INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
Yet another case of the republican office holders defying science for the benefit of special interests.As the superintendent mentioned, disappointing, but not surprising.
Agree Rick B., and even more troubling, little if any respect or understanding of the issue of sustainability of this ecological wonder.
Once again Rick, in his attempt to politicize the non-political, mis-characterizes the issue to make it seem more dire than it is. All this does is ask that the State fish and wildlife management agencies participate in the process. Are these State fish and wildlife management agencies ignorant or uncaring of the science? I doubt it. In fact with State participation, the NPS is likely to get more buy-in from the indigenous population.
I suspect the NPS "science" is the problem, it's been proven over and over to be biased and inadequate. I'll bet the USFWS doesn't agree with the NPS.
For those wondering about the benefits of a marine reserve zone at Biscayne National Park, you might be interested in the findings of the National Park Service AND the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission on the benefits of a similar area at Dry Tortugas National Park, called the Research Natural Area.
You can find the report here:
http://www.nps.gov/ever/learn/nature/upload/DRTORNA5YrFINALComplete04092...
Sorry folks have to observe the ad hominem towards me.
Noticing a career politician's political politicalizing is not quite the same as me politicizing a discussion. In deference to Kurt's living room here, I'll leave it at that.
"Noticing a career politician's political politicalizing is not quite the same as me politicizing a discussion."
What the heck does that mean?
" you might be interested in the findings of the National Park Service AND the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission on the benefits of a similar area at Dry Tortugas National Park, called the Research Natural Area."
And if the Commission came to the same conclusion in Biscayne, there is nothing in the proposed legislation that would prevent the plan from going forward.
"Noticing a career politician's political politicalizing is not quite the same as me politicizing a discussion."
There was no "political politicalizing". There were Congressmen looking to get all affected parties involved.
ec
In answer to Anon of 12/12 where he says " Are these State fish and wildlife management agencies ignorant or uncaring of the science? I doubt it", read what the Tampa Bay Times has to say about those same fish and wildlife people and what they plan to do about the critically endangered Florida Panther:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/wildlife/over-scientists-object...
Make sure you read the whole story and not just the headline.
Thank you Bogator and Matt Schwartz, your comments were right on. The Tampa Bay article was quite interesting. I have been on both sides of the table when good science is over ridden by political boards, it is the system, and depending on who is running the show, some bad decisions are made.
Too bad the representatives drafting the letter were not in attendance at the meeting held by the National Park Service where hundreds of attendees were randomly assigned to about a dozen focus groups. Those groups talked and then reported their discussions. While there were dissenting voices, the majority of those present - including many representatives from the fishing community - were solidly in support of the creation of the marine reserve. The science which demonstrates the benefits of marine reserves in the world and in Florida is overwhelmingly supportive. See -
http://www.protectplanetocean.org/somr/ReserveEffects.html
Fishermen working against this reserve are hooking themselves in the foot here. The Biscayne National Park marine reserve will increase fish size, diversity, and numbers in marine waters throughout the park. It will also protect the fragile reef from damage from fishing debris, anchors, and groundings. And it will give non-fishing folks a chance to experience an ecologically intact reef. How many places in the US are open to fishing - and how many coral reefs exist in national parks within the mainland of the continental United States? This is a rare and precious resource - it needs the limited protection a 10,000 acre marine reserve in a 170,000 acre national park will provide.
Matt Schwartz - South Florida Wildlands Association
"read what the Tampa Bay Times has to say"
It says the Commissioners didn't pass a faulty plan. Sounds like they did their job.
They haven't done their job yet. They just put the decision off until September. Knowing Florida politics like I do, the ranchers have a lot of clout.
As someone who participated in the meetings I thought the public had ample opportunity to participate. Florida needs to protect this valuable resource. This is a modest step in the right direction. Anglers need to look to the future. A reserve in this area will generate bigger fish and more fishing around it and preserve valuable reefs. It is a win-win for everyone. It is a shame that his well thought out modest proposal is being second guessed by members of congress who never bothered to attend the meetings or study the issues.
Not doing something now would be a major problem to the future of fishing in south Florida. Too many anglers seeking fewer and fewer fish. There is a limit and the general public does not want to admit it. Everyone wants their share with no thought to the future. Marine Reserves are in place all over the planet and have in most cases worked very well producing more and bigger fish.