Posted by kelphead on March 30, 2000 at 12:12:58:
In Reply to: Do not support SB241! posted by Chris on March 29, 2000 at 21:36:58:
"Divers who seek game and sport fisherman should not support this bill!"
oh, ok, so now you are only petitioning a minority
of divers to support your position and excluding
the rest of the dive community. right there you've
just sent a message that not all divers are united
in this interest and you're pandering to a select few--
perhaps knowing that the rest of the dive community
won't be affected and doesn't care about your potential
loss.
"The oil companies do not have the interests of divers in mind!"
gee wiz, well what interests DO these oil companies
have when they will presumably be giving up their
claim to these oil rigs after all is said and done.
do i smell a conspiracy theory here?? if so, bring
it out into the open and we'll discuss it. i just
don't understand your implication that the oil companies
have some sort of nefarious design when they are
the ones giving up the oil rigs to the dive community.
please elaborate on what exactly their interests truly
are.
you state below that: "Poaching is a crime and is a punishable act. This is a separate and solvable issue..."
oh, yeah?! tell that to preserve keepers worldwide.
poaching is a difficult violation to control--and that's
a fact. not too long ago i even read a blurb in
'cdn' about an illegal abalone ring that was setup
and caught by 'f&g'. God knows how much damage that
group of selfish idiots did (or what damage other rings
are currently doing and haven't been caught)--don't ever
tell me that poaching is solvable and controllable.
contraband gets into this country EVERY STINKIN' DAY but
perhaps you are ignorant of these facts. if people
are willing to pay for contraband, then poaching will
continue. it's continuing w/the clubbing of seals
in canada and it's continuing w/the poaching of elephants
for their ivory tusks.
"Think of the 5 freeway as a jogging path, no cars."
i do think about it--all the time. i'm sick and
bloody tired of all the overdevelopment that takes
place around me. ENOUGH!!! i was against the toll road
(that cut through laguna beach) and i'm against the
proposed el toro commercial airport. great analogy,
curt, b/c i feel the same way topside that i feel
about the marine world. habitat destruction is the
number one threat to wildlife WORLDWIDE. simply
put, i'm nauseated by the amount of concrete we keep
on pouring. we have to realize that our natural
resources are finite and we need to deal w/this
reality in a responsible fashion. if it means
sacrificing something in our lifestyle, then so be
it. people talk about the overpopulation of this
planet, but the truth be known it's not the overcrowding
issue as much as resource use: one american baby
uses as much resources as 6 asian-indian babies.
the wealthy communities of this world need to cut
back their seemingly unsatiatable use of natural
resources--and it has to begin w/us individuals.
"Certainly, if the pressure from harvesting at the rigs is too
great for the fishery to sustain then the prudent procedure would be to reduce the limit of harvest
quotas before you abolish the harvest outright. Let's not act irrational and go thermonuclear on the
first strike before we understand what the target should be."
WHY oh WHY should we wait until there is a disaster
to take care of business??? after living in the u.s.
for 20yrs, i've come to realize that americans don't
prevent anything from happening--instead they react
to it. even our laws are such that nothing can be done
to protect an individual, but the laws are kicked into
effect after a person has been wronged. many foreigners
who come here are shocked to learn this simple fact.
so as far as taking a pre-emptive strike: YIPPEE!!
i certainly don't want to wait until desctruction has
taken place in order to protect our natural interests.
look what happened to the giant sea bass: this fish
waits 11 years before it is sexually mature and has
even had a chance to procreate. but the overfishing pressure
was apparently so bad that it is now a protected species and cannot
be fished. many 'sightseeing' divers missed this population b/c
of such hunting that was carried out in part by dive
hunters.
no, i think the more prudent course of action is indeed
to take a more precautionary step to prevent any
abuse from taking place IN THE FIRST PLACE.
"Is the reduction of the fisheries mainly by
commercial or recreational interests? And/or is our pollution the cause? Certainly the recreational
impact is the least of these."
well, let's see...how has the 'game' been off our beaches
lately??? now i may have to be corrected on this
issue here b/c i admit i do not keep up w/every
detail about sportfishing and dive hunting. but i
do remember reading in a well known beach dive book
about so-called "gentlmen's agreements" not to take
abalone (or even scallop) off our beaches b/c these
populations were devastated by *gasp* the dive community.
how are these populations faring now and are these
"gentlemen's agreements" still in place??!! how can
they be enforced?? how do we know the true impact
of the dive hunters' impact on our local ecosystem...??
apparently it is illegal to take lobster/'game' from
off laguna beach--anyone complaining about that??!!
i don't agree w/you that the dive community has the least
impact (i may change my mind if i see hard data backing
up your claim) but when i hear the bragging of divers
who take the amount of lobster they do take, it makes
me sick. i remember last fall one diver friend of mine
from monterey bragged that the dive boat she and her
husband were on down here in the channel isles was
loaded w/die-hard hunters who took a total of 400!!!!!
lobsters on one trip. come on, if this is true then we
are indeed talking about commercial numbers here!!
how can you or anyone else tell me that taking 400
(hopefully legal) lobsters is not somehow affecting
the ecosystem and taking a toll. now MULTIPLY that
by the number of days these 'die-hard' hunters are out
during lobster season and i think we can get a clearer
picture on the true impact rec/hunting divers do have
on our marine environment. sorry, i just don't buy
your argument that divers don't play a significant
role here...
"During the time the rigs have been in place they have had numerous cleanings, el nino storms have passed through, and hoards of dive trips of
weekend hunters..."
well, i can't speak to the cleaning or to el nino
effects, but i got the impression that these oil rig
dives were NOT that many and only NOW are they becoming
more popular. i could be wrong on this point and do
welcome any corrections, but i thought that the number
of oil rig dives were A LOT FEWER than the number of
island or beach dives. if so, i seriously doubt
your claim that "hoards" of divers have visited
these oil rigs and have already caused a negative
impact.
"Today's oil rig diving interest is a combination hunters, photographers, and sightseers. By making the
rigs a preserve removes a substantial part of the community interest."
no, not really. 1st of all, i believe that the majority
of scuba divers are NOT hunters but are indeed
photogs and sightseers. in that case, this bill
will NOT affect the majority interest of scuba divers.
you even made that point yourself when you addressed
your petition to "Divers who seek game and sport fisherman..."
so, basically those who are exclusively photogs and
sightseers may not share your hunting interests and
will not miss anything by the passage of this bill.
IN FACT, THEY will be the reapers who gain much more
than what will be lost, imho.
look, i DO recognize that not everyone on this planet
shares the same interests, needs, or desires but there
HAS to be some sort of compromise available here.
my proposal would be to have some protected preserves
and some game preserves--just like they do in africa.
now, i don't have any hard data w/me at the moment, but
i did read an article in a wildlife/conservation mag
that so far there is no evidence that protected preserves
have a less negative effect than game preserves. it
seems we are loving some of our wildlife to death
w/all of our hotels and plumbing and gas-guzzling tour
buses and that the african preserve keepers have not seen
a distinct increase in wildlife that are protected
on the 'touristy' preserves compared to those on the
hunting preserves. now i'm NOT advocating
the (disgusting) habit of sport-hunting, but perhaps
you dive hunters can set your OWN game preserves
for your own enjoyment and leave others alone.
what i'm proposing is that we can have separate
preserves that are exclusively for hunting
and you sport fishers & dive hunters can share the
responsibility of maintaining a renewable 'game'
population. you can set up your own rules in such
'game' preserves and you can enforce them yourselves.
you will have utter and complete control BUT if you
put too much pressure on these preserves, then you
will NOT be allowed to spill over into the protected
preserves. instead you will have to deal w/the
consequences of your own collective actions.
this was done w/the seahorse population in the south
pacific. one group of islanders that could not
outright give up seahorse hunting--or else they
would starve--did want to protect their asset. so,
a program was started and the islanders, under the
guidance of a marine biologist, established a no-take
zone while still hunting their seahorses outside this
area. while the natives from the surrounding islands
were depleting their cash resource at an alarming rate,
this particular group of islanders were TRULY renewing
their resource. basically, they had a no take zone
RIGHT NEXT TO a take zone and they did just fine.
in fact, they even established special kinds of traps
where the 'pregnant males' could give birth BEFORE
they were harvested. that way they allowed for the
procreation of this species.
why not come up w/some areas up and down the california
coastline that will serve the same purpose and make
EVERYONE happy...?...
however, as it stands now, i'll be glad when
sb241 passes.
kelphead.