The Observer Effect?

[dmaziuk]

At least as big an issue as hordes of divers touching things, and which was probably mentioned in earlier in this thread, is sunscreen from those hordes of divers.

What about all them infernal combustion engines? And hulls ploughing through water filled with living organisms? And the run-off from all those shores? The horror!

 

[admikar]

This is a great thread.
There are points from both sides of "conservation fence" I agree with, but my stance on this is that there is no much point of worrying about our impact, since we make indirect impacts just from living on this planet. Consider fallout from your everyday activities, fallout from getting you to your dive site (those of you lucky bastards living on a shore can disregard this), and you impacted underwater world even before you got into the water.
I am not saying that we should plow bottom or we should chase and harass marine life, but I do not think marine life itself is that fragile.

 

[NYCNaiad]

...At least as big an issue as hordes of divers touching things, and which was probably mentioned in earlier in this thread, is sunscreen from those hordes of divers.

Agreed about the sunscreen being problematic as well as all the other products on your body & hair when you dive. It was only in the last few months that I started thinking about the other products being a problem. Now I'm using true eco-friendly lotion, leave-in condition, etc. in addition to eco-friendly sunscreen. Side note: It angers me that so many products out there are marketed as reef-friendly which aren't. Reading the ingredients is the key, but I think few people do.

There's one thing that - AFAIK - hasn't been mentioned so far in this thread, and that's how many visitors a site or an area sees. A lot of my diving is in an area that at most may see a small handful of divers in a year. Some of the sites I dive are probably not dived by anyone else. In places like that, I have no problem with activities that affect the environment somewhat, like touching the sand, stabbing the occasional flounder, wolffish or monkfish, picking as many scallops as I want/need, catching crabs, or just picking up souvenirs. I probably have less impact on the environment than what the normal forces of nature have. If the winter storms can stir up the bottom at several tens of meters' depth, a single diver disturbing the bottom critters probably makes zero difference. And I have no issue leaving biodegradable trash like a little food waste or a few sheets of toilet paper as long as it's left out of sight, say like under a stone. It'll be gone and well into the biological cycle by the next time someone shows up. I am, however, careful to avoid disturbing protected or endangered species, or doing things that have a permanent or long-term impact on the environment.

OTOH, when I dive close to town or on a vacation abroad, on sites that I know - or suspect - sees a fair bunch of divers every year, I follow the "take only pictures, leave only bubbles" slogan. Because if I - and many others - behaved the same way on a frequently visited site as I do on a remote site, the impact on the environment would quickly become unacceptable.

"Sola dosis facit venenum"

That's an interesting way of looking at things. (btw when you noted that you have no issue with leaving a "few sheets of toilet paper as long as it's left out of sight, say like under a stone", I first pictured you doing this underwater while half out of your wet suit & scared my cat with my guffaw of laughter.)

Earlier in the thread, there was some discussion about avoiding sites facing heavy dive pressure. I prefer to visit off the beaten path destinations like it seems you do. However, I personally believe it's a good idea to treat all dive sites with equal care...if only because it then becomes a habit as with any learned & practiced skill.

And your Latin quote reminded me of the original quote it was taken from: "All things are poisons, for there is nothing without poisonous qualities...it is only the dose which makes a thing poison." Both quotes quite apropos!

 

[TMHeimer]

There's one thing that - AFAIK - hasn't been mentioned so far in this thread, and that's how many visitors a site or an area sees. A lot of my diving is in an area that at most may see a small handful of divers in a year. Some of the sites I dive are probably not dived by anyone else. In places like that, I have no problem with activities that affect the environment somewhat, like touching the sand, stabbing the occasional flounder, wolffish or monkfish, picking as many scallops as I want/need, catching crabs, or just picking up souvenirs. I probably have less impact on the environment than what the normal forces of nature have. If the winter storms can stir up the bottom at several tens of meters' depth, a single diver disturbing the bottom critters probably makes zero difference. And I have no issue leaving biodegradable trash like a little food waste or a few sheets of toilet paper as long as it's left out of sight, say like under a stone. It'll be gone and well into the biological cycle by the next time someone shows up. I am, however, careful to avoid disturbing protected or endangered species, or doing things that have a permanent or long-term impact on the environment.

OTOH, when I dive close to town or on a vacation abroad, on sites that I know - or suspect - sees a fair bunch of divers every year, I follow the "take only pictures, leave only bubbles" slogan. Because if I - and many others - behaved the same way on a frequently visited site as I do on a remote site, the impact on the environment would quickly become unacceptable.

********************************************************************

Yes, exactly the same here. There are two sites where courses are done, and a dozen or so others in the Halifax area that attract a handful of divers, mostly on weekends. But I count about 10 sites close to home where I've dived since I started in '05 with my then regular buddy and do solo for the past 6 years or so--have yet to see ONE other diver at these spots. Maybe one or two boats offshore during that time as well, but I'm sure they weren't into diving.

You have to hit "expand" to see my reply.........

 

[JamesBon92007]

This is a great thread.
There are points from both sides of "conservation fence" I agree with, but my stance on this is that there is no much point of worrying about our impact, since we make indirect impacts just from living on this planet. Consider fallout from your everyday activities, fallout from getting you to your dive site (those of you lucky bastards living on a shore can disregard this), and you impacted underwater world even before you got into the water.
I am not saying that we should plow bottom or we should chase and harass marine life, but I do not think marine life itself is that fragile.

I'm not sure about how they do things in the rest of the world but in California we make an impact every time we flush the toilet--it all ends up in the ocean. Personally I prefer not too, when practical, and use a composting toilet. They are few and far between but my goal is to get back into that lifestyle. Will it make a difference? Probably not with only a few thousand people using them and 28 million people not using them, but it's a step in the right direction.

 

[BRT]

I'm not sure about how they do things in the rest of the world but in California we make an impact every time we flush the toilet--it all ends up in the ocean. Personally I prefer not too, when practical, and use a composting toilet. They are few and far between but my goal is to get back into that lifestyle. Will it make a difference? Probably not with only a few thousand people using them and 28 million people not using them, but it's a step in the right direction.

Everybody in California has a pipeline to the coast?

 

[TMHeimer]

Many houses here have septic fields (not tanks), so eventually it goes underground. But since we are two of those lucky bastards who live right on the ocean, I guess ours affects the ocean before those across the road. But I tell ya, the ocean here is about as clean as it gets, in my view. It ain't CT or even the N. Gulf of Mex.
Oh yeah, in reply to another post, most sites have no facilities so you improvise (on land of course--in a 7 mil farmer john a Warhammer's not possible--well, at least not advisable).

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I'm not sure about how they do things in the rest of the world but in California we make an impact every time we flush the toilet--it all ends up in the ocean. Personally I prefer not too, when practical, and use a composting toilet. They are few and far between but my goal is to get back into that lifestyle. Will it make a difference? Probably not with only a few thousand people using them and 28 million people not using them, but it's a step in the right direction.

You are aware, I hope, that California wastewater is treated before it gets returned to the ocean. It's generally cleaner than stormwater runoff ... which simply gets piped back to the sea, sometimes with some cursory attempts at treatment. The real threat is stormwater ... and the thousands of pounds of dog poop and petroleum products that get flushed into the sea every time it rains ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[JamesBon92007]

Everybody in California has a pipeline to the coast?

Not everyone, and as THeimer just pointed out some are still on septic tanks. It used to be that when your septic tank got pumped it was spread out on the land and decomposed. Some people made a lot of money letting septic pump trucks use their land. But then the developers came along and offered them more money for the land so they could build houses and shopping centers. Quite frankly I'm not sure what they do with it now but I wouldn't be too surprised if it doesn't end up in the sewers, at least some of the time. With the price of real estate in California I can't think of what else they might do with it besides the sewers.

Just about every time we get some significant rain the treatment plants overflow and raw sewage makes it's way into the ocean. We have signs at such places as the Santa Monica Pier saying that the water is not as bad as it used to be and it's almost safe to go in it. I like to know just where the treatment plants dump and stay North of them (our current runs North to South). In any case I did the composting toilet thing for about 10 years and I know that, at least in that case, it wasn't going into the ocean. I'm on the sewer right now and I am conscious of where things are ending up when I flush the toilet and I may not lose sleep over it but I can't help but think that there must be a better way.

 

[BRT]

Many houses here have septic fields (not tanks), so eventually it goes underground. But since we are two of those lucky bastards who live right on the ocean, I guess ours affects the ocean before those across the road. But I tell ya, the ocean here is about as clean as it gets, in my view. It ain't CT or even the N. Gulf of Mex.
Oh yeah, in reply to another post, most sites have no facilities so you improvise (on land of course--in a 7 mil farmer john a Warhammer's not possible--well, at least not advisable).

You really have septic fields without tanks? How is that done?