Dear Wayne, thanks for your observations. Those that follow the links I provided in my Ecolog-L post will see that my request for support is not a "divers against fisherfolk". Protecting goliath grouper is not an action against those that make a living out of the sea, on the contrary, the protection derives in continued support of living from the sea. If interested, and to figure out what at first might seem a riddle (=protect giant fish to help fishermen) I strongly suggest to follow the links I provided. I agree with you that just asking for an internet sign up campaign alone will not be of much help. However, the petition I posted is part of a comprehensive, outreach effort. Direct contact with policy makers (as you suggest) is underway. For the moment, Ecologgers have access to participate in the petition site if they wish to do so. This is not a political campaign, but an effort initiated by concerned scientists, conservationists and divers. Finally, for a round-up on the issue of marine megafauna extinction I recommend Ecologgers to reflect on the fact that goliath grouper were almost wiped out of existence in U.S. waters in the late 1980s. Since 1990, protection in the US has allowed for some recovery. However, for a species that takes almost a decade to reach sexual maturity, and lives in excess of 40 years, barely two decades of protection don't make much for a total recovery. Sarah Frias-Torres, Ph.D. http://independent.academia.edu/SarahFriasTorres
> Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 11:46:56 -0800 > From: [email protected] > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Extinction by expediency Grouper Political > effectiveness Re: [ECOLOG-L] HELPING OCEAN GIANTS > To: [email protected] > > Sarah and Ecolog: > > While I have no doubt that you and your colleagues are sincere, please > understand that it is my policy never to click "I agree to the terms of > service" at any website. I am curious about how others handle this. I > believe that a standard "Terms of Service" statement which could be cited by > websites which those who wish to participate would only have to read once > might alleviate contributor concerns, but those who do not want to take the > chance that their clicking in the affirmative at websites will not be > contrary to the participants' best interests are unlikely to be willing to > read the fine print each time they wish to participate. > > I have little confidence in Internet petitions, but under other circumstance > would be willing to go along on the outside chance that they might have some > effect. However, 1,000 signatures isn't much, and direct means of contact > with those empowered to make policy decisions is likely to "count" for more. > In addition, I question the necessity or advisability of placing emphasis > upon the diving community; this is likely to be interpreted by policy-makers > as one interest group (divers) against fisherfolk ("dependent" upon fishing > for their livelihood). As a purely political strategy, this sort of thing is > questionable. > > In any case, should you care to forward my sentiments, here they are: > > While we are sympathetic with the actual NEEDS of human survival, there is > no evidence, there is no common sense, that justifies the degradation or > extinction of another animal for the whims of any group of humans for the > expediency of short-term gains, after which another animal must suffer the > same fate until there is nothing left to exploit and the future generations > are consigned to a level of impoverishment that will make the poorest humans > of today look like extravagant kings by comparison. The failure to consider > the impact of the utter waste of extinction or degradation of resources like > the Goliath Grouper or any other living thing upon future generations is an > act of complete irresponsibility toward our children, their children, and > theirs. It is the most extreme violation possible against Nature, or if you > prefer, God's creation. Greed is much too mild a term for this level of > selfishness. > > > > WT > >
