Dive profit at the cost of conservation

[Rhone Man]

I don't know - I kind of file "scuba diving marine damage" under my general folder of "first world problems". It is kind of like an inverted version of puffed up self importance - unduly flagellating ourselves for the relatively tiny amounts of damage that we do.

The number of people who go underwater is tiny, and diving is conducted within an absolutely miniscule fraction of the total marine environment. Compared to the damage done to the marine environment by divers as against other means, it just seems quite hard to get worked up about. Simply put: there really are bigger problems to focus upon. Name almost anything else: bleach fishing, over fishing, chemical run-off, drag anchoring, industrial contaminants, the list just runs and runs. And that is still just on the micro (local) scale - don't get started on macro global issues like thermocline levels, ocean acidification, increasing dissolved CO2 levels...

Kicking up sand that critters live in? I am not quite ready to march in the streets over that one.

 

[chillyinCanada]

I quote the person noted as QD: "Divers in the water are the smallest part of the problem. The shore side infrastructure to support the divers is the primary part of the problem. Roads, hotels, marinas, airports, etc. are the biggest challenge. Until we address those issues, we are not going to save the reefs."

This is also my opinion. It's a matter of killing the goose that laid the golden eggs. Developers won't stop.

There needs to be a robust education program directed towards children and young people. If we can educate them, help them to care, then they will work towards changing their elders. Consider how this was done with the "don't be a litterbug" campaign back in the day. Children nagged their parents into not throwing things out car windows etc. And grew up themselves to be into recycling.

As ever, education is the key.

While most dive ops are in no position to stop development on their own, they should at leadt attempt to instill in their students the concern in that regard. As well as, stress the NO touching reef or marine life because divers should CARE but new divers need that taught to them so hopefully they will CARE too and pass it on.

Why not volunteer to give presentations at schools? Hey, there might even be some extra money in it for ya.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

I see good arguments all around. The problem is that SOMEONE has to start SOMEWHERE and do SOMETHING! It is too easy to say.... we are a tiny portion of the problem, it is just sand, X, Y or Z do worse things, bury our heads in the sand and do nothing.

We are the ones who enjoy the environment, we account for tourist dollars, we are the ones who hopefully care enough to speak out. We need to speak with our dollars, research and support the environmental/green operations. We need to SPEAK, to spread the information of what we see.

Little things add to big things. When a diver exits the water carrying rubbish that was discarded... we send a message. When a diver takes the time on exiting a shore dive to not just answer "What did you see down there?" but show the digital shots on the camera we send a message! When a diver is careful in the water, shows good bouyancy control and avoids causing damage... other divers see.... we are sending a message.

My message may only reach a few people but one of them may be motivated to show others. One may be motivated to learn more, to become a marine biologist and make a big difference. I choose to be part of the solution not part of the problem. Success starts with the first step... failure is only assured when we give up and quit trying

 

[Bob DBF]

I quote the person noted as QD: "Divers in the water are the smallest part of the problem. The shore side infrastructure to support the divers is the primary part of the problem. Roads, hotels, marinas, airports, etc. are the biggest challenge. Until we address those issues, we are not going to save the reefs."

The largest part of the problem is the local population that will do nearly anything to become "rich" like the people that visit their area to go diving as a hobby on vacation. Conservation and restoration is done by those who who no longer have to struggle for existence, look a the US historically for an example.

When the average Island locals budget looks like this, then change will be easier.




Bob
------------------------------
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
Benjamin Franklin

 

[Rhone Man]

The largest part of the problem is the local population that will do nearly anything to become "rich" like the people that visit their area to go diving as a hobby on vacation. Conservation and restoration is done by those who who no longer have to struggle for existence, look a the US historically for an example.

That sounds doubtful to me. Firstly, I suspect some of these areas of concern we are talking about are actually in the US. Secondly, whilst some popular diving areas are poor, many are not (Cayman, for example, is an extremely wealthy country).

When the average Island locals budget looks like this, then change will be easier.

OK, now that just sounds patronising - "once everyone has the same economic priorities as we do, then this will also help solve all other problems."

 

[TMHeimer]

I don't know - I kind of file "scuba diving marine damage" under my general folder of "first world problems". It is kind of like an inverted version of puffed up self importance - unduly flagellating ourselves for the relatively tiny amounts of damage that we do.

The number of people who go underwater is tiny, and diving is conducted within an absolutely miniscule fraction of the total marine environment. Compared to the damage done to the marine environment by divers as against other means, it just seems quite hard to get worked up about. Simply put: there really are bigger problems to focus upon. Name almost anything else: bleach fishing, over fishing, chemical run-off, drag anchoring, industrial contaminants, the list just runs and runs. And that is still just on the micro (local) scale - don't get started on macro global issues like thermocline levels, ocean acidification, increasing dissolved CO2 levels...

Kicking up sand that critters live in? I am not quite ready to march in the streets over that one.

I've always tended to agree exactly with what you say here. Have also tended to feel this is a view of only a small minority of divers. My uneducated guess is there was much less diver damage 40 years ago because there were way fewer divers (again, there were also way fewer of the BIG planet-wide problems, even though there has been some progress in some countries to clean up Man's messes). OTOH, there are threads suggesting the dive industry is slowly drying up and we need MORE divers....which means that if %s remain the same, there would be more destructive divers.

 

[chillyinCanada]

Or potentially fewer divers because there won't be that much enjoyable to see. Shall we speculate that divers were to discover the next great place to dive and in short order those like Tom and Rhoneman who should know better and those divers that didn't know better or didn't give a rat's ass will have started to wear down the sites. But by then the developers will have come along . . . .and so on and so on and so on . . . then there's another dead goose no longer laying golden eggs.

 

[Searcaigh]

It seem if we reduced the number of people on the earth, these problems would take care of them self, But we are in the mode, lets see how many people we can get on this ball before we destroy every thing.

WWIII here we come ..... let's kill off all these nose breathers first shall we :nuke:

Some interesting comments here and I am waiting for Wingy to pitch in because of something she sent to me yesterday.

It is very difficult to arrange eco-friendly dive ops I would imagine, not having looked at this in any great detail, but building a dive resort and making money from it to feed families etc will have some negative impact on the reefs.

For sure there are a handful of resorts around the world that "appear" to be taking the right measures but when you dive in places like Lembeh and find a blue ringed octopus living in a discarded piece of rubbish it makes one wonder that one man's (or woman's) bit of junk is some aquatic creatures home!

Nature is stronger than we think, but I hate to see poor diving practices to the extent I swear at some perpetrators under water when I see them swimming vertically over the sand or coral with fins clashing occasionally with the substrates.

At least Malaysia or the Sabah government did the right thing with Sipadan, when I first dived there back in 1992 there was only Borneo Divers operating and some other resort in the making. A few years ago when I returned and had to stay at Mabul I was astonished at how many divers were there even with the quota system, imagine if they all lived on the island instead of visiting for the day, the impact would be devastating.

We all want that adventure of diving where nobody has dived before, but when word gets out we open that area to a possible decline.

I need to get to PNG, Rajah Ampat and few other places soon before they end up like Sabang beach in Puerto Galera (sorry Wingy I think I have just plagiarised you in that last sentence, but most people who have visited the Philippines will identify with that area).

 

[mikeycanuk]

I know Misool in Raja Ampat has set up a 850km no take zone, what I don't know is if all the LOB that use the no take zone as well contribute in any way. Anyone?

 

[Wingy]

Well seeing Sear has outted me - this is a subject that I am extremely interested in and sent Sear my (personal) blog which will become the basis for an article I am writing on exactly this subject. Is declaring something a national marine park a guarantee of its continued health? I asked this question in chat and someone mentioned Cozumel being in good shape because it was declared a marine park. As was Bunaken. As is Raja Ampat, The Great Barrier Reef, Sipidan, Similans, Cocos etc - the song remains the same just insert name to suit. The marine park is a great idea, it protects what can and cant be taken. Its magical. Divers like Cousteau and Ron and Val Taylor bought these destinations to my black and white TV on sundays when I was a kid. Everyones TV. So then the people who didnt dive but wanted to see it for themselves, because hey that water is so clear and so healthy, came and small backpackers gave way to resorts which have given way to Super megaplex malls and Hiltons and yep, then came the cruise shippers.
To be fair, letting them snorkel became a great way to keep these tourists coming and the money they bring with them and the job opportunities. If your not building a resort and laying bricks you could be lucky enough to be working on a day boat showing 4000 snorkellers a week this awesome underwater world. Sure, the locals benefited economically if they were in the right place and had the right skills, including language skills. But with Holiday Inns and Hiltons and Cruise ships comes a huge demand for water, power, sewage treatment plants - is all this getting as much attention as the underwater world? Like coral bay in the north west cape of Australia, shh, lets just pump the sewage out the back of the staff housing area well away from the bay with the glass bottom boats and no one will see. And those cruise ships obeying laws about discharge of ballast water and what type of fuels they can burn in ports? well, had a long discussion with some wharf workers today and I can tell you that isnt happening the way its supposed to be. And lets not forget, those silly locals have no idea of how we like our martinis so here's another business opportunity - that same chain of restaurants or fast food joints we are so familiar with at home? hell why not lets have them on holiday too.

This blog (and yes I realise there are spelling mistakes and typos etc in there im going to link it warts and all) came about after my trip of the Tambora, one of the few LOBs I can find that has a sustainability mention on its website and uses good environmental practices where ever practicable to stay profitable but also to take my pampered first world self on an exploratory diving trip. From a cultural viewpoint as well as all the other issues regarding eco sustainable tourism we were respectful on this trip but hey, the locals are onto it. Why let that man make all that money by letting people stay on his island he built some cute ''rustic'' traditional homestays on when Im not making anything myself? Maybe I could do it cheaper...and I have a friend who has a friend who can put it on bookings.com and anther friend who can afford to fly to Singapore and talk about it and sell it as a dive destination at dive expos.

So we can all proudly attach our national marine park disc to our bc's and congratulate ourselves on not kicking the coral and buy the tshirt to prove we went where not many divers have gone before. Not many humans on the grander scheme of this grossly overpopulated planet. I wore that tshirt from Raja Ampat while transiting through Bali on my way home. Sitting at a cafe a gentleman strikes up a convo that he and his brother want to set up a resort there. Later that night in my el cheapo multi story hotel near the airport the owner comes out to pick my brains about what tourists want because he and his friend want to set up a great resort at Raja, they have lots of ideas.

I dont have the answers....I wish I did. I dont know that there are. Im as much if not more a part of the problem as anyone. I can lie awake at night wondering am I just screwing it gently or should I just shrug my shoulders and be glad I got there before the Hiltons, the logging companies and the mining companies did?

https://www.travelblog.org/Asia/Indonesia/North-Maluku/blog-879117.html