Should underwater hunters use this site????

Why not start a lively debate on the ethics of macho underwater hunters?....I thought.

I've just flicked thru the gallery on this forum and found 4 photos of a guy trumphantly holding up huge fish that he has presumably just killed!!!
Now....being that most divers are fish lovers and enjoy swimming amongst them, I find this quite perplexing. Dont get me wrong, I like a bit of fish for dinner too, but a smaller (more common)species would suffice. If I fancy a bit of chicken for supper I dont nip out into the Daintree rain forest and start blasting away at the biggest Cassowaries I can find...(and then post the pics on a birdwatching website)

The "Cod hole" dive site off cairns wouldnt be the same if these guys got their way. In the same way that free divers are a different sport, shouldnt these killers be on a game fishing forum displaying their trophies.

We tell novice divers not to touch anything and leave only bubbles but what if they fancy blasting a spike thru a 50 year old, tourist drawing napolean wrasse??

I've seen"sportsmen" dragging reef sharks out of dive sites in Thailand, when I'm guiding customers to a place where they might see their first shark!!!!

Ok...can of worms open, jump in...

If you're going to eat it, and it's legal to catch there is no problem. If you don't get it, some commerical fisherman will.

The fish has a more sporting chance being taken by a diver as opposed to being caught by a commercial fisherman, and most divers are a bit more selective about their targeted prey. Why not let them post here, afterall, they are divers just like everyone else on here. Perhaps we can even influence them in some way to see that taking smaller fish helps the population more than taking the monsters who are the prime breeders. As long as they are harvested legally with some respect for the population they were taken from, I say more power to them. Hell I even enjoy spearing up a nice dinner from time to time. Always remember, there is room for all of God's creatures...right next to the baked potato;)

I dislike killing all animals, but unfortunately I would never make it as a vegetarian, and at 115 lbs, I would turn into a straw on vegetables only.

Having said that, it seems rather contradictory to take spearfishermen to task unless you never eat fish.

Bama I fully agree, but any spear fisher that runs upon a monster will take their best shot. That's why I tend to go after lobsters. Since in CA we can only grab them, you can release them unharmed. Any bug over 7 lbs or so is tough, so I release them. Plus we are the only preadators of lage bugs because they don't fit into the traps.

HBH, this new item just in from our Publisher:

Actually in California, you can use a hoop net to ensnare lobster while diving, you aren't limited to using just your hands.

California FISH AND GAME CODE
SECTION 7256

7256. Spiny lobster may not be taken under a sport fishing license
except by use of a hoop net or by hand.


Funny thing is, even the DFG wardens don't know their own laws and falsely tell people you can only take lobster by hand, but as usual, the government agents have no idea what they are talking about.

I think it should be allowed even though i disagree with some forms of spearing. I dont see the sport in going down on tanks and shooting the biggest fish you can but if your out catching a feed for dinner then its no different to line fishing expect you pick the one you want and get it not catch 10 and throw 9 back.

Matt

I fully agree with catch-to-eat, and I realise that spear-fishing is more selective than line or net.
Its the choice of target that I'm questioning, and that thr photos are posted on a SCUBA site. The biggest possible fish to be a trophy, rather than dinner. One of the photos in question has many fish, more than a good meal.

I'm sure that the shark-finners in Asia would say that they'd kill a whaleshark for a good meal (shark fin soup).
Or what about Japanese and Icelandic whaling? They're eating the meat, and claim to be selective... so that makes it ok?
I've seen more dead sharks in restaurants in Egypt than I have in 500+ dives there.....should they post photos of their shark trophies here too?

I just think the photos are bad taste (pardon the pun) for nature lovers.

It could be argued all day from both sides. I find the best solution to be if you dont like it dont look at it. It may be wrong to you to go spearing fish on scuba but maybe to them its wrong to dive wrecks. Each to his own.

Matt

Interesting worm can here . . . spear fishing is illegal in my locality, so it is not an issue we consider here. In fact, the only creature we are allowed to fish on scuba that I can think of is scallops. The commercial fisherman constantly blame divers for destroying this resource ... but in reality we witness the massive destruction of the ocean bottom by the scallop draggers while we hand pick a few leftovers along the edges of the drag marks. So I have to agree that freediving for fish with a spear probably has far less impact than a commercial operation. I believe very much in "no 'negative impact' diving". I'm sure those who posted the pics would be the first to comment on conservation and protecting the environment. After all they are divers too, and love what we love!

Let them post and point out that they are possibly damaging the population by taking the breeders (unless of coure they have found a secret honey-hole that has nothing but these large breeding monsters.) I know some guys who go after these beasts and while I do disagree with their taking the largest fish (and most prolific breeders) from the population I commend them for eating the entire fish. If it is being speared just for a trophy status then that is wrong on so many counts (I feel the same about game animals such as elk, deer, moose, sheep, and all the others that "horn" collectors go after.) Sometimes if you enter into an intelligent conversation with these guys and point out the breeding habits of fish species they will listen, and sometimes they may even become more selective in their targeting. Just telling them that it is wrong usually accomplishes little more than making them more defensive of their actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iDiveChick

Actually in California, you can use a hoop net to ensnare lobster while diving, you aren't limited to using just your hands.

California FISH AND GAME CODE
SECTION 7256

7256. Spiny lobster may not be taken under a sport fishing license
except by use of a hoop net or by hand.


Funny thing is, even the DFG wardens don't know their own laws and falsely tell people you can only take lobster by hand, but as usual, the government agents have no idea what they are talking about.

---

You cannot use a hoopnet while diving, if you're in the water you can only use your hands. Hoopnetting can only be done aboard a vessel (boat,kayak) or on jetties and piers that allow it.

CA DFG REGS: 29.80 (3)(g) "Diving for crustaceans: In all ocean waters, except as provided in Section 29.05, skin and
SCUBA divers may take crustaceans by the use of the HANDS ONLY. Divers may not possess any
hooked device while diving or attempting to dive."

dmay that's exactly what I thought. It would be too easy to catch them by net, making it no fun. If you want to use a net retire to flordia.

Personally what I find offensive to common sense is the F&G Code and the DFG allows one to take pregnant females with eggs. This is biological foolishness.

In Western societies we live in a gynocentric, matriarchal system where women are given special power and privilege (sinking ship-women and children first) that is rooted in out deepest anthropological survival mechanism: you only need a couple of males to ensure the survival of the species, whereas you need a vast quantiy of females to carry that to its conclusion. That is why taking female lobsters and especially pregant female lobsters should be illegal. But can you imagine the value to the lobster population if they outlawed commercial lobstering? Same goes for purse seining Bluefin Tuna.

But getting back to replying to dmay's astute post, the problem with the "DFG Regulations" is they are regulations promulgated by a committee, they're not signed into a Code, whereas the Fish and Game Code is a California Code signed by the Governor of the State, which is why from a legal standpoint, two rules on the books, one signed by the elected Governor, the other not, the one signed by the Governor into Code takes precedence.

And that is from just a statutory standpoint. Once you add the Constitutions requirement that no law be vague as enumerated by the 5th and 14th Amendments, here you have an unsigned regulation prohibiting a conduct allowed by a law signed by the Governor of the State, thus ensuring the law is unconstitutionally vague.

This is the sort of offense (taking lobster by means other than one's hand) that any trial lawyer who slept through law school should be able get such unmeritorious charges dismissed once it gets out of the hands of the shakedown artists and into a Court of Law:

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
SECTION 1. RIGHTS GUARANTEED
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS—CRIMINAL
The Elements of Due Process

Clarity in Criminal Statutes: The Void–for–Vagueness Doctrine.— “Legislation may run afoul of the Due Process Clause because it fails to give adequate guidance to those who would be law–abiding, to advise defendants of the nature of the offense with which they are charged, or to guide courts in trying those who are accused.”1 Acts which are made criminal “must be defined with appropriate definiteness.”2 “There must be ascertainable standards of guilt. Men of common intelligence cannot be required to guess at the meaning of the enactment. The vagueness may be from uncertainty in regard to persons within the scope of the act . . . or in regard to the applicable tests to ascertain guilt.”3 Statutes which lack the requisite definiteness or specificity are commonly held “void for vagueness.” Such a statute may be pronounced wholly unconstitutional (unconstitutional “on its face”),[/b]4[/b] or, if the statute could be applied to both prohibitable and to protected conduct and its valuable effects outweigh its potential general harm, it could be held unconstitutional as applied.5 Generally, a vague statute that regulates in the area of First Amendment guarantees will be pronounced wholly void,6 while one that does not reach such protected conduct will either be upheld because it is applied to clearly proscribable conduct, or voided as applied when the conduct is marginal and the proscription is unclear.7



1 Musser v. Utah, 333 U.S. 95, 97 (1948) . “Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warnings. Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory applications.” Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108–09 (1972) , quoted in Village of Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, 455 U.S. 489, 498 (1982) .
2 Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 308 (1940) .
3 Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 515–16 (1948) . Cf. Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 110 (1972) .
4 Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972) ; Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566 (1974) .
5 Palmer v. City of Euclid, 402 U.S. 544 (1971) ; Village of Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, 455 U.S. 489, 494–95 (1982) .
6 Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 509–10 (1948) ; Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940) .
7 E.g., United States v. National Dairy Corp., 372 U.S. 29 (1963) .

Certain species have possibly been made extinct by spearfishing. The Brazilian rainbow parrotfish comes to mind. In the big picture of killing fish, spearfishing is a miniscule part of the destruction of fish by man. As we continue to raise unshirted h*** on fish populations worldwide, the few fish taken by spearfishing are insignificant. It's an anachronistic sport in a world where technology destroys huge fish populations relentlessly. An exception might be large grouper. I have been in no take areas in the Keys and it is remarkable what a reef looks like with its large groupers intact and not on someone's dinner plate. I think killing a grouper is like killing a dog and eating it. But I don't think it should be banned. Some people rely on it for their seafood. I don't agree with spearfishing, but we so casually surrender our personal liberties for really trivial reasons and it should be allowed.

First a fish and a dog cannot be compared, plus many more dogs and cats are killed every day due to overpopulation of shelters. So to all the idiots that buy designer dogs, please go adopt!

I think fish might take exception to that statement!


;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purpleturtle

I fully agree with catch-to-eat, and I realise that spear-fishing is more selective than line or net.
Its the choice of target that I'm questioning, and that thr photos are posted on a SCUBA site. The biggest possible fish to be a trophy, rather than dinner. good meal.One of the photos in question has many fish, more than a good meal.

I'm sure that the shark-finners in Asia would say that they'd kill a whaleshark for a good meal (shark fin soup).
Or what about Japanese and Icelandic whaling? They're eating the meat, and claim to be selective... so that makes it ok?
I've seen more dead sharks in restaurants in Egypt than I have in 500+ dives there.....should they post photos of their shark trophies here too?

I just think the photos are bad taste (pardon the pun) for nature lovers.

---

You are missing the point.
In fact when you pack for a hunting trip that will take you about 100 miles from shore for a few days and the weather window allows this only a few times a year you dont shoot just for dinner you try and fill your limit that is set by the state, then you can pack the freezer until the next trip is planned.
This is not shooting rabbits out the kitchen window this takes a bit of planning and a bunch of money so shooting your limit is the plan.


Dago.

Quote:

---

First a fish and a dog cannot be compared, plus many more dogs and cats are killed every day due to overpopulation of shelters.

---

I personally prefer fish to dogs and many, many more fish are killed every day than dogs and cats. I tend to agree about the designer dogs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WreckDiver

You are missing the point.
In fact when you pack for a hunting trip that will take you about 100 miles from shore for a few days and the weather window allows this only a few times a year you dont shoot just for dinner you try and fill your limit that is set by the state, then you can pack the freezer until the next trip is planned.
This is not shooting rabbits out the kitchen window this takes a bit of planning and a bunch of money so shooting your limit is the plan.


Dago.

---

Well said Dago. Most folks who hunt, whether it be for fish or other game species, will tell you that when you add in all the costs (liscences, equipment, travel, etc.) the meat they bring home usually runs more than what they would pay for domestic offerings at the local market. However, the satisfaction of being self suficient and enjoying what you are doing is priceless.

Well said hbh2oguard on the designer dogs issue. Those folks who dont adopt an abandoned dog in favour for a "prestige" dog, probably claim to be animal lovers too. Just more concerned about the image they portray.

The wide range of opinions on this subject show that people who seem to share the same values, can be worlds apart.
For every 10 people getting aboard a whale watching boat, there will be another 10 up-front attaching a harpoon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drdiver

I personally prefer fish to dogs and many, many more fish are killed every day than dogs and cats. I tend to agree about the designer dogs.

---

yes I miss spoke/wrote I meant that too many dogs and cats are killed every day, which are just wasted lives because hopefull no one is eating them!

In the 70's and 80's I did a fair amount of spearfishing. I have to admit I liked stalking the prey. I found the kill, however, an anticlimax. I always felt a bit sad. I ALWAYS hunted to eat. If I saw a 10 lb grouper next to a 30 lb grouper, I would go for the smaller.
I grew up in Florida and the biggest fish tend to get wormy and the flesh is not as good. Also, the breeders need to be kept. The macho big game hunters almost completely wiped out the goliath groupers in areas of Fl. Only tight conservation has started a slow comback.
I still eat fish whenever I can, but now enjoy "hunting" with a camera. The same thrill of the stalk, with less depressing end result.