Manufacturer condones Warsaw Grouper slaughter

[freediver]

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.

....and you call yourself a scientifically driven ichthyology studying invertebrate zoologist! jeez!

 

[ScottZeagle]

If I count this thread as a "complaint", we have recieved exacty TWO for the website story. Both came from people outside the USA, and the first one (recieved by email) was fine with it once the facts were made clear to him. He simply did not know that spearfishing on scuba is legal in most of the US.

This whole thing reminds me of an email I recieved a couple of years ago. We had a picture of a book about California lobster diving that Steve Barsky wrote, which had his wife Christine on the cover holding up a nice sized lobster. The person who wrote the email was quite upset that Zeagle was promoting the taking of lobster - even if they were in season and of legal size. He was boycotting our products and advising everyone he knew to do the same thing.

I think the old adage of "You can't please all of the people all of the time" applies well in this situation.

I have been out on a trip with the Headhunter crew, shot fish with them, and enjoyed many good times with them off the water as well. I can safely say that they are some of the most law abiding, honest people I have ever met, and I am proud to count them as friends. If they thought in any way that this story would affect Zeagle in a negative way, they would have kept the brand of gear that was used "quiet". I am proud of their accomplishment, and proud that most of that crew wear Zeagle gear. We are still working on Jason...

Moving past this issue, I am quite excited about our new dive computer, which recieved rave reviews at the DEMA show!!! :14:

(since someone mentioned that this was basically free advertising, I figured I would take advantage! )

 

[archman]

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.

This is valid in this forum. It's not a dominant concern in the marine arena, but it's not off the radar either. And one doesn't have to practice what one preaches... we can all be hippocrites here, eating beef and chicken while railing against grouper culls.

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​

I use the exact same webdictionary. "Slaughter" defined does not have to be a mass event. Definition #2 is well, #2. #1 is more valid here, where it is more synonymous with murder, and applicable to a single critter. Although I doubt this grouper went to market, even though it was on a commercial operation. I'm still highly puzzled by this aspect; looks like an exploited loophole in the U.S. system. I really want to know the details about this.

Still, maybe the thread title could be edited somewhat. I don't know how non-americans perceive the term "slaughter", but here in the states we tend to go with #2. In that case the thread title is inappropriate.

 

[H2Andy]

Hmmm... odd... according to FSU

good link. but the same principle still applies. killing the biggest groupers off
is not a good idea (from the same article)

"Not only are the largest fish removed from the population, but the social cues that
trigger sex change are interrupted. Thus, fishing that concentrates on aggregations
results in smaller fish with fewer eggs, and ultimately leads to loss of males. This is
compounded by loss of fish that are changing sex because they act more like males
than like females and are thus more vulnerable to capture. Gag in the Gulf of Mexico
and throughout the South Atlantic, for instance, have 90% fewer males now than
they did thirty years ago. No males, no sex, no babies, no fish."

and

"At least two of those suffer from low proportions of males in the population and all of
them aggregate to spawn. Two of them (Nassau grouper and Goliath Grouper—the
fish formerly known as jewfish) are already protected from fishing. Two are on the
verge of being protected (Warsaw grouper and speckled hind)."

so... maybe it's not that far off to call Warsaw grouper (the subject
fish of this thread) a "protected" species.

also, may not be a good idea to kill off the largest groupers.

 

[CBulla]

Although I doubt this grouper went to market, even though it was on a commercial operation. I'm still highly puzzled by this aspect; looks like an exploited loophole in the U.S. system. I really want to know the details about this.

PM Sent with links and more links.. Ask and ye shall recieve Archinator!

 

[chip104]

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.

Hey Doc, you have a good valid point. It would have been better if Peter put up the article first in a nonbiased manner and then added his personal 2 cents in another post afterwards.

But what's done is done and Peter's passion was met with equal passion from the opposite spectrum. I admit, my fault is that I don't have deep love for scuba spearfishing like the others here do, so I initially failed to comprehend the passionate responses. I understand now.

It is good that we have established all these misunderstandings in the last few pages, but it would be better to read what Peter has to say...

 

[peterbkk]

I think the old adage of "You can't please all of the people all of the time" applies well in this situation.

Very true. I actually thought I was on pretty solid ground with my original post, in a "marine life and ecosystem forum" decrying the lauding of the killing of endangered fish, until the flaming from the scuba spearfishermen started...

Scott, I apologise if you don't like the thread that I started but I am sure that my opinions are not unique. You may want to think about this issue somewhat before more broadly marketing your products in Australia, Asia and Europe. The reaction to my OP may lead you into thinking that the majority of scuba divers are pro-spearfishing. I think that you'll find the opposite to be the case, at least outside of the US.

I think that you will find the majority of divers now subscribe to the "take only your memories, leave only your bubbles" approach to our roie in marine conservation. The trend is certainly in this direction. Every dive boat briefing that I have heard in Asia and Australia in the last 10 years has included a "don't damage the marine life" component.

I am sure Zeagle gear is great. You might want to think how you promote it internationally (remember: anything on your website is international).

My SB private message area now contains a dozen messages from people supporting the intent of my original post, most of whom don't want to join me at the receiving end of the flame throwers in this thread. (Which is a shame that we can not have a decent debate without one side making it too uncomfortable for the other side to participate).

I am not a member of PETA. (I had to go look at their website to find out who they are).

I am not a troll. (In this forum I thought I was posting a valid comment on a significant issue).

I am not a sock puppet. (I do know what a sock puppet is but I am not sure how it applies in this context).

I do eat fish (but have trained my cook to buy only species that, to the best of my knowledge, are from sustainable stocks).

I do eat cows, pigs, ducks and chickens. (But, for those of you who raised this analogy, I can not see the relevance to this discussion - humans have figured out how to sustainably harvest these creatures).

My personal belief is that the marine ecosystem will be better off if scuba divers do not add to the current over-exploitation, especially with endangered species. Of course, the marine ecosystem will be MUCH better off if the human race ever figures out how to harvest the ocean while maintaining a sustainable ecosystem. I personally would like to see the scuba diving community (divers, boats, retailers, manufacturers, schools) take an active role in promoting sustainable marine protection. And, to me, that means setting a good example.

THIS IS MY MAIN POINT: I think that the whole scuba diving community, including equipment manufacturers, should set a good example in marine conservation and, in my opinion, the Zeagle webpage about killing those Warsaw Groupers was not setting a good example.

Regards
Peter

 

[Somethin-Fishey]

Peter,
I got on you a bit earlier, for being pretty inflamatory on the tone of your question...I still stick by this. Aisa has laws that are not real popular in the USA also, but that doesn't mean we boycott Aisa.

To you, what is the difference between spearfishing that Warsaw and going fishing for the day and catching that Warsaw? A buddy (Non-Diver) went out on a fishing boat and caught a 68# Warsaw last winter. I know 68# is not 400#, but a big Warsaw never the less. He also was 100% legal.

Where do you draw the line?

 

[ReefGuy]

The thread only continued in the manner in which you started it. With a blatent attack. You didn't even research the topic before you posted.

I think if you will do some research into the fisheries regarding the fish you eat, you WILL be sickened. You have not addressed any of the issues raised in this thread regarding the conservational merits of spearing vs commercial practices. Those fish you eat were killed with LOTS more waste (and again of endangered species, mammels, etc) than any fish I eat, therefore YOU are a much bigger contributer to the slaughter of fish than I am.

Further, you have failed to acknowledge that this grouper was taken in an area where Warsaw group are NOT considered endangered and they are legal to take.

So you don't like that some people like to shoot what they eat. You're allowed your opinion. I, however, am also allowed my opinion, and will continue to engage in spearing as long as it is legal.

And anyone who feels justified to let the air out of my tires, or even feels morally superior to me because I spearfish really needs a mirror.

(Which is a shame that we can not have a decent debate without one side making it too uncomfortable for the other side to participate).

I do eat fish (but have trained my cook to buy only species that, to the best of my knowledge, are from sustainable stocks).

 

[jonnythan]

Your issue can't be about sustainability because you admit in your first post that you didn't know about their endangered/threatened status.