Save the Goliath Grouper!

[Pipehorse]

I don't believe most of the people in this thread are actual Florida divers. The evidence doesn't support it. Most likely just tourist divers that dive the same spots their cattle boats take them to. There also seems to be a lack of common sense regarding this proposed take. If anyone thinks someone is going to pay $500 for a tiny jewfish they are either dumb or trolling. Which is it?

For the most part I agree with you. However, it never surprises me what people will waste money on.

 

[Pipehorse]

The "not an apex predator" bit is correct - from old catch data and more recent stomach content analyses, goliath grouper primarily feed on smaller slow-moving benthic animals such as burrfish and crabs. If I recall, in the more recent gut content analyses other snappers and groupers made up less than 3% of what was found, and the old-timers who used to spearfish for them could never recall finding any (although they did find spots with goliaths were also abundant with snappers, groupers, snook, etc.). It takes more than size to make an "apex predator;" the term defines a predator feeding at upper trophic levels (e.g., bull sharks or great hammerheads feeding on blacktips).

I agree with the part that says it takes more than just size to make an apex predator (manatees are a good example of a very large not apex predator), however your example of bull sharks or hammerheads eating blacktips is a very narrow definition. If a bull shark gets eaten by a White Shark does that mean a bull shark is no longer an apex predator? How about the video out there of the Killer Whales killing a White Shark? Does that make the White Shark, "not an apex predator". Both you and Johndiver999 are using a narrow definition that amounts to nothing more than semantics when it comes to the term "apex predator".
Watch this video and then tell me Goliath Groupers are not apex predators. Watch: Giant fish takes down shark in incredible video

 

[johndiver999]

The reason that some scientists are going to claim the GG are not apex predators is primarily associated with the trophic level upon which they feed. This claim (of not apex) is helpful in refuting the idea that GG are consuming all the desirable snappers and groupers on the reef - which is (an incorrect) belief that is held by many fisherman.

Trophic studies have shown that GG feed at lower, rather than higher levels and this provides justification for not referring to them as "apex". Apparently this is thought to be more important than simply what predation GG themselves are (or are not) subject to.

They, in general, do not feed at the top of the food chain. Of course they are opportunistic predators and their size makes many smaller organisms potential food sources.

 

[tursiops]

The reason that some scientists are going to claim the GG are not apex predators is primarily associated with the trophic level upon which they feed. This claim (of not apex) is helpful in refuting the idea that GG are consuming all the desirable snappers and groupers on the reef - which is (an incorrect) belief that is held by many fisherman.

Trophic studies have shown that GG feed at lower, rather than higher levels and this provides justification for not referring to them as "apex". Apparently this is thought to be more important than simply what predation GG themselves are (or are not) subject to.

They, in general, do not feed at the top of the food chain. Of course they are opportunistic predators and their size makes many smaller organisms potential food sources.

Sorry, all accepted definitions of apex predator that I am aware of have to do with whether the animal itself is predated upon, not what trophic levels it happens to eat. "Apex" refers to being at the top of the food chain, and nothing else.

 

[Pipehorse]

The reason that some scientists are going to claim the GG are not apex predators is primarily associated with the trophic level upon which they feed.

See, I persisted and now you are changing your tune. I made a post saying GG are apex predators, and then you followed it with GG are not apex predators, like it was 100% actual fact (you are wrong). Now you saying "some scientists are going to claim the GG are not apex predators", with "some" being the operative word. Suffice to say, its a subjective call, with "some" scientist saying GG are apex predators.

 

[HalcyonDaze]

I agree with the part that says it takes more than just size to make an apex predator (manatees are a good example of a very large not apex predator), however your example of bull sharks or hammerheads eating blacktips is a very narrow definition. If a bull shark gets eaten by a White Shark does that mean a bull shark is no longer an apex predator? How about the video out there of the Killer Whales killing a White Shark? Does that make the White Shark, "not an apex predator". Both you and Johndiver999 are using a narrow definition that amounts to nothing more than semantics when it comes to the term "apex predator".
Watch this video and then tell me Goliath Groupers are not apex predators. Watch: Giant fish takes down shark in incredible video

See my comment about hooked fish - a goliath grouper is not going to go after a free-swimming juvenile bull shark. An immobilized one on a line, sure. Calling it an "apex predator" because of an instance like that would be like calling myself an MMA champion if I could beat up a professional fighter while he's hogtied and dangling from the ceiling. A few years ago an acquaintance of mine took drone footage of a goliath grouper that had been caught and "released" without venting the swim bladder getting mauled by a very persistent great hammerhead shark; hammerheads having relatively small mouths it had a very hard time biting into the goliath (a bull or tiger shark on the other hand would have easily torn it to pieces). If the grouper hadn't been crippled and immobilized the hammerhead would have ignored it.

Sorry, all accepted definitions of apex predator that I am aware of have to do with whether the animal itself is predated upon, not what trophic levels it happens to eat. "Apex" refers to being at the top of the food chain, and nothing else.

But is a goliath grouper really the "top of the food chain," or a side branch? After all, it is feeding at the same trophic level as much smaller grouper, reef sharks, and even some larger invertebrates such as octopodes.

 

[Pipehorse]

Why should it be opened? - because a limited harvest of this resource is sustainable.

You know what, I agree. But that's not the argument being made by fisherman at hearings. Argument #1, I caught a little fish with my fishing pole or spear gun and the big bad Goliath Grouper came and stole it from me, that's not fair, we need to cull GG. They sound like a bunch of seven year old children. Argument #2, its been thirty years, its about time the fishery was opened up again. Unfortunately the data has not bourn out whether it is sustainable or not, because there is not enough data, its been said over and over at every SEDAR. Since your such an authority on the subject you should know that.

 

[tursiops]

But is a goliath grouper really the "top of the food chain," or a side branch? After all, it is feeding at the same trophic level as much smaller grouper, reef sharks, and even some larger invertebrates such as octopodes.

Don't get trapped into what the GG feeds on; focus on what feeds on the GG. If it is not commonly predated on then it IS at the apex of the food chain, by definition. By the way, the plural of octopus is properly octopuses....unless you are speaking Greek.

 

[Manatee Diver]

(manatees are a good example of a very large not apex predator),

Manatees would never be considered an apex predator because they are a herbivore.

 

[CuzzA]

Here's the deal, FWC doesn't want to open jewfish up to recreational harvesting. Period. However, every year they take pressure from anglers that can't catch other fish because they snatch any hooked fish from them, hell, they will even take small hooked sharks. This leaves many public sites un-fishable.

From the anglers perspective fish are part of their diet and they've put in an investment of time, money, and resources to get out to the reefs and wrecks to catch dinner and they are understandably frustrated. South Florida has the same problem with sharks. It's so bad guys are intentionally killing the first shark of the day and sinking it to the bottom to deter other sharks so they can catch fish.

So every year the FWC has been trying to give them a little hope with talks of harvesting. Behind closed doors I have heard they aren't going to do it any time soon. The pressure however has become so high they feel they needed to throw a bone out to anglers and so here we are. Jewfish are still protected and the FWC can claim they opened up the species, but in reality they didn't because no one is going to pay $500 for a juvenile fish and hand it over to scientists, especially when they can still catch 600 pounders and release them. This is just buying more time. At some point the tag system will open up to the bigger fish. They are not an endangered species, but they need high regulation to ensure sustainability. A tag system fits and so there's some foreshadowing of what's to come in the next decade. This is the first step in building a solid system for the species.

All the gnashing at teeth is emotional theater.