No more spearfishing in south Florida?
- Thread starter Capt Scotty
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
CuzzA
Wetwork for Hire
I just had a thought about this proposed ban... the unintended consequences... Who the hell is going to keep the lionfish in check at these sites if no one can dive or spear on them?
I have a question that may generate a sh*tstorm over my head, but gotta ask anyway:
Doesn't this sound like the tobacco industry in the 60s saying there was NO SCIENTIFIC DATA etc? How come in many parts of the world spearfishing in scuba is not allowed but Florida knows it better?
As for NO SCIENTIFIC DATA etc, a simple google search would disagree: Depth Refuge and the Impacts of SCUBA Spearfishing on Coral Reef Fishes
(and many more under References). There is data.
One might still disagree, but disqualifying the other side by the sheer use of CAPS EXCLAMATIONS AND BOLD strike me as very unprofessional to say the least.
PS: Despite all this, I would still honestly be interested in understanding better the science behind DEMAs position. Can anyone link a scientific study showing the benefits of scuba spearfishing?
Doesn't this sound like the tobacco industry in the 60s saying there was NO SCIENTIFIC DATA etc? How come in many parts of the world spearfishing in scuba is not allowed but Florida knows it better?
As for NO SCIENTIFIC DATA etc, a simple google search would disagree: Depth Refuge and the Impacts of SCUBA Spearfishing on Coral Reef Fishes
(and many more under References). There is data.
One might still disagree, but disqualifying the other side by the sheer use of CAPS EXCLAMATIONS AND BOLD strike me as very unprofessional to say the least.
PS: Despite all this, I would still honestly be interested in understanding better the science behind DEMAs position. Can anyone link a scientific study showing the benefits of scuba spearfishing?
- Messages
- 19,751
- Reaction score
- 18,602
- Location
- Philadelphia and Boynton Beach
- # of dives
- 1000 - 2499
Pedro,
For one, spear fishermen take very little when comparing to commercial fishing operations, and can often times take less than hook and line fishing over the very same reefs.
I think the larger problem here is they are trying to scape goat spear fishing when it really isn't a problem.
If you are worried about the type of catch people are pulling in, then regulate the numbers and size of specific fish people are allowed to catch, don't ban spearfishing in total. The state already regulates catch size/type to control for population stability and fisheries maintenance.
I don't see any bans on the table for commercial sport fishing operations or commercial fishing, which take magnitudes more from the fishery than weekend sport spearers, and in a non-selective manner.
Do you want specific benefits as an example? I don't know what you are really seeking here, but its a sport. People enjoy it, and it allows you to catch some of your own food. I mean maybe there is something to be said about the guy who responsibly collects fish he himself personally eats, versus buying in the store from commercially caught fish that come from netting operations that can kill sharks, dolphins, and others caught in the nets as by catch. Not to mention it is THE most sustainable way to harvest fish. Period. As I am sure others will invariably post the many benefits below, I will make a few other notes instead.
As for your article... many of the game fish that people spear have ranges in the water column that far exceed that of the normal scuba diving range. They will always have a refuge of area below what most divers can reach, so I don't really see this as a problem. It will protect population numbers to a degree and provide an area of isolation for a portion of the fishery.
A quote from your article "Impacts were likely exacerbated by factors such as fishing at night, access to commercial markets and the lack of catch quotas, size limits and protection for certain species. Restriction or management of any of these factors could reduce the severity of fishing impacts"
This is telling me that they are comparing a system where no responsible management of the fishery has taken place, and they are blaming the tool used, instead of the broken system. This would kind of be like saying "Well, the roads don't have speed limits, set lanes, traffic signs, or turn signals, and people get in wrecks, so we need to ban cars entirely to solve the problem."
On another note, one thing I noticed when living in the caribbean was that lion fish populations can be controlled by spear fishing, at least within part of the range (down to maybe 130ft). Even though the reef area down to 100ft may be relatively clear, when I would dive down around the 160-200ft range, there would be large numbers of lion fish. Without spearing these populations would expand again to cover the reef areas from which they are being controlled and decimate the juvenile fish populations before they can mature.
I think we can extrapolate on this further and surmise that this deeper range also provides a refuge for larger game fish, which protects a portion of their populations as well. I don't think a paper showing that fishing in area A causes fish to spend more time in area B is much of a profound idea.
For one, spear fishermen take very little when comparing to commercial fishing operations, and can often times take less than hook and line fishing over the very same reefs.
I think the larger problem here is they are trying to scape goat spear fishing when it really isn't a problem.
If you are worried about the type of catch people are pulling in, then regulate the numbers and size of specific fish people are allowed to catch, don't ban spearfishing in total. The state already regulates catch size/type to control for population stability and fisheries maintenance.
I don't see any bans on the table for commercial sport fishing operations or commercial fishing, which take magnitudes more from the fishery than weekend sport spearers, and in a non-selective manner.
Do you want specific benefits as an example? I don't know what you are really seeking here, but its a sport. People enjoy it, and it allows you to catch some of your own food. I mean maybe there is something to be said about the guy who responsibly collects fish he himself personally eats, versus buying in the store from commercially caught fish that come from netting operations that can kill sharks, dolphins, and others caught in the nets as by catch. Not to mention it is THE most sustainable way to harvest fish. Period. As I am sure others will invariably post the many benefits below, I will make a few other notes instead.
As for your article... many of the game fish that people spear have ranges in the water column that far exceed that of the normal scuba diving range. They will always have a refuge of area below what most divers can reach, so I don't really see this as a problem. It will protect population numbers to a degree and provide an area of isolation for a portion of the fishery.
A quote from your article "Impacts were likely exacerbated by factors such as fishing at night, access to commercial markets and the lack of catch quotas, size limits and protection for certain species. Restriction or management of any of these factors could reduce the severity of fishing impacts"
This is telling me that they are comparing a system where no responsible management of the fishery has taken place, and they are blaming the tool used, instead of the broken system. This would kind of be like saying "Well, the roads don't have speed limits, set lanes, traffic signs, or turn signals, and people get in wrecks, so we need to ban cars entirely to solve the problem."
On another note, one thing I noticed when living in the caribbean was that lion fish populations can be controlled by spear fishing, at least within part of the range (down to maybe 130ft). Even though the reef area down to 100ft may be relatively clear, when I would dive down around the 160-200ft range, there would be large numbers of lion fish. Without spearing these populations would expand again to cover the reef areas from which they are being controlled and decimate the juvenile fish populations before they can mature.
I think we can extrapolate on this further and surmise that this deeper range also provides a refuge for larger game fish, which protects a portion of their populations as well. I don't think a paper showing that fishing in area A causes fish to spend more time in area B is much of a profound idea.
Last edited:
dumpsterDiver
Banned
- Messages
- 9,003
- Reaction score
- 4,652
- # of dives
- 2500 - 4999
The fact of the matter is that spearfishing is the most environmentally friendly method of taking fish. There is typically no bait, no lost fishing lines, no hooks in the bellies of fish, no lost lead weights, no small (or undesired species) fish hauled to the surface and injured (or eaten by other predators after release)- in other words there is relatively little by-catch with spearfishing.
Spearfisherman have the ability to target their specific fish with respect to the correct species and size - things that are difficult or nearly impossible to do with other non-selective means of fishing.
In addition, the amount of fish taken by spearguns versus hook and line (and other methods) is very low.
So the question becomes... why DISCRIMINATE against a particular gear type (not to mention one that has relatively little unintended consequences)?
They are not proposing to eliminate commercial lobster traps which can be dropped all over the reefs, and do a lot of damage when storms move them and the ropes and traps damage a lot of coral. We also have juvenile fish captured in these traps, not to mention the need to bait them with other marine resources.
They do not appear to be proposing a ban on charter head boats which load up 30 or more anglers who all drop lines and hooks and lead and cover the reef as they drift with the current, targeting about any fish that will take a bait.
If a particular fishery (i.e. species) is in need of protection, reduced landings, adjustments in minimum (or maximum) size, closed season to allow uninterrupted spawning or the elimination of targeting during aggregations - then DO IT. Make it fair and uniform for all fishers.
There is no reason to ban a specific consumptive user. It is clearly discriminatory and also arbitrary.
If we look at some of their other proposals, they are talking about eliminating DIVING in the protected areas and elimination of ALL SHIPWRECK placements, going forward. This group has put forth many ideas and DRAFT proposals which are not well thought out.
In addition,the lionfish plague is also an issue. In south Florida, on reefs that are 50 to 100 ft deep and frequently dived, there has been an extremely significant reduction in lionfish density over the last few years. I attribute this entirely to spearfisherman (most of them on scuba 99.5%) who are removing these fish. Now if you want to find large densities of lionfish, you only need to move offshore 1/2 mile. Dive in 130 ft (where relatively few recreational divers frequent) and lionfish are all over the place. These deeper areas (as well as reefs and bottom much deeper) serve as a refuge for lionfish, where they can spawn and live without any ecological or anthropogenic interference.
I can't help but to assume that the banning of all scuba hunting or designations of large no fishing/spearfishing areas will be EXTREMELY effective in allowing the lionfish populations to EXPLODE in these protected areas. We have heard over and over how these predators are extremely detrimental to the juveniles of important (recreational, commercial and ecologically valuable) species.
With the introduction of this exotic predator, might the proposals decrease fish populations due to elimination of juveniles?
Spearfisherman have the ability to target their specific fish with respect to the correct species and size - things that are difficult or nearly impossible to do with other non-selective means of fishing.
In addition, the amount of fish taken by spearguns versus hook and line (and other methods) is very low.
So the question becomes... why DISCRIMINATE against a particular gear type (not to mention one that has relatively little unintended consequences)?
They are not proposing to eliminate commercial lobster traps which can be dropped all over the reefs, and do a lot of damage when storms move them and the ropes and traps damage a lot of coral. We also have juvenile fish captured in these traps, not to mention the need to bait them with other marine resources.
They do not appear to be proposing a ban on charter head boats which load up 30 or more anglers who all drop lines and hooks and lead and cover the reef as they drift with the current, targeting about any fish that will take a bait.
If a particular fishery (i.e. species) is in need of protection, reduced landings, adjustments in minimum (or maximum) size, closed season to allow uninterrupted spawning or the elimination of targeting during aggregations - then DO IT. Make it fair and uniform for all fishers.
There is no reason to ban a specific consumptive user. It is clearly discriminatory and also arbitrary.
If we look at some of their other proposals, they are talking about eliminating DIVING in the protected areas and elimination of ALL SHIPWRECK placements, going forward. This group has put forth many ideas and DRAFT proposals which are not well thought out.
In addition,the lionfish plague is also an issue. In south Florida, on reefs that are 50 to 100 ft deep and frequently dived, there has been an extremely significant reduction in lionfish density over the last few years. I attribute this entirely to spearfisherman (most of them on scuba 99.5%) who are removing these fish. Now if you want to find large densities of lionfish, you only need to move offshore 1/2 mile. Dive in 130 ft (where relatively few recreational divers frequent) and lionfish are all over the place. These deeper areas (as well as reefs and bottom much deeper) serve as a refuge for lionfish, where they can spawn and live without any ecological or anthropogenic interference.
I can't help but to assume that the banning of all scuba hunting or designations of large no fishing/spearfishing areas will be EXTREMELY effective in allowing the lionfish populations to EXPLODE in these protected areas. We have heard over and over how these predators are extremely detrimental to the juveniles of important (recreational, commercial and ecologically valuable) species.
With the introduction of this exotic predator, might the proposals decrease fish populations due to elimination of juveniles?
Some interesting points, and thanks scubadada for pointing out the other thread.
1) I had read several times that spearfishing is the most responsible way etc. Now, where is the hard evidence of that? I mean the outcry IN CAPITOL LETTERS (posted in the opening page of scubaboard btw) claimed there was no scientific evidence of damage from scuba spearfishing. I linked a study showing strong evidence of that. Now I'm looking for evidence that spearfishing is indeed as good as its practitioners claim. No offense to anyone involved, but the personal opinions of scuba spearfishers on the matter come really close to being irrelevant to me because of obvious self-interest reasons.
Again, I have a genuine interest in being directed to hard, "scientific" evidence showing it is indeed good, or at least less damaging, to the environment.
2) from what I have seen so far I agree there is no apparent reason to discriminate scuba in particular. It looks even worse if the ban applies to any scuba regardless of spearing. What's the point exactly, locking people out entirely?
(by coincidence I recently came across something that doesn't involve scuba but in a way relates to this discussion. Among other things, this guy is trying to develop areas of human inclusion instead of protection: )
3) I don't have enough elements to comment on the lionfish invasion thing. I've not seen so far anything concrete showing evidence of whether culling actually works. At the same time I don't dive in an area affected by it, so can't really pick a dog in this fight.
1) I had read several times that spearfishing is the most responsible way etc. Now, where is the hard evidence of that? I mean the outcry IN CAPITOL LETTERS (posted in the opening page of scubaboard btw) claimed there was no scientific evidence of damage from scuba spearfishing. I linked a study showing strong evidence of that. Now I'm looking for evidence that spearfishing is indeed as good as its practitioners claim. No offense to anyone involved, but the personal opinions of scuba spearfishers on the matter come really close to being irrelevant to me because of obvious self-interest reasons.
Again, I have a genuine interest in being directed to hard, "scientific" evidence showing it is indeed good, or at least less damaging, to the environment.
2) from what I have seen so far I agree there is no apparent reason to discriminate scuba in particular. It looks even worse if the ban applies to any scuba regardless of spearing. What's the point exactly, locking people out entirely?
(by coincidence I recently came across something that doesn't involve scuba but in a way relates to this discussion. Among other things, this guy is trying to develop areas of human inclusion instead of protection: )
3) I don't have enough elements to comment on the lionfish invasion thing. I've not seen so far anything concrete showing evidence of whether culling actually works. At the same time I don't dive in an area affected by it, so can't really pick a dog in this fight.
Well it is sort of common sense, what is worse for the fishery? Just observe and draw your own conclusions. A few guys going out and shooting 5-10 fish, or massive netting operations non-selectively pulling thousands of fish out of the ocean, and leaving nets and other trash in their wake? One guy underwater taking the specific fish he wants? Or hook and line boats with 40 people on them littering the reef the monofilament, lead, adding more trash to the ocean with lost plastic lures, and leaving hooks in fish they don't want? I don't know of anyone who has done a particular peer-reviewed study of it, but I think the reason why is because the benefits are obvious when you compare the methods.
I would disagree here. You linked a study that showed that fish population numbers in areas that tend to be hunted are different than those in a region where they are not. Again that is kind of common sense. If you define damage as any fish being taken from the water (which will reduce the population in that specific area until more recruitment occurs), then any fishing is "damage". The question is does spearfishing cause long term damage to the fishery, and is it reducing the populations to unmaintainable levels... Here I think the answer is no.
I see several flaws in this study as well... As mentioned before this study doesn't control for various factors... you can't take one area where there are virtually no rules about catch size, limits, seasons on specific species, and they are allowed to hunt practically however they want, and then compare it to a region where scuba is not used, but there are fisheries management policies, and say "hey look, this area is better, and its only because they don't spear on scuba". When you do this you are discounting all the other factors that actually produce the outcome.
Agreed, which is part of the point, they are trying to pinpoint scuba spearing as a major cause of fishery damage, when it indeed is overshadowed by the larger number of people either 1) consuming mass harvested fish, or 2) the much larger numbers of sport hook/line fishermen as compared to spear fishermen.
Also for the record, the argument for banning scuba is a similar one. Don't allow people to scuba there because it causes damage to the reef. Many novice scuba divers step on coral, grab stuff, kick sand on top of hard corals that can damage them, etc. Just look at some of the dive sites that are frequented by commercial diving ops, and then go to a reef close by that gets little visitors and compare.
I am not saying I agree with their conclusion that maybe diving should be eliminated as well, I am just presenting what their argument is probably based on, and it shares parallels with their plan for spearing.. instead of better management and education, lets ban it.
Last edited:
PatW
Contributor
Spear fishing is certainly more selective than hook and line.
In Michigan, the state realized that as a revenue benefit for the state and local communities, sport fishing returned far more money than commercial fishing. The economic benefit from commercial fishing was pretty much weight of fish times $ per pound. A sport fisherman buys gear, rents boats, stays in hotels, eats in restaurants and as such stimulates the economy at least an order of magnitude more than sport fishing. So the state bought up the fishing rights from all the commercial fisheries converting the area to sport fishing only.
In Florida, it would make sense to get completely rid of commercial fishing. In my way of thinking, spearfishermen probably give the biggest economic return. They would give a far bigger return than commercial fishing and almost certainly more than sport fishing. But the state of Florida never seems to run on any rational terms.
In Michigan, the state realized that as a revenue benefit for the state and local communities, sport fishing returned far more money than commercial fishing. The economic benefit from commercial fishing was pretty much weight of fish times $ per pound. A sport fisherman buys gear, rents boats, stays in hotels, eats in restaurants and as such stimulates the economy at least an order of magnitude more than sport fishing. So the state bought up the fishing rights from all the commercial fisheries converting the area to sport fishing only.
In Florida, it would make sense to get completely rid of commercial fishing. In my way of thinking, spearfishermen probably give the biggest economic return. They would give a far bigger return than commercial fishing and almost certainly more than sport fishing. But the state of Florida never seems to run on any rational terms.
Tassi Devil Diver
Contributor
Personally in my view a good move by Florida authorities to ban spearing on SCUBA.
Whilst spear fishing is touted as the most environmentally friendly form of fishing but it does have the potential to serially deplete reef species, particularly those species that have limited ranges or attracted to particular structures or have other elements of their life history that makes them particularly vulnerable. Divers return to those spots taking those fish time and time again significantly depleting that particular population which may never recover. Not so relevant to wide ranging pelagic species.
Where as other forms of recreational fishing are more reliant on an element of luck.
Whilst spear fishing is touted as the most environmentally friendly form of fishing but it does have the potential to serially deplete reef species, particularly those species that have limited ranges or attracted to particular structures or have other elements of their life history that makes them particularly vulnerable. Divers return to those spots taking those fish time and time again significantly depleting that particular population which may never recover. Not so relevant to wide ranging pelagic species.
Where as other forms of recreational fishing are more reliant on an element of luck.
Similar threads
