Views on playing with or harrasing marine life

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

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

True. Man those guys cook some yummie looking stuff! I am not real pleased with the shark fin soup he is also making, but the trout looks awesome.
 
The objection of "heavy metal" music was posted by somebody else than myself. In fact the poster didn't object to the music, rather he used it as an example of your 70's attitude.

I will not dive with you, not even for free, because I don't support your actions.

This does not mean that I think you are a horrible person. I simply believe that you are wrong in your actions. Good people do bad things. That's life.

Regards,

Tom
 
smay28:
Pretty much harassment in my eyes. Maybe giving it a nudge once or twice to prompt some movement for the camera but holding on to it and restricting it's movement is uncalled for.
Did you see all the gear on those guys?!?.. Those rigs were out of control..
Smay28, how were their rigs were out of control?

KimLeece:
I totally disagree with harrassing marine life. People who catch puffer fish in order to blow them up are my greatest irritation - and I see that a lot in Japan. I don't understand why some seem to think that they have a right to totally stress other life - just for kicks. Why they can't just look and feel privileged to be there in the first place is beyond me. If you visit someone elses house - do you re-arrange their furniture and man-handle their family? I think not! So why do it U/W? I suppose some will say that it does no real harm - but how would they react if someone else messed with them - or their wife - or their kids? Live and let live - and do unto others as you would be done by!

But directing intense beams of artificial light by you into the eyes of frightened sea creatures is ok?


kelpermaid:
But the problem I have with it is that this is still killing something for the entertainment value it provides. While I'm not a vegetarian, neither do I attend cockfights.

I hope they didn't throw that poor dog overboard to see if he could swim back to the mainland.
Straw argument.

kelpermaid:
If an instructor "opens" the urchin to feed the garibaldis to show off to students, yes, he or she is killing it for entertainment. Why not just leave the animals alone to feed themselves, and observe their natural behavior? It is just as much fun to watch the garibaldi guard his nest.
Why do you employ mercenary animal death squads to kill animals so you can tear their muscle and sinew and crush it with your mandibles and eat their scorched flesh?


It looks like this jackass pulled the video from his site...If anyone is interested in a copy drop me a PM. We can work something out....he is a REALLY ARROGANT *******.

TomR1:
...you are definitely ****ed up dude.
Isn't calling people names and using hate speech a violation of the board rules? Or are the rules selectively applied to silence only certain people? Aren't the videographic images copyright protected, and disseminating such without the express written consent of the holder a crime AND a tort? If you are using the board to engage in a criminal enterprise, aren't you running the risk of drawing the board owners in as potential defendents if they affirmatively allow the illegal activity?
 
.....to be something like "What you do [using a dive light or eating meat] is also harassment so what Rusty did was ok."

That argument can excuse anything. It could be used by Hitler, Stalin or anyone to justify their actions.

Now I agree with you that hate mail is inappropriate and that personal attacks are both unwarranted and unwise. However, my post was a lighthearted, 60's style response to his lighthearted 80's style mocking of my age. Sorry if I misled or offended you. The issue is not Rusty. It is not what you, I or anyone else does wrong. It is "Is what Rusty did wrong?"

Most of us believe that it was.
 
Rebreather Boy,
Rather than only criticize other peoples comments wouldn't it make more sense to express your view on the thread topic? If you want to start new threads about the use of underwater flash lights or the pro's and con's of eating meat then you could do that too - but it's not really the point of this thread.

For the record I don't think that using a flash underwater equates with physically harrassing marine life. I find that very often fish remain close after a shot and allow you to take repeats - it doesn't seem to bother them much at all. However that is only my opinion - and if yours is different you are perfectly entitled to it. (Is that polite enough?)
 
Tom1R, in debate class we called what you just did a straw argument....it was always seen by all as the intellectual equivalent of throwing in the towel.

Rather then misdefining my argument, why not just answer it, unless of course you actually eventually get my point, and that is many of you are throwing stones in glass houses.

KimLeece, so when the Angel sharks remain close so as to be able to be grabbed again, then this is a barometer of the animal indicating it is not being bothered, to use your weak, self-serving analogy? Did you ever think of first checking with a icthyological opthomologist to see what it does to the rods and cones in the eyes of light sensitive fish?

My opinion about whether grabbing the shark is acceptable is irrelevant, I would rather ask questions to the comment posters....
 
RebreatherBoy:
Tom1R, in debate class we called what you just did a straw argument....it was always seen by all as the intellectual equivalent of throwing in the towel.

Rather then misdefining my argument, why not just answer it, unless of course you actually eventually get my point, and that is many of you are throwing stones in glass houses.

KimLeece, so when the Angel sharks remain close so as to be able to be grabbed again, then this is a barometer of the animal indicating it is not being bothered, to use your weak, self-serving analogy? Did you ever think of first checking with a icthyological opthomologist to see what it does to the rods and cones in the eyes of light sensitive fish?

My opinion about whether grabbing the shark is accpetable is irrelevant, I would rather ask questions to the comment posters....
So your point is...? Oh, I think I get it - you don't have an opinion on the topic - you're just trying to start an argument. Woops! wrong again - you're just taking the higher moral ground as you did in your debating class.
You are entitled to your own opinion (but you don't want to tell us what it is). It's a pity that your debating class didn't teach you to address the question originally asked. If you want to make other comments off topic - start a new thread.

Another tip - try filling out your profile. At least then if you are an 'icthyological opthomologist' I might take you more seriously.

Finally - on your planned Micronesia/Indonesia trip what are you planning to use for your videos - natural light? Sheesh - talk about living in glass houses.
 
On the topic of blinding marine life, this is a tough call. Although a great deal is known about fish eye anatomy, and a moderate amount for the larger invertebrate groups, very little is understood about light tolerances.
What I DO know from deep sea work...

1. Lights from Alvin have been shown to permanently blind shrimps around hydrothermal vents. The operators are now aware of this and try to minimalize this.
2. The deepwater crab Eumunida picta has been permanently blinded by normal room lights. The ommatidia were likely fried by long term exposure by being in a laboratory aquarium... mine.

Deep sea critters of course have extremely sensitive eyes cued in to infrared or organic light. Shallow water animals are generally more tolerant. Underwater photographers have reported stunning or dazing animals with strobes or high powered lamps like HID's. "Stunning" from high light bursts seems to be a common behavioral characteristic across the board, be it insects, deer, or even people. This is a less obvious form of harassment, but it IS harassment nevertheless.

If you keep up with the underwater photography forums you'll occasionally read how many folks are sensitive to blinding animals and minimalize it if they can. This seems to be an increasing trend that I hope spreads... I will certainly practice it with my science students this summer.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/teric/

Back
Top Bottom