 |
||||||||
 |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
 |
The 'rights' of the few don't do right by manatees
© St. Petersburg Times Go figure this one: We give pigs constitutional protections in Florida, but when it comes to the manatee, we start talking like we're about to be overrun by Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks in this case wear polo shirts bearing the logo of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Tuesday night, representatives of the commission held a hearing in Tampa on proposed rules to protect manatees along the southwest coast, where they are being killed at rates greater than anywhere else in the state. The rules would affect the coast from Pasco County all the way to the Keys. There's no doubt the rules are dramatic: They would cut back on construction of boat docks, ramps and marinas. Egad! Waterfront real estate development would be curtailed. Obviously, this is a doozy of a commie plot. Tuesday night, boat and dock builders, marina operators, fishing guides and waterfront homeowners came forward, one by one, to disagree with the rules. One man called the rules terrorism. Another man said they would put him completely out of business. Others wore T-shirts that read "Stop the Manatee Insanity." The first thought that crossed my mind was whether these guys wear those T-shirts to the Lowry Park Zoo. Or is the zoo part of the conspiracy? My second thought was they had a point when they complained that current laws should be enforced to nail every maniac with his boat -- or his Jet Ski -- at full throttle in a no-wake zone. But there aren't enough marine officers on the water now and won't be any time soon. According to state figures, each county has typically no more than two fish and wildlife commission officers on patrol during any eight-hour shift. And now the officers are also patroling in the name of homeland security. I heard a lot of talk about "rights" Tuesday night. One man even spoke of having an "inalienable right to access to the water," as though it were up there with the right to bear arms. Another man spoke of the almost inexpressible pleasure of living on the water, watching the day begin, with a cup of coffee in his hand, or watching the day end, with a cold beer by his side. How could the federal government toy with that? It's hard to feel the pain of a guy in this position if you don't have the dough for a waterfront address of your own. But I'm really struggling with the idea that his so-called right to the water (or to make a living from it) carries more weight than my right, and your right, to live in a state with a well-managed natural environment. Do the people who showed up Tuesday night have the right -- that word again -- to spoil Florida for the rest of us? Whatever happened to that word that is the flip side of right? I mean responsibility. This is a contest of cosmic proportions, like battling over the Everglades or deciding to let Disney remake Orlando in its own image. The federal rules are a challenge to the lifestyle so many of us take as a given in Florida. The rules demand we make a significant accommodation to nature. We already make some accommodation but in limited forms. We don't drive on the beach. We don't disturb sea turtle nests. But we need to do more for the manatees. It's not good enough to give them a special place in the zoo or sell a license plate in their honor. The federal government won't decide on these rules until May. There is plenty of time to figure out a set of rules that takes into account the concerns of the people who appeared Tuesday night -- although I doubt some of them will be satisfied even then. Why must accommodation be equated with disaster? Since when is compromise a dirty word? One more thought: It's a good thing pigs can't swim. They'd be in big trouble. -- You can reach Mary Jo Melone at mjmelone@sptimes.com or (813) 226-3402.
 © 2006 • All Rights Reserved • Tampa Bay Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 
|
|
Times columns today From the Times Metro desk |
