Easy green?

I get the feeling a lot of "green" scuba divers are what id call easy green, in that they like to follow the latest trends, like to be vocal about how they're doing their part and such. However when you actually look at what they're doing and what they support it turns out to be not a lot of much.

Wrecks
I think wrecks are great for divers, spearos and fishermen to explore and use for their enjoyment. however i draw the line at purpose sunk wrecks. To me it feels like the people who sink these wrecks are saying " we like nature but we no how to make it better,because we like pretty things so prettier must be better" .

Flip it the other way around imagine fishermen and spearos got together and sunk a wreck somewhere for spearo's and fishermen only banning scuba divers because they scare the fish away. I highly doubt any of these "green" scuba divers would let this happen, yet they're quite happy to exclude other user groups from "their" wreck.

For example i think it's nieve to think that placing the canterbury in a sandy bay is actually improving the habitat in any way or even that it's not having a negative effect on the ecosystem.

Fad's
It seems these easy greens are quite keen to adopt the latest conservation fad. Maybe because it makes them feel good, maybe because they don't actually have to do anything significant. A good example is the shark conservation and trash vortex. Im not saying they're not valid just that they seem like fads that are easily adopted yet provide little in the way of tangible results.

Real greenies?
While it might not seem like it i feel a lot of mainstream spearos,fishermen and some comm fishermen(paua,kina etc) are what i feel are real greenies. in that they are actively participating in things to help the ocean. A lot reduce their catch significantly sometimes to 2-3 fish a day, as well as being selective about what they target and where they target them. they also keep an eye out for people abusing the rules and apply peer pressure to get other people to conform to the modest self imposed limits.

I hear what you're saying Andy.
My original impression (decades ago)of an Environmentalist was some 7ft dreadlocked, unwashed dude called a Feral (saw some in Christchurch ironically) , that had 1-3 Uni degrees up his sleeve (all environmental), that played Bongos for some extra cash and cringed at being seen as a Pot-Smokin Hippy (see Byron Bay & Nimbin) or just sat in the woods crying about trees.
These days you get Commercialised guys like Al Gore taking Environmentalism to different people.
These days the Greens are more interested in legalising Heroine and Ice while off-shoot 'political' parties are throwing marbles under police horses during very 'militant' demonstrations.

Its hard to pick a true environmentalist these days, thats for sure.

I can't believe PB hasn't already launched into some of this Andy! Can't be too far away though...

My own thoughts on your issues -

I like wrecks. I like natural ones, but I have no issue with purpose sunk ones either. Over time they do become new habitats and that can only be a good thing. As long as they are stripped down properly then I don't mind.
In terms of the banning issue - I'm not really up on the 'rules' in place on the Canterbury - but as it appears to have been funded by Cowshed (and correct me if I'm wrong there) and they are a dive operation it seems fair to say that they can impose a diving only rule. Are there other wrecks that can be fished on and speared? yes, so it seems like there are plenty to go round.

Fads - agreed. But this is always the case - things will be popular for a while, and then fade away. It used to be dolphin friendly tuna, then saving whales, then something else again. However, fads are harmless and can actually do good things if enough people jump on board. It would appear that you have a touch of the "I used to listen to them before everyone liked them so I'm cooler' going on here (not a dig, I've done it myself...many many times)

Real greenies - dificult to say either way for me as I've not really seen many commercial fishermen in action. I've only seen them from the odd reality show (Dangerous Catch and the other UK/NZ knockoff versions) and as much as I love Dangerous catch - they don't appear to be thinking too much about the environment - just catching as much crab as they can! Still, as I say - I have no real evidence here so am happy to be convinced. They, of all people, should be the most aware of these issues however as it is their livelihoods that they are protecting. I hope that they are doing what you talk about - but have my doubts.

well said andy

The real greenies?

That'll be the airlines & the religious fundamentalists.

The planet is way over populated to be sustainable. My niece told me that for the current population to be sustainable we currently need 6 planets. And she's 11, so that's a reliable enough source for me.

The airlines are helping by assisting the spread of pandemic potential viruses,, and the religious fundamentalists are creating death, war and conflict, bringing the population numbers back in check.

Not wanting to be off topic - I like the canterbury wreck. Don't give a damn if it's good for the environment or not. But the fish seem to like it regardless of what we think

that goes back to my point of us judging the impact and effect of the wreck purely on the pretty visual things we can see not the things we should probably be judging it on..... thus following the easy green idea.....

So what's your point here Andy? That some folk aren't genuine in their motives and attitudes? No news there.. And that cuts on both sides of the equation.

Do you perhaps think that because some folk may not be genuine in their intent, the whole idea of conservation is corrupt because of it? Not saying you do, but I am puzzled at the motivation of your post..

im just voicing my idea that a lot of people who are "green" are really only like that because it's the popular thing to do. and weather thats a good thing is questionable.

Does it have to be a good thing? If so why? Can it not be a neutral thing of no consequence?

Why are you worried about this?

cos people are full of shit.
they spout bollocks all day about conservation this and marine reserve that and really they are only serving their own purpose. they need to put their money where their fat yaps are.

it seems to me that its the people that say the least that probably do the most.

Yes you're right, sometimes the least said the better....

We all serve our own purpose majorly!
How many of us can claim that we only consume and pollute to the bare minimum for a life of reasonable comfort?
There is no set definition of reasonable comfort, so we all have to find our own point at which we think we are consuming/polluting at a fair level.

Is buying a new shirt when the one you are wearing has not yet fallen off your back greedy? After all you are only serving your vanity/ego.

I say do your best to reduce your consumption and support people when they start tin pot campaigns like reducing plastic bags etc.

Hey these little things are not going to save the world but neither is slagging the people who start such campaigns. So what if they feel all smug for being the ones with the idea? Where's the harm?

Come up with an even better idea yourself and inspire others.

Well said

I wasn't judging the impact of the wreck. I was just saying that there's been a lot of fish on, around and in it.
Nice to look at, I'm sure that's a bad thing if you're a worm living in the sea bed.....

Maybe Andy is upset because, besides the fact that he does something that conflicts with the Environmentalist philosophy (SpearFishing) and possibly presumed as being quite reckless wasteful at pursuing that interest (spearing anything and everything in site, even rare species),
he has to put up with Environmentalists who aren't actually 'married' to the Environmental (or Green) cause, but are actually just enjoying a 'one-night-stand' with Environmentalism or even just getting an easy 'blowjob' towards their other non-environmental interests.

Now, if only I had a harpoon x10 as big as Andy's spear-tip, went 'whaling' in a big ship. Came close to a Nipponese Whaling ship, because there is not enough whales in the ocean so things are competative and BAM, harpoon the ship and hold signs up saying "Oops! We missed!"

I think Andy is right though.
But Andy, you have to realise that we all learnt various different subjects at school (well I only paid attention to school excursions) and although I wasn't good at a lot of em, I still had to do my bit. Sure, other kids would excell in say Maths, or Physics (my sister was Dux University for becoming a CPA) and go onto better qualities of those interests.

The English language is a real good example. The anglo-Saxons brought English into the world and now many other 'peoples' other than just Anglo-Saxons speak English (in various accents and colloquialisms) and English is slowly becoming the 'International' Language by choice (although more people speak Spanish or Chinese - but these languages are restricted by isolation and inability to modernise). There are some Anglo-Saxons who refuse to let go of their language as a Global Gift and hold onto it as an Anglo-Saxon 'only' language while they sit upon a peice of land given as a gift by another peoples.

Geez, I forgot what it was that I was aiming to say here

Funny how Green environmentalism and Green militarism are like an old married couple. Suicide for Tranquility and War for Peace.