After a record 1,100 manatees died last year in Florida, environmental groups filed a lawsuit Tuesday seeking to force federal wildlife officials to upgrade habitat protections.
The Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife and the Save the Manatee Club filed the lawsuit in federal district court in Washington, D.C., against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The groups said the wildlife agency did not take final action on a 2008 petition to revise what is known as a “critical habitat” designation for manatees. The lawsuit describes such designations as key “for ensuring the survival and effectuating the recovery of imperiled species such as the Florida manatee.”
“Meanwhile, Florida manatees and their habitat continue to face dire and imminent threats, including the loss of warm-water refuges and poor water quality that causes persistent harmful algal blooms and a profound loss of seagrass, a crucial food source, leading to mass starvation,” the lawsuit said. “Compounding these threats are a growing number of boat strikes and severe weather events caused by climate disruption.”
The lawsuit came after the state had 1,100 manatee deaths in 2021, with many of the sea cows dying of starvation caused by the decline of seagrass beds that are prime foraging areas. Many of the manatee deaths occurred in the Indian River Lagoon along the state’s East Coast, with 358 of the deaths in Brevard County, according to preliminary totals posted online by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. The lawsuit said an estimated 13 percent of the state’s manatees died last year.
Under the federal Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service designates areas of critical habitat to help in the recovery of endangered or threatened species, according to the lawsuit. The agency in 1976 designated waterways that were important areas for manatees.
But the environmental groups contend in the lawsuit that the agency did not revise the designation after changes were made in 1978 to the Endangered Species Act. They also allege that the agency did not properly act on a petition that the groups filed in 2008 seeking to revise critical habitat.
“In particular, FWS has failed to propose and finalize a regulation to revise the critical habitat designation for the Florida manatee, despite finding in January 2010 that a revision of critical habitat is ‘warranted’ in order to provide for the conservation of the manatee,” the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit alleges that the agency violated a law known as the Administrative Procedure Act and the Endangered Species Act. It seeks a court order requiring the agency to revise the critical habitat.
The Fish and Wildlife Service in 2017 changed the listing of manatees from endangered to threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
–Jim Saunders, News Service of Florida
Robin says
This is a direct result of the weakening of state environmental protection laws under former Governor Scott. These groups are attempting to bypass state laws and the DEP.
Shame on the former Governor and on us.
David Schaefer says
I hope this goes through. Another thing to think about all of you DeathSantis fans out there he has done NOTHING at all to solve this sad problem. Just another thing not to vote for this clown..
Fredrick says
And he has done everything to protect the vulnerable and keep the economy of this state functioning and free without mask mandates, vaccine mandates, and lock downs that DO NOTHING but keep the sheep in line. Look at the stats….look at the study just released about what all of the BS really accomplished. Look at the liberal states that locked down, masked up, vaccine requirements…. in comparison. There is no arguing them. By the way, jabbed, boosted and had The Rona twice….so STFU.
Sorry… Off topic but so damn tired of the “DeathSantis” bullshit.
Here, maybe this makes it better… Save The Manatee’s…..Slow Your Boat
Timothy Patrick Welch says
It seems like an increase in the number of boaters may be a major cause.
Increased number of boaters on the water (maybe due to Covid) has lead to more direct injury and death. And the more boaters mean increases water turbidity as the silt gets mixed into the water and kills the grass. Plus increased water pollution from local land owners.
Maybe global warming will balance the loss with fewer cold water deaths:)
Ray W. says
As of February 2, 2022, New Zealand reports a total of 17,005 SARS-Covid2 cases. 1974 active cases. 14,978 recoveries. 53 deaths.
New Zealand’s population is estimated at 4.9 million, very roughly 1/5th of Florida’s population. Multiplying New Zealand’s death toll just over four times yields a total of about 220 deaths spread over a theoretical population of just over 20 million, compared to Florida’s over 63,000 deaths.
Both New Zealand and Florida began the pandemic at the same point: zero cases. New Zealand locked down early in the pandemic. Its population masked, social distanced and accepted vaccines and boosters and it closed its borders with appropriate quarantines. New Zealand appears to have avoided the chaos that comes from a significant minority of citizens who actively choose to fight measures necessary to limit the spread of the virus.
There are many different possible responses to a pandemic. Obviously, China chose to lock down an entire region during the initial spread of SARS-Covid1 about a decade ago and the virus disappeared, just as Trump promised over and over again at the beginning of SARS-Covid2. We know how to do it and we know it can be done, but we elected not to do it.
Other options include Sweden’s initial choice, which was to seek natural immunity throughout an entire population and utilize a modern and efficient medical community to save the sick, an effort it soon abandoned.
Another option is to lock down initially to slow the spread of the virus and rapidly develop vaccines that are accepted by the vast majority of the population, something that was initially proposed and then abandoned in America.
Another option is to lock down initially to slow the spread of the virus and rapidly develop vaccines that are rejected by a significant minority of the population, which is what happened in every American state and in most of the European countries.
Another option is to accept what comes, which is what is happening in many African countries that lack the resources to develop their own vaccines, lack the medical infrastructure to treat the sick, and lack the financial capacity to compete with wealthy countries to purchase the initially more expensive vaccines; the African countries have to wait for a less expensive version of a vaccine that was recently approved and is being manufactured in a variety of third-world countries for regional distribution.
It should be obvious to all that when a significant minority of each state’s population rejects any effort to stop the spread of the virus, as Fredrick argues, any comparison made between the states fails, not because of the effort by each state’s government, but because of the lack of effort by many of each state’s citizens.
It seems reasonable to argue that Florida’s government has chosen to lead from behind, in that it advocates natural immunity coupled with rapid use of monoclonal antibody infusions within a very few days of infection. If the unvaccinated do not quickly seek monoclonal antibody infusions in time, the infusions are useless. Clearly, that is not leading from the front. Leading from the front involves masking, social distancing, vaccines and boosters to limit both the spread of the virus and the severity of the symptoms experienced by those who become infected, which is the approach consistently taken by the federal government.
In a good/better/best, bad/worse/worst world, Fredrick’s arguments present as valid, but validity only gets one into the argument. Yes, Florida made its choices, but no one can successfully argue that Florida’s choices protected the vulnerable. Over 63,000 deaths defeats that argument. New Zealand’s choices protected the vulnerable. Fredrick loses badly on that point. It is not the worst possible argument, but it is a pretty bad one. Fredrick’s argument based on comparing some states with other states also qualifies as a bad argument because, again, every single state in this country has a significant percentage of its citizens who actively oppose any measure that could limit the spread of the virus. The strongest argument that Fredrick makes, albeit not as good as some other arguments on this point, is that keeping the economy open from the outset would have had a lesser impact on the economy. This argument requires the acceptance of a greater number of deaths, a greater number of long-haulers, a greater number of the hospitalized, and on and on. I am not convinced that Fredrick’s argument is the best one on this point, but he is factually accurate on this point.
If Fredrick raises the same arguments again, he will present as one who is wandering through life fooling himself, unless he presents his arguments with the qualifying statement that protecting the economy is more important that lost lives. Wittgenstein was right. One of the most difficult things in life is to not fool oneself.
I am not arguing that we should have adopted New Zealand’s approach. We simply lacked the capacity to close our borders. But I am responding to Fredrick’s arguments, not making my own. Fredrick argues that mandates don’t work. Mandates are not necessary when an entire population accepts the science. New Zealand’s population accepted the scientific advice proposed by its government. The results speak for themselves.
Fredrick says
Awww wonderful….You had to run outside the country for a truly apples to kumquat comparison. Isn’t it odd that you can’t run to the liberal run states here in your own country to prove the lock downs, mandates don’t work. Run to states that that shipped people with covid back into nursing facilities slaughtering thousands of those vulnerable. And then give the moron an award?? Either through your ignorance or your choice, you have to compare to another country, with different social norms, population base, different industry base and a total different population concentration…. Run to Sweden…no mandates, nothing… just used commonsense and as well as comparable countries who locked down. Look at the results of the Johns Hopkins study and what the mandates really saved…. They reduced deaths by 0.2%. Sure every death is tragic but how many more will die now because they lost there homes, their jobs, their lively hood…..the damage done to our kids because they have lost on on 2 years of school and the damage the fear has done to them…..
As you said… the results speak for themselves, and by running outside the country for you rebuttal you lose.
So I can stay on topic
Stave the Manatees SLOW YOUR BOAT
Ray W. says
You missed the entire point. A significant part of the country’s population is actively undermining every effort to deal with a deadly viral disease, which fact undermines every point you try to draw from comparing one state to another. In this scenario, it doesn’t matter who governs what state or what policies are implemented. You’ve lost your argument and you don’t even know why.