Halloween ScubaBoard Get Together- Hunt or not to Hunt
- Thread starter Cacia
- 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
Incidentally I do agree with 90% of what you are saying. I myself am not a fan of "Sportfishing" or "Sport hunting." Kill what you eat, eat what you kill.
"I assume he is hunting within legal limits..." Yes I do.
"With the understanding an artificial habitat (resting, secure places) attract fish (among other things) to thrive, procreate, preditate and sucomb, what many recreational divers are looking to see... She has offered to ask other hunters to avoid such places as well. If he (they) are hunting for food vs observing natural marine life interaction, is it not reasonable to ask they do so elsewhere and let areas remain in a more natural state for those who wish that type of pleasure."
Here is the bone of contention, all of that takes place in one location, breeding through death. There is no where to go that that does not happen...with the exception of blue water hunting. Since I can't eat a 300 pound Ahi (as much as I love fresh Ahi) I don't partake. It all amounts to I hunt where the fish are, observers (camera or othwise) go where the fish are. There is no avoiding this, except for conservation zones (which I fully respect and have called people in for violating).
The crux of all of this remains spearfishing is a fully sustainable and responsible activity, wherever it may take place.
Thank you for you viewpoints redrover.
"I assume he is hunting within legal limits..." Yes I do.
"With the understanding an artificial habitat (resting, secure places) attract fish (among other things) to thrive, procreate, preditate and sucomb, what many recreational divers are looking to see... She has offered to ask other hunters to avoid such places as well. If he (they) are hunting for food vs observing natural marine life interaction, is it not reasonable to ask they do so elsewhere and let areas remain in a more natural state for those who wish that type of pleasure."
Here is the bone of contention, all of that takes place in one location, breeding through death. There is no where to go that that does not happen...with the exception of blue water hunting. Since I can't eat a 300 pound Ahi (as much as I love fresh Ahi) I don't partake. It all amounts to I hunt where the fish are, observers (camera or othwise) go where the fish are. There is no avoiding this, except for conservation zones (which I fully respect and have called people in for violating).
The crux of all of this remains spearfishing is a fully sustainable and responsible activity, wherever it may take place.
Thank you for you viewpoints redrover.
Dang it wait for me to respond!!!!! Interupting my mojo like that....LOL
If you look at the regs real hard, and it takes real hard look, the "closed areas" are only closed to taking of aquariam fish live. Capt Morgan is here and the spelin is going from bad to worse, Sorry. We are allowed to hunt there. Should we? Whole different issue.
uhhh...I'm holding the regs in my hand and I shall qoute them. I'll qoute the Pupukea Marine Life Conservation District i.e. Waimea-Shark's Cove.
Prohibited:
"To fish for, take or injure any marine life (including eggs), or possess in the water any device that may be used for the taking of marine life, except as indicated in 'permitted' activities above."
..more follows...
It is however PERMITTED to fish via "hook-and-line" in WAIMEA BAY ONLY.
Prohibited:
"To fish for, take or injure any marine life (including eggs), or possess in the water any device that may be used for the taking of marine life, except as indicated in 'permitted' activities above."
..more follows...
It is however PERMITTED to fish via "hook-and-line" in WAIMEA BAY ONLY.
redrover
Guest
I cannot speak with any knowledge regarding Oahu or the site Catherine specifies. What I can share is my personal observations in a protected location. Apparently the protection is quite limited, or perhaps ignored. Again, not being a hunter I am not aware of legal specifics. What I see is a National Historic Park with people fishing where the diving is.
From seeing the larger game type fish I am torn upon surfacing. Inevitably someone asks me How was it? and I want to gush with the beauty and grandeur the larger sea life, with less frequent observations or occurrence incites. Yet fearing the report will incite those who hunt for food or otherwise, I generally just shrug and convey a nothing impressive or worth speaking about nmph.
And torn too regarding promotion of such a site even to the look and seers. More attention from more people wanting more stringent protection yet by far and large the occasional visitors are destroying what makes it such a great place to dive and snorkel. Locals become very hostile to visitors (in thought, not action) and frankly I find it hard myself to speak politely watching them forsake established entry and exit points and scramble madly to crawl and scratch through what they have come there to see. My first encounter with nearly invisible fishing line was approx 15 feet from the primary entrance and exit, hard to say if more alarming or horrifying.
Certainly, I fid this all very saddening. Over the years Ive frequented the site I see less and less, smaller and smaller game fish. Throughout my life Ive wondered what some place was like before man not interacted, but overran. Poured over descriptions of species now extinct and been thrilled to see a rare or endangered.
MilitantMedic, you spoke of the historic relationship between fishing and islanders. Was not the fishing controlled to maintain the abundance, so there would be fish for all? Can we agree there are more people here on earth than there was 100 years ago? Can you see that with more people wanting the resource there is less to go around?
Something you probably dont realize is how spoiled I am, having grown up eating what my father brought home from the sky, rivers, tundra and ocean. I agree that there is far greater nutrition and freshly caught fish far exceeds something I see flown to all parts of the world daily. I also am employed in an industry that includes natural food supplement for farm fish that is struggling to compete with cheaper synthetics without the nutritional benefits of wild fish, just the visual indication.
I hope I have been clear that I am not indicating you should not hunt, nor do so illegally, brutally or like shoot into a barrel. Man is a gatherer and hunter both, holds a place in the food chain.
Perhaps where I have not been clear is in the choice of where to hunt and respecting other peoples desire for recreation that differs. That I am debating how people choose to consider someone elses opinion. I ask not that all dive sites are closed to hunting, nor all dive sites are open to hunting. Is not the ocean generally regarded as vast?
I give you the right to exercise your desire or choice to hunt. Will you please give me the right, extend me the courtesy in return, to dive more than very few places where there is no hunting? Can we as a society in general, negotiate fairness with respect to each others wishes?
Ah Wildcard, youre a gem. We are allowed to hunt there. Should we? Whole different issue. Yes, my point. The laws are irrelevant; they will be obeyed or not as each chooses. Morals, ethics and laws are all different words with different meanings.
And hui! Ill latch on the neck of my Appelton Estate for the one armd hug and clink glass. I miss you already, maybe its just the boat. I thought of you fondly scrubbing my tank.:mischief:
Aloha, both and all.
From seeing the larger game type fish I am torn upon surfacing. Inevitably someone asks me How was it? and I want to gush with the beauty and grandeur the larger sea life, with less frequent observations or occurrence incites. Yet fearing the report will incite those who hunt for food or otherwise, I generally just shrug and convey a nothing impressive or worth speaking about nmph.
And torn too regarding promotion of such a site even to the look and seers. More attention from more people wanting more stringent protection yet by far and large the occasional visitors are destroying what makes it such a great place to dive and snorkel. Locals become very hostile to visitors (in thought, not action) and frankly I find it hard myself to speak politely watching them forsake established entry and exit points and scramble madly to crawl and scratch through what they have come there to see. My first encounter with nearly invisible fishing line was approx 15 feet from the primary entrance and exit, hard to say if more alarming or horrifying.
Certainly, I fid this all very saddening. Over the years Ive frequented the site I see less and less, smaller and smaller game fish. Throughout my life Ive wondered what some place was like before man not interacted, but overran. Poured over descriptions of species now extinct and been thrilled to see a rare or endangered.
MilitantMedic, you spoke of the historic relationship between fishing and islanders. Was not the fishing controlled to maintain the abundance, so there would be fish for all? Can we agree there are more people here on earth than there was 100 years ago? Can you see that with more people wanting the resource there is less to go around?
Something you probably dont realize is how spoiled I am, having grown up eating what my father brought home from the sky, rivers, tundra and ocean. I agree that there is far greater nutrition and freshly caught fish far exceeds something I see flown to all parts of the world daily. I also am employed in an industry that includes natural food supplement for farm fish that is struggling to compete with cheaper synthetics without the nutritional benefits of wild fish, just the visual indication.
I hope I have been clear that I am not indicating you should not hunt, nor do so illegally, brutally or like shoot into a barrel. Man is a gatherer and hunter both, holds a place in the food chain.
Perhaps where I have not been clear is in the choice of where to hunt and respecting other peoples desire for recreation that differs. That I am debating how people choose to consider someone elses opinion. I ask not that all dive sites are closed to hunting, nor all dive sites are open to hunting. Is not the ocean generally regarded as vast?
I give you the right to exercise your desire or choice to hunt. Will you please give me the right, extend me the courtesy in return, to dive more than very few places where there is no hunting? Can we as a society in general, negotiate fairness with respect to each others wishes?
Ah Wildcard, youre a gem. We are allowed to hunt there. Should we? Whole different issue. Yes, my point. The laws are irrelevant; they will be obeyed or not as each chooses. Morals, ethics and laws are all different words with different meanings.
And hui! Ill latch on the neck of my Appelton Estate for the one armd hug and clink glass. I miss you already, maybe its just the boat. I thought of you fondly scrubbing my tank.:mischief:
Aloha, both and all.
After sorting through the sheer verbosity (and the last) of the last post here's the main points I picked out:
"...you spoke of the historic relationship between fishing and islanders. Was not the fishing controlled to maintain the abundance, so there would be fish for all..."
Well first only the lowest free class (there was no "class stuggle" back then) of Hawaiians fished, then it was during certain times of the year. They feed there family mostly. But there was "commercial" fishing, someone had to get the royalty/priests there dinner. All this before the white man.
"I give you the right to exercise your desire or choice to hunt. Will you please give me the right, extend me the courtesy in return, to dive more than very few places where there is no hunting?"
Since this has been a very gray lined ethical dilemma let me ask this, where should the line be? What makes a criteria for a no hunting zone? So far the only thing to come out has amounted to "no spearing in places with fish." What makes a location ok for spearfishing? You have yet to provide a viable solution.
"Ah Wildcard, youre a gem. We are allowed to hunt there. Should we? Whole different issue. Yes, my point."
He was refering to Conservation Zones, which are, in fact, illegal to hunt/fish in. All the North Shores best diving spots are off-limits: Shark's Cove, Firehouse, Three Tables, Waimea Wall and Haleiwa Harbor. The only "viable" diving location that you can spear on the NS is the Haleiwa Trench and Jameson's (crappy beach). I don't really consider Ka'ena Point viable. Parts of Waikiki, all of Hanauma Bay as well Pokai Bay (Waianae Harbor) are all no fishing. There are a few more but no one dives them anyway. Should we add more locations to this list? Or are they already enough restrictions? Are there not enough no-fishing beachs you (you being a general term here) can dive? The ocean is quite vast, but I can only go where there are fish in numbers.
Also note that the places with the most fish are also the most easily re-populated and therefore the most sustainable locations.
"...you spoke of the historic relationship between fishing and islanders. Was not the fishing controlled to maintain the abundance, so there would be fish for all..."
Well first only the lowest free class (there was no "class stuggle" back then) of Hawaiians fished, then it was during certain times of the year. They feed there family mostly. But there was "commercial" fishing, someone had to get the royalty/priests there dinner. All this before the white man.
"I give you the right to exercise your desire or choice to hunt. Will you please give me the right, extend me the courtesy in return, to dive more than very few places where there is no hunting?"
Since this has been a very gray lined ethical dilemma let me ask this, where should the line be? What makes a criteria for a no hunting zone? So far the only thing to come out has amounted to "no spearing in places with fish." What makes a location ok for spearfishing? You have yet to provide a viable solution.
"Ah Wildcard, youre a gem. We are allowed to hunt there. Should we? Whole different issue. Yes, my point."
He was refering to Conservation Zones, which are, in fact, illegal to hunt/fish in. All the North Shores best diving spots are off-limits: Shark's Cove, Firehouse, Three Tables, Waimea Wall and Haleiwa Harbor. The only "viable" diving location that you can spear on the NS is the Haleiwa Trench and Jameson's (crappy beach). I don't really consider Ka'ena Point viable. Parts of Waikiki, all of Hanauma Bay as well Pokai Bay (Waianae Harbor) are all no fishing. There are a few more but no one dives them anyway. Should we add more locations to this list? Or are they already enough restrictions? Are there not enough no-fishing beachs you (you being a general term here) can dive? The ocean is quite vast, but I can only go where there are fish in numbers.
Also note that the places with the most fish are also the most easily re-populated and therefore the most sustainable locations.
And hui! Ill latch on the neck of my Appelton Estate for the one armd hug and clink glass. I miss you already, maybe its just the boat. I thought of you fondly scrubbing my tank
LOL. I cleaned that up BTW. Sorry...
MM, Some of the protected areas are open to fishing but not for live fish for aquariums. I don't have the regs handy so I don't rember exactly what they are called. I know this after having a long talk with the man with a gun and badge while fishing in a closed area. I showed him the regs and that spot wasn't listed.
LOL. I cleaned that up BTW. Sorry...
MM, Some of the protected areas are open to fishing but not for live fish for aquariums. I don't have the regs handy so I don't rember exactly what they are called. I know this after having a long talk with the man with a gun and badge while fishing in a closed area. I showed him the regs and that spot wasn't listed.
discrepancy
Contributor
MilitaryMedic,
You've made quite a few points in a couple of posts here. I will need to cut and paste a few to respond, if you don't mind:
You said that, "even shooting fish in a barrel is MORE SPORTING THAN buying fish at the supermarket."
You are quoted correctly, and it's a valid point. The way I understand it, you are saying that commercial seafood suppliers take fish too, and sportsfishermen should not be judged harshly for doing the same thing because the result is the same: there is one less fish in the ocean for every seafood meal we consume. More than that, you are also implying that sport has a value, and that commercial fishing is worse than spearfishing because if a spearfisherman takes a fish, he gets a certain pleasure out of it, whereas a commercial catch is a purely economic activity. I agree with you on both counts.
You said, "As far as using scuba for spearfishing...it is MORE difficult, therefore more "sporting" to do it with scuba and a polespear or even a speargun.
Here's our first point of disagreement. I don't know where you dive (in Hawaii somewhere?), but at my local sites, most of the large fish are so used to divers that I could take them with a pointed chopstick, on scuba or not. There is nothing sporting about taking fish like that.
You said, "As far as focusing on the "sporting aspect" of spearfishing...I don't spearfish for sport...I don't kill anything I won't eat."
Good point. Let's leave the sport side of it alone for the moment and focus on the eating. I love a good seafood meal as much as the next guy, but I would prefer that my seafood meal was commercially caught or farmed. This is not the 'Ostrich Effect' at work. A dead fish is a dead fish no matter how it came to be on my plate, and that's life. Man gotta eat. Fish gotta swim. Problem is, we've all seen pics of less sporting fishermen than yourself who have speared a trailer-load of fish, snapped a proud piccy with big beamy smiles showing off their obscene haul, and then bragged about it on the web. The rest of us look on and shake our heads.
MM said, "I myself am not a fan of "Sportfishing" or "Sport hunting." Kill what you eat, eat what you kill."
I'm a bit harder-edged than you on the sporting side of things, and I would defend some responsible sportsfishermen here who hunt for pleasure. Let's not get all doe-eyed about this. There is a place for people to hunt fish. Homo sapiens are not that far removed biologically or genetically from our ancestors who hunted to live. It's ultimately how we all got to be here as a successful species. Humans hunted, we ate, we survived. We procreated, multiplied, and mastered our environment and are now sending people into space. But let's not forget that humans are still programmed deep down to be hunters. To deny the urge to hunt or find food is to deny something primordial within ourselves. But, most of us have accepted that to live peaceably in an advanced society, we need to repress some basic urges. In modern times we've developed laws against murder, robbery and rape - all acts of survival in our earlier unenlightened days.
So, I have to agree that hunting fish for sustenance is understandable, and I will acknowledge the urge to hunt is a basic human instinct, and that in some of us it's very powerful.
But, just as none of us today go around the place murdering our neighbors and appropriating their property, so we need to learn to moderate our human instinct to hunt without restraint. To spearfishermen I would say sure, do your thing, but recognise the hunting urge for the instinctual thing it is, and do it in a social way by not upsetting your fellow lovers of the sea. Don't hunt where other people are trying to enjoy the marine life, and especially don't gloat about conquests or kills that go beyond the next meal. It really pisses people off.
My final point is that, as things stand, unless spearfishermen get smarter they are at risk of becoming outcasts amongst the underwater community. In my opinion the answer is to act responsibly. I don't say that all spearfishermen are irresponsible, but they need to be more mindful of the image they project as heartless predators on innocent marine life. And I also acknowledge that the hunting community has its share of ill-informed newbies, just as scuba does, who need to be shown how to behave without causing damage or offense.
Sorry about the long lecture, but there is a point of friction between scuba types and spearfishermen. It's worth exploring and understanding.
You've made quite a few points in a couple of posts here. I will need to cut and paste a few to respond, if you don't mind:
You said that, "even shooting fish in a barrel is MORE SPORTING THAN buying fish at the supermarket."
You are quoted correctly, and it's a valid point. The way I understand it, you are saying that commercial seafood suppliers take fish too, and sportsfishermen should not be judged harshly for doing the same thing because the result is the same: there is one less fish in the ocean for every seafood meal we consume. More than that, you are also implying that sport has a value, and that commercial fishing is worse than spearfishing because if a spearfisherman takes a fish, he gets a certain pleasure out of it, whereas a commercial catch is a purely economic activity. I agree with you on both counts.
You said, "As far as using scuba for spearfishing...it is MORE difficult, therefore more "sporting" to do it with scuba and a polespear or even a speargun.
Here's our first point of disagreement. I don't know where you dive (in Hawaii somewhere?), but at my local sites, most of the large fish are so used to divers that I could take them with a pointed chopstick, on scuba or not. There is nothing sporting about taking fish like that.
You said, "As far as focusing on the "sporting aspect" of spearfishing...I don't spearfish for sport...I don't kill anything I won't eat."
Good point. Let's leave the sport side of it alone for the moment and focus on the eating. I love a good seafood meal as much as the next guy, but I would prefer that my seafood meal was commercially caught or farmed. This is not the 'Ostrich Effect' at work. A dead fish is a dead fish no matter how it came to be on my plate, and that's life. Man gotta eat. Fish gotta swim. Problem is, we've all seen pics of less sporting fishermen than yourself who have speared a trailer-load of fish, snapped a proud piccy with big beamy smiles showing off their obscene haul, and then bragged about it on the web. The rest of us look on and shake our heads.
MM said, "I myself am not a fan of "Sportfishing" or "Sport hunting." Kill what you eat, eat what you kill."
I'm a bit harder-edged than you on the sporting side of things, and I would defend some responsible sportsfishermen here who hunt for pleasure. Let's not get all doe-eyed about this. There is a place for people to hunt fish. Homo sapiens are not that far removed biologically or genetically from our ancestors who hunted to live. It's ultimately how we all got to be here as a successful species. Humans hunted, we ate, we survived. We procreated, multiplied, and mastered our environment and are now sending people into space. But let's not forget that humans are still programmed deep down to be hunters. To deny the urge to hunt or find food is to deny something primordial within ourselves. But, most of us have accepted that to live peaceably in an advanced society, we need to repress some basic urges. In modern times we've developed laws against murder, robbery and rape - all acts of survival in our earlier unenlightened days.
So, I have to agree that hunting fish for sustenance is understandable, and I will acknowledge the urge to hunt is a basic human instinct, and that in some of us it's very powerful.
But, just as none of us today go around the place murdering our neighbors and appropriating their property, so we need to learn to moderate our human instinct to hunt without restraint. To spearfishermen I would say sure, do your thing, but recognise the hunting urge for the instinctual thing it is, and do it in a social way by not upsetting your fellow lovers of the sea. Don't hunt where other people are trying to enjoy the marine life, and especially don't gloat about conquests or kills that go beyond the next meal. It really pisses people off.
My final point is that, as things stand, unless spearfishermen get smarter they are at risk of becoming outcasts amongst the underwater community. In my opinion the answer is to act responsibly. I don't say that all spearfishermen are irresponsible, but they need to be more mindful of the image they project as heartless predators on innocent marine life. And I also acknowledge that the hunting community has its share of ill-informed newbies, just as scuba does, who need to be shown how to behave without causing damage or offense.
Sorry about the long lecture, but there is a point of friction between scuba types and spearfishermen. It's worth exploring and understanding.
sea nmf
Contributor
Wildcard:
No, I don't eat that either. Just something caught by a sport fisherman.
Similar threads
