The World's Largest Marine Preserve

[E_mcSCOW]

I think what is interesting is that it was made a National Monument and is therefore in the Department of the Interior. NOAA and the National Marine Sanctuary program it administers is under the Department of Commerce. As I understand it, NOAA is charged with overseeing the new monument and enforcing the regulations. It’s interesting that they set it up that way.

 

[Humuhumunukunukuapua'a]

D'oh! So it is all north west of Ni'ihau? What about the islands/reefs people actually DIVE in Hawai'i? Sheesh!

The point of preserving land isn't necessarily to make it more fun for people to use. There are larger implications. Preserving a vast area of coral reef habitat that is largely uninhabitted has a lot more impact on global ecology than Molokini National Monument would.

You can still dive all the places people dive in Hawaii without it being a National Monument. This is the same area that has been preserved to varying degrees for decades. It's the Nothwest Hawaiian Islands...not the main islands.

And Kaho'olawe?? Bombing the hell out of an island and then turning it into a park doesn't sit right with me. NWHI is a largely pristine environment as coral reefs go.

 

[Humuhumunukunukuapua'a]

Bad enough that poorly trained divers walk all over the bottom ... but I have personally witnessed a DM from one of the charter operations tipping over a coral head in order to retrieve a tiny octopus for one of his clients to hold.

I saw a DM in Hawaii break off a big chunk of coral to try to grab a Partridge Tun. I found it very upsetting.

I found it even more upsetting when the next night, the Partridge Tun was found dead. The DM said something like "It's all part of nature's cycle".

There are laws against breaking coral, but I agree with Bob...the right attitude has to be present. Dive operations need to self-regulate and regulate each other by promoting sound environmental practices. Laws and protection statuses can only accomplish so much.

 

[RICoder]

The point of preserving land isn't necessarily to make it more fun for people to use. There are larger implications. Preserving a vast area of coral reef habitat that is largely uninhabitted has a lot more impact on global ecology than Molokini National Monument would.

You can still dive all the places people dive in Hawaii without it being a National Monument. This is the same area that has been preserved to varying degrees for decades. It's the Nothwest Hawaiian Islands...not the main islands.

And Kaho'olawe?? Bombing the hell out of an island and then turning it into a park doesn't sit right with me. NWHI is a largely pristine environment as coral reefs go.

I think you misinterpreted what I wrote. I am not saying that it should be made into a national park to make it a disney land underwater, what I am saying is that the areas that are currently dived regularly are in far more need of protection than areas that are difficult to access (i.e. NWHI).

As to Kaho'olawe, I think it is prime for this sort of measure, but that's just my oppinion. My understanding is that there is talk of opening up part of that island in the coming years, and it seems to me that if one could put protections in place BEFORE it starts opening up, that area would start off on the right foot...or fin...so to speak.

On a side note I have a t-shirt with your name on it...

 

[Storm]

There are laws against breaking coral, but I agree with Bob...the right attitude has to be present. Dive operations need to self-regulate and regulate each other by promoting sound environmental practices. Laws and protection statuses can only accomplish so much.

Some one once said laws were meant to keep honest people in line and locks were invented to keep honest people out. A dishonest person will continue in their behavior until the either grow out of their behavior patterns, are caught and punished or they die. Imposing more laws in an attempt to give law enforcement more tools for catching and punishing dishonest people, is one way to approach the problem.

The other is to educate people to the point where they no longer feel the need to break the rules...level their playing field. As an industry we need to self police and lead by example, and make every endeavor to educate. We also nee to respect the fact that the human race is a top tier predator and we still need to be able to feed ourselves and cloth and educate our young.

Fishing has its time and place, as does environment and species protection. It's a matter of balance. We as divers, (in my opinion) need to understand the necesseities of both heritages, celebrate both, and promote both...protection, conservation and sustainable harvesting are not mutually exclusive to one another.

I give a thumbs up to the many people who brought this new preserve into being as they addressed the needs of the evnironment, the needs harvester (five year phase out give plenty of time to find other grounds), and needs of the rest of us.
:thumbs-up

 

[Humuhumunukunukuapua'a]

I think you misinterpreted what I wrote. I am not saying that it should be made into a national park to make it a disney land underwater, what I am saying is that the areas that are currently dived regularly are in far more need of protection than areas that are difficult to access (i.e. NWHI).

They probably are. Though more protection would probably mean less access. People would definitely gripe about that. But, hey, I am all for more protections, no-take zones, etc. The Kona coast is certainly a success story with aquarium fish comeback once they established huge stretches of no-collection zones.

As to Kaho'olawe, I think it is prime for this sort of measure, but that's just my oppinion. My understanding is that there is talk of opening up part of that island in the coming years, and it seems to me that if one could put protections in place BEFORE it starts opening up, that area would start off on the right foot...or fin...so to speak.

That's a really good point. No one is there now, and we're talking about a small island that is part of the main group. It could go towards elite resorts or it could go towards preservation. I agree with you that imposing protections would be a good idea, given that no one's there now but they will be soon. I don't know how much damage has been done underwater by the military excercises, but declaring a large part of the island a no-take preserve would certainly be the right step in restoring that environment. Also, limiting development so that the island can eventually be more like what the islands originally were. Really good point.

 

[deeper thoughts]

Some say an enviromentalist is one who owns a home in the forest and a developer is one who wants to build a home in the forest, i guess there will always be 2 sides to this reef preservation issues

 

[Humuhumunukunukuapua'a]

Some say an enviromentalist is one who owns a home in the forest and a developer is one who wants to build a home in the forest, i guess there will always be 2 sides to this reef preservation issues

And the people who say that are dumber than a bag of hammers...

...some say...

There are 2 sides. Those who can give up profits-whatever-the-cost for the sake of preserving the environment for generations to come and those who cannot. Those who are selfish, and those who are more selfless.

Environemntal issues take a broader perspective than many people are capable of. Too many people (like the fellow earlier in this thread) are just looking out for number one. Not realizing of course that when your kids have no clean air to breathe, no clean water to drink and no pristing oceans to swim in, that big screen TV just won't matter all that much.

 

[deeper thoughts]

I am not sure if it is that cut and dry

 

[dlndavid]

and some say...

To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.
If a company over-exaggerates the quality of its products and hence if it makes a higher profit, which for a lot of them is the primary motive, it’s considered unethical, manipulative, corrupt. Why then should a scientist/environmentalist trying to over-exaggerate the importance of his or her topic and hence trying to get a name for himself or herself, which is their primary motive, not be considered similarly corrupt?
We all have a responsibility to conserve our resources and alot of Kudos should go out for all that helped to get to this level of a Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument.