Local artist triggers petition for conservation law
(CNS): Guy Harvey has joined the growing chorus of voices pressuring the Cayman government to pass the National Conservation Law. The internationally renowned marine wildlife artist is leading a petition drive asking government to immediately put the law into effect following the recent discovery of several stingrays from Cayman’s famous Sandbar at a captive dolphin facility. Harvey is now publicly backing the law as it will close the loophole that currently only protects stingrays from being taken when they are actually in Cayman’s designated Wildlife Interaction Zones. The petition was launched earlier this month and at the time of posting this story had attracted just over 1,200 names. (Photo Claudio Gazzaroli – Barcroft media)
Harvey’s campaign, which is targeting 10,000 people, comes after the four tagged rays found at Dolphin Discovery were returned to the wild after a public outcry. However, the facility still holds six other rays that were not tagged but were believed to have been taken from local waters. Dolphin Discovery is holding on to the six untagged stingrays.
“The well-being of stingrays affects every single person in the Cayman Islands,” said Harvey, as he pointed to the half a million visitors per year from around the world that come to swim and interact with the rays at the famous natural attraction. “By signing this petition you are speaking out against the unconscionable acts of harming stingrays, especially when taking them out of their natural habitat,” Harvey added. “Maintaining the ecological health of these stingray populations for the long-term will require management and conservation programs based on a thorough knowledge of the biology of these animals.”
Harvey was involved in local research work on the Cayman stingray population this year in which anecdotal evidence that the population at the Sand Bar and Stingray city was in decline was confirmed.
The Guy Harvey Research Institute (GHRI) based at Nova Southeastern University conducted a census in January and sampled only 61 rays in the standard three-day research period at the Sandbar, which represents a significant 38% decrease in number of rays compared to the last census in 2008. This summer GHRI returned with the support of the Georgia Aquarium veterinary staff.
Over three days the team, working with Department of Environment staff and several volunteers, sampled 57 rays, down from 61 in January, and found only 5 males at the Sandbar .
The team spent a day at the original Stingray City and sampled 11 rays, including 2 males. They also sampled 3 rays at Rum Point, including one male, bringing the total to 71 rays sampled. However, the low number of males generally is cause for concern.
“These iconic animals have given so much to benefit the Cayman Islands that it's time the government returned the favour by immediately approving the National Conservation Law,” said Harvey.
Successive governments have continued to stallon the NCL, despite the wide support for its implementation and a critical need for legislation to protect Cayman's threatened natural resources.
The proposed legislation covers the marine environment but also deals with Cayman’s land-based resources, much of which is seriously endangered from a range of threats, in particular the persistent and relentless pace of development. Although successive governments have discussed the implementation of an environmental law for over a decade, none have had the political will to see it through because of strong opposition based on the misguided claim that it would stop all development.
Meanwhile, as the fight continues to protect all of Cayman’s wildlife, the Sandbar received extremely positive coverage in the UK media Monday, when the Daily Mail published a collection of beautiful photographs from the Sandbar and Stingray City by photographer Claudio Gazzaroli. The collection of pictures depicts just how unique and beautiful the attraction is.
Sign the petition here.
See Daily Mail article here.
Category: Science and Nature
Please sign it everyone.
Let us break the record – all 16,000 voters sign the petition.
The law is flawed as currently written, and anyone who is calling for the law to be passed needs to first read it. That is the reason the law has not been brought forward, it needs to be revised to be made workable.
Meep – Fail – Unless you can site specifics you’re just a troll. Care to offer up anything concrete?
For starters, the powers that should be vested in the Minister of Environment are vested in the Director of the Department. That is unworkable, since the Minister sets policy and the Director carries out those policies. The Director doesn't set policy then tell the Minister what those policies are.
Secondly, anyone, and I mean anyone in the world, can recommend that your land be declared environmentally sensitive, then your land becomes valueless and undevelopable. The onus then falls on you to hire a lawyer, spend countless amounts of time and money or even commission an environmental study in order to prove to a committee that you should be able to develop your own land.
Imagine how that will be used by some small minded, vindictive or envious person around here.
Read the law and imagine yourself being on the other end of it and you will know why it has not beenbrought forward as written.
Not true on both counts.
The Director of Environment is empowered to carry out the Law. The Law is the policy, or the new policies fall under the Law. Care to site the exact line in the Law which you think says "the Director sets policy'? I don't see it.
Yes, anyone can suggest that any piece of land should be made a protected area. However, it then goes through a long process of public notice and comment. The decision that is then taken is not, in regards to private land, to 'take' the land. There is no part of the NCL that gives the power to take land. The government can then offer to buy your land. Or rent your land. But they can't take your land. Can you show otherwise?
Please stop spreading untruths.
Who said anything about 'taking' land? Maybe you should re-read the comment.
Fair enough. When I was first typing my response I thought to point out that declaring land "environmentally sensitive", which was the original claim, can't be dne because that doesn't exist in the law. At all. Anywhere. However I suspected that the original poster, like myself, felt that if someone renders my land worthless, however they've done it, then they've 'taken' it. But we can split hairs on semantics if you'd prefer.
However, whatever you call it, nothing in the Law gives anyone the right to remove the develoment rights from a piece of land, which was the original spurious claim, without going through the process I outlined, which results not in the rights being removed but in the land either being bought or rented or … nothing. If you don't want ot sell or rent your land they can't declare it "environmentally sensitive" and "your land becomes valueless and undevelopable". (Again, per the OP.) That does not exist in the law and you cannot quote any lines from the law that show it does.
One more thing, the list of endangered species should be set out in Regulations, not in the Law. You need one set of Regulations for Threatened species, one for Endangered species and one for Critically Endangered species. That way in the future, species, as they recover can be moved from the more restrictive Regulations to a less restriceive category.
Likewise, if a species becomes more endangered it can be easily moved to a more restrictive Regulation.
As the law stands now, to make any changed in the species list or category the Law has to be amended. A much more difficult thing to do.
Just think back on the iguanas. Originally I believe the Animals Law listed iguanas as protectetd. It made no distinction between the Cayman iguana and the Hunduran iguana. It took some 10 or more years for the Law to be amended to differentiate between the Hunduran iguana, which is an imported and exotic pest species and the Cayman iguana which is critically endangered.
Again, the law is unworkable as written.
Actually, that is not true. The species lists in the NCL are subject to change without having to be re-voted on by the LA. The method of change/review, including down-listing (or up-listing) species from 'endangered' (list 1) to 'threatened' (list 2) is in the law. Maybe you should (re)read the law before spreading rumours.
Also, the lists now give the scientific name of things, like the iguanas, rather than ust generic names like, again, iguanas. Looks like they learned something. So stop dredging up past mistakes as if they are being repeated.
Care to try again to find some actually "unworkable as written" parts rather than parts where they do exactly what you say they should?
There are only 43 clauses in the document, so it shouldn't take 10 years to review and comment, should it?
I wonder if Sir Paul will call for the Dolphin Discovery to be closed down since we are at this current situation and stage with the Turtle Farm. Who by the way still have 6 stingrays captive. What a national disgrace but alas the well to do are beyond reproach and the DOE are useless without some law to enforce. Yes had it been some local fisherman with a kraal on the Bay with these precious sea creatures trapped inside. Extreme Prejudice and a Posse Comitatas of the so called elite society in these islands and our "gowerment" would be convened an a quiet word to his lordship the Governor who would call on the forces at his disposal to extend the long arm of the law to extract them from him and make this situation right. But alas no local fisherman only a well to do Loyal Subject who has CO nnections and the financial means to make it simply go away and mocks us by taking pictures with DOE releasing 4 what a frigging joke!!!! this place is so pathetic its no longer a laughing matter. and where are these so call boat captains who's livelihood depend on these precious sea creatures and Stingray City onshore wrowing with another local pirate about dockage space.No wonder Cayman is in such a mess!
The Cayman Islands seem to have the least amount of protected land and sea, as a percentage comparted to most other countries. It would seem to late to protect much land but the sea is one of their most important tourist attractions. Between allowing the killing and kidnapping of stingrays for profit, and allwoing not 1 but 2 dolphin parks with runoff to kill all the surrounding reefs, this should be a very high priority.
XXXX
Do you know what I find funny about this? where was the protection for stingrays when they started provisioning their behaviour.
stingrays are generally nocturnal and anti-social creatures. we have continue to feed and poke and prode at them and NOW they need protecting?
stingray city/sandbar are not natural occurrences
The proposed NCL is fairly straight forward, but it over-reaches on a variety of topics and that gives reasonable well-meaning people pause. For example, it is not really essential for the Cayman Islands to sign onto the Kyoto Accord when the US and Canada are themselves bailing. Why should we give the DoE conservation officers the authority to adjudicate and arrest on a variety of very complex issues: such as the local impact on climate change? Wouldn't all of our bus drivers be at risk of being lined up and shot? We immediately need a reasonable new draft which modernizes our existing protections (some dating back to the 1970's) while dialing back the ambitions to something that will get local buy-in. It needs to focus on protecting things that urgently require National protection (Wetlands, Turtle Nesting, Ghost Orchid, Blue Iguana, Silver Thatch), and less on nesting Ching-Chings.
No, thats not true. And you'd know that if you had bothered to read or ask questions rather than making stuff up.
1) The law refers to the Climate ChangeConvention, which Cayman committed to years ago, as we do with so many things – commit but not act. Not the Kyoto Protocol. (Which is expiring, so Canada saying they're 'pulling out' is a political trick (though thats just my opinion). Though the US has never signed up to it they were at the negotiation table for K2 so they're not a good example of why not to join these international endeavours.)
2) No law in Cayman gives any enforcing agency 'adjudication' powers. Discretion, yes, but someone else, often several someones, adjudicate the case. I challenge you to prove otherwise by sighting the relevant section of the NCL.
3) Similarly, show which specific line says that the DoE wil be able to arrest anyone, much less lineing them up and shooting them, for "the local impact on climate change". You can't because you're making stuff up and trying to be as crassly emotive as you can about it.
4) I don't know about ching-chings but arnolds need to be protected. I'm seeing less of them than I used to and I miss them. Pity you don't think protecting our beutiful birds is 'important'.
It quite clearly states that DoE conservation officers will be given the power to arrest by whatever means available, and that those powers do not preclude the use of firearms. Maybe you should read it.
There are no shortage of reasons to implement some preliminary form of NCL, but Scotland won't move unless forced to do so. Sadly, therefore the only petiton that will have any bearing is one signed by local registered voters – which includes the thousands of "paper Caymanians" thathave not yet registered fearing jury duty etc. To them I ask, what are you waiting for? Please register to vote and participate in the discourse that concerns the path of this nation.
For those that don't know what the NCL is, here's the Q&A guide from DoE: http://www.doe.ky/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/NCL_2010%20REPORT_YOUR%20QUESTIONS%20ANSWERED.pdf
As long as the electoral roll supplies the list of jury members, I have no intention of registering and risking weeks of my life watching some obviously guilty gang boy try and get away with something or another.
You would forfeit all your rights as a full citizen, on the off-chance you might one day be called to serve on a jury? Enjoy your pathetic life of irrelevance! You are no longer allowed to complain about anything!
You have no right to complain if you are too lazy to vote. Please go back in your hole and keep quiet.