who has a problem with wild collecting?

[ackee]

Ctenophors, one of the few positive aspects of having been around for a long time, and traveling and scuba diving since the 1960s, is that I have seen the natural world go from a mostly beautiful place to a mostly degraded and frequently destroyed remnant. The direction is obvious, and we are already almost at the end point. It's fine to say that only 5% of the world is utilized by humans, but whoever you got that statistic from is peddling crap. The forests and coastal margins are vanishing so fast it makes almost every trip I take an excercize in dismay. There really is, compared even to 30 years ago, very little left. The world 50 years ago, when the population was only a fifth of what it is now, looked like a different planet, a sad vanished dream. We are, virtually every scientist concedes, living in an age of mass extinction, similar to those that occured in the distant geologic past.

Another thing: it's not "America's future" that is the issue. It's a global phenomenon. The reefs are dying from human population impact, the natural global water distribution systems like the Gulf Stream are threatened by melting ice caps and global warming in general, and what once was a basically wild and natural world surronding pockets of human activity has totally reversed, with only shrinking pockets of the natural world surrounded by mankind's poisonous filth. Perhaps, instead of Marine Biology, Waste Treatment Management might be a more appropriate field for the immediate future.

 

[iamwrasseman]

thanks ackee ,i really hate the obvious impact that humans have had here and you are telling the truth exactly how it really is . no sugar coating here ,we all need a wake up call and it really is a bit late to try to save . if we knew that we would have such an impact do you thing we would have stayed in the same path ? i think so and thats why america is in such a depression and alot dont even know it .

 

[ackee]

In addition to the blindness of those who choose not to see, the thing that keeps surprising me, and which dates and classifies me clearly, is the term 'fragging'. The first thing I think of when I read or hear that word is a fragmentation grenade tossed into the tent of some officer interested in glory and promotion, however many casualties it takes. Then I think "OH! Silly me. They mean cutting sections of coral."

 

[iamwrasseman]

thats a good thing ,fragging !

 

[unstopable]

The only problem with wild collecting is most people, and please everybody don't take offense to this, but MOST PEOPLE naturally greedy and will do what they have done to the reefs in the past and rape the reefs. Look at the reefs now because of mans influence on them in the last 50 years. we need less pressure and more laws stopping the average human being with a net and a snorkel to take from our DYING REEFS.

 

[ackee]

Pogo

Pogo

I've collected, only a fish or two at a time, all over the world. The only place I've ever seen non-commercial individual fish collecting was in Florida. I know people do it, but very very few, because very few people have the ability to keep fish alive while on holiday, and successfully transport them. It really is a lot of work, and requires a lot of pre-planning. Then there are the legal restrictions, which are considerable. I have academic credentials which usually allow me to obtain a local permit to collect. Not always, though. Since 9/11 the transport issue has made things very difficult. No more plastic bags with water and a fish in your carry-on.

The real issue, though, is the destruction of the reefs. Individuals with a net and snorkel have a vanishingly tiny, virtually immeasurably small effect on the reefs. I've seen hords of cruise ship passengers with flippers and masks do terrible damage. Banning that kind of thing would be far more effective than going after the net and snorkel people, whose numbers are insignificant.

The deadly damage to the reefs, of course, is the result of non-recreational human activity. Siltation from road building and other construction, the expansion of village settlements to formerly pristine areas, a virtual Amazon of poisons pumped out of places where lots of people live, and intentional dredging of the reefs, in many cases just to get limestone to crush for various industrial and construction purposes.

I've seen drag lines wipe out huge sections of coastal reefs in Florida, so that canals can be dug and 'waterfront' homes built. By the hundreds and hundreds of thousands. I remember Florida when it was still beautiful, with small bays up and down the west coast, coral growing to the shoreline throughout the Keys. People who build houses and people who buy and live in them and people who make their living in some direct or indirect way from all this activity destroyed most of the reefs and lovely little coves and bays. All over the world, not just in Florida. Jamaica once was as lovely beneath the water as it still can be topside. No more. Not really. The same can be said for an endless list of places.

Who killed **** Robin? The blame game is ultimately futile, as are meaningless laws that target harmless activity while major destruction is carried on with government compliance and assistance, and the support of the majority of citizens who, not surprisingly, see 'growth' as a good thing. Want to try to get politicians to invoke a construction ban? HAHAHA! How about doing the Chinese solution to famine and similar human catastrophies: legally forbid people to have more than one child, , until the population is reduced. Of course, that presents long term problems with taxes, Social Security, even the prison industry. Also, some people actually think it's their right to fill up the planet with their progeny, and react badly to restrictions on their right to procreate.

Do you think we can preserve the levees along flooding rivers by making it illegal to pee in the water while swimming? Maybe help
save New Orleans? The pee ban logic is the same as banning a snorkler with a net. Maybe it's only a tiny drop in the bucket (no pun intended), but every little bit helps. Right? Addressing issues like paving over the land, building over absorbent forests, constructing ever bigger cities, etc. is not going to get much attention. Jobs, you know. Pogo was right about the identification of the enemy.

 

[stugray]

ackee,

All very good points, but you missed one of the largest things affecting the reefs. - Nitrogenous Waste!

America uses a huge quantity of fertilizers in farming. Any that is not used by the plants washes downstream and is dumped in to the ocean.
This causes the red-tides and kills ALL marine life in the area.

NOW we decide that Biofuels are a GOOD THING!!???!!

What the heck are the politicians thinking??

We need to farm less and more efficiently NOT get farmers to farm every square inch of the available land for corn so we can burn it in our cars.

Its MADNESS I SAY!!!

Stu

 

[iamwrasseman]

really gotta wonder if we were so smart that we killed ourselves on purpose or due to greed .its a stupid human making all the rules that kill humans !vichious circle of stupidity

 

[iamwrasseman]

really gotta wonder if we were so smart that we killed ourselves on purpose or due to greed .its a stupid human making all the rules that kill humans !vichious circle of stupidity !

 

[ctenophors rule]

wow, this has gotten some good responses.

iamwrasseman, you feel to operating under the false assuption that humans are naturaly smart! lol it takes a lot of work to make smart people!

with the corn, i heard on 60 minutes that sweet grass was like 10 times better, i don't know why they still use corn.

in brazil, what like 75% of the country runs on corn ethonol. look at all the deforestatiopn associated, and the pesticides and fertilizer running into ground water, i wouldn't want to be
brazilian in a decade, thats for sure!

ackee, when you were talking about coral fragging and granades that got me thinking of a vid i got that shows some indopacificers who through tnt into the water. one big boom later and a bucn hof nice 2-3 inch frags littered the floor, andall the fish lucky enough to be with in the right range away, were merely stunn ed, those to close to the blast radias died instantly, or went death as the censory cilia broke.

 

[ackee]

Die-no-mite!!

Die-no-mite!!

Fishing with explosives is common worldwide, and has been for many decades. It's quick and relatively cheap, requiring little equipment other than a boat and some dynamite or C4 or Semtex or grenades, all of which are readily available, especially in third world countries. It was and probably still is is widely used in Haiti, the Philippines, SE Asia, etc. Troops in the Pacific Theater during WW2 became expert explosives fishermen.

Blowing up the reefs for a few bucks and a meal has been going on for so long that it's almost respectable. It really puts some of the goody two-shoes mini-measures devoted to reef preservation in perspective. In a couple of places a few grids with frags are set in the bottom with much hoopla and publicity. In hundreds of other places dynamite fishing is standard operating procedure.

Think about all those hungry kids who are waiting for their next meal. When the kids are crying for food today, long range strategy becomes a joke, a fools errand.

 

[ackee]

Ctenophors. there is very little chance of your becoming Brazilian over the next decade, so stop worrying.

Another thing: 'People who live in glass houses' (or california) should reconsider rash condemnations.

 

[ctenophors rule]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15293950#post15293950 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ackee
Ctenophors. there is very little chance of your becoming Brazilian over the next decade, so stop worrying.

Another thing: 'People who live in glass houses' (or california) should reconsider rash condemnations.

the rash condemnation thing, was that directed at me?

i live in florida.lol

 

[ackee]

Nothing was "directed at" you, PT. Certainly not the Cali remark, which was related another thing altogether. I know where Port Saint Lucy is. In any case, there may be things that I wish to call to your attention, but 'direct against' suggests some sort of criticism, an intent absent from any reply I written in response to your comments.

We all, I think, live in metaphoric glass houses when it comes to environmental issues. None of us in this part of the world can point fingers at others in that connection without descending into ludicrous hypocrisy. It's just that there are more and bigger glass houses in some places.