Views on playing with or harrasing marine life

[Zippsy]

I don't think I'm depriving the next diver of anything. I've been doing it for 20 years and I do not see fewer urchins or nurse sharks...

There were 587 murders in New York in 2002 and I swear when I was there ealy last year I couldn't tell the difference in the population. There still seemed to me to be a lot of people on the street.

Are urchins the same as people? No. But it's just as silly an argument.

 

[gj62]

Are urchins the same as people? No. But it's just as silly an argument.

Not to me, I respect individual people, as well as the species as a whole. I have no great concern from 1 urchin to the next (or I would not harvest them commercially - we don't do that with people, do we?), though I would be concerned for the species were it to show signs of decline.

Try again...

 

[DIVERPyne]

Actually business is up and I gotta thank everyone for the free publicity. Thanks a Bunch! Just wait til ya get the next cool video.

That's what happens when the weather starts warming up. My business is busy too, but absolutely not from promoting the harrassment of angel sharks.

Perhaps Fish and Game should be on one of your trips covertly to see what else questionable activities you condone on your trips. It's people like you that gives scuba shops a bad name by association.

 

[Kim]

Not to me, I respect individual people, as well as the species as a whole. I have no great concern from 1 urchin to the next (or I would not harvest them commercially - we don't do that with people, do we?), though I would be concerned for the species were it to show signs of decline.

Try again...

OK - here's a try - what's more important - people or life?

 

[gj62]

Perhaps Fish and Game should be on one of your trips covertly to see what else questionable activities you condone on your trips. It's people like you that gives scuba shops a bad name by association.

I know of no CF&G statute that would apply...

 

[gj62]

OK - here's a try - what's more important - people or life?

Umm, define "life"? If it is any living organism, then "people" is a subset of life. While "life" may be able to exist without "people", but "people" can't exist without life, it depends on where you fall (in "People" and in "Life, or just in "Life", or in neither) that would give you your perspective, and probably influence your answer. So, to me, since I belong to "Life" and to "People", I would say, both. However, if you are talking about an individual element of either of these collections - a single Person, in the case of "People", or a single "Organism", in the case of "Life" elements not belonging to "People", I would say Person was way more important than any other "Organism" - to the extent that any comparison is almost meaningless (I'd see alot of individual "Organisms" die before a "Person", unless I have cause to not think much of the "Person").

 

[archman]

I know of no CF&G statute that would apply...

Keep in mind that the vast majority of state and federal environmental regulations don't kick in until a problem is already well along, and quite often irreversible (i.e. exotic species, loss of genetic diversity, extinction).
The argument "it's not illegal" is not a very convincing one when it comes to interacting with wildlife, as this is the mindset that directly leads TO such interactions becoming illegal. The best way to keep the regulatory agencies at bay is to practice prudent conservation and resource stewardship; better still spread it around to other folks.
In the context of wildlife, "it's not illegal" can be more accurately amended to say "it's not illegal... yet."

 

[LioKai]

I know of no CF&G statute that would apply...

DiverPyne said "questionable activities". And I agree.

Does there really need to be a "law" for people to follow?

 

[LioKai]

Umm, define "life"? If it is any living organism, then "people" is a subset of life. While "life" may be able to exist without "people", but "people" can't exist without life, it depends on where you fall (in "People" and in "Life, or just in "Life", or in neither) that would give you your perspective, and probably influence your answer. So, to me, since I belong to "Life" and to "People", I would say, both. However, if you are talking about an individual element of either of these collections - a single Person, in the case of "People", or a single "Organism", in the case of "Life" elements not belonging to "People", I would say Person was way more important than any other "Organism" - to the extent that any comparison is almost meaningless (I'd see alot of individual "Organisms" die before a "Person", unless I have cause to not think much of the "Person").

Dude, you drink way too much coffee. LOL

I really like you. You ever get to Kona, we need to hang out, and go diving.

 

[gj62]

Keep in mind that the vast majority of state and federal environmental regulations don't kick in until a problem is already well along, and quite often irreversible (i.e. exotic species, loss of genetic diversity, extinction).
The argument "it's not illegal" is not a very convincing one when it comes to interacting with wildlife, as this is the mindset that directly leads TO such interactions becoming illegal. The best way to keep the regulatory agencies at bay is to practice prudent conservation and resource stewardship; better still spread it around to other folks.
In the context of wildlife, "it's not illegal" can be more accurately amended to say "it's not illegal... yet."

My comment was to the person that said CF&G would be interested in such activities - that's why I quoted them. I was not stating that it is OK because it is not illegal...