Posted by ed on October 30, 2002 at 11:29:25:
In Reply to: Re: There's a huge difference in impact. - not really! posted by finfan on October 30, 2002 at 08:58:46:
As you said, impact IS impact. If they are saying that the degree of impact does not matter (which is absurd IMO, since the spearfishing/rec. fishing impact is MANY orders of magnitude different than commercial) and that ALL sources of impact should be eliminated, then, again, IMO diving SHOULD BE BANNED as well.
The very act of a divers presence in/around the kelp, for instance, changes the behavior of baitfish / predator / prey, thus the general eco-system, EVEN IF they did not touch or otherwise physically alter it.
Furthermore, impactless 'anchoring' on the sand around the Kelp IS A JOKE. For SEVERAL reasons, that is.
Contrary to popular belief, an anchor (at least the most common used in the ocean around here) does not hold by 'dead weight'. It DIGS IN in the 'setting' process. Also, once it is set, (assumming that it is NOT dragging), it is NOT a vertical line going straight down. Instead, it angles away from the boat, so if the boat CAN swing over the kelp....
There are other arguments as well, although some will sound silly (but contain the same logic as many whom are in favor of rec. fishing closures). Such as, a diver has the 'potential' to ditch their LEAD weights.... LEAD IS BAD! LEAD can cause Anchovy poisoning, and be passed onto bigger fish in the food chain... Eventually causing a BSB to die from the Lead poisoning.... thus, NO DIVING IN THE PRESERVES!!!
How about the acoustic pollution? VERY LOW IMPACT right?...
Well, I'm all for a TOTAL closure. Since the magnitude of the impact does not seem to matter, better safe than sorry.