Why do we want to kill the big ones?

[matjo1]

I've been a fisherman all my life. Small stuff really; trout, bass, pike and bluegill. When I moved to florida two months ago to get a job as a scuba instructor, I got interested in spearfishing right away. Who wouldn't right? Well the more I read up on the subject, the more I read about "trophy" fish. Seems it's all a lot of people out there are talking about. All I want to do is bring a few small fish back for supper, but it seems many hunters out there are only out to hunt that big one. To be perfectly honest, I just don't get it. Last time I checked (assuming these numbers are right) 80 to 90 of all big fish have been taken from our oceans. Is that not enough? How can it still be justifiable to kill off the last and best genes of each species of fish? Am I missing something? I know spearfishing is a ecological technique to getting fish on the table because of low by-catch and selective harvesting, but does that mean we have to try to get every last one of them? Yes, everyone has the right to do so, but I think everybody on this board is smart enough to realize that if we all exercise that right, there simply won't be anything left to enjoy. Shouldn't divers automatically consider themselves ambassadors of the underwatewr world? Don't get me wrong, I'm not a crazy-tree-hugging-hippie (although I am a hippie) and I will persue my goal of bringing fish home for supper, I just don't see why it would be right for me to kill a creature 5 times as old as I am to fill my freezer with 100 lbs of tough meat... Please enlighten me.

 

[Tom Smedley]

Last time I was in Panama City on Bridge Span 14 I found a flounder that must have been 30 inhes long. I thought long and I thought hard but finally my knife came out and I juegged at him. Something guided my hand and my knife landed two inches short. I looked at him and he looked at me and I said "You magnificent creature - go forth and multiply and make more of you."

But Jeeze - he would have been delicious in a broiling bag with some onions and lemon. You win some and you lose some and some gets rained out. That's life I suppose.

 

[JustinW]

Hope you are enjoying Florida. The reasons many decide to take large specimens are often too difficult to explain. Its a personal decision that isn't for everybody and the feeling is as difficult to explain to some as it is to explain hunting to some. It is in effect, removing the animal from the ocean, or forest or whatever, but often if that was the strongest or biggest, it has been for a while and has donated DNA throughout the local gene pool. In some species (not fish as much but some still) the boggest oldest are past their prime, and at some point actually harming the population as they consume resources but do not contribute to breeding any longer.

This is the hunting forum so i feel free to discuss this topic here: In South Africa some animal "rights" groups have problems with programs to hunt elephants in the national parks there. Even though the park is a protected area rare sactioned hunting can and does occur. When an old, past his prime, elephant bull is getting old conservation groups will auction off a permit to hunt that animal, often times the permit will go for 50-100k as the ivories will be big. This money is cycled back into the park to maintain the other animals. Notable to me was an example of an old bull elephant with a tumor in his abdomen. Vets could tell he would not live much longer. They sold the permit for around 100k and shot the elephant. This is compared to receiving no money for the animal and having it die in the field soon after, going to waste and rotting. All usable meat was distributed to local communities and money went to fund other programs to protect elephants and all other wildlife. OT, but an example of the good that can come from removing the biggest and the oldest.

When I go crabbing, we leave all of the females and take only males, as one male can fertilize many females.

 

[Hank49]

oops, no comment

 

[stu_in_fl]

i sometimes end up on boats where the people will share their catches at the end of the day - so an 70lb grouper gives bragging rights - but then various people take home supper......works for me as I only seem to be able to shoot hogfish (and although tasty) do love a bit of grouper now and again !
....but I do agree with you sentiments in so far as people should only shoot what will be eaten (by them or friends etc.)..i've been on spearfishing dives with loads of big Amberjacks ready for the taking and noone shooting them becasue they don't taste that nice......

 

[Johnoly]

All I want to do is bring a few small fish back for supper, but it seems many hunters out there are only out to hunt that big one. ....................> Is that not enough? How can it still be justifiable to kill off the last and best genes of each species of fish?
... Please enlighten me.

Why would you want to take MANY small(??) fish out of the food chain, instead of just 1. Seems you are taking many fish capable of multiple breeding opportunities which really hurts the passing of genes.

Also it's not the LAST of the genes in the ocean. That's why we have limits and size restrictions based on surveys and results.

 

[Wayward Son]

More to eat. Plus, if you don't stone them, subdueing the bigger ones can get right sporty for a while

 

[RockPile]

The reasons many decide to take large specimens are often too difficult to explain.

I've never even held a spear gun and the reason seems pretty darn simple to me. Why would a boxer want to take on the champ when he could just keep fighting in the local Golden Gloves? Why do men with no reason to own anything bigger than a Civic buy a Hummer? What’s the difference between a regular wife and a “trophy wife?”

Bigger is better, and everyone (whether they like it or not) gets that.

JB

 

[matjo1]

[

QUOTE=Johnoly]Why would you want to take MANY small(??) fish out of the food chain, instead of just 1. Seems you are taking many fish capable of multiple breeding opportunities which really hurts the passing of genes.

It's always been my understanding ( I may be wrong ) that so little juveniles make it to adulthood or alpha males, that odds are, the ones you get would have been eliminated through natural selection anyway. One could even argue that you help the specie by preventing the slow and dumb ones ie. the small ones you successfully catch, from reproducing. What I believe really hurts the gene pool is to kill off those sellect and old few which have made it to the top of their species because of their strength, health and intelligence.

 

[matjo1]

In some species (not fish as much but some still) the boggest oldest are past their prime, and at some point actually harming the population as they consume resources but do not contribute to breeding any longer.

Good point, I never looked at it that way. Any idea to which species that could apply to on my side of the hill?