Wildlife Protection Around "Non-Sanctuary" Dive Sites

[DaleC]

Eurodog, Agreed.
Society is an imperfect science. Mistakes are made even when people have good intentions.
In the current issue that sparked so much debate most reasonable people stated they thought the degree of reaction was OTT. I think, when it started, the originators thought others might react as they would, they probably saw things progressing from their paradigm of conflict resolution. I base this belief partly because I know one of the principles involved somewhat and he isn't an A hole. I think (they) did not believe that others would react from such a different place. It was probably as shocking to them, as much as it was to anyone else, that the reactions were so extreme.
I hope, going forward, that many people involved will still want to stand up for what they believe but that they may alter the way they approach that.

To answer the question though, when someone feels social pressure is unacceptable they can take recourse. They can use the courts (we are not so litigious up here and that is rarely a real option for frivolous matters). Otherwise, they can organize their own social group within the group and counter the pressure. They can form their own social group outside the original group. They can stand by their convictions and hope that an appeal to the basic belief in "fairness" would sway the social group. A look at how churches form and splinter/reform is a good example of this.

The problem in the current issue is that, while the reaction was OTT, the antagonist projected such a poor image of himself within the public realm that little sympathy could really be generated for his POV. A lot of spin doctoring went on, post incident, but those who took the time to look at what was projected pre-incident felt repulsion rather than attraction. His ability to appeal to basic fairness was compromised, as was his ability to form counter pressure from within the group. Few people would want to align themselves with such extreme examples of negative imagery.

Groups do need to police themselves as to their use of peer pressure, and I bet that will be debated within the group in this case. But individuals also have to accept responsibility for their actions and the images they project in the public realm with a level of maturity that accepts the results either way.

As far as social norms go many groups have many norms. Whether you belong to PETA or the NRA, there are some things you cannot say, and some things you cannot do, if you want to belong. None of those have anything to do with legality perse.

It seems wrong on some level but that's the way it is. When I was young I was often an idealist and frustrated but as I have grown older I tend to operate from a position of "real politik", even if I don't always like it. I may pick my nose occasionally, but I've learned to do so in private; or not expect other people to want to shake my hand.

 

[ams511]

I fully support marine preserves, but they have to have geographical boundaries.

Well-defined geographical boundaries because some places (FLORIDA) have a history of marine preserves with nebulous unmarked boundaries. Also a marine preserve should be closed to all types of harvest not just spearfishing.

---------- Post Merged at 06:50 PM ---------- Previous Post was at 06:25 PM ----------

At the risk of answering the OP (which I know is kind of not the point - this is an extension of the "octopus" debate).

This "debate" is not about octpi or wildlife but about money. People make money off of cove 2 where the octopus was taken. If all the octopuses are taken then less people will want to dive there and less money will be made. It is economics plain and simple. People are only worked up about this because someone took it upon themself to work up the masses against this kid. From all the reports I heard the kid was not bragging at the beach but was going to his car when some decided to confront him and when the kid stood his ground decided to publicly humiliate him and get him blackballed from local dive shops.

 

[Rhone Man]

This "debate" is not about octpi or wildlife but about money. People make money off of cove 2 where the octopus was taken. If all the octopuses are taken then less people will want to dive there and less money will be made. It is economics plain and simple. People are only worked up about this because someone took it upon themself to work up the masses against this kid. From all the reports I heard the kid was not bragging at the beach but was going to his car when some decided to confront him and when the kid stood his ground decided to publicly humiliate him and get him blackballed from local dive shops.

Not sure I buy that second argument. Tree huggers rarely get that animated over money, especially when the link between the action and the money is highly, highly indirect (dive shops in Puget Sound will suffer financially because one octopus died? I don't think their accountants are going to qualify their financials for that...).

I think the outrage was related to a much loved marine creature being killed. I remember similar outrage inexplicably bursting out when someone shot a nurse shark with a spear gun in Florida two years back (not illegal, but scarcely sporting).

Besides, you know the old joke about the dive industry. The only way to make a small fortune with a dive shop is to start with a large fortune.

 

[danvolker]

---------- Post Merged at 06:50 PM ---------- Previous Post was at 06:25 PM ----------



This "debate" is not about octpi or wildlife but about money. People make money off of cove 2 where the octopus was taken. If all the octopuses are taken then less people will want to dive there and less money will be made. It is economics plain and simple. People are only worked up about this because someone took it upon themself to work up the masses against this kid. From all the reports I heard the kid was not bragging at the beach but was going to his car when some decided to confront him and when the kid stood his ground decided to publicly humiliate him and get him blackballed from local dive shops.

Divers are worked up about an individual destroying their opportunity to see a spectacular form of marine life at the Cove..all these divers worked up have no interest in any dollar issue here.....it is the theft or destruction of an experience for many thousands of divers by one person.......this did not need to become a media nightmare for the young man....he could have hunted for octupus in many places that were not petting zoos, and no one would have cared......if he did not try to antagonize divers in general...or people in general, we would not have this thread either.

 

[ams511]

Not sure I buy that second argument. Tree huggers rarely get that animated over money, especially when the link between the action and the money is highly, highly indirect (dive shops in Puget Sound will suffer financially because one octopus died? I don't think their accountants are going to qualify their financials for that...).

I think the outrage was related to a much loved marine creature being killed. I remember similar outrage inexplicably bursting out when someone shot a nurse shark with a spear gun in Florida two years back (not illegal, but scarcely sporting).

Besides, you know the old joke about the dive industry. The only way to make a small fortune with a dive shop is to start with a large fortune.

Rhone what outrage? The only outrage on the beach that day was from the self-appointed scuba cop. He took it upon himself to rally the tree huggers because of money. Look at his website, he is a Naui instructor so he makes money from diving and that location. Please read the posts on the NW diving forum. Very few people seriously think the loss of one octopus is going to cause the marine ecosystem harm. However, read the posts about that hunters will come on mass and strip the location bare of octopi. if there is no octopi, the areas big attraction, no one will dive there and thus the dive industry will lose money.

---------- Post Merged at 09:10 PM ---------- Previous Post was at 08:43 PM ----------

Divers are worked up about an individual destroying their opportunity to see a spectacular form of marine life at the Cove..all these divers worked up have no interest in any dollar issue here.....it is the theft or destruction of an experience for many thousands of divers by one person.......this did not need to become a media nightmare for the young man....he could have hunted for octupus in many places that were not petting zoos, and no one would have cared......if he did not try to antagonize divers in general...or people in general, we would not have this thread either.

Dan your point of view is clouded by your own self-interest. From my understanding, you are involved in the dive tourism industry in Palm Beach County and an avid underwater photographer, so you are against anything that may negatively impact tourism or underwater photography. Why should he have to go somewhere else to hunt? Is he not entitled to use the public ocean in a lawful manner?

Also again, he did not antagonized divers in general, he antagonized Bob. Who then took it upon himself to whip up a frenzy with an unsubstantiated story of the kid taking a nesting octopus. He posted photos of the person and his license plate number and then called local dive shops asking who does business with him. One of the dive shops are pleading with people to stop calling them that they only VIP'd the kid's tank 7 months ago, he is not their regular client.

As for destroying the persons opportunity to seeing a spectacular form of marine life, that is your opinion nothing more. Every year tourists descend by the thousands for lobster mini-season, they deplete the local population temporarily but they come back don't they? So why would it be different with octopuses? If a good spot for an octopus is vacated another will take its place. Octopuses are not endangered species and are not really subject to strong fishing pressure, although many thousands are caught as by-catch.

By the way how much damage does the mini-season do to the coral reefs? Have you spoke out against it?

 

[danvolker]

---------- Post Merged at 09:10 PM ---------- Previous Post was at 08:43 PM ----------



Dan your point of view is clouded by your own self-interest. From my understanding, you are involved in the dive tourism industry in Palm Beach County and an avid underwater photographer, so you are against anything that may negatively impact tourism or underwater photography. Why should he have to go somewhere else to hunt? Is he not entitled to use the public ocean in a lawful manner?

Ams, nice try, but this is not about me or my interests...The question was why so many people were upset...and really, this is a question you need to be thinking about. What this has shown is that thousands of divers are going to feel like a resource they are sharing, has been stolen from them--destroyed, by one man with lots of self interest and disdain for the enjoyment of this resource by the many thousands of divers....That this is a major component of the outrage, is beyond dispute. In this one place, the octopus was a "shared resource" that thousands were counting on....in many hundreds of other locations outside of the cove, this would not be the case, so thousands that won't be losing anything, will not be upset...there would be no problem. How can you not see that to the local divers, this action by the kid was like going to a local Zoo, and shooting the big Lion in the cage for the joy of the Kill. This steals the future experiences from the masses that would visit the Zoo. The only difference is the "legality", and because of this incident, that is likely to change. But this was common sense, and you should not have to resort to laws over matters of "common sense"!

again, he did not antagonized divers in general, he antagonized Bob. Who then took it upon himself to whip up a frenzy with an unsubstantiated story of the kid taking a nesting octopus. He posted photos of the person and his license plate number and then called local dive shops asking who does business with him. One of the dive shops are pleading with people to stop calling them that they only VIP'd the kid's tank 7 months ago, he is not their regular client.

Actually, the moment other divers found out what was said to Bob, they "put themselves in Bob's place", and were antagonized as if it had actually been them. It is also clear that a normal response of humans in a social unit , is for an alarm to be sounded if one member displays anti-social tendencies, and steals from the group. I think this should have been foreseeable to the kid, but in this discussion now, it is the foreseeable result for any and all future thefts of a shared resource, like this.

As for destroying the persons opportunity to seeing a spectacular form of marine life, that is your opinion nothing more.

Pretty ridiculous for you to say. It is obvious divers visit from all over the world to see what is special in this dive site, and the GPO is a huge part of that spectacle. Again, had the kid taken a GPO outside of the Cove, had he NOT been taking a specific animal divers had come to see, there would have been no backlash.

Every year tourists descend by the thousands for lobster mini-season, they deplete the local population temporarily but they come back don't they? So why would it be different with octopuses? If a good spot for an octopus is vacated another will take its place. Octopuses are not endangered species and are not really subject to strong fishing pressure, although many thousands are caught as by-catch.

Thousands of divers had agreed that this area was like a zoo. The Community had this agreement. No one wanted the octopus population to be depleted in the cove.
This IS NOT about divers not taking octopus....you guys are trying to draw it that way, and it is not the problem. It is just "not taking in the cove".

By the way how much damage does the mini-season do to the coral reefs? Have you spoke out against it?

Significant damage I am sure.....Of course, this is HUNTING, so I am wondering why you are arguing against your own interests??? If it were up to me, we would not have a mini-season....too many divers die in these, it causes too much bedlam as you suggest, and there is no good excuse to have lobster mini season. Tourism in Palm Beach will never be pushing mini-season, at least nothing I ever have anything to do with.....On the other hand, I am going to take lobster myself, in season, on reefs where most divers do not dive ( better for lobstering on the deeper areas off the back side of some of our northern reefs, and tourists never dive there).

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Rhone what outrage? The only outrage on the beach that day was from the self-appointed scuba cop. He took it upon himself to rally the tree huggers because of money. Look at his website, he is a Naui instructor so he makes money from diving and that location. Please read the posts on the NW diving forum. Very few people seriously think the loss of one octopus is going to cause the marine ecosystem harm. However, read the posts about that hunters will come on mass and strip the location bare of octopi. if there is no octopi, the areas big attraction, no one will dive there and thus the dive industry will lose money.

You just beautifully summed up why the state may consider an emergency closure of octopus hunting in this area. Ecotourism is a legitimate money-maker for the state ... and people come here from all over the world to see these animals. Nobody comes here to hunt them. The reason this issue has never come up before is because octopus hunting is so rare that laws that have been on the books for more than four decades have never had to be re-examined. Now they do. When examined in the light of potential revenue streams, the economic value of protecting these animals far outweighs the money brought in by the sale of licenses to hunt them.

Yes, we are a nation of laws. We are also a nation of precedents ... and those are how laws are created and changed. In this case there is a precedent that involves one of the other significant underwater attractions in our area ... sixgill sharks. Coincidentally, the incident that spawned that precedent occurred at the same site. Twelve years ago a man hauled a large sixgill onto the same beach where this incident occurred, and because it was too big to move, proceeded to butcher it in sight of all the people using the park. Despite the outrage over what he was doing, his defense was that it was perfectly legal. It was, but the ensuing reaction by the community resulted in a change in the law and a statewide banning of sixgill hunting. Now it's completely illegal to catch them for any reason.

Years prior to that, divers adhered to an unwritten rule that you stay away from the fishing pier ... for what most considered obvious reasons. But some divers insisted on their "right" to go where they wanted, and the actions of a few resulted in a great deal of conflict between divers and fishermen ... often involving people who were being completely respectful of that unwritten rule ... for no reason other than the nature of tribalism. The end result was that the state imposed an exclusion zone around the pier, making it illegal for divers to go there. That mandate affected all divers, at all dive sites in the state where there was a fishing pier ... even though the actions that created it were those of a handful of people at one site.

I find it odd that a group generally known for its individualism and disdain for "big government" can so easily fall back on the argument of legality when it suits them. What they're really doing is, by refusing to be accommodating and respectful of other people's rights, forcing government involvement as a means to manage resources and keep the peace. This whole topic reminds me of the stereotype of two kids fighting in the back seat of a car and the mother cautioning "don't make me pull over". When mother government pulls over, usually both sides end up the loser. In this respect, it's in all our self interest to self-police, so mother government doesn't have to do it for us.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[HowardE]

This is a passionate and charged topic. At the same time, everyone needs to keep things civil. I posted this warning in another topic, and the same goes for this topic.

[advisor]This thread needs to remain civil. Let me remind everyone about our TOS:

ScubaBoard is a friendly forum (interactive computer service) based on mutual respect.

Profane, racial, insulting or mean spirited language is simply not allowed here and this includes any sort of harassment or cyber bullying.

Moderators are volunteers and are not employees ... While the Moderators will do their best to keep the forum civil ... The Moderators have the last word in any dispute and are responsible for interpreting the TOS. When they deem it in the best interest of ScubaBoard, they may edit or delete any content posted on the site. They may suspend users when they deem it is necessary.

With that said... Posts in this thread may be removed for harshness, aggressiveness, threatening, or otherwise uncivil behavior with or without warning. If you find one of your posts has been deleted from this thread... You now know why.

Let me add that if users are personally warned by a moderator to stay away from this thread, and warnings aren't heeded, forum bans, and possible site-wide bans could result.

We don't like to play the heavy so PLEASE be civil towards others in this community. Thanks.

[/advisor]

 

[gypsyjim]

I mentioned this in one of the other threads, but as it expresses a similar situation........

Where I live we have had a half albino whitetail doe (I believe it is called a piebald) that is now @4 years old. The local landowners who also hunt, and those we allow to hunt on those lands have all agreed to protect this doe, and not take her even when we have been issued doe permits.

This is really nothing binding, or legally enforceable; just an understanding between sportsmen. The doe certainly would make a striking pelt, and is definitely a tempting target, but so far our agreement has held through three hunting seasons.

Every time this doe comes down near the road by our place, cars and trucks stop, and we are pretty certain that there will come a day when someone will shoot this deer because she is so tempting, and visible. If the shooter breaks the law by shooting from the roadway, or their vehicle, we hope to have them arrested for THAT, but the taking of the deer itself is totally legal as long as the hunter has a doe permit.

What we CAN enforce is the agreement that whoever does shoot this deer will never be allowed to hunt on any of the lands controlled or owned by those in our unofficial pact, which covers a substantial area. We have done our best to let the general public, and other hunters know of our agreement, and anyone stopping at a farm or house to ask about access to those lands for hunting is made aware of the pact, and the consequences for breaking that pact.

No cop will come knocking at their door if they broke no law, but their name will be shared with everyone. THAT is all we can do. I see what Bob is involved in as quite similar. We could create a preserve, which would protect her until she wanders elsewhere, but none of us are anti hunting, so we see the method we chose, risky and weak as it is, as the only viable option.

Hijack over.

 

[ams511]

Thank you for admitting the truth Bob, it is all about money. From all accounts the GPO are not endangered species, for all you know there could be another one occupying that hole right now. Exactly what do you think you are accomplishing? Do you really feel the kid is going to encourage more octopus hunting? Has octopus hunting been a problem in the past? Do they even taste good? I have heard that large squid taste like ammonia.

Regardless of what Dan says you are talking about a stretch of ocean, not a zoo. petting or otherwise. The animals there are wild they are not pets. Personally I do not believe anyone has a right to exclusive use of the ocean. You and your group is appealing to "big government" not the spearfishermen, they want the freedom to hunt where they want to hunt and you want to restrict that freedom. Hunters are usually allowed to hunt on public land should not spearfishermen have the right to hunt in a public ocean?

I saw the photos you posted online of the kid. He did not pull the octo out in a crowded beach. The only people visible in photo are you and him. Nobody would even know about it until you brought it to their attention and started a posse to track him down. Do you realize that you come across as strange as those PETA people that throw paint on peoples' furs?

EDIT: Jim what you are describing is not the same because the animal is on your land not on public property. You have a right to do what you want (within the law) on your land.