Philosophical Debate about Taking Young Divers Spearfishing

[dumpsterDiver]

A person can "take" a piece of candy from a candy bowl. A person could "take" a pen and use it to write a letter. A burglar can "take" a TV or a car or valuable jewelery. A person might even "take" a fish and put it in their aquarium at home. None of these instances implies killing, and so while gramatically correct, your sentence would be more accurately descriptive if you said, "...the legal killing of animals." Let's call it what it is. If that seems uncomfortable (and for me it would be), then perhaps there is a reason for it. I don't feel comfortable killing anything, and I don't understand how anyone could be.

...But that's just me.

My main point about my posts had less to do with the slaughter of the animals and more to do with the level of task loading of DD. It wasn't so much that he was killing fish, it's that he was killing fish while filming with two cameras, managing two separate gas supplies (one of which failed), managing a reef hook, managing a dive flag and reel, supervising his 13 year-old son and attempting to escape aggressive marine life that was apparently after his catch. He just seemed really busy and had little or no attention left over to manage the issues that came up during this dive.

...Which, to me, seemed really to be a symptom of his overall attitude to completely, totally inundate himself with too much... Too much gear, too many tasks, and too much responsibility. It didn't seem to me that he needed to take anything more... He already had enough stuff.

...Again, though, that's just my opinion based on the short video he posted. A simple observation by a guy who dives every day. Your opinion may vary.

FWIW, Easter Dinner today included deviled eggs, green salad, collard greens, homemade macaroni and cheese, homemade biscuits, potato cassarole, sauteed pineapple with jalapenos, wine, sweet tea and filtered water. Dessert was homemade lemon pie - my grandmother's recipe.

A delicious ham was also served, which was baked to sheer perfection. That one death fed many people and did not involve any of us having to kill it directly. It came from a farm-raised pig that was bred and raised to provide meat and was delicious. Where it didn't come from was from a reef that's been overfished and is currently in a sad state of underpopulation due to so many people "taking" three or four or more lives every time they take a 20-minute dive.

My plate consisted of maybe 5%-10% meat... A healthy and balanced meal that was sustainable and responsible, both from a personal point of view and from a global perspective.

...But I hate "global activists" just as much as you do - and I don't want to be grouped with them. I am no vegetarian myself - I just believe that there is responsible, balanced eating just as there is responsible, balanced diving... And I did not see an example of that in this video.

Just when I think you can’t say anything more, you come up with the concept that taking a few small fish for dinner is less environmentally responsible (and less ethical) than eating a pig which was presumably raised on a factory farm and slaughtered in a similar “industrial” setting.

In this latest post you say “I don't feel comfortable killing anything, and I don't understand how anyone could be.” However, in an earlier post you make it quite clear that your buddy shot a completely “innocent” alligator in order to “make TV”. Are you so dull that you don’t see the obvious contradictory nature of the posts you continue to make on this thread?

I’ve taught my son to be comfortable killing things. Hunting and fishing is a long standing tradition in this country. It is ethical and sustainable and it helps to teach my son where his food comes. (Pigs don’t come from the fresh meat section of the grocery store).

Probably the most importantly “lesson” I’m trying to deliver is a respect for the creatures that die in order to feed us. They are not wasted or abused or disrespected. We don’t take joy or pride in the actual “killing” the animals, but the challenge of the hunt is something that brings us back to the water on a regular basis.

 

[danvolker]

A person can "take" a piece of candy from a candy bowl. A person could "take" a pen and use it to write a letter. A burglar can "take" a TV or a car or valuable jewelery. A person might even "take" a fish and put it in their aquarium at home. None of these instances implies killing, and so while gramatically correct, your sentence would be more accurately descriptive if you said, "...the legal killing of animals." Let's call it what it is. If that seems uncomfortable (and for me it would be), then perhaps there is a reason for it. I don't feel comfortable killing anything, and I don't understand how anyone could be.

Deep South,
OK, you are forcing me to stick up for DD, which I don't want to get in to the habit of

Dumpster Diver is not hunting fish in plain sight of a big group of tourists underwater with him....this was only visible due to the video with it's own purpose. Right now, YOU pay people to KILL animals for you, every time you get steak or hamburger, or hot dogs, or spaghetti and meatballs...whatever. If this spearfishing by DD was "killing" and murder, then YOUR behavior would be just as complicit , for the steak or burger you ate....

If you bought any fish from a seafood store or restaurant, then Dumpster Diver was actually FAR MORE MORAL than you or other divers here against his spearing....because he was incredibly selective, and killed only what his family would eat....Those that bought fish from Publix or at a restaurant, are paying for the KILLING of 10 to 20 fish that will be thrown away dead, for every one that is kept and sold to consumers....Beyond this, you are paying into a consortium that is systematically destroying marine ecosystems, by harvesting methods that are fueled by greed, and which are known to be ecologically catastrophic. One guy spearfishing for his family, IS ecologically viable and sustainable, and moral.

This is not an issue where sport comes in anywhere. It is an activity that is more difficult than shopping at Publix or ordering from a restaurant, and one where the hunter can see for himself if one species is getting scarce, and can then adjust to other species.....The person shopping at Publix or eating at a restaurant, has no such awareness, and will continue to help the extinction of any species that the commercial seafood industry decides to hunt until there are so few left they are essentially extinct as a resource or species.

...But that's just me.

My main point about my posts had less to do with the slaughter of the animals and more to do with the level of task loading of DD.

The reef hook was used because there is a constant current running from 1/5 to 2.5 mph, or faster off of this area. The hook is attached to a float on the surface, that is follolwed by a dive boat....DD and son could cover 3 miles on one dive. Easily.
If they want to stop, they need to find rock without life on it, they can hook off on...this is usually quite easy to do here.


As to Safety, I think DD's kid had a job to do....watching and taking care of his Dad , and he did a good job of it....If only we could have his son edit some of his crazy posts, it might be the complete package

 

[Bob DBF]

A person can "take" a piece of candy from a candy bowl. A person could "take" a pen and use it to write a letter. A burglar can "take" a TV or a car or valuable jewelery. A person might even "take" a fish and put it in their aquarium at home. None of these instances implies killing, and so while gramatically correct, your sentence would be more accurately descriptive if you said, "...the legal killing of animals."

Actually the legal description, according to the South Carolina Department of Natural Recources (and many,if not all, other states Dept of Fish & Game), is to take fish.
Example from SCDNR:

" Fishing" means all activity and effort involved in taking or attempting to take fish.

Everyone including vegetarians kill for their dinner, either directly or will pay someone else to do the dirty work for them. Being at the top of the food chain only means we have a larger varity of food than our fellow creatures down the line, I don't believe that they have any moral problem with procuring their own sustenance.



Bob
-----------------------------------------------
I may be old, but I’m not dead yet.

 

[BVickery]

I am an avid Sportsman (Fishing, hunting when I can).

People very much nailed it on the head when were defending DD for his spearfishing. I have had people actively chastise me for hunting deer, while at the same time their favorite place to dine is a Steak House. When I hunt I take only 1, it feeds me for a good chunk of time. It is not loaded up with antibiotics, growth hormones, dyes (why do you think your steak looks so red at the supermarket), and other junk they put into the animal. A Univ. of Michigan study went out and compared wild game vs. the commercial alternative and in every case, the wild game actually came back as being far superior health wise alone than the commercial variant. Environmentally, when it comes to fishing, people nail it on the head perfectly (and I love hook and line fishing to boot since I can't dive all the time). There is far less bycatch, damage to the environment.

 

[manni-yunk]

A person can "take" a piece of candy from a candy bowl. A person could "take" a pen and use it to write a letter. A burglar can "take" a TV or a car or valuable jewelery. A person might even "take" a fish and put it in their aquarium at home. None of these instances implies killing, and so while gramatically correct, your sentence would be more accurately descriptive if you said, "...the legal killing of animals." Let's call it what it is. If that seems uncomfortable (and for me it would be), then perhaps there is a reason for it. I don't feel comfortable killing anything, and I don't understand how anyone could be.

.

Actually -if you really want to get technical - killing would infer that its just that.....killing. In the sense that their purpose was to utilize a natural resource for the end purpose of consumption - I would call it "harvesting" and probably the most sustainable means of fishing on the planet.

 

[AfterDark]

Deep South, you come across to me at least, as if you may be envious of DD's skill to be able to handle all his gear and a problem while filming it all. Just sayn'

 

[AfterDark]

Tigerman, do you dive in Norway? Dude, do you have polar-bear skin?

My points about spearfishing:

#1. It isn't sportsmanlike. Okay, maybe that's a plus for some people, but I do feel that a "sport" should require some effort. This was just too easy; it doesn't seem fair, does it? IMHO.

#2. Why was a reef hook necessary? It's not like he was at Blue Corner. If you need a reef hook under those conditions, then you need to get rid of your camera, speargun and all the other crap, and focus on your buoyancy issues. IMHO.

#3. Look at the video again--notice the dearth of fishes? That is not the way a healthy reef should look. Can't the hunters go someplace else and save the reefs for those who want to enjoy the beauty and the wonder and not want to kill everything in sight? During my last trip to Palm Beach, the DM actually speared a hogfish. I would have liked to have seen that hogfish, thank you very much. Which is why I now stick to Blue Heron Bridge and the Keys.

#4. Obviously, we all agree that killing invasive species (lionfish!) is a good idea (also good eating, btw) And I was glad to see that they weren't shooting grouper. As someone who grew up in Florida and is old enough to remember Nassau groupers and long lines of migrating lobsters, I completely support and practice sustainability. I'm certainly not against regulated fishing, but I don't like to see it on the reefs--particularly when there are divers around.

When hunting for food the prey should have no advantage if one is hunting correctly. The lioness doesn't hunt the fastest animal in the group she looks for the one with the limp.

Reef hooks are to keep one in place in a current. A steady platform makes for a good clean kill "stoning" the fish.

The dearth of fish may be because of the hunting, you seem to assume a lot from a video.
Wouldn't the DM show you the hog fish after he got it on the boat? They look the same after being speared except for the hole.

I only saw one diver in that video. If the reef is where the fish are that's where one needs to be to shoot fish.

 

[Tigerman]

I kill bambi too, and YES its because bambi is damned tasty.
If you like beef, youll LOVE bambi

I dont really have a problem with people who oppose killing and eating animals, but I DO have a SERIOUS problem with people who bitch about hunting and fishing just to go over to McDonalds or the local fish restaurant.
Infact, I have even more of a problem with those people than the ones that feel we need to not hunt certain species because theire "cute".

The only viable reason for not allowing hunting of a species in my book is unsustainable harvest or killing your own species.

 

[rob@diveinutila.com]

I am assuming this is about spear fishing with scuba (we are on scubaboard!).

I see at least four "philosophical" or at least moral aspects to this question and only two addressed so far. I'll deal with them in no particular order.

1) A healthy reef should be teaming with fish. If it isn't it is not healthy. By spear fishing on an unhealthy reef you have much bigger effect in further damaging that reef especially as spear fishing tends to take the bigger predators. You can destroy the top of the food chain by spear fishing an unhealthy reef. This will cause there to be an even more unhealthy balance in herbivores vs predators, in algal infestations, coral death, etc. The relationship is well understood these days. If you kill the predators you'll kill the reef.

2) When spear fishing your attention is more likely to be on your spear, your next target, and your catch so far, than on your buddy. This is very significant if your buddy is a child.

3) When I train children to scuba dive I always advise the parents to never go diving with just the child and themselves. i.e. never leave the child with the responsibility of being a buddy to the adult. It is simply not fair. Hell, the child couldn't even sign their own releases and now we ask them to take adult responsibility for another diver! The dive should be with at least two adults in attendance. With an activity such as spear fishing one of the adults should not be involved in that, just there to concentrate on being a buddy, and remind the ones with spears not to wander too far apart.

4) Spear Fishing. In general is not a fair or sustainable method of fishing. Yes it targets selectively, but it targets too selectively. It tends to take the predatory fish that are in their prime of life. In other words it takes the breeding population out. I believe that this is why it is banned in many countries when done along with scuba. I'm not saying other methods are better but other bad methods do make spear fishing good.

 

[TMHeimer]

Sorrows and others-- I read the OP and just waited for the old anti spearfishing thing to rise once again. I poke spear about 6 flounders each year. It IS the most ecologically sound way to get fish. It has NOTHING to do with being sporting, or having a big advantage or not over the fish being pursued. I admit to not having read every post here and apologize if I missed something. It is always good for a thread like this to be started in Underwater Hunting so the same old arguement(s) don't arise. Now, lets get back to my shell collecting.....