Tuesday, June 28, 2022
EDITOR, The Tribune.
While it is not surprising that Kim Aranha would respond vigorously to my letter deploring the Ingraham government’s insensitive and unnecessary ban on turtle meat consumption, it is disappointing that, in doing so, she either overlooked or chose to ignore its principal points.
Those points are that nothing in the CITES treaty requires the banning of non-commercial consumption in traditional communities and that, in introducing a total ban, the then-government acted in contrast to neighbouring territories, all of which chose not to criminalise the eating habits of lawful citizens, while adopting CITES recommendations.
Instead of addressing these facts, Mrs Aranha simply doubles down on the desirability of conserving our marine resources. In doing so, she is preaching to the choir. In fact, our petition against the total ban specifically called for an enforced ban on commercial harvesting or sale of turtle meat. It received 5,000 signatures, including more than half the population of Spanish Wells, our leading fishing community.
Yet still Mrs Aranha seems unwilling to perceive the disagreement in anything other than terms of enlightenment vs benightedness, with those opposing her either defending barbarism, denying the value of living turtles or trying (in her words) to “stir the pot and cause doubt and trouble”.
Of the many gravely damaging decisions taken at the expense of Bahamians since 1992, banning turtle meat may seem like a small one. But it contains a grain of the same susceptibility to being shamed that has led to so many other bad decisions.
In her forceful denunciations of a cause I am not advocating, Mrs Aranha will find me unsusceptible to shame – which may explain her off-base detection of vitriol in my comments.
ANDREW ALLEN
Nassau,
June 27, 2022.
Comments
realityisnotPC says...
The fact that we were willing as a country to go further than the bare minimum that CITES could reach an agreement on is a good thing, not a bad one. After decades of turtles disappearing, finally seeing turtles in the wild has become a common thing and long may it continue.
The fact that neighbouring countries do something differently doesn't mean that what we did was wrong...in this case it means that what we did was better, more forward thinking, more ethical and better for our country, our future generations and our planet. It means that our government wasn't scared by a tiny minority of people who wanted to continue killing turtles...can you guess who...the commercial fisherman who, surprise, surprise, were in favour of the petition to start killing turtles again!
My fellow Bahamians in general, unfortunately, don't seem to care much for the environment. They happily litter, clear protected land, harvest undersized conch, take lobster and grouper out of season and basically do whatever they want without any regard for the future of our environment. They have proven that if there is a rule that tries to conserve a natural resource, they will find ways to bend that rule or ignore it. The only viable way of protecting the turtles in our seas was and remains a total ban.
Thank God for people like Kim Aranha.
Posted 29 June 2022, 4:01 p.m. Suggest removal
themessenger says...
Well said! Most Bahamians, including those in government, couldn’t give a rats bungy for the environment.
What is happening to our conchs is a typical case in point! The Bahamian way has always leaned to excess, take all now let the next generation worry about it.
As previously mentioned, in our ignorance and greed we continue to rush to embrace what will inevitably become the Great Empty.
There will be much beating of breasts, tearing of hair and lamentation from Bahamians “Lord, we didn’t know, we didn’t know!”
And the Lord in His infinite wisdom will look down upon us a say “Well, you know now!”
Posted 30 June 2022, 5:54 a.m. Suggest removal
Log in to comment