Views on playing with or harrasing marine life
- Thread starter pasley
- 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
scubashooter
Contributor
GJ I think you missed the point. You mentioned comparing Cousteau to modern diving thinking,comparing a "recent" yet older form of interaction to the newer advanced thinking of modern scuba diving of "minimizing impact". I merely juxtaposed another analogy for comparision. TomR1 understood the correlation.
Taking aside all assertions of cruelty to fishlife and damage to environment, you still cannot justify scaring/damaging etc marine life for your own enjoyment and thus depriving the next diver of an opportunity to view it, unless you don't care for your fellow diver's enjoyment. I think only 5 year old children are self-absorbed that way.
Taking aside all assertions of cruelty to fishlife and damage to environment, you still cannot justify scaring/damaging etc marine life for your own enjoyment and thus depriving the next diver of an opportunity to view it, unless you don't care for your fellow diver's enjoyment. I think only 5 year old children are self-absorbed that way.
gj62
Contributor
I understood your correlation, I just think it was inappropriate and still do.scubashooter:
I don't think I'm depriving the next diver of anything. I've been doing it for 20 years and I do not see fewer urchins or nurse sharks...
I respect your right to an opinion, it just is one that I don't share. I think smay28 is right - 100 posts on this is enough, especially since I haven't see a worthwhile arguement against my actions, and those that are arguing seem unconvinced of my POV...
gj62:
I posted a question for you, post #95. How about an answer.
Come on gj62, you and I are friends, re-read post #95 and tell me how to provoke an animal into mating. I really want to know.
TomR1
Registered
I will state a well reasoned argument [I agree with you that the thread has been mostly proclaimations]
Those places who, for economic reasons, have established policies to protect the underwater environment from scuba diver damage almost always adopt a "No touch, no feed, no take" rule. In warm water environments like Bonaire even wearing gloves are not allowed. That is the rule that an island makes when its only significant industry is SCUBA diving. That is the rules that the majority of divers voluntarly follow wherever they go and that is why the scuba board poll is skewed 10:1 against the activities in this video.
Most posters feel that Rusty has a responsibility as a SCUBA diver professional to support that ethic and model appropriate behavior to less experienced divers in order to establish their voluntary compliance to that rule. Even if Rusty knows what activities will and will not degrade the environment he must still model the behavior because others do not have his understanding.
This issue is very much like the "leave no trace" ethic developed for backpacking. People are very serious about it and the backpacking population tends to self-enforce it. In my aforementioned example of writing grafitti on a rock in the wilderness, one would likely get tossed off a cliff for doing it.
Those places who, for economic reasons, have established policies to protect the underwater environment from scuba diver damage almost always adopt a "No touch, no feed, no take" rule. In warm water environments like Bonaire even wearing gloves are not allowed. That is the rule that an island makes when its only significant industry is SCUBA diving. That is the rules that the majority of divers voluntarly follow wherever they go and that is why the scuba board poll is skewed 10:1 against the activities in this video.
Most posters feel that Rusty has a responsibility as a SCUBA diver professional to support that ethic and model appropriate behavior to less experienced divers in order to establish their voluntary compliance to that rule. Even if Rusty knows what activities will and will not degrade the environment he must still model the behavior because others do not have his understanding.
This issue is very much like the "leave no trace" ethic developed for backpacking. People are very serious about it and the backpacking population tends to self-enforce it. In my aforementioned example of writing grafitti on a rock in the wilderness, one would likely get tossed off a cliff for doing it.
gj62
Contributor
Hmm, didn't know that question was for me, and I honestly don't know how to get an animal (any animal) to mate, other than being in the right place at the right time. I was not one of the one's that said you had to touch to take good pics - maybe you have me confused with someone else.LioKai:
As far as asking, "What is the help?", if I applied this question to any of my leisure activities, I'd have to quit them all (golf, baseball, hiking, sailing, etc). I'm not trying to be flippant, I guess I don't get what your point is...
gj62
Contributor
OK, now we are getting somewhere. I support places that have a "no touch, etc" policy, and obey it when I am there, such as the Avalon Underwater Park on Catalina. However, "no gloves" is a silly policy. How does wearing gloves affect the environment? Answer is - it doesn't. The idea is that if you don't have gloves you won't touch anything - seems to be you are penalizing someone who may be following the rules, but wears gloves for comfort.TomR1:
Is touching destructive in all environments? I think the answer is no. As long as it is "no", then there exists the idea that some amount of interaction is OK. What is the correct amount of allowable interaction? I don't know. I think feeding urchins to garibaldi's is fine. I think shooting otters to feed to sharks is not. I can tell you my reasons, but I certainly can't attack others. If we are unwilling/unable to find common ground, we may one day outlaw all interaction because we cannot reasonably reach a compromise. That would be a shame.
As far as backpacking, I find that it varies from place to place, and from person to person (alot like this thread). My experience is that "leave no trace" is an admirable guideline but far from the reality seen in popular areas...
I believe the question being asked is what benefit the wild animals being "handled" are getting from this?
Actually I'll answer it, since marine organisms are my field. You're almost never going to create a net benefit, even using special protocols designed to help the animal. Either directly (through damage) or indirectly (behavioral modification) wild animals are harmed via 99.9% of human interaction. This is why parks have trails that you are supposed to stay on, aquariums and zoos attempt to recreate natural conditions for their occupants, and you have rules in place like "don't feed or approach the animals." Such rules may only legally apply to endangered species or cute fuzzy mammals, but the intent is the same.
Prudent divers trying to interact with wildlife obviously cannot avoid some negative impacts, but it can most certainly be minimized. Environmental managers would call that "sustainable use."
Actually I'll answer it, since marine organisms are my field. You're almost never going to create a net benefit, even using special protocols designed to help the animal. Either directly (through damage) or indirectly (behavioral modification) wild animals are harmed via 99.9% of human interaction. This is why parks have trails that you are supposed to stay on, aquariums and zoos attempt to recreate natural conditions for their occupants, and you have rules in place like "don't feed or approach the animals." Such rules may only legally apply to endangered species or cute fuzzy mammals, but the intent is the same.
Prudent divers trying to interact with wildlife obviously cannot avoid some negative impacts, but it can most certainly be minimized. Environmental managers would call that "sustainable use."
gj62
Contributor
While no expert, if, in 20 years of diving in an area, there was not visible loss of habitat, population or modification of behaviour, would you say that effectively the activity falls under "sustainable use"?archman:
gj62:
Yes, that most certainly would be. Unfortunately I know of no such areas within the U.S. marine sanctuary system, or any areas regularly dived in U.S. marine waters. The California coastal habitats in particular have been intensively worked up by Dan Pauly's lab over the years and are forming the cornerstone of the highly acclaimed "shifting baseline syndrome" (which I believe is even discussed briefly on an older thread in the ecosystems forum).
If a kelp diver were to go back in time say 30-40 years he/she would find a dramatically different ecology in place. From what I've read, it would give coral reefs a run for their money. Nobody would give a flip for garibaldi back then.
To keep in perspective, scuba divers usually constitute only a minor component of ecological degradation. The argument is that scuba divers shouldn't use this an excuse to go wrestle angel sharks or massacre sea urchins. Such actions are a sign of the less-responsible past. I think this was the topic of some other thread a couple months back.
Sustainable use is today the single most important directive of park and sanctuary managers. It didn't use to be, but history has shown itself to be a good teacher.
Similar threads
