Ethics of hunting

[billder99]

A more vicious form called "Smug" roflrofl rofl Clever seque Fonduest... you're all killing me with the seriousness of this thread.

If the real subject is "ethics" (and not physical challenge or advantage of scuba), then I think in 130+ posts on this thread Vankata said it best: "The problem is not in if you use a scuba kit or if you use a spear gun, the problem is if you don't care about the fish or the ocean life. If some guy went with the strongest spear gun and the best scuba kit and carefully speared one fish and did not disturb anything else, then brought the fish home and ate it, and then a guy with a home made spear and no other gear went and shot 5 fish 2 for sport and 3 to sell, which guy do you thing did the more ethical thing? What im trying to say is, if it is fun, if it is for your self, and sometimes to sell because there are some men that make money out of spearfishing and still cause less damage than the guy with the homemade spear, if you don't waste the fish and ocean life, I think it is safe to say that it is ok."

Disclaimer: I am 100% freedive-spearfish....

 

[cdavis]

Suck babies milk. . . humpf. When I was a macho scuba spearo, I used to drink babies blood for breakfast. And grouper babies really are drop-dead delicious. Ah, and then there's manatee.

So much for smub, ah smug.

On to a more serious discussion.

Having had quite a lot of experiance in the fisheries management world, I'm afraid those who are trying to talk anglers into thinking they are no threat because they freedive are doomed to failure. Sounds good, is a little bit logical, but just isn't going to work.
Right now, the management systems we are dealing with are dominated by anglers who are totally paranoid about any other kind of gear. Unfortunately, thats a part of how democracy works. I think the only strategy that has any hope of succeeding with anglers is to target their leadership, get'em in the water to see what we do and keep doing it for a long time, till they are friends and have some understanding. A long process. If you could do that ( Yeah, I know, not easy) you could completely change the managment paradym. Might actually work in a relatively small place like a US state where 5-20 people hold the political keys. As it is now, we talk to the managers, who are politically buffaloed by the anglers, a complete waste of time. We talk to the anglers, but not enough to get their understanding, trust or friendship, so they won't lean on the managers. Hopeless.

Connor

 

[apnea_beast]

if i am diving and see anglers i usually chat with them about what i am seeing and ask them what they've been catching. hell, sometimes i'll grab a snagged lure off the bottom and throw it to em. if there regulations were based off scientifically determined sustainable limits and they were strictly enforced none of this would be an issue. another thing to consider about scuba vs. freedive is that scuba guys can hunt deeper reefs and wrecks that would otherwise only have pressure from anglers. the fish from the deeper spots can help populate shallower reefs with their babies but not if they are being hunted consistently by scuba.

 

[icarus pacific]

...it creates and even worse form of pollution called 'smug'.

You said it.

And it is that smug, to the point of condesending, superiority that promotes and manifests the argument. And as I've said before, I've done both, enjoyed them both, practiced responsible limits while doing both and will continue to do so. There are occasions where the only way I'm going to be able to hunt a particular specie or site is while on air or gas. Would I rather do it free?, sure! But doing so while strapped with breathing mixture doesn't make me any less an advocate for the sport and the fishery just because I do.

Enjoy your karma, Conner.:king

 

[wet]

Well, I'm all for scuba-geared anglers, no limits on fish, as long as they're fulled suited and weighted. rofl

But everything else is so political that I can't say anything, except save some fish for the great great great great grandkids. That's just common sense, uncommonly applied in the oceans due to the "crisis in the commons" effect or whatever it's called, where if it's not explicitly owned/protected privately, it gets overconsumed/wrecked.
DDeden

 

[Mr. X]

... Getting a fish is great, but nothing is missing if we don't...

Um...my family don't see it that way. They want their fish supper. [Good posts Fondueset & Bill - I think you guys covered it all between you].

While in Seattle, I heard an radio interview with a guy who worked in a slaughter house. When asked how he felt about the actual killing, he said he liked it, "...best part of the job". I found that disturbing. For me, killing fish is an unfortunate but natural consequence of choosing to eat meat.

 

[Oldsarge]

And now that everyone has had a multitude of opportunities to repeat their unchangeable beliefs, to offer and to suffer the slings and arrows of ill-temper and to inflate their own self-opinion while attempting to deflate that of those they disagree with, I am, after consultation with the other mentors, closing this thread. Nothing personal, you understand, I just want to get back to talking about the how and the where and to let the why sit with each person.

Blessings on all,