BHB on Undercurrent

[uncfnp]

Of course the current controversy peaked after no fishing signs were posted then removed. One wonders what prompted the posting.

 

[Lostdiver71]

Complaints of divers being hooked prompted the posting.

 

[Pipehorse]

Well, I've noticed that most city parks are closed during the night for the purpose of eliminating criminal activity. It is a move to make things easier for LE. How is this different?

Wow, I think you're grasping straws, but I'll take the bait anyway. If you close the park at night its complete exclusion. Nobody can use the park. Your argument is that a group of people (fisherman) should be punished, for the actions of a criminal subset of said group. Furthermore, I dive at bridge and have never fished at bridge. Your argument is mired in self interest the same as Abethernay's argument is mired in his self interest, thusly it lacks credibility.

Truly, it would be awesome to dive there like it was even ten years ago, never mind 27 years ago when I first started diving there. I can remember getting there on an early high tide like 6:45 am and being the ONLY person in the water, it was awesome. Since then the number of divers has increased exponentially. Divers with poor buoyancy control that crush seahorses to death. Macro photographers five at a time gang photographing little critters no bigger than inch. The vast majority of divers there can't make it fifteen feet through the water without stirring up clouds of sand and silt, and that goes for the photographers with $15k camera rigs, who should know better. And the countless number of divers using those stupid little steel rods, again because of miserable buoyancy control skills. I can go on and on, you get the picture (no pun intended). I would rather deal with ten pissed off fisherman than a horde of two hundred divers all competing to see the same thing anytime. But you know what, I realize my right to the resource does not exceed anybody else's right to the resource, regardless of the particular activity they choose to pursue, and regardless of the economic impact it creates, so like the vast majority of people there I just bear with it. Speaking of which I am local. I don't stay in hotels, I don't frequent the restaurants in that vicinity, the only money I spend at dives shops is for fills. So by your argument somebody driving from Montana to dive there should have first dibs over me because he is going to spend more money locally than I do. MAYBE, BUT IT WILL WON"T BE UNTIL THEY PULL THE REGULATOR OUT OF THE LOCK JAW OF MY COLD DEAD BODY.

As far as your question about hooking a diver while fishing, its somewhat moot since I don't fish, but my reaction would not be to cut and run, as you imply. Also the question implies that if a diver gets hooked the diver is and should be without responsibility. Seriously, you're an instructor and you think individuals underwater using a life support system should not be responsible for themselves? Once again we are at at the criminal activity juncture are we not? My experience there has been the fisherman avoid conflict as much as divers avoid conflict.

Let me throw a question you're way. You know that property on the south east side of the east span? What do you think is going to happen when some developer buys it, puts in condo's and a bunch of finger piers for the owners of the condos to park their boats? Do you think they are going to tolerate a bunch divers underneath the piers every day at high tide? According to you general policy is formulated to favor business, correct? I bet a development there with say twenty condo's and piers would be in the $20-$30 million range. So it will be fine with you when area is off limits to divers, correct? Because hey, everything else should take a back seat to business's making money.

View attachment 650874

It says "determines if it is dangerous for persons to fish from the bridge". I would argue it says nothing about if it is dangerous for divers under the bridge. Being devils advocate, one could argue if fishing from the bridge is dangerous for divers under the bridge, then prohibiting diving from under the bridge removes the danger just as well as prohibiting the fishing.

 

[uncfnp]

Let me throw a question you're way. You know that property on the south east side of the east span? What do you think is going to happen when some developer buys it, puts in condo's and a bunch of finger piers for the owners of the condos to park their boats? Do you think they are going to tolerate a bunch divers underneath the piers every day at high tide? According to you general policy is formulated to favor business, correct? I bet a development there with say twenty condo's and piers would be in the $20-$30 million range. So it will be fine with you when area is off limits to divers, correct? Because hey, everything else should take a back seat to business's making money.

Are you talking about the area I circled in red?

It says "determines if it is dangerous for persons to fish from the bridge". I would argue it says nothing about if it is dangerous for divers under the bridge. Being devils advocate, one could argue if fishing from the bridge is dangerous for divers under the bridge, then prohibiting diving from under the bridge removes the danger just as well as prohibiting the fishing.

You omitted a significant part of the statute in your analysis.

“...investigate and determine whether it is...dangerous to human life for any person to fish from a state road bridge.”

 

[tursiops]

Wow, I think you're grasping straws, but I'll take the bait anyway. If you close the park at night its complete exclusion. Nobody can use the park. Your argument is that a group of people (fisherman) should be punished, for the actions of a criminal subset of said group. Furthermore, I dive at bridge and have never fished at bridge. Your argument is mired in self interest the same as Abethernay's argument is mired in his self interest, thusly it lacks credibility.

Truly, it would be awesome to dive there like it was even ten years ago, never mind 27 years ago when I first started diving there. I can remember getting there on an early high tide like 6:45 am and being the ONLY person in the water, it was awesome. Since then the number of divers has increased exponentially. Divers with poor buoyancy control that crush seahorses to death. Macro photographers five at a time gang photographing little critters no bigger than inch. The vast majority of divers there can't make it fifteen feet through the water without stirring up clouds of sand and silt, and that goes for the photographers with $15k camera rigs, who should know better. And the countless number of divers using those stupid little steel rods, again because of miserable buoyancy control skills. I can go on and on, you get the picture (no pun intended). I would rather deal with ten pissed off fisherman than a horde of two hundred divers all competing to see the same thing anytime. But you know what, I realize my right to the resource does not exceed anybody else's right to the resource, regardless of the particular activity they choose to pursue, and regardless of the economic impact it creates, so like the vast majority of people there I just bear with it. Speaking of which I am local. I don't stay in hotels, I don't frequent the restaurants in that vicinity, the only money I spend at dives shops is for fills. So by your argument somebody driving from Montana to dive there should have first dibs over me because he is going to spend more money locally than I do. MAYBE, BUT IT WILL WON"T BE UNTIL THEY PULL THE REGULATOR OUT OF THE LOCK JAW OF MY COLD DEAD BODY.

As far as your question about hooking a diver while fishing, its somewhat moot since I don't fish, but my reaction would not be to cut and run, as you imply. Also the question implies that if a diver gets hooked the diver is and should be without responsibility. Seriously, you're an instructor and you think individuals underwater using a life support system should not be responsible for themselves? Once again we are at at the criminal activity juncture are we not? My experience there has been the fisherman avoid conflict as much as divers avoid conflict.

Let me throw a question you're way. You know that property on the south east side of the east span? What do you think is going to happen when some developer buys it, puts in condo's and a bunch of finger piers for the owners of the condos to park their boats? Do you think they are going to tolerate a bunch divers underneath the piers every day at high tide? According to you general policy is formulated to favor business, correct? I bet a development there with say twenty condo's and piers would be in the $20-$30 million range. So it will be fine with you when area is off limits to divers, correct? Because hey, everything else should take a back seat to business's making money.




It says "determines if it is dangerous for persons to fish from the bridge". I would argue it says nothing about if it is dangerous for divers under the bridge. Being devils advocate, one could argue if fishing from the bridge is dangerous for divers under the bridge, then prohibiting diving from under the bridge removes the danger just as well as prohibiting the fishing.

Everything you say is probably correct, but not helpful. Very lawyerly. What do you suggest as an approach to actually solve the problem and permit peaceful co-existence?

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Wow, I think you're grasping straws, but I'll take the bait anyway. If you close the park at night its complete exclusion. Nobody can use the park. Your argument is that a group of people (fisherman) should be punished, for the actions of a criminal subset of said group. Furthermore, I dive at bridge and have never fished at bridge. Your argument is mired in self interest the same as Abethernay's argument is mired in his self interest, thusly it lacks credibility.

Nice to hear the park doesn't close at night. That's a PITA, and something I do have to deal with here. Have to get a special permit to dive at night.

Unlike you, I have never dived at BHB. And will never dive there most likely. So I have no self interest at all. No skin in this game.

Truly, it would be awesome to dive there like it was even ten years ago, never mind 27 years ago when I first started diving there. I can remember getting there on an early high tide like 6:45 am and being the ONLY person in the water, it was awesome. Since then the number of divers has increased exponentially. Divers with poor buoyancy control that crush seahorses to death. Macro photographers five at a time gang photographing little critters no bigger than inch. The vast majority of divers there can't make it fifteen feet through the water without stirring up clouds of sand and silt, and that goes for the photographers with $15k camera rigs, who should know better. And the countless number of divers using those stupid little steel rods, again because of miserable buoyancy control skills. I can go on and on, you get the picture (no pun intended). I would rather deal with ten pissed off fisherman than a horde of two hundred divers all competing to see the same thing anytime. But you know what, I realize my right to the resource does not exceed anybody else's right to the resource, regardless of the particular activity they choose to pursue, and regardless of the economic impact it creates, so like the vast majority of people there I just bear with it. Speaking of which I am local. I don't stay in hotels, I don't frequent the restaurants in that vicinity, the only money I spend at dives shops is for fills. So by your argument somebody driving from Montana to dive there should have first dibs over me because he is going to spend more money locally than I do. MAYBE, BUT IT WILL WON"T BE UNTIL THEY PULL THE REGULATOR OUT OF THE LOCK JAW OF MY COLD DEAD BODY.

You are extrapolating ad arbsurdum. Anyone would have the right to dive there. I have no idea why you bring that up as well as a number of irrelevant observations. I was simply stating the reality of how policy gets set.

As far as your question about hooking a diver while fishing, its somewhat moot since I don't fish, but my reaction would not be to cut and run, as you imply. Also the question implies that if a diver gets hooked the diver is and should be without responsibility. Seriously, you're an instructor and you think individuals underwater using a life support system should not be responsible for themselves? Once again we are at at the criminal activity juncture are we not? My experience there has been the fisherman avoid conflict as much as divers avoid conflict.

Let me throw a question you're way. You know that property on the south east side of the east span? What do you think is going to happen when some developer buys it, puts in condo's and a bunch of finger piers for the owners of the condos to park their boats? Do you think they are going to tolerate a bunch divers underneath the piers every day at high tide? According to you general policy is formulated to favor business, correct? I bet a development there with say twenty condo's and piers would be in the $20-$30 million range. So it will be fine with you when area is off limits to divers, correct? Because hey, everything else should take a back seat to business's making money.

It says "determines if it is dangerous for persons to fish from the bridge". I would argue it says nothing about if it is dangerous for divers under the bridge. Being devils advocate, one could argue if fishing from the bridge is dangerous for divers under the bridge, then
prohibiting diving from under the bridge removes the danger just as well as prohibiting the fishing.

I think uncfp addressed all your arguments quite thoroughly. No need to repeat or pile on.

 

[tursiops]

Nice to hear the park doesn't close at night.

In fact, the park DOES close at night, and special permits are required for the biweekly or so group night dives, tide-dependant of course.

 

[Pipehorse]

Are you talking about the area I circled in red?

View attachment 650901


You omitted a significant part of the statute in your analysis.

“...investigate and determine whether it is...dangerous to human life for any person to fish from a state road bridge.”

I am thinking a much smaller area, just the the two acres at the corner. Twenty units in a four story building would not be difficult there, and if memory serves the building that was torn down was three or four stories.

 

[Pipehorse]

Nice to hear the park doesn't close at night. That's a PITA, and something I do have to deal with here. Have to get a special permit to dive at night.

Unlike you, I have never dived at BHB. And will never dive there most likely. So I have no self interest at all. No skin in this game.



You are extrapolating ad arbsurdum. Anyone would have the right to dive there. I have no idea why you bring that up as well as a number of irrelevant observations. I was simply stating the reality of how policy gets set.



I think uncfp addressed all your arguments quite thoroughly. No need to repeat or pile on.

Actually uncfp did not address any of my arguments, nor did you. This is very simple. A few individuals acting in a criminal matter are making things difficult. Law enforcement needs to deal with it.

 

[uncfnp]

I am thinking a much smaller area, just the the two acres at the corner. Twenty units in a four story building would not be difficult there, and if memory serves the building that was torn down was three or four stories.

I have no idea where you are speculating but I am not aware of any additional water frontage for new pier development, not that any of this is actually pertinent to the discussion.