Greenpeace to bat for Park of the East

Dolores1

DR1
May 3, 2000
8,215
37
48
www.
Latest report we have is that Greenpeace Spain has sent a letter to Globalia, the partner of Air Europa, protesting their intentions to develop environmentally fragile lands of the National Park of the East. This development would be with the support of the PRD legislators and President Hipolito Mejia. Legislation that would legalize the mutilation of this national park is to be studied in Congress this week. The legislation has been protested by the United Nations, European Union embassies (even the Environment Minister of Germany -- see news of 9 June 2004).

We should get a copy of the letter soon and will post here.
 

Tony C

Silver
Jan 1, 2002
2,262
2
0
www.sfmreport.com
If greenpeace is for it than I am against it.
Even one of the Original Founders of greenpeace has turned his back on that self-perpetuating, anti-progress, Anti-Property rights , Borderline terrorist organization!
 

thick_neck

*** Sin Bin ***
Apr 6, 2004
159
0
0
Slow down, Tone...

To call Greenpeace a "borderline terrorist org." is going too far. But what you don't tell us is why Dr. Patrick "Eco-Judas" Moore left Greenpeace and is now collecting heavy fees as a rep for polluters around the world.

Tone, you probably blame the actions of ELF on Greenpeace, too.
 

jsizemore

Bronze
Aug 6, 2003
691
0
0
57
Green peace

In the past Green Peace did do some things that could be called mild terrism however they never actualy harmed people in the process that I am aware of. I can remeber there tactics would be to block ships and so forth. After September 11th they cut it out. I feel they know that under the new way of living that they would be suspected as terrorist and they did not want to cause an incident.
I dont always agree with all of Green Peaces actions but I do respect the commitment. They advertise there intentions and motives. They do not hide who they are or what they stand for.
John
 

Tony C

Silver
Jan 1, 2002
2,262
2
0
www.sfmreport.com
thick_neck said:
To call Greenpeace a "borderline terrorist org." is going too far. But what you don't tell us is why Dr. Patrick "Eco-Judas" Moore left Greenpeace and is now collecting heavy fees as a rep for polluters around the world..
And exactly which polluters are these? The Timber industry which has planted more trees in just the past year than all of enviromentalist throughout History have? The Same timber industry that has made it so that the US now has more Forrested land than it did 100 years ago?
thick_neck said:
Tone, you probably blame the actions of ELF on Greenpeace, too.
Nope I blame them on PETA Another hypocrtical terrorist organization.
 

jsizemore

Bronze
Aug 6, 2003
691
0
0
57
Ducks Unlimited

In the US one of the largest amount of privately protected wetlands and reclaimed wetlands was paid for by the memebrs of Ducks Unlimited.
oops a hunters group.
John
 

Tony C

Silver
Jan 1, 2002
2,262
2
0
www.sfmreport.com
jsizemore said:
In the US one of the largest amount of privately protected wetlands and reclaimed wetlands was paid for by the memebrs of Ducks Unlimited.
oops a hunters group.
John

Hunters and Fishermen pay for the vast majority of conservation programs and studies in the U.S. Not Just through Taxes and fees but through private donations as well.
Tree Huggers talk a good game and like to tug at the general public's emotions but are more interested in jealous attacks than really doing something.
 

Narcosis

New member
Dec 18, 2003
387
0
0
Tony C said:
Hunters and Fishermen pay for the vast majority of conservation programs and studies in the U.S. Not Just through Taxes and fees but through private donations as well.
Tree Huggers talk a good game and like to tug at the general public's emotions but are more interested in jealous attacks than really doing something.

Excellent point.. Grupo Punta Cana helped fund a study of the reefs off Bavaro/Punta Cana. They took surveys at different points along the coast but found that several of the sites that had coral in the most pristine conditions and highest fish populations happened to be popular dive sites.

The study concluded that the sites were in better shape bacause they did not see damage from local spearfisherman because they would go out of their way to avoid areas were divers would go.
 

jsizemore

Bronze
Aug 6, 2003
691
0
0
57
lets us remember

For a true hunter of fisherman it is the food provided is what we are after. It is a momentary return to our roots. The sport is about refining the skills lost by easy living. For that to happen we need the proper habitat for our game. So the logical side affect of a hunters/ fisherman paradise is pristine ecology. Hunters spend large amounts to plant forage crops on lands near hunting areas. The artificial reefs are in line with fisherman funded habitat improvements. And imagine we do not even mind sharing the areas we fund to preserve and improve.
John
 

samiam

Bronze
Mar 5, 2003
592
0
0
Narcosis said:
Excellent point.. Grupo Punta Cana helped fund a study of the reefs off Bavaro/Punta Cana. They took surveys at different points along the coast but found that several of the sites that had coral in the most pristine conditions and highest fish populations happened to be popular dive sites.

The study concluded that the sites were in better shape bacause they did not see damage from local spearfisherman because they would go out of their way to avoid areas were divers would go.

True...But contrary to Mr. Rainieri, these Spanish developers don't give a crap about preserving the ecosystem. The damage they have done to the manglares in the Bavaro area and the damage caused in the CapCana project (Spanish advisors are working in the project) in the name of progress is a shame for all dominicans. And to add insult to injury, we don't see a penny in benefit$$$.
 

Narcosis

New member
Dec 18, 2003
387
0
0
samiam said:
True...But contrary to Mr. Rainieri, these Spanish developers don't give a crap about preserving the ecosystem. The damage they have done to the manglares in the Bavaro area and the damage caused in the CapCana project (Spanish advisors are working in the project) in the name of progress is a shame for all dominicans. And to add insult to injury, we don't see a penny in benefit$$$.

I agree not every investor is as keen on enviromental issues as Rainieri, that said, can you be more specific with which hotels and hotal chains have done damage to the mangroves, especially in the Juanillo bay area where Cap Cana is being built.

As far as I know the Hazoury family and Grupo Abrisa are using mostly American companies such as Nicklaus Design and his first trademark golf resort called Golden Bear lodge, course management will be done by Troon Golf, the marina design is be done by Coastal Systems International and it's management by International Marinas.

Cap Cana seems to be following in the footsteps of Grupo Punta Cana when it comes to enviromentaly friendly and sustainable resort projects. As far as it "being a shame for all Dominicans", please explain what this means.

I don't understand why you expect to see any profits from this project if you are not an investor?

The creation of new jobs and the influx of hard currency is good enough reason to wish this project does well.
 

samiam

Bronze
Mar 5, 2003
592
0
0
Let me try to break it down as best I can.

Regarding the CapCana project, I had the privilege of visiting the Juanillo area before it was developed, a very beautiful place. Several families of fishermen lived there and had a cooperative that ran a small restaurant. Fresh seafood was excellent.
These areas where poblated by manglares that have all been destroyed in order to 'urbanize' beach front lots. Needless to say the fishing in the area will suffer the fiushing coop has ceased to be and the area is no longer available for public visits. This area was protected as a national park pretty much like the case in Bayahibe, which will suffer the same destiny. I met a spaniard some months ago who was working with them in the contruction process and he described the process of de-manglarizing they used in order to urbanize. Now they may be trying to be "green" by preserving the ponds and cave areas but thats like cutting off your hands and giving you a band aid. Regardless, the damage has been done, lets hope they attempt to protect whats they left.

Bavaro and Punta Cana where areas much like Juanillo used to be. They got developed over a longer period of time, except there was no need to resort to a politician to get a piece of a park because 10-12 yearsa ago there was plenty of cheap land to go about in Bavaro and Punta Cana. The methods of construction though, where mostly the same, lots of de-manglarizing of areas beach front areas.

The shame, I think, lies in the fact that these areas that have been protected at some point or other by law and belonged to all Dominicans are being sold cheap as if no one would care or notice. Instead of paying the "market price" to land owners for land outside the perimiters of the parks, developers and politicians pact to un-protect these lands in sake of development and sell them for nothing. Thats what ahppened in Bayahibe. A particular note on Bayahibe, as an ex-landowner; the area is very cavernous, and rich in Taino remains. During the construction of Iberostar hacianda and other projects, several caves containing Taino remains where filled with concrete in order to hold the structural support of the hotels. Most of these findings (and hidings) where done by the construction companies who'd rather just fill up the cave than have to deal with excavations and archeology that no one gives a crap about in this island. That is also a shame.

The profits I would like to see, are not in $$ as an investor but in having an alternative to the AI scheme of tourism. Where whole communities, like Cabarete or Samana, benefit from tourism.
 

Narcosis

New member
Dec 18, 2003
387
0
0
Thank you for your response Samiam.

Let me start by saying I am totally againts reducing existing parkland in any way shape or form for the sale of said land for hotel development. I am aware these developers want park land as it is ironically cheaper than privately held land in adjacent areas. This is a bad deal all around except for the people being lobbied and the hotel developers. There is more than enough land ripe for development legally, to have to tap into protected park land.

The above stated, I do believe 1). Tourism is this country's present and future, we cannot keep ignoring this fact, we need to accept that we must embrace it and take care of it as best we can. 2). National Parks should be better managed and maintained as well as exploited in a sustainable way.

Instead of selling this park land off, we should look into ways we can enjoy it and giving it true protection.

If we look at some of our current park land you would think the last thing it is, is "protected". La Caleta national park just outside the Las Americas airport is a prime example. Park fees are collected from occasional divers that use the park's waters to dive, but there are no facilities at all for them and as for being protected, forget it, fisherman use a small beach in the park to launch their yolas from to fish these "protected" waters catching not only "protected" species such as sharks and turtles but actually fishing within the park itself! The same could be said of Bahia de las Aguilas and other park areas.

As Tonyc and jsizemore have stated, recreational fisherman and sportsman in general are the ones that truly fund and protect the lands and water they so much enjoy. We should start to focus on this issue as much and start to really protect those parks that are now in vogue of defending them, look for ways to incorporate these parks into tourism by using them in enviromentaly sustainable tourism activities such as diving, sport fishing, treking, rafting, mountain biking etc.
 

jsizemore

Bronze
Aug 6, 2003
691
0
0
57
direct profit

I have seen many times that organizations fail to see the side benifit of any project. Sport fisher man may not wind up paying the high fees directly to the park but how much will they pay in related services.
Also in some other threads the discussion of stocking fish related to the high altitude areas. What would the benifit of mounatin fisheries management?
What could the impact of an artificial reef add to tourism. Get an old ship, clean it up and sink it in water shallow enough for reck diving.
There are many activities in a park thave low or no impact. As was stated the basics of facilities would work to make it possible. Those local fisher man being displaced by enforcement would get the first dibs on being the snorkle guides.
John
 

Thebes

New member
Jun 18, 2004
94
0
0
Tony C said:
And exactly which polluters are these? The Timber industry which has planted more trees in just the past year than all of enviromentalist throughout History have? The Same timber industry that has made it so that the US now has more Forrested land than it did 100 years ago?

Are you talking about the same timber industry that cuts all vegitation in an area, whether they need it or not. Then burns the area to kill everything and destroy what they left. Then dumps hundreds of tons of chemicals. And following this plants two saplings for each several hundred foot tall redwood, douglas fur, etc that they cut in non-genetically diverse rows. Then pats themselves on the backs and says how good they are. Next they complain that they can't due it to the remaining 2% of old growth forests (which by their nature are genetically diverse and support endemic species which have become endangered).

I really can't think of another forest industry in the States. Almost nothing is done in a sustainable fashion anymore, theres less profit in it. Only a few small operators seem to care about long term viability. Even some of the loggers are joining with environmentalist because they realize the forests will be gone before they can retire.