Wildlife Protection Around "Non-Sanctuary" Dive Sites

[debajo agua]

I hate to see it when a few unethical individuals are responsible for the shutting down of access for everyone; unfortunately, in Western "civilized" Society, that's how the system works. Before someone cause an area to be off-limits, can the dive community ostracize the undesirable type? Certainly they can.

If the dive community can deter an individual, prior to the area being off-limits for everyone, they have my support.

 

[Scuba_Noob]

I agree with making a move to change the law, instead of making one's own regulations. In a sense, that is approaching 'vigilantism' (there's probably a better word there) or making your own justice. It's confusing for the 'diver regulations' to be different from the actual law.

 

[dumpsterDiver]

To add one more thing on this issue.... I myself do not even like doing macro dives, and personally I can get no enjoyment from diving a site like the BHB...it has no adventure, it has no huge marine life, and it is not fun for me.....I get dragged their by my wife. I have MANY friends that love diving the BHB, and I understand how important this site is to them, and why. I have many friends that spearfish, and I enjoy diving with them when they are spearfishing. None of the people I dive with would ever shoot fish or collect in a petting zoo like the BHB....it is just beneath them, the kind of behavior they would have contempt for. I know a lot of spearfisherman, and I have spearfished with an awful lot of spearfisherman. I really don't know where you find the kind of person/spearfisherman that would want to take fish at a petting zoo.

Dan: I have video of very large marine animals from that location... some (not all) are even bigger than you...

 

[danvolker]

Dan: I have video of very large marine animals from that location... some (not all) are even bigger than you...

Yes there are Manatees at the bridge on occaison...I have videos also. And there are Sting Rays and Spotted Eagle Rays....Once in a century a bull shark might be seen running from the mangroves to the inlet, but this is hardly something you could tell people they could expect to see. Most of this area is dived by people there for nudibranchs, for sea horses, for tiny octopus ( hopefully too small for the big game hunters in the Palm Beach area) , for blennies, Frogfish, Flying Gunards, and a dozen other small but interesting macro subjects ( interesting if you like macro).

 

[Scott L]

]I do not think it should be up to anyone small circle of people to tell the rest of the human race what they can and cannot do.[/B]

like the fishermen who is pissed when there are divers on his favorite reef, how pissed would you be if he figured a way to close the reef to diving? (I know not likely, but work with me)

put the shoe on the other foot. I know for Dan it will probably need to be large since he is like, almost a total, like god and all.

So, are you against the Keys National Marine Sanctuary in Key Largo and the Dry Tortugas?

 

[TSandM]

I think many groups develop norms, and enforce them by social stigma or shunning. I don't think, for example, that it would go over well if one showed up for a NAACP meeting in a Klan outfit . . . Humans are very social animals, and generally want approval, so they learn their norms quickly and either conform to them or avoid groups where they don't fit (thus the ridiculous nature of my original example). I don't think you can stop that process from occurring, nor do I think it's desirable to do so. In extreme cases, that type of enforcement of norms can be destructive, as in the cases of suicides of young people over cyberbullying. In the majority of cases, it's an effective way of guiding behavior to keep it acceptable to the peer group. I would not want to live in a world where laws were the only things that controlled human behavior, because politeness can't be legislated, nor can consideration or thoughtfulness or generosity.

So I guess yes, I think it's okay to develop rules and enforce them by the means available for social enforcement, with the caveat that our tools to do that nowadays are far more powerful than they have ever been in the past, and need to be used judiciously. I'm not sure any of us really KNOWS how powerful these tools are, but I think the case that sparked this thread has given a lot of people a fast and sometimes uncomfortable lesson about that.

However, all such social enforcement depends upon the desire of the individual either to be accepted, or to avoid the social penalties for his actions. If someone doesn't care at all whether he is stigmatized or shunned, or even courts that type of penalty, the system breaks down, and that's when you have to have laws or formal regulations to control what people do.

 

[Scott L]

Indeed. 25 years ago, a physical confrontation would not result in an arrest unless serious injuries resulted. These days, if a punch is thrown, you have major legal problems...

 

[DaleC]

Lynne said it well. The notion that someone should not have to respect social norms sounds good in theory but breaks down in practice.

It is not illegal to butt into a lineup but what would happen if that became the accepted practice. You would have mad rushes and violent encounters as everyone tried to get the same thing at the same time.

It is not illegal to call people names and speak rudely but try to do that on SB and you will be modified. If you persist you will be banned. The TOS is a form of social norm that we all (by accepting the terms of use) agree to.

It's not illegal to walk around topless (at least around here) but a woman who does so will find certain social and occupational doors closed to them.

Unfettered individualism only works when it is accompanied by personal responsibility and sensitivity towards others. When communities can display those traits few rules need to be enacted. When others insist on executing their rights without regard to responsibility or for the sensitivities of others, conflict arises. Unable to take recourse to the solution of mutual respect, they enact laws.

This can also be seen in terms of maturity.
When we are young we are generally, not that responsible so we need parents to externally discipline us. As we get older we gradually mature and the need for external discipline lessens. If we don't mature we again require external discipline but now we are traveling in the realm of the greater society and not the family. Social circles discipline by inclusion or exclusion. If you accept and act within those social norms you are included - if you don't, you are excluded. Some of us learn this and some of us don't. Those that don't either live around the fringes of social groups or engage in solitary pursuits, or they are continually confounded by the fact that they find themselves excluded - resorting to proclamations of their "rights" as though that should nullify the process.

The "Group" doesn't care about someones "rights" - they care about their norms. Occasionally those norms violate a deeper or more widely held social norm and they need to change ie. racial discrimination or women's rights. Then a new social norm emerges, usually after a painful process of paradigm change. Sometimes this results from an appeal to the basic human belief in "fairness" but more often than not, social norms are derived by those who can generate enough common will.

 

[endurodog]

But how far and aggressive should those pressures be on someone to conform. I think almost everyone agrees that some nudging is ok but the disagreement is about how far. Then you have the same thing about someone, or a segment of a group saying your pressure was unacceptable.

 

[Rhone Man]

At the risk of answering the OP (which I know is kind of not the point - this is an extension of the "octopus" debate) I frequently hunt at the edge of national parks for the obvious reasons that (i) there is more game there than on average, and (ii) it is completely legal.

I fully support marine preserves, but they have to have geographical boundaries. If you object to people hunting outside of that either (a) lobby to change the law, or (b) lobby to change the boundaries. Balance needs to be struck between conservationists and hunters, but I am not a fan of trying to build up "moral pressure" to try and skew the balance.