BHB on Undercurrent

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

LOL observation from 900 days is not relevant? You seriously crack me up.
Sure. Spread over how many years? It is a small sampling of the entire time. Think about the total time he's actually aware of what is going on the bridge.
 
Sure. Spread over how many years? It is a small sampling of the entire time. Think about the total time he's actually aware of what is going on the bridge.


Damn, my dog crapped in the neighbors yard 5 times and he got all bent out of shape, I guess he should have chilled out until it hit 925 incidences?
 
FYI, you don't take away the rights of ALL fisherman to fish from a DEDICATED FISHING PIER just because a few Aholes can't behave and LEO's won't get out of the air conditioned cab of an SUV to do their job.
 
Why are you even on this thread? I can only guess you have don't have much of a life. That fishing should be banned is absurd, and a lose/lose for everybody.

You stated you don't dive at BHB, and you probably never will. Have you ever even been to south Florida? The reason I am here is that I dive the BHB 10-12 times a month because its conveniently only 25 minutes from my home and the undercurrent article lead me here. You have no clue of the level of law enforcement in this area, you have no clue of the socioeconomics of this area. There is a little more to this than just diver vs. fisherman. Truly I don't get it. You wouldn't find me on scuba board arguing with you about some diver/fisherman conflict going on at Whidbey Island. And as far as @ uncfnp is concerned I wouldn't be arguing with him over fishing/diving in the Pimilico Sound (if there even is diving in the Pimilico Sound).

Actually I agree with the self regulation being naive. When @uncfnp mentioned it, I thought it was a good way to just stop arguing with you and him. But no you have to have the last word. He is from North Carolina and you're from Seattle, and you here arguing with me about a dive site I've done about 900 times.

And by the way your argument that somehow LE can't handle this problem is absurd. Today there were 3 PBSO, and 2 FWC at the bridge. When leaving the bridge I passed a total of 6 Riveria Beach Police cars along a three mile route to I95. You truly are clueless. By the way I was under that east span, there were no fisherman trying to hook divers. I didn't notice any divers exiting the water with torn BC's, torn wetsuits, or hooks hanging out of their faces. But hey what would I know, I was only there, and you weren't.

No need to respond, though I doubt you can help yourself.
I feel like I am being drawn down a rabbit hole.

1) I have yet to voice my personal opinion. I simply posted facts and possibilities. And countered some improbable scenarios presented by you.

2) How do you know that I don’t own property in Palm Beach County?

3) I have been diving the bridge for more than 10 years. I think you said something about 2?

4) Neither 2 (if true) nor 3 makes my opinion (or yours) any more valid on a SB thread. Knowledge of the situation and the circumstances does.

5) The self-regulation statement was not presented as an actual viable option but as a counter argument to your post that the problem is just a few criminals. I thought it might serve to make you think a little deeper about the situation. I admit I was wrong.
 
FYI, you don't take away the rights of ALL fisherman to fish from a DEDICATED FISHING PIER just because a few Aholes can't behave and LEO's won't get out of the air conditioned cab of an SUV to do their job.
John. It is not the dedicated fishing pier that is under discussion. It is a section of state bridge. The fishing pier is within the park and not part of the debate.
 
FYI, you don't take away the rights of ALL fisherman to fish from a DEDICATED FISHING PIER just because a few Aholes can't behave and LEO's won't get out of the air conditioned cab of an SUV to do their job.
Is a dedicated fishing pier the same thing? You know the answer.
Damn, my dog crapped in the neighbors yard 5 times and he got all bent out of shape, I guess he should have chilled out until it hit 925 incidences?
lol. Your analogy is backwards
 
I feel like I am being drawn down a rabbit hole.

1) I have yet to voice my personal opinion. I simply posted facts and possibilities. And countered some improbable scenarios presented by you.

2) How do you know that I don’t own property in Palm Beach County?

3) I have been diving the bridge for more than 10 years. I think you said something about 2?

4) Neither 2 (if true) nor 3 makes my opinion (or yours) any more valid on a SB thread. Knowledge of the situation and the circumstances does.

5) The self-regulation statement was not presented as an actual viable option but as a counter argument to your post that the problem is just a few criminals. I thought it might serve to make you think a little deeper about the situation. I admit I was wrong.


I have been diving the bridge for 27 years, not 2 (not sure where you got that from). I am there two or three times a week, I have far greater knowledge of the situation and circumstances than you do. Most of my arguments have been to get divers to think a little deeper about the situation than their own self interest. Fisherman have been using that bridge far long then before divers ever came along. Its a public property they have as much right to it as any diver, regardless of the criminal behavior of a small minority.
 
Sure. Spread over how many years? It is a small sampling of the entire time. Think about the total time he's actually aware of what is going on the bridge.

If you know anything about statistics n > 30 is considered significant. 900 over 27 years, n>30.
 
I have been diving the bridge for 27 years, not 2 (not sure where you got that from).
I should have fact checked that before posting but does not change any of the other points,
I have far greater knowledge of the situation and circumstances than you do.
This I have definitely not seen yet in this thread although I will agree that you are very opinionated on the topic.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/swift/
https://xf2.scubaboard.com/community/forums/cave-diving.45/

Back
Top Bottom