Thanks Ellen,
very informative. Guido
On 11 16, 07, at 9:50 PM, Ellen Bulger wrote:

> This is really long, this is epic.
>
> The legislation in the Bahamas is primarily about preserving food
> species. Lobsters are an economic issue there, as they are in
> Florida. Conch and grouper are even more important. Seafood is a
> significant part, a really significant part, of the Bahamian diet.
>
> In the United States, the New England region is justly famous for
> seafood. But the average resident of New England has clams or
> lobsters as an occasional treat. Seafood is a luxury item. There
> are lots of other sources of food. Fishing is not as large a part
> of the economy. And culturally, seafood is not that big a deal to
> most people living there.
>
> In the Bahamas, especially compared to most Caribbean and Central
> American countries, folks live well. It made the top five list of
> happiest places to live on Earth. Sunshine helps, but it helps when
> people are getting a good supply of protein and really delicious
> protein at that. In the Bahamas, most people eat seafood on a
> regular basis. Fish is an important part of the diet. Conch is a
> hugely important part of the diet. It's an ocean country. Farming
> is possible, but challenging because of the local geology. Locals
> do what is known as "pothole" farming.
>
> If the fisheries in the Bahamas collapse, it is going to mean
> severe hardship for many people. In New England, where many
> fisheries are precarious, if a fishery totally collapses there will
> be hardship economically. But it would be economic and the primary
> impact would be concentrated in a small part of the population.
> There would be ripples, there are always ripples. But nothing like
> what would happen in the Bahamas.
>
> Connecticut has the largest shellfish fishery in the United States.
> (Who knew? Not me. But having spent some time working for
> scientists who are studying the unholy gack that is at the bottom
> of Long Island Sound, this is one Connecticut Yankee who now hardly
> eats any shellfish at all.) Connecticut's fisheries are in trouble
> for all kinds of reasons, introduced diseases, introduced species
> but mostly because of the huge amounts of pollution. Especially in
> the western sound, the bottom is largely dead much of the year.
> There's little to no oxygen down there.
>
> Yet if a day comes when no seafood can be harvested from L.I.S, the
> primary impact will be far more localized within the Connecticut
> (and New York) population than a similar collapse would be in the
> Bahamas.
>
> What is happening in the sound is dire and significant, but it
> would take some persuading to convince the average CT resident that
> this is so. Perhaps it is because the water is pretty darn near
> opaque and folks can't imagine what is happening below the surface.
> Perhaps it is because most people in Connecticut can hardly get at
> the shore. It is a state and a culture that is all about private
> ownership. The rich folks may not be able to own the water itself,
> but they've got the waterfront tied up. There are public parks, but
> not enough of them. People are emotionally detached from the water,
> from the natural world. In CT, life is more about real estate,
> status and shopping, alas, alas.
>
> But in the Bahamas, the sea is part of everyday life for most
> everyone. When and if the day comes when there is no seafood, there
> will be serious suffering. There are present and looming problems
> with the fisheries there, especially for grouper and conch. If
> collecting by scuba was permitted, things would only get worse.
>
> As far as non-food species, the rules and the implementation of the
> rules are much stricter in high population areas like Nassau and
> Grand Bahama Island.  You can't even take dead shells off of these
> islands and the dive masters are strict, as might be expected. The
> same reefs are visited over and over again. At any popular dive
> resort, regular traffic can make for some pretty shopworn reefs
> even if people aren't officially allowed to so much as touch the
> reefs. Poor buoyancy control has people bouncing off the reef and
> finning sediments into the water. If shelling was permitted things
> would only get worse, so it is understandable.
>
> In the out islands, things are much looser. Small operators rarely
> so much as fill a "sixpack". You can ask them to take you off the
> beaten path. Once you've had your fill of the spectacular sites,
> ask them to take you to a less flashy spot. Tell the dive operator
> you dig the little invertebrates. At least you will be able to see
> the mollusks. If you find something dead, they're usually cool with
> some low key collecting. As for other things, I've never been
> patted down but I'm not making any suggestions and you didn't hear
> me say that.
>
> Most divers only notice the big stuff. Folks aren't coming up from
> their dives saying "Wow, did you see those lovely tunicates?".  But
> the dive operators want to protect the overall health of the reef.
> A healthy reef has more big flashy critters and the overall
> aesthetic impact is more favorable.
>
> The Bahamian government is trying to protect their very important
> marine resources under difficult circumstances. Their population is
> growing. Tourism revenues form the lion's share of the local
> economy. Residents and visitors eat seafood every day. Like any
> government, they don't always get everything right but I can't see
> how their no-collecting on scuba rule is misguided.
>
> In the case of the Bahamas, the rules are not pseudo-
> environmentalist eyewash as they are in Florida. The restrictions
> in the Bahamas are simply prudent.
>
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
To leave this list, click on the following web link:
http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
click leave the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------