Newborn deaths,
boat deaths hit highs for manatees in 2008
It has been
another bad year for manatee deaths and the FWC makes lemonade out of lemons
with a press release stating “number of documented manatee deaths remain below
the five-year average of 357”
Both sides of
the story; record number of new born deaths and press release documents are
below. Read them and keep in mind that there are about 3,200 Floridian
Manatees in the 1,400 miles of Florida’s coastline that they share with
over one million registered boats. The odds of a manatee not getting hit
by a boat at least once a year are high.
The 2008
Manatee Mortality Information page has been updated with Preliminary December
mortality numbers and the 2008 Yearly Summary. The information can be found at
http://research.myfwc.com/features/view_article.asp?id=14855.
There is a
hotspot of manatee abuse being reported daily by a group trying to protect the
manatees at Crystal River. Manateewatchgroup on Yahoo
at http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/manateewatchinggroup/
is a small group of people trying to protect the manatees from a few
unscrupulous tour operators that encourage their customers to interact with
the manatees’ way past the point of harassment.
I have
newspaper stories URLs dating back to 2003 in my archives that list a manatee
abuse story about every six months at Crystal River. I am glad these folks are
carrying on the fight to protect these manatees and I am glad that some of the
tour operators are trying to set up a professional association to encourage
proper manatee encounters only. I hope that there are those on both
sides that can find each other and work together.
What has
manatee harassment at Crystal
River, the largest manatee refuge on
the Gulf
Coast, got to do with the
rising death rate of newborn manatees? It is the only place in
Florida
where anyone can swim with manatees. Newborn manatee calves with a tail
as soft as the top of a newborn human baby’s head. For the first ten
days of a manatee calves life his tail is more like chiffon than a solid
manatee’s tail.
Among other
things during the first ten days he has to learn to coordinate the two
membranes in each nostril to open in sync while out of the water in order for
comfortable breathing and learn to remember to keep both the membranes shut
while underwater.
At Crystal
River, one of the most photographed and complained about manatee encounters
used by the few unscrupulous tour operators is to separate a manatee cow from
her newborn calf, then catch the calf in order for his customers to rub and
pet.
Is it possible
that the few unscrupulous manatee tour operators at Crystal River, those that catch manatee calves,
somehow contributed to the increased newborn manatee death rate?
Stan
Meeks
Manatee
Advocate
Suwannee River
Keepers, Inc.
_______________________________________________________________________
Newborn deaths, boat deaths hit highs for manatees in
2008
ST. PETERSBURG -- State biologists reported today
that they hauled in a total of 337 manatee carcasses last year and a record
number were newborns.
The Florida Fish and Wildlife
Research Institute in St. Petersburg reported 101 newborn manatees
turned up dead. Last year they found 59 dead
newborns.
The biologists also determined that
90 of the 337 manatees had been killed by speeding boats, seven of them off
Pinellas
County.
That's the third-highest figure for
watercraft-related manatee deaths in the past decade, a clear increase from
the 73 killed by boats last year. The record, 95, was set in 2002, and in 2006
boaters killed 92 manatees.
Martine DeWitt, associate research
scientist at the St.
Petersburg lab, said the increase in dead newborns is
apparently not connected to the increase in boat-related deaths. Biologists
say it could be that more manatee calves were born last year, or that more of
the newborn carcasses were recovered than usual.
[Image of
injured manatee from U.S. Geological
Survey]
--Craig Pittman, Times staff
writer
_______________________________________________________________________
FWC-FWRI Press
Release
For immediate
release: January 5, 2009
FWC releases
preliminary 2008 manatee mortality data
Biologists
with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission’s
(FWC) Fish and
Wildlife Research Institute documented 337 manatee carcasses in state waters
in 2008. The low number of red tide-related mortalities last year helped the
number of documented manatee deaths remain below the five-year average of
357.
Watercraft
strikes and prenatal (newborn) deaths were the two most commonly documented
manatee mortality categories in 2008. The numbers for both categories were
above the five-year average. Biologists documented 90 watercraft-related
deaths and a record high of 101 newborn deaths.
Biologists
report that a variety of factors could have contributed to the high number of
newborn deaths in 2008. These factors include the possibility that there were
more manatee births or that biologists recovered a higher proportion of
manatee calf carcasses.
The FWC uses
trends in mortality figures to monitor ongoing and emerging threats to the
manatee population. Throughout the year, FWC researchers, managers and law
enforcement staff work closely together to evaluate mortality data and
identify necessary actions. FWC law enforcement, in cooperation with partner
agencies, uses knowledge of local boating habits, well-posted speed zones, and
up-to-date manatee information to focus on-the-water enforcement operations.
Enforcing manatee protection zones and informing boaters about manatee
conservation is a priority for the FWC.
To report a
dead or injured manatee, call the FWC Wildlife Alert hotline at
888-404-FWCC.
For additional
information about manatee conservation, visit MyFWC.com/manatee. For more
information on manatee mortality research, visit http://research.MyFWC.com/manatees
Stan
Meeks
Manatee
Advocate
Suwannee
Rivers Keepers,
Inc,
The coal ash spill in Tennessee last month is putting a
spotlight on whether the ash from 450 other power plants around the country could be contaminating
the nation's drinking water supplies
January 8,
2009
To: Lake
County Commissioners and Lake County Water
Authority
Cc: Leonard E.
Wheeler, Jr., BSIT, MPA, REM & Skip
Goerner
From: Ronald E. Ney, Jr.,
Ph.D.
Subject: Court Cancels EPA Clean Water
Act Exemption for Pesticides
This case may mean that putting that mess from the alum cleanup process
and other cleanup processes back in waters may now be in violation of the Clean
Water Act.
Ron Ney
Sent: Thursday, January 08,
2009 1:53 AM
Subject: (ENS) World News January
7, 2009
Court Cancels EPA Clean Water
Act Exemption for Pesticides
CINCINNATI, Ohio, January 7, 2009 (ENS) - Environmental groups today
celebrated their victory as an appeals court vacated a U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency rule that has allowed pesticides to be applied to U.S. waters
without a Clean Water Act permit.
On November 27, 2007, the EPA issued the
final rule, which states that pesticides applied in accordance with the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA, are exempt from the Clean
Water Act's permitting requirements.
The Clean Water Act regulates the
discharge of pollutants into the nation's waters by, among other things,
requiring entities that emit pollutants to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System, NPDES, permit.
For nearly 30 years before adoption of
the rule, pesticide labels issued under the FIFRA were required to contain a
notice stating that the pesticide could not be "discharged into lakes, streams,
ponds, or public waters unless in accordance with an NPDES permit."
Two different groups of petitioners, one
representing environmental interest groups and the other representing industry
interest groups, for different reasons opposed the rule as exceeding the EPA's
interpretive authority.
The EPA defends the rule by arguing that
the terms of the Clean Water Act are ambiguous and that the rule is a reasonable
construction of the Clean Water Act.
In their decision, a three-judge panel
of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote, "We
cannot agree. The Clean Water Act is not ambiguous. Therefore, we hold that the
EPA's Final Rule is not a reasonable interpretation of the Act and vacate the
Final Rule."
|
|
|
This farmer sprays his vegetables with
pesticide from a boat. (Photo by the Guo
Project) |
"The decision today is a victory for
clean water, and for fish and wildlife," declared Charlie Tebbutt, Western
Environmental Law Center attorney and lead counsel for the environmental
organizations and organic farms that challenged the rule.
The organizations bringing the case
include Baykeeper, National Center for Conservation Science and Policy, Oregon
Wild, Saint John's Organic Farm, Californians for Alternatives to Toxics,
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Waterkeeper Alliance, Environment
Maine, Toxics Action Center, Peconic Baykeeper and Soundkeeper.
"This decision is another in a long line
of rebukes to the Bush administration policies that overstepped their statutory
authority and to the chemical manufacturers who peddle their poisons without
concern to the effect on human health and the environment," said Tebbutt. "We
look forward to working with the new EPA to protect the environment rather than
the chemical industry."
The industry petitioners were the
Agribusiness Association of Iowa, BASF Corporation, Bayer CropScience, CropLife
America, Delta Council, Eldon C. Stutsman, Inc., FMC Corporation, Illinois
Fertilizer & Chemical Association, The National Cotton Council of America,
Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment, Southern Crop Production
Association, and Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc.
With the intention of broadening the EPA
exemption, they argued that the EPA rule is "arbitrary and capricious" because
it treats pesticides applied in violation of the FIFRA as pollutants, while it
treats the very same pesticides used in compliance with the FIFRA as
non-pollutants.
The
court denied their claim and ruled that pesticide residues and biological
pesticides constitute pollutants under federal law and therefore must be
regulated under the Clean Water Act in order to minimize the impact to human
health and the environment.
"This decision will help ensure, in
communities across the country, that aquatic pests are addressed in ways that
protect both water quality and the public health," said Chuck Caldart of the
National Environmental Law Center, one of the attorneys representing the
plaintiffs.
"We're thrilled by the court's decision
- particularly in providing clarity on the aerial applications of pesticides
over navigable waters for mosquito control," said Peconic Baykeeper Kevin
McAllister. "Ensuring that the required discharge permits have been obtained
provides for greater protection of our water resources."
"Time and again during these past eight
years EPA has walked into federal courts and tried to defend absolutely
indefensible rules like the one vacated today," said Waterkeeper Alliance Legal
Director Scott Edwards. "And time and again they've been sent back to the
drawing board to rewrite these unlawful rules. Hopefully,
EPA's days of pandering to industry and other polluters and wasting taxpayers
dollars in illegal rulemaking are drawing to a welcome close."
"This is a significant victory for our
nation's waters. More than eight million pounds of pesticides are applied each
year in the Bay Area alone," said Sejal Choksi, program director for San
Francisco Baykeeper. "These toxic chemicals enter our creeks harming numerous
species of fish, frog and other aquatic life and will now be regulated under the
Clean Water Act."
"Pesticides have been documented as the
most pervasive group of toxic pollutants in our waterways. This decision is a
significant step forward in protecting and restoring our seriously degraded
fisheries," said Bill Jennings, chairman and executive director of the
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance.
Steve Pedery, Oregon Wild conservation
director, said, "When it comes to toxic pesticides and their effects on our
rivers and salmon, we need to be certain that good science is being used and
those resources are protected. This ruling is a victory for clean water and
fish, and a victory for Americans who care about healthy rivers and streams."
Copyright Environment
News Service (ENS) 2009. All rights reserved.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
Defending
U.S. Waters at Supreme Court |
 |
|
|
| Lower
Slate Lake, at the center of the case, after
surrounding trees were cut down and access roads
built. |
|
Dear Merrillee,
The first case before the U.S. Supreme
Court in 2009 will be argued on Monday by Earthjustice as
we oppose a combined attack on our nation's waterways by the
Bush administration and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
We are sending out this news alert to our
supporters because of the issue's great
significance.
Bush and Palin are jointly asking the
Supreme Court to re-interpret the Clean Water Act so that the
mining industry can dump its wastes in streams, rivers and
lakes throughout America. They want permission to kill every
fish and organism in a particular waterway if
necessary.
The only obstacle to achieving their
ambitions is Earthjustice.
Arguing the case is Earthjustice attorney
Tom Waldo, whose appearance before the Supreme Court climaxes
a successful, years-long battle in lower courts to
prevent a mining company from killing a pristine Alaska
lake with chemically treated waste. It's this case the
high court is hearing on Monday.
But, as Tom knows all too well, the
stakes are much higher than one small lake. An adverse
decision would make a shambles of the Clean Water Act and the
waters it is supposed to protect.
The threat is especially imminent in
Alaska, whose governor openly promotes unrestrained dumping of
mine tailings because of the mining boom it could ignite. The
first venture to benefit would be the proposed Pebble Mine—a
monster gold mine planned to operate above Alaska's remarkable
Bristol Bay, home to the world's richest sockeye salmon
fishery. Dumping mine wastes into its waters could be
disastrous.
As a supporter of Earthjustice, you have
the opportunity to read a live report from the Supreme
Court on Monday through our blog, unEarthed. The case will be heard at 10
a.m. (EST), and we expect to have our first blog report
shortly after noon.
Regards,
Trip Van Noppen
President,
Earthjustice
P.S. As you can imagine, the costs of
preparing for this historic case—and the many critical cases
we're working on right now—are staggering, and we rely on your
support to succeed. Won't you please consider making a special tax-deductible gift today
to help support our legal work on behalf of the
environment? | |
|
©2009
Earthjustice | 426 17th Street, 6th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612 |
510-550-6700 | action@earthjustice.org |
|
Visit your
subscription
management page to modify your email communication preferences,
update your personal profile or remove yourself from ALL email lists
maintained by
Earthjustice.
| |
