ComputerJoe, We got everyone mobilized down here from our club, they have been writing Lansing since Monday... We'll see what happens.
Pier Diving bill is alive again
- Thread starter ComputerJoe
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
OP
ComputerJoe
Contributor
Yesterday 6 people testified against the bill and now I have heard that the committee has no desire to approve the bill. This is the best news I've heard yet on this legislation. We CAN make a difference!
hollywood703
Contributor
BTW, Dive as listed in the original Bill...means to Dive...as in jump had first....It didnt have any correlation to Scuba Dive.
JEScholz
Contributor
You have captured the core of the problem, The way the bill was written it was too wide open to interpretation.
hollywood703
Contributor
I understand that, just letting people know they arent "targeting" Scuba Divers. It is as stated "just the scope of interpretation".
Forgive me if some of this was a rehash but my representative Senator Randy Richardville has taken a look at it. I spoke with his office in October and they followed up with me periodically with updates. Just about 15 minutes ago the legislative director of his office, Teri, called to give me an update and emailed me a link to the current H-1 as it stands. Her insight into the dealings were that it was stalled at this point because they were pretty sure it would not be enforcable on federal piers and breakwaters since they fall under federal not state government.
In her words "I've attached a link to the House Fiscal Agency's analysis of the proposed substitute for SB 629. This proposed language would exempt a certified scuba diver, or a person being trained by a certified scuba diver."
House Fiscal Agency's analysis on SB 629:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/billanalysis/House/pdf/2007-HLA-0629-8.pdf
Keep up the good fight! I think this is one worth working on.
Rich
In her words "I've attached a link to the House Fiscal Agency's analysis of the proposed substitute for SB 629. This proposed language would exempt a certified scuba diver, or a person being trained by a certified scuba diver."
House Fiscal Agency's analysis on SB 629:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/billanalysis/House/pdf/2007-HLA-0629-8.pdf
Keep up the good fight! I think this is one worth working on.
Rich
Joe, any update?
It's_The_Water
Registered
Pier-jumping fines fail - mlive.com
According to the story at the above link, this bill has died in committee.
I wouldn't be surprised to see it resurface in a future session, though.
According to the story at the above link, this bill has died in committee.
I wouldn't be surprised to see it resurface in a future session, though.
Tortuga Viejo
Registered
Since the status of SB 629 apears to be in limbo, how does this impact HB 4699? Is this a matter of "same thing" but different front to fight on?
Reps. Meekhof, Schuitmaker, Garfield, Hammon, Green, Pearce, Bauer, Nitz, Rick Jones, Knollenberg, Warren and Dean introduced House Bill No. 4699, entitled A bill to amend 1994 PA 451, entitled Natural resources and environmental protection act, by amending section 80105 (MCL 324.80105), as added by 1995 PA 58, and by adding section 80155a. The bill was read a first time by its title and referred to the Committee on Tourism, Outdoor Recreation and Natural Resources.
Sec. 80155a.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not jump, dive, or swim from a pier, jetty, breakwater, or other similar structure, or a buoy or other navigational device, that is located in the Great Lakes or their connecting waters.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to authorized public safety personnel undertaking a rescue or conducting training.
(3) Notwithstanding any other provision in this part, a person who violates this section is responsible for a state civil infraction and may be ordered to pay a civil fine of not more than $500.00.
Reps. Meekhof, Schuitmaker, Garfield, Hammon, Green, Pearce, Bauer, Nitz, Rick Jones, Knollenberg, Warren and Dean introduced House Bill No. 4699, entitled A bill to amend 1994 PA 451, entitled Natural resources and environmental protection act, by amending section 80105 (MCL 324.80105), as added by 1995 PA 58, and by adding section 80155a. The bill was read a first time by its title and referred to the Committee on Tourism, Outdoor Recreation and Natural Resources.
Sec. 80155a.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not jump, dive, or swim from a pier, jetty, breakwater, or other similar structure, or a buoy or other navigational device, that is located in the Great Lakes or their connecting waters.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to authorized public safety personnel undertaking a rescue or conducting training.
(3) Notwithstanding any other provision in this part, a person who violates this section is responsible for a state civil infraction and may be ordered to pay a civil fine of not more than $500.00.
OP
ComputerJoe
Contributor
Actually 629 is SB629 or Senate Bill 629 that passed the Senate in February this year.
HB4699 was introduced on May 1, 2007, SB629 was introduced on June 28, 2007. So I guess we have been fighting against HB4699, as SB629 has already passed. Either way it looks like Representitive Sheltron has seen the same problems with this legislation as we have, and as Chair of the House Committe he has been able to affect it to our advantage. I don't think a Bill is ever declared dead but I sure hope this one is. The MUPC wrote a letter to the House Committe supporting Rep. Sheltron's admendment. Not that everyone was warm and cozy with the idea of banning activities that many remember as a lot of fun to do in our youth, but because it would put this Bill to bed in a favorable way in relation to Scuba Divers, Sail Boarders and others that really do not "dive" from piers the way the Bill was indended to mean. But the wording is "...dive, swim from a pier, jetty, breakwall..." put together I believe that almost any Law enforcement individual would feel a ticket would be warranted by a scuba diver, swimming along the side of a breakwall.
HB4699 was introduced on May 1, 2007, SB629 was introduced on June 28, 2007. So I guess we have been fighting against HB4699, as SB629 has already passed. Either way it looks like Representitive Sheltron has seen the same problems with this legislation as we have, and as Chair of the House Committe he has been able to affect it to our advantage. I don't think a Bill is ever declared dead but I sure hope this one is. The MUPC wrote a letter to the House Committe supporting Rep. Sheltron's admendment. Not that everyone was warm and cozy with the idea of banning activities that many remember as a lot of fun to do in our youth, but because it would put this Bill to bed in a favorable way in relation to Scuba Divers, Sail Boarders and others that really do not "dive" from piers the way the Bill was indended to mean. But the wording is "...dive, swim from a pier, jetty, breakwall..." put together I believe that almost any Law enforcement individual would feel a ticket would be warranted by a scuba diver, swimming along the side of a breakwall.
