Diver dies not trespassing

[bertschb]

I actually dove with Wayne and his wife Kathy (Kate) a couple times in the last few months. They were wonderful people who absolutely loved diving. Wayne had a passion for underwater photography. They both loved diving together and it was really neat to see a husband and wife share a hobby the way they did. I don't have the full story yet on what happened but I just wanted folks to know that regardless of property rights or poor decision making, Wayne and Kate were wonderful people. I will miss diving with them and my heart goes out to Kate and the family.

 

[fgray1]

I actually dove with Wayne and his wife Kathy (Kate) a couple times in the last few months. They were wonderful people who absolutely loved diving. Wayne had a passion for underwater photography. They both loved diving together and it was really neat to see a husband and wife share a hobby the way they did. I don't have the full story yet on what happened but I just wanted folks to know that regardless of property rights or poor decision making, Wayne and Kate were wonderful people. I will miss diving with them and my heart goes out to Kate and the family.

The world needs all the good people it can handle!
Fred

 

[TCDiver1]

BTW - on this particular beach, we're not talking "upper crusty" types. These are, for the most part, ramshackle homes that've been there for decades. Most are owned by people who might be considered crusty, but aren't exactly Trust Fund Babies ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Not sure why it would make a difference if the owners were well to do or not. I know some people think this way and i have never understood it. In other words, people who have earned or been given their property and are well off, should have less consideration than people who have had their property for decades and are not well to do? Makes no sense to me.

I know its not the point of the thread but must say, i really can't believe many people would honestly want just anyone to be able to troop around in their back yard. I mean really, just because someone is a diver, it makes them a good person that you could trust with your kids or trust to not trash the place? It would be nice if it worked that way but it don't.

I agree with you Fred, if some nimrod builds in a known flood plain, our taxes should not be used to bail them out. But i'm not sure what that has to do with property rights. My well got hit by lightning last year, maybe i should give Uncle Sam a call to pay for it .... oh wait, my insurance covered it, i guess thats what insurance is for if you can get it.

It is truly a shame what happened to this family but i agree with those who feel its no ones fault but their own. Blaming the property owners would be just another case of our legal system running out of control IMO.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Sorry, but you all have missed the salient point of this accident altogether ... which is that this couple had no business being on this site at the time of the accident.

They chose a bad day to dive this site, then compounded the problem by choosing a time when the current would be pulling them away from the entry point at the end of the dive.

In other words, they put themselves in a bad situation by not properly researching their choice of site before planning their dive.

That goes against everything we, as divers, are responsible for.

The property owners didn't put these divers in this position ... the divers did.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

I don't think we missed it.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I don't think we missed it.

You didn't, Mike ... but the majority of this conversation so far has been about property rights, or what horrible people those property owners must be.

The standard logic in any conversation regarding a diver's death is that we should learn something to help us avoid a similar occurrance. Along those lines, I think the focus of this conversation should be (as you attempted to make it) what the divers could have, and should have done differently.

It's not ... as Uncle Pug attempted to point out way back when ... about property rights.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[FredT]

The standard logic in any conversation regarding a diver's death is that we should learn something to help us avoid a similar occurrance. Along those lines, I think the focus of this conversation should be (as you attempted to make it) what the divers could have, and should have done differently.

It's not ... as Uncle Pug attempted to point out way back when ... about property rights.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Agreed. It's about stopping future problems. A bit more care in timing the dive sounds like it should be part of the plan.

OTOH this death would probably have been avoided even in the presence of the diver's bad decisions if a safer DRY method back to the entry point was available. IF the seawall was built on tidal lands, and then backfilled to make a lawn, the "ownership" of the land itself is in question. State ownership of the land is not changed by the act of someone filling it. There are a BUNCH of precedents in law on this one in effectively all coastal states. IF however the ownership is of the same type as the King Ranch in TX where ownership was obtained by forcing all others off the land (i.e. put up a fence or seawall and shoot those who cross it for a certain number of years.) the ONLY hope the property owners have to maintaining priority is to continue the process.

I simply believe a bit of research into the issues should be part
of the action plan.

FT

 

[caveseeker7]

Mike, owe you an apology for my cynical question. Sorry about that. Wasn't in a great mood last night and the beachfront rights is a hotly contested one around here (Malibu).

I wouldn't exclude it as part of what seems like several things gone wrong (the diver was walking in the water, does that mean he was on his way out, or he was walking parallel to the shoreline trying to get to his exit point because he was afraid to spend the rest of his holiday as a guest of the county ...), but I agree that appearantly there were several problems and mistakes.

 

[D-Diver]

I think this was a tragic thing...but if I got the facts right, that the diver had a choice of taking the risk of being injured or killed as happened or breaking the law, I think it comes down to my motto. "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six." D-Diver

 

[Uncle Pug]

I actually dove with Wayne and his wife Kathy (Kate) a couple times in the last few months.

It is always sad to learn of a diver's death and certainly in your case since you actually knew and dove with Wayne and Kate. I extend my condolences to you as well as to Kate and family.

A question followed by several comments:
Do you know if Wayne had dove Sunrise before and if so how many times?

In any of these Accident and Incident discussions utmost respect must be extended to the deceased as well as the survivors and I appreciate the tone of the posters in this thread.

It is also important that we do discuss *what went wrong* so as to gain a better understanding of how we can conduct our own dives safely.

However we cannot speak specifically to the actual elements of this particular case since they are not known to us. We can only speak to the generalized priniciples.

If the discussion diverges into a discussion of property rights (which some of our posters are very passionate about but obviously have no understanding of the actual situation here in Washington State) then the issue of accident prevention will be undermined and lost in the clutter.

Those of you who are interested in the issue of property rights are invited to start a separate thread in another forum.

That is my polite way of saying, stick to the topic.
I have another way of saying it and will if I must.

 

[bertschb]

Do you know if Wayne had dove Sunrise before and if so how many times?

I'm sorry, but I don't know.