 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / August 2008Reef Video
Pollution Threatens Coral Reefs http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=9171514 Saw this on my Video news this morning. Mike (ESG) - were you guy's in on any of this or know the folks herein? ____________________________________________ Regards, Arnold > Pollution Threatens Coral Reefshttp://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=9171514 > > Saw this on my Video news this morning. > > Mike (ESG) - were you guy's in on any of this or know the folks herein? I hope not. Did you catch the talking head's comment right at the end? After the video describing the effects of overfishing and overdevelopment on Florida's reefs, all the idiot could come up with is "Limit the diving and the reefs will heal." Did the video even mention diving as one of the causes of reef deterioration? That's hardly the conclusion I drew from it. > I hope not. Did you catch the talking head's comment right at the > end? After the video describing the effects of overfishing and > overdevelopment on Florida's reefs, all the idiot could come up with > is "Limit the diving and the reefs will heal." Did the video even > mention diving as one of the causes of reef deterioration? That's > hardly the conclusion I drew from it. It's obvious to me that the reporter who said that was influenced by NOAA's Department of Clueless Morons. Limiting access and activity is their answer to everything. This is not Reef Rescue, it is NURC, which receives funding from NOAA. >> I hope not. Did you catch the talking head's comment right at the >> end? After the video describing the effects of overfishing and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >This is not Reef Rescue, it is NURC, which receives funding from NOAA. Which then explains why Sam Champion (the reporter) did this report. He's the chief meteorologist for GMA, and previously, for WABC-TV in NYC. ____________________________________________ Regards, Arnold > I hope not. Did you catch the talking head's comment right at the > end? After the video describing the effects of overfishing and > overdevelopment on Florida's reefs, all the idiot could come up with > is "Limit the diving and the reefs will heal." Did the video even > mention diving as one of the causes of reef deterioration? That's > hardly the conclusion I drew from it. It's obvious to me that the reporter who said that was influenced by NOAA's Department of Clueless Morons. Limiting access and activity is their answer to everything. This is not Reef Rescue, it is NURC, which receives funding from NOAA. NOAA is neither clueless, nor moronic. They are bought and paid for by commercial interests. Lee >>I hope not. Did you catch the talking head's comment right at the >>end? After the video describing the effects of overfishing and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Lee True. For NOAA to take a stand protecting the reefs would be a budget disaster for them. esg >> Pollution Threatens Coral Reefshttp://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=9171514 >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >is "Limit the diving and the reefs will heal." Did the video even >mention diving as one of the causes of reef deterioration? No, it did not. >That's >hardly the conclusion I drew from it. Nor did I. It seems to me that was a bit of "journalistic license" (read: "Muckraking") by Sam Champion, the chief Meterologist at GMA, ABC's morning show (and former meteorlogist at WABC-TV in New York). But nonetheless, a diver he is not..... My question to Mike was orriented more towards the experts we saw in the film.... Especially the ones based in the FFK's that have the lab there etc... ____________________________________________ Regards, Arnold > My question to Mike was orriented more towards the experts we saw in the film.... > Especially the ones based in the FFK's that have the lab there etc... A nice cushy lab? Tell that to the poor west coast hippies who have to live in treetops or chain themselves to trees in order to save the forests. If the lazy Floridian reef rescuers had any balls, they'd chain themselves to the reefs and personally brave the onslaught of raw sewage. They'd find a nice sponge and curl up inside it for a month or so. Or better yet, they'd commit some nifty eco-terror pranks like plugging the end of the outflows so all the raw sewage backs up on the flushers. That would earn them some attention. >>My question to Mike was orriented more towards the experts we saw in the film.... >>Especially the ones based in the FFK's that have the lab there etc... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > chain themselves to the reefs and personally brave the onslaught of > raw sewage. I can give you at least two instances of nasty infections acquired by Reef Rescue divers while taking samples of the outfalls. They'd find a nice sponge and curl up inside it for a > month or so. Or better yet, they'd commit some nifty eco-terror > pranks like plugging the end of the outflows so all the raw sewage > backs up on the flushers. That's a great idea, and i explored it. It is feasible to plug the outfalls, but the sewage does not back up to the flushers, just to the treatment plants. That would earn them some attention. If it backed up to the flushers, most of whom are unaware that their toilets flush just off the beaches, it would be great attention. But disrupting the plants would prolly not even make the papers. We do what we can, and we've had a lot of press. When Gov. Crist signed the outfall bill a few weeks ago, he presented the pen to Ed Tichenor, Reef Rescue director. But we try to stay focused on making very specific change, not just getting attention, and that has been our success. esg > > A nice cushy lab? Tell that to the poor west coast hippies who have > > to live in treetops or chain themselves to trees in order to save the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I can give you at least two instances of nasty infections acquired by > Reef Rescue divers while taking samples of the outfalls. Veneral diseases contracted from Reef Rescue groupies don't count. > If it backed up to the flushers, most of whom are unaware that their > toilets flush just off the beaches, it would be great attention. But > disrupting the plants would prolly not even make the papers. True. They'd dump the crap in the swamps instead and no one would even notice. > We do what we can, and we've had a lot of press. When Gov. Crist signed > the outfall bill a few weeks ago, he presented the pen to Ed Tichenor, > Reef Rescue director. Hey, if you can't save Florida, at least a nice pen is good. Hopefully it's refillable? >>>Pollution Threatens Coral Reefshttp://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=9171514 >>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Arnold Reef Rescue is not involved in any of the stuff on the video. The section of reef from the Tortugas to the south Dade line is a Marine Protected area. The good news is that there are specific areas where anchoring is prohibited, fishing is restricted, etc and there are fed funds for enforcement. The bad news is that there's a lot of "research" that is just grant-scam. NOAA has virtually no control over its grantees. Some are doing good work for the benefit of the reefs. Some are doing studies because there's money in it. Some (Proni, for one) are simultaneously taking consulting fees from the worst of the polluters and insisting that sewage on the reefs has no effect (and the Gulf Stream flows south, not north). There is no question that the major man-made stressors on the reef are sewage, runoff, and fishing including anchor damage. Diving has had an impact in certain areas of the Keys where it is highly concentrated, but virtually none elsewhere. One project Reef Rescue is currently working on is to get anchoring in the reef under control. There is a weak statute that can be enforced only if a specific boat can be definitely linked with an actual anchor in actual coral. We are collecting evidence (an anchor in coral, up the line to the boat registration number in unbroken video) and hope to have a violator in court soon. We then need to make these cases highly public. Anchor damage in Acropera could bring a $25,000 fine (Reef Rescue was instrumental in getting protection for Acropera, and is GPS mapping all Acropera growth on the local reefs), and we think that if boaters become aware that they can end up in court, they will be more careful. We have Fish and Wildlife support for a MPA in Palm Beach County, but the sport fishing lobby, which is very strong and well-funded, has already told us they will fight it. Personally, I think fed protection is the only hope for these reefs. Without the fed money for enforcement, it's futile. esg PS: regarding accusations that I have been involved in a rash of anchor-line cuttings on local reefs, let me remind y'all that there is no hard evidence to link me to these atrocities. > Personally, I think fed protection is the only hope for these reefs. > Without the fed money for enforcement, it's futile. Don't worry. The feds will provide lots of protection once they put up the oil wells. "No boats within 500 feet of active drilling platforms installed on Acropera" and that sort of thing. You have a friend in John McCain. > PS: regarding accusations that I have been involved in a rash of > anchor-line cuttings on local reefs, let me remind y'all that there is > no hard evidence to link me to these atrocities. Sure, that anchor collection in your yard was there before you moved in. > The section of reef from the Tortugas to the south Dade line is a Marine > Protected area. Is that new since last year? If not, then only portions are. About this time last year, I lobstered and spearfished my way out to, around and back from the Dry Tortugas. The park, itself, is protected as were an increased area near the fort, but the protection did not extend to the entire reef back to the Miami Dade border. > There is no question that the major man-made stressors on the reef are > sewage, runoff, and fishing including anchor damage. Diving has had an > impact in certain areas of the Keys where it is highly concentrated, but > virtually none elsewhere. There's question in my mind. It's certain that sewage and runoff are major factors. I'm not even close to being convinced that fishing or anchor damage are even close to the top of the list. > One project Reef Rescue is currently working on is to get anchoring in the > reef under control. There is a weak statute that can be enforced only if a > specific boat can be definitely linked with an actual anchor in actual > coral. We are collecting evidence (an anchor in coral, up the line to the > boat registration number in unbroken video) and hope to have a violator in > court soon. We then need to make these cases highly public. A workable plan, but there are a lot of people doing damage and only a few to assist in enforcement. > Anchor damage in Acropera could bring a $25,000 fine (Reef Rescue was > instrumental in getting protection for Acropera, and is GPS mapping all > Acropera growth on the local reefs), and we think that if boaters become > aware that they can end up in court, they will be more careful. It's hard to be careful when you don't know what's below you. It's a lot easier for divers than for fishermen or those simply stopping for lunch. Lee >>The section of reef from the Tortugas to the south Dade line is a Marine >>Protected area. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > area near the fort, but the protection did not extend to the entire reef > back to the Miami Dade border. The entire area is a MPA. Restrictions vary within it, from no nothing to anything goes. >>There is no question that the major man-made stressors on the reef are >>sewage, runoff, and fishing including anchor damage. Diving has had an [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > factors. I'm not even close to being convinced that fishing or anchor > damage are even close to the top of the list. The anchor damage on the reefs up here is getting really bad. After dragging the anchor for a half mile, it finally catches. When it can't be retreived, the line is cut and ya have a 90' whip in the current carving a clean V in the reef. I only saw one anchor and line this morning, last week I saw three. >>One project Reef Rescue is currently working on is to get anchoring in the >>reef under control. There is a weak statute that can be enforced only if a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > It's hard to be careful when you don't know what's below you. It's a lot > easier for divers than for fishermen or those simply stopping for lunch. Every one of them has a bottom finder. They find the reef the same way the divers do. > Lee > The anchor damage on the reefs up here is getting really bad. After > dragging the anchor for a half mile, it finally catches. When it can't > be retreived, the line is cut and ya have a 90' whip in the current > carving a clean V in the reef. I only saw one anchor and line this > morning, last week I saw three. Get legislation written so that anchors have to have the owners ID permanently affixed to the anchor. >> The anchor damage on the reefs up here is getting really bad. After >> dragging the anchor for a half mile, it finally catches. When it can't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Get legislation written so that anchors have to have the owners ID >permanently affixed to the anchor. Either that or just put a rope on the anchor and haul it up. Start a business selling anchors back to morons. Name the business "what was yours is now mine" >>> The anchor damage on the reefs up here is getting really bad. >>> After dragging the anchor for a half mile, it finally catches. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > business selling anchors back to morons. Name the business "what was > yours is now mine" Another alternative that might work is permanent moorings along the reef areas, and only allow stopping there. If it was combined with a tax on reef usage that would pay for most or all of the mooring construction and maintenance cost it might be a winner. Just a thought -- it's how they manage the Great Barrier Reef here -- I didn't see any of the sort of dammage you describe when I was there. I'll probably hear why it wouldn't work, but it is an alternative. -Don > Another alternative that might work is permanent > moorings along the reef areas, and only allow > stopping there. If it was combined with a tax > on reef usage that would pay for most or all of > the mooring construction and maintenance cost > it might be a winner. Permanent moorings have consistently caused more damage than they cure. They concentrate people over some of the most sensitive sea bottom in the area, wiht all the damage you would expect from such concentrations. Lee > Either that or just put a rope on the anchor and haul it up. Start a > business selling anchors back to morons. Name the business "what was > yours is now mine" It's not a profitable business, but it's been done. >> The anchor damage on the reefs up here is getting really bad. After >> dragging the anchor for a half mile, it finally catches. When it can't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Get legislation written so that anchors have to have the owners ID > permanently affixed to the anchor. Hey, what a great idea. It would work just like the requirement that a serial number be engraved in every bullet by the firing pin, you know, like they passed in California. Let's engrave the boat's ID numbers in the divers that descend from it too, so we can find the deep pockets when they kick the coral around. Lee > Hey, what a great idea. It would work just like the requirement that a > serial number be engraved in every bullet by the firing pin, you know, like > they passed in California. Let's engrave the boat's ID numbers in the > divers that descend from it too, so we can find the deep pockets when they > kick the coral around. They do it here now with nets. Lot fewer cut loose and left. > They do it here now with nets. > > Lot fewer cut loose and left. If a net gets tangled, what are the options? How do they recover them? For most boaters, at least for fishermen, an anchor pulled into and stuck in the reef only leaves one option. Leave the anchor behind. Lee > > They do it here now with nets. > > Lot fewer cut loose and left. > If a net gets tangled, what are the options? How do they recover them? In the past if the net got "dirty" they would simply cut the float line and the lead line off, set it loose and let it drift. I have recovered 8 in the past ten years. Fishing in the canal isnt like bottom trawling, one end is tied to buoy, the other to the boat and they drify over deep water, or if anchored next to the shore, one end is tied off to a tree and the other to buoy. > For most boaters, at least for fishermen, an anchor pulled into and stuck in > the reef only leaves one option. Leave the anchor behind. Then a responsible boater should report the lost anchor so that it can be recovered and so that it doesn't wipe out any more of the reef than necessary. > Then a responsible boater should report the lost anchor so that it can be > recovered and so that it doesn't wipe out any more of the reef than > necessary. Responsible boaters probably don't anchor on the reef in the first place. >> If a net gets tangled, what are the options? How do they recover them? > In the past if the net got "dirty" they would simply cut the float line > and > the lead line off, set it loose and let it drift. I have recovered 8 in > the > past ten years. So, as I understand it, we're not talking about a net that's entangled, we're talking about one that, for one reason or another, is no longer useful and, rather than dispose of it correctly, they simply cut it loose and motor away. I presume that both the float and lead lines go with the cut free net, correct? I can see where that might piss environmentally aware people off. >> For most boaters, at least for fishermen, an anchor pulled into and stuck >> in the reef only leaves one option. Leave the anchor behind. > Then a responsible boater should report the lost anchor so that it can be > recovered and so that it doesn't wipe out any more of the reef than > necessary. That's an interesting idea. I'm not sure that there's anyone to call or, for that matter, how easy it would be for someone that was called to located the cut anchor. Personally, I don't see this as the same kind of problem Mike does. He says he's seen ropes wipe out whole sections of reef. I've never seen that. An anchor and chain, laying on a reef tends to stay on the bottom and soon becomes part of the reef. I've just not seen much damage at all from abandoned anchors. I would be a lot more concerned about those that anchor in the sand, or on the reef itself, whose chain drags across the reef while still connected to the boat. A chain dragged back and forth by a boat subject to wind, waves and current would almost certainly do major damage. I don't suppose may people know it any more, but most S. Florida boaters didn't always use chain at all. Today's boaters use it to improve the angle the line pulls against the anchor. They presume that it's necessary. In fact, we anchored for many years with no chain at all. It's not a problem in sand or mud as long as you get the scope right. We started using chain so that the reef would no longer cut our anchor lines. The easiest place to get a good hook up has always been on the reef. To get the anchor to set properly elsewhre, you actually have to know something about what you're doing. It's interesting that the reefs that are so terribly endangered by anchors, managed to survive decades of people deliberately anchoring on them, but, over the last 10-20 years, have become so vulnerable to the same practice. I don't doubt that there's some danger and risk, but I seriously doubt it's as serious as it's played up to be. There's no real reason not to anchor in a way that minimizes reef damage, but compared to chemical and sewage runoff damage, anchors hardly measure up. Once upon a time, I supported the idea of permanent moorings. It did not take long for me to discover the error of my thinking. While they do eliminate anchor damage, they cause far more damage by concentrating people, including fishermen, spearfishermen and divers over some of the most vulnerable portions of our coastal waters. I don't think there's a single natural reef that's marked by permanent moorings, that has not been trashed almost to death. Frankly, I think the best solution to the physical damage of our reefs is to remove them from diving and fishing charts and cut all the mooring buoys loose. Return to the day when, if you wanted to find a nice dive site, you had to look for it yourself, or pay a captain that had. Lee > So, as I understand it, we're not talking about a net that's entangled, > we're talking about one that, for one reason or another, is no longer useful > and, rather than dispose of it correctly, they simply cut it loose and motor > away. A dirty net may be one that is full of "trash fish" or "bycatch", one I recovered had a seal and pup seal in it, along with about 100 crab, etc. They just ball up on the bottom and roll around fishing; Of course, all the dead stuff in the net attracts more stuff, so they basically go on fishing till they fall apart or get full of mud and grass. Some fishermen are using fiber rather than monofilament line for their nets so the net will eventually rot if lost, but they also eventually rot in use. > I presume that both the float and lead lines go with the cut free > net, correct? No, they keep the leadline and floatline and string another net with it; it is the expensive part. Thing is, most of the fishermen are conscious and make efforts as they know that their livelihood depends upon that ecosystem being healthy and properly managed, but like in all things there are a few a.sholes. > I can see where that might piss environmentally aware people off. It's really a ball when one rolls up into a popular dive site. <pun intended> > >> For most boaters, at least for fishermen, an anchor pulled into and stuck > >> in the reef only leaves one option. Leave the anchor behind. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > for that matter, how easy it would be for someone that was called to located > the cut anchor. I am sure an organization of volunteer divers could be formed, donations taken to cover boat, fuel and breathing gas costs. How many boaters _dont_ have GPS now days? > Personally, I don't see this as the same kind of problem Mike does. He says > he's seen ropes wipe out whole sections of reef. I've never seen that. An [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > properly elsewhre, you actually have to know something about what you're > doing. It's a sales pitch. The boat and harware shops make a lot of money off chain. > It's interesting that the reefs that are so terribly endangered by anchors, > managed to survive decades of people deliberately anchoring on them, but, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > natural reef that's marked by permanent moorings, that has not been trashed > almost to death. Dinky Dave and I were diving one time and finishing a safety stop at 20 feet when a fellow who is a big-wig in diving (makes sh.t dry suits) ran his boat right past the dive flag over our heads, dropped an anchor from the stern that almost hit Dave (center punched a huge plumose anemone), and then gunned it to push the bow up onto the entry ramp, which was private property that you have to pay to use. His broad wanted to use the porta potty, provided by and paid for with beach fee's. He had a small winch on the back and was winching himself back off the ramp when Dave and I surfaced and Dave dropped his rig and climbed into the boat while I went up and called our local deputy (who happens to be a rabid diver). $500 ticket and a really good a.s chewing. > Frankly, I think the best solution to the physical damage of our reefs is to > remove them from diving and fishing charts and cut all the mooring buoys > loose. Return to the day when, if you wanted to find a nice dive site, you > had to look for it yourself, or pay a captain that had. What's wrong with live boating (diving anyway)? >> I presume that both the float and lead lines go with the cut free >> net, correct? > > No, they keep the leadline and floatline and string another net with it; > it > is the expensive part. Then where does the number go that allows the owner to be identified? > I am sure an organization of volunteer divers could be formed, donations > taken to cover boat, fuel and breathing gas costs. > How many boaters _dont_ have GPS now days? Some, but GPS has its limits too. > What's wrong with live boating (diving anyway)? Depends on what kind you mean. At current gas prices, it's cheaper to go out on a commercial dive boat than to take my big boat out. At one mile per gallon on high test that costs $5 a gallon at the marine pumps, it's even cheaper if I have people to share the cost. Problem is, the charters don't go when I want, where I want, or for as long as I want. The economics shift for multi day trips. My boat is also our cottage on the water. Lee > >> I presume that both the float and lead lines go with the cut free > >> net, correct? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Then where does the number go that allows the owner to be identified? They are supposed to be riveted together with the net in between. The fisheries dudes come by and inspect nets for tags, which can be anywhere but the float or lead line. The number also has to go on all buoys. If they find a net without tags, they take it, period. Also, depending upon location, some have certain spots that are "theirs". > > I am sure an organization of volunteer divers could be formed, donations > > taken to cover boat, fuel and breathing gas costs. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Lee > Depends on what kind you mean. At current gas prices, it's cheaper to > go out on a commercial dive boat than to take my big boat out. At one [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I want. The economics shift for multi day trips. My boat is also our > cottage on the water. But for the closer reefs, you have the option of taking your smaller boat, right?  SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. > But for the closer reefs, you have the option of taking your smaller boat, > right? I could, but I'd spend the whole dive worrying about the weather. A 15 foot boat, even an unsinkable one like mine, doesn't have much business in the ocean. On the other hand, when I was younger, a 15 foot boat was all I had to dive from. Back then it was perfectly safe. Go figure. Lee >>>If a net gets tangled, what are the options? How do they recover them? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>the >>past ten years. .......... >>>For most boaters, at least for fishermen, an anchor pulled into and stuck >>>in the reef only leaves one option. Leave the anchor behind. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > for that matter, how easy it would be for someone that was called to located > the cut anchor. GPS, MOB switch, a bit of calculation to include wind, rope/chain length, current, tide, time.... > Personally, I don't see this as the same kind of problem Mike does. He says > he's seen ropes wipe out whole sections of reef. I've never seen that. Well I have seen an anchor dangling from a rope in a wall, saw-cutting the reef it hang from. Luckily a had transgressed the egytian "no knife rule". The DM was lucky to be able to help me undo the cut off anchor and dispose it in the sand. > An > anchor and chain, laying on a reef tends to stay on the bottom and soon > becomes part of the reef. I've just not seen much damage at all from > abandoned anchors. I have seen streets of devastation in the Red Sea, on submerged reefs. Mostly from stuck ones, and the according break-loose attempts. > I would be a lot more concerned about those that anchor > in the sand, or on the reef itself, whose chain drags across the reef while > still connected to the boat. A chain dragged back and forth by a boat > subject to wind, waves and current would almost certainly do major damage. Yep. > I don't suppose may people know it any more, but most S. Florida boaters > didn't always use chain at all. Today's boaters use it to improve the angle [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > properly elsewhre, you actually have to know something about what you're > doing. A knowledge a big number of "seafarers" is lacking. > It's interesting that the reefs that are so terribly endangered by anchors, > managed to survive decades of people deliberately anchoring on them, but, > over the last 10-20 years, have become so vulnerable to the same practice. Probably due to other co-stress factors, like pollution, warming, overfishing, shark finning, night fishing with torches, dregding. > I don't doubt that there's some danger and risk, but I seriously doubt it's > as serious as it's played up to be. There's no real reason not to anchor in [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > loose. Return to the day when, if you wanted to find a nice dive site, you > had to look for it yourself, or pay a captain that had. As I see it, environmentally aware divers may, can, and should contribute to reef protection by continuous evaluation of the reefs' state. If you want to protect something, you must know it first. BTW, this is not contradictional to temporary closure of reefs.. Matthias >> That's an interesting idea. I'm not sure that there's anyone to call or, >> for that matter, how easy it would be for someone that was called to >> located the cut anchor. > GPS, MOB switch, a bit of calculation to include wind, rope/chain length, > current, tide, time.... Sounds a lot easier than it is. Interesting understantement, that part about "to include wind, rope/chain length, current, tide and time. Kind of like saying that flying to the moon is easy because you can see it the whole time. > Well I have seen an anchor dangling from a rope in a wall, saw-cutting the > reef it hang from. Luckily a had transgressed the egytian "no knife rule". > The DM was lucky to be able to help me undo the cut off anchor and dispose > it in the sand. We don't have walls here. > I have seen streets of devastation in the Red Sea, on submerged reefs. > Mostly from stuck ones, and the according break-loose attempts. Agreed, but that's not damage from the agandoned anchor. It's damage from trying not to abandon it. > Probably due to other co-stress factors, like pollution, warming, > overfishing, shark finning, night fishing with torches, dregding. Pollution is number 1. Unfortunately, it's also the one least likely to get attention when the politicians income depends on population growth. Just look at how much trouble Mike, Ed, etc. had stopping something as obvious as pumping partially treated sewage directly onto the reef line. Make that getting laws passed to eventually stop the pumping. > As I see it, environmentally aware divers may, can, and should contribute > to reef protection by continuous evaluation of the reefs' state. > If you want to protect something, you must know it first. I don't have a problem with that. Of course, to be effective, you have to have somebody interested in hearing the results. Historically, the officials in the US have had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to the realization that there is a problem at all. > BTW, this is not contradictional to temporary closure of reefs.. Nothing is as permanent as a 'temporary" measure. The US income tax system is temporary. Lee >>>That's an interesting idea. I'm not sure that there's anyone to call or, >>>for that matter, how easy it would be for someone that was called to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > like saying that flying to the moon is easy because you can see it the whole > time. Never implied to say it was easy for everyone. Actually I know only few people who can do it. To be precise, four. Matthias "Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :Then a responsible boater should report the lost anchor so that it can be :recovered and so that it doesn't wipe out any more of the reef than :necessary. Once it's down there, how is going to cause more damage? Dan Bracuk Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- > "Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> pounded away at his keyboard > resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Once it's down there, how is going to cause more damage? I guess you didn't read the earlier parts of this thread. "Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :I guess you didn't read the earlier parts of this thread. I read matthias's after I posted this. Was there something else? Dan Bracuk Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- > "Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> pounded away at his keyboard > resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Once it's down there, how is going to cause more damage? By getting snagged and dragged? Douglas W. Popeye Frederick wrote >> Once it's down there, how is going to cause more damage? > > By getting snagged and dragged? Snagged by what? There's no anchoring allowed on the reefs and nobody's dragging nets or the like over them. A fishing hook might move them a little, but not much. If they were that easy to move, they would not have been abandoned in the first place. Lee > Douglas W. Popeye Frederick wrote > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Snagged by what? There's no anchoring allowed on the reefs and nobody's > dragging nets or the like over them. BTW, would the egyptian method, to install fixed mooring buoys at the reef's ledge work for your waters? There were two problems associated with setting the moorings: -locals liked to steel them, to exploit the hardware - some sort of management, or schedule, is recommended. Matthias >> Douglas W. Popeye Frederick wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > There were two problems associated with setting the moorings: > -locals liked to steel them, to exploit the hardware steal...ts,ts ;-) > > Douglas W. Popeye Frederick wrote > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > BTW, would the egyptian method, to install fixed mooring buoys at the > reef's ledge work for your waters? I wasn't aware that the Egyptians invented fixed mooring buoys. They're all over the Caribbean, with the exception of drift-dive-only locales like Cozumel, but I've seen very few Egyptians there. >>>Douglas W. Popeye Frederick wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > They're all over the Caribbean, with the exception of drift-dive-only > locales like Cozumel, but I've seen very few Egyptians there. Watch out for those people with that flat shaped appearance, one arm to the front, the other to the back, and this one big almond eye. Matthias Hi Matthias, > Watch out for those people with that flat shaped appearance, one arm to > the front, the other to the back, and this one big almond eye. If I may correct you, originally they have allways, allways 2 almond eyes. For the same reason, by the way, they have one arm arm to the front, the other to the back. Not lack of knowledge but strong religous belief. lg Joerg SignatureFotos Ägypten Feb.2007 http://www.notabstieg.de/egypt-2-2007/index.html http://www.grabmalkultur.de > >>>Douglas W. Popeye Frederick wrote > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Watch out for those people with that flat shaped appearance, one arm to > the front, the other to the back, and this one big almond eye. Actually, I've seen people like that in Florida. And here I thought it was due to fetal alcohol syndrome. Maybe the mooring buoys would work there. > I wasn't aware that the Egyptians invented fixed mooring buoys. > They're all over the Caribbean, with the exception of drift-dive-only > locales like Cozumel, but I've seen very few Egyptians there. What do you think the pyramids were? OK, water levels were a bit higher back then I suspect... For the Yucatan, the ancient mooring buoys were in Chichen Itza... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. > BTW, would the egyptian method, to install fixed mooring buoys at the > reef's ledge work for your waters? Previously answered. The problem is, a mooring ball concentrates divers on that particular site and anytime humans concentrate in a small area, the area suffers. Even if nobody ever touched a piece of coral or a fish, the concentration changes the habits of everything that lives there, often disrupting things enough that all the life than can move, does. We're having a similar problem with the Everglades. I have two All Terrain Vehicles, 4 wheel drive Hondas. The state has closed off almost every place they have traditionally be used, concentrating everybody in the southern half of the state in two areas just north of here. Earlier this year, they close those two areas off for good, citing the extensive damage the ATVs were doing to the ecosystem. It's amazing, once again, that activity that's been going on for 100 years, without noticable effect, suddenly becomes extensively damaging. The difference, of course, is the concentration. Everybody running around in one small area has to do more, and more permanent damage, than somebody only passing through occasionally. So, I now have $14,000 worth of ATVs that are illegal to use anywhere within a two hour drive. Lucky me. Lee >>BTW, would the egyptian method, to install fixed mooring buoys at the >>reef's ledge work for your waters? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > concentration changes the habits of everything that lives there, often > disrupting things enough that all the life than can move, does. Absolutely true. The question is, would it be beneficial to sacrifice some lesser sites this way, to save the rest. > We're having a similar problem with the Everglades. I have two All Terrain > Vehicles, 4 wheel drive Hondas. The state has closed off almost every place [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > So, I now have $14,000 worth of ATVs that are illegal to use anywhere within > a two hour drive. Lucky me. Similar here, with regard to Enduro cycles and motorcycles. Matthias > Absolutely true. > The question is, would it be beneficial to sacrifice some lesser sites > this way, to save the rest. Personally, I don't think so, particularly since the buoys are normally placed on some of the most beautiful sites in the area. My answer is still to leave it alone. Get rid of as many of the guides, all the buoys, whatever you can that identifies specifically where the sites are and let people find places to dive for themselves. It's too late to remove all information, but the more that is removed, the less likely divers are to concentrate. Of course, that's not how the government, made up of people whose hearts are in the right place, but whose heads are on backwards (never been diving in their lives) see things. >> So, I now have $14,000 worth of ATVs that are illegal to use anywhere >> within a two hour drive. Lucky me. > > Similar here, with regard to Enduro cycles and motorcycles. I gave up Enduros sometime in the early 80s after flipping my KDX 175. I went over the handlebars tucked and rolling. I was doing fine until the motorcycle landed on me. A pressure fracture of one of my lower vertebrae plus some muscle and ligament damage pretty much soured me on dirt bikes. I decided to do something safer, drag racing bit bore bikes. I made it to the area championships all three years I raced. Lee "Lee Bell" <pleebell@bellsouth.net> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :Personally, I don't think so, particularly since the buoys are normally :placed on some of the most beautiful sites in the area. My answer is still :to leave it alone. Get rid of as many of the guides, all the buoys, :whatever you can that identifies specifically where the sites are and let :people find places to dive for themselves. As someone who spends a lot of money travelling to places with nice dive sites, and paying more for boats to take me there, I want to spend my time diving on those sites, not looking for them. Dan Bracuk Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- > :Personally, I don't think so, particularly since the buoys are normally > :placed on some of the most beautiful sites in the area. My answer is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > dive sites, and paying more for boats to take me there, I want to > spend my time diving on those sites, not looking for them. Which is why you pay somebody to take you to them. Add all the tourists that pay to visit the reefs, to all the fishermen and others that are here all year and the traffic is pretty severe. No offense intended, but if the only cost of saving the reefs is that you don't get to see all the best sites every year, it's worth it, particularly if, within a year of putting the buoys out, the sites you are taken too are dead. Lee "Lee Bell" <pleebell@bellsouth.net> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :Which is why you pay somebody to take you to them. Add all the tourists :that pay to visit the reefs, to all the fishermen and others that are here :all year and the traffic is pretty severe. No offense intended, but if the :only cost of saving the reefs is that you don't get to see all the best :sites every year, it's worth it, particularly if, within a year of putting :the buoys out, the sites you are taken too are dead. I'm pretty sure those mooring balls have been there for ages and the reefs that have them are just as nice as those that don't. Dan Bracuk Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- > :Which is why you pay somebody to take you to them. Add all the tourists > :that pay to visit the reefs, to all the fishermen and others that are [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I'm pretty sure those mooring balls have been there for ages and the > reefs that have them are just as nice as those that don't. You're mistaken on both counts. The mooring ball system is relatively new, but it's already had a severe impact. The reefs where the balls are, are not near as nice as they once were or as nice as similar reefs without them. Lee "Lee Bell" <pleebell@bellsouth.net> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :You're mistaken on both counts. The mooring ball system is relatively new, :but it's already had a severe impact. The reefs where the balls are, are :not near as nice as they once were or as nice as similar reefs without them. The mooring ball system might be new in Florida, but not in the rest of the Caribbean. Plus, by new, you must mean in the last 10 years or so. There were mooring balls in place when I dove Looe Key in 2001. In any events, we each have our own observations. Dan Bracuk Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- > :You're mistaken on both counts. The mooring ball system is relatively > new, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of the Caribbean. Plus, by new, you must mean in the last 10 years or > so. There were mooring balls in place when I dove Looe Key in 2001. I do. It takes time for the effects to become obvious. > In any events, we each have our own observations. Except one of us gets to see the reefs that are neither marked with buoys or visited multiple times a day by commercial operators and the other doesn't. I'm sure you're representing your observations as honestly as you can. Just understand that your conclusions are limited by the experiences you have. It's kind of like how I know that all of Canada is comprised of cliffs with millions of gallons of water flowing over them because all I've seen is Niagra Falls. 8^) Lee > "Lee Bell" <pleeb...@bellsouth.net> pounded away at his keyboard > resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I'm pretty sure those mooring balls have been there for ages and the > reefs that have them are just as nice as those that don't. It depends on how discerning of an eye you have. One of these years, I'll have to go through my 35mm underwater slides of Little Cayman and see if I can do a respectable timeline study on some of the reefs inside the moored dive sites inside the Marine Park, to illustrate the decline. -hh -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :One of these years, I'll have to go through my 35mm underwater slides :of Little Cayman and see if I can do a respectable timeline study on :some of the reefs inside the moored dive sites inside the Marine Park, :to illustrate the decline. Make sure you gather evidence that the decline is due to mooring balls. Or you can go with my observations. Little Cayman was nicer in 2005 than it was in 2008. The coral had more sand on it in 2008. Must be the 5 day boats that go out every day or the 2 liveaboards that drop by from time to time. What else would cause sand to come up on the reefs like that? Dan Bracuk Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- > -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> pounded away at his keyboard > resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Make sure you gather evidence that the decline is due to mooring > balls. Or you can go with my observations. I've done "off the mooring" dives in Little Cayman. Have you? Also, the decline is not just my opinion, but also the Cayman Government's Environmental Group: <http://www.caymannetnews.com/cgi-script/csArticles/articles/ 000088/008860.htm> FWIW, I have the cellphone# of the Little Cayman Marine Park officer; he's an old friend ... in fact, when I went down to the Brac early last year, we spent an overnight in his Mom's house. > Little Cayman was nicer in 2005 than it was in 2008. > The coral had more sand on it in 2008. There are seasonal variations. What time of year was each trip? > Must be the 5 day boats that go out every day or the 2 liveaboards > that drop by from time to time. What else would cause sand to come > up on the reefs like that? Depends on when you went - was there a recent NorWester? Long swells coming in from the NorthWest get in behind the protection of Jackson's Bight and kicks up fines that have collected in the normally sheltered sandy cove. When this weather pattern occurs, the moorings of Eagle Ray Roundup and Meadows ... but it can also extend up through Paul's Anchor, or down to Magic Roundabout (seen both) ... can drop to ~10ft visibility, and that suspended particulate either gets carried out on a warmer surface layer of water, or if it mixes, it ends up "snowing" on the reefs. After the swells subside, the water cleans out, but you still have 'sand' on the reefs...and probably also dozens of torn off tube sponges laying strewn across the bottom, most obviously in larger protected sand patches (such as the one behind Nancy's Cup of Tea). And if you haven't noticed, these areas up in the Jackson's Bight cove all have "big, empty" sand flats, whereas the Bloody Bay through Joy's Joy section typically is gorgonian-covered hardpan. Why do you think that pattern is present? -hh > I'm pretty sure those mooring balls have been there for ages and the > reefs that have them are just as nice as those that don't. > > Dan Bracuk > Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do. Nack, as far as the more (and still) frequented sites in Egypt are concerned. When you deviate there from the beaten track, you still may see "virgin" sites. Matthias >>> BTW, would the egyptian method, to install fixed mooring buoys at the >>> reef's ledge work for your waters? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The question is, would it be beneficial to sacrifice some lesser sites > this way, to save the rest. That's what they've done in the Keys, concentrated the tourists on a few dead spots. Problem up here is that the current is consistantly too strong. That's why it's all drift diving. esg "mat.voss" <spammat.voss@gmx.de> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :Absolutely true. :The question is, would it be beneficial to sacrifice some lesser sites :this way, to save the rest. Save them for what? Dan Bracuk Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- > "mat.voss" <spammat.voss@gmx.de> pounded away at his keyboard > resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Save them for what? For Lee and me. Matthias > Douglas W. Popeye Frederick wrote > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > little, but not much. If they were that easy to move, they would not have > been abandoned in the first place. Good point. >> The anchor damage on the reefs up here is getting really bad. After >> dragging the anchor for a half mile, it finally catches. When it can't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Get legislation written so that anchors have to have the owners ID > permanently affixed to the anchor. Let me see if I understand this correctly... You're against any kind of gun control but you're pro anchor control. What a fuckwit. Hi "Carl", you worthless coward. >> There's question in my mind. It's certain that sewage and runoff are >> major factors. I'm not even close to being convinced that fishing or >> anchor damage are even close to the top of the list. > The anchor damage on the reefs up here is getting really bad. After > dragging the anchor for a half mile, it finally catches. When it can't be > retreived, the line is cut and ya have a 90' whip in the current carving a > clean V in the reef. I only saw one anchor and line this morning, last > week I saw three. I have a bit of trouble understanding that process. It's illegal to anchor on coral, but it wasn't always. We used to deliberately anchor on it because it gave a prompt and secure hold. I've never had an anchor drag across a reef. I'm not sure how I would get one to do so, but I'm sure I'd have to try. What I am sure happens, particularly now that so many people use so much chain, is that chain drags across the reef. My larger boat, for example, carries 36 feet of chain attached to 300 feet of anchor line. Even if I anchor in the sand, I have to careful not to be close enough to the reef for my chain to run across it. I would guess, without much risk of being wrong, that my chain would do a lot more damage than my anchor. The problem is even worse for those that use all chain, as many boats my size and larger do. You and I have seen more than a few anchors on the reefs over the years. I've never seen a rope do the kind of damage you describe. At worst, I've seen it tangle and damage a few soft corals, but only a few. I generally cut line free and bring it to the surface with me, but more from asthetic reasons than to prevent damage. I leave the anchors there unless they just happen to be close enought to the boat to be easily recovered. >> It's hard to be careful when you don't know what's below you. It's a lot >> easier for divers than for fishermen or those simply stopping for lunch. > > Every one of them has a bottom finder. They find the reef the same way the > divers do. An anchor is never under the depth finder and depth finders can't tell reef from other forms of hard bottom. They do see relief. It's not as easy to ensure that your anchor is in the sand as you might assume and definitely not easy to tell where your chain is. While I agree that it is a boater's responsibility to avoid damage as much as possible, there's only so much boaters can do . . . unless you want to take the Greenpeace approach and deny all citizens the right to access anyplace that might have coral. Lee |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.