Get a pellet gun--grey squirrel is quite tastey unless they're eating pine nuts--then they have a turpentiney after taste. :t If pellet gun is out of the question--live trap them. Out in the country where I live there are enough preditors to keep the population down (although my Labrador Retriever disagrees) but in suburbia where the folks live they are a real pest. Dad exterminates them regularly. He's quite a shot at 77 years--I wouldn't want a target on my a$$ with him aiming at it! rofl
-
Welcome to the DeeperBlue.com Forums, the largest online community dedicated to Freediving, Scuba Diving and Spearfishing. To gain full access to the DeeperBlue.com Forums you must register for a free account. As a registered member you will be able to:
- Join over 44,280+ fellow diving enthusiasts from around the world on this forum
- Participate in and browse from over 516,210+ posts.
- Communicate privately with other divers from around the world.
- Post your own photos or view from 7,441+ user submitted images.
- All this and much more...
You can gain access to all this absolutely free when you register for an account, so sign up today!
Conservation, environment and ethics.
- Thread starterdevondave
- Start date
Thread Status: Hello
, There was no answer in this thread for more than 60 days.
It can take a long time to get an up-to-date response or contact with relevant users.
It can take a long time to get an up-to-date response or contact with relevant users.
I read this book and it nearly made me cry. I believe anyone who 'takes' from the sea should read this excellent book!!!
Shark researcher: A great white landed in my boat - life - 10 August 2011 - New Scientist
Apart from the silly questions, this is worth a read.
Apart from the silly questions, this is worth a read.
How Dangerous Is It to Use Cyanide to Catch Fish?: Scientific American
Not as destructive as dynamite perhaps, but still not good.
Not as destructive as dynamite perhaps, but still not good.
Well in some places they used to pay for specimens you had killed, now they have researched them in many reefs and they are found to be a normal part of life, and not the evil they were first thought to be.
Global temperature increase (from the burning of fossil fuels[Kyoto protocol my a$$]), polar icecap reduction, phytoplankton levels severely reduced compared to pre-industrial levels ...here's a short article but a quick search on google will produce a lot more results
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/full/nature09268.html
.....ecosystem collapse for a start see.... http://climatide.wgbh.org/tag/plastic/ , massive overfishing, land reclamation projects (Dubai and Bahrain come to mind)...... you can't tell me 300 million cubic meters of sand isnt going to screw up an ecosystem.
For watermen and women who care about the oceans there is a lot on the table right now.... I wouldn't know where to start to discuss it all [let alone do anything about it]. All i can say is that i want my little boy to be able to be able to fall in love with the ocean the way i did.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/full/nature09268.html
.....ecosystem collapse for a start see.... http://climatide.wgbh.org/tag/plastic/ , massive overfishing, land reclamation projects (Dubai and Bahrain come to mind)...... you can't tell me 300 million cubic meters of sand isnt going to screw up an ecosystem.
For watermen and women who care about the oceans there is a lot on the table right now.... I wouldn't know where to start to discuss it all [let alone do anything about it]. All i can say is that i want my little boy to be able to be able to fall in love with the ocean the way i did.
I think this thread is a good initiative and DeeperBlue deserves credit for bringing it up.
It's been partly mentioned in a previous post, but I'd like to continue the discussion about spearfishing as a possible ecological problem. A topic I find interesting is the fact that most spearos target the largest fish they can find or have the option of shooting. This is easily understandable and I know I do it myself. If I have a choice to shoot either a 1 kg or a 5 kg pollack, I will definitely aim for the 5 kg one. Many spearos justify this selective harvesting of the bigger fish by saying it is ecologically better to take one, or a few, large fish than many small ones. In my mind, this is a faulty assumption. Even if you shoot, pound for pound, the same amount of small fish as you would be taking if you shot one or two bigger fish of the same species, they will not match the ecological importance of the bigger fish. Why is this so? Well, I have a few arguments:
1. A big fish has once been a small fish and only a very limited amount of small fish ever become big fish. The ones that don’t get big usually end up as food for the ones that eventually will get big. The big fish have eaten all their lives to get to their current size and consumed vast amounts of smaller fish. This amount is much larger than their pound for pound weight; the big fish require something in the range of 10 to 20 kgs of small fish to grow 1 kg themselves. Therefore, from a nutrient balance perspective, catching smaller fish is more beneficial to the ecosystem. Since you harvest fish that mostly are in abundance and would otherwise mostly not get big.
2. Big fish are the breeding stock and therefore the lifeblood of the population. Many people believe that by not targeting the smaller fish, they give the small fish a “chance to breed”. This may be the case in nearly decimated populations where all or most of the bigger fish are gone and a new breeding stock has to be established at all costs. In such a situation fish of all sizes must be protected at all cost, and even then the bigger fish that are still left are more valuable than the little fish, as they are already ready to breed, while the small ones still have quite a way left. Whether the population is nearly decimated or not, the big fish are the ones that have the most reproductive success due to their size. In many species, big fish females produce more eggs (pound for pound) of better quality than bigger fish. The result is that a larger proportion of the big fishs’ offspring survive to adulthood compared to offspring from comparatively little fish.
3. By targeting big fish, you may be targeting one sex only. In some species, the small fish are all one sex and only change into another sex once they reach a certain size or rank in the hierarchy. This is the case with at least one species of wrasse in Norway. The fish start out as females and is part of a “harem” governed by a single, large male. When the head honcho dies, the highest ranking female will become male and take over the harem of females. If there are enough biggish females to go around, this may not be a problem, but many species may grow so slow that getting to a size that allows sex-change may not be so quick, and there will be a temporary drop in production of offspring, especially in relatively confined habitats such as reefs. This problem is likely to be even more devastating in species where the sex change goes the other way, in effect that the small fish are all males and turn into females when they get big. Then the population will be lacking females and the ones that are “just big enough” to become females may not produce as much offspring (ref comment no 2 above).
A bit on the side of this selective harvesting issue is the predatory pressure that spearos (or sportfisherman) that catch for fun/leisure can put on a population compared to a “natural” predator such as a large fish, seal or cormorant. If a “natural” predator ever decimates a population of fish beyond a certain level it can no longer catch enough fish to sustain itself and will be forced to move to another area in order to avoid starvation and possible death. This ensures that the predatory pressure drops and the fish population can bounce back. As the fish population increases again the predators come back or increase and the cycle continues. However, when the predator is human and hunts (mainly) for sport or fun the incentive to persist in the hunt can be much stronger than for a “natural” predator. Even if a spearo doesn’t catch fish 2, 3 or 10 times in a row, he may still go back and try again since he enjoys the hunt and is not depending on a catch to sustain himself. Therefore the spearo may be a much more devastating predator to a population of fish than a “natural” predator. This is, in my mind, the biggest threat we as spearos pose to fish stocks. If the stocks are already low from other causes, such as commercial fishing, this is of even greater concern.
It's been partly mentioned in a previous post, but I'd like to continue the discussion about spearfishing as a possible ecological problem. A topic I find interesting is the fact that most spearos target the largest fish they can find or have the option of shooting. This is easily understandable and I know I do it myself. If I have a choice to shoot either a 1 kg or a 5 kg pollack, I will definitely aim for the 5 kg one. Many spearos justify this selective harvesting of the bigger fish by saying it is ecologically better to take one, or a few, large fish than many small ones. In my mind, this is a faulty assumption. Even if you shoot, pound for pound, the same amount of small fish as you would be taking if you shot one or two bigger fish of the same species, they will not match the ecological importance of the bigger fish. Why is this so? Well, I have a few arguments:
1. A big fish has once been a small fish and only a very limited amount of small fish ever become big fish. The ones that don’t get big usually end up as food for the ones that eventually will get big. The big fish have eaten all their lives to get to their current size and consumed vast amounts of smaller fish. This amount is much larger than their pound for pound weight; the big fish require something in the range of 10 to 20 kgs of small fish to grow 1 kg themselves. Therefore, from a nutrient balance perspective, catching smaller fish is more beneficial to the ecosystem. Since you harvest fish that mostly are in abundance and would otherwise mostly not get big.
2. Big fish are the breeding stock and therefore the lifeblood of the population. Many people believe that by not targeting the smaller fish, they give the small fish a “chance to breed”. This may be the case in nearly decimated populations where all or most of the bigger fish are gone and a new breeding stock has to be established at all costs. In such a situation fish of all sizes must be protected at all cost, and even then the bigger fish that are still left are more valuable than the little fish, as they are already ready to breed, while the small ones still have quite a way left. Whether the population is nearly decimated or not, the big fish are the ones that have the most reproductive success due to their size. In many species, big fish females produce more eggs (pound for pound) of better quality than bigger fish. The result is that a larger proportion of the big fishs’ offspring survive to adulthood compared to offspring from comparatively little fish.
3. By targeting big fish, you may be targeting one sex only. In some species, the small fish are all one sex and only change into another sex once they reach a certain size or rank in the hierarchy. This is the case with at least one species of wrasse in Norway. The fish start out as females and is part of a “harem” governed by a single, large male. When the head honcho dies, the highest ranking female will become male and take over the harem of females. If there are enough biggish females to go around, this may not be a problem, but many species may grow so slow that getting to a size that allows sex-change may not be so quick, and there will be a temporary drop in production of offspring, especially in relatively confined habitats such as reefs. This problem is likely to be even more devastating in species where the sex change goes the other way, in effect that the small fish are all males and turn into females when they get big. Then the population will be lacking females and the ones that are “just big enough” to become females may not produce as much offspring (ref comment no 2 above).
A bit on the side of this selective harvesting issue is the predatory pressure that spearos (or sportfisherman) that catch for fun/leisure can put on a population compared to a “natural” predator such as a large fish, seal or cormorant. If a “natural” predator ever decimates a population of fish beyond a certain level it can no longer catch enough fish to sustain itself and will be forced to move to another area in order to avoid starvation and possible death. This ensures that the predatory pressure drops and the fish population can bounce back. As the fish population increases again the predators come back or increase and the cycle continues. However, when the predator is human and hunts (mainly) for sport or fun the incentive to persist in the hunt can be much stronger than for a “natural” predator. Even if a spearo doesn’t catch fish 2, 3 or 10 times in a row, he may still go back and try again since he enjoys the hunt and is not depending on a catch to sustain himself. Therefore the spearo may be a much more devastating predator to a population of fish than a “natural” predator. This is, in my mind, the biggest threat we as spearos pose to fish stocks. If the stocks are already low from other causes, such as commercial fishing, this is of even greater concern.
My old local beaches used to be among the best in the world, and Kirra beach in particular was considered by many pro-surfers to be the best break on Earth when it was pumping. Then the council dredged up tons of sand and pumped it all onto the beaches surrounding the Southern Gold Coast and now they are all ruined. miles of sand lays between where the tide line USED to come to and where it is today.
Case in point there reeftroll .... yet another article of people in a similar situation.
Bahraini fishermen blame development for forcing them into gunsights of Qatar - The National
I am so animated about the middle east because i was very excited to go there and get in some first class spearing... what i found were stagnant areas devoid of biodiversity and sometimes with nothing at all in the water. (with the exception of industrial waste)
... its the same story closer to home as i am watching the harbor here in Guam being dredged out for a new pier for larger ships.... in the past 3 years i have seen an evident decline in fish population (all species), reef health declining due to poor water quality and bad visibility (thus impeding the ability for light to reach the organisms which make up the reef structure).... the local fish market where i used to sell my in-harbor catch now won't even take fish caught there.... am i supposed to tell my family it is safe to eat [the fish] when i can't sell them to the general public? It's the same old story of greed and industrial infrastructure screwing over the "little guys" ....not a new development by any means.
As for Anders post.... i agree entirely that the taking of fish (by anyone) has a negative environmental impact including but not at all limited to spearos taking larger breeding fish. This is a psychological issue and one which our (i say "our" very loosely) entire culture shares.... it isn't impressive if i bring up a stringer with 4 or 5 1-2 lb fish but peoples jaws start dropping when i am dragging anywhere from 5-15 10+ pounders (some ranging to 50+) out of the water .... no matter how mature of a spearo you happen to be or how environmentally conscious you are, you will never match the negative impact that industrial infrastructure (gulf oil spill, exxon valdez, tar sands runoff, rivers with huge dams [a vast majority here in the US], agribusiness irrigation, pesticides etc....) has on the marine population. So the regulating of ourselves is.... (sadly if i may say so) a moot point as far as the recreational spearfisherman is concerned.
Making a difference has to start elsewhere .... i can only hope that it comes to a point where regulating your catch individually has an impact someday. I am not holding my breath (no pun intended) on a paradigm shift from the power structures that "guide" us until that point.
Anders:
Very thoughtful post with some interesting logic. However, the ability of spearfishermen to affect fish population abundance is so species/conditions specific that those things greatly exceed the effect of the factors you write about. That's not to say that spearfishing can't be a significant resource problem, it certainly can, hogfish in the Keys and hogs and grouper in the Bahamas are classic examples, but most species just don't qualify. Think Spanish or king mackerel, blue marlin, dolphin fish, cod, halibut, just to suggest a few. Better to qualify your comments to certain types of situations. For example, bottom dwelling species in clear water where a substantial part of the population is reachable by spearos.
I am not persuaded by your big fish/little fish arguments, too many factors interacting in ways we don't understand. Same with sexual selection. I've seen no evidence that it is important, even in a species that has clearly been overfished by spearos and has territorial sex changed males(hogfish). They just switch sex at a smaller size, doesn't seem to have a negative effect on reproduction.
You raise one little understood and very significant point. Lack of economic constraint allows "sport" spearos to fish down a population (assuming a situation where such is possible) to a much greater degree than a natural predator or commercial spearo. I think that is a major contributor to what we see with hogs and grouper in the keys. Would not be surprised if it is a substantial contributor to the problems in the Med. One should be aware that the same thing happens in commercial fisheries through gear change. For example, in the Bahamas, large scale commercial exploitation of groupers began with free diving spearfishing. As the population declined, divers switched to hookah, a more efficient form of spearing. As the population declined further and spearing became less and less profitable, dive boats started switching to fish traps, a far more efficient gear and the remaining grouper population was decimated. The abundance change from all this has been huge, far greater than 95%. I spent 8 days diving south of Bimini this year and did not see a single large grouper. This in an area where 30 years back I would expect to shot 8-20 large grouper in a day and see many more.
Nice recent history on hogfish: Imposition of a 12inch minimum size has dramatically raised the abundance of small fish in the keys. Seems like overfishing has not badly affected reproduction in that instance. Abundance drops fast after 12 inches. Looks like they are taken pretty fast once they are legal. We could use a larger size limit, IMHO.
Connor
Very thoughtful post with some interesting logic. However, the ability of spearfishermen to affect fish population abundance is so species/conditions specific that those things greatly exceed the effect of the factors you write about. That's not to say that spearfishing can't be a significant resource problem, it certainly can, hogfish in the Keys and hogs and grouper in the Bahamas are classic examples, but most species just don't qualify. Think Spanish or king mackerel, blue marlin, dolphin fish, cod, halibut, just to suggest a few. Better to qualify your comments to certain types of situations. For example, bottom dwelling species in clear water where a substantial part of the population is reachable by spearos.
I am not persuaded by your big fish/little fish arguments, too many factors interacting in ways we don't understand. Same with sexual selection. I've seen no evidence that it is important, even in a species that has clearly been overfished by spearos and has territorial sex changed males(hogfish). They just switch sex at a smaller size, doesn't seem to have a negative effect on reproduction.
You raise one little understood and very significant point. Lack of economic constraint allows "sport" spearos to fish down a population (assuming a situation where such is possible) to a much greater degree than a natural predator or commercial spearo. I think that is a major contributor to what we see with hogs and grouper in the keys. Would not be surprised if it is a substantial contributor to the problems in the Med. One should be aware that the same thing happens in commercial fisheries through gear change. For example, in the Bahamas, large scale commercial exploitation of groupers began with free diving spearfishing. As the population declined, divers switched to hookah, a more efficient form of spearing. As the population declined further and spearing became less and less profitable, dive boats started switching to fish traps, a far more efficient gear and the remaining grouper population was decimated. The abundance change from all this has been huge, far greater than 95%. I spent 8 days diving south of Bimini this year and did not see a single large grouper. This in an area where 30 years back I would expect to shot 8-20 large grouper in a day and see many more.
Nice recent history on hogfish: Imposition of a 12inch minimum size has dramatically raised the abundance of small fish in the keys. Seems like overfishing has not badly affected reproduction in that instance. Abundance drops fast after 12 inches. Looks like they are taken pretty fast once they are legal. We could use a larger size limit, IMHO.
Connor
Last edited:
Anders has some great points...
There definately should be a min and max size allowable for fishing, if even as a volountarily code of ethics... the problem with large fish been shot is that they are large fish cos they are the most intelligent and strongest... its important for their species that these genes be passed on...
Imagine where humans would be know if a superior race only took our strongest and most intelligient specimens for consumption and left the weaker and and dumber...
I think spearo's generally cannot make a difference on fishstocks, but certain species who are terrotiorial etc can be effected by spearfishermen. Wrasse are a very good example. However in Anders point I would suggest shooting the larger ones as the smaller are female and breeders... but I guess there could be arguement for the opposite...
There definately should be a min and max size allowable for fishing, if even as a volountarily code of ethics... the problem with large fish been shot is that they are large fish cos they are the most intelligent and strongest... its important for their species that these genes be passed on...
Imagine where humans would be know if a superior race only took our strongest and most intelligient specimens for consumption and left the weaker and and dumber...
I think spearo's generally cannot make a difference on fishstocks, but certain species who are terrotiorial etc can be effected by spearfishermen. Wrasse are a very good example. However in Anders point I would suggest shooting the larger ones as the smaller are female and breeders... but I guess there could be arguement for the opposite...
Unfortunately this has already been witnessed in the Med, specifically concerning grouper. In the early days of spearing in the Med, 1945-1950, many large grouper were taken in relatively shallow water as they had never really encountered serious predation (commercial net fishermen rarely landed them as they lived where the nets couldn't reach them). As spearfishing exploded in the Med, the grouper began to disappear and started to retreat into deeper and deeper water. The bulk of this was down to spearfishing. Interestingly in areas which have been declared conservation areas, and I can speak of personal experience in Spain, they have rebounded and you can see them in healthy numbers in relatively shallow water. Ironically this was well-documented in an early Jacques Cousteau book, I think it was called "Silent World" where he talks about spearing huge grouper during the second world war but then also noticing their decline. He famously went on to decry spearfishing largely from his experiences with spearing grouper.
Thank you Spaniard. I'm delighted to discover that sanctuaries are being used in the Med and are working. They work astonishingly well in the Keys, even very small ones. Sometimes it looks very much like the fish know exactly where the line is.
Pics of speared grouper in "The Silent World" should be required study for every spear fisherman, especially those in the Med who know what it is like today. Those pics look just like ones taken by me and my buddies in the 1970's in the Keys, all the fish taken from shallow water, areas that are fishless today.
No one should ever believe that, given the right circumstances, spearos can't overfish some species.
Connor
Pics of speared grouper in "The Silent World" should be required study for every spear fisherman, especially those in the Med who know what it is like today. Those pics look just like ones taken by me and my buddies in the 1970's in the Keys, all the fish taken from shallow water, areas that are fishless today.
No one should ever believe that, given the right circumstances, spearos can't overfish some species.
Connor
Last edited:
Good to know my ideas sparked some interest 
As bobdonny suggested, I think both min and max size limits would be a good idea, but likely hard to put into effect.. Taking THE trophy fish is for many what it's all about so it may be harder to get people to follow that type of restriction as compared to a minimum size limit.
Connor: Although the sex-selectivity may have been a stretch, I do believe the size selective harvesting can have a considerable impact on certain fish populations. The example you mentioned with hogfish is a good example. Although the population is not eradicated, if they now grow to a smaller size before maturation that is a definite change in the population. This change may not be very negative from a biological perspective (it certainly is negative from a fishermans or spearos perspective) but it can be, we just can't tell. In any case, we (humans) have caused a change in the population that could have been avoided. In my opininon, that is regrettable simply because we don't know if or how we're causing harm. And when we don't know what we're doing it's better to leave it as it is..
A change in a population due to size selective harvesting is much more likely in a species (or population) with a restricted habitat, e.g. in a ranch where game are being kept simply so that trophy hunters can come and shoot trophies. If you selectively harvest the smallest individuals from every generation I'm certain you'd produce more trophies in the end, simply because only the ones that grow fast (and get big) are allowed to reproduce. That is animal (livestock) breeding in a nutshell. As long as the population is restricted enough and the selective harvesting is allowed to go on over time there is no reason why the same principals shouldn't apply to wild populations (but I admit this is getting a tad theoretical).
As bobdonny suggested, I think both min and max size limits would be a good idea, but likely hard to put into effect.. Taking THE trophy fish is for many what it's all about so it may be harder to get people to follow that type of restriction as compared to a minimum size limit.
Connor: Although the sex-selectivity may have been a stretch, I do believe the size selective harvesting can have a considerable impact on certain fish populations. The example you mentioned with hogfish is a good example. Although the population is not eradicated, if they now grow to a smaller size before maturation that is a definite change in the population. This change may not be very negative from a biological perspective (it certainly is negative from a fishermans or spearos perspective) but it can be, we just can't tell. In any case, we (humans) have caused a change in the population that could have been avoided. In my opininon, that is regrettable simply because we don't know if or how we're causing harm. And when we don't know what we're doing it's better to leave it as it is..
A change in a population due to size selective harvesting is much more likely in a species (or population) with a restricted habitat, e.g. in a ranch where game are being kept simply so that trophy hunters can come and shoot trophies. If you selectively harvest the smallest individuals from every generation I'm certain you'd produce more trophies in the end, simply because only the ones that grow fast (and get big) are allowed to reproduce. That is animal (livestock) breeding in a nutshell. As long as the population is restricted enough and the selective harvesting is allowed to go on over time there is no reason why the same principals shouldn't apply to wild populations (but I admit this is getting a tad theoretical
).I think this topic, Conservation, Environment and Ethics, is a great idea! Refreshing to see open discussion on what's important in this world of ours.
It's just as a running thread specific subjects can get confused or obscure and even lost when mixed together. Wouldn't this work much better as a subforum in General, and have threads on specific environmental subjects?
For example i didn't see any comments on the shark fins or the use of cyanide... both of these could have their own thread, no?
I myself, refrained from commenting just because i did not want to interrupt the flow of the main subject being discussed.
kirk
It's just as a running thread specific subjects can get confused or obscure and even lost when mixed together. Wouldn't this work much better as a subforum in General, and have threads on specific environmental subjects?
For example i didn't see any comments on the shark fins or the use of cyanide... both of these could have their own thread, no?
I myself, refrained from commenting just because i did not want to interrupt the flow of the main subject being discussed.
kirk
this is a big topic here. consider that you're aquarium may be (is) destroying reef systems. Even in areas that are supposed to be off limits to collecting rules are generally ignored and enforcement of regulations here is fairly week.Poll Shows Overwhelming Support for Ending the Commercial Collection of Hawaii's Reef Wildlife for Aquariums : The Humane Society of the United States
I like the overfishing of lionfish idea. In bermy it's the only thing you can spear without the 200 dollar license for spearfishing. As a spearfisher I think it would be impossible to even kill 1/100th of a percent even for the sketchy folks who use O2 an pneumatic guns of what commercial fisherman do. We spread the word about conservation as lovers of the sea. Strict regulations do indeed help though. Here you can only use polespears and and have to be a mile off shore.