Senate Bill 629

[Riverrat Dave]

Has anyone heard of the Michigan Senate Bill 629. It has passed the Senate and is in Committee in the House. Basically it bans any swimming, diving, or jumping from any pier, jetty, breakwall, or similar structure.

I called Lansing today and asked if this would include SCUBA and the answer was "The way the bill is written right now, it would include SCUBA divers.

Oh yeah, if found guilty of this you could be fined 500 dollars...

Just Google SB 629 and you can find it, Come On folks we need to nip thyis one, now. Start calling Lansing.

 

[Greg_MacMaster]

What was the basic intent of the bill? If it was to protect those hurting themselves from hitting thier head, I doubt that scuba would be included, but if that's what they said, I'd like to know who to contact and give them my comment against including scuba divers.

Adding: As a diver, I don't dive FROM a pier, jetty, breakwater... I dive TO it.
Maybe it's a play on words. But the intent of the bill is worth researching.
SENATE BILL No. 629

Here's the MDNR's position

June 28, 2007, Introduced by Senators JELINEK and KUIPERS and referred to the Committee on Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs.



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 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:​

Sec. 80105. (1) This part applies to water-based activities
and to vessels and associated equipment used, to be used, or
carried in vessels used on waters subject to the jurisdiction of
this state.

(2) This part, except where expressly indicated otherwise, does not apply to any of the following:

(a) Foreign vessels temporarily using waters subject to state jurisdiction.

(b) Military or public vessels of the United States, except recreational-type public vessels.

(c) A vessel whose owner is a state or political subdivision of a state, other than this state and its political subdivisions,

that is used principally for governmental purposes and that is clearly identifiable as such.

(d) A ship's lifeboat.

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.

 

[parrothead600]

Thanks for the "heads up". I'll have to look it up & let our Lawmakers know how I feel about it.

 

[Riverrat Dave]

It is my understanding that the original intent was to stop kids from using the mentioned structures as swim platforms because there was a number of incidents in Lake Michigan.
However the language of the bill is very vague and open to interpretation by law enforcement.
The very possibility of this bill being used against SCUBA divers should be removed.

Here is some Information regarding the head of the committee that is looking into this, Please contact him, or your Representative in Lansing:

Committee Chairman: Tourism, Outdoor Recreation, and Natural Resources
Joel Sheltrown
Office Address
S1387 House Office Building
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 30014
Lansing, MI 48909-7514
Phone: (517) 373-3817
Fax: (517) 373-5495
Toll-Free
(888) 347-8103
Email
joelsheltrown@house.mi.gov

Also here is a link for more info:

Michigan Legislature

Greg, down here in Port Huron we do dive from a break-wall, and according to the committee chair's office, our break-wall would fall under "Other Similar Structures" that is mentioned in the bill.
Regardless, this bill was drafted to protect people from themselves.
You cannot legislate common sense, sure anytime a person is injured or worse in an accident it is tragic but instead of getting out the broad brush, the authorities should deal with the individual circumstances.

 

[Greg_MacMaster]

GRTLKSDIVER

I read more of the intent and it's aimed at kids... But I agree, to "broadbrush" this and include divers isn't right. When you call Joel's office, ask to speak to Brady as he IS a diver and can relate to what our concern is. I'll write their office tomorrow and mention the scuba "clause."
G

 

[Riverrat Dave]

Thanks Greg, I hope more of us call and make some noise. I would hate to have a "well intentioned" bill reduce access to only those who had boats, or shore dives...

 

[superstar]

Surfers also walk out on the break walls and jump in so they don't have to paddle out through the break. It would also criminalize them. At least it's only a civil infraction and not a felony.

 

[ComputerJoe]

Just another example of a law, written in response to law suits, with the intent of protecting the State which will be interpeted as broadly as possible by law enforcement when the mood strikes. The State can not protect us from ourselves without taking all the fun out of living. Next on the agenda...removing all those ropes from trees overhanging navigatable waterways.

Please call your Representitives one and all.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety." ...Benjamin Franklin

 

[superstar]

I just called Joel and he supports the surfers and divers. I think they will change the bill to not criminalize us.

 

[Greg_MacMaster]

Hey folks,

Just like superstar, I wrote them and I can't say for sure how they will add the amendment - but it certainly does favor scuba and surfers. Once I know more, I'll post it with their approval.

Update:

Joel has indictated that he will offer an amendment to the bill which would exempt a certified scuba diver wearing full scuba gear (not snorkel gear) or a person with a surfboard entering or exiting the water. (Dist103@house.mi.gov, Brady, Aide to Rep. Sheltrown)

The hearing for the bill may be over a month away.