Shark Feeders Proposing Marine Sanctuary
Stephen Picardi
in South Florida have proposed "NO TAKE ZONES" which will exclude all users
EXCEPT divers. These "NO TAKE ZONES" run from the beach out to 110' in some
of the prime fishing and lobstering areas in Broward. Post your opinion
here or at http://www.marinesanctuary.org
The press is eating these guys alive (they should be used to it).
Don't let your license fees go toward policing you out of the water, join
the IGFA, marine biologists, spearfishers, lobster hunters, sport writers
and anglers all over the world in stopping these scam artists.
Stephen Picardi
President
South Florida Spearfishing Club
www.spearfishing.org
Scott J. McFadden
>The geniuses feeding sharks, morays, barracudas and jewfish off the beaches
>in South Florida have proposed "NO TAKE ZONES" which will exclude all users
>EXCEPT divers.
FSM and the sportfishing groups will shoot this down. I can see the editorials
"Greedy dive operators trying to boot fishermen out of the ocean" The
"geniuses" picked the wrong group to try and "push around". The rag-tag group
of idiots behind this "proposal" will be child's play for FSM. The fishermen
have the organization. They have the money (look at all their boats, or ask
politicans) And, they have the experience.
Just ask the the netters whom they knocked completely out of the water.
--
SJM
LAHorner
opposed to any type of government regulations to a sport that so far has been
"self regulated". Many of us just want to serve our local population and not be
tourist dependent. Most local divers do not want their dive areas restricted.
The beach is already difficult enough for locals to enjoy!
Alonzo Gariepy
"Stephen Picardi" <picardi@(nospam)speafishing.org> wrote in message news:g2b64.73$gr....@news2.pompano.net...
> The geniuses feeding sharks, morays, barracudas and jewfish off the beaches
> in South Florida have proposed "NO TAKE ZONES" which will exclude all users
> of the prime fishing and lobstering areas in Broward. Post your opinion
> here or at http://www.marinesanctuary.org
This is a squabble between diametrically opposed special interest groups. The
propagandistic naming of http://www.marinesanctuary.org which points to
http://www.sharkfeeding.net/marinesanctuary/ and which is *against* the
marine sanctuary proposed by the "shark feeders", should be some indication
of the level of the debate going on. No point posting any opinion there.
Personally, when I'm diving I don't want to be around hooks, lines, traps, or weapons
of any kind. I also like to look at fish and see no reason to kill them for "sport". With
the unbelievably huge volumes of fish that are hauled out every year, ocean wildlife is
a mere shadow of its former self. Perhaps the only fish that have a chance are the
ones that hang out close to reefs and to the shore where the nets and longlines can't
go. I'm all in favor of protecting every last one of them.
Sharkfeeding strikes me as incredibly lame. It can be particularly damaging to coral
because divers lie at the bottom and hold on. The one I saw in Fiji is always done in
exactly the same place so that such damage is localized and has already been done.
Hawaii has the right idea. You can't hunt turtles, feed turtles, touch turtles, or even
look at a turtle sideways.
Forget all the propaganda and high ideals. Some people like to hunt fish while some
prefer to look at them. I say: ban fishing and hunting near shores and reefs. Ban
the use of underwater weapons near shores and reefs. And while you're at it,
ban shark feeding near shores and reefs. Naturally, we can make an exception for
those who fish from the shore itself.
When you see a propaganda effort of this magnitude, don't believe anything you
hear. As far as I know, those who proposed the marine sanctuary are doing it
purely because they wish to preserve the reef and shore areas. That they happen
to run a dive service should not count against them. That they happen to run a
shark feed as one of their many services has probably been blown WAY out of
proportion. I may only visit a location like this once or twice in my whole life,
but I'm happy thinking that local dive operators are doing their part to preserve
the underwater environment so that there will still be something to see when I
get there. Don't believe that just because they've got a marine biologist and a
fourteen year old boy (could I make this up?) on their side, that many biologists
are against the marine sanctuary.
Fortunately, most divers are intelligent enough not to fall for propaganda that is
that heavyhanded. There's not much I can do except burst the bubble of bullshit,
express my opinion, and hopefully get people thinking. If I was in Florida I would
be donating my time to the YES campaign.
If you live in Florida, send a letter to the local newspaper. Send this letter if you
want to. As a potential tourist, even my opinion counts.
Alonzo Gariepy
Scott J. McFadden
> I say: ban fishing and hunting near shores and reefs.
You folks are really asking for it, I'm telling you this attitude will
backfire.
<fishermen responds>
Why is it we have to get a fishing license whose funds go toward protecting and
preserving marine resources while divers have no such requirement. Why Mr
Politician, do you allow these freeloaders to get way with this? Don't you
think it would be a great idea to increase funding for marine resource
protection with a scuba diving license, we certainly do. They even have their
"special areas" where we can't even go, they should pay for marine enforcement
in those areas, not us, they are real cheapskates aren't they. Just look at all
their fancy diving gear, these folks wouldn't mind paying another $25.00 per
year (and maybe take a test?) for a scuba diving license to support protection
of their "special areas". How could they? They enjoy marine resources and it is
way past time for them to "contribute".
Of course, we can put this on the ballot, like we have with others things the
public overwhelmingly approved, if you don't make it a law. ( I doubt they'ld
go this far just "planting a seed" with the Marine Patrol, Game & Fish, and
Dept Envrio, Protection will get the ball rolling)
<end fishermen payback>
Keep it up, keep picking on the hook & line, sportfisherman, they have us
outnumbered at least 10 to 1, just don't be surprised when they "hit" back.
--
SJM
Alonzo Gariepy
I guess when your hobby is to swim around dragging a bag of bleeding carrion
behind you, the idea of someone actively trying to attract sharks is unappealing.
Should spearfishermen be allowed to attract hungry sharks into water that is
being used by other divers? Why should the rights of a thousand divers to see
some fish be less important than the rights of one spearfisherman to kill it?
Can you believe they made it illegal in Arizona to shoot saguaro cactus? It was
a very popular sport. I think the reasoning is that they didn't want to destroy
the beautiful cactus or have people going around shooting guns all over the place.
Any diver who has been around for a while can see that marine life, including
coastal marine life, is not an unlimited resource.
alonzo
Alonzo Gariepy
> Keep it up, keep picking on the hook & line, sportfisherman, they have us
> outnumbered at least 10 to 1, just don't be surprised when they "hit" back.
The real answer to your warning is that I care about marine life a whole
lot more than I care about diving and fishing. Read the last big article in
Scientific American about the ocean's fish population. There barely is one.
The oceans are unbelievably vast, and yet all this damage was done by
huge nets and long lines. Coastal waters are a tiny fraction as big and
even the work of one spear fisherman can take its toll. Let the anglers fish
from shore or take a boat out beyond the reef. There's not much damage
they can do in the open ocean compared to what factory ships have done.
In many great diving spots around the world the fishermen have already
moved on (because there are no more fish). Two protected marine parks
that I can think of in Cozumel and off the north end of Bali are true wonders.
Some places look like they have been fished with dynamite, because they
have been.
When I was in Fiji I saw a *HUGE* parrot fish with a big bump on its head
that looked to be over two meters in length. Really interesting. I was told
that there used to be a school of seven of them, but the others have all
been killed by spear fishermen. Going to be pretty tough for this guy to
reproduce all on his own. How far can you slide down this slope before a
species is doomed to extinction? How many extinct species are enough?
Since this problem is largely caused by fishing and hunting in coastal waters,
the solution is going to necessarily annoy anyone who fishes or hunts in
coastal waters. The destruction of the open ocean is more a matter of
historical record (kind of like the amazon rainforest).
This is definitely one of those subjects that many people prefer not to think
about.
Alonzo
Rich Lesperance
Scott J. McFadden <sjm...@aol.comnospam> wrote <alot of scary things>
Holy Sh*t!
You scared ME there! I guess I didn't realize how vulnerable we could be
to such a thing!
Rich L
Dan Bracuk
"Don't you think it would be a great idea to increase funding for marine
resource
protection with a scuba diving license, we certainly do. "
It is also a situation that exists in many places. However, the terminology
used is park fees. Tobermory has one. St Lucia has one. Saba has one.
Bonaire has one.
Dan Bracuk
Toronto, Canada
Join us on the Nekton Pilot 20 - 27 May 2000
rec.scuba faq http://scifi.squawk.com/scuba.html
dive...@my-deja.com
"Why is it we have to get a fishing license whose funds go toward
protecting and preserving marine resources while divers have no such
requirement." In a way you are paying for what you take permanently out
of the water, do you object to paying for what you take or do I guess
you think its your given right. I am happy to pay to protect marine life
and sort of like you I think its my given right to see it.
I think the difference is that underwater hunters are destroying
(killing is destroying after all) and depleting marine life where most
sport divers are simply intent on looking. Granted both underwater
"hunters" and "lookers" probably share the blame for destruction caused
by bumping into reefs and scaring wildlife, although I certainly cant
imagine that someone intent on killing and taking out one type of marine
life would really give a shit about any other kind.
Oh dont get me wrong I could think of nothing better than an ocean so
full of beautiful, exciting, dangerous and hunt worthy wildlife, so
full that us humans would have little effect and the hunter would be
really challenged by the prey, but dream on, what we really have is a
depleted ocean where the life is on its fucking knees.
Of course if hunting really was a risky macho challenge most of todays
hunters would be scared as crap to get near the water (I dont know if
that is true about you but you sure know its true in general).
Bye the way you wrote:
> The fishermen have the organization. They have the money (look at all
their boats, or ask politicans)
"look at all their boats" Huh! I'm so intimidated by these "powerful"
scary men and their boats. And what are all these boats going to do when
all the fish are gone, I guess they could all turn into dive operations,
only there wont be anything to see.
"ask politicans"??? I guess you mean politicians, most conservation
groups are politicians, so which politicians are you talking about.
If you truly love whatever it is you do in the ocean you would want to
protect it whether you are a "hunter" or a "looker" if you dont give a
shit that is a different story.
All the best
Dave Reid.
PS Well said Alonzo Gariepy, thank you very much for speaking out here.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Alonzo Gariepy
pollution is also a factor, but much more difficult to regulate. I don't suppose
there is anybody who disagrees with you, so don't get out of your easy chair. :)
alonzo
"NE333RO" <ne3...@aol.com> wrote in message news:19991219002114...@ng-cl1.aol.com...
> >Since this problem is largely caused by fishing and hunting in coastal
> >waters,
> >the solution is going to necessarily annoy anyone who fishes or hunts in
> >coastal waters.
>
> I disagree. In my opinion (which I could probably support if I wasn't so
> lazy ;o) ) fish populations have two (or more) destructive forces acting upon
> them that far outweigh the minimal effect of recreational hunters.
> The first would be the desimation of fish populations by commercial fishing
> interests. They catch more fish in a night than most spearfisherman do in their
> whole lives.
> The second would be the destruction of their environment. We seem to be
> killing off the reefs, and seagrass beds, in leaps and bounds. Not to mention
> ruining the estuaries where the hatchlings were meant to grow to a size where
> they can defend themselves.
>
NE333RO
NE333RO
>waters,
>the solution is going to necessarily annoy anyone who fishes or hunts in
>coastal waters.
I disagree. In my opinion (which I could probably support if I wasn't so
lazy ;o) ) fish populations have two (or more) destructive forces acting upon
them that far outweigh the minimal effect of recreational hunters.
The first would be the decimation of fish populations by commercial fishing
Scott J. McFadden
>In a way you are paying for what you take permanently out
>of the water, do you object to paying for what you take or do I guess
>you think its your given right. I am happy to pay to protect marine life
>and sort of like you I think its my given right to see it.
How do you "pay"?
I can see you've never heard of "catch and release" fishing. Of course this is
"verbotten" in your "special areas" isn't it, Mr Arrogant, Elitist,
Screw-Everybody- Else, We-Want-It-All, dive operator.
>I think the difference is that underwater hunters are destroying
>(killing is destroying after all) and depleting marine life where most
>sport divers are simply intent on looking.
Go ahead and outlaw it then, I don't care one way or another. Of course that
would mean divers actually doing something, which would be a first.
> Granted both underwater
>"hunters" and "lookers" probably share the blame for destruction caused
>by bumping into reefs and scaring wildlife, although I certainly cant
>imagine that someone intent on killing and taking out one type of marine
>life would really give a shit about any other kind.
>
>Oh dont get me wrong I could think of nothing better than an ocean so
>full of beautiful, exciting, dangerous and hunt worthy wildlife, so
>full that us humans would have little effect and the hunter would be
>really challenged by the prey, but dream on, what we really have is a
>depleted ocean where the life is on its fucking knees.
You don't dive much, do you? Don't try this Enviro-kook, "doomsday",nonsense
with me. It is BS, and not going to work.
>Of course if hunting really was a risky macho challenge most of todays
>hunters would be scared as crap to get near the water (I dont know if
>that is true about you but you sure know its true in general).
>
Why do think I am some sort of Big Time U/W Hunter? I am just a diver and
once-in-awhile hook & line fisherman.
>Bye the way you wrote:
>> The fishermen have the organization. They have the money (look at all
>their boats, or ask politicans)
>
>"look at all their boats" Huh! I'm so intimidated by these "powerful"
>scary men and their boats. And what are all these boats going to do when
>all the fish are gone, I guess they could all turn into dive operations,
>only there wont be anything to see.
No, they are not stupid, they will simply give money to the folks that write
the rules so that doesn't happen. Who got the nets out of FL waters? Hint: it
was not scuba divers.
>"ask politicans"??? I guess you mean politicians, most conservation
>groups are politicians, so which politicians are you talking about.
Opps, you really got me on that one:-). I meant the ones who want money, so
they can get re-elected.
>
>If you truly love whatever it is you do in the ocean you would want to
>protect it whether you are a "hunter" or a "looker" if you dont give a
>shit that is a different story.
>
>
>All the best
>
>
>Dave Reid.
Yea, I'm sure.
>PS Well said Alonzo Gariepy, thank you very much for speaking out here.
Thanks to both of you for "speaking out". I love a good fight <g>.
--
SJM
Rich Lesperance
hunters would be scared as crap to get near the water (I dont know if
that is true about you but you sure know its true in general).<<
Why does every coffeehouse liberal on the planet assume people hunt to
assuage their testosterone impulses?
No, sparky, I wouldn't be scared to get near the water, I wouldn't hunt
if it were significantly dangerous. Just like I wouldn't go to the movie
theater if the ushers started shooting at me.
Look, I don't hunt much, at all (most of my diving is freshwater, and
zapping the catfish is frowned upon....), but once in a while, I do enjoy
shooting some super-fresh for dinner. I don't usually buy fish in the
supermarket, but the other day, I saw some Grouper for sale - at $12 per
pound!!!!!!
Which brings me to the next point - anyone who eats fish, yet condemns
spearfishing, is a hypocrite. If bith of us eat the same number of fish per
year, _I_ have a much lower environmental impact than someone who buys it in
a market. It's called by-catch.
Rich L
<dive...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:83gphj$v71$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> You wrote:
>
> "Why is it we have to get a fishing license whose funds go toward
> protecting and preserving marine resources while divers have no such
> requirement." In a way you are paying for what you take permanently out
> of the water, do you object to paying for what you take or do I guess
> you think its your given right. I am happy to pay to protect marine life
> and sort of like you I think its my given right to see it.
>
> I think the difference is that underwater hunters are destroying
> (killing is destroying after all) and depleting marine life where most
> sport divers are simply intent on looking. Granted both underwater
> "hunters" and "lookers" probably share the blame for destruction caused
> by bumping into reefs and scaring wildlife, although I certainly cant
> imagine that someone intent on killing and taking out one type of marine
> life would really give a shit about any other kind.
>
> Oh dont get me wrong I could think of nothing better than an ocean so
> full of beautiful, exciting, dangerous and hunt worthy wildlife, so
> full that us humans would have little effect and the hunter would be
> really challenged by the prey, but dream on, what we really have is a
> depleted ocean where the life is on its fucking knees.
>
> Of course if hunting really was a risky macho challenge most of todays
> hunters would be scared as crap to get near the water (I dont know if
> that is true about you but you sure know its true in general).
>
>
> Bye the way you wrote:
> > The fishermen have the organization. They have the money (look at all
> their boats, or ask politicans)
>
> "look at all their boats" Huh! I'm so intimidated by these "powerful"
> scary men and their boats. And what are all these boats going to do when
> all the fish are gone, I guess they could all turn into dive operations,
> only there wont be anything to see.
>
> "ask politicans"??? I guess you mean politicians, most conservation
> groups are politicians, so which politicians are you talking about.
>
>
>
> If you truly love whatever it is you do in the ocean you would want to
> protect it whether you are a "hunter" or a "looker" if you dont give a
> shit that is a different story.
>
>
> All the best
>
>
> Dave Reid.
>
>
>
>
> PS Well said Alonzo Gariepy, thank you very much for speaking out here.
>
>
>
Alonzo Gariepy
fish I eat come from the open ocean. Even the open ocean won't support
this for too much longer, but it is like the universe compared to the little solar
systems that make up coastal waters and reefs. These areas are tiny in
comparison and fragile, but many are still in good enough shape to be worth
saving. I don't eat reef animals and I don't condemn spearfishing. I just wish
to have it outlawed near reefs and shores.
Perhaps allowing spearfishing in malls would be a good idea.
alonzo
"Rich Lesperance" <ri...@xxufl.edu> wrote in message news:83jqs3$6fje$3...@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu...
Lee Bell
> Not all dive stores and dive boats want the proposed sanctuary. Some of
us
> are opposed to any type of government regulations to a sport that so far
has
> been "self regulated".
Agreed
>Many of us just want to serve our local population and not be tourist
dependent.
All of you would like to make a living off local business, but I've yet run
into an operator who doesn't take all the tourist business he can support.
Some take more than they can support, but that's life.
> Most local divers do not want their dive areas restricted.
Agreed
Lee
Lee Bell
> Why is it we have to get a fishing license whose funds go toward
protecting
> and preserving marine resources while divers have no such requirement. Why
> Mr Politician, do you allow these freeloaders to get way with this? Don't
you
> think it would be a great idea to increase funding for marine resource
> protection with a scuba diving license, we certainly do. They even have
their
> "special areas" where we can't even go, they should pay for marine
> enforcement in those areas, not us, they are real cheapskates aren't they.
Just
> look at all their fancy diving gear, these folks wouldn't mind paying
another
> $25.00 per year (and maybe take a test?) for a scuba diving license to
> support protection of their "special areas". How could they? They enjoy
> marine resources and it is way past time for them to "contribute".
Not real concerned with the truth, are you Scott? Fishermen get a license
for fishing, not for simply being on the water. Guess what, underwater
fishermen do too.
Now, if you really think anyone who enjoys our marine resources should pay a
fee, well go for it, but don't forget to include the tourists who visit us
each year, providing a substantial portion of our state's annual income.
How much support do you think you'd get for that idea?
How about a compromise. Lets calculate the value to our economy of our
marine resources and tax all fishermen, above or below the water, commercial
or otherwise, by the pound for all the resources that belong to all of us
that they take for their personal profit or enjoyment. I'm willing to pay
for the fish I take, how about you?
You think diver's should take a test? Funny, so do we. Every certified
diver too one.
One more surprise for you. Here in S. Florida, many, if not most of us
divers also happen to enjoy other boating activities, including fishing.
I'm one of them, so let me assure you and everyone else who reads this, YOU
DAMNED SURE DON'T SPEAK FOR ME.
Take your special interest somewhere else, or better yet, stick around and
keep it up. As a self regulated industry, divers tend to be apathetic
towards most issues. Stir things up and you might just find out how strong
a reaction and and just how hard we're willing to fight special interests
who think that their desire for profit overshadows everyone elses right to
share in the earth and ocean's resources.
Lee
Pmcduffee
>Scott J. McFadden wrote
>"Don't you think it would be a great idea to increase funding for marine
>resource
>protection with a scuba diving license, we certainly do. "
>
>It is also a situation that exists in many places. However, the terminology
>used is park fees. Tobermory has one. St Lucia has one. Saba has one.
>Bonaire has one.
So does the Galapagos, Cocos, Malpelo, Los Roques, there are many others as
well. I just can not think of them all at this point in time.
Pat
--
O
o
.
(:))
I Call you My Friend, because You are My Friend.
Nekton Pilot, May 20 - 27, 2000. Be there or be square.
Scott J. McFadden
>Not real concerned with the truth, are you Scott? Fishermen get a license
>for fishing, not for simply being on the water. Guess what, underwater
>fishermen do too.
No kidding, I have saltwater, freshwater fishing license with snook and
crawfish stamps oh, and a hunting license too. About $30.00 per year. No scuba
license, yet.
>Now, if you really think anyone who enjoys our marine resources should pay a
>fee, well go for it, but don't forget to include the tourists who visit us
>each year, providing a substantial portion of our state's annual income.
>How much support do you think you'd get for that idea?
Remember about seven years ago, when there was no requirement for a fishing
license? I do. Now we have one. I wasn't crazy about it but the folks who
wanted one rolled us. The tourists also have to purchase one.
>How about a compromise. Lets calculate the value to our economy of our
>marine resources and tax all fishermen, above or below the water, commercial
>or otherwise, by the pound for all the resources that belong to all of us
>that they take for their personal profit or enjoyment. I'm willing to pay
>for the fish I take, how about you?
Ummm, I already do or, are you saying that since I release most every fish I do
manage to catch, that I do not have to pay anything, at all.
>You think diver's should take a test? Funny, so do we. Every certified
>diver too one.
Yes, so did I. I also took a divers test with a state trooper next to me many,
many years ago. Now I just send them a check to with the license renewal form.
Not the same thing is it?
>One more surprise for you. Here in S. Florida, many, if not most of us
>divers also happen to enjoy other boating activities, including fishing.
>I'm one of them, so let me assure you and everyone else who reads this, YOU
>DAMNED SURE DON'T SPEAK FOR ME.
You don't have to yell Lee, I can hear just fine. Oh, and btw, you don't speak
for anyone but yourself either. The number of divers who own boats is
miniscule. Just look at this NG, you can count us/them on maybe one hand.
>Take your special interest somewhere else, or better yet, stick around and
>keep it up. As a self regulated industry, divers tend to be apathetic
>towards most issues. Stir things up and you might just find out how strong
>a reaction and and just how hard we're willing to fight special interests
>who think that their desire for profit overshadows everyone elses right to
>share in the earth and ocean's resources.
Take a look at the number of fishing licenses issued."My special interests"?
How many millions are there? And what is with this "all fisherman are quick
buck, marine resource wipe out artists" crap, attitude? I *Release* almost
every fish I catch. You get the recreational fisherman pissed off at divers and
you'll see who can do what.
--
SJM
Lee Bell
> Remember about seven years ago, when there was no requirement for a
> fishing license? I do. Now we have one. I wasn't crazy about it but the
folks
> who wanted one rolled us. The tourists also have to purchase one.
I don't think this was a conservation issue nearly as much as a revenue
issue., but I understand and agree. By the way, look again at the tourist
issue. Most don't need a license. As I recall, you can fish from shore or
a pier without one. I'm sure you can go on a commercial charter fishing
boat without one provided the boat is licensed. The salt water fishing
license applies primarily to the locals, those own their own boats of fish
with friends who do.
> >How about a compromise. Lets calculate the value to our economy of our
> >marine resources and tax all fishermen, above or below the water,
> > commercial or otherwise, by the pound for all the resources that belong
to all
> > of us that they take for their personal profit or enjoyment. I'm
willing to pay
> >for the fish I take, how about you?
> Ummm, I already do or, are you saying that since I release most every fish
I do
> manage to catch, that I do not have to pay anything, at all.
No, what I'm saying is that I seem to have misjudged your interest. I was
speaking of commercial fishermen who certainly don't pay fees adequate to
offset the true cost of the fish they harvest. For those that catch and
release, I don't have a good answer. Their impact is less, but still
significant.
> >You think diver's should take a test? Funny, so do we. Every certified
> >diver too one.
>
> Yes, so did I. I also took a divers test with a state trooper next to me
many,
> many years ago. Now I just send them a check to with the license renewal
> form. Not the same thing is it?
Nope, but this comment was about a test, not a license renewal. Surely you
don't think that you need to take a fishing test annually, do you?
> >One more surprise for you. Here in S. Florida, many, if not most of us
> >divers also happen to enjoy other boating activities, including fishing.
> >I'm one of them, so let me assure you and everyone else who reads this,
> YOU DAMNED SURE DON'T SPEAK FOR ME.
>
> You don't have to yell Lee, I can hear just fine. Oh, and btw, you don't
speak
> for anyone but yourself either. The number of divers who own boats is
> miniscule. Just look at this NG, you can count us/them on maybe one hand.
Sure I had to yell, I was doing so in my mind. You're right about my not
speaking for anyone but myself, of course. I don't think the number of
divers who own boats is all the miniscule. I doubt that this group is
representative of the ratio either. I'll readily admit that there are
plenty of non boating divers in Florida water each year
> >Take your special interest somewhere else, or better yet, stick around
and
> >keep it up. As a self regulated industry, divers tend to be apathetic
> >towards most issues. Stir things up and you might just find out how
strong
> >a reaction and and just how hard we're willing to fight special interests
> >who think that their desire for profit overshadows everyone elses right
to
> >share in the earth and ocean's resources.
> Take a look at the number of fishing licenses issued."My special
interests"?
> How many millions are there? And what is with this "all fisherman are
quick
> buck, marine resource wipe out artists" crap, attitude? I *Release* almost
> every fish I catch. You get the recreational fisherman pissed off at
divers and
> you'll see who can do what.
Not all fishermen, not even most recreational fishermen. Since my opinion
seems to be important to this discussion, here it is.
1. I don't think all of the recreational fishermen, above or below the
water, have a significant impact on the viability of fish resources.
2. I think that polution and commercial fishing interests are the one and
two most significant factors leading to the depletion of Florida fish
populations.
3. I think the Florida net ban is the most significant positive step ever
taken to protect our fish resources for disaster.
4. I'm not a supporter of extensive marine sanctuaries where nobody is
allowed to take anything, but have some give regarding possible
replenishment zones. 5. I'm not big fan of buoyed sights in or outside of
existing marine preserves because, in my experience, they concentrate
divers, resulting in more complete damage to a single reef, damage that may
not be reversable. Time and nature can offset a little damage to widely
diverse areas a lot better than they can repair complete devistation one
reef at a time.
I simply don't like scare tactics and that's how I perceived your post.
Scare tactics simply anger the informed. Unfortunately, they work all to
well on the uninformed. So, i sometimes yell when I get mad. Such is life.
Lee
michelob
Steve, I know you are scared of sharks but the bottom line is you want to
spear fish. Take my advice and go to Pennekamp and see what benefit a
marine sanctuary really offers. By giving the groupers a protected place
to live and breed there will be more/bigger targets for you to shoot for in
the "take-zones". I was really impressed this weekend by the size and
quantity of groupers at Pennekamp. We need a place like that in Broward
for our local populations of grouper to establish themselves once again.
Between you and the Brazilians we don't have many left!
Steve, use your brain! There have been wildlife refuges created for deer
hunters that provide a protected place for deer to live and breed. Why
would the reef be any different?
Steve, the only scam artist is yourself. You have gotten information WRONG
every time you open up and spew. Remember, you started this controversary
and every foray you've make so far has been a loss for you. Are you going
to keep going until you have us regulated like the Bahamas? IF you are
really concerned about protecting your hobby then do something to make sure
that the future populations of spearfishers have something to shoot at.
Swallow your pride, get off you soapbox, and start thinking like a hunter.
Stephen Picardi <picardi@(nospam)speafishing.org> wrote in message
news:g2b64.73$gr....@news2.pompano.net...
> The geniuses feeding sharks, morays, barracudas and jewfish off the
beaches
> in South Florida have proposed "NO TAKE ZONES" which will exclude all
users
> EXCEPT divers. These "NO TAKE ZONES" run from the beach out to 110' in
some
> of the prime fishing and lobstering areas in Broward. Post your opinion
> here or at http://www.marinesanctuary.org
Scott J. McFadden
>By the way, look again at the tourist
>issue. Most don't need a license.
On a pier or charter no one does. From shore, *only* out-of-state visitors need
one. A five or seven day license for five bucks or so. We are oh so clever in
milking the tourists.
>> Yes, so did I. I also took a divers test with a state trooper next to me
>many,
>> many years ago. Now I just send them a check to with the license renewal
>> form. Not the same thing is it?
>
>Nope, but this comment was about a test, not a license renewal.
LOL, I meant a "drivers test", my scuba instructor was a Sheriff's deputy.
> Surely you
>don't think that you need to take a fishing test annually, do you?
No, but perhaps a better analogy would be a pilots license. They have to take,
and pay for, a "flight reveiw" with an instructor, every two years. Doesn't
matter how much or how little you've flown.
>Not all fishermen, not even most recreational fishermen.
What was that about speaking for others? Were you aware of all the grumbling in
FSM about rec.fishermen being booted out of the SPA's in the Keys while scuba
was "allowed"? I'm not making this up, and as Dan B and Pat have pointed out,
it is not unheard of. Terms may differ, pay you will.
<snip stuff I agree with>
>5. I'm not big fan of buoyed sights in or outside of
>existing marine preserves because, in my experience, they concentrate
>divers, resulting in more complete damage to a single reef, damage that may
>not be reversable.
Well maybe I'm lazy but I think it beats the heck out of anchoring. But your
right about the density. Looe Key can resemble a marina.
>I simply don't like scare tactics and that's how I perceived your post.
>Scare tactics simply anger the informed. Unfortunately, they work all to
>well on the uninformed.
I was relaying what happened the last time rec.fishermen got booted out of some
place = not to happy. Frankly, I have no problem with a license, testing,
whatever.
Another one, oh well <yawn>. You can add a boat operator license to my "wish
list".
Here is a scare tactic btw. "We fishermen want our special areas where divers
can't go, they have theirs, we want ours. "Also we paid for that wreck to be
put down there, not scuba divers, the do nothing, freeloaders." "We want them
out of there, fishing sucks when they are down there, how much will this cost,
Mr Politician?"
<end scare tactic>
> So, i sometimes yell when I get mad. Such is life.
I get mad when I see rec.fishermen getting portrayed as "the bad guys" when
they have done one Hell of alot for marine resource protection.
--
SJM
Scott J. McFadden
>Steve, use your brain! There have been wildlife refuges created for deer
>hunters that provide a protected place for deer to live and breed. Why
>would the reef be any different?
Do they allow commercial operators to go in and feed the deer in front of a
group of tourists, day after day? Do they allow that kind of thing at
Pennekamp? Will this be allowed in the proposed "sanctuary"? If so, why?
--
SJM
dive...@my-deja.com
whoah the hell up there, whats with this "coffeehouse liberal" bullshit.
Go on assume some more.
I could say the same thing, how come any time someone mentions
protecting anything wild some bozo always gets the idea you are some
prissy enviro trendy whimp from the burbs with hypocritical ideals that
dont work outside of a restaurant.
Sorry pal.
I dont hunt right now but I have and I am sure as hell not scared to
kill the food I eat and I'm talking from experience not theory (and I'm
certainly not vegetarian either).
The issue I was talking about is a numbers game. I think a lot of marine
life is in danger and I dont want to see it go.
If you hunt your own food then good for you and you are certainly less
hypocritical than plenty nice people sitting in restaurants all starry
eyed having paid someone else to do the dirty work they would never do.
Call me what you like Rich but "coffeehouse liberal" fuck that!
Dave Reid
Rich Lesperance
>>> whoah the hell up there, whats with this "coffeehouse liberal" bullshit.
> Go on assume some more.<<
Snipping from your original post :
>>Of course if hunting really was a risky macho challenge most of todays
hunters would be scared as crap to get near the water <<
This is flippant, and by its very nature designed to get a rise out of
the people who do that actions you talk about. Not only that, it has nothing
whatsoever to do with the logic of your argument. This is the very nature of
the "Coffeehouse liberal" argument - slipping in negative statements like
that to impugn the motives or validity of the person you are arguing with.
If I was incorrect about your motives, accept my apologies.
Again:
>>I think the difference is that underwater hunters are destroying
(killing is destroying after all) and depleting marine life where most
sport divers are simply intent on looking.
This is a perfect example - "destroying" is a value laden term. While
you may have chosen this word for innocuous reasons, usually this is
inserted (by the tree huggers) into an argument to subtly 'color' it. In all
fairness, the hunters themselves also do this, by using words like
"harvest", as if the grouper was a sheaf of wheat or something <g>.
>>> The issue I was talking about is a numbers game. I think a lot of marine
> life is in danger and I dont want to see it go.
In that case, shouldn't you be boycotting fish in restaurants & markets,
then?
OK, ok, here, _I'M_ the one guilty of a deliberately inflammatory
statement, regardless of its accuracy. Still, can you see through _my_
rhetoric there, to glean my point?
If we are speaking strictly from a conservation standpoint, spearfishing
has a negligible impact on the populations (as currently regulated). If our
sole concern is the viability of fish populations, either pelagic or reef
species, than we should severely restrict commercial fishing operations, and
also the activities that damage the reefs (sewage dumping, excessive
unregulated tourism, etc). Instead, we have people who want to restrict
spearfishing because it's not as politically correct as the others, above.
Note I am NOT saying spearfishing should be unregulated. What I AM
saying, is that those regulations should be based on ecological guidelines
designed to minimize the impact, not on moral guidelines based on the
decision that spearfishermen are simply engaging in machismo activities.
If the shoe I've presented here fits, wear it.
If not, don't worry about it, I wasn't really talking about you, was I?
<big, toothy grin>
Rich L
dive...@my-deja.com
I wrote
>>> The issue I was talking about is a numbers game. I think a lot of
marine
> life is in danger and I dont want to see it go.
and you replied,
In that case, shouldn't you be boycotting fish in restaurants & markets,
then?
I do.
Dave.
Stephen Picardi
news:83m0a5$ffu$1...@ausnews.austin.ibm.com...
> Well at least you recognize that we fish-feeders are "geniuses"....
I do think most would take exception to that.
>
> Steve, I know you are scared of sharks but the bottom line is you want to
> spear fish. Take my advice and go to Pennekamp and see what benefit a
> marine sanctuary really offers. By giving the groupers a protected
place
> to live and breed there will be more/bigger targets for you to shoot for
in
> the "take-zones". I was really impressed this weekend by the size and
> quantity of groupers at Pennekamp. We need a place like that in Broward
> for our local populations of grouper to establish themselves once again.
> Between you and the Brazilians we don't have many left!
>
Michael,
As I thought you of all people wouldn't go for theses tactics, may I remind
you (and this group) of the letter published in Florida Underwater at
http://www.sharkfeeding.net/marinesanctuary/letter_to_the_editor.htm which
states my club's opinion on these shark parks.
I do enjoy spearfishing, a closely regulated sport and I don't think anyone
wants to be around hand fed predators such as sharks, barracudas, moray
eels.
Although I haven't dived Pennekamp in a while I have been told by many of
the wide spread damage to the coral in the "popular" areas. The areas too
far for the cattle boats to go are in much better shape I'm told. Grunts
all over the reef does not constitute a "model MPA".
> Steve, use your brain! There have been wildlife refuges created for deer
> hunters that provide a protected place for deer to live and breed. Why
> would the reef be any different?
Mike, use your brain! For almost a year you and your buddies have denied
any comparison at all between the fish you feed and terrestrial animals. Now
you think it works in you favor so you do an about face?
Small recharge zones, once deemed beneficial by numerous scientists would
benefit the resource if no one was allowed to use them. Not used by cattle
boats dumping thousands of divers every week while the "protected" fish are
fed cheese wiz and frozen, rotting bait by hand.
>
> Steve, the only scam artist is yourself. You have gotten information
WRONG
> every time you open up and spew. Remember, you started this controversary
> and every foray you've make so far has been a loss for you. Are you going
> to keep going until you have us regulated like the Bahamas? IF you are
> really concerned about protecting your hobby then do something to make
sure
> that the future populations of spearfishers have something to shoot at.
> Swallow your pride, get off you soapbox, and start thinking like a hunter.
Mike, get your information correct. Steve Waters, writer for the Sun
Sentinel accused your group as being scam artists
(http://www.sharkfeeding.net/marinesanctuary/Media.htm).
Your friends Jeff Torode and Mike Rorbaugh are screaming "ban spearfishing",
not me.
What I am doing is speaking for thousands of divers, spearfishers, anglers
and citizens who will not sit back while your group creates shark parks and
causes wholesale damage to our reefs for your groups' financial benefit.
By the way, Mike, have you been off of Broward lately? You have to brush
the lobsters out of the way to see anything else. A friend of mine was out
deep and saw well over a thousand bugs in one spot. Could it be that there
really isn't much of an issue with fish populations? Banning the nets has
allowed the repopulation of our reefs. You charter guys only see a few
sections of the reef regularly; the areas you take your customers. I can
understand when your group tells people the fish aren't there. You all go
to the same spots day in, day out. Only certain areas will support dropping
10-15+ divers at a time. Could the constant activity be the cause of your
group seeing fewer fish? I think so. We dive in hundreds of "spots" here
and see an abundance of reef fish and game fish in these areas. We don't
visit the "charter" areas for obvious reasons.
Mike, it's not the spearfishers, anglers or lobster hunters who are causing
problems, it's the millions of gallons of sewage dumped continuously and the
farm run off from out west that are. Perhaps your group and Alexander Stone
should to put their money into curbing the pollutants. I'd join you for
that.
Happy Holidays, from all of us at http://www.marinesanctuary.org
dive...@my-deja.com
and fishing organizations. As would be expected from a spearfishing
clubs opposition to a NO TAKE zone.
This shark feeding argument is another matter but that doesnt look like
what you are really worried about.
If you are going to continue this then lets go verify some of your so
called supporters.
Linda Woodhouse for example. You quoted her as being against this
Sanctuary. Go ahead verify this.
Your quote says:
Linda Woodhouse, president of Ocean Watch Foundation, a Fort Lauderdale
environmental organization, said
creating a sanctuary would attract thousands of
divers. "Divers are very excited about diving at [John]
Pennekamp, because it's a marine sanctuary." (from
Florida Underwater Magazine)
end of your quote.
This does NOT imply she is against the NO TAKE zone. It just implies she
realizes divers would be getting excited about it. Shall we find out
and verify what she really thinks and who she really is.
If you want I'll do the digging for you and post it back here.
If you are genuine you would be more than happy to back this up.
Dave
michelob
issues.....don't take it personally, I'm just venting. You *spearheaded*
this issue and I must say you've done a hellava job.
Your right about the chemical impact from Big Sugar on the reefs. We
*should* work together to fix this. But it will take alot of campaign money
to make that happen. And Big Sugar is more dangerous than any shark.
Your right about the "popular" areas in the Keys being overrun by way too
many divers. Last weekend the Statue of Christ had a Christmas tree
complete with ornaments on it's pedestal! A diver in full Santa costume
was littering the reef with all kinds of garbage.
Your right that the "protected zones" would benefit the resource if no one
was allowed to use them. How about a *season* that would allow divers in
the preserve??
I DO like to be around hand fed predators. I've been taking sardines,
squid, and half a grunt or whatever underwater for over thirty years to feed
sealife. It's been fun so far....
Most of the charter captains are not land hunters and can't relate. Proper
game management of prey is still an issue below or above the water. You
can't by law kill deer hovering over a sack of corn.
The shark-feeding issue is still pretty murky. I'm still adamant about
feeding on Sea Emporer. I've been on the soapbox all along to make it a
protected wreck (with feeding). But with the dissention among those in the
industry here, no one can agree on anything.
Happy Hunting!
Stephen Picardi <picardi@(nospam)speafishing.org> wrote in message
news:Pq484.39$hT....@news2.jacksonville.net...
Lee Bell
>> The issue I was talking about is a numbers game. I think a lot of marine
>> life is in danger and I dont want to see it go.
> In that case, shouldn't you be boycotting fish in restaurants & markets,
> then?
> If we are speaking strictly from a conservation standpoint, spearfishing
> has a negligible impact on the populations (as currently regulated). If
our
> sole concern is the viability of fish populations, either pelagic or reef
> species, than we should severely restrict commercial fishing operations,
and
> also the activities that damage the reefs (sewage dumping, excessive
> unregulated tourism, etc). Instead, we have people who want to restrict
> spearfishing because it's not as politically correct as the others, above.
> Note I am NOT saying spearfishing should be unregulated. What I AM
> saying, is that those regulations should be based on ecological guidelines
> designed to minimize the impact, not on moral guidelines based on the
> decision that spearfishermen are simply engaging in machismo activities.
Nice post.
Lee
Alonzo Gariepy
<dive...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:83reeh$73i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> If you are going to continue this then lets go verify some of your so
> called supporters.
> Linda Woodhouse for example. You quoted her as being against this
> Sanctuary. Go ahead verify this.
If you check out the original URL (which you should) you will see that Linda
Woodhouse is listed as a supporter of the sanctuary, however her comment
about lots of divers is used by the opponents of the sanctuary.
-alonzo
Ken Graham
I'm hoping this isn't a private fight, but I couldn't help myself.
If you want a real-life example of what a "few" spear fishermen can
do, just look to Jamaica. Go dive there. The coral is beautiful and
lush and the biggest fish I saw there was about 6 inches long. Why?
Because the locals have spear fished the area to death.
While I agree that a commercial fishing operation can take tons of
fish in a good day versus the "few" pounds that spear fishermen take.
Is that an excuse for depleting one of our few remaining natural
resources. If a logging operation takes thousands of trees, should
anyone care that I go into the forest and chop down a few trees? How
about the 100,000 or so other people that want a few trees too? How
much pressure is too much pressure on an area?
I would probably be supportive of a reasonable compromise on this
issue, something along the lines of setting aside the reefs in five
mile increments, where one mile of each five allows fishing and spear
fishing. This would allow 4/5ths of the reef to be protected, but
still allow a generous amount of space for the hunters.
This only has to be a black and white issue, if you let it.
ken
Rich Lesperance
If that is true, I will retract the "hypocrite" label. Unless you have
health reasons for not eating fish, though, the liberal label stands. While
_I_ personally would object to beiong called one, apparently, many do not.
Rich L
<dive...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:83qvbt$rjf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Rich,
>
> I wrote
>
> >>> The issue I was talking about is a numbers game. I think a lot of
> marine
> > life is in danger and I dont want to see it go.
>
> and you replied,
>
> In that case, shouldn't you be boycotting fish in restaurants & markets,
> then?
>
>
> I do.
>
>
>
>
> Dave.
Rich Lesperance
reason. Every post _I_ have seen, from people who spearfish, acknowledge
that the current spirit of the regulations - ie, keep the impact down to a
negligible level, is completely good and proper.
The fault in your example below is _not_ solely the spearfishermen, but
it is shared by the government of Jamaica for not putting in place and
enforcing responsible, ecologically sound guidelines.
Rich L
Ken Graham <kgr...@ix.netcom.com.nospam> wrote
Marythurmon
<ri...@xxufl.edu> writes:
> Noone here was proposing unrestricted spearfishing - for exactly this
>reason. Every post _I_ have seen, from people who spearfish, acknowledge
>that the current spirit of the regulations - ie, keep the impact down to a
>negligible level, is completely good and proper.
The current spirit of the regulations may be proper with regard to recreational
spearfishermen. What they kill is a fraction of what the commercial
spearfishermen bring in. We take home a couple of fish. They bring in tonnage
for the market.
CMccar31
<kgr...@ix.netcom.com.nospam> writes:
>If you want a real-life example of what a "few" spear fishermen can
>do, just look to Jamaica. Go dive there. The coral is beautiful and
>lush and the biggest fish I saw there was about 6 inches long. Why?
>Because the locals have spear fished the area to death.
An excellent example of what over fishing can do. The reefs off Montego Bay
were barren when I dove them, and stringers of 6" tropicals of every kind were
for sale by roadside vendors for the table..
We already have laws and bag limits in place to protect this from happening
here in Florida and our native tastes in food fish seldom include the colorful
reef fish.
I don't see where a 1/2 mile stretch of reef reserved for the fish could hurt.
If divers want to hand feed the wildlife and make money from it , so what.
Charlie
Lee Bell
> I don't see where a 1/2 mile stretch of reef reserved for the fish could
hurt.
> If divers want to hand feed the wildlife and make money from it , so what.
> Charlie
I don't recall seeing much objection to setting aside replenishment zones.
While I have my doubts about the necessity and the potential success of such
a program, it's worth trying on a limited scale. It is, however, my
opinion, that for replenishment zones to work, its important to keep it as
udisturbed as possible.
I've been diving S.Florida reefs for more than 35 years. Even when
spearfishing was much more popular than it is today, it was somewhat unusual
to see an underwater hunter on the reefs. These days, It's downright rare.
On the other hand, sites in our existing parks that have been identified as
a named dive site, supplied with mooring buoys and visited by commercial and
private boats are the only places where diver damage to the reefs can not be
missed.
It is my opinion that the noble efforts to place buoys on popular dive sites
to protect them from anchor damage has been, at best, a mixed blessing.
Sites that used to see half a dozen divers at a time, now see hundreds.
Finally, commercial dive boats are a special problem. Don't get me wrong,
these boats are an integral and necessary part of our sport. Still, a
private boat that drops 2 to 4 divers is not the same risk as a commercial
boat that drops 20 to 40 on a single spot, 2 to 6 times a day (1 to 3 two
tank trips). Using the replenishment zone concept to set aside an area for
commercial use is a sham that I do not support.
As a sometimes underwater hunter, and frequent S. Florida boater, snorkeler
and diver, my opinion is that rotated replenishment zones are worth a try,
but that during the time they are in effect, they should be left as
undisturbed as possible and should not be open to commercial or private
diving or fishing. While I'm not a supporter of shark or other fish feeding
operations, I'm also not opposed to a reasonable level of commercial
operations of this type. I think that a few licensed operatiors should be
given a chance to try on the same basis as giving replenishment zones a try.
Effects should be monitored and future licensing should be governed on the
effects of the operations on the reefs and their inhabitants. In order for
this to be viable from a commercial standpoint, I think licensed operators
should have priority access to a buoy at the selected site and should foot
the bill for placement and maintenance of the buoy and for monitoring the
condition of the site. As a S. Florida diver, I strongly believe that any
shark feeding operations should be limited to sites that are not frequented
by non-shark feeding commercial operations and not often frequented by
private dive boats. Sharks rarely congregate near S. Florida reef systems.
The success of shark feeding in other areas makes it clear that the feedings
do congregate sharks and do teach them to associate divers with food.
Personally, I don't want those food seeking sharks stopping by to see what
non-feeding divers have to offer. I'll guarantee you that I'm not going to
spearfish in such areas. For those who don't believe that sharks will grow
to associate divers with food, one look at Stingray City will prove the
point. Stingrays are very close relatives of sharks.
I think I've taken a balanced approach to this issue. Others may disagree
as is their right. For those who are interested in one diver's opinion, you
have it. For others, there's always the delete key. Anyo
Lee
Scott J. McFadden
>I don't see where a 1/2 mile stretch of reef reserved for the fish could
>hurt.
>If divers want to hand feed the wildlife and make money from it , so what.
>Charlie
Well maybe my geography is off but I see the "proposal" as about 10 miles of
reef.
You think it's crazy during the miniseason in the Keys now? If this passes
where do think the folks who used to bug hunt in the "sanc-tourist-uary" will
go? Deep wrecks/ledges off of E and NE Fla or your neighborhood? I think I
know.
--
SJM
Alonzo Gariepy
-alonzo
CMccar31
(Scott J. McFadden) writes:
>Well maybe my geography is off but I see the "proposal" as about 10 miles of
>reef.
I should have put a ;-) as in hint. They designated Coffens Patch as no take
and a beautiful dive just gets better. Its roughly 1/2 by 1/4 mile in size.
In article <83vu2q$c50$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>, "Lee Bell"
<lee...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>I think I've taken a balanced approach to this issue. Others may disagree
>as is their right. For those who are interested in one diver's opinion, you
>have it. For others, there's always the delete key. Anyo
>
>Lee
Yours is the best position I've seen yet as well as offering a solution.
A 1/2 mile square patch designated shark feeding zone.
As with dock rat pelicans and seagulls, those that get used to a free meal
seldom stray far from its source.
It will become an area to stay away from when spearfishing.
I don't see how it could be designated a no take zone when drawing in an
inordinate number of sharks by feeding must also raise the predation rate on
the local fish population as a direct result.
It won't take many tigers and hammerheads to clean out an area. Now that sharks
are protected, the alpha predators will make a comeback.
Some may remember the yearly shark tournaments, Lake Worth comes to my mind as
the most famous, and the monsters of every species pulled from local waters.
It would be difficult for me to defend my right to take a fish or lobster
without agreeing to someones right to feed whatever they want.
In the event of roaming sharks after your catch. I'm sure you've given up more
than one fish over the 35 years. I sure have.
Happy Holidays
Charlie