Government Regulation

[lindenbruce]

The most scariest statement to come from a politician "Trust Me"

Or, how about Gavin Newsom's statement when he was Mayor of San Francisco, "This door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not." When a politician tells the people that got him elected something is going to happen that they don't want, it's time for that guy to get voted out. Unfortunately he's California' Lt. Governor now. And that's about right when you consider how illiterate California voters really are. B.

 

[Mike]

I am not saying this to make friends, but this is how it has always been. Look at hunting. 100 years ago anyone could grab a gun, go out and hunt. And bit by bit regulations expand until hunting is now a tightly controlled activity. Lawmakers love making laws and regulations, so they just keep doing it, despite the fact they often do as much harm as good.

So true.

And just some perspective - in 2013- congress is regarded as 'the least productive' congress in years. Why? Because of the low number of laws passed. Hell I would be praising them for their 'low production' instead of being critical. I'd like to give them credit for this and see future sessions keep following in their footsteps.

 

[lindenbruce]

Or even return to a part time legislature like it used to be decades ago. And the politicians still held regular jobs like the rest of their constituents. I could vote for that. B.

 

[Rhone Man]

Or even return to a part time legislature like it used to be decades ago. And the politicians still held regular jobs like the rest of their constituents. I could vote for that. B.

I have always argued that politicians should at least be required to hold a "real" job for 10 years before standing for elected office. Not sure if it is as bad in the US, but in the UK you get "career politicians" who start by working for political parties, are eventually promoted to safe seats, and eventually take their place in Government without ever having held a real job in their lives. Two thirds of the current British cabinet are made up of such people. It's no wonder they don't know what is going on in the real world.

---------- Post added December 29th, 2013 at 10:13 PM ----------

... scuba divers are treated the same as everyone else when it comes to harvesting seafood from state regulated waters ... at least, that's how it works in my state ...

I can't speak for other states, but I am pretty sure that in FL you get separate licences for lobster hunting on scuba, and there are certainly separate regulations dealing with the how, where, why, how many, etc. of taking lobsters on scuba. But my point is more general - regulation always comes in via the back door, and at first you don't object. But then it never leaves...

 

[Foxfish]

Off the top of my head, the right to make your own decisions & 'do as you please,' so to speak, as long as your actions don't unduly infringe the rights of others.

The U.S. founding Fathers put their support behind this basic notion with the freedom of the pursuit of happiness doctrine. Oddly enough, in U.S. culture, people don't seem to value this one as much as freedom of speech. Then again, a lot of people seem unable to tell freedom of religion apart from freedom from religion, so why should I be surprised?

Richard.

So what if:

- a dive charter chooses to trick people into thinking a dive is easier than it is to get more customers?

- an instructor skips part of a course to get through it quicker and make more money?

- a scuba equipment supplier uses cheap defective parts in order to increase return on sales?

- a diver ignores the needs of their buddy for purely selfish motives and in so doing endangers their life?

- spearfishermen target a species of fish in an area to the point of extinction?

- photographers crash over and destroy pristine coral in an area in their bid to get the 'trophy photo'.

A lot of people could legitimately argue that this is the "right to make your own decisions & do as you please". In so doing they endanger people's lives and the wellbeing of the environment.

 

[CT-Rich]

As this thread has grown there has been a progression of concerns about a vague HYPOTHETICAL question about the government regulating SCUBA. Including some teeth gnashing over the insidious creep of government to take over our sport after more than a half century of self regulation.

Some have compared it to civilian aviation and the expenses involve in being a recreational pilot and the onerous and expensive process and bureaucracy that has popped up around it. Two local families lost there homes and four people died, three of them children (two of them on the ground supposedly safe in their own home) when a plane failed to stay in the air. The reason that has cropped up around aviation and not scuba diving is that scuba divers very, very seldom fall out of the sky and kill non participants. Don't know about you but I prefer the NTSB and the FAA regulating flying to keep as few of those planes from hitting as few houses as possible.

Stupid divers usually only kill themselves (and occasionally their dive buddies). As a sport, SCUBA has become fairly safe through self-policing dive shops make money training divers, then equipping them and keeping them as happy breathing patrons providing additional training to those that wish to pursue it. A few organizations exist for the training and certification of divers and instructors. Fortunately, the gov't hasn't needed to get involved in regulating any of this. If anyone is using quasi regulating this business it would be the insurance industry. The key for everyone involved to make money is to keep as few divers from dying as possible. A great example of this are the cave divers, they know access to caves is best served by having as few people die as possible. They have excellent courses and they post warnings in cave entrances and are quite aggressive about keeping the fool hardy from becoming statistics. That is why the gov't won't be taking over. The system that exists has problems (for profit motivation, some of these certifications seem mostly designed for card collectors and not so much divers ), but it does work. Like I said in my earlier post, I just don't think it will happen.

 

[drrich2]

Having given examples of scenarios with such issues as fraud, endangerment and destruction of what might be considered community property (e.g.: endangered species and coral reef, both limited natural resources presumed to be shared with the rest of mankind), you said:

A lot of people could legitimately argue that this is the "right to make your own decisions & do as you please". In so doing they endanger people's lives and the wellbeing of the environment.

But when asked to define liberty earlier, part of what I posted was:

Off the top of my head, the right to make your own decisions & 'do as you please,' so to speak, as long as your actions don't unduly infringe the rights of others.

I did not promote sociopathic anarchy. My issue is government trying to protect people from themselves by overriding their free will, like the New York guy who was out to ban large soda cups at restaurants.

Richard.

 

[CT-Rich]

So what if:

- a dive charter chooses to trick people into thinking a dive is easier than it is to get more customers?

- an instructor skips part of a course to get through it quicker and make more money?

- a scuba equipment supplier uses cheap defective parts in order to increase return on sales?

- a diver ignores the needs of their buddy for purely selfish motives and in so doing endangers their life?

- spearfishermen target a species of fish in an area to the point of extinction?

- photographers crash over and destroy pristine coral in an area in their bid to get the 'trophy photo'.

A lot of people could legitimately argue that this is the "right to make your own decisions & do as you please". In so doing they endanger people's lives and the wellbeing of the environment.

To an extent, I agree with some of this, but not all. Gov't really is limited in what it can do, mostly it has a bark but not much bite (look all the bankers that went to jail for the housing collapse). The success of a law is more dependent on the respect for it that individuals have than for the punishment. Prohibition was a great example. As for some of the above assertions, the free market will have a big impact. If you make a crap product, or lie to sell a crap dive, you won't be in business long. If you are crap buddy, you are going to be a forever insta-buddy. plenty of divers have terrible buoyancy control and even without a camera will damage corals. As far as over fishing, it is a reality for so much of the marine world that it is almost incomprehensible how much we change it.

For all those saying we should get unlimited liberty, here are some of my concerns and I leave it to you to say that no laws are needed (regardless of whether they can be enforced) Dynamite fishing, should it be allowed? doesn't really affect me as long as it isn't in my neighborhood. Lobsters, how small is two small? What about the harvesting of nearly domesticated Giant Octopii? It still is a sport because I had to kill it by hand. Should there be any limits on taking artifacts off a wreck or is it all fair game? How about war wrecks? wouldn't a German skull off one of the U-boats look great in my collection? Tank inspections? Hell I take care of my gear, I think it is fine, why should I have to have it tested?

The OP asked about regulation, but it isn't an all or nothing question. The question is what is the reasonable lower limit. I certainly don't want to be around when a tank that hasn't been checked in 30 years fails while Joe Blow is getting his cave fill, then again I wouldn't want my daughters being the people earning low wages to fill them either....

 

[endurodog]

Most of these issues are handled by the civil courts here in the USA.

I have no idea what kind of law would be passed that would restrict a charter operator in your scenario. Can't take divers to specific spots unless they hold x cert? A gov agency would then decide what spots are acceptable and be able to take into account all conditions like weather, tides, ect.

An instructor skipping part of a course again handled by civil courts in the USA and the certifying agency.

The photographer doing that wouldn't need to be scuba but reef protection laws that covered every ocean user.

Regs are in place in most parts of the world about taking of game fish all ready.

On all of these, if there were laws passed in reference to scuba divers. Who would set the standard? What would that standard be? What if that standard didn't fit with how you dive now? Say a standard that said only 2 recreational dives a day and none deeper than 100 feet. Because it would save lives of course.

So what if:

- a dive charter chooses to trick people into thinking a dive is easier than it is to get more customers?

- an instructor skips part of a course to get through it quicker and make more money?

- a scuba equipment supplier uses cheap defective parts in order to increase return on sales?

- a diver ignores the needs of their buddy for purely selfish motives and in so doing endangers their life?

- spearfishermen target a species of fish in an area to the point of extinction?

- photographers crash over and destroy pristine coral in an area in their bid to get the 'trophy photo'.

A lot of people could legitimately argue that this is the "right to make your own decisions & do as you please". In so doing they endanger people's lives and the wellbeing of the environment.

 

[boulderjohn]

I am always amused by people who take everything to extreme, immersing themselves in the either/or fallacy. As some have pointed out, we already have lots of government regulation of scuba. Any change would be a matter of degree. Here in Colorado and the neighboring states, nearly all dive sites are on some government's property, and they make the rules. They tell us where we can dive (now where are the really, really crappy parts of this reservoir?), when we can dive, and under what circumstances (better have a buddy and a flag). So the only real question is how far you want that control to go. To illustrate the real problem as I see it, let me describe a real issue a group of us had trying to teach a large group of students in Carter lake, Colorado.

It was August, and we had been teaching classes every other week since the end of Spring. We were setting up the dive site in preparation for the classes when the rangers arrived to tell us we were not on their list of approved and insured instructional programs. How could we not be, we asked, since we had been coming there all summer with no problems?

Sorry! We were not on the list. No instruction could be carried on that weekend. We and all your students would have to go home--no refunds on the entry fee.

We called the shop. They had copies of the required forms showing we had done all the correct paperwork and gotten confirmation of our approval. They could fax copies immediately.

Sorry! That didn't matter. You have to be on the official list, and there is a specific person who puts you on that list. She does not work weekends. When she came in on Monday, she could put us on the list. Until them no diving for us.

Can't you see that this has to be your mistake, we asked? Isn't it obvious that we have done everything right, but somehow you have mistakenly left us off the list?

Maybe so, they said, but if you are not on the list of approved dive operators, you can't dive here.

All of the above is what I was told. I was just a DM then, and I was in the water setting up the dive platform for the students to use. They did not see me get out of the water because of the heated conversation. That was lucky. If they had seen me, I would have been fined $100 for being in the water without a buddy. I would have been fined $100 for being in the water without a dive flag, even though I was in a restricted zone open only to diving. I would have been fined $100 because I had left my certification card at home.

Just as things looked really dire, one of our group, looking at the list of approved operators, saw that one of the approved operators was owned by someone he knew well. He got out his cell phone and called him. After a few minutes of explaining the situation, he handed the cell phone over to the rangers. The owner of that operation told the rangers that he had just hired all our instructional staff for that weekend. We were now part of his shop, and we had permission to do our instruction there. The rangers were furious. They tried to think of anything they could do, anything at all, to screw us over and keep us out of the water. They could not come up with anything, and we were saved. They were so frustrated that they forgot to ask the instructional staff to produce their C-cards, which would have worked, since none of us had them.

The next day they tried it again, telling us we would not get by on a technicality this time. Fortunately, try as they might, they could not think of any legal way to screw us over, as much as they clearly wanted to. We had even brought our C-cards.

And so, I do recognize that the government is already involved in regulating scuba. I would just prefer to keep it at a minimum.