Would you be willing to pay more money per dive for guaranteed healthy corals?

[seriousdiver]

That hardly guarantees anything except employment for the people collecting the fees.

To really guarantee anything like what was mentioned in the first post you are going to need to build a big aquarium.

There are plenty of coral restoration efforts that are helping things, to say that it doesn't help is a bit pessimistic even for me.

I would definitely pay more to dive healthier coral/marine parks; I would also pay to beat the ever loving snot out of people that intentionally destroy coral reefs for their personal amusement or to take home a souvenir.

For better or worse though diving caters to the mass market, which means people usually pay as little as possible for their diving, which means overcrowded destinations, more sewage, etc.

Coral reefs in Caribbean on life support

Coral has been on a huge decline thanks to human involvement, it's only fair that we try to help coral thrive, otherwise eventually we'll just be diving in an ocean of plastic, trash, and pollution.

At that point diving in an aquarium would be the only way to really experience diving, but hey.... why pay more when it's not "our" problem yet?

As an aside note, I actually really want to dive in the Baltimore Aquarium at some point when time/funds permit.

 

[TMHeimer]

No. Coral isn't my thing (though I got some nice pics. of it in Panama). Nor is fish (except for dinner). I'd pay more to be taken to a good shell collecting site.

 

[Tigerman]

You'd have to refine your definition of healthy. Is the Red Sea healthy? Indonesia kicks it's butt. Flower Garden Banks has the healthiest reef in the world, but I just don't see it becoming a major tourist destination anytime soon. A healthy reef includes lots of fish, from algae eaters to the folks that eat the algae eaters.

I've seen lots of healthy reefs, and usually the dead ones are a result of a natural event or sewage. So, what are you getting at?

You mean like this?

or this?

Different days, different reefs, both red sea and frequently dived locations at that..

 

[TSandM]

I love beautiful, healthy corals in varying shapes and colors. Some of the most fabulous corals I've seen anywhere were in the Red Sea, especially in the south. But I don't really understand the question -- are you talking about having certain dive sites you pay more for because the coral is healthy? That would be very strange. "You can dive Red Rock for $50 but the coral is dead, or you can dive Black Rock for $75!" Or, if you are talking about limiting traffic in an area, and having to charge more because you have done that, that wouldn't necessarily bother me at all.

 

[Tigerman]

National parks tend to come with an "entrance fee" thats used to conserve them, guess that could be considered such a "premium"? and yes, I do dive national parks..

 

[Them]

There are plenty of coral restoration efforts that are helping things, to say that it doesn't help is a bit pessimistic even for me.

There are, but I don't see how you can describe what they do as guaranteeing.

When it comes to preserving ecosystems, I think either everyone contributing to the problem (when fighting man-made problems) or everyone with an interest in the ecosystems (when we are fighting nature) should chip in. It doesn't make sense to try to finance a solution by tapping divers just because divers are there and seem to have money. The most obvious flaw is that divers will simply go where they aren't charged, leaving you with the problems and even fewer resources to deal with them - especially when the locals had a choice of subsisting by showing off the reef life or eating it, and the lack of divers takes away the first option.

 

[TMHeimer]

Hey guys, thanks for your feed back so far!
I am meaning healthy coral like in Indonesia, with the fish life that comes with it!
The extra expence could be used to ensure ( as best as could be) the amount of dives allowed on the site, it could be set up as a marine park. so the extra would go on the upkeep of that park.

hope this helps clarify what i was meaning.

I see what you're saying. At first I thought you meant it to be, say, a particular resort/area that does have healthy coral simply charging divers more as a business move. Then some later posts talked about divers paying extra and that money being used to clean up things and make for healthier coral reefs. All of this is OK, but I think we oftentimes lose sight of the big picture. Yes, divers damage coral a lot, but it's generally believed that other factors like agricultural runoff and warming of oceans dwarf any damage by divers. Also, coastal development--ie. resorts, condos (frequented by divers all the time). I admit to have done nothing myself to help restore coral, but I like to change the saying to: "Think globally, Act globally too".--Well, maybe act locally if you have spare time.

 

[freewillie]

It depends on what you mean by healthy coral and reefs. I just did Molokini Crater in Maui and Kona on the Big Island. Both were pretty spectacular in their own rights. If I had to pay slightly more for more fish, etc I certainly would if the opportunity is there. There is the marine park reserve at Paphanaumokuakea and apparently has 50% more fish density since it is off limits fishing and no humans for miles. I certainly would pay whatever it cost if the opportunity arises. That being said, I am generally able to afford most things so paying more to get more doesn't bother me.

 

[vladimir]

Just trying to work out if people would pay more for guaranteed healthy corals or if fish are the main thing you are looking to see when going away??

It is not unusual for marine sanctuaries to charge a fee to divers. I am happy to pay it. I think I paid $250 in Cocos, and I would be happy to pay twice that on my next visit if the marine life was as healthy. I just wish it would come anywhere close to providing the "guarantee" you hold out.

 

[AfterDark]

We don't have much in the way of coral here in RI, I don't travel to exoctic locations, most of my diving only requires I buy gas and gasoline, so no.