Home › News › County News
Coast Guard sued over whale deaths
Plan wanted to prevent cetacean-ship collisions
STORY TOOLS 
More from County NewsAn environmental organization filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the Coast Guard alleging that the agency did not do enough to protect whales from ships along the California coast, and, therefore, violated the Endangered Species Act.
The lawsuit filed by the Center for Biological Diversity in U.S. District Court cites the deaths of three blue whales in the Santa Barbara Channel in 2007. Those whales, two of which died off Ventura County's coast, were confirmed or suspected of having died after colliding with ships.
"We think that if that sort of ship strike-induced death continues at that rate, an endangered species can't tolerate that kind of thing," said Andrea Treece, a attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity. "What we're asking in this lawsuit is for the court to command the Coast Guard to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service."
The NMFS is responsible for investigations and rescues involving marine mammals and endangered marine species, NMFS spokesman Jim Milbury said.
Coast Guard Chief Warrant Officer William Epperson did not comment on the lawsuit but said the agency works with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which oversees NMFS.
Last year, when blue whales gathered in the Santa Barbara Channel to feed on krill, the Coast Guard used its aircraft to fly Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary personnel over the area to spot whales in shipping lanes. NOAA, which operates the sanctuary, then relayed that information to shipping companies.
"The Coast Guard was an excellent partner as far as getting the information out about where the whales were," Milbury said. "The overflights were almost daily."
The lawsuit states that blue, humpback, sei, sperm and North Pacific right whales all are in danger of being killed by cargo ships moving between ports. The Center for Biological Diversity wants the Coast Guard to design and implement a strategy to keep ships and whales apart.
"They are subject to injury and death due to collisions with ships," Treece said. "A good option would be to institute speed limits in shipping lanes."
The Center for Biological Diversity petitioned the federal government to institute speed limits in the channel after the whales' deaths last year.
Treece also suggested buoys that could listen for whales and alert ships in the area.
Milbury said the Channel Islands Marine Sanctuary is coordinating efforts, including overflights, for future whale migrations.
Posted by tweetybyrdrt on June 19, 2008 at 7:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think the shipping companies should file suit against the Center for Biological Diversity to cover the cost of repairing any damage done to their ships by the Whales that can't be kept out of the shipping lanes. It makes just as much sense.
Posted by Hueneme_girl29 on June 19, 2008 at 7:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
No it doesnt tweet- WE are in THEIR enviornment, if you want to cruise your ship thru it, pay the price!!
Posted by omie on June 19, 2008 at 7:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
wait a min. hundreds of whales are slaughtered by japan and other countries they claim its for research. Drift nets all over the worlds drowning sharks and dolphins, all that sushi going to waste for FINs or so someone can have fresh fish. Why can't these eco geeks go after them.. count hundreds killed/wasted, not three. When was the last time that a large mammal washed up shore on our beaches anyone know?
Posted by SpiderWoman on June 19, 2008 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What do they expect the CG to do? Unless a vessel is aiming at them with their ships. I would think most cases are accidents where neither the ship nor the whale saw one another.
Posted by vcsexplorer11 on June 19, 2008 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Instead of wasting time in court and stealing tax dollars these enviromental groups should help the coast guard. Also it was "suspected" they were killed by ships, this sounds like a waste of time.
Posted by khatcher on June 19, 2008 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Waste of time and tax dollars. Society is so sue happy. That is not a solution it is just finger pointing and in no way helps the whales. The boats are not at fault and neither is the Coast Guard. The coast guard has other things to be concerned about.
Posted by goldcoaster on June 19, 2008 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I would much rather see the Coast Guard doing what they are expected to do; protect PEOPLE (ie. Americans) rather than whales. When was the last time a whale paid income tax?
Posted by FedUp on June 19, 2008 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
typical sue happy liberal group. who actually foots the bill for all of these frivolous lawsuits against government agencies?
Posted by pitcrew69 on June 19, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The comments below reflect a dishearteningly myopic view of our role in the global ecosystem. Once a species is gone, its gone for good. As the top dog on the food chain, its up to us to be responsible stewards of the land in which we live. As individuals, we're here for but a blink of an eye, and our children and their children will have to live with our mistakes. As Californians, we should set an example for the world to follow. The Coast Guard actually has the power to do something about this, and given the right incentives, I'm sure they will.
Posted by bugmenot on June 19, 2008 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Who actually read the article?
1. They are not suing for money.
2. They are suing to enforce the Endangered Species Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endanger...
3. They ask that the USCG do what they did the year before when no endangered whales were killed even though the whales gathered in the channel.
4. They are asking that you enforce current laws.
5. Question anybody's motives that tie this issue to a political organization.
It's groups like the Center for Biological Diversity that keep a balance with the laws and nature. If you have a problem with it, fight the Endangered Species Act, specifically section 3.5.A.
Posted by missing805 on June 19, 2008 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Really sued? Who are they representing? the whales family because now the wahlae cant provide for the kids?
Posted by FedUp on June 19, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"1. They are not suing for money."
but how much money does a case like this cost the taxpayers? I am all about protecting our enviornment, but we have much bigger issues out there that need to be dealt with first. sorry, but this case is nonsense.
Posted by jturner9771 on June 19, 2008 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I know lets remove all the ships and small boats from the ocean and see how this country survives with no way to get our good in and out of the country. With out the Ocean transports that move our goods we would not have cheap computers,cars, and fruits and vegetables not to mention all the crap that comes from China. Even a short delay in the delivery of these goods will criple this country ecomicaly.
Posted by bugmenot on June 19, 2008 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
FedUp. It costs us some money but hopefully not too much since the non-profit group isn't going after a multi-million dollar settlement.
I liken it to a LEO that enforces some of the laws and not all of them. If under the Endangered Species Act this is a responsibility of the Coast Guard (regardless how much you or I agree or disagree with the delegation of responsibilities) they should be held accountable to do their duties. The Center for Biological Diversity, according to the oh so accurate wikipedia, has 165,000 members. To many of these members this is probably one of their bigger issues in life. To you and I, maybe not so much. Life in these United States. ;)
Posted by bugmenot on June 19, 2008 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jturner9771. I love the extremes. You imply the law suit is seeking removal of all boats and ships from the ocean, on what basis? To go to a polar opposite, do you suggest we kill all sea life so there are no issues with boats and ships and lawsuits?
way off topic. i'd rather discuss this with fedup.
Posted by Ulster on June 19, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Man, If I only knew. I saw a spotted owl fly right into the grill of a truck once...come to think of it, I think the truck driver was aiming for it. Too bad human beings aren't protected under this act, we might not have any more car accidents...well, not any, but at least we'd be able to sue using other people's money. I wonder how many endangered insects and other critters end up on people's windshield on the I-5. These groups are out of control. It was an accident. Once PETOP (People for Ethical Treatment of Plants) is created, we're all gonna starve.
Posted by garion246 on June 19, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The Center for Biological Diversity could do better than filing what seems to be a frivolous law suit. All their doing is paying a lawyer, wasting taxpayer money, and clogging the court system. They could provide help for the whales in much more productive ways by trying to negotiate with the coast guard, provide tracking of the whales themselves, or generate funds to help the coast guard to name a few things. I hope the center is not spending government grants on this law suit.
Posted by bray on June 19, 2008 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Is Gloria Aldred representing the family of the whales?
Posted by bugmenot on June 19, 2008 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
bray, Christopher Darden.
Posted by bray on June 19, 2008 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
My bad, it would have been Gloria if the whales were lesbians on their way to get married and were sexually assaulted by Michael Jackson before they were hit by the ships.
Posted by FedUp on June 19, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
bugmenot -I guess I am concerned with how long something like this gets dragged out in the courts.
I hear you though. This is basically the career for a lot of people. I hope this is resolved quickly.
Posted by SpiderWoman on June 19, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bray, you are too funny!
Posted by bbbdugout on June 19, 2008 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
why protect humans under an endanger species - we're to busy killing everything we see - we think it's standing in the way of us pouring more concrete or stopping us from dumping our crap in the ocean - hey moran it has nothing to do with liberal or environmental anything - it has to do with paying the consequences for your actions - those actions killed any living species for NOTHING - simply for not doing their jobs
Posted by bbbdugout on June 19, 2008 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
why protect humans under an endanger species - we're to busy killing everything we see - we think it's standing in the way of us pouring more concrete or stopping us from dumping our crap in the ocean - hey moran it has nothing to do with liberal or environmental anything - it has to do with paying the consequences for your actions - those actions killed any living species for NOTHING - simply for not doing their jobs
Posted by robb_murphy on June 19, 2008 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is what's WRONG with the world we live in... I don't even know what else to say... Think about all the friggin money that is going to go into this lawsuit that could be used to feed hungry kids or provide housing to homeless vets. Unreal. AND all this when I just got a letter from my kid's school district telling me the in-school music program for next year will be cut. What the Hell is going through peoples' heads???
Posted by bugmenot on June 19, 2008 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
When the blue whales washed ashore, i remember they were scrambling to come up with $10,000 just to tow the whale to the Naval Base. I remember reading the cost of burial of the 140,000 pound whales was something like $30,000 a pop.
I would like to prevent these costs to taxpayers in the future.
Posted by FedUp on June 19, 2008 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
good point bugmenot.
however, if they are suing as a way to get them to enforce the current laws, can I sue the government to enforce immigration laws! haha.
Posted by keem_s on June 19, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Another perfect example of liberal wack jobs in action.
jw1000 (justa wacko 1000) will be along any minute now to blame this all on Bush and right wingers, stay tuned.
Posted by bugmenot on June 19, 2008 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
FedUp, had to look that one up, because why not right?
I think people do file lawsuits.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/...
I especially like this line:
"The police can't decide they are going to enforce some laws and not others," said David Klehm, an Orange County lawyer who brought similar suits last month against the cities of San Jose and Los Angeles.
Posted by jbh50 on June 19, 2008 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
C'mon can't we all just get along. Its for the whales afterall.....
Posted by bruceski44 on June 19, 2008 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The last article printed on this topic offered no evidence whatsoever that the whales died from a collision with a ship. The necropsies hadn't even been performed yet, but that didn't stop the "scientists", the Star, this eco-group or all of you from believing the propaganda. I say again, where is the proof of what killed these animals?
Posted by bugmenot on June 19, 2008 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
bruceski44:
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news...
Posted by Face on June 19, 2008 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Those who have brought this lawsuit should be arrested for filing frivolous lawsuits, pay all court costs incurred, and have to make punitive damages payments to our military for false accusations without basis in fact.
Posted by FedUp on June 19, 2008 at 4:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
bugmenot - a little different than I was originally thinking, but interesting to say the least. I need to get on this "sue everyone for anything" bandwagon. I heard there is good money in it! haha.
to get back on topic, I dont know what killed these whales either. I need more proof.
Posted by justmeinsp on June 19, 2008 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
the Center for Biodiversity is doing what they do best: filing a lawsuit in the name of saving something. They file suits against any government agency they think should "do something" about bugs, weeds, fish, you name it. In some cases, they've been able to get areas of So. Cal's deserts shut-down from recreationists while a "weed count" is made... and they ask for counts over and over by refiling their suits...
Posted by jill on June 19, 2008 at 6:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Us humans stomp all over animals as if they weren't even living things. It's disgusting what we put them through. I hope that in the years to come, we become kinder, gentler and more compassionate. I believe that years from now, people will look back on the way we treat animals as barbaric and evil, as it is.
"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight."-Albert Schweitzer
"You can judge a society by the way it treats its animals"-Mahatma Gandhi
"I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it."-Abraham Lincoln
"May all that have life be delivered from suffering."-Buddha
Posted by sparks240 on June 19, 2008 at 6:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe whales aren't as smart as people think. A creature that has built-in sonar can't get out of the way of a big, slow, loud container ship.
Posted by deepwater805 on June 19, 2008 at 8:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What kind of clowns are running that circus over at CBD? Sue the coast guard for whales colliding with ships? How is the USCG supposed to stop whales from swimming in shipping lanes? Shoot them? If CBD clowns win the lawsuit I wonder where the money will go? To the whales families...or to the CBD itself?
Posted by vae4usc on June 19, 2008 at 11:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Every time I hear of something stupid like this Gloria Aldridge automatically pops in my head.
Posted by HueyChapala on June 20, 2008 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I applaud the CBD.
We take the Channel for granted. It is a dynamic and fragile ecosystem. It's health is an indicator of our health and directly affects many livelihoods.
These collisions are predictable and avoidable, particularly in the SB Channel which is a prime whale feeding grounds and migration routs.
Someone above questioned if any mammals washed up on local beaches. I'm not sure why that is relevant. But, in fact, they did. And the whales created an enormous disposal problem at great expense.
The bigger issue it seems to me is what kind of stewards we are of the land and sea we share with nature that we depend upon for our own lives.
There are solutions. That is what CBD is suing for -- to force the Bush Administration which has been, at best, indifferent, and at worst, hostile to our environment, to do its madated job according to law. That is fairly straightforward.
One solution is to establish speed limits in the Channel during whale gathering times to give whales a chance to avoid ships. An extra half hour travel time is worth it IMHO.
If the shipping industry continues to be obstinate, force them to ship outside the Channel. That would resolve the issue completely.
Responsible humanity must speak up for the planet and its species.
Posted by Face on June 21, 2008 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Quotes
Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable crimes' when used for the animal cause. -- Alex Pacheco, Director, PETA.
I would be overjoyed when the first scientist is killed by a liberation activist. -- Vivien Smith of ALF (USA Today, September 3, 1991)
It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of animal ownership. The first step on this long, but just, road would be ending the concept of pet ownership. -- Elliot Katz, President, In Defense of Animals, "In Defense of Animals," Spring 1997
Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it. -- Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA (Vogue, September, 1989).
To those people who say, `My father is alive because of animal experimentation,' I say `Yeah, well, good for you. This dog died so your father could live.' Sorry, but I am just not behind that kind of trade off. -- Bill Maher, PETA celebrity spokesman.
On the consequences of stopping animal research: "Don't get the diseases in the first place, schmo." -- PETA's David Mathews (USA Today, July 27, 1994).
"Your dog can show you when he or she wants to go for a walk and equally for nonviolent sexual contact, your dog or whatever else it is can show you whether he or she wants to engage in a certain kind of contact" -- Peter Singer, godfather of the animal rights movement.
Nuff Said there.
Posted by earthsafety99 on June 21, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, sensible ones can have high tech equipment to warn collison distance (+) (-) 1 meter from a distance of 100 miles? for self, man is prepared to go to any length. Animals, birds, earth is dispensable? wait till the branch which ya all are cutting will fall - hey, you are sitting on it!! :)
Posted by Face on June 21, 2008 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Excuse me... have any of you tried to stop or turn a tanker on a dime? Get real. Should we ground all airplanes because some duck might be hit? Lunacy
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.