Views on underwater hunting

[Rhone Man]

Spearfishing competitions irk me because it's all about inflated egos and the trophy

Sorta like this story (not a competition, but...)? Badass Diver Kills 12-Foot Tiger Shark || Jaunted

 

[SCUBASailor]

Hunting legally for food is a good thing. Trophy hunting is a bad thing.

 

[dburg30]

When I first started diving, PADI still offered the 'underwater hunter' specialty. Now, it seems like most of the diving world is committed to 'look don't touch'. I have always thought this is wrong headed in principle. Buying a fish from the grocery store means your fish was brought up in a commercial dragnet causes huge amounts of collateral damage. Whereas going down and selectively hunting what you know you will eat must be more ecologically sensitive.

I also think underwater hunting a skill that would safer if it was taught rather than self-taught. You just have to look at the spike in accidents during the Florida mini-season to see vividly the risks of additional task loading.

Well, if it's done properly, just like normal hunting, it's usually planned in such a way to keep a healthy population but still allow decent harvesting. I have no idea with it at that point. To me, it's about the same as fishing, which most dont have problems with..

Again, with proper limits set and followed, I have no problems with it.

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

A lot of bravado goes on on spearboard but just like rod and reel fishermen all state and federal laws apply to spearfishemen so you can't single them out for taking the same limit a rod and reel fisherman would. The only difference is most fish caught on a hook don't bleed so it seems more tidy and humane.

Yeah I know they follow all the rules, blah blah blah.
But, my problem with them (and we've touched into this on other threads) is that they will kill as many of the biggest fish they can find all on the same day all in the same general area then give most of it away all for a trophy and for bragging rights, not the food. Some of them don't even eat fish they just want to kill it.

Why not just go out and cut down a limit of trees? I don't want or need the wood I just love to hear that chainsaw and see that blade rip through that tree, and when the tree falls there's that big crash! What a rush man!


I could leave my car idling 24 hours a day in my driveway if I want. Is it legal, yes, but is it right?
I could commute 100 miles a day in a 454 Chevy dually loaded with firewood getting 5 miles a gallon, is it right?
I could go out every day and shoot a full aggregate limit of different species of fish and bury them in my back yard as fertilizer then brag on the internet about it, is it right?
What's the difference if the fish are given away for people to eat or buried for the plants to eat? It's all legal right?

 

[Tanked]

My wife encourages me to go diving as long as I come home with dinner.
Which means if I strike out hunting I have to stop at the seafood market.

 

[Md Spear]

I wouldn't be very popular over on spearboard, I know.
It's a flat out blood thirsty kill fest over there.

thats fuuny sh*t

I you look a little deeper , past the chest pounding ,I believe you will find most on spearboard are about sustainable harvest and following the legal bag limits of their state. State biologists set legal limits. if your harvest is legal , its legal. most limits are unreasonably small for recreational fisherman. So if you follow the legal limit , you are not overharvesting.

 

[TMHeimer]

I could go out every day and shoot a full aggregate limit of different species of fish and bury them in my back yard as fertilizer then brag on the internet about it, is it right?
What's the difference if the fish are given away for people to eat or buried for the plants to eat?

Actually, logic says that as far as fish populations are concered, there is no difference at all. I always used to think it's fine to kill anything as long as you eat it. But consider this: If we commercially fished only half as many fish as we did in the last 30 years and dumped them all in a field somewhere, no doubt the world fish populations would be a lot better off.

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

Actually, logic says that as far as fish populations are concered, there is no difference at all. I always used to think it's fine to kill anything as long as you eat it. But consider this: If we commercially fished only half as many fish as we did in the last 30 years and dumped them all in a field somewhere, no doubt the world fish populations would be a lot better off.

I don't get your point

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

thats fuuny sh*t

I you look a little deeper , past the chest pounding ,I believe you will find most on spearboard are about sustainable harvest and following the legal bag limits of their state. State biologists set legal limits. if your harvest is legal , its legal. most limits are unreasonably small for recreational fisherman. So if you follow the legal limit , you are not overharvesting.

Yeah, that's fuuny sh*t alright.

I know some pretty gross game hogs and I don't think it's funny at all.

 

[TMHeimer]

ZKY, What I'm saying is it's all well and good to have these never-ending debates about this subject-- regarding whether it's morally right, or sporting or "it's fine as long as you eat the catch", etc. The important thing is how MUCH stuff we take from the oceans, regardless of reasons. My modest size shell collection is wrong because I don't eat the animal....yet it's OK to bag 100 scallops a day if you eat them? It's acceptable to effectively destroy the Queen Conch populations of Florida because people eat conch fritters?--to the point where even collecting an empty Queen Conch shell is highly illegal in Fla. Now there are "conch farms" in The Bahamas and one in the Keys, I believe, so there will again be some to eat. Fishermen and spearos are so insignificant compared to commercial fishing, and whether the catch is eaten or not, the results in both cases are the same.