covediver
Contributor
Great question.
As with many things in the ocean realm today, there seems to be no simple answer to the simple question why not more artificial reefs. In my experience, the following is a start, but by no means exhaustive list.
Biologically, an artificial reef can act in two ways. One is to attract and aggregate fish. In other words, with an attractor you build a better barrel in which to gather them. It makes fishing much more efficient, but doesnt do much for the fish. The other function is to increase production, that is, mimic the natural habitat of fish so they actually colonize and increase their numbers overall. Which design does what is not as straightforward as one would have thought. It took a number of years of study in Socal to figure out how the offshore platforms functioned when it came to attraction versus production.
Environmentally, the requirements for cleansing the artificial material can be quite extensive and expensive as many artificial reef projects have found, such as those who set up wreck alley in San Diego. It takes good organization to accomplish and pay for the cleansing and emplacement of the material, San Diego Ocean Foundations did a great job. Also, people want to make sure whatever material is use functions in the long term and does not deteriorate or cause problems in the future.
Administratively, plans have to be developed and submitted, permits have to be secured from a number of government agencies and monitoring may have to be done to ensure the site is doing what it was intended to do. Liability over ownership becomes an issue. All this costs money.
Philosophically, some people see artificial reefs as a form of faking nature and see it as a technique for relieving us of not taking care to preserve the natural environment. Others feel that we should not place reefs just for recreational purposes, that it should serve some ecological purpose. Some others object, believing that creating artificial reefs provides an excuse to turn the ocean into a landfill for unwanted materials. Others believe that creation of any hard bottom habitat is good. I have always wondered how long does an artificial reef need to be in place before it is considered "natural"?
Biology, environment, administration and philosophy all get thrown into the mix at the point someone decides to go ahead. Luckily, we have organizations that undertake these initiatives and learn by doing. I think the prospect for reefs is good and will get better (we just had one created up here in AK which seems to be doing well).
I might be down in CA to dive a few artificial reefs this year, as well as some natural ones. Let me know if you need a buddy to dive a few.
As with many things in the ocean realm today, there seems to be no simple answer to the simple question why not more artificial reefs. In my experience, the following is a start, but by no means exhaustive list.
Biologically, an artificial reef can act in two ways. One is to attract and aggregate fish. In other words, with an attractor you build a better barrel in which to gather them. It makes fishing much more efficient, but doesnt do much for the fish. The other function is to increase production, that is, mimic the natural habitat of fish so they actually colonize and increase their numbers overall. Which design does what is not as straightforward as one would have thought. It took a number of years of study in Socal to figure out how the offshore platforms functioned when it came to attraction versus production.
Environmentally, the requirements for cleansing the artificial material can be quite extensive and expensive as many artificial reef projects have found, such as those who set up wreck alley in San Diego. It takes good organization to accomplish and pay for the cleansing and emplacement of the material, San Diego Ocean Foundations did a great job. Also, people want to make sure whatever material is use functions in the long term and does not deteriorate or cause problems in the future.
Administratively, plans have to be developed and submitted, permits have to be secured from a number of government agencies and monitoring may have to be done to ensure the site is doing what it was intended to do. Liability over ownership becomes an issue. All this costs money.
Philosophically, some people see artificial reefs as a form of faking nature and see it as a technique for relieving us of not taking care to preserve the natural environment. Others feel that we should not place reefs just for recreational purposes, that it should serve some ecological purpose. Some others object, believing that creating artificial reefs provides an excuse to turn the ocean into a landfill for unwanted materials. Others believe that creation of any hard bottom habitat is good. I have always wondered how long does an artificial reef need to be in place before it is considered "natural"?
Biology, environment, administration and philosophy all get thrown into the mix at the point someone decides to go ahead. Luckily, we have organizations that undertake these initiatives and learn by doing. I think the prospect for reefs is good and will get better (we just had one created up here in AK which seems to be doing well).
I might be down in CA to dive a few artificial reefs this year, as well as some natural ones. Let me know if you need a buddy to dive a few.
