily enough. Though let me add some details. Over the past two years I have spent months of my time participating in the process to permit our experiment. I have worked with NSF, LDEO, Canadian scientists and DFO to ensure that we achieved due diligence. What disturbs me is not that some question the value of our research or its potential impact. Reasonable questions, even unreasonable ones, can be raised and addressed with reasonable, rational responses. What disturbs me to the point of outrage is the legal chicanery that CPAWS and EcoJustice engaged in. Sabine Jessen from CPAWS is a member of the Endeavour MPA board that reviewed our work. She has known about it for almost 2 years. During those 2 years she apparently said very little. Yet, when questions do come, they come within days of our sailing, in a clear effort to use last minute legal appeals to monkey-wrench our experiment. If CPAWS and EcoJustice had reasons to be concerned, why wait until days before sailing? Why? The one answer I can find is that they know their objections will not hold up to thoughtful scrutiny and instead banked their strategy on last minute legal trickery. This time they lost. And the loss was not just in court. CPAWS and EcoJustice have lost the respect of scientists, many of whom are conservationists.

A conservation movement without science seems less potent to me. Herein lies a dangerous fallout of this fallacious lawsuit by EcoJustice.

What about 'fascinating"? The list is long. Having received hate mail and phone calls from anonymous sources over the past few weeks is a new experience. Usually this comes from my colleagues and hopefully over a scientific discovery! Receiving threatening messages, to the point where my wife (a co-PI) and I were glad that our kids were with their grandparents is a new low in my career. I realize that this fringe of the environmental movement does not represent the vast majority of thoughtful (I hope!) environmentalists. What I hadn't realized was just how much EcoJustice and the press fan these ignorant flames for their benefit. The gulf between science and the public is large. As scientists, we have our work cut out for us. It will be hard work, but it is necessary. Somehow we have to raise the level of discourse above legal trickery and hate mail.

Rereading the above I can see that "enlightening" is still beyond my grasp. But hopefully not for long. There is work ahead to do, first with my scientific and foundation colleagues that have supported and helped the PIs over the past 2 years of doing due diligence. The fact that we are here today, on the seas, collecting valuable environmental data that will benefit the Endeavour MPA as well as our society is some indication that we met our responsibilities well.

I look forward to continuing discussions.

It is possible that they have ethical considerations regarding the ocean ecosystem's health that can trump scientific knowledge. I don't see anything in this post that clearly indicates their position nor why they are necessarily wrong. There seems to be an assumption (based on the post's content and lack of content) that there is a level of freedom of inquiry that trumps any ethical questions someone or some group might have. Saying that a "conservation movement without science seems less potent to me" might be spot on. No. It is spot on. But does the value of your research necessarily outweigh whatever problems it might create?

Pete said: It is possible that they have ethical considerations regarding the ocean ecosystem's health that can trump scientific knowledge. I don't see anything in this post that clearly indicates their position nor why they are necessarily wrong. There seems to be an assumption (based on the post's content and lack of content) that there is a level of freedom of inquiry that trumps any ethical questions someone or some group might have. Saying that a "conservation movement without science seems less potent to me" might be spot on. No. It is spot on. But does the value of your research necessarily outweigh whatever problems it might create?

There seems to be an assumption (based on the post’s content and lack of content) that there is a level of freedom of inquiry that trumps any ethical questions someone or some group might have.

From Facebook.com/ecojustice

The responsible use of legal action means it should used as a last resort, and this is precisely what Ecojustice does.

In his ruling Justice Kelen reprimands the Department of Foreign Affairs for 'misplacing... Read More” Columbia’s application for foreign vessel clearance for nearly five months. When it surfaced in July 14th, our initial efforts were to directly petition the government outside of the courts.

It was only at the last moment, when the federal government had ignored our requests, that we pursued legal action – action that strengthened mitigation and was recognized as a proper course of action by the court itself.

We’re confident that our supporters agree.

~ECOJUSTICE August 28, 2009

This comment from Ecojustice illustrates how lawyers find legal loopholes to surprise unsuspecting scientists. For this project, scientists from the study and scientists of the regulatory agencies in both Canada and the US worked through the hazards and mitigation for the past 1.5 years or more. The environmental groups were aware of these discussions, but did not participate in them. Why? One answer is that they intended to snare the project in a legal loophole. A second answer is that there are no scientists on the staffs of the environmental groups, so the groups don’t actually know what they are doing.

The "strengthened mitigation" for Canadian waters, if applied elsewhere in Canadian waters, will seriously set back Canadian scientists, without any benefit to whales or to anything else.

I appreciate the scientific interests represented by this project, and won't argue on that point, nor does ecojustice. That was never at issue. However, I would like to clarify two inaccuracies in the discussion above.

First and foremost, the decibel level of the tests. The actual reported decibel levels of the tests as recorded in DFO documents was 250 db. However, the environmental groups understood that that was a point source measure. That is why the figures discussed were no higher than 180, because this is the loudest measure you would expect to record in the environment. (ie what anything in the environment would be exposed to).

Secondly, nothing in the legal action, nor discussions between the groups that brought forward the suit, contained anything concerning oil exploration or anti industry sentiments. For the groups involved this was action based on the protection of a marine protected area, which the groups maintain should be an area off limits to human interfence in the same way that the idea of a land based refuge is. Attempting to link this legal action with 'anti industry' and 'anti science' is both inaccurate and un-rational.

Lastly, it bears consideration that the increased mitigation measures that were eventually put in place came forward only in the midst of the lawsuit itself, with the judge ruling over the case stating that these would unlikely have occurred if NOT for this legal action. The final statements in the Federal Court ruling are worth reading in full:

"With respect to costs, the Court recognizes that after this motion was filed the DFO required the Respondent Columbia University to substantially increase its mitigation measures to protect the marine mammals and it was only after that, that the Foreign Vessel Clearance was issued.

"When the applicants (Ecojustice, CPAWS and Living Oceans Society) appeared before the Court on the return of the motion, these facts had changed without their knowledge. Moreover, the application by the US Department of State for a Foreign Vessel Clearance was filed with the Department of Foreign Affairs on February, 26th, 2009. The evidence showed that the application had been misplaced by the Department of Foreign Affairs until July 14th, 2009. This error prejudiced the parties by substantially reducing the lead time which the parties would have to address the issues raised in litigation.

"In these circumstances, the Court is of the preliminary view that there ought not to be any cost awards against the applicants (Ecojustice et al) because the applicants could not have known about the changed measures to mitigate possible interference with the marine mammals by the seismic testing, and in fact, their imminent legal action may have precipitated the requirement for increased mitigation measures."

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2009/2009fc848/2009fc848.html

If the actions of Ecojustice and their client groups are going to be criticized, which I have no problem with, then it should be on a rational basis with respect to the legal action itself, and not with sweeping statements. If anyone wants additional details about our action, its timing, and the reasons behind it, they're welcome to get in direct touch with me directly.

Kori Brus
Ecojustice Canada
kbrus@ecojustice.ca

Ether Justice said: It was only at the last moment, when the federal government had ignored our requests, that we pursued legal action – action that strengthened mitigation and was recognized as a proper course of action by the court itself.

"It seems clear by your comments that the question for Eco Justice was not whether the experiments were really harmful, but what method to use to stop them."

Kori B's comments make it clear, "For the groups involved this was action based on the protection of a marine protected area, which the groups maintain should be an area off limits to human interfence in the same way that the idea of a land based refuge is."

In their opinion the seismic research ought not to be ocurring in an MPA. Even if the present research is harmless to sea life, future research might not be. Why allow the precedent to be set.

Kori Brus of Ecojustice wrote, "For the groups involved this was action based on the protection of a marine protected area, which the groups maintain should be an area off limits to human interference in the same way that the idea of a land based refuge is."

According to Dr. Kim Juniper, who with two other scientists initiated the establishment of the Endeavour MPA, the story is a bit different than reported by Mr. Brus:

"The Endeavour MPA has been created to set the area aside for scientific research. Research activities are monitored by a Management Committee to mitigate use conflicts and environmental disturbance. Included in the present management plan are provisions such as zoning of sampling and ‘observation only’ areas, to ensure the pristine nature of the area and permit long-term observations of natural change and response to natural disturbances."

(http://www.highseasconservation.org/documents/juniper.pdf)

That was exactly what the scientists proposed to do that the environmental groups tried to stop through injunction. To be sure, Brus' "sweeping statement" may have some legal accuracy regarding how Juniper and his colleagues' MPA project evolved; however, as it is, Brus' statement seems not only misleading, but easily passed on as the fundamental truth, as the post of "rward" indicates.

Welcoming public dialogue, the lingering question is, did any member of CPAWS or LOS participate in the deliberations of the MPA management committee regarding the proposal for the study by the U. of Oregon and U. Washington academic groups?

Could you, Kori Brus, address that here?

RWARD said: In their opinion the seismic research ought not to be ocurring in an MPA. Even if the present research is harmless to sea life, future research might not be. Why allow the precedent to be set.

...and it's more than a little curious that a bunch of people with 'opinions' think they should be able to derail a project that has had environmental impact concerns fairly high on the radar from day one.

As if to say "Sure you've done studies, but we're protecting the earth, therefore we know better."

Seriously.

Kori B said: Secondly, nothing in the legal action, nor discussions between the groups that brought forward the suit, contained anything concerning oil exploration or anti industry sentiments. For the groups involved this was action based on the protection of a marine protected area, which the groups maintain should be an area off limits to human interfence in the same way that the idea of a land based refuge is. Attempting to link this legal action with 'anti industry' and 'anti science' is both inaccurate and un-rational.

"It is misguided to target short, carefully-timed academic research studies that have direct societal benefits with the goal of setting a precedent against the oil and gas industry."

Unfortunately we're living in a time when some elements in our society, including some who represent the oil & gas industry, are pushing for greater access to protected areas, both on-shore and off. It's not irrational to worry about ulterior motives in this situation.

"It is misguided to target short, carefully-timed academic research studies that have direct societal benefits with the goal of setting a precedent against the oil and gas industry."

Unfortunately we live in a time when powerful elements want to drill in protected areas both onshore and off. It's not paranoid to question why seismic studies are being conducted in an MPA.

I swear the earlier post wasn't there!

RWARD said:

It is misguided to target short, carefully-timed academic research studies that have direct societal benefits with the goal of setting a precedent against the oil and gas industry.

Unfortunately we're living in a time when some elements in our society, including some who represent the oil & gas industry, are pushing for greater access to protected areas, both on-shore and off. It's not irrational to worry about ulterior motives in this situation.

"you do have to realize that scientists tend to be grown-up enough to be aware of the side-effects of their experiments."

And usually they are careful to do everything necessary to minimize those side-effects, ... but not always

RWARD said: "you do have to realize that scientists tend to be grown-up enough to be aware of the side-effects of their experiments." And usually they are careful to do everything necessary to minimize those side-effects, ... but not always

I mean, what makes you and your colleagues so dead certain that these scientists are going to obliterate the environment off the coast of British Columbia? What makes you dead certain that they're prospecting on the behalf of the Energy industries? Did you and your colleagues ever bother to ask these scientists about what they were doing, or do you assume that you automatically know better than them?

S Celine said: According to Dr. Kim Juniper, who with two other scientists initiated the establishment of the Endeavour MPA, the story is a bit different than reported by Mr. Brus: "The Endeavour MPA has been created to set the area aside for scientific research....."

“The Endeavour MPA has been created to set the area aside for scientific research.….”

That’s not technically true. This is the reason’s[sic] why an MPA can be created, taken directly from The Ocean’s Act (p17) which is the enabling legislation for MPAs...

"So you’re saying that scientists need environmental vigilantes to monitor their every move?"

Environmental vigilantes among others. My proposals are reviewed by a university committee on the treatment of test subjects. They are then reviewed by the granting agency and that often includes outside reviewers. The appropriate state and federal agency will review my request for collecting and access permits. If the research is at all controversial they will send a heads-up to sister agencies and to NGOs. After the research is completed the agencies will review my reports and the editorial staff and reviewers will review my paper submission. At any point I can be questioned about the integrity of my research and my adherence to the relevant rules. All these folks are 'vigilantes'. They are valuable checks to make sure my work is necessary and competent. Bless the vigilante who stops me from doing something stupid.

fnxtr said: Celine quoted Dr. Juniper:

“The Endeavour MPA has been created to set the area aside for scientific research.….”

To which Kori replied:

That’s not technically true. This is the reason’s[sic] why an MPA can be created, taken directly from The Ocean’s Act (p17) which is the enabling legislation for MPAs...

There's a difference between "this area was created" and "an area can be created". I would like to see the actual wording of whatever was enacted in this specific case. Of course protection and research are neither mutually exclusive nor necessarily dependent. It's hard to do research if an area's natural state is somehow being compromised. People who actually do the work have probably thought of this.

PROHIBITIONS 2. No person shall (a) disturb, damage or destroy, in the Area, or remove from the Area, any part of the seabed, including a venting structure, or any part of the subsoil, or any living marine organism or any part of its habitat; or (b) carry out any underwater activity in the Area that is likely to result in the disturbance, damage, destruction or removal of anything referred to in paragraph (a). 3. (1) No person contravenes section 2 if (a) the disturbance, damage, destruction or removal is for scientific research for the conservation, protection and understanding of the Area; (b) subject to subsection (3), a research plan described in subsection (2) is submitted to the Minister at least 90 days before the start of the scientific research in the Area; and (c) all licences, authorizations or consents required under the Oceans Act, the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, the Coasting Trade Act or the Fisheries Act in respect of the scientific research have been obtained.

RWARD said: All these folks are 'vigilantes'. They are valuable checks to make sure my work is necessary and competent.

Bless the vigilante who stops me from doing something stupid.

I sent the following via e-mail to Kori Brus of Ecojustice in response to his posts on this thread

_______

Dear Mr. Brus:

As one of the scientists participating in the Endeavour Tomography study I appreciate your posts on The Panda’s Thumb and on your willingness to answer questions about the timing and reasons for the legal action which sought to stop this study. I would like answers to the following questions.

1. You state in your first post: “Attempting to link this legal action with ‘anti industry’ and ‘anti science’ is both inaccurate and un-rational”. As my colleague Emilie Hooft details in a posting on the The Panda’s Thumb, the Living Oceans Society 2007 Annual Report makes it quite clear that the successful effort by ENGOs to stop the Batholiths seismic study was in part motivated by a desire to maintain the moratorium on offshore hydrocarbon development. In light of this written statement, why is it un-rational [irrational] for me to assume a similar motivation for your unsuccessful attempts to derail the Endeavour tomography study?

2. You state in a subsequent post: “CPAWS’ Sabine Jessen was on the DFO-led technical advisory committee in July and DID participate fully on that committee and DID provide a written submission criticizing the project and urging that it not proceed. When it seemed that DFO was unlikely to listen to CPAWS’ views, ENGOS took the next step of writing correspondence to the federal government (early August).” Can you please expand on this statement regarding Sabine Jessen’s role on the technical advisory committee. Specifically:

(a) As a member of the committee she would have learned of the planned Endeavour Tomography Study no later than January 2008, eighteen months before she provided written comments in July 2009. Why did she wait eighteen months and then submit comments a little more than a month before the ship was due to sail?

(b) Did she not sit silently through several meetings of the committee when the Endeavour tomography study was discussed in detail? If so, how do you reconcile this with your assertion that she “DID participate fully”?

(c) After submitting her last-minute written comments was she asked to provide additional information/documentation so that the committee could properly consider her concerns? If so, did she respond to this request and if not why not?

3. You state in one of your posts that “Ecojustice and our clients took every non-legal avenue available.”

(a) Given that at least one of your clients had at least eighteen months notice of the experiment, can you please document what non-legal action was taken and at what times during this eighteen month period.

(b) Given your concerns about this study, why did the ENGOs wait until one week before the experiment and the release of your lawsuit to alert the press and the public to your concerns? If you had a strong case that would stand up to scrutiny, couldn’t Canadian public opinion have helped influence government regulators without the necessity for a lawsuit?

4. I would like you to explain the following::

(a) Sabine Jessen of CPAWS stated "They [Marine Animals] have little chance of survival in the long-term without these refuges from human disturbance." With regards to the Endeavour MPA, to what marine animals was Ms. Jessen referring and what is the scientific basis for her comments?

(b) When given the opportunity to speak on CTV, Ecojustice’s Devon Paige specifically focused on the dangers posed by the Endeavour tomography study to the North Pacific Right whale? Was this deliberate misinformation or is Ecojustice ignorant of the seasonal distribution of this endangered species?

(c) Ecojustice’s Lara Tessaro made numerous statements about the hearing loss that whales could experience from the blast. For example Bruce Cheadle of the The Canadian Press reported “She [Ms. Tessaro] said the whales' temporary hearing loss that could result from exposure to the blasts would be akin to depriving humans of sight for several days”. Given that the seismic tomography experiment was already mitigated at the 180 dB level prior to your lawsuit, can you provide the scientific basis for this statement?

(d) In general given the large number of to put it politely highly dubious statements regarding the expected impacts of the Endeavour tomography experiment on marine mammals, why is it “un-rational [irrational]” for me to view the EGO’s actions as “anti-science”.

I look forward to your responses. I have posted this communication on The Panda’s Thumb and if you do not do so yourself, I will post your replies there too.

Sincerely

William Wilcock

Wheels said:

lincoln S Hollister said: The environmental groups even insisted in court that the study was really a cover for oil exploration.

That was also one of the allegations made by Ignmar Lee when he sabotaged the batholith project. How paranoid and ignorant are these people?

In attempting to stop the Endeavour seismic experiment, these groups misled the public by portraying the Endeavour Marine Protected Area (MPA) as a marine mammal habitat.

The Endeavour MPA was established around unique seafloor biological communities, which are localized around hydrothermal vents on the deep ocean floor (2.5 km below the sea surface). From a marine mammal’s point of view this “whale park” is the size of a postage stamp and lies in a major shipping route of freighters going to ports in Vancouver, BC, and Portland, OR! This short scientific study was carefully timed and executed to minimize the effect on whales or dolphins. In fact no marine mammals were seen or heard during this study.

These groups are using erroneous claims to generate publicity to further their causes. A more honest approach would focus on the real threats to marine mammals some of which are entanglement in fishing gear, collisions with ships, and the ever-increasing ocean noise levels from shipping.

Finally, I want to emphasize that unlike Kori’s conjecture, the Endeavour MPA is not a “refuge”; the 1998 proposal to establish the Endeavour MPA came from three university-based scientists specifically to protect the unique geology and biology of the Endeavour hydrothermal vents for research and education.

RWARD said: Unfortunately we're living in a time when some elements in our society, including some who represent the oil & gas industry, are pushing for greater access to protected areas, both on-shore and off. It's not irrational to worry about ulterior motives in this situation.

Ecojustice is looking more and more like the quad preachers, or people who are accustomed to softball media questions, suddenly up against rigorous standards of... uh... accuracy, to be diplomatic.

CHERYL SALVATI(14 August at 17:00)
"good luck fighting the military!"

ECOJUSTICE (14 August at 17:09)
"actually, these researchers are academics looking to map the Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents - less nefarious, but equally damaging."

~FACEBOOK.COM/ECOJUSTICE

Dear Kori Brus,

Thank you for your prompt response regarding my query about the origins and purpose of the Endeavour Marine Protected Area. You wrote that the explanation by the Leadership Chair in Marine Ecosystems and Global Change at the University of Victoria, Kim Juniper—the Canadian scientist who seems to be a founding parent to the creation of this exotic MPA—is "not technically true."

While one can understand that a spokesperson for a law firm will engage with things that could be technical truths, I think ecologists are interested in what is true, and scientists are interested in hypotheses that can be tested to be theories.

The host of this forum, Dave Thomas, posted information that seems to contradict your technical truth. University of Oregon professor Emilie Hooft, in a post right above this one, reconfirms Dr Juniper's statement.

I don't want to set up here a discussion where one side simply contradicts another. But it seems that the information provided by Thomas and Hooft offer a more plausible version of what Endeavour MPA actually is than you have, so far.

Could you, Kori Brus, clarify?

Could anyone here?

The silence here over the last 10 days has been deafening.

In the discussion above, and especially in William Wilcock’s unanswered list of questions to the Ecojustice spokesperson, Kori Brus, the circumstantial evidence points to the environmental groups having intentionally misrepresented fact in pursuing their court injunction.

The environmental groups have failed to provide documentation for their assertions. Their assertions have not undergone scientific review. We tried in this forum to have a review of the documentation, but none has been forthcoming.

Here are responses to a couple misrepresentations:

The Endeavour MPA is not a whale refuge. At the time of year of the seismic study, the community of marine mammal scholars predicted that the whales would not be there. And they weren’t.

The units of measure of sound in water are different than in air. The environmental groups know that and, therefore, I conclude that they intentionally misled the press and public with their comparisons to jet engines and artillery fire.

The acoustic pulses (why call them “blasts”?) from airguns would not damage any whales even if they were there. Over the past decade airgun design and mitigation protocols have been adjusted to make what was a very unlikely possibility to be an almost non-existent possibility.

Dear Dr William Wilcock:

In absence of any response by the designated Ecojustice spokesperson, Kori Brus, I would like to try here to answer one of your questions based on available face-value information. Specifically, you asked of Ecojustice, "When given the opportunity to speak on CTV, Ecojustice’s Devon Page specifically focused on the dangers posed by the Endeavour tomography study to the North Pacific Right whale? Was this deliberate misinformation or is Ecojustice ignorant of the seasonal distribution of this endangered species?"

The lawsuit filed August 10—that Lara Tessaro tailored to put you and your colleagues out of work—states only that around the Endeavour MPA, "Blue whales and Fin whales have been recorded." Never mind that CPAWS probably had more abstract concerns, Lara Tessaro needed to slap on some SARA logic, enhancing the legal luster of her efforts to kill off scientific research. She needed a Blue whale.

However, to do so, Lara Tessaro apparently relied on your own research.

Take for example the April 2009 document, "Tracking fin and blue whales above the Juan de Fuca Ridge with a local seafloor seismic network." ( J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Volume 125, Issue 4, pp. 2588-2588 (http://tinyurl.com/yejdaw7)). As everyone here probably knows, this research was created by you, in collaboration with your graduate student, Dax Soule —an individual who has been patiently explaining science to activists on the web (facebook.com/ecojustice). As an aside, the third scholar, Richard E. Thomson, was one whose work on zooplankton I referenced in an ironic post at the same location resulting in my first facebook account being blocked. There are no other projects, that I know of, tracing the possible relationship of whales to zooplankton to concentrations of Blue and Fin whales than your work. It should also be noted that the portions of these studies that are on line very clearly document that these whales don't congregate in the area until late autumn.

In other words, Lara Tessaro's legal monkeywrenching, while trying to enhance SARA legislation, probably did no service to CPAWS' concerns. But worse than that, they have had a direct impact on the very scientific network on whose research Ecojustice's legistlative campaign has relied. Indeed, one wonders whether, by legally invoking the science associated with Blues and Fins around Endeavour, Lara Tessaro realized that she was basing her arguments on the HARD WORK of the VERY SAME individuals she was trying to put out of a job?

By contrast, Devon Page is an ethical individual. Although he'd be citing Ecojustice's lawsuit, he probably could not bring himself to say those words, "Blue whales and Fin whales have been recorded." To say such things in court would be a minor legal technicality. To do so while facing the Canadian public could be ethically suspect. A past opponent to similar marine seismic studies, Chris Genovali, has said, "Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is ethical." Devon Page probably recognized that. Therefore, with the "junk science" gesture of simply substituting Fin and Blue whales with the Right Whale Devon Page probably thought he solved this ethical dilemna.

In lieu of any answer from Kori Brus, I hope I've helped explain some of the background for the public to understand. I hope any reader will clarify in a substantive manner.

S Celine

The more I read, the shadier the EcoJustice tactics look.
Hopefully someone representing them or their clients will show up and we can get some questions answered definitively.

"I have serious, serious concerns about their monitoring procedures," said [Ecojustice's Lara] Tessaro, pointing out that the U.S. government estimated 1,500 marine mammals would be affected by the testing.

"We think they have missed the point of the monitoring. Success is not measured by failure to see whales and dolphins, it's measured by seeing whales and dolphins and measuring their response."

The environmental groups are asking for copies of the marine-mammal observation reports, Tessaro said.

From Victoria Times Colonist, September 25
http://tinyurl.com/yl4jnsx

That... that doesn't make any sense...
The success of the experiment to determine the structure of hydrothermal vents is measured by seeing if it harms whales and dolphins? Or the success of the tighter regulations they had to deal with was dependent on seeing if they were hurt or not? Didn't the team pretty much conclude that there wouldn't be any cetaceans around to harm in the first place? Sounds like a success to me.

||------ It's like the goalposts started over here

And wound up waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over here -------||

Veronica Zaragovia worked hard to understand the issues of airguns and marine mammals and earthquakes. The link to her Time magazine article is given here http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1926457,00.html

She did a commendable job of presenting both the value and risks of seismic research, using quotes to craft her story.

However, the quotes from several environmental groups (numbered, below) illustrate how these groups propagate misinformation. For the record, I respond to them with more accurate information.

(1) “The noise the guns generate causes some animals to flee their native habitat, says Naomi Rose, senior scientist with the Maryland office of Humane Society International (HSI).”

Noise from airguns can cause avoidance responses and marine animals will move away from a passing seismic vessel. This is a local and short-term response.

(2) Michael Jasny, senior policy analyst with the National Resources Defense Council, is quoted as saying "Airguns fundamentally alter the fabric of life in the ocean and they do it at an enormous scale far beyond that of a ship monitor to judge."

For a research seismic effort, this is exaggerated hype, pure and simple. Natural submarine earthquakes are part of the fabric of life. These can’t be altered.

(3) Jasny goes on to be quoted: marine mammals that are alive today "haven't evolved to handle the industrial noise we're putting into the ocean, which has doubled every decade for the last 50 years."

This might be true, but it conflates airguns with the general problem of noise in the oceans. One science study produces about as much noise pollution as one cruise ship on one voyage. Earthquakes have been popping off in the oceans for much longer than marine mammals have existed on our planet.

(4) Then the article quotes Lee-Ann Ford, president and founder of Hong Kong–based Linking Individuals for Nature Conservation (LINC), who says the sound of airgun explosions is 265 decibels at the source, and 110 decibels almost five miles away. The approximate hearing threshold for humans and marine mammals is 110 decibels, so "at [five miles] they're still being deafened," Ford says.

This is absolutely wrong. The threshold at which ear damage to marine mammals may be possible is about 180 decibels (in units applicable to under water). This is a conservative estimate. It's not clear exactly what Lee-Ann Ford is saying by "threshold of hearing" but I assume 110 decibels is the level she says a marine mammal will hear airguns and be deafened. This intensity of sound is rather common underwater; for example, a sperm whale click easily excceds 200 decibles. Marine mammologists have a saying that a deaf whale is a dead whale. Are we being told something a whale can hear will kill it? An outboard motor would be a deadly weapon if any of this were true.

(5) Naomi Rose of HSI is further quoted to say: "It is highly likely that there is better technology out there."

This is simply not true. If there were, it would be used. More significant, a meeting to explore alternatives to airguns, including experts from environmental groups and industry, was recently held in Monterey.

The misleading statements of the environmental groups may play well for a good story and for campaign efforts, but this persistent propagation of misinformation is eroding credibility for many on the science side and, when you consider most conservation efforts involve common sense applied to basic environmental research discoveries, perhaps these groups should consider cooperation, not alienation.

By the statements of their representatives, HSI, LINC, and NRDC can be added to the expanding list of environmental groups that have lost credibility by their persistent propagation of misinformation. Others on the list, based on only this summer’s environmental attacks on science, are Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Living Oceans Society, and Ecojustice (formerly Sierra Legal Defense Fund).

As someone who favors very strong environmental regulations let me say at this point that I think that it is an extreme waste of time and energy on the part of the environmentalist community to bother to harass working scientists who have made every effort to respect the environment in which they work.

That is the ultimate conclusion I have drawn from this thread.

I also have genuine concern that scientists may be targeted for this type of thing because they are well-behaved and rather unthreatening targets, as well.

I also have to note that even energy exploration companies have a right to perform legal activities.

I still have a lot of sympathy for the Ecojustice side here. Humans have been erring on the side of disrespecting the common environment for a long time now.

But resources should be used carefully, so that neither time, resources, nor credibility are unwisely expended.

The period chosen for the study was for when it was known that there were no whales in the study area. So, of course no whales would be disturbed. Ecojustice should be applauding the team for its diligence.

skeena said: The period chosen for the study was for when it was known that there were no whales in the study area. So, of course no whales would be disturbed. Ecojustice should be applauding the team for its diligence.

They're certainly not popping a vein to defend themselves here. Odd, that.

While the Acoustic Ecology Institute has been closely monitoring the effects of seismic surveys for several years, and I do indeed have concerns about the degree to which airgun noise may disrupt foraging in some cetaceans, this particular lawsuit appears to me to be a dramatic over-reaction to what is planned. Throwing up legal roadblocks to a carefully designed, ten-day academic study is a very extreme reaction, and should be reserved for times and places where there is real danger of harm. But for this survey, the risks are truly negligible—and this is spoken by someone who resents the free use of “negligible impact” in EAs that minimize the effects of chronic behavioral disruption of cetaceans by noise.

Ecojustice's Facebook Blogger ...in addition to our stance regarding the need to maintain the integrity of MPAs from human interference is the basis of our action, and we make no apologies for that. Robert Weekly responded: How noble. The only problem with your statement is that the Endeavour MPA was not developed to forbid human interference. In fact, the charter clearly states that any experiment designed 'for scientific research for the conservation, protection and understanding of the Area' shall not contravene any prohibitions set forth by the charter. How can you justify your efforts when 'the basis of [your] action' is fundamentally wrong?

"What are the criteria Ecojustice uses to block a person from this conversation?"

Anything for The Cause, apparently. Sound familiar?

EcoJustice, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and the Living Oceans Society have shown a remarkable inability to respond to discussion. Since discussions will not work with these groups, perhaps it is time to move on to their sponsors. Annual reports of these groups can be found on line and some of the sponsors are ones that recognize the importance of scientific inquiry for understanding and conservation of the environment.

Would it be useful to write letters to their sponsors from a group of concerned scientists?

I understand that in science, discussing possible mistakes you or your colleagues might be making to give faulty results is encouraged. Apparently not so for lawyers?

"Living Oceans Society [LOS] 2007 Annual Report makes it quite clear that the successful effort by ENGOs to stop the Batholiths seismic study was in part motivated by a desire to maintain the moratorium on offshore hydrocarbon development."

"In light of this written statement, why is it un-rational [irrational] for me to assume a similar motivation for your unsuccessful attempts to derail the Endeavour tomography study?"

"...nothing in [Lara Tessaro's 2009] legal action [to enjoin the R/V Langseth from exploring the underpinnings of the Endeavour MPA], nor discussions between the groups [CPAWS, LOS] that brought forward the suit, contained anything concerning oil exploration or anti industry sentiments."

"Margot Venton, a legal consultant for environmental group Ecojustice in Vancouver, acknowledges that the potential for oil and gas exploration was a concern..."

I hope no one has misinterpreted my comments to suggest that the scientists on the RV Langseth are stooges of the oil & gas industry. I sincerely doubt they are. But let me ask one question - does the seismic surveys conducted by the Landseth set a precedent for other surveys, non-scientific in nature, in protected areas?

RWARD said: I hope no one has misinterpreted my comments to suggest that the scientists on the RV Langseth are stooges of the oil & gas industry. I sincerely doubt they are. But let me ask one question - does the seismic surveys conducted by the Landseth set a precedent for other surveys, non-scientific in nature, in protected areas?

No.

Precedent is for your legal wranglers, not research.

Only lawyers whine, "Well, they got to do it!"

Now let me ask you a question: if there is another scientific survey in an ecologically sensitive area, are your knee-jerk reactionary "I'm-saving-the-planet-so-I-know-more-than-any-mere-scientist" luddite friends going to do their homework properly next time?

S Celine said: And while the action itself of Ecojustice against the science researchers, as demonstrated on this Pandasthumb.org thread, is consistently unethical, the cause of preventing an oil catastrophe from happening off the coast of Vancouver island is a noble one; how does one explain that distinction to a broader public?

RWARD said: I hope no one has misinterpreted my comments to suggest that the scientists on the RV Langseth are stooges of the oil & gas industry. I sincerely doubt they are. But let me ask one question - does the seismic surveys conducted by the Landseth set a precedent for other surveys, non-scientific in nature, in protected areas?

Stanton said:

RWARD said: I hope no one has misinterpreted my comments to suggest that the scientists on the RV Langseth are stooges of the oil & gas industry. I sincerely doubt they are. But let me ask one question - does the seismic surveys conducted by the Landseth set a precedent for other surveys, non-scientific in nature, in protected areas?

Then why did you think that these scientists would appreciate being legally harassed repeatedly in order to put your group's anti-science paranoia at ease?

RWard said:

Stanton said:

RWARD said: I hope no one has misinterpreted my comments to suggest that the scientists on the RV Langseth are stooges of the oil & gas industry. I sincerely doubt they are. But let me ask one question - does the seismic surveys conducted by the Landseth set a precedent for other surveys, non-scientific in nature, in protected areas?

Then why did you think that these scientists would appreciate being legally harassed repeatedly in order to put your group's anti-science paranoia at ease?

First, they aren't my group. Second, I would hope that scientists would appreciate concern for the environment. Concern in this case may well be misplaced but I'm glad that people and organizations exist that care enough to make sure that we follow the rules. Science should be an open enterprize. There's nothing wrong with being watched closely to be sure our actions are legal and ethical.

There's a great difference between being "an open enterprise" and being subjected to baseless lawsuits to halt research programs that had already undergone environmental impact studies. There is a difference between "being watched to be sure our actions are legal and ethical" and, again, being stopped at the last minute by a group that apparently didn't care enough to get the facts right or participate in previous dialog with the researchers to allay any fears of detriment to the ecosystem.

Science is basically the way you say it should be, most of the time. There was no evidence that this case was any different going in and there's no such evidence coming out. On the contrary it appears that EcoJustice and their clients were in the wrong.

It may seem to you that you're just trying to be extra careful, but the way it comes across is of grasping at straws.

Re Rward's comment above, suits might be the action of last resort, but Ecojustice chose to apply the last resort at the last hour. This wreaked maximum damage on a totally vetted study. Perhaps a better process would be for there to be a rule that legal action be taken at least 3 months before a project is to begin.

From Rward: But let me ask one question - does the seismic surveys conducted by the Landseth set a precedent for other surveys, non-scientific in nature, in protected areas?

The fact you raise the question of precedent exposes a goal of the BC environmental groups, which is to not allow oil exploration off the BC coast.

Lincoln S. Hollister said: From Rward: But let me ask one question - does the seismic surveys conducted by the Landseth set a precedent for other surveys, non-scientific in nature, in protected areas? The fact you raise the question of precedent exposes a goal of the BC environmental groups, which is to not allow oil exploration off the BC coast.

Daily Kos has an update summary of this discussion

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/4/773861/-Monkeywrenching-Science:-the-case-of-Ecojustice

Stanton said:

Lincoln S. Hollister said: From Rward: But let me ask one question - does the seismic surveys conducted by the Landseth set a precedent for other surveys, non-scientific in nature, in protected areas? The fact you raise the question of precedent exposes a goal of the BC environmental groups, which is to not allow oil exploration off the BC coast.

Essentially, they don't want even the potential for oil exploration off the British Columbian coast, even if it means sabotaging scientific surveys.

(Ecojustice writes on Facebook.com/ecojustice, in post September 15 at 8:21am, Deleted last week)

There is no secret evolution in the involvement of CPAWS and Living Oceans Society. We encourage you to ask more info, but the allusions you're drawing are not valid and won't be tolerated here.

I'll happily discuss that more, but not as a response to hints and allegations with no foundation...

(Kori Brus, Interim Director of Communications for Ecojustice posted this, here, on Pandasthumb.org, on the same day as the now deleted facebook comment, above.)

If the actions of Ecojustice and their client groups are going to be criticized, which I have no problem with, then it should be on a rational basis with respect to the legal action itself, and not with sweeping statements. If anyone wants additional details about our action, its timing, and the reasons behind it, they’re welcome to get in direct touch with me directly.

Kori Brus Ecojustice Canada kbrus@ecojustice.ca

Lincoln S. Hollister said: The fact you raise the question of precedent exposes a goal of the BC environmental groups, which is to not allow oil exploration off the BC coast.

"As a member of the [Endeavour MPA advisory] committee [the representative to Ecojustice's suit partner, CPAWS] would have learned of the planned Endeavour Tomography Study no later than January 2008, eighteen months before she provided written comments in July 2009...]"

"...at least one of [Ecojustice’s] clients had at least eighteen months notice of the experiment..."

"...please document what non-legal action was taken and at what times during this eighteen month period."

"...meant to facilitate a Can $100 - million (US $99 - million) Canadian seafloor observatory system, [that] has been delayed at least three months, if not indefinitely."

"The airgun issue is also thwarting plans for the Marcus Langseth, a US $20- million research vessel operated by the Lamont - Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University in New York City. The ship was intended to be in Canadian waters next July to measure seismic velocities in preparation for the installation of Neptune Canada — a seafloor observatory — in the summer of 2009, says Douglas Toomey, a geologist at the University of Oregon in Eugene. But the US $2- million cruise has now been delayed until at least October. A Lamont - Doherty spokesman says that US state department officials are seeking 'reasonable assurance' that the Toomey project will secure a permit before an expensive Canadian application process is initiated.'"

When it surfaced in July 14th, our initial efforts were to directly petition the government outside of the courts.

"Ecojustice officials didn’t respond to interview requests, but a statement on its website attributed to group lawyer Lara Tessaro says that the Canadian government should “refuse to sanction the harassment of endangered whales.”

"Lara's phone has been ringing non-stop on this case - too bad her [sic] and Rex didn't connect to bring out the legal and environmental facts."

It's been more than a month since we've heard a peep from Kori Brus.

Now that this post is slipping away (into the archives), so is Kori's opportunity to clarify the actions taken by EcoJustice.

We gave it a good try, anyway. But that darn cricket-chirping sound is getting pretty annoying!

Cheers, Dave