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.
Stories about:
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
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
Ah, nothing like bipartisan Congressional greed and pandering to their contributors. After all, aren't $$$$$$$$ more important than a bunch of coral and a few smelly fish? (Unless you've just caught one of them on your hook or want to drop your anchor on a reef.)
Even more pathetic is the fact that the conservation groups' goal is to preserve only a whopping 20% of Florida's coral reefs.
The only thing I have to say is only 6%? Jeez...
"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."
Holy guacamole! Real science doesn't have legislatively dictated values or results. The Florida delegation appears to have a serious case of cranial-rectal insertion:
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/science/article/What-31-science-orgs-just...
Thank you tahoma, unfortunately it appears science does have dictated values and results. On a related issue, dealing with "Today's New Contagions", a very informative article by Sonia Shah in this issue of the Nation Magazine lays it pretty well. Different issue but, as Lee Dalton point out in many of his posts, same results.
tahoma - if they are so right, why are their predictions based on their "science" so wrong? And why is the "science" produced by the state of Florida and less valid than the "science" used by the NPS? Or for that matter, the otherway around. I think all science should be considered. But I will say, I wish Congress would quit micromanaging.
All Science Matters.
Agreed Rick - all science that can produce predictable and reproducable results matters. Science that repeatedly makes grossly inaccurate predictions based on made up data, biased assumptions and manipulation is not "science".
Oh, oh. I think we're getting perilously close to global warming again. But yes, science is as easily corrupted as history. Just ask the two courts that recently ruled against the BLM for preparing woefully inadequate environmental impact statements favoring "green" energy at Searchlight, Nevada, and Steens Mountain, Oregon. Might Florida's "scientists" be influenced by whether or not they get to keep their jobs? Say it ain't so, Mr. Newton! But there it is--the real world we live in. And you can bet that the "science" being prepared by the State of Florida will not hold water in a court of law, as well. Now, if only you good people here would admit that on the public lands of the West. We're not losing our parks to global warming. We are rather losing them to everything else we do in the name of the economy and growth.
Agree Dr. Runte, but would add that our human contributions to climate change are part of the issue in the name of "economy and growth".
Protect our parks from corporate profit.
Part of the issue? What part? How big is that part? What part of the zero increase over the last 18 years was caused by human contributions?
I watched an excellent, but heart wrenching movie about the Holoaust recently. One scene in it reminded me in a shocking way of what seems to be an excellent parallel to today's climate deniers.
It's human nature to try to deny things that seem threatening and frightening. If I can deny that it's really happening, then maybe it's not.
In that movie's ending, prisoners at a death camp are being herded into the gas chamber. One of them looks around and plaintively whispers to another, "But it's only a shower, isn't it?"
Wouldn't the wiser choice for us now to be to look around and ask instead, "If this might really be happening, what can we do to stop it?"
Lee - all I can say is "disgusting". Equating holocaust deniers to climate deniers? Disgusting.
Yup. Both are.
So Rick, if you are so confident about climate change "science", please tell us why the predictions by that "science" have been so wrong. Simple question from which the Ricks, Ron, Tahoma, et al run like hell. Now that is what I call disgusting.
Although a marine reserve would indeed help preserve and restore the reefs, as stated by many, have the FWC, and Park Rangers check ALL boats coming in at public and private marinas for illegal catches. If they would enforce the already existing rules plus check on anchorages a lot of the existing problems would not be there. The answers lie in the enforcement of existing rules! Hire the manpower necessary and stop trying to close off and micromanage the boaters.
when's the last time you saw enforcement at the docks??? Rare. I've only seen it after an event like the regatta, they were there to arrest BUI. Only on rare occasions are they there to enforce existing rules.
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.
The information is out there, one just needs to make an effort to find it and do a little thinking on their own.
Right. But also make certain one is not reading and listening to only a one-sided echo chamber. Read, listen and consider what the other side presents, too. (Even if sometimes, you need to keep a barf bag handy.)
Y'never know. Y'might just learn something once in awhile --- even if it's just to learn what kind of people we need to watch out for . . . .
And, by the way, you ignored one key word in what I wrote. I did not say there is a paucity of news sources.
Lee, I'm afraid there are no and never have been totally unbiased news sources. Thats why I like to learn the facts and make my own conclusions rather than rely on opinions and baseless accusations.
Sadly, after nearly 40 years in professional journalism (man, that makes me sound old!), I would have to agree with EC, though some media are worse than others. I do find The Economist plays pretty darn close to the middle of the road, though...
So, like all the rest of us, Esteemed Comrade, you are forced to try to seek facts in a fib-filled world and reach your own opinions while making your own baseless accusations or misinterpreting comments of others, either accidentally or intentionally. I respect your right to do that, but disagree strongly with most of your conclusions.
Enjoy your Fourth. Safely.
Lee, I really don't think your last comment was warranted. Let's try to keep gratuitous comments off this site, and remember that dictum: If you wouldn't say it to someone's face, don't write it here.
Sorry, Kurt. I don't think it was gratuitious. I was simply trying to point out that he seems to be guilty of the same things he accuses others of doing. And if I had the opportunity, I would say it to him, just as I"m sure he'd say what he thinks to me. At least neither of us are hiding behind anonymity.
The modern explosion of instant media is a world shaking revolution -- at least as earth shaking as the advent of the printing press. But there is such a plethora of misinformation and deliberate deception out there it requires constant vigilence by all of us to try to pick and choose what may hopefully come from an honest and trustworthy source. To twist the words of someone else is not helping that.
So Lee, what baseless accusation have I made? I suppose I will get the same response I get to the question about climate "science" being so wrong. Crickets.
The old professor in me cannot resist reminding everyone to stay cool and enjoy the debate. At least there is a debate in the pages of The Traveler, which is more than I can say for the modern university with its speech codes, trigger warnings, and "safe zones." Just the other day, I met a young man attending the University of Washington who reminded me it is worse than I thought. What used to be the Western Civilization (sic) requirement is now the Diversity Requirement. Apparently, the baseless accusations fall like rain.
Then is it acid rain, or just plain rain? Of course, if it rains more than "usual" it is global warming! And you get an F in class if you dare say otherwise.
This is to explain why our country is such a mess. If we don't "hear" exactly what we want to hear, we have been instructed to think of the speaker as our opponent rather than a fellow citizen with the right to speak.
Who did that to the country? I will tell you. The ideologues who took over higher education and politics, and now want to finish off free speech once and for all.
Note that I did not put a partisan value on ideologues, but yes, the worst are to the left of the political spectrum, because to them the end justifies the means. In college, out of my 31 undergraduate classes, seven assigned the Communist Manifesto and only one the U.S. Constitution. Lenin and even Stalin could do no wrong.
I resisted, collecting my Ds and Cs (fortunately, we had pass/fail). But I never forgot who tried to shut me up, and who then ridiculed me for my perspective on things.
It's worse now in the country than it's ever been. And unless we get past it--and past it in a hurry--we soon will have no country. Keep that in my mind before throwing your bricks. They just might land on something that will never recover, such as the very idea of democracy itself.
Thank you Traveler for an interesting discussion, we maybe off topic on your blog as it is normally about parks and public lands. While off topic, I was interested in Dr Runte's post on free speech in our educational system. I have been out of the system for several years, so really have no recent experience in which to respond to his concern. I do not see this issue in my fire related duties and while working in the parks and forests. My own humble opinion is the ideology of our current economic policies where the concentration of wealth and corporate political influence, not seen since the 1820s, appears to be a bigger issue. In any case, interesting posts.
You invite an interesting point about corporations, Ron. If indeed the issue is "corporate political influence," how is it applied across the political spectrum? The direct application that most concerns me is how green energy conglomerates, for example, are using climate change to wrest control of our public lands, not to mention government loan guarantees, tax breaks, etc., that all add up to a multibillion-dollar subsidy. As just one result, we hear now that animal species are more important than individual animals, which we may need to kill in order to save the species. Huh? Only if we reduce climate change, the argument goes, will the species itself survive. Ensuring that, it may be "necessary" to kill a few thousand eagles in wind turbines, for example. As temperatures come down, more eagles will survive--and the species will be saved. The thousands that die in the interim are the necessary sacrifice we must make.
Is that science? No, it is the incredible logic you get when you allow a term like climate change to become a shortcut for critical thinking.
You're right. Corporations have done an excellent job of exploiting that absence of critical thinking. The point is: Who gave them the opportunity? Who is the censor when someone points out that eagles are doing just fine in an (allegedly) warming environment? Fine now, the censor says, but just wait until it gets warmer! We can't take that chance. We have to kill eagles now. How do we know we're right? We just do. We polled one another and agreed. The only way to save the planet is to remake it and trust that we are right.
This thread started with the obsevation that "paid" scientists find it difficult to remain objective. No one should wonder why.
I see no problem with "concentration of wealth" as long as it rises all boats. Unfortunately the entitlement mentality has widened the income disperity rather than narrowed it. As to corporate influence, the corporations don't have a single vote. The people get what they vote for.
I have to agree with our Esteemed Comrade. He is completely correct when he talks about the entitlement mentality of our corporations and wealthy individuals. And while corporations don't vote directly for legislators, they certainly do vote with campaign dollars and other contributions. Those people sure do get what they vote for -- or manage to purchase.
And Dr. Runte, with all due respect, corporate welfare and subsidies are rampant on all sides. That will continue until our law makers are no longer beholden to financial powers.
Well Lee I see we have crickets on your accusation. I guess we can rack that up to another of your baseless accusations.
As to buying votes, I have never received a penny for mine? Are you taking bribes for yours? I doubt it. Its the people that vote not corporations. And of course, I never talked of an entitlement mentality of corporations and wealthy individuals. The only things they asked to be entitled to is what they have earned. Neither corporations or wealthy individuals have gotten a single dollar from you that you haven't given willingly. Only the government can force you to pay for something you don't want.
I don't know, EC. I never "voted" to give General Electric, et al. carte blanche over my public lands. As you argue, "the only things" wealthy individuals and corporations are "entitled to is what they have earned." How did they "earn" that right? The truth is: They didn't earn it; President Obama gave it to them, along with Interior Secretaries Salazar and Jewell. They did it under their authority as our elected and/or appointed officials. But the general public never got a say. They got my "dollar," as you put it, by lobbying Congress and the President. They saw the power in their dollars and made it work for them.
I believe that what Lee is referring to is the abuse of that process in Washington. What I am referring to is how "forgiving" Democrats are when the process works for them--and how uncritical they are when a Democratic president is the one behind these generous giveaways. So long as it is President Obama, the scientific method goes out the window and the 97 percent rule is invoked. The point is: We are not polled; we are not asked. We are rather told to accept the result.
You're right about those crickets. Then how about another term? How about desert tortoises? How about eagles? How about the life we are snuffing out to make green energy work?
Other than predictions that all of the snuffing out is necessary, I don't see a lick of science. So yes, I happen to agree with Lee on one point. That is corporate power--and government initiative--run amok.
Back to Biscayne Bay. In management good science matters, but now we understand the problem. Government scientists are no more "independent" than university scientists when they are told to walk the line. If it weren't for government grants, half of my university neighbors would be out of work. So you had better believe they walk the line.
You say: "Only the government can force you to pay for something you don't want." Better said, the system will make you pay if you don't walk the line.
Happy Fourth!
Alfred, you may not have voted for Obama and his co-conspirators but more people did than voted for the other guy. The result is not the fault of GE or any other corporation, its the fault of those that voted these globalists, entitlement driven, we know what good for you people in.
Agreed, Alfred, with a couple of corrections. It's not only Democrats. It's all of them regardless of party. It's not only the president nor current Secretary of Interior. It's all of them, regardless of party. Somehow, we have to find a way to teach voters to look beyond the propaganda spewed by both parties and learn what they are REALLY doing.
The only thing that might --- just might --- bring about change is a wholesale housecleaning in Washington and in our state capitols.
But even if anyone were to actually try to do it, those with the dollars will find a way to get their feet and fingers and fists into the door -- and into our wallets.
Again, good points from both of you. Then how are we to know, as Lee puts it, exactly "what they are really doing?" The late Garrett Hardin suggested we look at the adjectives, in short, how adjectives are applied to establish a taboo. His favorite phrase, not actually an adjective, was "You can't fight City Hall." Of course you can and you must. His point was that the politicians in City Hall wanted you to believe just the opposite. And so, as we find today in Congress, the turnover is barely five percent.
As with Brexit, the breakthrough will come when the general public no longer accepts the taboo. Once they talk about City Hall, the jig is up. This year, I don't trust a single poll. I believe the presidential election will be extremely close, for the same reasons most of the bureaucrats and politicians in Great Britain got it wrong. As Abraham Lincoln said, you simply can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Unfortunately, neither side is offering us another Lincoln. But they are getting the message that people are angry about unwanted change. People want rational change, not a rush to judgment. They are ready to fight City Hall for imposing changes that are costly and insincere. The next four months will indeed be interesting. And who knows? It may all turn out well for parks, since they keep proving how much Americans care for them, no matter which side of the political fence people are on.
The only way they get into your wallets is if you open your wallet to them.
Now how about that "baseless accusation" I made. Please identify it or admit, that was just another of your baseless accusations.