hiphopanonymous
03-10-08, - 05:23 PM
Reearth sent out an email about the destruction of Bimini which appears to have been written by a Mr. Grant Johnson and the email was sent March 10th 2008:
Here it is:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good morning,
Over 10 years into the project, news about the development on North Bimini is still a regular feature in many media outlets. Some of the news articles praise the project for creating jobs and opportunity, while others blast it for it's ecological impact and the amount of controversy it has created. However the particular reporter wants to paint the picture, there is something that is often overlooked in these news articles, and that is facts.
The recent article in the Nassau Guardian "Developers Maintain Bimini Bay 'Sustainable'" is an interesting example. Several claims were made by the developer, and others, that simply are not true. A few months back, the developers on North Bimini threatened to sue 3 individuals for spreading "false" information about their resort project. (Please note that not a single "false" claim was presented as evidence.) Now, the same developer is making claims in the newspaper that are provably false. Shouldn't they hold themselves to the same standards they expect of their critics?
Bimini is one of the most highly studied marine habitats in the world, and many of the developers claims contradict over 20 years of scientific research.
If people on Bimini are expected to be fully engaged with what's happening on their island, then I think the developers, and the press, need to present them with factual information. Bimini is a kind, trusting community that is being fed false information about what is planned with their island. Biminites have long expressed concern with the development on North Bimini, and recently a letter from a local was published claiming concern for the government's intentions toward the island.
In a democracy, the press is supposed to be the bridge that connects people to the facts about the issues so that they can then engage themselves in the decision making process. Biminites need factual reporting, not empty claims that are given credibility by being printed. There is too much at stake here.
Please see below for just a few examples of false information from the recent article, and the references used as proof against them.
Grant Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
False statements, all of them from the recent Nassau Guardian article:
1. Claim: Only wood has been burned... Fact: A variety of trash is being burned. Please see the photos attached. Perhaps the garbage contractor that the developers have hired is burning this trash unbeknownst to them, but anyone who has visited Bimini's famous Road To Atlantis dive site can attest to the fact that the smoke billowing over them is not simply burning wood. The photos show piles of a wide variety of trash, including wood, plastic, metal, styrofoam and other items.
2. Claim: "Mangroves were stunted and not considered highly productive ecosystems." & "no taller than your knee." Fact: The mangroves of Mosquito Point (the area in question) were highly productive, and held some of the largest amounts of biodiversity in the North Sound. And as you can see from the photos attached, they were also much higher than any human's knee.
What I find bizarre is that there has been a biological research station on Bimini for nearly 20 years, and most of their research has been conducted on the ecosystems that the developers are impacting, yet the developers have not consulted the research station and obviously neither did this reporter. I will attach a short list of scientific studies and articles to the bottom of this e mail that prove the importance of the mangroves that have been destroyed, as well as the area still slated for destruction.
Also, please see the photo of the person hiking through the mangroves. This was taken in the creek at the tip of the North Sound, that will be replaced with a golf course. The person in the photo is 6'5" tall, and you can see the mangroves are high above his head. This is also a critically important habitat for a variety of wildlife. What will the excuse be when this area is destroyed?
3. Claim: (In regards to Mosquito Point) It was more considered a dead zone. Fact: In a study conducted from 2000 until 2003, the fish and invertebrate populations throughout the North Sound were sampled and recorded. Mosquito Point had some of the highest levels of biodiversity in the whole lagoon. In another study conducted from 2003-2006, juvenile sharks were tracked through the North Sound, and the mangroves of Mosquito Point were shown to be an important part of their habitat. Shark movements are largely, but not entirely, based around prey availability. In another study conducted from 2003 - 2004, it was shown that the area around Mosquito Point was the second most productive area around Bimini for post-larval lobster to settle. There have also been a number of endangered species recorded in the area around Mosquito Point, such as Hawksbill Turtles and Smalltooth Sawfish. To call this area a "dead zone" is basically the opposite of the truth.
4. Claim: This was not an area where fish and other marine life congregated. Fact: Again, similar the previous answer, this is simply not true. I will list additional proof of this at the bottom of this letter.
5. Claim: Bimini Bay is stopping at the creek between North & East Bimini. Fact: The developers own website shows that this is not true. The attached land-use plan was taken from their website today, and shows that a large area south of Bimini's East Wells creek is slated as "New Residential" development.
References:
(Please Note That This is Only a Rough, Partial List of Studies & Articles That Disprove The Statments Made, There are Many More that Could be Listed):
1. Newman S. P. and S. H. Gruber 2002. Mangrove and seagrass fish and macroinvertebrate communities in Bimini, Bahamas. Bahamas Journal of Science 9 (2): 19-27.
2. Gruber S. H., Grant, A.T and S. P. Newman 2002. Effects of Large Scale Seafloor Excavation in Bimini. Bahamas Journal of Science 9 (2): 36-40.
3. Gruber, S. H. and W. Parks 2002. Mega-Resort Development on Bimini: Sound Economics or Environmental Disaster? Bahamas Journal of Science 9 (2): 2-18.
4. Morrissey, J. F. and S. H. Gruber. 1993. Habitat selection of juvenile lemon sharks Negaprion brevirostris. Copeia 1993(2): 425-434.
5. Dr Bryan Franks doctorate study, http://www6.miami.edu/sharklab/research_habitusage.html
6. Dr Steven Newman doctorate study, http://www6.miami.edu/sharklab/research_preyselectivity.html
7. Afonso, A. & Gruber, S. Spatiotemporal patterns of Caribbean spiny lobster, Panulirus argus, pueruli supply to a shallow nursery ground in Bimini, Bahamas. 2003- 2004.
8. Jennings, D. The Ecological Effects of the Bimini Bay Resort development on the juvenile lemon shark population of Bimini, Bahamas. 2003 - 2005.
Here it is:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good morning,
Over 10 years into the project, news about the development on North Bimini is still a regular feature in many media outlets. Some of the news articles praise the project for creating jobs and opportunity, while others blast it for it's ecological impact and the amount of controversy it has created. However the particular reporter wants to paint the picture, there is something that is often overlooked in these news articles, and that is facts.
The recent article in the Nassau Guardian "Developers Maintain Bimini Bay 'Sustainable'" is an interesting example. Several claims were made by the developer, and others, that simply are not true. A few months back, the developers on North Bimini threatened to sue 3 individuals for spreading "false" information about their resort project. (Please note that not a single "false" claim was presented as evidence.) Now, the same developer is making claims in the newspaper that are provably false. Shouldn't they hold themselves to the same standards they expect of their critics?
Bimini is one of the most highly studied marine habitats in the world, and many of the developers claims contradict over 20 years of scientific research.
If people on Bimini are expected to be fully engaged with what's happening on their island, then I think the developers, and the press, need to present them with factual information. Bimini is a kind, trusting community that is being fed false information about what is planned with their island. Biminites have long expressed concern with the development on North Bimini, and recently a letter from a local was published claiming concern for the government's intentions toward the island.
In a democracy, the press is supposed to be the bridge that connects people to the facts about the issues so that they can then engage themselves in the decision making process. Biminites need factual reporting, not empty claims that are given credibility by being printed. There is too much at stake here.
Please see below for just a few examples of false information from the recent article, and the references used as proof against them.
Grant Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
False statements, all of them from the recent Nassau Guardian article:
1. Claim: Only wood has been burned... Fact: A variety of trash is being burned. Please see the photos attached. Perhaps the garbage contractor that the developers have hired is burning this trash unbeknownst to them, but anyone who has visited Bimini's famous Road To Atlantis dive site can attest to the fact that the smoke billowing over them is not simply burning wood. The photos show piles of a wide variety of trash, including wood, plastic, metal, styrofoam and other items.
2. Claim: "Mangroves were stunted and not considered highly productive ecosystems." & "no taller than your knee." Fact: The mangroves of Mosquito Point (the area in question) were highly productive, and held some of the largest amounts of biodiversity in the North Sound. And as you can see from the photos attached, they were also much higher than any human's knee.
What I find bizarre is that there has been a biological research station on Bimini for nearly 20 years, and most of their research has been conducted on the ecosystems that the developers are impacting, yet the developers have not consulted the research station and obviously neither did this reporter. I will attach a short list of scientific studies and articles to the bottom of this e mail that prove the importance of the mangroves that have been destroyed, as well as the area still slated for destruction.
Also, please see the photo of the person hiking through the mangroves. This was taken in the creek at the tip of the North Sound, that will be replaced with a golf course. The person in the photo is 6'5" tall, and you can see the mangroves are high above his head. This is also a critically important habitat for a variety of wildlife. What will the excuse be when this area is destroyed?
3. Claim: (In regards to Mosquito Point) It was more considered a dead zone. Fact: In a study conducted from 2000 until 2003, the fish and invertebrate populations throughout the North Sound were sampled and recorded. Mosquito Point had some of the highest levels of biodiversity in the whole lagoon. In another study conducted from 2003-2006, juvenile sharks were tracked through the North Sound, and the mangroves of Mosquito Point were shown to be an important part of their habitat. Shark movements are largely, but not entirely, based around prey availability. In another study conducted from 2003 - 2004, it was shown that the area around Mosquito Point was the second most productive area around Bimini for post-larval lobster to settle. There have also been a number of endangered species recorded in the area around Mosquito Point, such as Hawksbill Turtles and Smalltooth Sawfish. To call this area a "dead zone" is basically the opposite of the truth.
4. Claim: This was not an area where fish and other marine life congregated. Fact: Again, similar the previous answer, this is simply not true. I will list additional proof of this at the bottom of this letter.
5. Claim: Bimini Bay is stopping at the creek between North & East Bimini. Fact: The developers own website shows that this is not true. The attached land-use plan was taken from their website today, and shows that a large area south of Bimini's East Wells creek is slated as "New Residential" development.
References:
(Please Note That This is Only a Rough, Partial List of Studies & Articles That Disprove The Statments Made, There are Many More that Could be Listed):
1. Newman S. P. and S. H. Gruber 2002. Mangrove and seagrass fish and macroinvertebrate communities in Bimini, Bahamas. Bahamas Journal of Science 9 (2): 19-27.
2. Gruber S. H., Grant, A.T and S. P. Newman 2002. Effects of Large Scale Seafloor Excavation in Bimini. Bahamas Journal of Science 9 (2): 36-40.
3. Gruber, S. H. and W. Parks 2002. Mega-Resort Development on Bimini: Sound Economics or Environmental Disaster? Bahamas Journal of Science 9 (2): 2-18.
4. Morrissey, J. F. and S. H. Gruber. 1993. Habitat selection of juvenile lemon sharks Negaprion brevirostris. Copeia 1993(2): 425-434.
5. Dr Bryan Franks doctorate study, http://www6.miami.edu/sharklab/research_habitusage.html
6. Dr Steven Newman doctorate study, http://www6.miami.edu/sharklab/research_preyselectivity.html
7. Afonso, A. & Gruber, S. Spatiotemporal patterns of Caribbean spiny lobster, Panulirus argus, pueruli supply to a shallow nursery ground in Bimini, Bahamas. 2003- 2004.
8. Jennings, D. The Ecological Effects of the Bimini Bay Resort development on the juvenile lemon shark population of Bimini, Bahamas. 2003 - 2005.