Cozumel Anchor Ahoy

"Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1132064108.318298.132480@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
> For those divers who are concerned with the anchoring cruise ships
> damaging the reefs of Cozumel dive sites, I can say positively and
> unequivocally (based on my well over 1,200 dives in Cozumel) that there
> is NO WAY in Hell (ooops, that's in the next stop at Grand Cayman) that
> the anchoring at that distance from shore in the channel that it could
> damage any coral (if there's any at that distance and depth) that is
> ever

Just curious... Could you find out what's the depth of the water where
they're anchoring...

"Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1132064108.318298.132480@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
> For those divers who are concerned with the anchoring cruise ships
> damaging the reefs of Cozumel dive sites, I can say positively and
> unequivocally (based on my well over 1,200 dives in Cozumel) that there
> is NO WAY in Hell (ooops, that's in the next stop at Grand Cayman) that
> the anchoring at that distance from shore in the channel that it could
> damage any coral (if there's any at that distance and depth) that is
> ever

Just curious... Could you find out what's the depth of the water where
they're anchoring...

Reef Fish wrote:

>
> For those divers who are concerned with the anchoring cruise ships
> damaging the reefs of Cozumel dive sites, I can say positively and
> unequivocally (based on my well over 1,200 dives in Cozumel) that there
> is NO WAY in Hell (ooops, that's in the next stop at Grand Cayman) that
> the anchoring at that distance from shore in the channel that it could
> damage any coral (if there's any at that distance and depth) that is
> ever
> seen by any diver in Cozumel, nor could it possibly make any difference
> to the reefs south of the Puerta Maya pier.

What about the reefs north of the damaged pier? We can't not consider
those - they're the mating areas of eagle rays. I realize not a lot of
divers go there, but that's beside my point. Everything matters, not
just the parts most divers see. Out of sight != out of mind.

>
> So, that's good news.

Cruise ships are always bad news.



--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Reef Fish wrote:

>
> For those divers who are concerned with the anchoring cruise ships
> damaging the reefs of Cozumel dive sites, I can say positively and
> unequivocally (based on my well over 1,200 dives in Cozumel) that there
> is NO WAY in Hell (ooops, that's in the next stop at Grand Cayman) that
> the anchoring at that distance from shore in the channel that it could
> damage any coral (if there's any at that distance and depth) that is
> ever
> seen by any diver in Cozumel, nor could it possibly make any difference
> to the reefs south of the Puerta Maya pier.

What about the reefs north of the damaged pier? We can't not consider
those - they're the mating areas of eagle rays. I realize not a lot of
divers go there, but that's beside my point. Everything matters, not
just the parts most divers see. Out of sight != out of mind.

>
> So, that's good news.

Cruise ships are always bad news.



--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Grumman-581 wrote:
> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1132064108.318298.132480@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
> > For those divers who are concerned with the anchoring cruise ships
> > damaging the reefs of Cozumel dive sites, I can say positively and
> > unequivocally (based on my well over 1,200 dives in Cozumel) that there
> > is NO WAY in Hell (ooops, that's in the next stop at Grand Cayman) that
> > the anchoring at that distance from shore in the channel that it could
> > damage any coral (if there's any at that distance and depth) that is
> > ever
>
> Just curious... Could you find out what's the depth of the water where
> they're anchoring...

I would guess that it's in excess of 400 ft, from my vague recollection

of the depth chart on my Cozumel map. I'll ask the ship captain when
I'll have lunch with him (invited among the "most frequent Princess
cruisers" on board.)

-- Bob.

Grumman-581 wrote:
> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1132064108.318298.132480@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
> > For those divers who are concerned with the anchoring cruise ships
> > damaging the reefs of Cozumel dive sites, I can say positively and
> > unequivocally (based on my well over 1,200 dives in Cozumel) that there
> > is NO WAY in Hell (ooops, that's in the next stop at Grand Cayman) that
> > the anchoring at that distance from shore in the channel that it could
> > damage any coral (if there's any at that distance and depth) that is
> > ever
>
> Just curious... Could you find out what's the depth of the water where
> they're anchoring...

I would guess that it's in excess of 400 ft, from my vague recollection

of the depth chart on my Cozumel map. I'll ask the ship captain when
I'll have lunch with him (invited among the "most frequent Princess
cruisers" on board.)

-- Bob.

"Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>of the depth chart on my Cozumel map. I'll ask the ship captain when
>I'll have lunch with him (invited among the "most frequent Princess
>cruisers" on board.)
>
>-- Bob.
>
And he continues his self-aggrandizing comments. Hey look at me. I
am wonderful. Cruise ship captains request my audience. I am Bob
Ling...most exalted of all in my presence.

Ron Lee

"Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>of the depth chart on my Cozumel map. I'll ask the ship captain when
>I'll have lunch with him (invited among the "most frequent Princess
>cruisers" on board.)
>
>-- Bob.
>
And he continues his self-aggrandizing comments. Hey look at me. I
am wonderful. Cruise ship captains request my audience. I am Bob
Ling...most exalted of all in my presence.

Ron Lee

Jer wrote:
> Reef Fish wrote:
>
> >
> > For those divers who are concerned with the anchoring cruise ships
> > damaging the reefs of Cozumel dive sites, I can say positively and
> > unequivocally (based on my well over 1,200 dives in Cozumel) that there
> > is NO WAY in Hell (ooops, that's in the next stop at Grand Cayman) that
> > the anchoring at that distance from shore in the channel that it could
> > damage any coral (if there's any at that distance and depth) that is
> > ever
> > seen by any diver in Cozumel, nor could it possibly make any difference
> > to the reefs south of the Puerta Maya pier.
>
> What about the reefs north of the damaged pier? We can't not consider
> those - they're the mating areas of eagle rays. I realize not a lot of
> divers go there, but that's beside my point. Everything matters, not
> just the parts most divers see. Out of sight != out of mind.

First of all, you have to know a bit more about the geography and
current of the island.

The mating areas of eagle rays are in the upper NORTH (near the
East side) of the island. Even if there is constant excavation of sand

and silt at the spot the cruiseship was anchored, the direction of the
current will likely NEVER get there!

It takes MILES before it reaches the San Juan Reef north of the
Square. Then the 3-4 knot current of San Juan goes WEST when
it meets the current of the Barracuda Reef.

Besides, what make you think that the eagle rays would be affected
by a few drops of sand. They stir up more sand looking for food than
the cruise ships!

Eagle mating season in Cozumel (Dec - Mar) was a relatively new
phenomenon discovered by some locals where dive shops DON'T
go. I was diving with those eagle rays in 1998 before any dive shop
even knew about the eagle ray mating in the North. I posted this
in March 2000, when someone reported that Blue Angel was taking
divers to the spot between downtown and San Juan reef where
eagle rays visit regularly from the North:

<<From your description, I think you were at the site where I dived, a
ledge
at 75 to 90 fsw of very swift current. I am curious as to what profile
you
did with Blue Angle (depth/time). When I did it privately, we were
always
small groups of air-misers and we dived with EAN36 and were able to
stay
at 80 fsw for nearly an hour, hanging near the ledge while watching the

squadrons of rays pass by over and over again. That was a couple of
years
ago, before any dive shop took divers out there.>>

That put my first encounter with those squadrons of eagle rays back
to 1998, before the new cruise ship piers were built. The arrival of
the cruise ships, as much as 10 on some days, did not affect the
annual mating of those eagle rays one whit.

The marine animals are much smarter and can adapt to changing
environments (as "survival of the fittest") much better than homo
sapiens, or the myopic give them credit for.

> >
> > So, that's good news.
>
> Cruise ships are always bad news.

Only to the myotic and prejudiced.

-- Bob.

Jer wrote:
> Reef Fish wrote:
>
> >
> > For those divers who are concerned with the anchoring cruise ships
> > damaging the reefs of Cozumel dive sites, I can say positively and
> > unequivocally (based on my well over 1,200 dives in Cozumel) that there
> > is NO WAY in Hell (ooops, that's in the next stop at Grand Cayman) that
> > the anchoring at that distance from shore in the channel that it could
> > damage any coral (if there's any at that distance and depth) that is
> > ever
> > seen by any diver in Cozumel, nor could it possibly make any difference
> > to the reefs south of the Puerta Maya pier.
>
> What about the reefs north of the damaged pier? We can't not consider
> those - they're the mating areas of eagle rays. I realize not a lot of
> divers go there, but that's beside my point. Everything matters, not
> just the parts most divers see. Out of sight != out of mind.

First of all, you have to know a bit more about the geography and
current of the island.

The mating areas of eagle rays are in the upper NORTH (near the
East side) of the island. Even if there is constant excavation of sand

and silt at the spot the cruiseship was anchored, the direction of the
current will likely NEVER get there!

It takes MILES before it reaches the San Juan Reef north of the
Square. Then the 3-4 knot current of San Juan goes WEST when
it meets the current of the Barracuda Reef.

Besides, what make you think that the eagle rays would be affected
by a few drops of sand. They stir up more sand looking for food than
the cruise ships!

Eagle mating season in Cozumel (Dec - Mar) was a relatively new
phenomenon discovered by some locals where dive shops DON'T
go. I was diving with those eagle rays in 1998 before any dive shop
even knew about the eagle ray mating in the North. I posted this
in March 2000, when someone reported that Blue Angel was taking
divers to the spot between downtown and San Juan reef where
eagle rays visit regularly from the North:

<<From your description, I think you were at the site where I dived, a
ledge
at 75 to 90 fsw of very swift current. I am curious as to what profile
you
did with Blue Angle (depth/time). When I did it privately, we were
always
small groups of air-misers and we dived with EAN36 and were able to
stay
at 80 fsw for nearly an hour, hanging near the ledge while watching the

squadrons of rays pass by over and over again. That was a couple of
years
ago, before any dive shop took divers out there.>>

That put my first encounter with those squadrons of eagle rays back
to 1998, before the new cruise ship piers were built. The arrival of
the cruise ships, as much as 10 on some days, did not affect the
annual mating of those eagle rays one whit.

The marine animals are much smarter and can adapt to changing
environments (as "survival of the fittest") much better than homo
sapiens, or the myopic give them credit for.

> >
> > So, that's good news.
>
> Cruise ships are always bad news.

Only to the myotic and prejudiced.

-- Bob.