The World's Largest Marine Preserve

[DallasNewbie]

Anti-invironment?

Unfortunately I don't believe that for a minute. No one would admit to being con environment. However actions speek louder than words, and all anyone must do is to look at what people drive, or visit a high use park (trash EVERYWHERE) to see how little people care for the environment. Why do people drive 8mpg Hummers that never see a dirt road (or for most reasons)? Why do people litter? Why do the majority of cars on our crowded rush hour highways have only ONE driver?

The oceans of the world would no doubt be much better off if recreational diving was abolished everywhere. So why do people dive? They must hate sea life!

More popycock. No matter how thin you slice it, there will always be two sides.

For instance, take the topic of this thread. Most of us think this is a very good thing. Most of the fishermen probably think that this is a very bad thing. The fishermen do not want the reefs or the fish destroyed, they would be just as bad off with no fish as with fish that they can't catch. They just want a different solution. The fishermen will tell you that they are just as interested in protecting the future life in that area as you. They aren't wrong, they just have a different perspective.

 

[pilot fish]

Of course ... that's not what I said (not that it will prevent you from misrepresenting my words anyway).

But if you think our planet's resources aren't being used up at an alarming, unsustainable rate, you really DO need to get out more. One has only to look at what has happened to the planet's major fishing grounds over the past few decades for some examples.

I've only been on this planet 54 years, and I can see a remarkable change in our world during my lifetime.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Japan has been funding some 3rd World countries to help them get the whaling mortorium lifted. The meeting to vote on this issue is being held in St Kitts, I believe. Norway disregards the moratorium altogether. This affects our oceans.That is not a good thing. Rain forest areas are disappearing daily. That is also a bad thing. Any step in the direction of conservation should be applauded and credit given to whomever is responsible for it's betterment.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Any step in the direction of conservation should be applauded and credit given to whomever is responsible for it's betterment.

My sentiments exactly ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[LeFlaneur]

I have often wondered how much of an impact recreational diving has on marine ecosystems. Having seen some dopes walking on the reef in Florida I'm sure it is measurable. Though I'm also sure it is insignificant compared to the impact of trawling, ghost nets, oil spills, agricultural runoff, deforestation, or warming ocean temps.

A big issue in Hawaii has been the collection of fish for the aquarium trade. When the collectors use cyanide to stun the fish there is something like a 90% kill rate... not to mention a good bit of incidental damage to other life. Hawaii wisely banned cyanide use and has designated no-catch zones. The aquarium trade may have been an issue in protecting this area.

 

[blueeyes_austin]

For instance, take the topic of this thread. Most of us think this is a very good thing. Most of the fishermen probably think that this is a very bad thing. The fishermen do not want the reefs or the fish destroyed, they would be just as bad off with no fish as with fish that they can't catch. They just want a different solution. The fishermen will tell you that they are just as interested in protecting the future life in that area as you. They aren't wrong, they just have a different perspective.

Well, you'd think that...but there's a whole literature in economics discussing the "Tragedy of the Commons" that describes why it's not true. (Fisherman don't have the choice between preserving the population at a sustainable level and overfishing...those who do not overfish will simply find their catch distributed among those who do.) Diving does NOT have the same characteristics, as the same fish can be seen by many, many divers.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the biggest real benefit of the sanctuary: as a protected breeding area that will disperse fish and critter populations throughout the northern Pacific.

 

[dlndavid]

I thought it was already a marine sanctuary (reserve), now it is a national monument that has more funding.
http://www.sanctuaries.nos.noaa.gov/

 

[Cacia]

Though I'm also sure it is insignificant compared to the impact of trawling, ghost nets, oil spills, agricultural runoff, deforestation, or warming ocean temps.

Run-off especially, but you are absolutely right. That's why I feel it is best to spend your energy on the "big ones" instead of screaming at the nudi-touchers.

We notice anything like a frog-fish or a dragon eel, once the word gets out where it is, disappears. People, don't put it out there. The fish collector's are after our best most unique marine life. I am not even big on show and tell for tourist divers...let them find stuff on their own, more fun that way anyway....

I have been reluctant to say this, but we have had a big decline in variety lately. Yellow Tang, notably....many others. I feel sad, you can watch the numbers falling.

 

[DallasNewbie]

Well, you'd think that...but there's a whole literature in economics discussing the "Tragedy of the Commons" that describes why it's not true. (Fisherman don't have the choice between preserving the population at a sustainable level and overfishing...those who do not overfish will simply find their catch distributed among those who do.)

There's also a whole lot of writing about how to overcome the tragedy of the commons without resorting to outright bans on use. Fishing permits that limit the amount of catch is one way. The permits will wind up being distributed efficiently the same way that polution permits (carbon credits) are traded.

Diving does NOT have the same characteristics, as the same fish can be seen by many, many divers.

Sure it does. Each one of those visits to the reef causes some damage, and diver wants to get in as many dives before the reef is destroyed. The effect might be on a much much lower scale, but the same mechanism is in play.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the biggest real benefit of the sanctuary: as a protected breeding area that will disperse fish and critter populations throughout the northern Pacific.

Indeed. I think that is the primary purpose of the designation.

 

[Storm]

Well, you'd think that...but there's a whole literature in economics discussing the "Tragedy of the Commons" that describes why it's not true. (Fisherman don't have the choice between preserving the population at a sustainable level and overfishing...those who do not overfish will simply find their catch distributed among those who do.)

So what you're saying is don't allow fishing what so ever as it can only lead to over fishing because no fisherman can be counted on to be honest enough to stick to the selective harvesting practices needed to have a sustainable fishery?

Poppycock. Baulderdash. When you look at the primary culprits responsibile for over fishing you'll soon realize that the majority of it done by fishermen foreign to the graounds, utilizing factory ships and fishing in internatioanl waters where quotas are non existent.

When Canada imposed a 200 mile off shore limit to our waters and started to protect the Grand Banks, quotas were imposed, harvests monitored, all in an effort to try and sustain the fishery. Foreign fleets (with no regard for the local ecology) frequently over fished illegally in protect waters. Why should they be concerned with the local ecology...after all it was not on their shorelines and when the fish were all taken, they just moved on to other furtile grounds.

From what I've read so far about the new protection zone (which is not much I have to admit..just whats been made avaiable so far), the issue of the fishery had more to do with the local fleet, and not the bulk trawlers and factory ships we seen cruising up and down the outside of the Grand Banks. If this is the case, sustainable fishing is possible. The mico ecomony, if it includes quotas and catch limits, and the fisherman's own need for a long term sustainable industry can keep overfishing in check.

It's only when outside interests that don't have a stake in sustainability (traveling fleets) get involved do you see fisheries completely depleted.

As to the Tragedy of the Commons, there are many examples of the opposite actaully occuring when it comes to natural resources. By the same Tragedy of the Commons theory, there shouldn;t be any deer, turkey, geese, ducks etc left in North America. these should been hunted to exticntion many years ago and reside now only in game preserves and national parks.

The solution was to outlaw market hunting, establish sustainable harvesting limits.and engange the hunitng community. The same has been done in inland fisheries both commercial and recreational.

 

[serambin]

I thought it was already a marine sanctuary (reserve), now it is a national monument that has more funding.
http://www.sanctuaries.nos.noaa.gov/

Let me see . . . you would rather fund EXXON?

Stan