Florida's senators have mounted an effort to block creation of a no-fishing marine reserve in Biscayne National Park/NPS
A congressional effort has been launched to block a plan by Biscayne National Park officials to set aside 6 percent of the park for a marine reserve in a bid to restore and protect a stretch of the only tropical coral reef system in the continental United States, and the boating and fishing industry has quickly jumped on board in support of the legislation.
It was a year ago that the park approved its general management plan, which calls for a no-fishing marine reserve zone of 10,502 acres to improve the declining reef's condition. Of the few hundred species that inhabit the park's waters, 150 have faced population pressures from recreational and commercial fishing, according to the Park Service.
"A marine reserve is one of the most effective ways for us to encourage restoration of the park's coral reef ecosystem and it received strong support from the public during development of the plan," then-Superintendent Brian Carlstrom said a year ago. "In addition to producing larger fish and more fish for snorkelers and divers to enjoy, the marine reserve is expected to have a spillover effect, improving the fishing experience outside the zone."
But the fishing and boating industry disagrees with the park's position, as does Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida, who introduced legislation earlier this month to prevent the Park Service from creating the marine reserve as it has proposed. Cosponsoring the measure is Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida.
Under S. 3099, before the marine reserve could be created (the Park Service has yet to go through the rule-making process to set it up), the Park Service would have to go through formal consultation and coordination with the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission of the State of Florida. Additionally, the bill calls for science produced by the state of Florida to take precedence over the science the Park Service used to justify creation of the marine reserve.
While those lining up behind the senators say the marine reserve isn't needed, back in 2001 scientists warned that the park's fisheries were facing 'imminent collapse' without immediate help and protection. Additionally, by including 2,663 acres of coral reef in the preserve, the Park Service would contribute towards the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force's goal of having 20 percent of Florida's reefs within such reserves.
During the drafting of the GMP, an open letter, co-signed by Jean-Michel Cousteau founder of the Ocean's Future Society, National Geographic Explorer- in-Residence Sylvia Earle, and Senior Scientist Emeritus Jeremy Jackson at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell stated that: "The establishment of a marine reserve is the best, most effective method for protecting Biscayne's severely threatened coral reef ecosystem."
At the National Parks Conservation Association, Caroline McLaughlin, the group's Biscayne program manager, said Wednesday that the park's fisheries needed protections provided by the marine reserve to rebound.
"This bill would effectively block the creation of a desperately needed marine reserve in Biscayne National Park. The marine reserve was decided upon after 15 years of scientific analysis, interagency cooperation at the state and federal levels, and a thoughtful and transparent public process. Of the 43,000 public comments collected by the Park Service during that process, more than 90 percent were in favor of the marine reserve," she said in an email.
"Biscayne has been overfished and over-stressed for decades. Experts at the National Park Service confirmed that Biscayne’s coral reefs are dying, and that some species are on the verge of collapse. Once plentiful native fish like mangrove snapper and black grouper are at record low levels of abundance and most are too small for anglers to keep," continued Ms. McLaughlin. "In fact, recent studies show that a majority of snapper and grouper caught in the park are below state, federal, and international standards for sustainability.
"This marine reserve is the only way to protect Biscayne’s fisheries sustainably over the long-term and will help bring more fish back to Florida, increasing fish size, diversity, and abundance. With 95 percent of the national park as water, around six percent will be included in the marine reserve, a small portion of the total park."
But the marine boating industry fears the no-fishing zone would have too great an impact on Florida's fishing economy.
“Recreational fishing is a tremendous economic driver in the U.S., supporting 828,000 jobs,” said Mike Nussman, president and CEO of the American Sportfishing Association. “Senators Nelson and Rubio deserve tremendous credit for their leadership in tackling issues of importance to the recreational fishing community not only in Florida but throughout the country. We are extremely pleased with the action today by the Senate Commerce Committee to advance this important legislation.”
While Biscayne officials worked for more than 15 years on the general management plan, and received about 43,000 comments on the draft GMP, opponents claim the Park Service didn't fairly conduct the review and drafting of the plan.
“After attempting to work in good faith with the National Park Service for many years to find a more reasonable path forward, it’s clear that Congressional action is needed to prevent this unwarranted marine reserve from going into effect,” said Thom Dammrich, president of the National Marine Manufacturers Association in a story posted Wednesday by Boating Industry magazine. “Any decision as drastic as closing public waters must be based on sound science with efforts made to minimize negative impacts to stakeholders. Thankfully, this bill will ensure a more fair and science-based process is followed.”
Some members of the Florida congressional delegation last year mounted an effort to overturn the park's plan. Their legislation would require the Park Service and Office of National Marine Sanctuaries to have approval from state fish and wildlife agencies before closing state waters to recreational or commercial fishing.
At NPCA. Ms. McLaughlin said the park advocacy group would continue to fight the efforts to weaken the park's protections.
"We will continue to strongly oppose this bill (S.3099) to make sure it doesn’t prevent the National Park Service from doing their job as caretakers of America’s national parks or block efforts to protect coral reefs and native fish in Biscayne National Park," she said.
Comments
Eric... a voice for such a minority opinion forces itself to be loud. None of us are under any obligation to engage with you. You are not our professor, spouse, boss, or anything other than a loud voice of a minority opinion. Have a very nice smurfy day. We aren't running away from you, just turning our backs and walking away.
Rick, you make Forest Gump look like a turtle. It is interesting that you are more than willing to engage with your snarky comments and put downs but when you are asked a simple question of fact you suddenly clam up. You don't answer because you don't have an answer.
Now, boys! Be nice! But EC does have a point. There is no equation between the Holocaust and climate change. Those denying the Holocaust today are neo-Nazis. Those "denying" climate change aren't "denying" a thing. They are rather debating it--which scientists are supposed to do. No debate in science ever closes. The minute it does, it becomes a belief. Practically speaking, scientists never debated that the Earth is round, either. Observers knew that as early as the ancients. They could see it in an eclipse. Nor did they debate gravity, except for what it "was." They knew they were stuck to the ground.
The science in science repeats: We ourselves are stuck with climate change. Don't like the outcome? The ancients warned us of that, too. We are mortal. We are all going to die. It is how we adjust while living here that makes the difference.
Then how do we "adjust?" To most of it we cannot possibly adjust. With or without us, the Earth will continue on its way through the universe, warming and cooling, blowing off volancoes and earthquakes, and otherwise rattling us to our mortal core.
What is all the fuss about? Politics. Someone wants to sell us something, here the loss of our public lands. They know that the Big Lie is more effective than the Small Lie. And so they keep screaming climate change. Note what they DON'T scream--all the rest of it, led by overpopulation, say again, too many people doing too many of the wrong things. C02 is but the tip of the iceberg, but they can't sell us what lies beneath the waves. A hundred years ago, the utilitarians sold us on dams and irrigation--visible projects. Now they need a new "visibility" to keep those projects alive.
Think of climate change as the next Hoover Dam--and every dam that came after. And don't forget what the "foresters" told us about clear-cutting. Not a problem. It will all come back, they said. Simply, if you think of climate change as a sales pitch, you will understand. You are being pitched, which is why you are not allowed to dissent. All good science includes dissent.
When I dissented about clear-cutting at the University of Washington, its foresters threw me to the wolves. You are no forester, they said. You don't know the "science." The problem remains that clear-cutting is just a belief. We "hope" the forest will come back, and even if it does, it will not be the forest we had. We "hope" we can reverse climate change, but what are we "reversing," when it fact our problem is something greater?
That is how scientists talk. Believers talk in code. They need the euphemism "green" because they lack the science. They are afraid of it, quite frankly, because it smacks of mortality. Even the believers are going to die.
When Gifford Pinchot lacked the science, he gave us this simple belief. "The first duty of the human race is to control the Earth it lives upon." [The Fight for Conservation, 1910]. Boy, did we screw ourselves up over that one. I would hate to think we are about to screw ourselves again.
EC, I'm sorry about your misinterpretation of my note. Try reading it again and I'll try to interpret it in simpler form for you. It's not about "holocaust deniers." It's about holocaust victims, who like many humans who have faced horrible fates, often resort to a kind of false hope that whatever faces them somehow isn't real. The question I'm asking is simply this: Is it possible that climate deniers share a common human psychological defense mechanism by which they try to deny reality because reality is too difficult or frightening for them to comprehend or acknowledge. It's a form of false hope.
The movie, in case you care, is The Boy in the Striped Pajamas. Or try reading The Wall, a book by John Hersey, an account of the Wasaw Ghetto which tells of how many of the Jews who faced the holocaust horrors tried to convince themselves that nothing was happening and warnings from others were ignored until it was too late.
I fear that we're seeing a similar phenomenom among some people today. Just a different threat.
But Lee. The threat of global warming isn't alarming anyone, only those "instructed" to be alarmed. I recall, in 1968, Paul Ehrlich instucting us to be alarmed about overpopulation. "By 1973, when President [Edward] Kennedy takes office, the great famines will have begun." The moment he dropped science to become an alarmist, his credibility was entirely shot. His message was real, but he made it frivolous by stooping to become a celebrity and courting the press.
People are similarly tuning out from climate change while waiting for the "disaster" to occur. Another tornado hit! It's global warming! No, it is just the weather we have always had.
You can't cry wolf without a victim, and just where, pray tell, is that victim? Melting ice sheets? Okay, I'll buy that. But my basement is still dry. And at 287 feet above sea level, it will probably stay dry forever, because the major melt-off and sea rise--at 400 plus feet--has already occurred over the past 15,000 years.
I take my lessons from the lesson of Paul Ehrlich. Predict nothing, lest you look like a fool. Describe and analyze, yes Tell the public what is going on. But don't say the sky is falling unless you see the shards.
If you can't sell it, you probably don't have a product. Asking people to live in fear is not a product worthy of our government or academe. Nor is the way out of climate change anything I want, especially if it means dismembering our public lands.
Ehrlich was right, if early. The deeper problem is still too many of us. But whether civilization will just collapse is not something anyone should predict. Rome lasted well past its life expectancy, even with gladiators, corrupt officials, and barbarian invasions. Who knows? We could even survive a Donald Trump or a Hillary Clinton, and yes, are likely to get our chance.
Thank you Alfred for an interesting comment. I agree "describe, analyze, tell the public what is going on", I think that is an excellent statement. There are many citizens and organizations trying to do that. Unfortunately we have the Communications Act of 1996 which has resulted in six major corporations now owning 90% of the TV stations, including Disney, Comcast, there are 4 more. Basically the same thing has happened with radio stations. The name of the game is ratings, that spells profit. What sells, sex, corruption, fear, intolerance, there is little left for well informed, in depth discussion of pressing issues, be it climate change, population, pesticides, public lands, well the list is lengthly. There all exceptions, NPR, Public Broadcasting, Democracy now and some excellent books and periodicals, all of which are out of the main stream. In any case, way off subject, and what do I know anyway, but I think you are right, the pressure is to come up with the science that free market advocates/neo liberals want to hear (free from regulation, taxation, environmental responsibility, concern for the labor that produces the wealth, etc. ) well,you risk unemployment if you do not.
Alfred and Ron, both good comments. They (and others here) help illustrate the fact that we have become so polarized in so many things, not only climate change but a few hundred others, that any discussion means digging in our heels and repeating the echoes in our heads instead of carefully LISTENING to what others are saying.
I'm not qualified to judge whether or not climate change is a huge, moderate, limited, or no threat at all. But I do believe that IF there is a chance that it is a threat that may ultimately cause harm to all of us, then maybe we ought to at least sit down and consider it so we can begin seeking sensible solutions.
Ron's comment about the paucity of unbiased news sources is exactly right --- and a large part of more than just the challenge of climate.
Paucity of news sources? While the left has captured the bulk of the traditional main stream media, thanks to the internet there are thousands of alternative news sources. I've cancelled my newspaper (its three days late with the "news") and don't watch TV news or commentary. My news comes from following a broad spectrum of internet based sites like this one. The information is out there, one just needs to make an effort to find it and do a little thinking on their own.