do you intervene with cruel nature?

[mislav]

if i disagree with you i'm wrong and cheap, but if you disagree with me i'm wrong and cheap?

Nope, you're wrong and cheap only when you throw low punches directed at me. What these are, you ask? I provided you with a quote and hoped you would see it for yourself. You do it every time you try to defend your opinions solely by throwing unsubstantiated accusations on my behalf, rather than by providing some arguments to back up your claims.

Other than that, I have no problem with you disagreeing with me, as long as it's vice versa also.

 

[mislav]

This is an interesting thread. Not the marine biology part, the human psychology part. Many people "get it" but quite a few posters are definitely taking sides without knowing it. There is a lot of talk about "save the victim from the predator". Statements like that imply that the predator is "bad" or "wrong" or "committing a sin", and that the prey is "good" and "a victim of a crime". What about the predator? If you steal a meal from the predator you might be killing it. The mortality rates among predators are much higher than for other organisms. I work with birds of prey. For most species the mortality rate in the first 12 months is over 90%. Because they starve. Predators don't just pick their prey from a buffett. They risk their lives and exhert all their physical capacity to catch each meal. They live their lives with one foot in the grave and the other on a bananna peel. I've watched a hawk struggle for hours until it was exhausted and vulnerable trying to catch a meal. It's not easy for them. When a predator finally catches that meal after a long struggle (it might not look like a struggle to you, but you haven't followed the animal around for the past week either) and you come along and rob it, you vary well might be killing the predator. So is it really better to save a prey animal that is one in a population of 1,000,000 and in so doing kill a predator which is one in a population of only 200? Put emotion aside and let them exist. Disrupting the food chain is NOT the right way to make the world a better place.
-Ben M.

OK, but how is this anything new to what has already been said on this thread? Also, if you read my posts you'll see that I acknowledge this scenario as a valid one. This is what I said: "The only counter-argument I've seen so far is that the predator might die of starvation? Many predators have multiple dinner choices, so I find that very unlikely. Not enough to change my mind so far." Now, there's a big word MIGHT in there and you repeat it. So, should I stay inactive and allow something to happen just because something bad MIGHT happen or do I act and prevent some bad things happening FOR CERTAIN?

And please do not put words in my mouth. I never said that I would act as you described there in a situation that you so vividly painted for us. Instead, I gave you direct examples of stories other posters made on this board. And did you bother to read them and comment on them? Nope. None of you. Ever.

Well, let me translate Rick Murchison's story from this thread to your language then:
Bull shark population is doing fine in Rick's part of the ocean. They feed on loggerheads which are in trouble. If you steal a meal from a bull shark you might be saving a loggerhead. The mortality rates among loggerheads are much higher than for other prey. Bull sharks have other options on their buffet. Loggerheads risk their lives and exhert all their physical capacity to avoid becoming a meal. They live their lives with one foot in the grave and the other on a bananna peel. When a bull shark catches that loggerhead after a long struggle (it might not look like a struggle to you, but you haven't followed the loggerhead around for the past week either) and I come along and rob it, I very well might be saving the ecosystem balance. So is it really not better to save a loggerhead that is one in a population of only 200 and in so doing kill a bull shark which is one in a population of 1,000,000?* Put emotion aside and let them exist. Disrupting the food chain is NOT the right way to make the world a better place.

Do you really believe that I would prevent a bony, starving, lonesome predator from feeding on an infinite abundance of cute little prey happily swimming around? I never said that. Where do you draw these conclusions from? But would I intervene in certain situations? You betcha!

*Notice the arbitrary use of numbers to better illustrate my point.

 

[mislav]

When you interfere, you are the one who is expoiting it to your own believes. Don't you see that? Aganin, its your choice but when you are trying to save me, don't do it. I am likely to hit the top of the water rather ungreatful. An you dont want that.

Seriously though, you are granted a short pass. Don't screw it up. I dont know a single marine biologiest that has any integrity to his field that would ever intervein. Ever. And if by chance they did without a really solid reason, his peers would likely remove his credibility to the organization. Just doesn't happen.

OK, have it your way - I'd leave you to your destiny...

Seriously though, marine biology contradicts your statements worldwide. Here's an example I've found on this very site. Happens all the time. Scientists do interfere. Or are these guys nuclear physicists, maybe? For an extended list of scientists stripped of their credibility simply punch "ecosystem management" in Google. You'll be amazed by results.

And even more seriously, I'm getting tired of offering examples here since you never address any. All you guys do is talk loud, pat each others back and spin in circles.

There, I hope I screwed it up big time.

 

[tjmills]

OK, have it your way - I'd leave you to your destiny...

Seriously though, marine biology contradicts your statements worldwide. Here's an example I've found on this very site. Happens all the time. Scientists do interfere. Or are these guys nuclear physicists, maybe? For an extended list of scientists stripped of their credibility simply punch "ecosystem management" in Google. You'll be amazed by results.

And even more seriously, I'm getting tired of offering examples here since you never address any. All you guys do is talk loud, pat each others back and spin in circles.

There, I hope I screwed it up big time.

I am not being nasty with you and don't expect you to get nasty with me. Nuf' said.

I think as you progress and learn more about the places you visit you will gain a little better understanding of how delicate those ecosystems really are and how much you can and will affect them. I am no expert and don't claim to be but I do learn everyday more about it and hope that others do to. Its our responsibility to do this as visitors and not overlords.

Just to address the point you were trying to make with the article, you might also
note that it is just an news article on a narrow report on what is happening. It doesn't go into why it is happening, what caused the increase of the population, was this a result of a lack of preditors in a particular area, was this chain affected by man to some degree and not just El Nino, Global warming, etc. It is just a blurb of news. Nothing more.

Now with that being said, these people who are doing this are scientists and biologists who have dedicated their lives (in many respects) to reversing and preserving the underwater world in some way. Certainly not you or I fall into this category. Our responsibility to only to observe and at times report information that we have gathered and not to try and change it to what we think is right.

One thing that I will validate is that all scientists and biologists are not motivated by the same vision and sometimes this can be a bad bad thing. Even some that are movtivated by the right reasons screw it up also and their are countless failures to their theorys throughout history and many more that will happen in the future. But my guess is they are better prepared than you or I to make those types of decisions and succeed more often than they fail. Truth is we still know very little about the underworld.

This news clipping is also not related exactly to what we are talking about in this thread for the most part. I do see where you are trying to relate one to the other so I will appease you and respond.

Live more, dive more, learn more and I hope someday you might see my point of view. It saddens me to think that you won't at least take it into consideration.

 

[drbill]

Well, let me translate Rick Murchison's story from this thread to your language then:

Bull shark population is doing fine in Rick's part of the ocean. They feed on loggerheads which are in trouble. If you steal a meal from a bull shark you might be saving a loggerhead. The mortality rates among loggerheads are much higher than for other prey. Bull sharks have other options on their buffet. Loggerheads risk their lives and exhert all their physical capacity to avoid becoming a meal. They live their lives with one foot in the grave and the other on a bananna peel. When a bull shark catches that loggerhead after a long struggle (it might not look like a struggle to you, but you haven't followed the loggerhead around for the past week either) and I come along and rob it, I very well might be saving the ecosystem balance. So is it really not better to save a loggerhead that is one in a population of only 200 and in so doing kill a bull shark which is one in a population of 1,000,000?* Put emotion aside and let them exist. Disrupting the food chain is NOT the right way to make the world a better place.

Wouldn't it be far better to spend one's time working with or donating to organizations that are seeking to reverse or mediate the human and other influences that have led to the declne in loggerhead populations? I'm a "kelp hugger," but I wouldn't fin between a bull shark and a loggerhead. I would work with those organizations that seek to address the loss of beach nesting habitat, incidental capture by fishing nets, and other human (or non-human) factors that may be responsible for the decline in loggerheads.

 

[partridge]

Ok let me help get this thread back on track.

What about crown of thorns? Here in the Philippines during the international cleanup day in September we harvest COT's also. I am sure they do this around the world. Otherwise, we would have heard of it by now. I mean we heard about the great barrier reef.

Isn't this interfering also? I mean the COT is eating the coral. How do we know that the coral reefs do not need a COT epidemic to "purge" itself every couple decades?

I harvest the COT's also. Do not know the answer so if this makes me a hypocrite, then so be it. Im just into thinking really deep right now and want your comments on this.

 

[fishb0y]

Ok let me help get this thread back on track.

What about crown of thorns? Here in the Philippines during the international cleanup day in September we harvest COT's also. I am sure they do this around the world. Otherwise, we would have heard of it by now. I mean we heard about the great barrier reef.

Isn't this interfering also? I mean the COT is eating the coral. How do we know that the coral reefs do not need a COT epidemic to "purge" itself every couple decades?

I harvest the COT's also. Do not know the answer so if this makes me a hypocrite, then so be it. Im just into thinking really deep right now and want your comments on this.

If I can't get a lobster or tako(octopus), then I put a couple of COTs in the bag. If I can find a Triton's trumpet, I'll put him on the COT instead, makes for some low speed action.

 

[mislav]

TJ, that "blurb of news" isn't some "Britney's got a pimple" or "Aliens landed in my backyard" kind of article. It's from a science mag and basically it's a rewrite of a news release from a University of Exeter. It's got a whole bunch of marine scientists undersigned and I put it there only to show how your remark that no scientist ever gets involved in environment just doesn't hold any water. Although you've tried to create a smoke screen here, I have succeeded in proving my point and I'm moving on.

And I do already see your point of view, you don't have to be sad about this. I acknowledged a few worthy examples for your way of thinking. It's just that you haven't yet given me any reason to change my mind on this subject.

Also, can you clarify what exactly do you mean by "Live more, dive more, learn more..."? I do understand the "dive more" part and believe me I will do more diving, but I would like to know just exactly what is it you're implying with the rest? Can't wait for you to go there.

This is exactly where you're being nasty (apart from that initial "you should all be ashamed" claim) whether you know it or not - but also very wrong. To assume that anyone not agreeing with you is an ignorant shows how open you are to free thinking and challenging dogma. I couldn't care less what you are or who you are in this thread. I do care about the arguments you put out and there simply aren't that many. I apologize in advance if I read this wrong for more than it was.

 

[mislav]

Wouldn't it be far better to spend one's time working with or donating to organizations that are seeking to reverse or mediate the human and other influences that have led to the declne in loggerhead populations? I'm a "kelp hugger," but I wouldn't fin between a bull shark and a loggerhead. I would work with those organizations that seek to address the loss of beach nesting habitat, incidental capture by fishing nets, and other human (or non-human) factors that may be responsible for the decline in loggerheads.

I hope we can get Rick Murchison to give you an answer to this, since this is his posting and not mine. I'd hate to speak in his name, I can't do that and I won't. But I do support his view on this.

In my view - there just aren't organizations for every single issue out there. Yet sometimes you can put out a fire before it gets the whole house. Don't have to wait for firefighters to arrive - coz it's the PC way. Kudos on supporting those organizations, it's the right thing to do. I'm all for this. I guess one action doesn't necessarily exclude the other.

 

[mislav]

Ok let me help get this thread back on track.

What about crown of thorns? Here in the Philippines during the international cleanup day in September we harvest COT's also. I am sure they do this around the world. Otherwise, we would have heard of it by now. I mean we heard about the great barrier reef.

Isn't this interfering also? I mean the COT is eating the coral. How do we know that the coral reefs do not need a COT epidemic to "purge" itself every couple decades?

I harvest the COT's also. Do not know the answer so if this makes me a hypocrite, then so be it. Im just into thinking really deep right now and want your comments on this.

The original poster asked is it ok to intervene with nature. Those who think it is have posted some examples when they would do it, and those who think that it isn't believe that our intervention interferes with a natural ecosystem.
That being said, they should be all over you and fishb0y coz what you're doing is indeed interfering in a big way. They're not. I guess to hunt and kill is ok, while to protect isn't...

Homo sapiens has interfered with sea creatures ever since it started fishing. Everything since has been nothing but messing with the environment. I believe we can not be hypocritical about it and now that we've polluted and looted most of the nature's resources play the passive role and pretend it never happened.

You've made an excellent point with us not knowing whether the reefs need to purge themselves occasionally. I can think of a parallel here - the bushfires in Australia helped Aboriginees keep the soil fertile and protect their ecosystem. Yet, we perceive bushfires as something bad, something to be avoided.

So, yes, you do interfere in my view, but whether it's good or bad I honestly don't know. Perhaps the right question is: would you stop doing it if you suddenly unmistakably realized it was damaging the reef ecosystem?

To fishb0y -> You're really into that slow speed action, aren't you? Bad karma, man! LOL!