No don't worry.
I'm not about to totally blast this and call it a scam.
Mark Deakos is certainly a good man who cares deeply, and the projects he is suggesting are certainly legit.
But of course there has to be a BUT! :)
Assuming that there are only so many people willing to invest only so much money into Mobulid conservation - is that the best way to invest those 75 grand?
Yes those Maui Manta Rays may be inconvenienced and some may even fall victim to accidental entanglements - but nobody is actively trying to kill them, and I really have a very hard time believing that the Hawaiian population is at risk of extinction like asserted, meaning that in reality, they also don't need to be "saved"!
Surely the real problems facing Manta Ray conservation are their continued wholesale persecution in e.g. the Subcontinent and Asia, and the challenge of enforcing local protections but also the CITES regulations in order to curb the totally unsustainable disgrace that is the gill raker trade - or not?
And when it comes to the Mobulids in general, surely the biggest and most urgent conservation challenge is to obtain the population data and the other science that are the prerequisites for a CITES listing of the Mobulas - and oh yes, I'm very much talking to you, slow hand clapping mobula fan!
I say, better send your money to the Manta Trust.
This is really the clearing house for global Manta and Mobula conservation, and Guy Stevens, DaMary, Shawn & Co are probably best suited for conducting the required triage and directing any funds to where they are most needed - including to Deakos who is one of the project leaders!
Or am I missing something here?
5 comments:
I think you are absolutely right. Hawaii's manta ray populations must be some of the most well protected on the planet. The exctinction claim seems very far fetched.
It is incredibly disappointing that anyone would blast a legit conservation effort being lead by an obviously qualified scientist who has worked with this particular population of animals for over ten years. If you think that legal protection prevents bycatch and illegal activities I wish I lived in your utopia, but I think your view is very short sighted and quite frankly ignorant. You owe Dr. Deakos an apology.
"It is incredibly disappointing that anyone would blast a legit conservation effort being lead by an obviously qualified scientist"
What part of
I'm not about to totally blast this and call it a scam. Mark Deakos is certainly a good man who cares deeply, and the projects he is suggesting are certainly legit.
did you not understand?
"If you think that legal protection prevents bycatch and illegal activities I wish I lived in your utopia"
What part of
Surely the real problems facing Manta Ray conservation are ... and the challenge of enforcing local protections but also the CITES regulations
did you not understand?
As for the utopia we live in.
Please check out our website - you can find it at the top of this blog, right-hand side.
Hi Mark
Thank you for your exhaustive reply, very interesting!
First things first - you don't refer to extinction expressis verbis - but you state that the Mantas need saving, that the population is under serious threat and that it may drop beyond a point at which recovery may be possible, which obviously suggests the same.
Now, you state that different stocks need to be managed differently (true) which of course raises the thorny issue of what is the smallest taxonomic entity deserving protection which has been the bane of conservation efforts in e.g. limnology etc. From the gut, methinks the buck should stop at the species level - but of course a species is what a geneticist tells you it is, and with Will White et al continuing to split up those species complexes = describing ever new species, this issue will certainly require some soul searching - but not here and now.
Where I'm coming from is that at a time where global biodiversity is under severe threat and at the same time, funding becomes ever more challenging, we need to set priorities. It is a zero sum game, meaning that the resources (= man hours devoted to research and conservation, money etc) invested into secondary projects ultimately affect the outcome of other more vital endeavors.
That is a central theme of this blog.
I'm invested in shark research and conservation that is being plagued by widespread duplication of efforts, internecine fights and resulting squandering of resources.
With that in mind, I've always greatly admired (and envied!) mobulid conservation for its cohesiveness insofar as initiatives like the Manta Ray of Hope project and the Manta Trust have been able to reunite all the big names around the common cause and, I thought, direct global efforts ( and resources) towards where they were most needed.
With that in mind, the gist of the post is "Although this is legit, maybe there are more pressing issues in mobulid conservation. Best send your money to the global clearing house that will conduct the necessary triage and direct the funds to where they are most needed - including to you if that issue is being deemed to be urgent".
But maybe I'm wrong and there is no such coordination? If so, it would be a real shame!
Regarding the value of tourism Mantas.
I of course totally agree. If you care to peruse this link etc, you will discern that we run a micro-project that integrates tourism, research and conservation. 100% of the conservation effort is being funded out of cash flow, plus a levy we collect from the tourists. Much of the research is being funded through micro-grants by SOSF and SF (acting as global clearing houses) plus an enormous amount of pro bono work.
Maybe that (= locally generated user fees) could be a template worth exploring?
In my experience, provided that they are being educated, tourist are more than happy to contribute to conservation research. What is the involvement of the local dive operators that are ultimately profiting from the resource - would they be amenable to collecting such a levy, the more as it would not impinge on their cash flow?
Anyway, thank you for your reply.
Good talking, and godspeed!
Thanks Mark!
As this is an oldish post, I've re-posted a link to your comments here so people will hopefully read it and get more educated about your efforts.
Just one last comment.
I think it needs to be a global fee that is collected from tourists as they entire and leave the state, similar to places like Yap and Palau, which generates significant income for conservation. No company, whether you benefit from mantas or not, is going to want to be singled out to pay into resource protection. Personally I would think they would want to preserve their livelihood, but that's not the world we live in.
Possibly - personally I don't like the idea of bureaucrats managing those funds, the more as so much will be lost to admin.
We here in Fiji (and we're not the only ones) levy a fee ON TOP of the price of diving, meaning that such a fee has no incidence on the operators' cash flow.
Provided that it is being explained, tourists love it = besides generating funds, it is good marketing.
Good talking - thanks for the clarifications!
Post a Comment