I just received a List of Unsuitable Species

[jmaneyapanda]

JennM;547234 wrote: Well the local divers would be what I'd consider the environmentally aware types - since they derive their income from the water, they'd be keenly aware of what's going on, probably more so than scientists.

One thing that does puzzle me though... a bounty is also a cash incentive, just like selling the live specimens. Both situations remove the fish from the wild, and in both situations they are "ecologically dead" as far as the ocean is concerned.

So what's the difference? (I am playing devil's advocate a little bit here).

I do realize the problems their presence where they don't belong is coming from. Just find your opinion on it rather surprising, considering you are usually in favor of keeping the creature alive. (reference - snake thread a week or so ago).

Obviously it would be a worse idea to try to "relocate" these fish to their native waters. Capturing them for the trade OR killing them off, accomplishes the same goal as far as the ocean is concerned.

Bounty or sale - cash is cash...

Jenn

It all is going through the regulated point, in my example. If there was a way to manage a live regulation, then that would theoretically work, but as it is now, anyone can go and catch and sell them. In my previous response, I very specifically worded:

that is profit for fish collectors, of their own vices.

The "of their own vices" is the key.

As I mentioned in another blog, having live catch fisherman and dead catch fisherman compete for profit only fuels the desire to have them remain. Whereas, if all lionfish have "regulated" removal, the end game is the same. Get the fish to the regulator for the stipend. I really see no way this can be accomplished for live fish.

In regards to the snake thread, IMO, that is comparing apples and shoelaces. In that thread, people were suggesting killing the sanke, that is an ecologically necessary animal, simply because they "didnt like it", "didnt want to learn to identify", or felt "threatened". All of which were quite irrational or improbable in my personal opinion. In this case, there is an invader species, which can cause immense ecological damage, and there appears no real way to stop that other than forced removal. It is an entirely polar opposite in ecological concerns.

 

[jennm]

I think you missed my point, just a little bit. I wasn't implying that the lionfish should be let be in a non-native environment, versus the snake it its native environment.

I was implying that if the offending creature can be removed, and be permitted to live (ie in a hobbyist's tank), that seems like a reasonable thing to do.

Jenn

 

[jmaneyapanda]

JennM;547243 wrote: I think you missed my point, just a little bit. I wasn't implying that the lionfish should be let be in a non-native environment, versus the snake it its native environment.

I was implying that if the offending creature can be removed, and be permitted to live (ie in a hobbyist's tank), that seems like a reasonable thing to do.

Jenn

Not if someone profits from it, and the hopeful end result is eradication from teh environment. Lets say that Diver Joe gets $20 per lionfish, selling them at will. Why would he want them gone from the Caribbean? Why does he want the dead catch hunters to be successful? What benefit does he have in removing them permanently from the Caribbean?

 

[jmaneyapanda]

It is the same principle as why USFWS doesnt sell off, or distribute confiscated animals that are illegally imported. They are either destroyed or passed to an end source (where they will not be sold or moved to another home). It proliferates the problem.

 

[jennm]

Say Diver Joe gets a $20 bounty per lionfish. Why would he want them gone? Just put aside the fact that it's an invasive creature. Diver Joe knows this already... so if he gets a cash incentive (either a sale or a bounty - either way it's a revenue stream), why would he want them gone forever? Once they are gone, there is no more sale (OR no more bounty).

That's my point. Cash is cash. Whether he gets a bounty for a dead one or a sale for a live one... and chances are the sale price would be greater than the bounty.

From the reading I've done (albeit limited) it seems that everyone in the know seems to concur that the problem is much greater than initially believed, and that these fish are ranging all up and down the east coast. Sadly they may already have reached populations that we're not likely to be able to eradicate.

Jenn

 

[jmaneyapanda]

JennM;547249 wrote: Say Diver Joe gets a $20 bounty per lionfish. Why would he want them gone? Just put aside the fact that it's an invasive creature. Diver Joe knows this already... so if he gets a cash incentive (either a sale or a bounty - either way it's a revenue stream), why would he want them gone forever? Once they are gone, there is no more sale (OR no more bounty).

That's my point. Cash is cash. Whether he gets a bounty for a dead one or a sale for a live one... and chances are the sale price would be greater than the bounty.

From the reading I've done (albeit limited) it seems that everyone in the know seems to concur that the problem is much greater than initially believed, and that these fish are ranging all up and down the east coast. Sadly they may already have reached populations that we're not likely to be able to eradicate.

Jenn

Because it isnt $20 (or what the live fish profit is), and there are MANY more people competing for the same stipend. That is why I dont belive a live catch scenario is feasible. If he got $1 per fish (as did anyone else who brought in a dead lion to the "regulator"), there would be a bigger cause for the hunt (more hunters). When all fish can only be profited by yielding them to the regulator, then that eliminates the free market competition, and the desire for longevity. Furthermore, perhaps stipend ISNT a cahs bounty. Perhaps it is another tangible benefit. Perhaps keeping the dead catch, or whatever.

Diver Toim can currently go and catch one, and charge $100 for one. And with the notoriety these are getting for being invasive, someone would buy it "to help the Caribbean". That is creating a market for an item that is not desired to be marketable. It is a paradox. Regulating it destroys that market.

 

[jennm]

OK, now I understand a bit better... more individuals capable of bringing in a dead one, versus limited licensed collectors bringing in live ones. That was what I was missing I guess.

So coupled with that, would it necessitate banning the sale of live caught specimens? Or just chalking that up to "it is what it is"?

Jenn

 

[jmaneyapanda]

JennM;547255 wrote: OK, now I understand a bit better... more individuals capable of bringing in a dead one, versus limited licensed collectors bringing in live ones. That was what I was missing I guess.

So coupled with that, would it necessitate banning the sale of live caught specimens? Or just chalking that up to "it is what it is"?

Jenn

I dont think selling off Caribbean lions is a good thing, as a principle. They are actually being promoted and featured as this now, which creates positive demand for them.

An issue too, which I think you may be "missing" of mine, is I dont feel that a monetary reward is an absolute stipend that should be offered. Maybe it is, but I think also other "rewards" can be used. Maybe "permits" should be issued collect them (and then done with whatever they like- sell them live, kill them, keep them, whatever). But some uniform regulation of how they are handled. Otherwise, there will be competition where there should be none, as there will be numerous sources. Sadly, I foresee that soon there will be scuba and snorkel charters to "see" the Caribbean lionfish. Whats next? Conservation for an ecological disaster, because of economic profitability?

FWIW, is all just my biased opinion. I personally dont feel ecological disaster are something to be profited off of. In any sense.