Removing objects from the sea

[TMHeimer]

One man's empty beer can is another critter's condo.

I've wondered about that. The occupied beer can is still man's litter. Maybe the dislodged creature can find a better, natural home. Kinda like the idea of artificial reefs attracting fish. They were doing fine without these wrecks.

 

[Anthony Appleyard]

Cleaning up garbage may clash with a "no knives" rule :: e.g. a piece of plastic wrapped round coral may need a knife to free it.

 

[kablooey]

The dive operation I was associated with ran a yearly "clean-up" dive off a beach close to a tourist pier.
One year a guy brought up a rusty old bicycle someone had thrown off the pier,
Ok, technically it was "trash", but tragically the bike was covered in muscles and other mollusks that were killed.
We added a warning about this to the dive briefing in subsequent years.

I'm not a scientist, but I do have a first-hand point of view.
From what I've seen, not everything that man looses in the ocean is detrimental to sea life.
Plastic, yes. Especially plastic bags, mylar balloons, straws, etc.
Metal objects, glass objects, ceramic objects... not so much.
Most often these types of objects support life, more than hinder it.

Sure it shouldn't be there, but the reality is it is.
And by the time a diver finds it, it's already something's home.
To me, a fish, an invertebrate, a mollusk, a sea plant, even a fungus,
is all life and we shouldn't be messing with it.
Life takes precedence over natural esthetics, in my opinion.

So, I'm in favor of leaving some non-plastic objects where you find them.
Let nature eliminate them over time.

My buddies and I treat every dive as a "clean-up" dive.
Small mesh bags can be purchased at the dollar store, three for a buck.
We carry these mesh bags on every dive, and pick up plastic waste whenever we can safely.
Then we throw away the rubbish and the mesh bag in a responsible way once on shore.

Maybe it's all just symbolic.
Divers only see a small part of the damage being done in the underwater environment.
But when the tourists on that pier see us walking out of the water with our mesh bags full of plastic,
perhaps it may grow some awareness.

K.

 

[Akimbo]

I've wondered about that. The occupied beer can is still man's litter. Maybe the dislodged creature can find a better, natural home. Kinda like the idea of artificial reefs attracting fish. They were doing fine without these wrecks.

Very few actions are all good or bad in nature. Most marinas have mud or sand bottoms with years of man-made junk everywhere. It is pretty apparent that there is a lot more marine life than short distances away that are free of trash. All that trash may be disturbing to our sensibilities but all the life that chose that ecosystem apparently disagree.

 

[nippurmagnum]

Just ask yourself, what would Vlad do?

 

[Steve_C]

I've wondered about that. The occupied beer can is still man's litter. Maybe the dislodged creature can find a better, natural home. Kinda like the idea of artificial reefs attracting fish. They were doing fine without these wrecks.

Not at all clear. In NC except for the ledges, the natural bottom is sand. Miles and miles and miles of sand. There are a limited number of critters. On the other hand you go to a wreck, natural or man made, and it is teaming with life. They are covered with corals and sponges who now have something to hold on to. They are teaming with life of all sizes and types.

Your statement is no different than saying that if we removed a natural reef, the fish would just go elsewhere and there would be just as many critters.

If you remove the hunk of metal, fewer of the sponges and corals will be able to start their life and thus reduce the homes for other critters.

 

[TMHeimer]

Not at all clear. In NC except for the ledges, the natural bottom is sand. Miles and miles and miles of sand. There are a limited number of critters. On the other hand you go to a wreck, natural or man made, and it is teaming with life. They are covered with corals and sponges who now have something to hold on to. They are teaming with life of all sizes and types.

Your statement is no different than saying that if we removed a natural reef, the fish would just go elsewhere and there would be just as many critters.

If you remove the hunk of metal, fewer of the sponges and corals will be able to start their life and thus reduce the homes for other critters.

I don't disagree, as this has been explained to me before. I tend to hold fast to my thought that the life that finds a sheltered home on wrecks had to have come from somewhere else (especially if the bottom is all sand as you say). Is there a total of more ,say, sponges in the Atlantic now because some are attached to intentionally sunk wrecks? Many would say yes, and they may well be right. It's just hard for me to wrap my head around it. My old gut feeling is the ships are sunk because it costs less than scrapping them on land. I could be wrong on that too.

I'm not sure you are correct though saying that removing an artificial wreck is (to paraphrase), the same as removing a natural reef. The reef was there as a home to wildlife long before the wreck.

 

[TMHeimer]

Cleaning up garbage may clash with a "no knives" rule :: e.g. a piece of plastic wrapped round coral may need a knife to free it.

You're talking about charter boat dives (that have the no knives rule)? Does anyone pay their $100 or so to do those dives and collect garbage? Shore dives in these places, I would assume no one is really there to search your kit for a knife even if it is actually illegal to take one on a dive.

 

[chillyinCanada]

Seems to me a diver needs a knife to pry loose, then whatever it is has been established and should be left in place.

 

[Steve_C]

hold fast to my thought that the life that finds a sheltered home on wrecks had to have come from somewhere else (especially if the bottom is all sand as you say).

Lets try again. Sponges and corals release a few million (maybe more) biological bits into the current. Those bits that find a firm footing will start to grow. All others will die. The existence of hard stuff is a limiting factor on sponges and corals, not the number of biological bits. having more hard stuff results in more coral and sponges. At least in our area.

You see the same with oysters. Returning oyster shells to start new beds results in a net increase in the number of oysters.

Increasing the number of ponds in some key areas at key times of the year increases the total numbers of ducks/geese in a flyway.

The population size of many species is limited by many things. Among these are included shelter, food supply, correct habitat, etc. Relaxing a limiting facctor will often increase the total population.