Possible southern reef closure

[scubadada]

Hi @MrBigfins

Did you read the article by Alvarez-Filip, et al?

From Figure 3 of the article, it looks like the prevalence rate in the far south is 11-25%. North of the proposed exclusion zone, the prevalence appears to be as high as >50%

 

[ReefHound]

Yes, it does appear that they are closing the areas that are in the best condition and pushing everyone into the areas that are in the worst condition.

 

[MrBigfins]

Hi @MrBigfins

Did you read the article by Alvarez-Filip, et al?

From Figure 3 of the article, it looks like the prevalence rate in the far south is 11-25%. North of the proposed exclusion zone, the prevalence appears to be as high as >50%

View attachment 541407

I did read the article, but missed the attached documents. There is more information in the attachments, however it still leaves me with a number of questions . What is the rationale behind shutting down the sites with the least issues? Is it merely sacrifice the sites with the most disease spread, try to save the more pristine sites? Where is the science that shows that less divers means healthier sites? If that is the case then why are the southern (busier than the mid northern sites everytime I've dove them) the healthiest? Is it possible that they are healthier because of their distance from the cruise ships? Or distance from the storm and sewage runoff from Dan Miguel?
The article you li led does present a good baseline, it does not in anyway give a reason for the decisions being made. Nor does it offer any science to support the need or value of the suggested changes.

 

[MrBigfins]

Hi @MrBigfins

Did you read the article by Alvarez-Filip, et al?

From Figure 3 of the article, it looks like the prevalence rate in the far south is 11-25%. North of the proposed exclusion zone, the prevalence appears to be as high as >50%

View attachment 541407

Also that map is a poor indicator of specific disease spread in cozumel exclusively as it only has 1 "north" marker and that is essentially at the cruise ship terminal.

 

[MrBigfins]

For the information of all, just like the south, the north has some high current sites (Barracuda) but there are some mild current sites as well that are suitable for the average diver, or novice. Any shop can go there, they just have to take the time to explore. And in worst case I am sure they will.

Dave Dillehay
Aldora Divers

Not sure why my response to another post was quoted in your response. But as to your post, care to give an example of the northern sites that are suitable for novice or intermediate divers that are equivalent or better than palancar caves or Columbia deep for example?

 

[ChuckP]

Not sure why my response to another post was quoted in your response. But as to your post, care to give an example of the northern sites that are suitable for novice or intermediate divers that are equivalent or better than palancar caves or Columbia deep for example?

I’ve been to a few northern sites, not their adventure dive sites but others - while they are cool and a added change of pace, I wouldn’t want that to become the pace. I’ve been far enough north that the island is barely visible. The wall is deep with no area to shallow up. Due north is some shallow diving but no wall. Not knocking the northern sites, they are a fantastic change of pace, some are expert only, it’s a long ride, it’s different - from way north to islote, there is an incredible variety of diving

 

[scubadada]

I did read the article, but missed the attached documents. There is more information in the attachments, however it still leaves me with a number of questions . What is the rationale behind shutting down the sites with the least issues? Is it merely sacrifice the sites with the most disease spread, try to save the more pristine sites? Where is the science that shows that less divers means healthier sites? If that is the case then why are the southern (busier than the mid northern sites everytime I've dove them) the healthiest? Is it possible that they are healthier because of their distance from the cruise ships? Or distance from the storm and sewage runoff from Dan Miguel?
The article you li led does present a good baseline, it does not in anyway give a reason for the decisions being made. Nor does it offer any science to support the need or value of the suggested changes.

Though the point with highest prevalence of SCTLD is north of the exclusion zone, the southern most point appears to be at 11-25%

Perhaps the choice of closure zone has something to do with number of directly affected businesses and ease of enforcing closure of the chosen zone? It is interesting that two other points of high prevalence are over in the northeast, an area one would think would be less affected by divers and influences from land

 

[Manatee Diver]

Also it looks like one of the rarely visited northeastern reefs is highly affected by the disease, which would indicate to me that it isn't divers.

 

[ChuckP]

SCTLD started in Cozumel last December from what I’m told - I was here in November and seen nothing, moved here in April and it’s here. NOAA has done huge studies for cause and cure - as far as I’m aware, no answers. They have maps showing the disease spread thru Florida and the Caribbean - it’s not a bleaching, it kills the coral within weeks.

I inquired about doing something here, getting involved with NOAA, let’s get to work here but it’s difficult, not sure what the park did at all. I do know there are a lot of “retired “ divers that would have loved to chart and observe, but you can’t do anything.

I did see a dive op post something on Facebook about their efforts, was it coordinated with anyone, who knows.

What is stressful is this method - will it work? What are the goals, what are the standards? I do know a rash decision as this is what it looks like, will have negative long term effects - I’m not saying tourism should drive conservation but you should think about it.

If we really feel that diving is causing stress, shut down a few sites - put red buoys out - no diving from here to there, huge penalties. Of course that is much harder to police verses sitting a guy on a pier.

How about the existing rules?? Why not enforce those? Why not evaluate the runoff problem if there is one?

I’m all for trying something, I’d just hope it was an organized and well thought out plan, encompassing all the potential problems.

 

[JenLoves2Dive]

Totally disagree! It appears that this decision has been made, they're merely going to announce it to the rest of the world and three weeks later diving south of Palancar stops........
It should be talked about loudly!!! Let everyone's voices and concerns be heard - maybe, just maybe, the decision can be changed because once it's done, undoing it will be way more difficult.

Not sure what you "totally disagree" with. But I live here and things have a way of changing rapidly - even when things sound like they are written in stone. There are a lot of loud voices that will be speaking out. Not in disagreement about closing various reef sites that are stressed - and doing what is necessary, of course! But the timing and method - well there seems to be a lot of points that have not been taken into consideration. We will see what is discussed and what further ideas may or may not be brought to the table.

Last night I saw a post from a local marine biologist here, who said they would be closing the sites for 3 months and then reevaluated. It would be pretty obvious that it will take longer to see improvement.

As far as diving north, there are many sites to dive but I will remain in disagreement that any novice divers should be diving in most spots up North. Again, that's just my personal opinion. FWIW, I have been diving here since 1993.