Bonaire by Cruise

Skeptic wrote:
> "Popeye" <Popeye@Finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in message
> news:127rvh8kpe71c89@news.supernews.com...
>
>>
>>"Skeptic" <bcs002b@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1Vlfg.11237$1i1.6024@attbi_s72...
>>
>>>"Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
>>>news:127q21qn08d4359@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>>>ginmill01 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>One last comment about the gloves. This is drectly from the Bonaire
>>>>>Marine Park.
>>>>>
>>>>>Last but not least is that local law under supervision of the Bonaire
>>>>>Marine Park protects the reefs. Anything in the water from 0-200 feet
>>>>>is protected. Spear fishing, anchoring, diving with gloves, contact
>>>>>with the reef. is prohibited.
>>>>
>>>>What diving with gloves has to do with any of that other stuff is beyond
>>>>me, because none of that other stuff has anything to do with why I wear
>>>>gloves.
>>>
>>>Diving with gloves has the same effect as anchoring - it tends to lead to
>>>the death of coral and thus destruction of the reef. If you can't dive
>>>without putting your paw prints all over the sea life, then you really
>>>need to learn how to dive.
>>
>> If diving with gloves has anything to do with that, you need to take up
>>stamp collecting.
>
>
> Reef preservation seems to be a foreign concept to you. There is no
> anchoring in Bonaire, no removing sea life, no man handling coral, etc. -
> and these are some of the reasons why Bonaire year after year is considered
> a divers' paradise. This is why it will continue to be such for generations
> to come. Coral are an animal species and very easily killed. Settling too
> much sand on them can kill some species. When divers wear gloves - and in
> the Netherlands Antilles where the water temp is around 80 this is almost
> always by inexperienced divers - it creates a situation where divers are
> more apt to touch. With gloves on, more things get touched and usually much
> more forcefully. These are facts and the very facts that led Bonaire to
> outlaw gloves.
>
> If it bothers you, don't dive there. You won't be missed.
>
>


Whoosh!

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

"Skeptic" <bcs002b@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:CIpfg.999438$xm3.633823@attbi_s21...
>
> "Popeye" <Popeye@Finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in message
> news:127rvh8kpe71c89@news.supernews.com...
> >
> >
> > "Skeptic" <bcs002b@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1Vlfg.11237$1i1.6024@attbi_s72...
> >>
> >> "Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
> >> news:127q21qn08d4359@corp.supernews.com...
> >>> ginmill01 wrote:
> >>>> One last comment about the gloves. This is drectly from the Bonaire
> >>>> Marine Park.
> >>>>
> >>>> Last but not least is that local law under supervision of the Bonaire
> >>>> Marine Park protects the reefs. Anything in the water from 0-200 feet
> >>>> is protected. Spear fishing, anchoring, diving with gloves, contact
> >>>> with the reef. is prohibited.
> >>>
> >>> What diving with gloves has to do with any of that other stuff is
beyond
> >>> me, because none of that other stuff has anything to do with why I
wear
> >>> gloves.
> >>
> >> Diving with gloves has the same effect as anchoring - it tends to lead
to
> >> the death of coral and thus destruction of the reef. If you can't dive
> >> without putting your paw prints all over the sea life, then you really
> >> need to learn how to dive.
> >
> > If diving with gloves has anything to do with that, you need to take up
> > stamp collecting.
>
> Reef preservation seems to be a foreign concept to you. There is no
> anchoring in Bonaire, no removing sea life, no man handling coral, etc. -
> and these are some of the reasons why Bonaire year after year is
considered
> a divers' paradise. This is why it will continue to be such for
generations
> to come. Coral are an animal species and very easily killed. Settling
too
> much sand on them can kill some species. When divers wear gloves - and in
> the Netherlands Antilles where the water temp is around 80 this is almost
> always by inexperienced divers - it creates a situation where divers are
> more apt to touch. With gloves on, more things get touched and usually
much
> more forcefully. These are facts and the very facts that led Bonaire to
> outlaw gloves.

Ahh....so guns are not the only inanimate object that causes people to do
bad things - apparently gloves do as well.

>
> If it bothers you, don't dive there. You won't be missed.
>
>

Dennis

"Alan Street" <agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:310520061805258635%agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com ...
> In article <CIpfg.999438$xm3.633823@attbi_s21>, Skeptic
> <bcs002b@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> ? "Popeye" <Popeye@Finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in message
> ? news:127rvh8kpe71c89@news.supernews.com...
>
> ? >> Diving with gloves has the same effect as anchoring - it tends to
> lead to
> ? >> the death of coral and thus destruction of the reef. If you can't
> dive
> ? >> without putting your paw prints all over the sea life, then you
> really
> ? >> need to learn how to dive.
> ? >
> ? > If diving with gloves has anything to do with that, you need to take
> up
> ? > stamp collecting.
> ?
> ? Reef preservation seems to be a foreign concept to you. There is no
> ? anchoring in Bonaire, no removing sea life, no man handling coral,
> etc. -
> ? and these are some of the reasons why Bonaire year after year is
> considered
> ? a divers' paradise. This is why it will continue to be such for
> generations
> ? to come. Coral are an animal species and very easily killed. Settling
> too
> ? much sand on them can kill some species. When divers wear gloves - and
> in
> ? the Netherlands Antilles where the water temp is around 80 this is
> almost
> ? always by inexperienced divers - it creates a situation where divers are
> ? more apt to touch. With gloves on, more things get touched and usually
> much
> ? more forcefully. These are facts and the very facts that led Bonaire to
> ? outlaw gloves.
> ?
> ? If it bothers you, don't dive there. You won't be missed.
> ?
> ?
> You really have no idea what you're talking about. Do you honestly
> think gloves are the cause of reef damage?

There are many causes. Gloves when diving is one of them. That is the
entire basis for their being banned in Bonaire.

In article <SVrfg.999582$xm3.882937@attbi_s21>, Skeptic
<bcs002b@yahoo.com> wrote:


€ > ?
€ > ?
€ > You really have no idea what you're talking about. Do you honestly
€ > think gloves are the cause of reef damage?
€
€ There are many causes. Gloves when diving is one of them. That is the
€ entire basis for their being banned in Bonaire.
€
€

Gloves have nothing to do with the problem. Start thinking about the
root cause, not about the symptoms.

The ban on Bonaire is based on ignorance, not logic. By your postings,
you're part of the ignorance.

"Skeptic" <bcs002b@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fYsfg.999690$xm3.172053@attbi_s21...

> Ahh... Yes, and when I dive in Gloucester, MA I wear gloves .... along
with
> a lot of other gear. Though I haven't dived in the Pacific Northwest, I
am
> quite sure it bares no resemblance to the Southern Caribbean.

Why should it?

It has a beauty and diversity of life that makes the carribean look like a
desert in comparison.

Bjórrúnar skaltu "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid>
rista-

> . Being a goo ddiver I planyed
> by their rules.

PWI violation

Posting while intoxicated


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hu-dnRUP6cRZ9-PZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@wavecable.com...
>
> "Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message
> news:127soe57h4amba7@corp.supernews.com...
>> "Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:u8WdncgCZoNhz-PZRVn-vg@wavecable.com...
>> > "Alan Street" <agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com> wrote in message
>> > news:310520061805258635%agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com ...
>> >
>> >> You really have no idea what you're talking about. Do you honestly
>> >> think gloves are the cause of reef damage?
>> >
>> > Yes, he does.
>> >
>> > And cars cause drunk driving deaths.
>>
>> And guns cause . . . uh . . . never mind.
>
> See?
>
> And they said you were stupid.

"They"? Tell me who they are and I'll shoot them.

I am the NRA.

"Skeptic" <bcs002b@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fYsfg.999690$xm3.172053@attbi_s21...
>
> "Carl Nisarel" <nisarel@postmaster.uk.co> wrote in message
> news:Xns97D4CB1B64CCCnisarelpostmastercou@66.150.1 05.47...
> > Bjórrúnar skaltu "Skeptic" <bcs002b@yahoo.com> rista-
> >
> >> "Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> "Skeptic" <bcs002b@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>
> >>>> There are many causes. Gloves when diving is one of them.
> >>>> That is the entire basis for their being banned in Bonaire.
> >>>
> >>> Wow.
> >>>
> >>> Everyone up here wears gloves because of the water
> >>> temperature.
> >>>
> >>> Our reefs are fine.
> >>
> >> I don't know where "here" is and I'm happy to hear you think
> >> your reef is "fine".
> >
> > Scotty's in Seattle.
> >
> > He thinks that all reefs are the same.
>
> Ahh... Yes, and when I dive in Gloucester, MA I wear gloves .... along
with
> a lot of other gear. Though I haven't dived in the Pacific Northwest, I
am
> quite sure it bares no resemblance to the Southern Caribbean.
>
>

Give it a shot sometime.

Dennis

Skeptic wrote:
> "Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote:
> > So if these inexperienced divers are ouching the reef without gloves on,
> > its ok?
>
> The lack of gloves forces divers to be more aware of their surroundings and
> makes them less likely to use their hands as buoyancy devices bopping from
> coral to coral.

That's the theory, but unfortunately, its wrong.

First, what does "forces divers to be more aware" really translate to?

It translates to: "make an injury more likely AFTER a contact event".

This means that the diver-induced incremental reef damage will have
happened regardless of if there were wearing gloves on or not. As
such, you're relying on the learning curve of someone getting hurt (or
at best, the psychological fear of injury) to work, to hopefully
slightly reduce the odds of the individual repeating that type of
action in the future. That's not particularly reliable.


Second, as you point out, for divers who are using their hands as
buoyancy aids, when they do get injured from a lack of gloves, what are
their learning options?

a. Blame the event on something 'not their fault' and do not learn
b. Upgrade their lycra skin to a 2mm wetsuit (& bodycrash the reef)
c. Upgrade the wetsuit to one with rubber knee patches (& continue)
d. Realize they're not a victim & learn to improve bouyancy skills

Since the majority of the problem are the stupid divers (and our
"victim" attitude to everything today), why do we always want to delude
ourselves into believing that option (d) is for some reason the most
likely?


Third, hands are only part of the diver's body. As per this study on
diver-caused reef damage,

http://www.reef.crc.org.au/publicati.../TechRep4.html

they concluded:

a) 4% of the divers caused over 70% of the detected damage
b) Kicks by divers' fins were the major cause of coral injury.

What this means is that even if we want to say that fins were 51% and
gloves 49% for damage, this report shows that gloves aren't a problem
over 80% of the time.



Finally, here's the real source of diver-induced reef damage in
Bonaire. Please note that he is *not* wearing gloves:

http://www.bonairetalk.com/newsgroup...s/626/1175.jpg


This is the nature of educational problem that needs to be overcome.

And FWIW, I'm not blaming this on this diver having a camera. Its just
that this guy's buoyancy control skills are very obviously grossly
deficient, and this type of behavior is going to be very hard to break
him of, with or without optional toys.


And finally, where did this reef damage come from? Historically, this
"rubble" area used to be covered with staghorn coral, fire coral and
critters, but as can seen in the photo, its pretty barren, although
there are small coralheads trying to grow back.

So was the reef damage seen here inflicted by the fin of man, attracted
by the webcam?

No, it was not. Despite Yahoos like the above, it is known that 99%
of the damage here was caused by non-diver sources. In this specific
case, it was from Hurricane Lenny.


Finally, please don't get me wrong: I do agree that we should strive
to prevent reef damage while diving. My point is that that doesn't
mean that divers are to blame for most of it, with or without gloves.
The reality is that most reef damage comes from non-point sources such
as the flushing of toilets up on this arid island, and similar types of
human consumption activities. Not someone accidentally rubbing
something on a dive. When viewed in the context of all sources, reef
damage from direct scuba diver contact is actually a very small
minority. If we really want to help protect the reef, sure, avoid the
small stuff, but realize that our efforts will be much more productive
if we focus on those sources that we can influence that are a larger
percentage than the proverbial 4%. To concentrate just on gloves
violates the Pareto Principle.


-hh

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:1149158499.762778.6930@c74g2000cwc.googlegrou ps.com...
> Skeptic wrote:
> > "Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote:
> > > So if these inexperienced divers are ouching the reef without gloves
on,
> > > its ok?
> >
> > The lack of gloves forces divers to be more aware of their surroundings
and
> > makes them less likely to use their hands as buoyancy devices bopping
from
> > coral to coral.
>
> That's the theory, but unfortunately, its wrong.
>
> First, what does "forces divers to be more aware" really translate to?
>
> It translates to: "make an injury more likely AFTER a contact event".
>
> This means that the diver-induced incremental reef damage will have
> happened regardless of if there were wearing gloves on or not. As
> such, you're relying on the learning curve of someone getting hurt (or
> at best, the psychological fear of injury) to work, to hopefully
> slightly reduce the odds of the individual repeating that type of
> action in the future. That's not particularly reliable.
>
>
> Second, as you point out, for divers who are using their hands as
> buoyancy aids, when they do get injured from a lack of gloves, what are
> their learning options?
>
> a. Blame the event on something 'not their fault' and do not learn
> b. Upgrade their lycra skin to a 2mm wetsuit (& bodycrash the reef)
> c. Upgrade the wetsuit to one with rubber knee patches (& continue)
> d. Realize they're not a victim & learn to improve bouyancy skills
>
> Since the majority of the problem are the stupid divers (and our
> "victim" attitude to everything today), why do we always want to delude
> ourselves into believing that option (d) is for some reason the most
> likely?
>
>
> Third, hands are only part of the diver's body. As per this study on
> diver-caused reef damage,
>
> http://www.reef.crc.org.au/publicati.../TechRep4.html
>
> they concluded:
>
> a) 4% of the divers caused over 70% of the detected damage
> b) Kicks by divers' fins were the major cause of coral injury.
>
> What this means is that even if we want to say that fins were 51% and
> gloves 49% for damage, this report shows that gloves aren't a problem
> over 80% of the time.
>
>
>
> Finally, here's the real source of diver-induced reef damage in
> Bonaire. Please note that he is *not* wearing gloves:
>
> http://www.bonairetalk.com/newsgroup...s/626/1175.jpg
>
>
> This is the nature of educational problem that needs to be overcome.
>
> And FWIW, I'm not blaming this on this diver having a camera. Its just
> that this guy's buoyancy control skills are very obviously grossly
> deficient, and this type of behavior is going to be very hard to break
> him of, with or without optional toys.
>
>
> And finally, where did this reef damage come from? Historically, this
> "rubble" area used to be covered with staghorn coral, fire coral and
> critters, but as can seen in the photo, its pretty barren, although
> there are small coralheads trying to grow back.
>
> So was the reef damage seen here inflicted by the fin of man, attracted
> by the webcam?
>
> No, it was not. Despite Yahoos like the above, it is known that 99%
> of the damage here was caused by non-diver sources. In this specific
> case, it was from Hurricane Lenny.
>
>
> Finally, please don't get me wrong: I do agree that we should strive
> to prevent reef damage while diving. My point is that that doesn't
> mean that divers are to blame for most of it, with or without gloves.
> The reality is that most reef damage comes from non-point sources such
> as the flushing of toilets up on this arid island, and similar types of
> human consumption activities. Not someone accidentally rubbing
> something on a dive. When viewed in the context of all sources, reef
> damage from direct scuba diver contact is actually a very small
> minority. If we really want to help protect the reef, sure, avoid the
> small stuff, but realize that our efforts will be much more productive
> if we focus on those sources that we can influence that are a larger
> percentage than the proverbial 4%. To concentrate just on gloves
> violates the Pareto Principle.

>

Ok, here's what we can do:
a) All divers will be gloveless & finless. They'll have minimal weighting to
insure that they're psotively bouyant. Professional divemasters can tow the
customers to within 20 ft of each reef.
b) Adoption of a "no hurricane" policy to prevent further damage.
c) Adoption of a "no toilet" policy - all port-a-potties, with the contents
shipped elsewhere.

What do you think?

>
> -hh
>

Dennis