Manufacturer condones Warsaw Grouper slaughter

[jonnythan]

i don't have a problem with some guys spearfish Warsaw grouper, though it's
a shame to take out the "top" breeders in a species. would be smarter to go
after the smaller ones. there's lots of research on this, so go look it up (i can't
provide links atm).

however, it's really commercial fishermen that deplete stock, not scuba spearguys.
read the history of the North Atlantic fisheries and it's a sad tale of over-fishing,
habitat destruction, and pollution, not by guys with spear guns, but by the
commercial guys.

their goal is not conservation. their goal is maximum immediate profits.
when they run out of one species, they go to the next.

Would a grouper that large still be breeding?

 

[H2Andy]

Would a grouper that large still be breeding?

those are the prime breeders.

here's our resident expert:

http://www.scubaboard.com/showpost.php?p=1296435&postcount=47

 

[D_B]

Who indeed...
You have attacked the very people who are in fact most active in the "fight for the protection of the oceans."
It wasn't the "environmentalists" who stemmed the destruction of duck habitat and reversed the decline in duck populations - it was (and is) duck hunters.

It wasn't "environmentalists" that improved the deer habitat to the point that we now have more deer than at any time in history - it was (and is) deer hunters.

It isn't "environmentalists" who are this very day fighting to improve and increase available habitat and populations for game fish in the Gulf of Mexico - it is fishermen.

"Environmentalists" find reasons to oppose every sane idea that will improve fish stocks, because "environmentalists" aren't really "for the environment" so much as they are "anti human activity."......
...... But the fishermen you have chosen to attack, and the company you have chosen to attack are some who do understand their vested interest, and if you really do want to "save the oceans" you would do well to join them in their efforts. While it may seem counterintuitive to the true believer environmentalist, environmental change is not necessarily bad... just ask the deer in Alabama.
Rick

Exactly what I was thinking ... I think I saw the figure of 40 Billion Dollars a year somewhere
Thank you for pointing that out, Rick

DB

 

[jonnythan]

those are the prime breeders.

here's our resident expert:

http://www.scubaboard.com/showpost.php?p=1296435&postcount=47

Crazy!

 

[Doc Intrepid]

Although I disagree with peter's OP, I'd have to agree with his point about your post. The sock puppet comment (while entertaining) didn't add much value to the debate.

Chip, you're quite correct. I suggested Peter might be a Sock Puppet when it turns out he isn't. Ergo, I owe Peter an apology, herewith extended.

Discussion or debate can be beneficial on many levels, and this topic is no different. My point is that when someone establishes a topic of debate in such a manner that only one side of that debate is set forth as legitimate, that's not a 'discussion'. That's a diatribe.

Archman is a science teacher and would no doubt agree that the Socratic method of teaching is only one among many that can be effective. But when the issue is initially set forth as one perspective being constructive and rational, whereas the other is evil, wantonly destructive, and 'beyond understanding', ...that isn't teaching. That's preaching. No matter which forum you're in.

If Peter wanted a constructive debate on spearfishing, fine - ScubaBoard exists for such.

If Peter sets it up from the start that spearfishermen enjoy murdering fish when they aren't smoking crack and worshipping Satan, and its beyond his understanding why anyone respectable would associate with such lost souls, ummmm...that isn't a debate. Protesting innocently afterwards "What? Me insulting?" doesn't do much to restablish the empirical validity of his initial topic.

As Al said, take another look at the title Peter used for his thread.

Next time Peter wants to discuss a topic, he may want to try setting it up as a debate without all the passion.

YMMV.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I do hold the opinion that they should not be hunted excessively, as has happened in the past. But if a species has numbers that allow some form of harvest, even if heavily restricted, it doesn't bother me.

I'm fairly certain that local hunters in certain areas would agree with you as regards to shooting tourists ... when they're in season, of course ...

They're certainly abundant enough ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[ReefGuy]

And it neglects to include those of us that enjoy murdering fish WHILE smoking crack and worshipping satan.

If Peter sets it up from the start that spearfishermen enjoy murdering fish when they aren't smoking crack and worshipping Satan

 

[Rick Murchison]

When it comes to grouper, size is of critical importance to reproduction. These are male to female sex-changers. The biggest animals are usually all females. And the bigger they are, the more eggs are produced. One big female can outproduce an equivalent weight of smaller females. Fish aren't cows or people; they tend to stay reproductively viable throughout their old age, and often get "better" at it.
When larger groupers are fished out, it eliminates the sex change feedback controls for younger and smaller fish. They often change sex too early, or not at all.
This is one of the reasons why overfished sea bass have such slow recovery rates. Killing off all the "adults" equates to killing off all the women.

Hmmm... odd... according to FSU:
"Sex change in groupers is a one-way street, from female to male. It occurs in a social context when fish form spawning groups offshore. For gag (Mycteroperca microlepis)-- one of the more important species fished in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, taken more by recreational than by commercial fisheries--this only occurs for a relatively brief period of time during the late winter or early spring. At other times of the year, males and females occur in separate locations, with males staying offshore on spawning sites while females move to shallower water. Virtually all of the reproduction in the population takes place in the brief time the sexes are together. So do all the cues for sex change. Social interactions among individuals in the group allow some sort of assessment to occur of the relative numbers of males and females. If there are two few males, then dominant females will change sex so that by the following spawning season, more males are available."
Who's right?
Rick

 

[CBulla]

I find it funny that Scott & Zeagle are being made to seem like 'bad guys' in this. Appearently the thread starter did little to no research on the article other than read it or it would be known that Team Headhunter, quite possibly one of the best teams of armed divers around, should have been the authors intended target 'slaughter' people, not Zeagle as the team chose to use and purchased gear on their own, thanking Zeagle after the fact for making gear that they felt safe enough to pursue this endeavor with. If I were Zeagle I'd be proud of that recognition to! These guys trusted their lives to that gear and the company has every right to be very proud of that!!

Next point that is easy to pick out here is that this is clearly a beef against spearing. Whoopee.. folks have issues with hunting to only later to go home and cook a steak/porkchop/chicken leg.

Lastly the term slaughter is completely misused in the description. Slaughter defined by Merriam Webster:

1 : the act of killing; specifically : the butchering of livestock for market
2 : killing of great numbers of human beings (as in battle or a massacre) : CARNAGE​

This dive was specifically designed as a hunt for specific fish, not a mass random killing of many hundreds such what the activitiy of long-lining provides, with specific goals wanting to be achieved, and selected fish shot and killed in the process.

Sometimes it helps to know a little something about the subject and quite possibly the story at hand before just ripping into folks. That kind of paradigm shift can make the difference between a factless inflamatory remark and a solid topic for discussion.

 

[archman]

Hmmm... odd... according to FSU:
"Sex change in groupers is a one-way street, from female to male. It occurs in a social context when fish form spawning groups offshore. For gag (Mycteroperca microlepis)-- one of the more important species fished in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, taken more by recreational than by commercial fisheries--this only occurs for a relatively brief period of time during the late winter or early spring. At other times of the year, males and females occur in separate locations, with males staying offshore on spawning sites while females move to shallower water. Virtually all of the reproduction in the population takes place in the brief time the sexes are together. So do all the cues for sex change. Social interactions among individuals in the group allow some sort of assessment to occur of the relative numbers of males and females. If there are two few males, then dominant females will change sex so that by the following spawning season, more males are available."
Who's right?
Rick

You're right Rick! Dang, I always reverse protogynous and protandrous! I did this exact same thing in July with a reef fish class, and the year before, and in 2001...

I'm going back to edit my earlier post, now. My shame runs deep.