GUE/DIR/WKPP vs the world?

[lamont]

if the WKPP is lobbying to keep the sites private, then the obvious solution is to lobby harder to gain access to dive them...

 

[ScubaSteve]

So it's a "if they are doing this, why" thread?

Burden of proof is on the believer ti show that they arbitrarily work to keep people out of their playground for reasons independent of the mission and their perceived ability to complete it.

Otherwise this is just a "are you still beating your wife?" discussion.

I understand your point however there was no question in the OP's post. That means it is not so much of an "if they are doing this" thread IMO. If someone proves he is lying then I am happy to accept that but for now I am prepared to leave my ruling open to say "are they or are they not?" whereas you have decided "they are not" (or so it sounds). Fair enough. But I think the reality is, it is speculation either way.

"Burden of proof goes to the party that is trying to convince the other" would be more accurate. I am not trying to convince anybody of anything. I am just asking questions to see which position is true (since people have already set up camp on both sides of the fence).

if the WKPP is lobbying to keep the sites private, then the obvious solution is to lobby harder to gain access to dive them...

Absolutely.

 

[lamont]

If all this thread is about is to determine if the WKPP is actively lobbying against other divers and to keep the site closed, then I would say that its safest to assume that they are.

You can argue that is unfair.

Life isn't fair.

Get off the internet and do the work to convince the state otherwise.

Are we done with this thread now?

 

[Blackwood]

I haven't decided anything. I don't care beyond this being interesting

I merely listed a reason to oppose third party access for which I can not fault them.

But your reply to me was "But to just lock some up for no other reason is just wrong and there really is no good reason. Nothing said in this thread even comes close to making a good argument for that," as if justifying that position is the point of this thread.

That's not the point of the thread. The OP asked if it was true that WKPP tries to keep people out of Wakulla. He didn't say "WKPP wants to keep people out for reasons independent of their mission. Please justify their action."

That would be ridiculous until shown that they indeed want to keep people out for reasons independent of their mission.



Personally, if I'd spent years getting access to an area that was once closed due to diver deaths, and more years and hundreds of thousands of dollars working the site, I'd be really touchy about the possibility of it being closed again due to an accident having nothing to do with me.

 

[ScubaSteve]

I apologize. You are right. I got someone else's agenda mixed up with the OP's.

I haven't decided anything. I don't care beyond this being interesting

I merely listed a reason to oppose third party access for which I can not fault them.

But your reply to me was "But to just lock some up for no other reason is just wrong and there really is no good reason. Nothing said in this thread even comes close to making a good argument for that," as if justifying that position is the point of this thread.

That's not the point of the thread. The OP asked if it was true that WKPP tries to keep people out of Wakulla. He didn't say "WKPP wants to keep people out for reasons independent of their mission. Please justify their action."

That would be ridiculous until shown that they indeed want to keep people out for reasons independent of their mission.

 

[Blackwood]

Fair nuff. I'm bowing out to observer status anyway. :beer:

 

[danvolker]

NIAGRA FALLS STATE PARK has very specific limitations to where the general public can have access. Even though a park may have a form of immunity, they obviously try to prevent people from accessing areas deemed unsafe by the park.

 

[scjoe]

Isn't this an issue best addressed to the Florida State Park system rather than the individual permit holder? It seems that the State may owe the public an explanation as to why only one organization has access, but that organization does not owe an explanation to the public or any duty to other organizations to assist in their permit applications.

 

[rjack321]

NIAGRA FALLS STATE PARK has very specific limitations to where the general public can have access. Even though a park may have a form of immunity, they obviously try to prevent people from accessing areas deemed unsafe by the park.

Fair enough, but some public spectators aren't allowed on one side of the fence while others have to stay on the other.

The problem I have is with Wakulla State Park, not WKPP. I don't believe WKPP is doing published research, unless you can show me some geology publications (requiring diving) to the contrary. They certainly might exist as I don't roll in that circle.

State Parks management has created a situation where certain citizens are given the priviledge of accessing state trust land for what is in essence recreation. While other citizens who maybe one or a few individuals are denied. You can blow smoke about the safety record of other agency's training or Stone's BS project or whatever.

But the fact remains that there's a huge artificial "research" hurdle which Wakulla State park has imposed on all divers. A burden which is not part of their mission to promote outdoor recreation.

WKPP has worked around this burden with preceived "special" status. The public perception and negativity towards this "favored" status is WKPP's and by extension GUE's albatross like GI3 was in the late 1990s.

Isn't this an issue best addressed to the Florida State Park system rather than the individual permit holder? It seems that the State may owe the public an explanation as to why only one organization has access, but that organization does not owe an explanation to the public or any duty to other organizations to assist in their permit applications.

Exactly!

 

[Scott L]

Are we done with this thread now?