Read the original post on DeeperBlue.com...
-
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!
Commentary Does Spearfishing Contribute To The Loss Of Fish Stocks In Spain?
- Thread starterDeeperBlue.com
- 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.
Read the original post on DeeperBlue.com...
Well, I would be hard-pressed to agree with any report that states that the aggregate numbers of fish taken by spear-fishermen in a large, coastal region was causal to fish stock declines of such magnitude. In my experience, there are just not that many spearos in the water taking that many fish...one day with a commercial trawler would remove as many fish as a year's spearing activity. The report does not explore the other factors (climate change, pollution, invasive species, silting, construction, dredging, poaching, commercial fishing, pole and line fishing, etc. ) that could be contributing to the loss of select bony fish stock.A lot of spearfishing advocates claim that their sport is more environmentally friendly because, unlike recreational or commercial fishermen who use hook-line-and-bait systems, the spearo can select his/her specific fish. A recent study published in “Fisheries Management and Ecology,” however, appears to conclude that recreational spearfishing competitions off the Northwestern coast of Spain helped reduce […]
Read the original post on DeeperBlue.com...
Unfortunately the complete report isn't available unless one registers and take out a subscription so I didn't read the whole thing.
I can only talk from a South African perspective but I think the basis of it could be flawed as what happens in spearfishing competitions and what happens in normal day-to-day diving in a specific area are two completely different things. During a comp you usually have an influx of spearos to a specific area and traditionally the spearos that compete tend to be more serious about the sport which has the effect that you have a group of very good spearos that work an set area intensively for the duration of the comp. Hence catch statistics for competitions will be completely different to what actually happens on a yearly basis.
In saying that, humans being competitive beings, most spearos will when given the opportunity rather shoot the bigger fish in a school. In most fish species, up to a certain age, larger individuals produce more offspring than smaller sexually mature fish which means that spearos tend to harvest the best breeders. This has a big impact on specifically resident reef species which tend to grow much slower than pelagic fish, so constantly shooting the biggest fish in an area will over time lead to the decline of the species.
This is of-course somewhat of a generalisation, as some spearos will take fish very sustainably, only shooting abundant fish and then also only within a sustainable size band, leaving smaller fish so that they may grow bigger and leaving the biggest individuals so that they may breed. However, I've seen this happen first-hand with a couple of species in a few areas which I for a fact know are fished very infrequently but quite heavily targeted by spearos.
I can only talk from a South African perspective but I think the basis of it could be flawed as what happens in spearfishing competitions and what happens in normal day-to-day diving in a specific area are two completely different things. During a comp you usually have an influx of spearos to a specific area and traditionally the spearos that compete tend to be more serious about the sport which has the effect that you have a group of very good spearos that work an set area intensively for the duration of the comp. Hence catch statistics for competitions will be completely different to what actually happens on a yearly basis.
In saying that, humans being competitive beings, most spearos will when given the opportunity rather shoot the bigger fish in a school. In most fish species, up to a certain age, larger individuals produce more offspring than smaller sexually mature fish which means that spearos tend to harvest the best breeders. This has a big impact on specifically resident reef species which tend to grow much slower than pelagic fish, so constantly shooting the biggest fish in an area will over time lead to the decline of the species.
This is of-course somewhat of a generalisation, as some spearos will take fish very sustainably, only shooting abundant fish and then also only within a sustainable size band, leaving smaller fish so that they may grow bigger and leaving the biggest individuals so that they may breed. However, I've seen this happen first-hand with a couple of species in a few areas which I for a fact know are fished very infrequently but quite heavily targeted by spearos.
It would be nice if one could verify the whole document without a pay wall.
I'm a sceptic, having seen what people are prepared to do for money, from wherever it comes.
Why spent another dime on proving 'man made global warming' if the science is settled? Our politicians are all on board, our scientist sing the same tune, and business is trading carbon credits and buying their CO2 neutral labels. Why put so much money in having governments and media tell us day in day out that the end of humanity is close? What's the use in having the people believe in human made global warming?
Apparently I did not post this before I closed my browser yesterday, so it may not sound relevant to the latest most insightful post, which I feel should be in a spearfishing guide, and come along as a leaflet with buying of a speargun.
I'm a sceptic, having seen what people are prepared to do for money, from wherever it comes.
Why spent another dime on proving 'man made global warming' if the science is settled? Our politicians are all on board, our scientist sing the same tune, and business is trading carbon credits and buying their CO2 neutral labels. Why put so much money in having governments and media tell us day in day out that the end of humanity is close? What's the use in having the people believe in human made global warming?
Apparently I did not post this before I closed my browser yesterday, so it may not sound relevant to the latest most insightful post, which I feel should be in a spearfishing guide, and come along as a leaflet with buying of a speargun.
ditto on the whole document.
The DB text suggests that spearfishing competitions, by themselves, caused the documented decline. This seems highly suspect. If that is their contention, I'd like to see how they isolated competitions from other mortality. Not that I know anything about the circumstances, but it seems much more likely that competitions are just a way to measure the effects of overall fishing effort, most of which occurred outside of competition. If the authors could show that the species they are addressing are harvested mostly by spearos, they might have a good case for spearos in the aggregate causing a problem, but there isn't enough here to say.
There is no question that, given the right circumstances, free divers can severely deplete a fishery resource. Hogfish populations in the Florida Keys were darn near wiped out, mostly by free diving spearos (I did my part). The population decline was far more than 90 percent. But, it takes just the right circumstances. The divers contention that they are the "ecological" way to harvest has some merit. It is certainly harder to screw up the resource with a spear than with a fish trap, for instance.
Connor
The DB text suggests that spearfishing competitions, by themselves, caused the documented decline. This seems highly suspect. If that is their contention, I'd like to see how they isolated competitions from other mortality. Not that I know anything about the circumstances, but it seems much more likely that competitions are just a way to measure the effects of overall fishing effort, most of which occurred outside of competition. If the authors could show that the species they are addressing are harvested mostly by spearos, they might have a good case for spearos in the aggregate causing a problem, but there isn't enough here to say.
There is no question that, given the right circumstances, free divers can severely deplete a fishery resource. Hogfish populations in the Florida Keys were darn near wiped out, mostly by free diving spearos (I did my part). The population decline was far more than 90 percent. But, it takes just the right circumstances. The divers contention that they are the "ecological" way to harvest has some merit. It is certainly harder to screw up the resource with a spear than with a fish trap, for instance.
Connor
Last edited:
Its about time the experts saw the damage done to both stocks and sea bottom by commercial fishing methods especially trawling.
One article I read proposed banning all commercial fishing within 50 miles of the land. It also suggested that not only would this boost stocks but the breeding areas would expand. More radically a suggestion that only personal catch methods should be used with size and numbers limits as well as banned species,combined with a no sale rule .
To limit damage the use of aids Scuba, scooters and explosives would also be banned.
Whilst this expert was radical he must be a spearo and or angler!
Before the commercial boys comment he also suggested the provision of grants to redeploy those affected by investing in offshore aquaculture to provide the retail industry with its stock.
Food for thought,
One article I read proposed banning all commercial fishing within 50 miles of the land. It also suggested that not only would this boost stocks but the breeding areas would expand. More radically a suggestion that only personal catch methods should be used with size and numbers limits as well as banned species,combined with a no sale rule .
To limit damage the use of aids Scuba, scooters and explosives would also be banned.
Whilst this expert was radical he must be a spearo and or angler!
Before the commercial boys comment he also suggested the provision of grants to redeploy those affected by investing in offshore aquaculture to provide the retail industry with its stock.
Food for thought,
