Deep Down Diver
Registered
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 6
Dale, I can't help but think that you are trying to spin my response so, in a last post to this thread, and after having now read the entire thread and a bit of the NW Divers thread Zen linked to, I offer a counter view and renew my suggestion:
1. The young man/men in question is/are one of us: divers.
2. Two apparently novice divers did what we all preach: they went diving as buddies in conditions within their training and experience: a diving area that happens to be supported by improvements created with tax dollars for all divers.
3. The diver in question obtained the necessary license to take the animal.
4. The diver took one animal (this fact seems to be lost: he took ONE animal ONE time).
5. B(GD) confronted the diver. None of us other than those actually standing in earshot know what was said, but it appears the diver has expressed some regret.
6. A social media press ensued against the diver that took the one animal (apparently confirmed to be a male that was not protecting eggs, baby seals, or kittens). Query this: if the diver was your 16 year old daughter or son and the social media press was initiated by another 16 year old attending the same highschool, who among us would have not moved heaven and earth to bring it and the poster down? The ends does not justify the means, people, it just doesn't.
7. Brother and sister divers advocated everything from murdering this diver by lynching him, giving him a 10% fill, or taking other action below the surface, to commiting felony criminal mischief against his property while he was submerged, to turning him in for MIP based on a facebook post. Again, all over one animal a brother diver had the right to harvest and apparently didn't know the unwritten law against hunting at this partularl location.
8. The issue raised by this diver's action in taking this animal is this: whose dive site is it? Does it belong to all divers or should novice divers that want to hunt be relegated to other dive sites (that don't have the nice ammenities that my tax dollars paid for (I lived in Seattle when these were built) and which may not conform to the edict that he dive within his level of comfort and experience)?
In closing, it may be the unspoken rule that this dive site is reserved to tourists and novices. If so, speak it. That's what I suggested. Of course, there is more than one way to communicate (hence my response to your new thread, Dale). If speaking is not enough and enough people feel the same way, then go ahead and use the legislative process to deny our hunting brother and sister divers from accessing this site. Just remember that someday the masses may not like your new hobby, either.
But I will say this: shame on anyone that advocates harming any diver or his property over something that does not involve death or physical injury to another diver. And think about this - how would you feel if someone digs up your identity and forwards your post advocating the same to your employer, your favorite dive shop, your dive club, etc.? I'll bet you would say that you didn't really mean it and just posted it in the heat of the moment without thinking.
I'll bet the young diver that had words with Bob would tell us that he said things in the heat of the moment, wishes he hadn't, and will not hunt at this location in the future. In fact, I think he has.
My $0.02.
Respectfully submitted,
db
I read this entire thread. The post by Rooster above is the most intelligent analysis of the situation.
The santimonious attitudes of many other posters on this thread is downright appalling.
Those of you who think you are morally superior need to give it a rest, look in the mirror and be honest.
Respectfully submitted