Posted by kelphead on April 06, 2000 at 17:31:40:
In Reply to: I'm back.... posted by seahunt on March 31, 2000 at 11:51:49:
mike, thanx!! for correcting me about the commercial
fisheries' shore activities.
also, i was indeed referring to the giant sea bass
which is, from what i understand, the same as the
black sea bass.
additionally, i have to agree w/much of what you said.
i was even thinking of the idea of protecting some
rigs from all hunting while leaving other rigs open
to the hunters, but i think i like your rotational
idea even better. = : )
seems common sensical to a layperson such as myself.
"I do find it fascinating that no one even remotely suggested following a policy based on principles of science, only personal
opinion was offered."
well, i thought i did just that in my post, but perhaps
in not so many technical terms, since i'm not an
ecologist or even a zoologist.
"For all of you opposed to hunting, I have to ask if you have done anything to oppose or show your opposition to commercial
harvesting, which is clearly far more destructive than sport fishers will ever be?"
i have been thinking about this, mike, and i'm pained
that i feel as if i can't do much about it.
what i have taken upon my itty bitty self to do is
to watch what i eat. in other words, i have decided not to eat
"baby" anything (ie, spicy baby octopus). others will
think that this is nonsense and silly, but that's how i
feel, that i should not eat anything that has not had
a chance to reproduce yet. i know of one other person
who refuses to eat shrimp due to the devastating
results of by-catch.
i did come across this wallet sized card in a conservation
mag that listed which sealife is currently experiencing
overpressure from fishing and which ones weren't.
(unfortunately, i forgot to rip the card out and take
it home w/me from the hospital where i found the mag).
i think this type of information, if made available
to the general public, can make a difference in which
marine life can be saved and which ones are still ok
to hunt. if diners/shoppers at a restaurant/store are
aware of their potential power and chose against ordering/
purchasing certain species of marine life, then
that can send a direct message to the chefs/grocery
companies that certain species of fish are not
profitable and will (hopefully) alleviate fishing
pressure on those specific species.
then one can imagine a type of 'rotation' when it comes
to our own general consumption and we can send a
clear message to the fisheries about how we feel
re:their take policy.
what's that adage??: "hit 'em where it hurts: the pocket!!"
anyway, that was what i had planned to do w/that
card, but now i have to hunt it down cuz i'm a dork.
but when it comes to the criticism of dive hunters,
well i'm vocal about that b/c i am part of a community
that prides itself on being self-regulatory. well,
if that's true, then what's wrong w/trying to
self-regulate our desire (not need!!) to hunt?? and
that was part of my attempt in my post in this thread.
yes, i understand commercial fishers take more (well,
duh, they have a whole world to sell to) but i can't
do much about federal or int'l law. however, i CAN
play a role in local practices by being part of this
community which plays a direct role (albeit smaller
than the commercial one) in this issue.
btw, mike, i don't believe prying such sessile creatures
such as abalone or scallops (or mussels) from their
sedentary spot counts as hunting. more like GATHERING!!
hunting, as defined by bill gates, is synonymous with:
chase; pursue; follow; hound; track; stalk
anyway, though i may disagree w/a couple of things,
i do largely agree w/the type of approach you are
suggesting. the success of such conservation
efforts, however, i think rests squarely on enforcment:
if people are too selfish or blind to understand
what consequences their actions may lead to, then
no amount of regulation can be of any help and
then one is left w/the extreme point of view of
absolutely no take.
kelphead.
[[ps. i still don't agree w/you on the sea otters. = ; b ]]