Conservation law gathers dust

| 10/07/2012

P1010019.jpg(CNS): The minister with responsibility for the environment told CNS recently that he could not say when the national conservation law would be coming before the Legislative Assembly, and although government was still committed to passing the bill, Mark Scotland said he did not know whether there would be further amendments to the proposed bill. As Grand Cayman faces the prospect of another major development in an area of significant natural sensitivity, the director of the Department of Environment said this week that there was an urgent need for legislation to ensure the country’s environment was given as much consideration as other issue when considering future development.

“The DoE maintains the view that it is urgent that legal mechanisms are put in place to ensure that environmental concerns are weighed equally alongside other concerns in national decision-making processes,” DoE Director Gina Ebanks-Petrie told CNS.

The law went through its last period of consultation in the summer of 2010, some two years ago, and there has been no further specific news from the minister about his intentions regarding the law since. 

With no sign of the promised legislation, the news of another major development proposal in the eastern district has caused some concerns among local environmental activists that see the advent of the proposed hospital and now a major mixed use project as a further blow to preserving some of Grand Cayman’s last untouched natural habitat.

Both of these proposed developments are in close proximity to the sanctuary that is being established in the district for the famous and iconic blue iguanas and in an area where environmental experts believe the handful of remaining wild iguanas live. The area where both the hospital and what has been termed the Ironwood development are proposed to go is home to many of Cayman’s endangered and indigenous species and the size of such projects would warrant an environmental impact assessment.

Ebanks-Petrie told CNS that so far no one has approached her department to discuss this latest proposed project and the DoE was not yet aware of the proposed components project. Therefore, she could not say with any certainty exactly what was at risk as a result of the proposal.

She confirmed that the under the National Conservation Law, as it is currently drafted, there would be an obligation on Central Planning Authority to consult with the National Conservation Council before making any decisions or authorising any actions that would negatively impact environmental resources, which the DoE is proposing would be the trigger for certain kinds of development an EIA.

“It is possible that the DoE would recommend an EIA even without the NCL if the project was a large one with a variety of components (residential, commercial and golf courses)  and/or the habitat and resources being impacted were of special interest or significance,” Ebanks-Petrie stated.

The Ironwood development was first announced in the Legislative Assembly by the premier last month during a debate on government’s motion for an emergency stop gap budget. Last week the developers, Eagle Assets Management, who are believed to be the people involved in MC Restoration, the company contracted to clear Grand Cayman in the wake of Hurricane Ivan in 2004, stated through a local spokesperson that the development would include a town centre and residential community.

Targeting both locals and North American retirees Denise Gower from Fountainhead said the $300 million development will feature a sports village, including a championship PGA Tour winner designed18-hole golf course, and tennis courts; family entertainment including a movie theatre; convenience and boutique shopping; residences and tourist accommodations.

She said Eagle Assets Management plans to complete the project over six years and will not be asking for credits, import duty waivers or other concessions from the government to initiate and complete the project. They will be using local firms and workers to undertake the development and more details are expected to be released next week.

Related article:

$300m development goes east

Category: Science and Nature

Comments (60)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Hey, the current MLA's are the ones that should be put on the shelf 'to gather dust'

  2. Anonymous says:

    Ask yourself how many politicians, their families, friends or notable business heads have property interests that would be affected by a properly enforced environmental law that checked and balanced developments on Grand Cayman. How many of these people would have to answer for their selfish and money grabbing behaviour to a public authority with real teeth?

    I think you already know the answer.

    The continued delay of this law is yet more evidence of endemic self interest and corruption in the Cayman Islands and the UK should over ride their tenants and enforce these laws as a matter of extreme urgency. If they don't, these islands will be of no interest to anyone except concrete and steel suppliers.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Pathetic!

  4. SKEPTICAL says:

    In the real World, Scotland would be an irrelevant nonentity, but in Cayman he is a relatively Big Fish, in a very small pond. His repeated pathetic explanation of the UDP philosophy on the need for conservation legislation, WITH NO ACTION, defines the attitude of those in power who have no concern for what, if anything, will be left for future generations in Cayman. Sadly, this issue is also an equally dreadful condemnation of the PPM who, in their previous administration, could have implemented this legislation. It is terrible how easily the mighty ” DOLLAR ” can blind people.

    • Anonymous says:

      You can tell when an issue is important, Cayman's leadership talks longer and louder.  But action? Actually doing something? Never seen that happen yet.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Grand Cayman was so beautiful 30 years ago. It was a stunningly gorgeous island. Does anyone remember?

     

    This is what you get when idiots vote in idiots.

     

    Tragic.

     

    For their sakes, I hope money and ego are enough for these politicians. If any of them have a shred of sense and decency they will be haunted later in life by memories of how they betrayed their country and their people.

    • Anonymous says:

      Agreed.  What has happened here is largely the result of a failure of imagination — that is, a failure to imagine anything better than what is being done elsewhere, along with a failure of nerve to attempt a new paradigm.  Just more concrete, like everywhere else.  We coulda been a contenda….

  6. Anonymous says:

    But Mark got time to be on radio crying down OMOV instead of doing his ras job

  7. Just Commentin' says:

    Fools rush in where angels fear to tread…

    The last time a group of proponents tried to convince the people of an "urgent need" for the updating of a law, many fools swallowed the tripe hook line and sinker and rushed headlong and voted for it without stopping to consider the broad-reaching ramifications of their stupidity. And that is how we got stuck with a very flawed constitution and that is why this country is going to hell in a hand basket under the whimsical leadership of a maroon with wayyyy too much power and far to little constitutional constraints – and even less ability to govern in a way that would suggest intelligent leadership.  The proposed conservation law is being promoted in an eerily similar manner by its proponents. I suggest backing off and thinking before we enact yet another flawed law that we will live to regret! Damn! When will we ever learn?

    I am delighted when I can give the UDP credit for doing something right and thus far about the only correct thing they have done in their tenure in office is to allow the new  conservation legislation to collect dust. In my opinion, collecting dust is a far too dignified existence for this dangerous piece of tripe; I would flush it down the loo and let it float with the sh_t where it belongs.  Good-oh Mark! I am with you on this one! Let it remain collecting dust. Or, better yet, give it to me as I am running out of Charmin in my bathroom. (I am pretty sure the more passionate conservationists would approve of the way I would recycle the paper.)

    The new conservation law would have been passed a long time ago if it had not been for its Draconian approach and too broad reach. The law as it reads now gives more importance to bugs, slugs, lizards and birds than it gives regard to the need for humans to develop and prosper in a reasonable balance with their environment. Do not get me wrong: as several people have expressed in the discussions here and in public meetings on the proposed law, I am all for a prudent and rational balance between the natural environment and the built environment. I truly believe our very survival as a species depends on humans respecting our place in the earth's ecosystem, but the proposed law as it currently reads does not fit the criteria of rational and balanced by any sane measure.

    If the rabid tree-hugging proponents of the conservation law had a few more thinking brain cells mingling in their crania when promoting the proposed law, and if they had been willing to usher in a more humble law with a good enforcement infrastructure and with good public support; if they had started with a law espousing reasonable protections from the most urgent threats to the most urgently threatened critter and areas – things that the moderates among us slightly more balanced pro-environment folks could agree need protecting – the law would be passed by now. But they did not. (Psssstt! Hey, Gina! Are you listening?)

    The mindless tree-huggers lost a golden opportunity to build an ideological bridge to the masses of those that need to be on board regarding protecting the environment. A foolish move. The proposed law built walls and created polarisation that need not have been created. And so Rome burns while Nero fiddles. And – just in case you haven't noticed – I am as angry as anyone about the mess we made of what could have been a wonderful and much-needed law. But I cannot support legislation as moronic and flawed as the currently proposed conservation law.

    The proposed law will impact the lives of all people in all three of these islands. It is not supposed to be a law to satisfy only those who would rejoice to see the islands converted into one big wildlife refuge overrun with Blue Iguanas, red crabs and boobies, and bereft of new buildings and non-tree-hugging humans. (OK, establishing generous and wide-ranging protected gathering grounds for those cute boobies would sure make me rejoice, but I am not so sure the proposed law can be amended to establish topless beaches.) Anyway…I digress…

    I sometimes hang out with a few of the more passionate proponents of the new law. Considering their lifestyle (when they are not spewing hot air about the conservation law "collecting dust") I have concluded that a great many of them are hypocrites of the most heinous order: I have been in some of their houses in the summer and marvelled at the 72-degree setting on the thermostat, lights on everywhere at night, two and three cars in the garage of oversized dwellings; they live in buildings built of non-sustainable materials and by non-sustainable methods and they furnish their homes with things made of non-sustainable materials; they often have lush green lawns and gardens that guzzle water and create toxic runoff; they have fridges stuffed with packaged and processed foods; they have closets full of clothes made of non-sustainable and environmentally un-friendly materials; they have a carbon footprint as big as Sasquatch. People like this do not give a damn about "The Environment" or the Earth, they just like making noise about (other people's) development, that's all.

    Here is my advice and it comes from discussing this with a lot of good people with good ideas on all three islands: Rewrite the proposed law. Work to get a good initial framework passed; one that can be built on and one that will appeal to moderates on the issue. I would strongly suggest including establishment of an effective and adequately-funded environmental education and awareness programme for schools and the general public as part of the law. Do this and I will support it with unbridled passion. And I will then be buying some Charmin for my bathroom instead.

    • Anonymous says:

      Just commentin I would really like to welcome you into the 21st century from whatever past life you are currently enjoying. Conservation recycling do either of these ring a bell with you. The days of man is master of all he surveys is gone, the environment is finite and yes you can fish out the grouper in the seas. So perhaps you might rethink your 19th century positions and realize that future generations would enjoy some of the environment that you seem to take for granted.

       

      • Just Commentin' says:

        May I invite you to a 21st century remedial reading class? Seems you might benefit from it.  May I ever-so-humbly advise that you engage your eyes and maybe some grey matter before putting finger to keyboard? In case you somehow missed the points, I will take you by the hand and toddle you through some important ones you seemed to have overlooked:

        I spent a bit of time decrying wastefulness and excess – especially by those who claim to be so very environmentally concerned. I do recycle (and thus my offer to "recycle"the current law). If you have read any of my archived postings on my pro-active stance on "conservation" you will find that I not only know the definition of the word, I actually incorporate conservation into my lifestyle. We grow mostly organic food crops.  I built a cistern and we use cistern water and well water almost exclusively. We never buy bottled water. We have an extremely water-efficient washer anddo not use a dryer. We have water-conserving commodes, showers and faucets. We have a flock of free-range chickens that lay very nice eggs. We almost never buy frozen pre-packaged foods. We have one car in our household – and bikes. Our household energy bill is usually under $100 per month, many months well under that amount. Our gasoline bill is usually around $20 per week.  If electric cars ever finally become legal here, that wil be our next vehicle purchase. We use some grey water for irrigation. We compost usable portions of household garbage. We do not use central a/c. We rely on solar water heating. Most of our household clothing purchases of late come from the various charity resale shops around island – in other words, the very clothes we wear are "recycled". My household are rather ardent promoters of sustainability. I am most comfortable with our rather low carbon footprint and our conservation efforts. And yours?

        In case you missed the nuance (look it up) of my agreement to the idea that "The days of man is master of all he surveys is gone…" I wrote: "I truly believe our very survival as a species depends on humans respecting our place in the earth's ecosystem." Did you somehow totally miss that point or did you simply choose to ignore itin your zeal to post a rebuttal because I stepped on your treasured legislative tripe?  Either way, I am not impressed.

        I never mentioned a word about grouper. Why did you bring it up? To win more brownie points? If so you failed. If you read some of my archived comments here on the subject you will discover my stance on grouper fishing and you will find that I am an ardent supporter about restrictions and catch limits. Back in the day, at public meetings I went head-to-head with stubborn morons who thought that grouper fishing was a God-given Caymanian right and that grouper could not be fished out. I still publicly express this view. I strongly promoted restrictions and I still do. Restrictions like these make sense and are reasonable. I cannot say that about the proposed conservation law. It is stupid and draconian.

        In closing, might I proffer that your attitude is pretty much typical of the rabid tree-huggers we rational and informed folks all take pleasure in ignoring…rushing headlong into things without any appreciable factual basis. It is a most annoying trait, to put it kindly. No bloody wonder we can't draught and pass a decent conservation law! Case closed. Next…?

         

        PS: Living simply, as in a "past life", is a great way to promote conservation. Rather than condemning it, I would suggest you try it sometime!

        • Anonymous says:

          Instead of simply saying that the conservation law is tripe or stupid,why not demonstrate or understanding and maturity by expressing your specific concerns with it. What aspects of it represent weaknesses in your opinion?

        • Anonymous says:

          Wow what an intellectual you are and so full of yourself. Clearly a conservation god except that you ignore the reality that most people simply want to cash in on the environment  and don't give a damn about the bugs slugs lizards and birds that you seem to distain.

          As you have a huge vocabulary worthy of an associates degree unfortunately I saw nothing about recycling in your diatribe (look it up) and if you think it doesn't go with a proper conservation law then you are just spending way too much time judging others from the summit of your self righteousness.

          Just what you were referring to about topless beaches did escape me and perhaps gives an insight into your real passions.

          Just like the ignoring of recycling, conservation is ignored here and another toothless conservation law of the type you suggest will continue the rampant destruction regardless of your recycled toilet paper ideas.

        • Anonymous says:

          You're really long winded – just commentin'.

           

        • Anonymous says:

          Just Commentin', you insult the reader  you're replying to by suggesting they look up the word 'nuance'. Later you write  "we can't draught and pass a decent conservation law." This, strictly speaking, would have to mean "drink and evacuate a decent conservation law." Perhaps it is you who needs to pick your dictionary to check your spelling.

    • SKEPTICAL says:

      What a load of unnecessarily Venice ” HORSESHIT “.

    • Anonymous says:

      Just Commentin' does have a point, if you can ignore his insulting rhetoric and focus on the essence of what he says. The conservation law, as it is written, is bound to be smashed on the rocks of private land ownership and weak planning laws. The only way around this profound problem is for the Government to purchase land at market rates that it wishes to protect. The Environmental Fund  holds the key, but it's been ring-fenced and raided, and the opportunity of expending $40 million on protected areas has been lost. Leadership and vision on this issue have been absent at Government level over the years. A slow, but accelerating tragedy is unfolding, and it's happening on all three islands. If it were not for the National Trust and generous PRIVATE donations, there'd be virtually no protected areas today.

    • Anonymous says:

      It is the responsibility of The Minister (Mark) to ensure the/a Conservation Law is written, debated and passed!

      Not to ignore the Environment by letting a law which he, you or anyone else does not agree with by simply letting it collect dust for years.

    • SKEPTICAL says:

      What a load of longwinded drivel.

  8. Ironic says:

    Isn't it IRONIC that Ironwood is all but extinct in the Cayman Islands yet this development company names itself after Ironwood?  Makes my blood boil and my great-great-grandfathers rollover in their grave.

    http://www.amazon.com/Threatened-Plants-Cayman-Islands-List/dp/1842462202/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

  9. Ironic says:

    Isn't it IRONIC that Ironwood is all but extinct in the Cayman Islands yet this development company names itself after Ironwood?  Makes my blood boil and my great-great-grandfathers rollover in their grave.

    http://www.amazon.com/Threatened-Plants-Cayman-Islands-List/dp/1842462202/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

    • Anonymous says:

      They are not all gone, or even native to Cayman.  "Ironwood", or "Ipe" is part of the Tabebuia genus which includes the golden trumpet trees common around the island.  If you are building a deck, keep in mind it's better to log and import from South and Central America than from your neighbour's yard.

      • Anon-but-not-for-long says:

        Chionanthus caymanensis is the endemic ironwood of the Cayman Islands. it is Red Listed as endangered.  You are discussing an entirely different tree, albeit with similar characteristics.

      • Anonymous says:

        Ironwood in the Cayman Islands is actually in the olive family, Oleaceae.  The scientific name is Chionanthus caymanensis, and in fact, it is found only in the Cayman Islands – an endemic species.  Be careful not to be confused by common names – I'm sure most durable woods have been referred to as Ironwood at some point. 

  10. Capn Knuckles says:

    We need to cut this current population instead of this foolish notion of expanding it so as to lessen the burden on our infastructure and environment. Instead we have a government who believe they are living the Field of dreams fantasy, build it and they shall come! We can't cope now with the current problems we have, what is going to happen if this continues to expand. Those who believe the UK's indifference towards this NCL is not deliberate shouldn't kid themselves either, they may talk a good game about saving the environment, but just like crime when it is to their economic advantage and the plan projects that will provide employment for their unemployed oh well complicity is the policy of the day. What the white paper didn't say is this in some of the countries where we operate, there is a tradition of corruption in which the political elites work with business in a framework of unsavory relationships. I suggest you use their white paper to do what you do with the other white paper in your house.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Disgraceful

  12. Anonymous says:

    where does this fit into the caymankindness?????

  13. Anonymous says:

    Mark Scotland and his cronies should not be allowed to touch our environment with their cash-hungry fingers until they can prove that they actually CARE about the environment before the Dollar Almighty.

    Start right here….fix the dump!

    • Anonymous says:

      Not to defend the indefensible, but the dump is looking A LOT better these days.  They've flattened it out, take a look.  

  14. Anonymous says:

    I dont see anything wrong with the two projects in the eastern district. In fact I think its about time that some of these projects go east to solve the road problems. This Island has a lot of undeveloped property. We need to stop building on wetlands in 7 mile strip. Thats where we should take back the property using eminent domain with that fund. Then we can start doing development toward the eastern district.

  15. Interesting says:

    We passed a new constitution with less delays and excuses, I wonder why Markie Mark and the Funky Bunch are dragging their feet on this one?!! doesnt take a genius to figure it out! 

  16. Anonymous says:

    Environmental issues are not urgent.

     

    What is urgent?

     

    #1) Enabling the MLAs to keep their "honorable" titles forever and ever. Very important stuff, this is. Serious consideration in the LA it needs.

     

    #2) Firing ethical and competent government senior managers who respectfully ask the MLAs to obey their own laws. Much spin it needs. Must learn to spell "downsize", sounds good it does. Believe it, the voters will.

     

    Environment? No worries, no need for legislation.McKeeva used to be the environment minister so he knows all about this environmental stuff. Trust him to do the right thing.

  17. anonymous says:

    The original conservation law was bad and it needed redrafting. It would have stopped most development here which is why neither the PPM nor UDP will pass it as it is written. Our entire revenue for the country comes from Development and its ability to increase consumers. That is why it is on hold and will remain so.

    Rewrite the thing properly and more importantly identify what areas a truly environmentally sensitive and what areas are not and the law will have a chance. Not every dead casuarina tree is worth keeping. Do it corectly and get it done- it is needed but not as written.

    • Anonymous says:

      Re your underlying thesis: thankfully there is much more to these islands' economies  than real estate development – much of which has rightly been on hold since real estate bubble burst 4 years ago – where have you been?  Do you see a Dragon Bay or DART's grand housing estates?  They aren't on hold for an Environmental Law so stop rationalizing the delay and coddling our delinquent ministers.  

    • Anonymous says:

      "Our entire revenue for the country comes from Development" – do tourists really come from all around the world to see our beautiful development?

      "Not every dead casuarina tree is worth keeping" – neither version of the law protected casuarina trees, maybe you should read the law for yourself, rather than relying on what someone else tells you about it.

    • Peter Milburn says:

      Sorry have to disagree with you on this one.Our environment is paramount to any type of developement and without it they will not come.The whole world is now changing over to Eco Tourism and without a healthy environment here we can kiss that part of our tourism good bye.Our present group of politicians are only interested in one thing and that is the systematic destruction of what brought tourists here in the first place.Now I am not against developement far from it but is has to be SUSTAINABLE developement and done in such a way as to help the developer but also to enhance the natural surroundings.We are too bogged down in making members of the house "Honourablefor life.Who really gives a rats ass??Dart will soon be the new Premier of the Cayman Islands the way our present Premier is "giving"him whatever he wants or so it seems.None of these elected members(with a couple of exceptions)give a damn about these beautiful islands.Greed is the word nowadays.

      • Anonymous says:

        You make me proud Mr. Milburn. I wish I had the nerve to be as outspoken as you are. 

  18. Anonymous says:

    Please Governor, call in the UK (like in TCI)….i'm sick and tired of the BS from our current (and past) "lawmakers".

     

  19. Anonymous says:

    The conservation door will be closed when it's confirmed and cross-checked that the horse has bolted and been sold as horsemeat to a Chinese entrepreneur.  The minister responsible will then  feel compelled to commission a statue of his 'Eternally Honourable Self', in massively dignified pose. The statue will cost $5,000,000. The funds to pay for it will be ' a tempory loan'  from the environmental fund.

  20. Anonymous says:

    Come May 2013, let's put Mark on the shelf to gather dust

  21. Anonymous says:

    Backgrounder: In 1997 the Cayman Islands Government instituted an airline ticket surtax which was to be paid into an Environment Protection Fund.  The Fund was established and revenue measures instituted (with quiet public acceptance) for the sole purpose of environmental protection.  The Public (and Tourists) were made to believe that the ticket levies, which contributed in excess of $40mln, would be used for such purposes as purchasing ecologically sensitive Central Mangrove Wetlands.  Predictably, by 2000 the CIG had already begun misappropriating cash from this fund, diverting millions to "garbage collection" and "general revenue" to cover deficits.  More was diverted to cover the budget one year, and additional multi-million dollar chunks went to DOE and DEH (which should have been funded out of general revenue) but not-surprisingly we were never really given a complete accounting, and we stopped asking the questions.  This unadulterated 3rd world disgrace was allowed to proceed because we were told there was no clear definition of what the "Environment" is/was, and that imbecilic logic carried.  Fast forward 15 years and we still do not have basic accounting practices in CIG – by design.  Which means we still have unbalanced budgets.  We still have no Environmental definitions – again, by design.  We still have the same ilk of slippery MLAs that divert and pilpher as they see fit, knowing that there is little recourse from the public.  Each side complicitly waits to be rotated into power on the next cycle.  This shame is the Cayman Islands political legacy and as you will see from the dates, predates the formation of the UDP.    

    • Anonymous says:

      Not to detract from the main content of the original post, but by way of clarification:

      1 – It was the DoE which originally conceived and drafted the spending guidelines for the Environmental Protection Fund.

      2 – CIG took the idea, but not the associated spending guidelines. Since that time there have been numerous instances of the fund being spent on purposes other than those for which it was established.

      3 – DoE has always refused to accept any funding from the Environmental Protection Fund, on the grounds that that was not the original intent of the fund and the work of the Department should be funded out of general revenue – and the original poster is incorrect in their assertion otherwise.

      • Anonymous says:

        Re #3, Cayman Compass, 27, January 2000: 

        "…$5.9mln from the fund was to be transferred to general revenue to be used mostly to cover recurrent expenditure of the Environmental Heatlh Department and of the Department of Environment.  These departments have hitherto been financed out of general revenue.  Two studies are to be paid for out of the fund, one relating to marl minng and one to liquid petroleum gas.  These could perhaps fall legitimately within the ambit of the fund, but the recurrent expenditures of the two departments should rightly be covered by recurrent expenditure.  The studies are expected to consume a fraction of the funds transferred, the bulk of the funds, $5.3mln, is to be used for the running of the two departments."

        Read it and weep.

        • Anonymous says:

          Maybe you should read your own quote again: "$5.9mln from the fund was to be transferred" – "was to" is really not the same as "was". DoE turned rejected the proposal on the grounds I have already mentioned. No need to be aggressive with your "Read it and weep". I am stating a fact. If you think I am lying, call the DoE and check your facts – 949-8469. If you think the DoE is lying, FOI them.

           

           

  22. Anonymous says:

    It is even more of a "let's pretend" issue than the rest of Cayman's self-delusions.

  23. anonymous says:

    Until Dart gets all the canals and other costal work he wants  done there will be no conservation law.

    You must remember who is in control and also remember who allowed it.

  24. Libertarian says:

    They (both parties and elites) don't want conservation and lands / beaches designated as protected – plain and simple!  That would ruin their plans to make the Almighty Dollar.  

  25. Anonymous says:

    No mention of the marine side of things,that need more protection than anything.
    Every day marine life is getting slaughtered and no one either gives a damn or can’t do anything about it.

    What is so hard about passing this law? People of the Cayman Islands, this is YOUR country and it needs protection from thoughtless contractors, developers and the dollar crazy MLAs.

    Drug users are raping the Seabeds to feed their drug habits and no one has the power except the
    MLAs to do something about it.

    Mr. Scotland sir, with all respect, it is your job, we put you in your job to work for US the people, DO YOUR JOB!

    • Anonymous says:

      It is amazing how much fresh local conch and lobster is available out of season.  I didn't realize we have a conch and lobster farm!  Maybe we should!

      • jsftbhaedrg says:

        All restaurants / kitchens serving the lobster / conch should be made examples of.

        How hard is it to dedciate an hour out of the day to phone and "place an order" to such establishments in the guise of busting them for buying illegally gained merchandise much like that of an undercover cop buying drugs?

        Most peiople order lunch these days anyway so the DOE would be doing their job essentially.

        Massive fines to the restaurants would stop them flat in theri tracks from supportig the local crackheads.

        • Anonymous says:

          It is suspicious how some restaurants always seem to have "fresh local Grouper" specials.  No wonder they are on the brink.  

          • jsftbhaedrg says:

            Agreed with the fresh grouper, although you might find;

            (i) they come from Honduras

            (ii) they are not selling the endangered nassau grouper  but other species which may be caught and sold.

            • Anonymous says:

              Impossible for a consumer (or even a trained chef) to tell the provenance of a filet without the head and tail or some reliable MSC seal.  Endangered Grouper from Honduras is still Endangered Grouper.  

              Similarly, the midget spiny lobsters from Cuba are still juvenile spiny lobsters and shouldn't be taken from the sea by anyone in any country; yet we see packages of these little youngsters in our frozen food aisles.  

              Sadly, it's easy to be skeptical when so called "Cayman SeaSense" certified restaurants are serving critically depleted Chilean SeaBass and frozen imported Tuna steaks from long liners and passing it off as "local" and "fresh".

              We need to change our consumer habits through education, not just locally, but globally. 

               

               

              • jsftbhaedrg says:

                Most if not all fisherman sell grouper whole, so you would know the species. Do you why? more weight = more money.

                If you are getting grouper filleted, its is because you are buying it abroad.

          • Anonymous says:

            To Anonymous Tue,07/10/2012 – 11:59 Most likely its not even grouper;probably telapia.If it is grouper ,it most likely came from Honduras or Jamaica.

    • anonymous says:

      Actually the Marine Conservation Law has been in place for 20 plus years.

      What you are talking about is enforcement of an exisitng law ( nothing to do with the conservation law)…and we all should play a part there. See someone with lobster and conch out of season- report to DOE or police. its that simple.

  26. DannyBoy says:

    Are people in Cayman really still wondering why the conservation law is being held back? Doesnt anyone see what is happening on WB Rd and who is involved? Doesnt anyone see the destruction that is going on there? Am I really surrounded by much more zombies than I previously thought?

    • Anonymous says:

      The key to your post is "WB".  With constituents (large voting popluation) and the countries leader from that district, is it any wonder there are zombies?