How would you handle this?

[MXGratefulDiver]

I think those 2 statements, especially the one I bolded, are very telling. They indicate to me that all the positions of "It's legal to do it (take a octopus a day by each diver) so nobody should stand in the way of the current regulations", is not very relevant. The fact the FWC would close the cove immediately to octopus hunting if another legal taking occurred, is the best evidence to indicate how the FWC sees the current regulations as being very incorrect.

Sounds to me that without a doubt they are going to either close the cove to octopus hunting or change the bag limit severely.

I'm almost certain they'll move to protect the cove ... in fact, all three coves in Seacrest Park. From the director's report, it seemed all that's left to decide is which of the options they had on the table would be the most suitable, and given the rapid turn of events it's reasonable that they would want more time to consider them before making a decision.

The only reason this wasn't done years ago is because nobody was hunting there, and therefore it was never an issue.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[dumpsterDiver]

It's nice to see that my Internet trial is continuing apace.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, we had our meeting with the Fish and Wildlife Commission this morning. We spent an hour listening to the Director's report of activities since the last meeting ... the most significant of which was this octopus hunt and the flurry of activity at WDFW during the past week. I was surprised to hear that in the 40 years since this had become a popular dive site, this was the first reported octopus hunt there. Before we could even present our input, the director laid out the four options that were under consideration ... all of which had been discussed among ourselves at our planning meeting three days ago. The director indicated that some form of closure to octopus hunting at this site was strongly favored, but that they wanted to study the issue more before determining which option to select. He also indicated that, since this was an isolated incident, emergency closure wasn't warranted ... but that if there was another taking before they reached a final resolution that position would be reconsidered.

Then we were given a chance to present our speakers. The first speaker was our young hunter, Dylan. He talked about the hunt, his reasons for it, and expressed support for closure, but also expressing his opposition to statewide closure of octopus hunting (one of the options on the table). I saw a different young man today than the one I saw a week ago ... one who can get a lot of acceptance and respect from the community, and who showed respect for others. It took some courage for him to stand up, look at a crowd of people who had so recently given him a hard time, and voice his support for what we're trying to do. And after he finished, the Speaker had to remind us that applause is not normally allowed during these hearings ... but in this case she was going to make an exception.

Several speakers followed, including the president of our largest dive club, former president of the Washington Scuba Alliance, dive shop owners, and my "partner in crime" Scott, who presented a compelling case for considering this protection. I believe it's going to happen. Several on the commission expressed surprise that this hadn't been brought up years ago.

Prior to the meeting, Dylan and I had a chance to speak to each other privately, shake hands, and offer apologies in both directions for the emotional roller coaster of the past few days. I don't think either one of us expected our internet activities to elicit the responses it did. Overall though, I think in the long term it will result in more positives than negatives for all concerned ... the octopuses we're trying to protect, the dive community, and Dylan.

Y'all may now resume your trial. Sorry for the interruption ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Wow, this is entirely unacceptable.

A seemingly amicable resolution and an opportunity for the teenager to grow up more in a week than he has in 19 years... What the hell are we gonna argue about now??

 

[chillyinCanada]

Hmm, what will we argue about now, indeed. Perhaps we will have to argue about what constitutes a "kid", "boy", "teenager" or "young man". Oh wait, someone already started that argument.

To me a "kid" is almost anyone younger than me. "boy" is anyone who is not a "man" and lots of men that I know too. "teenager" is anyone in their teens including "19". "young man" is a male person with mature traits, whether "16" "19" or "25"

(Dylan went from "boy" to "young man", in my eyes) Most of my congratulations go to him because until this past week, he hadn't had as much life experience to draw on as had some others.

There aren't that many grown, um, er, men that could have stood up there this morning the way he did.

 

[kotik]

What the hell are we gonna argue about now??

Never worry-- love will find a way!

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Hmm, what will we argue about now, indeed. Perhaps we will have to argue about what constitutes a "kid", "boy", "teenager" or "young man". Oh wait, someone already started that argument.

To me, "kid" refers to anyone generally under the age of 30 ... that puts them well beyond a generation younger than me. There are some exceptions ... I still call my sister "kid" ... she's 52, but still my baby sister.

"Young man" is ... well ... a man who's young. Seems pretty self explanatory.

I can't speak to "boy" or "teenager", since I haven't used those terms in this conversation.

I often refer to myself as "old man", "old dude", or "curmudgeon".

None of the above terms are perjorative ... and the day they start getting viewed that way will be the day we'll all have to start wondering how we're going to manage a conversation without offending somebody ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[chillyinCanada]

. . .

None of the above terms are perjorative ... and the day they start getting viewed that way will be the day we'll all have to start wondering how we're going to manage a conversation without offending somebody ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Without offending anyone?!?!?!? RFLMAO . . . this is the internet, of course, someone is offended . . . might even be something we never could have imagined was coming . . . ahahahhhaaa

 

[letterboy]

You have all offended me.

Wonder if these posts will get moderated out as they are not on topic of the initial thread.

OHH I found out the other night that OP's cannot request a thread be closed, even if it gets out of hand... I found that interesting.

 

[ski2moro]

A lurker's question: After Dylan's turnabout, do you think the dive shops will provide service once again? Although I have supported Bob in all of this, I thought the dive shop ban was harsh.

 

[gypsyjim]

You have all offended me.

Wonder if these posts will get moderated out as they are not on topic of the initial thread.

OHH I found out the other night that OP's cannot request a thread be closed, even if it gets out of hand... I found that interesting.

Are you sure? I have asked mods to close a thread, and had them do so. Obviously there had to be a justifiable reason.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

A lurker's question: After Dylan's turnabout, do you think the dive shops will provide service once again? Although I have supported Bob in all of this, I thought the dive shop ban was harsh.

Probably ... dive shop owners make their own decisions for their own reasons. But the person who initially suggested that Dylan speak today was one of those dive shop owners ... and that dive shop owner will most certainly welcome Dylan back into his business. I think most will ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)