What will it take?

Which Gestapo power, please?

We're all tired of these claim, with nothing to back it up. Quote your source (line from the Law) or stop scaremongering.

16

0

0

Troll

0

LOL

Unfortunately Just Commentin’ fails to take in to account some basic issues.

1. Proportionality and responsibility. The court (and before that the police and the prosecution) must weigh any decision to arrest, charge or prosecute against what is, in essence, common sense. Could the person who stepped on the centipede or ran over the pedestrian have avoided what they did? Should they have been expected to? It’s why we sometimes have no charges laid in cases that might look like vehicular manslaughter. Its why, if you step on a centipede, anyone suggesting you be charged with a crime will … well, they just won’t. It’s why we’re not charged for every ching-ching that gets hit by a car. After all, this species  is currently protected by the Animals Law from being killed in any way.
2. There are no centipedes or scorpions on the NCL-Part 1 as suggested. It would help if, instead of falling in to the same hubris decried in proponents of the law, everyone sticks to the facts. Fortunately, anyone can double-check these for themselves as the Department of Environment has left the draft legislation online at http://www.doe.ky/laws/national-conservation-law/.  As for those species on NCL-Part 2, the way I read it is that they are only protected once a conservation plan has been passed (NCL 26(2)). A process that involves public consultation and final approval by the Cabinet.
3. I am surprised that there is anyone in the Cayman Islands who doesn’t know that, except where a minimum sentencing tariff is indicated, the courts decide the appropriate penalty up to the limit allowed under the law. It is why we often see, again using our unfortunate road death example, sentences of much shorter than the maximum allowed under the law. That’s just the way it works. Pretending that some piece of draft legislation will somehow work opposite to general practice is a nice straw man but that’s all it is.
4. The sand fly analogy is of the same kind, both in emotion and lack of proportionality, as the centipede above.
5. Regarding hoeing up weeds I would ask the original poster to identify exactly which weed he is planning to hoe up that is listed on the National Conservation Law? Without specifics there is no way to judge if his claim is accurate or not. The very real problem is that plants commonly known to my grandparents generation (and perhaps the original poster’s), such as Tea Banker (Pectis caymanensis for those checking me against the NCL) are now critically endangered by the generally accepted terms of the words. I would like to know if Just Commentin’ or anyone else thinks that the few remaining ones should not be protected? And if they should be protected, how do they suggest that it be done, if not to list them as a protected species? Again, we can only have a rational discussion about this Law if we deal with the specifics.
6. Interestingly I don’t see much objection to the NCL from anyone. Just Commentin’ has objected. But there is no indication whether he (or she) is an “influential developer”, a “smaller to medium-sized” developer or “involved in the construction industry”, though apparently speaking for those constituencies. Again, while “voicing concern and opposing the passage”, it would probably be helpful to those of us who generally support passing the Law if people could be specific about their objections. Which parts of the law do you want changed or removed? Then we can debate whether those parts are necessary or not and everyone can make up their mind for themselves (as Just Commentin’ has done). Until then, unfortunately, there will only be claims that the NCL is wrong without any ability to discuss what specifically is or is not wrong.
7. However, I don’t think that anyone would believe that Just Commentin’s concerns are not genuine. There may be others whose concerns are disingenuous but they will probably lack Just Commentin’s conviction to sign their nom de plume to their posts.
8. One of the interesting things is that the National Conservation Law has no carve-outs for “large multi-national development companies”. I am not disingenuous enough to suggest that just Commentin’s fear that “Developers in tight with whoever is in power at the time” might not be able “to negotiating exceptions to … local ordinances controlling development.” However, if this is a problem, if the avoidance of good development control (by whatever standard for good each individual wishes to apply; I will happily use Just Commentin’s for the time being) by some groups is a problem, that is not a reason not to try and implement good controls at all. This just means that our other social institutions need to be strengthened as the National Conservation Law tries to strengthen environmental consideration in development decisions. If anyone wants to build anything and “nesting parrots or ghost orchids will be displaced” that should be a problem. It should be a problem for all of us. It should be something we all object to. They are also not problems that are insurmountable as a nation. We need to decide, at a national level, not at the level of what will make an individual developer the most money, that we will preserve these species in the wild for future generations. I am happy that I am able to see Cayman parrots outside of an animal attraction. Around the world developers and countries large and small find ways to have development without displacing their national bird to the point that it becomes an endangered species or without paving over their critically endangered endemic orchids. I don’t think Caymanians are too stupid or too greedy to not be able to do the same. The National Conservation Law provides a framework to promote that balance. Frankly, as I read it, the law does not guarantee achieving it. But equally, it does not guarantee that developments large and small cannot continue either. (For fact checking purposes you will note (NCL 35(3)) that, outside of protected areas, etc., the decision makers such as the CPA need only “consult with the Council and take in to account any views of the Council”. Much the same as they now take in to account the views of the Departments of Planning and Environment when deciding about sea walls in South Sound. But I digress.)
9. “The reason that the mangroves are being plowed up is not because they have no protection under existing laws, but that developers get permission by government to destroy them.” I would ask if anyone can point to any protection that mangroves specifically have under the laws of the Cayman Islands outside of a few narrow ‘mangrove buffers’? As we have recently seen with the sandbar stingrays area protection (Wildlife Interaction Zones in their case) appear to be ineffective species level protection if someone is intent on plowing them up, so to speak. However, Just Commentin’ is correct that government (or at least the CPA) does give the permission to plow up the mangroves be they in a ‘mangrove buffer’ or elsewhere. If we accept the argument (and this is the question) that mangroves and other terrestrial species are important then we need to find a way to preserve them where they are and as they are, not a few in a pots off a seawall (in the case of mangroves).
10. Just Commentin’ and I are in complete agreement that “The new NCL is no panacea for preventing that type of environmental damage” or many others for the reasons sighted and several others relating to the inherent weaknesses of the National Conservation Law. Where we disagree is that these shortcomings of the Law mean that we should abandon all hope of saving anything if we can’t save ourselves form a cross-island canal. This is what we must all individually decide. If we cannot achieve absolute perfection should we at least try for better than now or should we settle for no improvement?
11. Just Commentin’ is clearly under the misapprehension that those plants and animals listed are not part of our habitat already. While yes we all spend most of our time in the built environment the question is whether that means that we don’t want to save the rest of it or not? Or at least as much as we reasonably can. Despite pretending to attempt reasonable objection all Just Commentin’ has provided is ambiguous polemic. This helps no side.

People should read the Law for themselves. Decide how much of the Cayman Islands natural environment they want to preserve. Then decide if the National Conservation Law will help achieve that. And if you have specific questions or objections raise them for informed discussion. But unsubstantiated claims, no matter how well intentioned, achieve nothing positive.

26

2

0

Troll

0

LOL