Gloucester Dive Flag Law Update

[STOGEY]

I don't get this. What does it matter if he has any ties to those responsible for enforcing the law currently on the books? That's not an abuse of power. Not at all the same as someone using family or friends to pass a NEW law that benefits them. Look, the problem isn't with those trying to get the law enforced, the problem is with the law. It's simply dangerous for divers. Just becomes Gloucester has decided not to enforce it, doesn't mean they can't or should (I hate the idea of selective law enforcement; just think what that could entail). If you see a bad law, don't ignore it, repeal it.

Well after all these years and all the sudden the councilmen start acting as if they are going to start to enforce the law. I know that the lobstermen had a rough year this year, but so has almost every type of local person that makes their earning from the sea. I know, because this was the 2nd year in a row that the clam people had a red tide. To get the councilpeople are riled up was just one person. I live in a small town also where I know that it usually takes more then one person to get these people going.

Since I do follow politics quite a bit. I do like to know what roots the person who started the problem has with the person that are comming to his aid.

You may not like my reasoning, but you can't pick and choose who answers your posts, and how they answer them.

 

[STOGEY]

So how many of you that are interested in the flag law voted the other day?

 

[paulthenurse]

I did. I was consolling myself with the thought that even though I wouldn't have any money left after our new Governor enacts all his grand plans, I could get a bottle of wine at the Stop and Shop. But that go shot down , too! Damn!

 

[Cracken]

I did. I was consolling myself with the thought that even though I wouldn't have any money left after our new Governor enacts all his grand plans, I could get a bottle of wine at the Stop and Shop. But that go shot down , too! Damn!

Mass. with the new guy in charge.

 

[Diesel298]

yeah
cuz "the otherguy" was awesome...
the only state more messed up than RI
is Mass

we make good neighbors dont we

atleast we voted no on the casino

 

[Cracken]

yeah
cuz "the otherguy" was awesome...
the only state more messed up than RI
is Mass

we make good neighbors dont we

atleast we voted no on the casino

Hehe.
The "other guy" was certainly no prize.
But I think we've gone from the frying pan into the fire with the new guy. :shakehead

My pic was refused cuz UploaderWS is unauthorized. Could anyone tell me which hosting sites are authorized, please.

Edit: Looks like I found one.

 

[video joe]

Do we know exactly who are the sponsors for the regulation. ie. Who is pushing it and what is their agenda?
What are the real underlying reasons for this regulation.
Is this about safety?
Are the residents complaining about too many divers and their impact on their property?
Are lobstermen complaining about specific issues?
Have there been any documented accidents / injuries that will be prevented by this new regulation?
I have heard about this, but have never understood what it was really about.

I does appear that if someone wanted to string lobster traps along a popular shore diving spot that they could effectively shut it down and that would be a very bad thing for diving in Massachusetts.

It seems that you have gotten to the real issue. "Greed over lobster" I believe the whole conflict is based on lobstermen who want to prevent scuba divers from competing with their harvest. The dive flag requirement is an easy way to help monitor the scuba activities around traps so we will self incriminate ourselves.

As an underwater videographer trying to excite people to want to protect the environment I'm dissappointed to see that my most precious filming area "the coastal waters of New England" are caught in a tug of war between scuba diving lobster catchers and the lobster fishery. We are competing with the lobster fishery. The lobster industry is dying on the vine and here we are adding insult to injury by pulling what little profit they earn right out of their pockets.

Perhaps we "the divers" should reconsider our priorities and ask ourselves some quest ions. Is the supposed thrill of catching a lobster hiding in some rocks worth the price of eliminating coastal scuba diving for everyone? Hardly. Or can we strike a partnership with the lobster fishery by sharing the space and even volunteering to help them with feed back from our scuba trips.

What's really upsetting is the idea that 50 years from now, if human consumption of sea food continues to escalate, there won't be anything to catch.

 

[MSilvia]

What's really upsetting is the idea that 50 years from now, if human consumption of sea food continues to escalate, there won't be anything to catch.

I'm not sure I buy that. It seems to me that the fishing industry would collapse well before the last fish was caught. It wouldn't be worth the expense of commercial fishing if the odds of coming back with fish were slim.

 

[wreckedinri]

. . . The lobster industry is dying on the vine and here we are adding insult to injury by pulling what little profit they earn right out of their pockets.

Not sure that I agree with that also.

I'm not looking to start a pooh slinging fight here, please, I understand your intentions VJ, and they are noble indeed. But, the Lobster industry is in pretty good shape over all. Yes, they have good and bad years, but the inefficient nature of the way they harvest their catch makes them a self sustaining industry. But this is not the point.

The point is, IMHO, we - divers - are not welcomed in the North Shore area and this regulation is merely another attempt to keep a particular user group (re: us) from accessing a public resource. Consider the parking restrictions, past attempts to restrict shore access by divers, and let's not even talk about trying to launch a boat in Rockport ($$$$ for non-residents). If it was not for a state ramp in Gloucester, the nearest trailerable boat access would be Winter Island in Salem . . . or is that Beverly?

But, to VJ's point, there are things that we can do to help our cause. We can be sure not to leave trash behind when we leave an area. Refrain from "using the bushes", . . . if you get my drift? Try and be a bit more modest when changing from our wetsuits. Use common sense when parking, and not blocking a driveway or walkway.

I'm not saying these things that I've mentioned are widespread. BUT, just a few individuals can turn a whole community against all of us and certainly not help our case.

Best Regards and Have a Great Weekend,
Dennis

 

[LobstaMan]

A 'no' vote by the people of RI just means that the politicians will force it down their collective throats like they did with the Providence Place Mall. In a referendum, the RI voters said we don't want it, but the pols ignored the will of the people and presto!...you got yourself a new mall RI.

Same thing will happen with the casino...way too much money to be made by the pols, political hacks, union leaders, minions, lackeys, sychophants, Indians and the casino developers...amongst others.

just my opinion....

LobstaMan

PS RI and MA do made good political neighbors, don't they?