Fishing vs. Diving?

[peterbj7]

This afternoon I watched one of the old fisherman land an enormous jewfish on a dock, and then proceed to cut it up.  It has to have been at least 7ft long.  That fish will be inedible, but by catching it he has ensured it won't be there for divers to see and interact with (groupers generally are friendly towards divers).  The same fisherman caught four small-medium sharks a few days ago.  Goodness knows what else he's caught when I haven't been around to see.

I remarked to another old-timer watching that we really need to decide whether San Pedro is going to be a fishing town or a diving one, because at the rate fish are being caught there soon won't be any to see.  Already numbers have greatly dwindled compared with a few years ago.  He responded that they would have to cohabit.  When I said that they seem to be mutually incompatible he said he doesn't care about divers - SP is a fishing village/town, always has been, and will continue to be.  I responded that with no diving tourism would be massively affected.  His answer was that tourism doesn't matter - the town existed before tourists came and will exist after they have gone.  He also said that he was born in San Pedro and he will continue to do what his father did before him, and anyone who doesn't like it can leave.  I discovered later that this old man is a highly influential and rich person who probably greatly helps to determine local policy.

I find this intensely depressing, as I know he is typical of many of the old guard here, and those old guard determine what happens here.

[bywarren]

I can very much appreciate his view. If I lived and grew up there as my family before me, and survived off of what the sea provided, I would not take kindly to someone telling me that because they decided to move there and make their living off of diving and tourism and because of that much of my way of life is deteriorating and is in danger because of the over-development and destruction of the environment to accomodate those who came later, then if those late comers cannot exist without jepordizing my way of life, they should leave.

[deadserious]

I can very much appreciate his view. If I lived and grew up there as my family before me, and survived off of what the sea provided, I would not take kindly to someone telling me that because they decided to move there and make their living off of diving and tourism and because of that much of my way of life is deteriorating and is in danger because of the over-development and destruction of the environment to accomodate those who came later, then if those late comers cannot exist without jepordizing my way of life, they should leave.

Overfishing can also endanger the livelihood of the fisherman.  I realize that this wasn't the argument pursued, but it still seems like the local fisherman is extremely short sighted.

[bywarren]

The "over fishing" is only a result of the demand created by the influx of tourists and the promotion of tourism which can arguably be said to benefit those "late comers" more than those who lived and survived on the island prior to the increase in population caused by tourism. Granted, many of the original families now make their living off of tourism, but all of those families lived off of the sea before. And, those that still feed their families off of what the sea provides should not have that jeopardized just so some can move here and try to make a living. There was a time when the locals did not allow anyone from the "outside" to come to this island and use it to make their living.
To me the question is: If the resources become limited, who has the first right to those resources?

[deadserious]

The "over fishing" is only a result of the demand created by the influx of tourists and the promotion of tourism which can arguably be said to benefit those "late comers" more than those who lived and survived on the island prior to the increase in population caused by tourism. Granted, many of the original families now make their living off of tourism, but all of those families lived off of the sea before. And, those that still feed their families off of what the sea provides should not have that jeopardized just so some can move here and try to make a living. There was a time when the locals did not allow anyone from the "outside" to come to this island and use it to make their living.
To me the question is: If the resources become limited, who has the first right to those resources?

But then you are making a different argument.  I don't think the question was, can San Pedro sustain the current and growing tourism industry...  I think that is a whole different discussion entirely.

The fact is that currently San Pedro is a tourism based economy.  Given the parameters you have to work within, doing something against your own self-interest seems silly to me.  Sure overfishing wouldn't be a problem if there weren't tourism...  and the seaweed wouldn't be a problem if there wasn't a reef...  and AIDS wouldn't be a problem if people stopped screwing...  and crime wouldn't be a problem if there were no people.  

[bywarren]

Not being able to feed your family from what the sea provides, as your family has always done, so that resource can be used by others that move there to make their profits, does not seem like something that is in your best interest.
If overfishing is a problem due to tourism, then if fishing is to be a priority, tourism needs to be controlled. Seaweed is only a problem perceived by humans. The marine ecosystem considers it to be an important part. There was screwing long before Aids. And, crime is only a problem because of certain people.

[clover]

As if the locals don't own touring businesses, tackle shops, boat and engine repair facilities, restaurants serving fresh snapper etc.    


 

[bywarren]

That is the question. If the resource is limited, do the locals have first right to capitalize on their resource, or do they have to allow other people to move there to open those businesses and cause the resource to be deteriorated? And then, those moving there telling the locals that because the resource is limited, it should only be used in ways that provide profits to those who came later.

PS: Oops, sorry Peter. It just dawned on me that Belize was a British Colony, so I guess you being a Brit gives you first right to the fish.

[deadserious]

If overfishing is a problem due to tourism, then if fishing is to be a priority, tourism needs to be controlled.

So now we know why airfare to BZE is always artificially high.

[clover]

  I know of several instances where tour operators are second generation San Pedranos.  Where to you want to start the "those that came later" time line.  1990, 1995, 2000.....fill me in.

[bywarren]

You can start with me 1969.
Seriously, I have no problem with San Pedranos doing their businesses. This all started with Peter complaining that a San Pedrano catching fish was damaging to diving operators many of whom moved to the island from elsewhere to capitalize on the resource and that expansion is putting a strain on the resource.
Again, if the premise is the resource has limits, who has first rights to the resource? Is it right to tell a San Pedrano he should not catch fish because that might hurt the business of someone who was not raised there?

[peterbj7]

I'd like to pursue that airfare issue, but before that I have a far more general question.  If you accept that people who were there first have greater claims to whatever's going, I think that leads to anomalies and contradictions that are unsustainable.  Apply that to America, or especially Europe.  Over the millennia countless peoples have migrated elsewhere, usually in the form of invasion, or at least unwelcome settlement.  Or even Belize itself - many people from different places have come to live here, and this migration is ongoing from Europe, America, Guatemala, etc.  Which people have the greater claim to what's there?  Or do we only look at the history of people currently alive?  Because if that's the case this old man's father is merely an historical footnote, an irrelevance to the current question.

In Britain (and I believe the whole of the EU) this problem was recognised and handled in law.  Anyone who is legally living there has exactly the same rights regardless of whether he arrived yesterday or whether his forefathers built the very landscape centuries before.  The logic was that any alternative treatment is socially divisive.

I have often heard locals say that laws are not intended for them and do not apply to them - they're just introduced to manage the gringos and other newcomers.  The current mayor's open policy of not charging friends and family property tax is evidence of that.  The police have at least in the recent past been extremely partial in not taking action against locals when they can get away with it.  Enforcement of the "Tour Guide" requirements is run wholly along those lines.

[bywarren]

Many of your points are valid, Peter. Yes, if you are living in the country legally, you have your rights under the law. But that does not give you the right to tell someone else they should not do what is legal because it might effect you. That is the necessity for laws and regulations. You complain of the laws not being administered equally, but then you condemn someone acting legally because you have a different view. Aren't you being selective in what laws you want enforced and what people can do legally?

[deadserious]

But that does not give you the right to tell someone else they should not do what is legal because it might effect you.

I thought this was a discussion of illegal activity.

[bywarren]

No, as far as my comments, they were directed to Peter's suggestion to an old time San Pedrano that San Pedro must choose between diving and fishing - both legal activities. I don't agree that one sport should have exclusive rights to a resource, especially since there can be made an argument that the one sport, in this case the bringing of tourists many to dive, is the cause of the excessive demand on the resource.
Reason has brought about the creation of marine reserves and catch and release for some species of fish in order to help preserve the resource. Peter's reasoning seems to be to stop people from taking fish to eat. Some might reason that divers should be limited as to how many come to the island. The other side of the coin from Peter's approach.
I have just seen too many times when ones interests or business tries to exclude others from using the resource. Most times from those favoring diving. As I mentioned, the fishing interests have promoted marine reserves, catch and release and protection of some species like the Nassau grouper. What has the diving industry done to limit its effect on the resource? I don't consider asking people to give up fishing as much of a contribution to help, especially when the reasoning is that in doing so it will benefit the diving industry. Sort of self serving, isn't it?