Show some respect... bug hunters at Casino Point

[dumpsterDiver]

As an avid outdoorsman, I know that it's legal for me to poop anywhere in the woods that I like. Ethics tells me to stay 1000 ft away from any water way and to avoid that spot right behind my buddy's tent. Yes, yes, I also dig a cat hole and follow "Leave no Trace" principles... and that's the real issue here: preservation. Not enforced by law, but by our desire to preserve a little bit of sanity.

I have been to the park twice now and have as yet to dive it. Yet, I really enjoyed hearing about the giant sea bass, the flamboyant garibaldi, as well as a host of other creatures who seek a bit of refuge in the park.

If you don't feel the same passion as some of the other posters do about at least one dive site, then I feel kind of sorry for you. I know that I would get pretty angry if I saw someone hunting at the Blue Heron Bridge here in Florida. It's just not called for.

So think about stinking up your own back yard. Sure you can poop there legally, but it just doesn't make any sense.

Kudos to you Dr Bill: the Lorax of the Kelp Garden. Let me know if I can assist you in anyway to make that preserve a reality.

Comparing it to Blue Heron Bridge in Florida seems inappropriate because there is an ordinance that prohibits it in Florida. If the Calif site has no similar "no-take" laws, then the comparison is weak.

I fully agree that people should be polite AND follow all the laws, but I think that politeness may extend all the way to keeping your nose out of other people's business when they are in full compliance with the laws.

 

[Codyjp]

[/COLOR]
They're being taken for sport. They're being taken for greed. They're being taken for vanity. They're being taken under cover of night. They're being taken so someone can show someone else how badass they are.
-Ken

Doubtful. When I hunted in Colorado I wasn't out for sport. I was harvesting my dinner. I'd go to the easiest place I could find and harvest something that was easy and desirable to eat. Think big, easy and quick to catch bugs in the park. Go, get dinner and go home.

Now if I was out for sport I'd hike for hours into the woods and blast the hell out of black bear. Then, I'd cut his paws off and hang his fur and then post pictures of my 'good day' on a pubic website. That is sport hunting. If these guys were out for sport I'd think they would be at a 100' on ship rock diving of a RIB. I'd suspect these guys live on the island and took the bugs home to eat. I also doubt they were there on vacation as suggested. I'd have a hard time believing somebody would bother to drag a cooler both directions on the ferry for a few tails.

I had always believed that the dive park was a reserve until a few months ago when I learned that it wasn't. The irony being I learned this fun fact from Dr. Bill himself.

I personally wouldn't hunt in the park, but I can't really blame those who do. It is a bit classless but within the law, making threats of harm or murder however isn't. If a bug hunter turns up dead in the park I'd suspect the detectives would be quite interested to read this thread. Making open threats of vigilante justice on a public forum directed at participants of a reasonably dangerous sport where people *do* wind up dead is foolish.

While I'm on my rant, what makes the garibaldi's worth protecting? They are just another fish, just like tuna, salmon, bat rays and halibut and there certainly isn't any shortage of them. I've also heard they make great fish tacos! I really can't get on board with the idea of protecting something just because it is pretty.

Edit: Here is where I found out about the lack of protection! Dooh!!!

 

[merxlin]

...........I fully agree that people should be polite AND follow all the laws, but I think that politeness may extend all the way to keeping your nose out of other people's business when they are in full compliance with the laws.

Does being legal make it right?

 

[Rainer]

Does being legal make it right?

One could ask the same thing about hunting in general. Or eating meat. Or disturbing the environment by diving for nothing more than selfish pleasure.

There are plenty of people that would find each of the above unethical. Should they get to dictate our recreational activities?

 

[merxlin]

One could ask the same thing about hunting in general. Or eating meat. Or disturbing the environment by diving for nothing more than selfish pleasure.

There are plenty of people that would find each of the above unethical. Should they get to dictate our recreational activities?

No one is dictating anything. Yes, unless you are poaching it is legal. It is a simple premise- should you take something just because you can, even if it means hundreds of other divers will not have the opportunity to see them once they are fished out? Does your individual need outweigh the greater good?

 

[dumpsterDiver]

Does being legal make it right?

Your mother should have taught you that not everything that is legal is right, It is not your right to prevent people from exercising their legal freedoms.

In fact, . It might be illegal to interfer in any manner with someone hunting in the park. If the area is open for collection of game, then it is my understanding that it is illegal to do anything that interferes with a person's legal right to fish or hunt. Probably over simplified, however.

 

[Rainer]

Again, one could ask the same thing about (non-sustenance) hunting, eating meat, or diving in general.

It comes down to how we as individuals define "the greater good". I can make a strong argument that the world would be a lot better place if nearly no one hunted, ate meat, or went diving.

Now, I don't partake in the first two, but I'm happy to keep diving and I'm fine with you hunting and meat eating (legally).

Seriously, our laws are amenable and *should* reflect best practices. If a large, vocal group feels passionately about the park being no-take, work that angle. It's just silly to moan on the sidelines or threaten others who are acting legally. That's not going to be productive.

No one is dictating anything. Yes, unless you are poaching it is legal. It is a simple premise- should you take something just because you can, even if it means hundreds of other divers will not have the opportunity to see them once they are fished out? Does your individual need outweigh the greater good?

 

[Codyjp]

No one is dictating anything. Yes, unless you are poaching it is legal. It is a simple premise- should you take something just because you can, even if it means hundreds of other divers will not have the opportunity to see them once they are fished out? Does your individual need outweigh the greater good?

Having a falsely large population of fish and life for divers to see is a good thing?

Possibly if divers got a more realistic idea of what the rest of the island looks like the'd be more proactive with having their views reflected by laws. It is like seeing Colorado National Park or Yellowstone and then thinking the whole rest of the Rockies are covered with incredibly huge deer, moose, bear and elk even though the trophies are being killed off every where else? No, I'd prefer the general public gets to see the normal man regulated and engineered population.

 

[merxlin]

Your mother should have taught you that not everything that is legal is right, It is not your right to prevent people from exercising their legal freedoms.

In fact, . It might be illegal to interfer in any manner with someone hunting in the park. If the area is open for collection of game, then it is my understanding that it is illegal to do anything that interferes with a person's legal right to fish or hunt. Probably over simplified, however.

I obviously believe that everything that is legal is not right.

But what we are saying, but doesn't seem to be getting through, is getting the word out to divers without it having to be "The Law" to protect the dive park, and refraining from hunting because it would enhance the area and the experience for so many others.

As far as interfering with someone else's right to hunt, I don't think anyone has mentioned that except for Dr. Bill's original post which was not serious and he's since recanted (and if you know him you would have known it was not a legitimate threat).

If you want to hunt the park and shoot fish in a barrel, it is your right. And when you don't want to dive the park because there is nothing there to see, don't complain or talk about how 'it used to be'.

 

[merxlin]

Having a falsely large population of fish and life for divers to see is a good thing?

As opposed to having no fish and life? Absolutely.

Possibly if divers got a more realistic idea of what the rest of the island looks like the'd be more proactive with having their views reflected by laws. It is like seeing Colorado National Park or Yellowstone and then thinking the whole rest of the Rockies are covered with incredibly huge deer, moose, bear and elk even though the trophies are being killed off every where else? No, I'd prefer the general public gets to see the normal man regulated and engineered population.

I'm not sure what you are saying. But many of us are trying to get the park protected. As has been mentioned many believe the park is protected because they have probably been told by good stewards of the area not to take game.

Also managing marine wildlife is a bit more challenging than on land (it's hard to relocate fish - they just keep leaving and coming back- that whole no fences thing). The park is what, 300 yards long by 100 yards? It's a wonderful area- we'd just like to keep it that way.