No more spearfishing in south Florida?

[buckled plates]

Tell me what's "environmentally sound" about your last scuba dive, and I'll give you hard evidence why it's not.

 

[Johnoly]

... I'm still waiting for someone to present hard evidence* that spearfishing can be done in an environmentally sound way.

Pedro, can you post an example of a type of fishing (harvesting) that can be done in an environmentally sound way to you ?

 

[buckled plates]

I'm still waiting for someone to present hard evidence* that spearfishing can be done in an environmentally sound way.

To begin, the issues concerning the environmental impact of spearfishing have already been dealt with effectively by others in this thread, and I won't bother repeating them at length. In summary: a) US fisheries are highly regulated and fish stocks in general are in good health, b) spearfishermen constitute a tiny cohort of the fishing population and by their meager number (compared to other fishermen), they kill very few fish; c) as any hunter knows, targeted species rapidly adjust to hunting pressure and avoid hunters (which makes finding and killing those species ever more difficult as hunting pressure mounts). If large breeding age fish appear to be fewer in number on any given portion of reef that's hunted, rather than having been killed, it's at least as likely those fish have moved on to safer regions.

More important to everyone reading this is the clever fallacy used by the writer quoted above. It's important to recognize it for what it is because it's the same technique used by organizations like SEFRI (the organization pushing the spearfishing ban). It's the fallacy of "begging the question" or, in other words, assuming the premise is true without proof (spearfishing damages the environment). The logical, proper, and sincere way of framing the question would be for SEFRI to assert that spearfishing is environmentally unsound and then providing the proof to make their case; instead, they assert spearfishing is unsound and demand proof from spearfishermen that it isn't. Spearfishermen are thus immediately burdened with a much high hurdle of proof (having to prove a negative and that, as anyone knows, is often impossible).

Make no mistake, the public hearing period is just a pretense. The spearfishing ban, short of a massive effort to put pressure on the state and it's politicians by all the state's fishing and diving interest groups, is a done deal. Spearfishing on scuba will soon be ended in Southeast Florida (or at least severely restricted).

What's next in line for elimination by SEFRI is anyone's guess. Drift diving, maybe? Night diving? Why not. Using the fallacy above, all they need to do is assert that drift diving damages the reef, and demand that divers prove that it doesn't. Without proof, drift diving can be as easily be outlawed.

It's not about spearfishing, folks.

 

[HalcyonDaze]

Locked behind a paywall (have I mentioned how much I loathe the academic publishing industry?), but I did find this abstract from a study comparing hook-and-line fishing to spearfishing: A quantitative comparison of recreational spearfishing and linefishing on the Great Barrier Reef: implications for management of multi-sector coral reef fisheries - Springer

 

[buckled plates]

Excellent. Thank you.

 

[CuzzA]

@buckled plates I hope you're submitting these posts to the public comment section. Whether they fall of def ears or blind eyes. They need to be said.

Great find @HalcyonDaze I'd like to quote it in case anyone is too lazy to click the link.

"This study compared the catch composition, catch per unit effort, and incidental impacts of spearfishers and linefishers engaged in a structured fishing program whereby fishing effort was standardized across time, space and skill level. It was found that (1) the catch composition of both groups of fishers overlapped considerably, (2) the numbers of target fish caught by spearfishers (156) and linefishers (168) were not significantly different, (3) the mean size of target fish caught by spearfishers (1.95 ± 0.1 kg, ±SE) was significantly larger than the mean size of target fish caught by linefishers (1.27 ± 0.06 kg), and (4) spearfishers retained 43% more biomass of target species than did linefishers (304 versus 213 kg, respectively). However, linefishers used ∼1 kg of bait for every 3 kg of target fish that were captured. Linefishers also caught far more undersized, undesirable, or protected fishes (i.e., bycatch) and caused far more pollution (i.e., lost gear) than did spearfishers. It is concluded that the overall impacts of recreational spearfishing and linefishing on fishery resources of the Great Barrier Reef are broadly equivalent (per unit of fishing effort), and that management regulations should be applied equitably across both fishing sectors. A management strategy of this type will simplify enforcement of fisheries regulations and avoid discrimination of particular fishers in local communities where both fishing methods are socially or culturally important."

 

[Wookie]

All anyone has to do is look at the Dry Tortugas to see the impacts of spearing vs. line fishing. There is no reduction in spearing pressure since before the closures. the same boats who cater to spearos still cater to spearos, and the private boats have not seen a reduction in number. There is a greatly reduced LOE by hook and line fishermen, however, because "it isn't worth it to spend all of the gas to get there". Any number of studies published by Ault, Hunt, Zieglar, Feeley, etc. show that not only is the overall population of snapper/grouper booming, but the population of breeding size fish is booming as well. Asking the crews of the Ultimate Getaway or Playmate will anecdotally confirm this, at least in conversations I've had with them.

Recreational gear restrictions don't work. Commercial gear restrictions do work, and closures work.

 

[HalcyonDaze]

For those who haven't seen it, Tony Grogan over at Spearboard has put together a good video incorporating segments from the January 13th information session at Force-E Pompano:

 

[buckled plates]

and closures work.

Yes, captain, indeed they do...and that's what the mandarins at SEFRI are after: shutting it down, all of it. And smart enough to know not to take the whole enchilada at once (because that draws too much attention), they take it down one small bite at a time.

 

[Wookie]

Yes, captain, indeed they do...and that's what the mandarins at SEFRI are after: shutting it down, all of it. And smart enough to know not to take the whole enchilada at once (because that draws too much attention), they take it down one small bite at a time.

The Tortugas closures were the whole enchilada at once. The NASA (Cape Canaveral) closure was the whole enchilada. Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps were the whole enchilada. I contend that they work, although they were limited in scope. No one tried to grab the whole world in any of those closures, they were targeted sites for spawning and were also targeted for ease of enforcement. They are great successes. Closing by gear types is a fallacy, at least as far as rec fishing goes.