federal officials asking for public imput on Manatee protection

[archman]

well here is the typical uninformed, I would say FL citizen, but I see your from Texas. The manatee #'s are on the rise according to the last year state count. The Save the Save the Manatee Club has dooped the general public long enough and it has caught up to them.

Neither courteous nor accurate. In the future please provide facts to back up insults. Not only am I not from Texas nor "uninformed", but those "manatee rises" you're referring to only apply to less than 20% of the Florida population. There are a great many reports and articles that conveniently omit this, a great deal of these are spread by the Florida CCA.
http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2004/09/research.html
http://www.wildlifetrust.org/manpres2.htm

I have supplied some educational material to peruse.
http://endangered.fws.gov/i/a/saa0c.html
http://www.fpl.com/environment/endangered/pdf/manatee.pdf

The manatee is up for delisting because alot of people have worked hard to use real science to disprove SMC lies and tall tales - that cant be disputed.

This isn't true either. The "delisting" is purely administrative. Thank you for making me take the time to research it.

The IUCN's ranking system was adopted by Florida in the late '90's, and their system classifies animals differently. To now be "endangered" under IUCN criteria (which is technically referred to as "critically endangered"), you must be on the brink of extinction. Florida's definition was previously much more broad, including criteria that to the IUCN would be ranked as "threatened". What is making resource managers uneasy is the public's misconception that changing the classification scheme implies that many species are suddenly being demoted to a reduced status. They're not. Being "threatened" under the IUCN rules is actually a much bigger deal than how Florida originally laid their own definitions to the same word. But Florida no longer uses that old system, so being "threatened" actually gives a species more teeth, so to speak.
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050415/NEWS01/504150327/1006
http://www.savethemanatee.org/tadownlistsummary.htm

 

[reefsavers.org]

heres the link from FWS and theres more where that came from. The first is the page,the second link is a download for critical habitat report reguarding the manatee.

http://northflorida.fws.gov/manatee

download .pdf
http://northflorida.fws.gov/manatee/documents/critical-habitat-manatee.pdf

hope this helps out everyone.....

 

[Walter]

I have no problem with speed zones, but why restrict docks?

 

[FL_Chad]

I have no problem with speed zones, but why restrict docks?

Because for years the SMC has pissed on our legs and told us it is raining and thier idea is that if they can stop people from building docks then that means they wont get a boat. Less boats means less manatee accidents in their minds. Someone that wants a boat gets one and if they cant get a dock, they park it at their house until they can.

Hey Archman - all i have to go on is what your info says and it says texas so dont get mad about that. None of your links hold any water except the FWS one. SMC site SURE as hell doesnt. FL Today, the paper in my county, puts out mis information about the manatee on a weeky basis. FPL link - come on man - it was written for the FPL BY SMC. Besides, it is great for the power companies (from a business standpoint) that they can dump their warm water discharge right in the river. Of course they are going to be in support of that. They got their hands tied when the govt told them they have to do that since all the lawsuits. And speaking of lawsuits - take a look at the public budget for the SMC - I dont recall the percentage, but a staggering majority of it goes to salaries and lawyers. hmmmmmmm

The bottom line is - spend some time on the water and you will see there are tons of manatees and enforcing the current rules should be the first order of business before people start spouting about raising their level of concern, unsubstaniated, I might add. I am just curious - were you against delisting the alligator and re-opening the (lottery style) hunting season?

By the way - I have a "Join COASTAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION" sticker on my boat.

 

[archman]

Less boats means less manatee accidents in their minds.

Backed up by scientific research. At least 30% of recent manatee deaths come from boat altercations... that actual number of animals hit annually has doubled since the 1980's. A 30% single-source factor is extraordinary.

None of your links hold any water except the FWS one. SMC site SURE as hell doesnt. FL Today, the paper in my county, puts out mis information about the manatee on a weeky basis. FPL link - come on man - it was written for the FPL BY SMC. Besides, it is great for the power companies (from a business standpoint) that they can dump their warm water discharge right in the river. Of course they are going to be in support of that.

These are all valid points, provided that you point out where the errors from these sources are. Being a pro-manatee organization does not imply that one's scientific research is flawed. By this same argument, any pro-boating/fishing group (i.e. the CCA) would similarly be construed as a "biased source". I did look into CCA web documents briefly, and it appears that the bulk of their arguments regarding manatees stems from a single report by Tom Fraser. And while a excellent document to read, it's results bear the fatal flaw of only factoring in the two smallest subsets of manatee populations in Florida. The other two populations comprise the majority of the population, and neither appears to be doing better than status quo.
Here's a link to Fraser's 2001 report: http://www.ccaflorida.org/updates/Mar26_manatee.htm

And here's the links to USGS' stuff. They've got the most up-to-date info, and are the lead research agency.
http://cars.er.usgs.gov/Manatees/mms_pubs/mms_pubs.html
http://cars.er.usgs.gov/Manatees/manatees.html
http://cars.er.usgs.gov/basis/Projects/projects.html#manatee
http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2004/09/research.html

The bottom line is - spend some time on the water and you will see there are tons of manatees and enforcing the current rules should be the first order of business before people start spouting about raising their level of concern, unsubstaniated, I might add.

If concern really is unsubstantiated, please provide links or figures to correct us. The data I have scanned from government sources show otherwise. I do agree that enforcement (or lack of enforcement) of existing rules is a major flaw in the current system. As a private boat captain in the lower Keys, I witnessed watercraft-related violations on a near-daily basis. There was virtually zero enforcement presence from the state or feds.

Back to manatee's, there is little indication of manatee's being considered for increased protection. The current concern by the public deals directly with this IUCN-designation thing. The adopted titles don't correspond to the old titles, and make certain species look less "endangered" on paper. From the mouths of the regulatory agencies themselves

"We just passed this, but every species that was listed an hour ago is still listed exactly where it was before," said Kim Jamerson, a spokeswoman for Florida Fish and Wildlife.

Regarding the American Alligator, that species was delisted on it's own merits. Entirely separate issue from today; there was only one classification system in place at the time, and alligators recovered sufficiently enough for legitimate delisting within that system. Here is a lising of some such species.
http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/Biodiversity/biodv-18a.cfm

The U.S. Geological Survey refers to the American Alligator (and Brown Pelican) as best-case successes, their recoveries by no means reflect the average.
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wildlife/recoprog/delist.htm

 

[FL_Chad]

I wasnt saying that, in general, less boats dont equal less accidents. That would be obvious right (0 boats would equal 0 accidents)? My point was in the context of the dock building SMC apparently thinks if you cant get a dock built, then that home owner wont buy a boat, had they planned to otherwise.

So, "correct us" you say - are you a member of SMC? Just curious.

I dont mean this rudely, but I didnt want a lecture on the alligator thing - I was just asking your own personal opinion of it at the time they de listed it.

By this same argument, any pro-boating/fishing group (i.e. the CCA) would similarly be construed as a "biased source".

Not an apples to apples comparison. SMC is openly anti boater - Pati Thompson is on record saying what a great place it would be without power boats. So, I dont know any anglers or boat owners that are anti manatee. All we want is to be treated fairly. I recognize that years ago something needed to be done for protection and it was and it has worked. Again, the counts have proven that. Now you dispute the very counts that SMC used to leverage off of that the manatee was on the verge of extenction.

My argument started with your bolstering that we needed more protection. That is just a wild, extreme, off the handle statement. It would be like me saying - I think we should remove all manatee and slow zones since manatee's numbers are rising. Not gonna sit here and debate this stuff anymore. Your point has been made over the last 15 or so years and now so is "ours". Otherwise, the state would not be considering this, IMO. over and out

 

[archman]

So, "correct us" you say - are you a member of SMC? Just curious.

No, I'm a community-scale marine ecologist with zero affiliation to any non-government lobby in Florida. I'm about as issue neutral as one can get, yet still wade through the itty-gritty of the government reports with ease.

I dont mean this rudely, but I didnt want a lecture on the alligator thing - I was just asking your own personal opinion of it at the time they de listed it.

Ah, well fortunately you haven't seen my "lectures". They're quite a sight. My previous remarks were little more than a blurb. I didn't want to hijack the thread with a discussion on alligator population structure and distribution histories. I know a lot more about 'gators than I do about manatees, 'course so does the government.

I recognize that years ago something needed to be done for protection and it was and it has worked. Again, the counts have proven that. Now you dispute the very counts that SMC used to leverage off of that the manatee was on the verge of extenction.

The counts are off, and the government admits to it. Check the recent USGS reports. Even Fraser's report discusses the inherent problems in synoptic surveys. I'm not siding with any NGO group; I'm merely reitering what the feds are saying right now. They have new data to complement the old data.

My argument started with your bolstering that we needed more protection. That is just a wild, extreme, off the handle statement. It would be like me saying - I think we should remove all manatee and slow zones since manatee's numbers are rising.

Seeing as how I didn't supply any details as to what that "protection" might entail, there is little reason to label it "wild", "extreme", or "off the handle".

Not gonna sit here and debate this stuff anymore. Your point has been made over the last 15 or so years and now so is "ours". Otherwise, the state would not be considering this, IMO. over and out

I suppose by "ours" you are designating yourself as a member of the boating/fishing demographic. That's fair, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I did however expect more than heated rhetoric and ancedotal comments to support the position of your constituent group. The lack of such would tend to support the views of the opposing lobby, which I'm assuming is the Save the Manatee group. My only connection to that group is visiting their website; I conferred the same respects to the CCA's website.

I am also unaware of the state considering delisting of the manatee for population reasons. As I have previously stated and web-linked, delisting is purely for administrative purposes. The only way in which manatees might lose protective status is if the legislators are unaware of the incorporation of the IUCN standards-change, and mistakenly associate the older definition of "threatened" to the IUCN version. That is a very valid concern, however. Political environments thrive on misinformation.

 

[CBulla]

Don't forget that Red Tide has been a HUGE contributor towards manatee deaths in the last few years. Lately red tide has been a phenomina that is being kicked off by man made pollutions making its way into the waterways creating the right conditions for the algae bloom to occur. Of course, this bloom has not only affected the manatee's but all the fish population as well. The ultimate effect is the out of control growth, land clearing, and environmental altercations to create these "golf mecca" housing communities, condo towns, etc., has had a very direct and adverse effect on the surrounding and down stream enviroments. The destruction has occured so quickly that many of us who are natives to these areas view them as basically destroyed compared to what we had available as little as 6 to 10 years ago.

 

[archman]

Don't forget that Red Tide has been a HUGE contributor towards manatee deaths in the last few years.

Ironically, it was the red tide mass mortalities that pointed a glaring finger at the inaccuracies of the aerial manatee surveys used for so long. They didn't discern a drop in manatee populations the year(s) the red tide outbreak occurred.

 

[reefsavers.org]

Don't forget that Red Tide has been a HUGE contributor towards manatee deaths in the last few years. Lately red tide has been a phenomina that is being kicked off by man made pollutions making its way into the waterways creating the right conditions for the algae bloom to occur. Of course, this bloom has not only affected the manatee's but all the fish population as well. The ultimate effect is the out of control growth, land clearing, and environmental altercations to create these "golf mecca" housing communities, condo towns, etc., has had a very direct and adverse effect on the surrounding and down stream enviroments. The destruction has occured so quickly that many of us who are natives to these areas view them as basically destroyed compared to what we had available as little as 6 to 10 years ago.

hey cbulla it gets even better than that I developed equipment and the process to remove red tides and other floating algae blooms however without funding we are unable to use them. Theres countless solutions to solving a large percentage of the enviromental problems in our state including pepper trees. Ill give you one example, the citrus canker problem. The state has issued and passed legislation to allow the eradication of citrus trees on private property and has takin the initative to remove any infected tree. Bazilian Pepper which is a greater threat than citrus canker, is growing in abundance along state and federal managed roadways etc.
I think there should be an equal priority of the two. Set regulations to include private land owners to remove pepper trees from their properties and also set up programs such as county correctional workers assistance programs where inmates for non violent
crimes can work for early release. That would also eliviate over crowding in our prison system. Theres also volunteer groups such as pepper busters who could use funding to purchase equipment and employ workers. Impose specific regulations that forbid fertilizing lawns during rainy months, its hotter and fertilizers are not needed. this would allow the aquafer to recover from large impacts of pcps and nitrogen deposits as the result of run-off. I really think we dont regulate fertilization and other impacts along our coastline enough. I can show you many toxic storm water drains and areas where large amounts of petroleums and other chemicals are being washed into the Indian river Lagoon and the Atlantic. I once saw a guy dump 5 gallons of enamel base paint into the storm water discharge running 600' feet into the Indian River Lagoon. It was'nt a good day for that guy and he was no longer employed and his boss ended up removing 12 yards of material and re-sodding the area. I didnt have to contact DEP or Police I simply explained that I would and could and He knew I was serious enough.
Theres allot of ways to save our planet. Theres not enough people who want to help pay for it.... I talk to people on the beach about the enviroment and occasionaly I get some idiot that thinks hes better than everyone, who says "I dont care about the beach I just came down here to relax". That guy usually gets my "get off my beach speech" and he goes home with a little more knowledge and respect.
You probably do this already but if you dont. Next time you go to the grocery store and the guy ask Paper or plastic? Tell him paper and then tell him why. Plastic bags like you get at walmart or publix are little disasters to our ocean enviroment. Seaturtles choke on them birds get tangled in them fish get wrapped up in them and they are not very biodegradable. paper however disolves quickly and it has a feature of sinking to the bottom and breaking down unlike plastic thats floats and can travel great distances. If I had a dollar for every walmart bag I picked up off the beach Id be a rich man. Boycott companys that are not enviroment friendly. One example is Wendys restaurant on the beach in Indianatlantic They allow trash to blow all over the parking lot and it ends up in the water and on the beach. I've been there to ask them to clean it up. The manager said because it was dark they could not let employees walk around the parking lot to clean it up, meanwhile the workers are walking over it on break smoking a cigarette and the kids not even old enough to smoke. Thanks for helping me keep this post alive. By the way Ive got some time off this week if you want to dive? The weather will be getting better here around wed.