Endangered smalltooth sawfish rescued from fishing net in Lantana by FWC officers
An elusive creature with a saw-like snout and teeth where they seemingly shouldn't be, thrashed in the shallows of the Intracoastal Waterway last month, its vulnerable white underside belly up, it's slash of a mouth opening and closing as if gulping for air.
The federally endangered smalltooth sawfish, which was approximately 14-feet long, had the tip of its long flat snout tangled in a fishing net next to a dock in Lantana. Its unusual teeth, which line the outside edge of its rostrum like a hedge trimmer, only deepened the trap as they tangled in the net.
When Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation officers arrived on Feb. 27, they were able to free the tropical fish that looks like a shark but is really a ray, within minutes.
And it was a critical rescue as sawfish populations struggle with habitat loss and, more recently, a mysterious spinning disorder that has resulted in more than 200 reports to FWC since December 2023.
'Every specimen of this endangered species is vital to its genetic diversity,' said FWC Major Mike Davis, in a statement. 'I am grateful our officers were able to return this one to its habitat safely.'
More: Fisherman hooks 11-foot sawfish off Juno Beach Pier
The freed sawfish, which is believed to have been rescued from a residential dock in Lantana's Hypoluxo Island west of Manalapan, did not exhibit spinning behavior, according to FWC.
An update on the sawfish spinning behavior was issued Wednesday, March 5 by the FWC. After a lull in reports, 22 have been made since December as researchers struggle to discover the cause. FWC has recorded 62 sawfish deaths since December 2023.
In the March 5 update, FWC said water tests haven't identified a cause of the spinning with no harmful levels of chemicals or heavy metals in sediment. There have also been no signs of parasites, bacteria, or viruses that could explain the behavior.
Algal toxins are a possibility, but more testing must be done, FWC said in the update.
Florida lawmakers budgeted $2 million to support the investigation, with $1.75 million earmarked for research by the Bonefish & Tarpon Trust for work in Biscayne Bay, Florida Bay and the Keys.
∎ Their "teeth" line the outside edge of their snout and they swing it from side to side to impale and stun its prey. But they aren't actually teeth, they are denticles, which are very specialized scales.
∎ They may look like sharks, but they are rays.
∎ They live in coastal tropical and subtropical waters, including estuaries and river systems.
∎ There are five species of sawfish worldwide.
∎ They once lived from New York to Texas, but the smalltooth sawfish is now largely limited to the waters off the Florida coasts.
∎ They are protected by the Endangered Species Act in the U.S.. It is illegal to catch, harass, collect, buy or sell any part of any species of sawfish.
SOURCE: Florida Museum of Natural History
Kimberly Miller is a journalist for The Palm Beach Post, part of the USA Today Network of Florida. She covers real estate, weather, and the environment. Subscribe to The Dirt for a weekly real estate roundup. If you have news tips, please send them to kmiller@pbpost.com. Help support our local journalism: Subscribe today.
This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Endangered smalltooth sawfish rescued from fishing net in Lantana
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump is trying to defang the Endangered Species Act
More than 50 years after the bipartisan U.S. Endangered Species Act was passed unanimously in the Senate and by a vote of 355 to 4 in the House of Representatives, the federal government is proposing to remove the legislation's teeth. A proposed rule by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service would remove the regulatory definition of the term 'harm' and strip away the law's regulated habitat protections, which have been proven enormously effective at preventing species extinctions. Currently, including the definition of the term 'harm' in the regulations is critical, as it specifies that habitat destruction — and not just direct killing of animals — contributes to wildlife population declines. For that reason, the proposed changes represent not a minor technicality but a fundamental weakening of species protections. At a time when the majority of the world's scientists agree that the planet is facing an unprecedented extinction crisis, the proposed reduction of protection against species extinction in the United States is both unfathomable and unacceptable. The Endangered Species Act has helped safeguard more than 1,700 species and their habitats. According to a 2019 paper published by the Center for Biological Diversity, the law has also been extraordinarily successful, preventing 99 percent of species listed from going extinct. Without regulations that protect critical habitat, we will see an increased chance of species becoming endangered and a lower chance of recovery once a species is listed as endangered or threatened, resulting in a higher rate of extinctions. Decades of scientific research, including by our own organization, consistently demonstrates that habitat is the most critical component of a species' survival and successful population recovery. For example, our long-term monitoring of an endangered secretive marsh bird in the San Francisco Estuary — the California Ridgway's Rail — has demonstrated the species' high sensitivity to changes in habitat quality and extent. With an estimated population as small as 2,000 individuals, California Ridgway's Rails remain at elevated risk of extinction if existing habitat protections are reduced. Similarly, long-term monitoring of Northern Spotted Owls in Marin County, Calif., has demonstrated that continued protection of habitat is essential to support a stable population. Another example: Research into the California Current ecosystem has consistently shown that whales, including endangered blue, fin and humpback whales, rely on specific oceanic habitats for foraging and migration. It has identified key ocean habitat 'hotspots' where critical food sources for whales, such as krill and anchovies, are concentrated. Habitat degradation from increased vessel traffic, underwater noise, pollution and warming waters has been linked to whales being displaced from their feeding areas, as well as heightened risk of deadly collisions with ships and entanglements in fishing gear. Our research demonstrates that habitat quality and protection are essential to prevent harm to endangered whale species and to support their recovery under the Endangered Species Act. Weakening habitat-based protections, as proposed, would undermine decades of scientific progress and regulatory advances aimed at conserving these iconic species. In a country where a wide range of issues have become increasingly polarized by political views, the issue of protecting wildlife remains strongly bipartisan. According to a 2024 poll commissioned by the Indianapolis Zoological Society, nine in 10 Americans think the federal government should do more to strengthen the Endangered Species Act, including 93 percent of Democratic and 83 percent of Republican respondents. The proposed regulatory change therefore contradicts public opinion in addition to decades of scientific evidence. If enacted, the proposed regulatory change would counteract the significant progress for endangered species that has been made to this point. At a minimum, we strongly urge the federal government to maintain the current regulations. The research summarized in 1995 by the National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Scientific Issues in the Endangered Species Act still rings true today: 'there is no disagreement in the ecological literature about one fundamental relationship: sufficient loss of habitat will lead to species extinction.' The science is clear that habitat is essential for the survival of wildlife populations. Without explicit habitat protections in place, endangered species will be at much greater risk of extinction, and species not yet listed as endangered will be at greater risk of population declines and listing. For these reasons, we strongly oppose removing explicit habitat protections from Endangered Species Act regulations. Rose Snyder is director of community engagement and Liz Chamberlin is director of innovation at the California-based nonprofit Point Blue Conservation Science. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
2 days ago
- The Hill
Trump is trying to defang the Endangered Species Act
More than 50 years after the bipartisan U.S. Endangered Species Act was passed unanimously in the Senate and by a vote of 355 to 4 in the House of Representatives, the federal government is proposing to remove the legislation's teeth. A proposed rule by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service would remove the regulatory definition of the term 'harm' and strip away the law's regulated habitat protections, which have been proven enormously effective at preventing species extinctions. Currently, including the definition of the term 'harm' in the regulations is critical, as it specifies that habitat destruction — and not just direct killing of animals — contributes to wildlife population declines. For that reason, the proposed changes represent not a minor technicality but a fundamental weakening of species protections. At a time when the majority of the world's scientists agree that the planet is facing an unprecedented extinction crisis, the proposed reduction of protection against species extinction in the United States is both unfathomable and unacceptable. The Endangered Species Act has helped safeguard more than 1,700 species and their habitats. According to a 2019 paper published by the Center for Biological Diversity, the law has also been extraordinarily successful, preventing 99 percent of species listed from going extinct. Without regulations that protect critical habitat, we will see an increased chance of species becoming endangered and a lower chance of recovery once a species is listed as endangered or threatened, resulting in a higher rate of extinctions. Decades of scientific research, including by our own organization, consistently demonstrates that habitat is the most critical component of a species' survival and successful population recovery. For example, our long-term monitoring of an endangered secretive marsh bird in the San Francisco Estuary — the California Ridgway's Rail — has demonstrated the species' high sensitivity to changes in habitat quality and extent. With an estimated population as small as 2,000 individuals, California Ridgway's Rails remain at elevated risk of extinction if existing habitat protections are reduced. Similarly, long-term monitoring of Northern Spotted Owls in Marin County, Calif., has demonstrated that continued protection of habitat is essential to support a stable population. Another example: Research into the California Current ecosystem has consistently shown that whales, including endangered blue, fin and humpback whales, rely on specific oceanic habitats for foraging and migration. It has identified key ocean habitat 'hotspots' where critical food sources for whales, such as krill and anchovies, are concentrated. Habitat degradation from increased vessel traffic, underwater noise, pollution and warming waters has been linked to whales being displaced from their feeding areas, as well as heightened risk of deadly collisions with ships and entanglements in fishing gear. Our research demonstrates that habitat quality and protection are essential to prevent harm to endangered whale species and to support their recovery under the Endangered Species Act. Weakening habitat-based protections, as proposed, would undermine decades of scientific progress and regulatory advances aimed at conserving these iconic species. In a country where a wide range of issues have become increasingly polarized by political views, the issue of protecting wildlife remains strongly bipartisan. According to a 2024 poll commissioned by the Indianapolis Zoological Society, nine in 10 Americans think the federal government should do more to strengthen the Endangered Species Act, including 93 percent of Democratic and 83 percent of Republican respondents. The proposed regulatory change therefore contradicts public opinion in addition to decades of scientific evidence. If enacted, the proposed regulatory change would counteract the significant progress for endangered species that has been made to this point. At a minimum, we strongly urge the federal government to maintain the current regulations. The research summarized in 1995 by the National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Scientific Issues in the Endangered Species Act still rings true today: 'there is no disagreement in the ecological literature about one fundamental relationship: sufficient loss of habitat will lead to species extinction.' The science is clear that habitat is essential for the survival of wildlife populations. Without explicit habitat protections in place, endangered species will be at much greater risk of extinction, and species not yet listed as endangered will be at greater risk of population declines and listing. For these reasons, we strongly oppose removing explicit habitat protections from Endangered Species Act regulations. Rose Snyder is director of community engagement and Liz Chamberlin is director of innovation at the California-based nonprofit Point Blue Conservation Science.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Iconic Florida plant proposed to be added to Endangered Species list
Rare ghost orchid via YouTube. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed listing the ghost orchid, considered to be Florida's most famous flower, under the Endangered Species Act. The announcement came on Wednesday, more than three years after three environmental groups – the Center for Biological Diversity, The Institute for Regional Conservation and the National Parks Conservation Association— filed a petition requesting that the ghost orchid be listed under the law as a threatened species. The ghost orchid is endemic to southwestern Florida and western Cuba. It is estimated that its population has declined by more than 90% around the world, and by up to 50% in Florida. There are only an estimated 1,500 ghost orchids remaining in Florida, and less than half are known to be mature enough to reproduce. They are located mostly in the Big Cypress National Preserve, Florida Panther's National Wildlife Refuge, Fakahatchee Strand Preserve Park, Audubon's Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, and other conservation areas in Collier, Hendry, and possibly Lee counties. Among the factors that have led to the flower decreasing in population are the consequences of poaching as well as recent major storms, such as Hurricane Irma in 2017 and Hurricane Ian in 2022, says Jaclyn Lopez, an attorney with the Jacobs Law Clinic for Democracy and the Environment at Stetson University's College of Law based in Pinellas County, who is representing the conservation groups. Other factors that have led to the ghost orchid becoming more vulnerable include increased development and climate change. The ghost orchid is a leafless plant species that uses its roots to photosynthesize and attach itself to a host tree. 'The habitat changes that happen used to be quite slow over time. As sea levels have changed historically that allowed plants to move,' Lopez said. 'The difference now is that the levels are rising much more quickly, not really giving plants the opportunity to adapt and to migrate on their own, and so the concern is that some of these trees could be lost to sea level rise.' In February 2023, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission posted on social media that it had apprehended individuals attempting to steal a ghost orchid. In their petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the conservation groups noted that one of the chief threats to the ghost orchid was 'overcollection,' and therefore they did not list the exact locations of where the populations of the flower exist. However, Lopez says that the Endangered Species Act requires very specific data to be included in the petition process, so the conservation groups were still able to provide that information to the Fish and Wildlife Service confidentially. 'We understood that the principal threat is poaching, so we had to make sure that we weren't going to be the reason poachers could find out their exact location,' she said, adding that the federal agency was later able to communicate directly with officials at Big Cypress and Corkscrew to provide 'location specific information on the species' right down to the individual plant. In a statement, Elise Bennett, the Florida and Caribbean director and attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, welcomed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's announcement on the ghost orchid, but said it was far too early to celebrate. '[W]ith the Trump administration's incessant attacks on landmark environmental laws meant to stop species from going extinct, we know our job here isn't done,' she said. 'We'll continue to do what's necessary to ensure the ghost orchid and every other iconic Florida species has a fighting chance to thrive in our beautiful state.' 'People love plants,' adds Lopez. 'They're part of our own ecosystem and habitat. They're part of the aesthetic of living in Florida. And ghost orchids in particular are like the movie star of that ecosystem, so I imagine that this proposal will be gladly supported. I don't expect any political interference or backlash as a result. so we're just hopeful that the administration is able to move forward without further delay in giving the species finally all the protection that it needs.' The Fish and Wildlife Service is taking public comments on the proposed rule until August 4. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
