What is one batfish worth? The longfin batfish at Green Island's steel reef have just recovered from a low of ten individuals to around forty. A school of living batfish can bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in tourism revenue for the whole island each year — yet one speargun shot reduces them to a single meal. The Editor opens with this calculation because something troubling happened at Keelung's steel reef over the past few days: dive instructor @vamos_diving reported on Threads that during a boat dive, someone on the same vessel went into the water with a speargun to catch fish — and the boat operator even gave a disclaimer beforehand, announcing to everyone on deck: "This isn't a protected area, so whatever anyone brings up has nothing to do with us." The Editor will state the conclusion upfront: that statement is completely wrong. The vast majority of artificial reef zones are no-take areas officially gazetted by competent authorities under the Fisheries Act. Fishing inside them is illegal. Even outside a no-take zone, using diving equipment to take fish to a "catch quantity" constitutes unlicensed commercial fishing. Furthermore, recreational fishing vessels are only permitted to use rod-and-line, single-line, or troll fishing methods — spearguns are not on the list at all. In this article, the Editor breaks down all four legal grey areas surrounding artificial reef no-take zones, including applicable penalties and source citations.
The Batfish Are Back at Green Island's Steel Reef: How Much Value Can One Artificial Reef Generate?
Let's start with some good news. The longfin batfish (Platax teira) are back at Green Island's steel reef.
According to a PTS News report, a school of roughly forty batfish was recorded by divers last month at this steel artificial reef resting on a sandy bottom at around thirty metres depth — and they were actively approaching people. That number may not sound impressive, but consider this: in 2025, only ten individuals remained here, and more than a decade ago the entire school vanished for reasons that were never fully explained. Huang Yu-xu, an associate researcher at the Eastern Fisheries Biology Research Center of the Fisheries Research Institute, noted in the report that longfin batfish are not migratory. As long as they are left undisturbed, they will slowly rebuild their population in the same stretch of ocean. Historical records show there were once over a hundred individuals here. (Wondering how to tell longfin batfish from orbicular batfish? The Editor wrote a guide on the four batfish species that sorts it all out.)
The Editor wants to ask you a question: what are those forty batfish worth?
If someone shoots one, it becomes a single meal on a dinner table — worth a few hundred dollars — and this reef loses another icon. But if they stay in the water, Green Island receives roughly six thousand visitors per day at peak season in summer, many of whom come specifically for diving. The steel reef is practically a must-visit site for advanced divers on any trip to Green Island. That same school of batfish, photographed by thousands of divers each year and shared across countless social media posts, keeps generating income for guesthouses, boat operators, instructors, and restaurants across the island year after year. That is the whole point of an artificial reef: it is meant to let fish rebuild their wild populations and become a golden goose — not a one-time hunting ground.
This gap in value has been clearly documented overseas. A widely cited study from Palau (Vianna et al., 2011) calculated that a single living reef shark, generating dive tourism revenue over its lifetime, is worth approximately US$1.9 million — or about US$179,000 per year — while the same shark caught and sold commercially fetches only around US$108 as a one-time catch. Alive versus taken, the difference is nearly twenty thousandfold. The same logic applies to the star species around an artificial reef. Running a rough estimate for Green Island: at a peak of six thousand daily visitors in summer, even conservatively assuming only one-third are connected to diving or snorkeling in some way, with dive packages typically running NT$5,000 to over NT$10,000 per outing, plus accommodation, transport, and food, the tourism cash flow in just one summer peak season is already in the hundreds of millions. And the batfish at the steel reef are the living magnet that sustains the whole draw. The Editor wants to be clear that this figure is a conservative back-of-the-envelope estimate, not an official statistic — but the direction is unambiguous: leave the fish in the water and revenue keeps coming in year after year; shoot them, and all you get is one meal's worth.
It took Green Island more than a decade of establishing conservation zones and deploying steel reefs to coax the batfish back one by one. And Green Island is not the only place where steel reefs have brought batfish back. Up north in Keelung, almost identical scenes have recently been documented.
Not Just Green Island — Keelung's Steel Reef Witnesses a Storm of 200 Batfish
A batfish storm is not unique to Green Island. On 4 July 2026, dive instructor Beckham was leading a boat dive when the group encountered over 200 longfin batfish swimming together in a spectacular mass formation at the Badouzi steel reef in Keelung — described as a once-in-a-century spectacle for the Northeast Coast.
The Badouzi steel reef sits on the outer edge of the Keelung Wanghaijang Chaojing Bay Aquatic Resources Conservation Area. It was sunk precisely to protect the marine ecosystem and increase fish populations, and is classified as an intermediate-to-advanced dive site. The massive steel structure is now covered in soft coral and gorgonians / sea fans, making it a benchmark artificial reef for fish aggregation on any given day — and the best proof yet that years of conservation effort are paying off.
Ironically, just days after this batfish storm had the diving community in awe, reports emerged that a diver at that very same steel reef had strapped on scuba gear, brought a speargun underwater, and shot into that very school of batfish. On one side: a natural spectacle that a dive instructor was leading groups to witness, drawing visitors from far and wide. On the other: someone picking them off one by one. Conservation and exploitation clashing head-on at the same reef. That is exactly why the Editor, upon seeing that first-hand account of a speargun-toting diver, felt compelled to lay everything out clearly.
The Controversy at Keelung's Steel Reef: A Speargun on the Same Boat — "It's Not a Protected Area, Take Whatever You Want"?
Back to Keelung. This incident comes from a first-hand account posted on Threads by dive instructor @vamos_diving, under the title "Ghost Story from the Northeast Coast." Here is what happened: the first dive of the day at Keelung Islet came up empty for the spearfishers — no fish taken. Before the second dive at the steel reef, the boat operator themselves pre-emptively delivered a disclaimer to everyone on board:
"This isn't a protected area, so whatever you bring up afterward has nothing to do with us!"
In plain language: the boat operator and dive guide already knew someone was planning to go down with a speargun, and they were covering themselves before anyone hit the water. The result? Batfish that everyone had just been watching underwater were shot and brought up on deck as carcasses moments later. Even more outrageous: there were student divers on the same boat taking a course. The students were happily watching batfish underwater, then surfaced to find a row of dead fish. Even a brooding slipper lobster (Scyllarides sp.) was nearly taken — only spared because someone noticed it was carrying eggs before pocketing it.
Images／Dive instructor @vamos_diving (Threads — "Ghost Story from the Northeast Coast")
The Editor simply wants to say: the idea that "if it's not a protected area, everything is fine" massively underestimates how Taiwan's marine laws actually work. Fisheries regulation in Taiwan has never been a simple binary of "inside a protected area" versus "outside a protected area." What gear you use, what vessel you are on, whether you hold a licence, and how much you take — any single one of these factors can independently put you on the wrong side of the law.
Below, the Editor addresses the four questions people ask most often, going through the relevant statutes one by one.
Legal Question 1: Is It Legal to Spearfish with Scuba Gear? There Is No Single National Ban — but There Is Almost No Legal Path Either
First, let's clear up a common misconception. Many people assume Taiwan has an absolute, nationwide rule banning all spearfishing with scuba gear. Strictly speaking, that kind of blanket national prohibition does not currently exist. In 2017 (Year 106 of the Republic of China calendar), the Fisheries Agency pre-announced two nationwide draft regulations — "Control Measures for the Harvesting of Aquatic Animals and Plants Using Diving Equipment" and "Control Measures for the No-Take Zones for Speargun Harvesting of Aquatic Animals" — intended to regulate all use of diving equipment and spearguns within twelve nautical miles. However, pushback from recreational divers, spearfishing enthusiasts, and Indigenous communities exercising traditional fishing rights led to demands for "further review" after public hearings, and neither regulation has been enacted to this day.
The absence of a national ban does not mean anything goes. In practice, two existing regulations squeeze the legal space for scuba spearfishing down to almost nothing.
First Barrier: Diving Equipment Fishing Licences — Suspended Since 1989
Taiwan stopped issuing "diving equipment fishery" licences in 1989 (Year 78 of the Republic of China calendar). That is over thirty years without a single new licence issued, meaning no one can legally "operate a fishery" using diving equipment. The moment you strap on a scuba tank, pick up a speargun, and take a quantity of fish deemed to constitute a "commercial catch," you are operating a fishery without a licence — a direct violation of Article 6 of the Fisheries Act, carrying a fine of NT$60,000 to NT$300,000. Penalties are detailed under Legal Question 3 below.
In August 2025, authorities in Penghu caught a fishing vessel using compressed air lines — essentially improvised scuba gear — to illegally harvest over twenty kilograms of lobster and high-value fish in a single operation. The case was handled as an unlicensed diving equipment fishery: equipment and catch were confiscated, the case was referred for prosecution, and repeat offenders face enhanced penalties. So "no one enforces this here" is an illusion — it is not a matter of if, but when.
Second Barrier: No-Take Zones Gazetted by Local Governments
The second barrier — and the most directly applicable one in the Keelung steel reef case — is the no-take zone notices issued by local governments for artificial reefs and conservation areas within their jurisdiction. Most artificial reefs off Keelung fall within exactly this kind of notice. Violations are subject to a fine of NT$30,000 to NT$150,000 under Article 65 of the Fisheries Act, with equipment and catch liable to confiscation. The Editor covers this in full under Legal Question 4.
Legal Question 2: What Fishing Methods Are Allowed on a Recreational Fishing Vessel? Only Three
Many people assume: "I'm on a licensed recreational fishing vessel, so whatever I do on board is legal." That is also a misunderstanding.
Under Article 2 of the Regulations for Management of Recreational Fisheries, among the activities recreational fishing vessels are permitted to carry out with paying passengers, the first item in the first subparagraph covers "harvesting of aquatic animals and plants." However, Paragraph 4 of the same article explicitly limits the fishing gear and methods for this activity to rod-and-line fishing, single-line fishing, or troll fishing only. As for taking passengers diving, Paragraph 3 of the same article requires compliance with the Regulations for Management of Water Recreation Activities and prior approval from the competent authority.
Read that clearly: rod-and-line, single-line, troll fishing. All three involve a line. Not one involves a speargun. In other words, even if you are on a legitimately licensed recreational fishing vessel, even if the boat operator says "we do this all the time," firing a speargun at fish underwater still constitutes a fishing method not permitted under the regulations. A boat operator who turns a blind eye to this — or actively offers speargun services — is dragging both themselves and their passengers into legal jeopardy.
How Are Yachts, Small Boats, and Fishing Vessels Classified? No Recreational Fishing Licence Means No Paying Passengers for Fishing
One more point that often confuses people. Under the Ships Act, yachts, small vessels, and fishing vessels are all categories of ship; yachts and small vessels under 20 gross tonnage fall under the authority of maritime administration agencies. A fishing vessel that has not obtained a "recreational fishery licence" is not permitted to carry paying passengers for fishing or similar recreational activities.
To legally carry passengers, a fishing vessel must complete a vessel inspection, obtain insurance, and file a departure notice under recreational fishery regulations, and only after approval can it take paying passengers offshore. The people on board should also hold appropriate qualifications and carry the relevant documentation. If a boat owner takes you out fishing without following these requirements, the vessel itself may already be in violation of passenger-carrying rules — meaning you have essentially boarded a non-compliant vessel.
Legal Question 3: Can I Take My Own Yacht Out with a Speargun and Dive to Catch Fish? Reaching "Catch Quantity" Means a Fine of NT$60,000 to NT$300,000
What if, instead of boarding someone else's vessel, you take your own recreational pleasure craft out with diving gear and a speargun?
The Fisheries Agency addressed this question in an official interpretation long ago. According to Interpretation Letter No. 8860612 (88-Yi-Zi-8860612) issued on 13 August 1999 by the Council of Agriculture Fisheries Agency (now the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries Agency): under Article 6 of the Fisheries Act, anyone wishing to operate a fishery in public waters or waters connected thereto must obtain approval from the competent authority and hold a fishery licence. If a member of the public, without such permission or a fishery licence, uses a personal recreational vessel to bring diving equipment and a speargun into the sea to harvest aquatic animals and plants, and the quantity taken is determined to constitute a "commercial fishing catch," this constitutes a violation. The competent authority may, pursuant to Article 64, Paragraph 1 of the Fisheries Act, impose a fine of not less than NT$60,000 and not more than NT$300,000 on the offender.
In plain language: your own boat, your own speargun — if the quantity taken is judged to constitute "fishing" rather than mere observation, there is a legal basis to penalise you, and the fine under this provision is heavier than under Article 65.
Legal Question 4: Aren't Artificial Reefs Already No-Take Zones by Default? In Most Cases, Yes
This brings us to the heart of the matter: artificial reef no-take zones.
The vast majority of artificial reef zones and protected reef zones along Taiwan's coast have been officially gazetted by the Fisheries Agency. The purpose of these notices is to create habitat, aggregate fish populations, and restore marine resources. Within these zones, the harvesting of aquatic animals and plants is in principle prohibited. The legal basis for these no-take notices comes from Articles 44 and 45 of the Fisheries Act, under which the competent authority (the Fisheries Agency or a local county/city government) may gazette "restrictions on or prohibitions within fishing areas." Violations are subject to a fine of NT$30,000 to NT$150,000 under Article 65, with catch and gear confiscated under Article 68. This provision is the most directly applicable regulation in the Keelung steel reef case.
In Keelung specifically, the city government has gazetted the "Keelung Wanghaijang Chaojing Bay Aquatic Animals and Plants Breeding and Conservation Area" under Articles 44 and 45 of the Fisheries Act. Within this zone, aside from hand-gathering seaweed, the harvesting of any other aquatic animal or plant is prohibited. The artificial reefs and conservation areas off the Keelung coast all fall under similar local notices. The Fisheries Agency's website maintains dedicated lists of "Artificial Reef Zone Notices" and "Protected Reef Zone Notices," with each area listed clearly. Spending significant public funds to sink a steel reef into the ocean is precisely to create a nursery for fish populations — there is no way it could ever be intended to allow fishing inside it.
So the next time someone says "this isn't a protected area," the Editor's advice is to ask them to produce the evidence: does this steel reef or any part of the surrounding water fall within a gazetted artificial reef zone or no-take zone? In most cases, the answer will be deeply unflattering to anyone who brought a speargun. And even in the rare case where it genuinely falls outside any gazetted zone, the previous three barriers — unlicensed use of diving gear to fish, restricted fishing methods on recreational vessels, and unlicensed commercial fishing — have already closed off the option of "catch whatever you want."
So Why Does the Coast Guard Often Do Nothing? One Awkward Legal Loophole
By now you may be wondering: if so many provisions make this illegal, why do people openly bring spearguns aboard boats, sometimes right in front of the Coast Guard, without being stopped?
The Editor will be honest: there is an awkward grey area here. In 2016, when the Ministry of Transportation revised the Regulations for Management of Water Recreation Activities, it removed the provision that had previously stated "divers shall not carry spearguns." That deletion created a gap at the "carrying" stage. Additionally, most rubber-band-powered or mechanical spearguns commonly available on the market are not classified as firearms regulated under the Controlling Guns, Ammunition and Knives Act, meaning the mere act of "possessing" or "carrying" a speargun does not by itself easily constitute an offence.
The problem is that the illegality hinges on "harvesting" and "catch quantity" — both of which must be caught in the act underwater, or established after the fact based on the catch brought up. When a Coast Guard officer sees a speargun on a boat, it is very difficult to immediately determine whether that person will definitely use it, or how much they will take. Simply put: possessing or carrying a speargun is not in itself illegal, but diving with it to catch fish absolutely is — except that by the time the boat returns to port, the speargun is stowed away and the catch is hidden, and without footage of what happened underwater, the Coast Guard has little basis to issue a citation on the spot. This is an evidence-gathering challenge for enforcement, not a legal green light. So never mistake "not intercepted on the day" for "legal." Once someone is filmed, reported, or caught returning to port with a catch, every one of the penalties above applies in full. And precisely because the legal net has limited reach — a hidden speargun and a concealed catch can slip through — what ultimately keeps reefs safe is, in the end, a matter of conscience. That is what the Editor wants to talk about next.
Beyond the Law: Reefs Are Nurseries, Not Hunting Grounds
With the hard legal provisions laid out, the Editor wants to talk about something the law cannot fully reach but is equally important: perception and ethics.
First: the entire purpose of an artificial reef is to allow fish populations to recover and rebuild their wild numbers. Green Island's steel reef took over a decade to bring the batfish back. A place like this is meant to be the ocean's nursery — not anyone's private fishing ground. Firing a speargun inside a nursery means converting what everyone helped build together into a one-time personal harvest. No matter how you run the numbers, that trade-off makes no sense.
Second: the Editor is sure someone will say — bottom trawling and purse seine nets do far more damage to the ocean; why are you going after a handful of spearfishers? The Editor agrees that large-scale commercial fishing methods cause far greater harm, and that is a separate, serious issue that needs to be addressed. But "someone else is doing something worse" has never been a get-out-of-jail card for breaking the law yourself. Illegal is illegal; the two issues need to be handled separately, and one cannot be used to shield the other.
Third, and most immediately: the paying passengers on a boat dive came to see marine life — and if someone on the same boat uses a speargun to scatter the fish and empty the site, those divers essentially wasted their money. It is no wonder the reaction is so negative. Even within the freediving and spearfishing community itself, there is self-criticism: "taking everything regardless of size, even inside protected areas" has depleted resources and tarnished the reputation of the entire community. When there are recreational divers in the water nearby and someone is swinging a loaded speargun around taking aim and shooting, leave legality aside for a moment — the risk of accidental injury and the safety implications alone are enough to make everyone's blood run cold.
Ocean resources are shared. If you leave one more batfish in the steel reef today, more people will be willing to get on a boat to come see it next year. That is how this stretch of ocean stays viable for the next decade.
Practical Reference: Quick Legality Check for Spearfishing and How to Report It
The Editor has condensed the lengthy legal breakdown above into a single table for easy reference and sharing.
| Scenario | Legal? | Basis and Penalties |
|---|---|---|
| Using diving equipment to spearfish reaching "catch quantity" (unlicensed fishery operation) | Illegal | Diving equipment fishery licences suspended since 1989; violates Article 6 of the Fisheries Act; fined NT$60,000–300,000 under Article 64; catch and gear confiscated under Article 68 |
| Nationwide blanket ban on scuba/speargun fishing | Not yet in effect | Fisheries Agency's 2017 national draft regulations were shelved after public hearings and have not been enacted; management currently relies on local no-take zone notices and unlicensed-fishery determinations |
| Spearfishing on a recreational fishing vessel dive | Illegal | Article 2, Paragraph 4 of the Regulations for Management of Recreational Fisheries limits fishing gear/methods to rod-and-line, single-line, or troll fishing only |
| Fishing vessel without a recreational fishing licence carrying paying passengers for fishing | Illegal | Ships Act + recreational fishery regulations; no passenger fishing activities permitted without a licence |
| Using a personal yacht with diving gear and speargun reaching catch quantity | Illegal | Fisheries Agency Interpretation Letter No. 88-Yi-Zi-8860612; violates Article 6 of the Fisheries Act; fined NT$60,000–300,000 under Article 64 |
| Harvesting within a gazetted artificial reef zone / no-take zone | Illegal | Gazetted as no-take under Article 44 of the Fisheries Act; violations fined NT$30,000–150,000 under Article 65; catch and gear confiscated under Article 68 |
What to do if you witness spearfishing in a reef zone or protected area? Call the Coast Guard Administration's "118" service hotline, or dial "1999" to report to the local competent authority. Note down the vessel name, location, and time — video footage makes an even stronger case. Real-time public reporting is the most practical step anyone can take to protect these waters.
Conclusion: One Phrase — "This Isn't a Protected Area" — Cannot Override This Many Laws
Back to where we started: "This isn't a protected area — catch whatever you want." After reading this article, you can see just how little that statement holds up against the reality of artificial reef no-take zones. Unlicensed use of diving gear to fish, restricted fishing methods on recreational vessels, unlicensed fishery operation, and gazetted reef zone prohibitions — any one of these four barriers is sufficient to land a spearfisher with a citation. Fines range from NT$30,000 to NT$300,000, and equipment and catch may be confiscated on top of that.
Green Island spent over a decade waiting to bring the batfish back — proving that when we let reefs serve as nurseries, the ocean repays us generously. The Editor sincerely hopes that at Keelung's steel reef, and at every artificial reef across Taiwan, there will be one fewer speargun and one more school of fish finding its way home. Have you ever encountered someone spearfishing on a boat dive? How did you handle it? Leave a comment and let the Editor know — together we can keep this conversation going and make the issue clearer for everyone.
References and Legal Sources
- First-hand account of spearfishing at the Northeast Coast steel reef / Dive instructor @vamos_diving (Threads — "Ghost Story from the Northeast Coast")
- PTS News: "Batfish Population Recovers at Green Island Steel Reef"
- UDN: "Over 200 Longfin Batfish Storm at Badouzi Steel Reef — A Once-in-a-Century Spectacle for Northeast Coast Divers"
- Fisheries Act full text (including Articles 6, 44, 64, 65, 68) / Laws & Regulations Database of the Republic of China
- Regulations for Management of Recreational Fisheries, Article 2 (fishing gear/method restrictions; approval required for passenger diving) / Laws & Regulations Database of the Republic of China
- Ships Act / Laws & Regulations Database of the Republic of China
- Fisheries Agency, Ministry of Agriculture: Artificial Reef and Protected Reef Zone Information (including Artificial Reef Zone Notices and Protected Reef Zone Notices)
- Keelung City Government Notice: "Keelung City Wanghaijang Chaojing Bay Aquatic Animals and Plants Breeding and Conservation Area and Related Restrictions" (under Articles 44 and 45 of the Fisheries Act)
- Fisheries Agency 2017 (Year 106) pre-announced draft: "Control Measures for the Harvesting of Aquatic Animals and Plants Using Diving Equipment" — shelved after public hearings / Public Policy Network Participation Platform
- Fisheries Agency, Ministry of Agriculture: Prohibited Acts and Penalties in Marine Protected Areas
- Fisheries Agency Interpretation Letter No. 88-Yi-Zi-8860612: Clarification on whether there is a legal basis to regulate the act of a member of the public using a personal recreational vessel to bring diving equipment and a speargun into the sea to harvest aquatic animals and plants
- Palau reef shark tourism value study (Vianna et al., 2011, AIMS / University of Western Australia, reported by Pew): a single reef shark's lifetime tourism value approximately US$1.9 million vs. one-time catch value approximately US$108
