Views on playing with or harrasing marine life

[gj62]

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.

You bet. Wish I could offer the reverse, but I don't dive where I live (CO)... Plus, here the wildlife harrass me - all my new aspen trees have been nibbed down by the moose and elk, and my pines are dying from the beetle infestation - now there's an organism I'd like to feed to the garibaldis!

 

[marinebio]

Personally I think we are visitors to the ocean world and should respect that. Some critters like contact but you must know which ones do (some mantas for example) and you should be able to read them to know if they like it or not. Do unto others sorta thing.... Also, handling a critter that doesn't like it will only make it run from the next guy, which means we all lose. Lastly, I think that photographers that arrange their scenes are not taking photos of real nature and are simply being lazy and/or expedient. Hands off people, they have enough trouble already to deal with. :05:

 

[TomR1]

Gj62-
I know that this thread was about Rusty's actions not yours. With that in mind I appreciate your defending his position [even if you don't necessarly agree with his actions}. To summarize the various posts:

Argument: Environment is not degraded
Refuted: One expert cites studies that the California Kelp environment has been seriously degraded and another cites evidence that ANY handling of marine life is not beneficial and is almost always not beneficial.

Argument: SCUBA activities are a small part of the problem
Sustained: Experts state that SCUBA activity degrades the environemnt a SMALL percentage compared to other factors.

Argument: It is not illigial
Counter argument {opinion}: The "No touch" laws/rules are usually made after serious degregadation in an effort to preserve what "is". Divers should follow the "no touch" rule in advance of laws in order to preserve what is.

Argument: Everybody does it
Rejected: Almost everybody feels that SCUBA daives should adhere to a higher standard.

Argument: You can't stop me
Counter Argument: True but I CAN not do business with you and encourage other to do likewize. Analysis: Effect unknown

Do you agree that the summary is accurate? {and we can close the thread?}

 

[gj62]

OK, here's my 2 psi...

Argument: Environment is not degraded
Refuted: One expert cites studies that the California Kelp environment has been seriously degraded and another cites evidence that ANY handling of marine life is not beneficial and is almost always not beneficial.

There was no "cause" attributed to the degradation of the kelp environment. Also, I do not believe there have been a decrease in the amount of urchins. I mostly agree that disturbing the marine environment in any way is not beneficial, but I don't want to get into the issue that activity X is ok, while activity Y is not...

Argument: SCUBA activities are a small part of the problem
Sustained: Experts state that SCUBA activity degrades the environemnt a SMALL percentage compared to other factors.

Agreed - and that's *any* SCUBA activity...

Argument: It is not illigial
Counter argument {opinion}: The "No touch" laws/rules are usually made after serious degregadation in an effort to preserve what "is". Divers should follow the "no touch" rule in advance of laws in order to preserve what is.

I never offered that as an arguement, I only indicated that as a rebuttal to a suggestion that it was

Argument: Everybody does it
Rejected: Almost everybody feels that SCUBA daives should adhere to a higher standard.

Again, I never offered this as an arguement. As far as the rejection, if "everyone" does it, and "almost everyone" agrees that divers should be held to a higher standard, then you've got a bunch of "do as I say, not as I do" types floating around...

Argument: You can't stop me
Counter Argument: True but I CAN not do business with you and encourage other to do likewize. Analysis: Effect unknown

Yes, I suppose Rusty did make a statement like that, and I agree that you can stop doing business with him, but unless you are willing to wage a marketing campaign against him, I will submit that the effect is damned small and probably not measureable on his business.

Do you agree that the summary is accurate? {and we can close the thread?}

Um, sure, in so far as the key arguements and rebuttals are summarized here. But then what would we do? Go diving?

 

[archman]

Ecological degradation in the California kelp habitats is primarily attributed to overfishing activity (combo of spearfishers, longline, abalone divers, seiners). Sea otter losses caused one of their preferred prey (urchins) to shoot through the roof. The species which enjoys chewing on kelp holdfasts (Stronglycentrotus purpuratus I think) went hog wild and uprooted vast amounts of kelp, destabilizing the entire community.
While this was going on, losses to larger fishes via overfishing screwed up the balance lower down on the food chain. Garibaldi-sized fishes and smaller become the dominant size-class in the community now. Anything else that got eaten by bigger fishes also breeds like mad, which leads to cyclic "blooms" and "crashes" of certain species.
Abalone divers wipe out the abalone... I don't know if there were any cascade effects due to that.

So that's why nobody's seeing a loss in urchins. It's actually GOOD to see a heck of a lot less urchins, as that indicates that otters and other urchin-eaters are on the rebound. Some folks argue that people can "help the ecosystem out" by killing off some urchins themselves. This isn't a bad idea on paper, but in practice it's not very effective. For starters you'd have to maintain the actions. Second, you're still interfering in a natural system. There could very well be unforseen consequences to this; fishermen in New England know all about this with the starfish Linckia.

It's almost always better to leave things alone and let nature fix itself, and a heck of a lot cheaper. That's me as a professional ecologist speaking.

Loss of a couple urchins won't do anything to the ecology, but if 100 dudes do that in one day... who knows?

 

[TomR1]

Gj62-
Well actually going diving is exactly what I am going to do...Cozumel on Saturday for 10 days...Roatan in June for 15...then backpacking the California Sierra as you might expect.

Everyone-
My summary went back to Rusty's arguments not yours and I think it wise that everybody on this thread who objects to the video target Rusty, not Gj62.

Regards,

Tom

 

[gj62]

Gj62-
Well actually going diving is exactly what I am going to do...Cozumel on Saturday for 10 days...Roatan in June for 15...then backpacking the California Sierra as you might expect.

Everyone-
My summary went back to Rusty's arguments not yours and I think it wise that everybody on this thread who objects to the video target Rusty, not Gj62.

Regards,

Tom

Oh man, have fun. We'll try and keep the threads going without you...

 

[TomR1]

Comments on Rusty's site from digitaldiver.net. It think this clearly shows why laws are made and why responsible divers generally support a "no exceptions" to the "No Touch, No Take" rule.

"I didn't get to see his shark-tugging video, but I wish I could have. I mis-downloaded the Catalina fun one and was amazed! I am surprised nobody has mentioned this one. It is quite phenomenal!
It shows a couple of people jump into the water and then we proceed directly to the heavy metal and urchin-killing. There are clouds of urchin innards floating about as a bunch of newbie divers sit around with dive knives, churning up the guts to attract fish. And then my favorite part. Mr. Cameraman starts handing out Open Water License patches to all the newly "certified" urchin-skinners. They put down the knife long enough to grab the patch and celebrate with shaka and fist pump. Take a good look people--this is the danger of in-breeding."

"It's really amazing...like the theme should be "Kill sh!t and get certified"...wailing 80s heavy metal guitar licks, newbies with all the latest SCUBA gear, and patches for all!"

"Well if you have ever meet Rusty you wouldn't be surprised at all. I think someone needs to tell him thats its 2004 not 1986."

 

[LioKai]

All I could think of is a 'Farside' cartoon where Rusty is being fed to the Angel Sharks by the Garabaldis. All while the urchins hand out certification patches.

Oh, sorry, I haven't had any coffee yet. My appologies.

 

[TomR1]

New divers using dive knives fills me with dread.

You may have seen where the diver release form does not release the instructor from incompetence.

Rusty may be gone without our help.

Tom