[Coral-List] political arguments on coral-list
dgriffin at usgs.gov
Thu May 22 14:30:35 EDT 2014
Sorry Mike.....I wasn't referring to your email reference the refrain from
send.......I was siding with you :)
On Thursday, May 22, 2014, Michael Risk <riskmj at mcmaster.ca> wrote:
> You should see me when I am emotional. This is nothing. And your
> implication that I sent that original message when I was all emotioned up
> suggests that it should not have been sent. You should reconsider that
> I was annoyed that a bureaucrat could so blithely slag one of our finest
> reef scientists by implying he was past it, had lost it. It was insulting
> and demeaning.
> Billy owes Gene a public apology, posted to this same forum. And when he
> has completed that task, he can let us all know what specific science-based
> steps he has undertaken to reverse the slide in Florida’s reefs, and what
> their success has been. Data on long-term viability would be useful...
> An illustrative anecdote: perhaps 10-12 years ago, I was invited to
> Florida to review the various reef-monitoring efforts that were under way..
> I had spent the previous decade-odd working in Asia, and was unaware of
> conditions in the Caribbean.
> I was staggered by the results of the Porter-Jaap-Dustan-Kosmynin-Wheaton
> surveys, that documented the speed of the decline. By definition, the
> situation qualified as a “regional mass extinction”. I used that specific
> phrase in my final report, and someone at NOAA took it out.
> I think I am merely articulating what many out there have been thinking
> for years.
> On May 22, 2014, at 1:15 PM, Griffin, Dale <dgriffin at usgs.gov> wrote:
> As usual good points Mike......as has been discussed in the past on the
> coral list, sometimes it's best not to hit the email send button if you're
> feeling a bit emotional......
> On Thursday, May 22, 2014, Michael Risk <riskmj at mcmaster.ca> wrote:
> > Billy:
> > When Gene started working in Florida, coral cover was about 45%. It is
> > now less than 4%.
> > It is obvious that "management" is failing. Instead of railing against
> > Gene, you might give some thought as to the points he makes. Citing the
> > complexity of the system is management-speak for, "we have no idea what
> > we are doing."
> > Mike
> On May 20, 2014, at 7:03 PM, Billy Causey - NOAA Federal <
> billy.causey at noaa.gov> wrote:
> > Gene,
> > Please don 't pretend you know what Sanctuary management is about.
> > You are way off the mark and have no idea of the complexity in
> > managing 2900 sq nautical miles (9800 sq k) of some of the nation 's
> > most significant and heavily- used marine resources with about 28
> > different jurisdictions.
> > The solutions and answers are no where close to as simple as you imply.
> > When is sailing off into the sunset on your agenda?
> > Billy
> > Billy D. Causey, Ph.D.
> > Southeast Regional Director
> > NOAA's Office of National Marine Sanctuaries
> > 33 East Quay Road
> > Key West, Florida 33040
> > Phone:
> > 305 809 4670 office
> > 305 395 0150 mobile
> > 305 293 5011 fax
> > Email:
> > billy.causey at noaa.gov
> >> On May 20, 2014, at 6:02 PM, Eugene Shinn <eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu>
> >> Thank you Chris and Daphne. Yes it is a contact sport but one we have
> >> all created. I well remember when the coral-list began. It was for
> >> scientists trading technical information...then it began to change and
> >> it started to bother some that so much space was used advertising reef
> >> management jobs and the like. When climate and acidification became an
> >> issue things became even more political and complicated. I might mention
> >> here that global warming came after the 1970s when Steve Schneider was
> >> predicting we were headed into another ice age. The problem I constantly
> >> worry about is that NOAA, which claims to be a
> >> technical/science-oriented agency, sponsors the coral-list. At the same
> >> time the Coral reef Sanctuaries are part of NOAA and they are mainly
> >> about management/enforcement. Both are under the dept. of Commerce so
> >> that adds another level of restraints and unintended consequences. What
> >> if science uncovers a problem, for example that aerial spraying of
> >> mosquito pesticides is harming the reef, would that activity is made
> >> illegal? Not likely because it would drastically affect the
> >> Economy/Commerce of the Florida Keys. Another example would be
> >> sunscreen, which some published research suggest causes coral bleaching.
> >> (The stuff is banned in Mexican coral reef parks) If NOAA/dept. of
> >> Commerce banned sunscreen in the Keys might they be accused of promoting
> >> more skin cancers? The tourism/economy would certainly be affected. We
> >> can't have that. There are many such examples because the economy of the
> >> keys is greatly dependent on natural resources such as the
> >> fishing/lobster industry. Again the same political problem! The
> >> Sanctuary controls those activities by enforcing rules set up by another
> >> NOAA agency, National Marine Fisheries. And right next door is
> >> Everglades National Park, which is the dept. of Interior with a very
> >> different philosophy. Mosquito spraying is not allowed on their property
> >> and they have their own fishery rules/regulations and enforcement
> >> officers. And lets not forget Fish and Wildlife Service, yet another
> >> part of the dept. of Interior. And of course there are the State Parks
> >> such as Pennekamp. See what a convoluted political situation we have! We
> >> just do it to ourselves. Does anyone really expect all these diverse
> >> parts of government to operate seamlessly especially at their
> >> headquarters back in Washingt
> Michael Risk
"Everybody is ignorant, just on different subjects"
Dale W. Griffin, Ph.D., MSPH
Environmental/Public Health Microbiologist
United States Geological Survey
600 4th Street South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Office # - 727-502-8075
Fax # - 727-502-8001
Cell # 850-274-3566
email - dgriffin at usgs.gov
email - dale.w.griffin at gmail.com
More information about the Coral-List