I was going to refrain from posting anything on this topic since I really don’t have an opinion on it one way or another, but there have been a few different things brought up that just are begging to be commented on.
First, is this notion that underwater photography is some how better for the environment than spearfishing. I used to think this was true until I had a long talk with another scuba instructor that I used to work with. He was WAY into being environmentally friendly- long time vegetarian who would never think of eating a fish or any other animal. He even went so far as to run one of the Nikon Photography Schools down in the Islands back in the late 80’s. After about two years he had to get out of it because it was a farce. It seems that after taking photos all day long they would have to come back to the shop to develop the slides for all of the “environmentally conscious” tourists. This became a problem as they would then dump all of the developing chemicals into the ocean when they were done. Just think about how much more damage was being done to those reefs, and the fish life that lived there, by the constant chemical bath compared to a few fish being taken, and eaten, by the divers that once speared there.
This is what I think is more of a lesson as to what is different between the Mediterranean and the US. They have had 2,000+ years of civilization to thoroughly pollute, and over fish, their local waters compared to the few hundred years that we have had in the US. Whether once chooses to spear while freediving or on scuba is of little consequence compared to the damage the being done by pollution and the ever receding environmental laws.
The US is only beginning to feel the effects of this compared to Europe. Ted and I now need to access specific lake reports before we ever hit the water and decided to spearfish since every lake in Wisconsin has now been effect by Mercury pollution. My pregnant wife can’t eat any of the fish that I shoot, nor may my toddler. I, myself, refrain from eating as much fish as a used to, and limit myself to what I am now willing to shoot. Deciding to do it on scuba or while freediving doesn’t even enter into the equation since there are much bigger issues at stake.
As far as Bill’s question goes, I’ll bite- there is no difference.
The one thing that really got me to post was the comment about “bombs” and a sense of humor. Nmoris, we don’t all agree with dropping bombs to solve problems- so please don't generalize us as so. This is why I must also take particular exception to Jay’s comment, “apparently most Americans must not disagree w/ our current policy since the president won by the largest popular vote ever”. You see there are at least 48% of us in this country who STRONGLY disagree with these policies- more if you discount the voting irregularities caused by Bush’s buddies who own Dibold. :ko Many of us would like nothing more than to see him get what he deserves- impeachment for lying to the US citizens at the very least. Of course I don’t expect everyone to agree with me- I am quite sure that 51% of you will disagree. :girlie But please don’t paint all Americans with so wide a brush- either of you. :rcard
In the end the Bush policies on environmental laws I find much more appalling and threatening to spearfishing in this country than rather someone decides to use a tank, or rebreather, to hunt down their favorite prey.
The rest of it, scuba vs. freediving, is just a difference in sports. As someone else pointed out on here, there are those who would only hunt by bow rather than stoop to the level of using a gun. None is better than another, just different types of sport.
Speaking of different types of sport, I once saw a post on another forum about freediving being a sport for “two year olds”. This person went on to reason that only a 2 year old would participate in a sport where you hold your breath until people notice you. I didn’t exactly agree with this person, but I laughed my a$$ off just thinking about it. rofl
Just my $0.02- not that it matters much.
Jon
