How would you handle this?

[Pullmyfinger]

I've been following this thread, and the other one, but have not posted.
As Dale C mentioned, I don't have a stake in this at all. Neither do many other posters here.
What is starting to stand out is that you, Deep Down Diver, have really made it a point to inject yourself into the middle of it and give it a different tone.

You mentioned that your were a journalist. Were you the the type that created news, or reported it?

You certainly seem to be creating something here, or at least attempting to steer things in certain directions.

Interesting thread for sure, sort of sad how this is all playing out.

Regards,
Mitch

The Thread that started it all was closed on the original forum. The same might transpire on scubaboard. Read the shutdown at
Northwest Dive Club • View topic - Octopus hunters in Cove 2 ...

Bob is a very sophisticated internet user who knew exactly what he was doing in harassing this kid. Look at his credentials on ScubaBoard and on the NW Dive Club website. He is the linchpin to the cyberstalking crusade.

NW Dive Club
Grateful Diver
Posts: 4520
Joined: May 15, 2006

ScubaBoard
NWGratefulDiver
Join Date: Feb 2002
Dives:2,500 - 4,999
Posts not shown

Bob’s first post on 10/31/12 was to a small club forum where he describes the “hoodie” wearing young guy. The description reminds of George Zimmerman’s seeing Trayvon Martin in a hoodie. Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The guy is young ... maybe 20'ish. He was wearing a hoodie that said "Tahoma Lacross" on the front and "Mayer" on the back. I'm assuming that's his last name. He drives a red pickup truck. I'll post the pictures when I get them ... probably later tonight or tomorrow. If anyone can identify this guy, I think we all need to know who to watch out for.
Northwest Dive Club • View topic - Octopus hunters in Cove 2 ...

Not satisfied, Bob went after the kid on ScubaBoard on 11/1/12

I don’t know what he did on facebook and other sites.

Scubaboard readers should be grateful to Bob for lessons about the perils of cyberstalking to address this.

Scubaboard readers should be grateful to Bob for showing how internet lynching can have repercussions back to the lynchpin and other lynchers.

Scubaboard readers should be grateful to Bob for demonstrating that respect for hunters that follow the law is wise.

Farther down is the post today on the NW Dive Club forum that sent Bob scrambling for cover before the thread was closed.
Northwest Dive Club • View topic - Octopus hunters in Cove 2 ...
Re: Octopus hunters in Cove 2 ...

by davidguilbault » Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:29 am
Hello.

I joined this forum just so I could share this post. I read through this thread and it disturbed me greatly.

This furor is a lesson on how quickly a character assassination can happen on the Internet. Most divers who posted on this 17-page diatribe about the killing of an octopus in Seattle did so before they actually knew the facts.

Don't really want to weigh in about the morality of hunting or the childish bravado of hunters. But I do want to say that it worries and distresses me when so many people can wage an attack on someone so quickly, based only on hearsay.

The young diver was accused of illegally killing a nesting, defenseless female octopus, taking her away from thousands of eggs, causing her death and the death of a generation of octopi. It should be noted that the prevailing understanding now, after some actual news reporting, is that the diver had a license, the octopus was a legal kill and that it was not a nesting mother.

It's the former journalist in me that likes to set the record straight. This young man is getting death threats and says he has been told by his employer to not return to work after his leave of absence. He is also being banned from a variety of dive shops and has been called every name in the book. He says his ambition to be a rescue diver is now thwarted, as some dive schools are denying him admission. Don't know if that last is true or not.

In a radio interview (Listen to podcast - Pod Player - MyNorthwest.com) he gave defending himself he claims everything he did was legal, and that he took the octopus both as a subject for an art drawing class requiring something from nature and as food. He says he has eaten some already, shared some with family and friends and has 50 lbs more in his freezer. (Everyone who has posted in this thread ought to listen to this radio interview.)

Meanwhile his Facebook and MySpace pages have been harvested to be used as fodder for all kinds of accusatory assumptions and insinuations. He has become a pariah, all before the facts were fully known.

And Pacific Northwesterners, as they are wont to do, have been wagging their fingers in self-righteous umbrage, name-calling and slandering before actually hearing from the hunter/fisherman to understand his side of the story.

Apparently, as I understand it, the divers who started the Web fire of personal destruction considered the fish in the cove where the young man was fishing to be their "protected pets." The man was apparently unaware of that or the sensitivity of the area for local divers. Wildlife authorities, on the other hand, say the man had every right to be fishing in those waters for whatever catch he desired, regardless of what anyone else thought of his actions. In fact, a game warden says she inspected his catch and found nothing illegal.

For his part, the young man said that the two divers who initially approached him, challenging what he was doing with a live octopus, were rude and aggressive. He did what many would do, and gave the rudeness and aggression back.

The two challengers didn't like the young hunter's attitude and decided, with no evidence other than his defensive, sarcastic responses, that he had killed a nesting mother. They took to the Web to launch a concerted campaign to identify the young man, invade his online presence, destroy his reputation and damage his relationship in the dive community.

Unfortunately, what they posted was simply not factual and caused slanderous damage. They bear responsibility for whatever destruction they brought to this young man's life. Hopefully they will accept that responsibility. The young man says he won't go back to that cove to fish again, respecting the wishes of the local divers, but will continue hunting for octopus, as is his legal right.

Even though the facts are now pretty much known, the demonizing of this young man continues. He says he hunts and butchers animals to eat. He has posted videos of those activities. But, comments on various news organization threads now describe his livestock slaughterings as animal torture.

I've seen a couple of his videos. They show an immature man butchering his food and playing around with his meat. You know, like hunters posing gleefully with their prized kills.

Remember, an awful lot of people, especially young people, now post just about everything they do online. This young man's video postings are being distorted.

Whether or not we ought to be killing animals for sport, food or any other reason is another kettle of fish altogether. (But, I do like my calamari, cow and pig.)

In any event, this should be a lesson to all of us online to do a little research, get the facts, give a story a little time to develop before we start sharing unfounded accusations and insinuations. And one should never start charging people with supposed heinous acts without ever giving that person an opportunity to explain their actions.

This first came to my attention through a Facebook posting where the poster said his intent was to embarrass this young diver. The original posting on this thread was a blatant threat against the young man and the dive businesses he frequented. Without a doubt it was an invitation for others to invade the young man's privacy.

When one begins to wrongly accuse someone, without having properly vetted the facts, it can quickly escalate out of control and cause real personal damage that might not ever be undone. These accusations need to stop here and now. In my opinion, this thread has been an embarrassment for all involved.

No one has a monopoly on "right" and "wrong." What we all have are laws. None, as far as I can ascertain at this time without further investigation, have been broken here. If you want to change the existing laws about octopi hunting, have at it. But, don't demonize this young man for doing what is accepted under the law.

For now, quite a few apologies are in order. And those who have caused damage in anyone's life have a responsibility to undo that damage.

Thank you all for allowing me to post on a forum to which I don't belong. I felt this thread was not about diving, but about fairness and the destruction caused by facile, false accusation. For the record, I'm scared to death to go under the water.

Hope all is well with you and yours.
Cheers for now.
David Guilbault
Last edited by davidguilbault on Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:47 am, edited 1 time in total.


Could a civil lawsuit be coming?

Could worse be coming with this Washington state law?

RCW 9.61.260: Cyberstalking.

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]RCW 9.61.260

Cyberstalking.[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
(1) A person is guilty of cyberstalking if he or she, with intent to harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass any other person, and under circumstances not constituting telephone harassment, makes an electronic communication to such other person or a third party:

(a) Using any lewd, lascivious, indecent, or obscene words, images, or language, or suggesting the commission of any lewd or lascivious act;

(b) Anonymously or repeatedly whether or not conversation occurs; or

(c) Threatening to inflict injury on the person or property of the person called or any member of his or her family or household.

(2) Cyberstalking is a gross misdemeanor, except as provided in subsection (3) of this section.

(3) Cyberstalking is a class C felony if either of the following applies:

(a) The perpetrator has previously been convicted of the crime of harassment, as defined in RCW 9A.46.060, with the same victim or a member of the victim's family or household or any person specifically named in a no-contact order or no-harassment order in this or any other state; or

(b) The perpetrator engages in the behavior prohibited under subsection (1)(c) of this section by threatening to kill the person threatened or any other person.

(4) Any offense committed under this section may be deemed to have been committed either at the place from which the communication was made or at the place where the communication was received.

(5) For purposes of this section, "electronic communication" means the transmission of information by wire, radio, optical cable, electromagnetic, or other similar means. "Electronic communication" includes, but is not limited to, electronic mail, internet-based communications, pager service, and electronic text messaging.

 

[ams511]

I've been following this thread, and the other one, but have not posted.
As Dale C mentioned, I don't have a stake in this at all. Neither do many other posters here.
What is starting to stand out is that you, Deep Down Diver, have really made it a point to inject yourself into the middle of it and give it a different tone.

You mentioned that your were a journalist. Were you the the type that created news, or reported it?

You certainly seem to be creating something here, or at least attempting to steer things in certain directions.

Interesting thread for sure, sort of sad how this is all playing out.

Regards,
Mitch

Read the thread he posted a link to and make up your own mind. I am not a lawyer but as a juror I would find his first posts malicious. He went out of his way to post pictures of the diver, his car, his license plate number, etc. He changed his tune when the kids parents confronted him and became very contrite now when facing potential legal action. Look at his tagline, "threats and ultimatums are never the best answer. Public humiliation via Photoshop is always better".
He set out to publicly humiliate the diver and did an excellent job. He also got him blackballed from local dive shops.

 

[Rooster In Ohio]

I find nothing wrong with holding someone's feet to the fire for taking something that I enjoy.

Allright, time for a quick post mortem before this whole thing gets taken down (my bold prediction).

A man walks up to a dive site that is favored among instructors, novices, and tourists and sees something he's never seen before or even imagined possible: another diver legally harvesting an animal.

The man confronts the harvesting diver and learns that the harvesting diver may act within his legal rights again in the future. The man doesn't want any more legal harvesting at this dive site. What are the man's options and the consequences of those options? (we will put aside obviously illegal options such as murder and destruction of property for the moment and get back to them later).

One option would be for the man to post pictures featuring the animal (not the diver) in the diver's arms and in the diver's truck, circulate the pictures in all the right places, and seek support for a change in the law so that his desires are evelated to a legal right and the diver's desires are rendered illegal. PM - some win, some lose, no one suffers financially, no one is harassed or threatened, and everyone goes on their merry way. I respectfully submit that this is the socially and legally acceptable way for the man to go about resolving his desire.

Another option would be to go after the diver. Identify the diver in all the right places. Bring economic pressure to bear. Incite the masses against the diver. Introduce red herrings (male or female, eggs or no eggs, the highly regulatory State of Washington has not seen fit to draw this distinction but go ahead and focus on it as it rings with the masses). After all, as the poster above clearly touched on, so what if the diver suffers unrelated but real consequences for a legal activity - he took something I enjoy looking at.

Several non-Washington attorneys have weighed in to opine that what has transpired between these two threads is not actionable. I am also a non-Washington attorney (I am not a plaintiff's attorney but rather manage a large amount of litigation as part of my business practice). Here is what I tell my clients: you can sue a ham sandwich. Here is what I predict will happen here:


Track one - if the diver, with or without the financial support of his family, has to pay full boat for an attorney, the matter will die.

Track two - if the diver or his family can attract the attention of an attorney, either based on other relationships or because an attorney wants to be involved in the rapidly expanding and moving body of law related to cyber [harassment, bullying, whatever], I expect the following to happen in short order:

1. Scubaboard and the local NW Divers site will receive a subpoena seeking all personal information regarding anyone who posted suggesting action against the diver involving physical or economic harm, all PMs posted or received by them, etc.

2. The attorney will file suit in Washington State against the OP, Scubaboard, the local NW Divers site, and 50 or so john doe defendants (this step may come first, in which case Scubaboard and NW Divers will receive requestes for production). The complaint will alledge as to the forums that, because they are moderated and, arguably, the offending postrs and posts advocating harm to the poster or his property violated their ToS, the forums are liable. The suit may show up on the defendants' credit reports as a pending action (a potential problem if a defendnat is a small business owner with credit needs).

3. The attorney will seek production of all electronic correspondence sent or received by the now targeted parties relating to the diver (anyone reading this with concern might want to speak with their attorney before deleting any offending correspondence - once you send it, there is a record of it and courts take a dim view of spoliation of evidence).

4. Those named may discover that their insurance will deem the complained of action to be an intentional act and will refuse to provide coverage or defense.

5. Public focus will shift from protection of the dive site to the alleged harassment perpetrated against the diver and polititians will be wary to embrace the cause of turning the dive site into a protected area.

6. This will drag on for a long time until either a court tosses it or, if a court doesn't toss it, somebody pays enough money to compensate the diver for his financial losses (or worse, a jury finds malice and awards punitive damages).

Folks, this has moved a long way past one octopus or even one dive site and instead is showing a real divide (and animosity) between those that justify their actions based on their feelings and think it is perfectly okay to inflict pain on anyone that acts in a way that displeases them and those that believe in a social contract based on laws and confine their actions to working to change laws that offend them (but respecting those laws unless or until they are changed). I have to admit that I don't understand the former camp - who here would have supported any of the actions which may be complained of if we substituted a woman for a man and an unborn child for an octopus? Abortion is legal but abhored by many: would anyone support anyone taking the woman's picture, identifying her on a public forum, harvesting her facebook page, and sending her identity around to her church and the stores where she shops? Of course not! Would there be general support for legal action against anyone who did these things? I suspect there would be. I understand that the comparison may be offensive due to its nature, but the principle is the same: who is anyone to shame a person for partaking in a legal activity? If you are offended by the activity, work to change the law and end the activity.

I think this thread reflects negatively on the dive community in general and Scubaboard in particular and urge the moderator to take appropriate action. (please spare me the free speach blather - I promise you it does not apply to a private forum).

R/S,

db

 

[Pullmyfinger]

Read the thread he posted a link to and make up your own mind. I am not a lawyer but as a juror I would find his first posts malicious. He went out of his way to post pictures of the diver, his car, his license plate number, etc. He changed his tune when the kids parents confronted him and became very contrite now when facing potential legal action. Look at his tagline, "threats and ultimatums are never the best answer. Public humiliation via Photoshop is always better".
He set out to publicly humiliate the diver and did an excellent job. He also got him blackballed from local dive shops.

My opinion isn't important.
My point is that the flames are being fanned. This has turned into a form of Jerry Springer like entertainment for some.

As I said...it is sad (and unfortunate) that it has progressed to this point.


-Mitch

 

[ams511]

My opinion isn't important

Neither is mine.

 

[danvolker]

Well as a diver I am familiar with petting zoos. I remember a dive operator in Key Largo that used to feed a barracuda named "Psycho" fish out of his mouth. This same operator would pull a moray out of its hole and pass it along to divers to hold and then sell you a video tape of the whole sad affair. The operator also complained bitterly when a fisherman caught poor Psycho. You have been in South Florida a while so I think you know the operator I am referring too. So yes I have seen divers including dive professionals "pet or molest" wildlife in so called "petting zoos".

Clearly there were plusses and minuses to the behavior Spencer engaged in. On the plus side, he had a large hand in getting tourism to be so powerful, that tourism( the County Commissioners which provide the real power behind it) could easily make the changes deemed necessary to prevent bad actions from irresponsible hunters or fisherman in the long run. But yes, it was less than ideal role modeling for diver behavior---though I doubt this caused many to act in a similar manner. In the grand scheme of things, if you are marine life, it is far better to be petted or fed, than to be caught or killed.

As far as norms go who gets to set them? Also why should a person be forced to follow norms they may not personally agree with? It seems the only person who was really upset with this was Bob and he seemed to instigate the "outrage" against this person.

This goes to why you or I would choose to live in a certain town with a personality all it's own....versus some place with no local customs or charms, or personality...versus living far from anyone and existing more as a recluse. When you choose to live in a social system, you need to think about your choices and what they involve.

Also I do not know how things work up in Palm Beach but in Miami it is illegal to run over dogs in a dog park. Again dogs are domesticated animals and someone's private property and octopi in the ocean are not.

That was supposed to be another metaphor, to make it easier to convey why many people feel this action was amazingly WRONG, and why when the young man indicated it would be repeated daily from then on, the action was seen as a serious threat to the community.

---------- Post Merged at 09:10 AM ---------- Previous Post was at 08:12 AM ----------

• If I visit a small town in Georgia, I am going to consider my behavior as it relates to "fitting in" with local customs and behaviors....One thing I would not do, is to stereotype myself with clothing or actions which will make the townspeople see me as a threat.
• If I take up a new sport, in a new place, I am going to attempt to get the attitudes and accepted behaviors from the regulars, in my early days or weeks in this new sport/place. This was important for when I took up Hang gliding, mountain biking, and very certainly diving ( acceptable behaviors on each specific charter boat( above and below water) , and how this is effected by what reef or dive area you are on).
• At a local shore diving site like the Cove or the BHB Marine Park, any first time visiter should expect the area has certain behaviors that are encouraged, and certain behaviors that are seen as taboo. If you are a hunter, visiting a place full of photographers and sightseers, you know ABSOLUTELY that your being there all by itself is raising eyebrows, and concerns, and that what you OUGHT TO DO, is talk to several regulars and gain an understanding of the way the regulars at this site see diving behaviors here, and how they see hunting. When you go to a place like this, a very "public place', you are operating inside a social system...a collective. Do you want to be embraced as a well liked new member, or as a severe threat?
• If a "rebel type" person shows up at a Business Meeting he was invited to, and begins "ripping off" huge ear drum bursting farts, of really foul smelling gas every five minutes ( showing great satisfaction after each one, as it was his desired behavior as a "statement"), we would "expect" that after the meeting, the other attendees will discuss this person, and talk about him, and there will be a consensus that this person is bad for the meetings, that he "stinks", and that he has no regard for the other members in this meeting---and that no one should ever invite him to another meeting. If this stinky person has indicated they plan to go to several future business or political meetings, and gas them as well, it is likely that the attendees of this first meeting, will want to warn others that may be in the future meetings, that this stinky person may attend. His behavior will be chronicled, and others will be warned. This will be the truth, those warned will have been warned because of others with common interests, feeling it is in their common good to look out for others they exist with in this community. My point is, a new hunter that visits a dive site they desire to hunt in, on seeing many non-hunters enjoying the resource, SHOULD attempt to ascertain norms of the dive site. Failure to do this, is failure to exist in the social system, and basically begs for a result much as in this thread.

 

[The Chairman]

---

---

A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

Threats, implied or real, have been removed.
While this is a highly controversial topic please remember to abide by the ToS.
If you see a post which seems to violate the ToS, please use the report button rather than engage.
Be sure to tell us why and how you think the ToS has been violated. We can't read minds.

The Thread has been moved to an appropriate venue for this discussion.

ScubaBoard supports the creation of a Marine Sanctuary for this Dive Location.
Marine Sanctuaries provide a lot of benefits and many, many more should be established world wide.

---

 

[danvolker]

I would guess a long-line fishing trawler takes more tonnage of fish than all of the members of Spearboard combined. It seems to me that Spearfishermen (I am not one) always get the short end of the stick when it comes to restrictions and recreational and commercial fisherman always seem to get a pass. So what Bob will do is get spearfishing banned at that location but people can still catch fish there with hook and line.

This is an area where virtually all members of SB and Spearboard would agree( the part about the fishing trawlers).

As to hook and line fishing at a place like the Blue Heron Bridge Marine Park, they were fishing there long before there were any divers, and the first user group to take advantage of this resource was the local fisherman.
The area evolved, and became exceptional for divers, and now you have several user groups enjoying this public resource.

There is a big difference between the results of hook and line fishing at BHB and what the results would be from having spearfisherman there in similar numbers, or if we had collectors there in similar numbers.....
The hook and line fisherman "rarely" ever hook a frogfish or a rockfish, even if you have 50 there in a big weekend. Put 50 collectors on the BHB in the same weekend, allow the collecting of Frogfish and rockfish, and there will be no more frogfish or rockfish. The underwater hunter or collector, becomes a user group incompatible with the sightseeing and photo/video user groups. As the underwater hunter or collector is absolutely destructive to the use by the sigtseeing tourists or photo/video groups, there is a real need for lobbying by the tourist interests, and by the photo/video groups, to ban collecting and hunting from this small area where the hunters and collectors would purposely be destroying the resource of the other user groups.....The local fisherman have no real adverse impact on the area, as the fish they catch are not related to any interest of the tourists or photo/video groups....

And again....Real Hunters do not need to be told that they should not be hunting or collecting in a "petting zoo".
There is no excuse for this. They have mile after mile of reef available, and unlimited opportunities where they are not destroying the enjoyment of another user group. Real hunters do not desire hunting to be concentrated in a tiny area, where the results will clearly lead to the removal of key species --real hunters hunt in areas where game is plentiful, where hunters are in small concentration, and where the targeted species will not be adversely effected by hunting in this area. Obviously octopus at the Cove, or at the BHB, could be wiped out in a single weekend by a large turnout of hunters that had no moral compass, and that were an embarrasment to good hunters everywhere else. Sure it would be legal. I pity the person who can only make this distinction.

 

[Flodad]

I read thorugh alot of the posts (but admit not all of them). As a land based hunter, I am just an extension (a tool if you will) of wildlife management. A good wildlife mgt program continually studies the populations and environments which the animals live and the fod the eat. The program then adjusts the licenses each year to ensure the right population targets are met. Take for example Colorado Elk. THorugh great game management we 've grown the population from the early 1800s of less than 500 elk to now over 350,000.

There are stupid people that hunt, there are poachers who kill illigeally, and there are idiots who prop up their killed animal in their pickup trucks and drive thorugh town to show off the great anmial they've just killed. However, most hunters are very keen t public reaction and do what they can to IMPROVE relationships and the perception of hunting. So back to this incident. A couple things jump out at me:

1. able to harvest 1 a day, everyday? There must be a huge overpropulation issue for such a large quota, or there are so few who actualy hunt in that area that the quota is never met and thus the population is still growing out of control. This issue is a game manaagement issue and not up to the hunter who is taking the marine game.

2. Just like hunting near state parks or highly populated recreational areas, a hunter should respect the environment around him (which includes people). I would have liked to seen this kid have kept his kill inside a game bag when he came out of the water. There is nothing good that can come out of hoisting up your kill in a public place.

3. Where he hunts is not the fault of the individual. A hunter shoudl rely on the game management to set up quotas and identify where and when hunters can harvest. this was a legal place, during legal hours, and ther was nothing wrong with harvesting the octopus where and when he did. If you dont like the idea of him harvesting the animal in such a highly popular diving spot, dont come down on the kid, find out who manages the hunting regulations and go talk to them.

IM not trying to defend this kid and what he did, but I just dont like all the blame being put on his shoulders. Bye the way, it was a good kill and i hope he takes it home and cooks it up. either cook it for 5 mins or for 5 hours,,,anything inbetween will just make it tough. I learned to love octopus and how to cook it while stationed in the Azore islands back in the 80s.

 

[shoredivr]

So what Bob will do is get spearfishing banned at that location but people can still catch fish there with hook and line.

Yes, it's been referenced in the threads here and on NWdiving that the intent behind the scuba GPO no-take proposal for Cove 2 would *not* include the fishing pier that is nearby.

It's also been quoted and linked several times on this and other threads that Washington State regulations regarding the harvesting of GPOs allow for harvesting by hand only if you are a diver, no spearfishing permitted, and that the use of chemical irritants to get the GPO out of a den is also not allowed.

It would be great for divers with a permit to harvest GPOs to be able to sex a GPO to prevent taking nesting females, as referenced in post #274:

How to sex a GPO