Letters to the Editors

Protect manatees by enforcing the existing laws

The federal government wants to limit the building of new docks in southwest Florida as the solution to the problem of manatee protection. To that I say, "Thank you for increasing the property value of my dock."

As for the manatee protection aspect of this idea, I say, "Helloo?"

I have owned five docks on various waterways and not one of them has ever slashed the back of or killed a manatee. I have also owned numerous boats, and not a single one of them has ever slashed or killed a manatee. I have written a number of letters to the editor, trying to educate people about ways to protect the manatees. Outlawing docks is not an effective way. The only way to protect the manatees is to enforce the laws that we already have.

Each weekend I watch hundreds of boats, ranging from 15-foot johnboats to 60-foot yachts, go by and totally ignore the minimum wake zones. Ignorance and disrespect of the law know no socioeconomic boundaries. Only through education and enforcement of the existing no wake/minimum wake zones, we will be able to protect these wonderful, harmless and defenseless animals.
-- Nancy Clark Bloomer, Redington Shores

There's time to craft a compromise

Re: The "rights" of a few don't do right by manatees, Dec. 5.

Once again, Mary Jo Melone is pouring gas on the fire concerning issues about which she obviously has little knowledge. If she would get on the water and look at the issue in a open-minded way, she would quickly learn that there are actually many more manatees in local waters than at any time in the past 30 years.

The proposed legislation is nothing more than an overreaction by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to avoid the frivolous lawsuits of the Save the Manatee groups. Where will curtailing the building of residential docks, and putting lots of people out of work in an already tight job market have any effect on manatee populations? A manatee has never died as a result of a collision with a dock!

I agree on only one point in Melone's slanted column: that there is plenty of time between now and May to try and work out some type of a compromise. However, the manatee zealots have proven over and over that they will accept no compromise.
-- Ed Morris, St. Petersburg

Don't put greed over wildlife

Re: The "rights" of the few don't do right by manatees.

Congratulations to Mary Jo Melone on her Dec. 5 column, which explains the absurdity in these "antiwildlife," "pro-greed" folks that we have living and making decisions in this state. Florida has such an amazing assortment of wildlife, and to think that money is more important than the preservation of this wildlife baffles me.

Floridians should be proud of their beautiful birds, sea life, manatees and other fantastic wildlife and should want to do what they can to ensure that these creatures will be around for future generations to enjoy. Shame on all you greedy people. For once consider others before yourself!
-- Tiffany Newgent, Clearwater

Manatees need our protection

Mary Jo Melone's column, The "rights" of the few don't do right by manatees, regarding manatee protection is right on. I congratulate Melone on the agreement that manatees need to be protected and the so called "rights" of man are not the end-all on this planet. After all, the animals, plants and ocean life were here as long as we have and probably before us. They need our protection. Just as the elderly and children are vulnerable, so are the animals.

My only concern with her article is the insistance on degrading the constitutional amendment banning the use of gestation crates for pregnant pigs. This is an animal-cruelty concern and I'm sure she would agree that animal cruelty should not be tolerated.
-- Eileen Mandujano, Clearwater

Stop this insanity

I attended last week's meeting in Tampa to listen to the proposal and comments regarding the much-publicized issue of docks and manatees.

It's true, nonmoving objects don't kill manatees. Manatees are killed by cold water, lack of food, pollution, increased salinity (from our not-yet-on-line desalination plants) and, yes, I'm sad to say, some are killed by colliding with boats. There are many manatee zones and no-wake zones on our water to help protect this species, however, the manatees do not stay in these zones.

However, contrary to public belief, the manatee population overall in Florida is increasing.

This animal is not indigenous to Florida -- it's not the "Florida manatee" but rather the "West Indies manatee," that happened to stray here and stay here. This manatee haven was created by man in his ignorance when he warmed up the water in our estuaries and bays.

Manatees are free to swim where they desire, yet the plan would cause Southwest Florida to have a different set of rules because manatees appear to be declining. If the population of manatees decides to move north, to better feeding grounds, less pollution or cleaner water, are we going to close our waterways to boaters in Southwest Florida because they continue to decline?

More education, policing and enforcement of the existing rules would serve to reduce the number of "incidental manatee take." However this takes money, so why don't the "powers that be" utilize some of the tax dollars obtained from "boats at the gas pump" to support this notion, rather than use it to build roads, bridges and support the highway police? My boat never goes on the road or over a bridge.

Since government statistics indicate that approximately 27 percent of the incidental manatee take can be attributed to boating accidents, why then aren't the causes of the other 73 percent being addressed?

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will discover the Florida boater is not going to cave in quietly to this new round of bureaucratic nonsense. I call on all boaters and marine industry workers to unite, contact their state and federal lawmakers, and stop this insanity before it stops us.
-- Capt. Tony Evans, Oldsmar

What incredible creatures

I recently had the opportunity to visit Central Florida for a few days. While there I went to Blue Springs State Park to see wild manatees, something I had never done before. They are spectacular! I completely lost track of time as I watched them swim, play and socialize with one another. What incredible creatures!

Just as amazing as those beautiful giants are the Floridians I met on the lookout deck watching the manatees with me. I was surprised and thrilled at the sense of community people have while witnessing Florida's wildlife at play. I met some of the most friendly people at the state park, and all of these people had come to stare in wonder at Florida's manatees. I was so glad to see people coming together for such a fun and awesome experience.

I do hope that Gov. Jeb Bush, the Florida state Legislature and all Floridians will do their part to protect one of Florida's most spectacular natural resources, the manatee. And thanks for the hospitality!
-- Leslie Drozen, Bloomington, Ind.

Voters don't want what Democrats offer

Re: Democrats should stand for something, by Bill Maxwell, Dec. 1.

Maxwell misses the point. The Democrats stand for something that the voters don't want and they know it. Liberal ideas held the heart of Americans from the 1930s until the 1960s. It was thought that if the taxpayers would pay more taxes the government could solve all of our problems. Thus we got ever broadening Social Security, budget busting Medicare, expanding and endless welfare, the war on poverty, regularly increasing minimum wages, government subsidized housing, food stamps and other well-meaning programs that sounded admirable but either failed to accomplish their alleged goals or consumed so much of the budget that their future is in jeopardy, while they also eliminated the need to work, reduced self-esteem and gradually supplanted the idea of charity with the idea of entitlement.

Eventually the American people saw that their hard-earned tax money was not being well spent. The pendulum swung to the right and now conservative ideas are being considered to encourage self-reliance, hard work and nongovernment solutions (such as vouchers) to solve our problems.

In 1964, Barry Goldwater ran as a true ("In your heart you know he's right") conservative. He was crushed because the country was not conservative. In 1972, George McGovern ran as a true ("Give peace a chance") liberal. He was crushed. In 1984 Walter Mondale ran as a true ("I will raise your taxes") liberal. He was also crushed.

Bill Clinton ran as a "New (translated: moderate) Democrat" and was elected. Had he run as a ("We need Hillarycare") liberal, he likewise would have been crushed. For the Democrats to have any hope of being elected in this political environment, they can't be truthful and advocate more and bigger government and higher taxes. Democrats have to appear to be conservative-light just as the Republicans had to be liberal-light in the '50s and early '60s. If Democrats ran advocating what they really believe, they would not only lose, they would be crushed at the polls. The Democrats need new ideas because they do stand for something and today's voters don't want it.
-- Jay Moreland, Palm Harbor

No time for a partisan tantrum

Re: Democrats should get tough, letter, Dec. 2.

I fail to see how the American people stand to benefit from Democrats bent on getting even because of something that happened under ex-President Bill Clinton or because of dislike for Henry Kissinger.

If all the Democrats have to talk about in 2004 is nostalgia for the era of Clinton and an elderly former secretary of state, then they deserve to get the whipping they'll receive. In short, the writer of that letter simply wants to take out her frustrations on the American people. This is what is meant by "obstructionism."

We need a serious debate on the real problems we face, not talk of holding up the country while the party out of power has a temper tantrum. If the Democrats "get tough" they will get extinct real fast. We might even get a real third party in the process.
-- Leonard Martino, Tampa

The armed advantage

Re: Advocate arms, not armed pilots, letter, Nov. 26.

This letter writer, "a huge gun advocate," would choose the plane with an unarmed pilot because he apparently imagines armed pilots would be patrolling the aisles Wyatt Earp-style instead of flying the aircraft.

Then the writer asks if anyone could imagine patronizing a bank that has tellers wearing sidearms, as opposed to a bank employing security personnel. Well, yes, I could imagine that, because I've yet to see security personnel at any of my bank's branches.

This "advocate" forgets that the mere suspicion by a perpetrator of a victim having equal defense capability is usually enough to deter violence to begin with. How many lives could have been spared at Cracker Barrel/Columbine/Twin Towers had one manager/teacher/pilot been armed?
C.J. Navarra, St. Petersburg

Share your opinions

We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731.

They can be sent by fax to (727) 893-8675 or by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com (no attachments, please).

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • Tampa Bay Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright