No.
Now, in anticipation of you saying "Well I do and here's where you're off base . . " allow me to do a pre-emptive strike.
The issue here is not one of whether or not we can legally be prevented from diving the rigs or legally institute a voluntary no-take zone, etc. The issue is how do you fight illegally-imposed restrictions once they're in place? And because the diving community in under-funded at best, and there are not a horde of admiralty lawyers on the sidelines champing at the bit to do pro bono work for perceived wrongs, our collective strategy has always been to figure out ways to get along and work things out so we don't have to resort to legal challenges. Because if this ever comes down to something being implemented that we feel we need to mount a legal challenge to, there simply isn't enough discretionary money in this industry, let alone with an individual operator, to do so.
There's an interesting parellel from the SCOTUS ruling yesterday on the Voting Rights Act where they invalidated the pre-clearance option. In that case, municipalities under the purview of the order had to pre-clear any voting law changes they were going to implement. In other words, they essentially got judicial blesing before any changes could be put into effect to be sure those changes were legal and fair.
With yesterday's ruling, that pre-clearance goes away. Critics of the ruling are concerned that what will happen now is the door is open for abusive voting law practices at state and local levels that may be illegal but which now will have to be challenged in court after they been implemented rather than proven to be OK before they took effect. This will not only mean potentially costly court battles, but also a lengthy timeline where the illegeal or unfair voting practices could be in effect for some time before striken down by a higher copurt.
The same problem essentially faces the dive industry. If the rigs were to impose an illegal you-can't-dive-here ban and we wanted to challenge it in court, it would take time and money that simply don't exist. So we've instead adopted a strategy of trying to work things out by talking to the players involved and crafting agreements and protocols that we can all live with.
Now, red-instead, if you're going to tell us that you do admiralty law and then will list the points we have wrong, I'm hoping you'll also go on the record as being willing to put your full weight, knowledge, and resources pro bono for the good of this industry should your suppostions be wrong and we arouse the ire of the rig owners and need to fight them in court.
Or maybe that wasn't where you were going at all . . .
- Ken
