Government Regulation

[spectrum]

A poster to a current accident thread expressed concern of future government regulation of scuba diving in The United States. It sounds like a simple enough concept but I'm trying to get my head around what implementation might look like?

Who would have jurisdiction? Would this fall to the local police? Federal authorities already have their hooks in the the hydro part of shops providing the service, game wardens and fishery officers are closest to where the action is, local police, state police....... The notion of creating a Scuba Police" agency of meaningful size seems far fetched for the relatively small numbers involved in the activity but we are talking about the government.....?

What would be controled? Gear purchase? Repair, parts, Air fills? Other equipment? Other gasses? Private controlled dive sires are one thing but random shore dive site patrols? What about those diving from boats in US waters?

Would this spell an end to "certified and paid in full for life"? Recurring "license fees"? Training re-tests? Periodic fitness evaluations? Legal limits on who can dive where based on documented testing?

I know nobody knows the answer so this is something of a wild card topic. How about the many of you from outside of the US diving in a controlled system.... How did it come about, who runs the show and how well does it work?

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Only place I've personally dived where scuba diving is regulated by the government is the Maldives ... where they set mandatory regulations on how deep you can go and specify that you MUST dive with a buddy.

Based on what I witnessed, I can't say it did a thing to improve diving safety ... some of the worst "divers" I've ever seen dropped down on top of us (literally) at a manta cleaning station. Damn things (the "divers") were crawling around on the bottom like vermin.

That would the the problem as I see it ... any kind of government regulation isn't going to address issues that improve diver safety ... because the most important safety item anybody brings underwater with them is common sense, and you can't regulate that.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Skittl1321]

Maybe in states where a significant part of the population dives this would make sense, but for the country, I cannot imagine the administrative fees being worth what safety this would impart. What percentage of the US population holds a C-card? What percentage dives more than 10 times a year (in the US), more than 100 times? It just wouldn't be worth it. People break laws all the time- having them in place isn't going to prevent stupid people from continuing to do stupid things.

I wouldn't want my tax money spent on SCUBA regulation.

 

[Akimbo]

The trouble with government regulation is politics and human nature. Every time somebody dies the bureaucrat in charge will pile on more regulations to cover their backside and appear sympathetic to the grieving family. This is especially problematic when somebody dies because they did something stupid and knew better. You can’t tell a poor widow that she’s on her own because her husband was a moron and knew better.

 

[Nwcid]

Just how will it be enfaced? Cop at every spot along the water? TSA frisk before you can get close?

Laws do NOT, can NOT and will NOT stop stupid people from doing stupid things.

 

[Mike]

Details aren't really important, you just need to let them pass the bills so you can find out what's in them.

 

[dmoore19]

No law or laws will ever supersede Darwin.

 

[Deviance]

Government regulation of dive activities is something I would stand behind. If private individuals, organizations, or businesses wouldn't, or couldn't, enforce rules and regulations, then the government should step in. I am well aware that the right thing to do almost never get done until the government steps in. For example, school segregation is wrong, but still, it took a ruling called Brown vs. Board of Education to end it.

I totally understand that there is a financial incentives for dive charters and dive masters to look the other way if the violations are minor (ex: touching wildlife, touching corals). If they look the other way, they would keep the customer happy, because letting the customers do whatever they want is good customer service (sarcasm). I am embarrassed to admit this, but this is based on personal experience. When I was diving with my extended family in Malaysia back in 2006, my uncle loudly admit that he touched coral and wildlife and my divemaster literally covered his eyes with his hand when he sees my uncle doing it...

Currently, I have this idea. I was reading the "How to piss off a divemaster?" thread and I am shocked by the abuses a divemaster receives. What if from now on, a divemaster will also have the responsibility to report safety violations or fisheries and habitat protection violation (ex: illegally harvesting sea cucumbers for BBQ). Thankfully, all divers on-board a charter would have signed a waiver, which included their contact information, address, and date of birth. A divemaster could simply make a photocopy of the waiver and attach a copy of the incident report and forward it to the appropriate government agency (I am still deciding on what government agency should be responsible for this). A couple days later (depending on the efficiency of the agency), the person suspected of breaking the rules will receive a call from said agency and be given a chance to defend himself. If it is determined that said individual is guilty, his licence will be taken away and he will be stopped from diving for a certain amount of time, or if the violation is very, very serious, banned for life. Due to the concept of judicial independence, the suspect can certainly fight the ruling in court.

This system, if implemented, will let divers know that what they did underwater will have consequences. The dive master may not be able to stop you now, but you will have to deal with the US government once you return home.

This system is not extreme at all and there are already precedence for this. For example, driving. If you sped while driving, you get points taken from you and your licence will be taken from you after a certain amount of point. You drink and drive and was caught, you have your licence taken away and you may go to jail. There is also a precedence for this in diving as well. If you look at PADI's QM department's QM Procedure Flow Chart, my system is inspired by it. The difference is that whereas PADI QM deals with Divemasters and above, my system deals with everyone who dive.

Unfortunately, this system will not work if the task of regulating and enforcing is given to a dive training organization (ex: PADI). The reason is that the relationship between training organization and us is still a service provider/ customer relationship and hence unequal. A diver can simply laugh at the training organization in the face and go to another organization. Now, if it is the government coming after them though, they won't be laughing.

I remember back in university, my American history professor once said, "Self-Regulation is always better than government regulation. Government regulation is almost always a lot harsher than self-regulation." Of course it would be best if training organization can also regulate and enforce rules, but as I mentioned above, the unequal service provider/ customer position makes regulating and enforcing hard.

 

[mizzie]

I was the poster who brought up the idea in the other thread. It's an ongoing discussion I have with my husband, who is training for his pilot's license. If enough accidents happen, you never know if some politician is going to latch onto it, as someone mentioned above. I can see it being a way to show how much he/she cares about people, bla, bla, bla.

My guess is that it would lead to :

- Higher cost of training, due to shops having to be government regulated.
- Longer, more complicated training, since divers would have to memorize a list of regulations
- More regulations on who can buy what gear and when, also leading to higher costs
- Divers being required to renew certifications and/or have to prove they have dived recently
- Someone, likely the DNR, stopping divers going in or out of the water and demanding to see their card, much the same way you could be asked to see your fishing license
- Probably not a significantly reduced number of dive accidents, as most are either unavoidable or caused by people who are already ignoring their training, so are unlikely to pay much attention to government regulations.

 

[Skittl1321]

I don't think the driver's license or pilot's license comparisons are very appropriate (though I realize mizzie wasn't making a comparison that we regulate pilots so we can regulate divers too). I would hazard to guess more than 70% of the population drives (95+% of the population uses roadways in some form) and less than 1% of the population dives. Now, I would think a very small percent flies- but an accident flying can have a much larger impact on those on the ground than an accident diving. Regulating the air space (for the good on national security, flight security for commercial flights, and to prevent people crashing into houses and highways) makes sense.

People who die diving don't effect the security of the general public. They do put the lives of rescuers in danger- but so do people doing a lot of stupid things that aren't regulated.

If 50% of the population was diving, maybe it would be worth it. I just don't think the cost/benefit makes any sense.