Environmental pros and cons of artificial reefing

[tomfcrist]

I am probably going to get slammed by the enviromentalists for saying this, but why are we SUPER CLEANING these ships anyway? 99%of wrecks that are out there are natural, and they still have oil, fuel, lead cored wiring, etc. inside them. Has anyone who thinks these things are BAD for the environment ever seen how much life THRIVES on thoses wrecks.
Suck the gas and oil out, and sink the ship....sure wont cost anyone 9 or 10 million to do it either.

 

[ivansil77]

Of course a major reason for considering the creation of an artificial reef in our waters is to enhance the attractiveness of Catalina as a destination for divers, and thus positively affect our local economy. I just want to make sure that in doing so we are addressing the environmental questions properly, which is why I posted this question here. Thanks to all for your replies. Both the supportive and non-supportive posts are useful in evaluating the potential environmental impacts.

I am sorry Dr. Bill, for above reason, will be there more cons especially from people who already have 'accidentally' artificial reefs made from steel containing gas and oil? Primary, secondary and tertiary needs will be the new topic. I guess.

 

[fire_diver]

I am sorry Dr. Bill, for above reason, will be there more cons especially from people who already have 'accidentally' artificial reefs made from steel containing gas and oil? Primary, secondary and tertiary needs will be the new topic. I guess.

I am completely lost on what you are trying to say.

 

[ivansil77]

I am completely lost on what you are trying to say.

There are some ARs that resulted from 'accidentally' sinking vessels. It's not planned to build it but it's exist by any accidents. Environmentalist have nothing to say about it because it is categorized as 'disaster'. Many of them already known as wreck diving destinations.

If anyone sinks a vessel by any purposes (Dr. Bill wrote: for attractiveness for divers that will affect local economic), I guess there must be more cons from the environmentalist. Primary, secondary and tertiary needs will be asked.

In some developed countries, ARs are built to replace damaged natural reefs which generates corals growth and then attract fishes. It is very important for people who's living in small islands because their main protein sources are from the sea. In this case; I categorized it as a primary needs.

In my opinion: attractiveness for divers; I should categorized it as tertiary than secondary needs. For economic reason; why don't invest the money for sinking the vessel to generate new enterprenuers in the area. It will affect the economic faster than waiting for the ARs to be ready to be an attractive dive destinations.

 

[ivansil77]

For short, in any cases; sometimes environmental issues are put behind economic reasons. Any treatments that alter or introduce 'unnatural material' to natural must be had any consequences both positively or negatively. It must be wisely considered. As long as it's purposed to maintain the 'life cycle' and the life itself, in my perspective, I should support it.

 

[ScubaFeenD]

I feel like artificial reefing needs to be a bit better than just sinking a tanker or dropping concrete blocks. A Large draw of a reef includes critters that hang out in little nooks. From what I can tell, many of the ways we create artificial reefs lack these nooks, and I would think that having them from the get go would be a positive. Other than that I am in favor of artificial reefing as long as it is done in a responsible maner without adding pollution to a region.