Feds and red snapper management

[RobG]

In regards to doing something, this is from Bonefish and Tarpon Trust

As the nation celebrated Independence Day last week, many coastal areas of South Florida were under siege by toxic green algae flowing from Lake Okeechobee. As predicted, the water crisis in Florida continues to grow against a backdrop of summer heat and seasonal rainfall which, in turn, is sending billions of gallons of polluted, nutrient-rich water down the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie Rivers. The spreading algae blooms are devastating to fish, wildlife and habitats, including Florida's estuaries. Meanwhile, Florida Bay continues to suffer from a lack of clean, freshwater flow from the north. Although the effects in Florida Bay may appear less dramatic than the blue-green sludge forming in waterways across Martin, St. Lucie and Palm Beach counties, they are no less devastating. Hypersalinity and a massive seagrass die-off are affecting our fishery today and may have cascading impacts for years to come.

A state of emergency declared by Florida Governor Rick Scott prior to July 4th has attracted national media attention and stoked an already heated debate on how to fix our water. For BTT, a science-based organization, the way forward is clear. We have joined with other leading conservation organizations, corporations in our industry, and concerned citizens in signing the "Now or Neverglades Declaration." Specifically, we are calling on the State to fast-track the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, which will restore clean, natural freshwater flows. A central component of the plan will require expediting the acquisition of land south of Lake Okeechobee to store, filter and send clean water south.


We hope you will add your name to the declaration and take other steps to voice your opinion.




-Sign the Now or Neverglades declaration.

-Visit www.btt.org/fixourwater to quickly send a message to your government representatives that enough is enough!

 

[Florida]

In regards to doing something, this is from Bonefish and Tarpon Trust

Thanks Rob. Signed it.

 

[whiskeydog]

I've been looking for an opportunity to discuss some reasons that I think state management of lands could provide a benefit. First things, I am not a troll and I do not want all of our federal lands sold to private owners. I understand the argument for Federal management and respect them. There are a few issues that prevent me from being completely on board with the don't mess with our lands crowd.

My two cents on the transfer of federal land to the states...
How are the states going to pay for the management of the lands? The majority of the federal land is in the west, but the funding comes from the nation as a whole. It's not just the people of MT, ID, NV, etc that use these lands, but a huge number of "tourists" from across the entire nation. If the states take control of the land, they will have to fund the management themselves without federal funds. If the lands stay public, they would have to raise taxes on the residents of the states (impossible in small populace states like MT or WY) or charge access fees/permits for those wanting to use them. Lands that can't generate enough money for management would probably be first on the chopping blocks for sale to private parties. Or maybe they raise revenue by allowing more and more mining/logging/drilling/etc. The way a lot of the proposals currently read, as far as I can tell, is that the states take ownership, period...nothing mandating that they stay public.

If the primary contention of the GOP lawmakers is that the feds can't properly manage the land, then why aren't they proposing that the feds turn over management, but not ownership, to the states. Likely because this doesn't fit their end game!

I won't argue that those closest to the lands can likely implement the management most efficiently...if properly funded. However, the only way I could ever get behind the transfer is if one of two things happens: 1) feds retain ownership, continue funding via transfer of funds to the states, and allow management at the local level. 2) land is transferred to the states after being placed in trust so that they may NEVER be sold, and land is only transferred after funding sources are identified and seen as viable.

Even if those conditions are met, I would still by worried about mismanagement via over-logging, excessive mining/drilling, etc. I have a hard time believing that the GOPers behind the proposals have the best interests of the total public in mind when pushing for the transfers. More likely big business and big money is pulling the strings in hopes that the states will be easier to work with in gaining land use approvals than the feds.

I'm sure many are more educated on this than I, and likely can convince me without too much work that my condition #1 and #2 also wouldn't be in our best interest.

All this is coming from someone who has never voted for a democrat in my life. This may change if the GOP doesn't pull their head out on this issue.