As you are probably aware, SB 629 has received considerable attention in the state media over the past week. Support for the bill appears to be particularly strong in West Michigan following the deaths of two teenagers this past summer.
Rep. Sheltrown will give the bill a hearing. The likely date will be November 27. However, most of the members on the committee have told us they are unlikely to support the bill in its current form. Rep. Sheltrown will offer an amendment exempting scuba divers and surfers although I'm not sure how I'm going to word the amendment yet. The surfer part will be particularly problematic to define.
Divers should be contacting all the members on the committee, not just Rep. Sheltrown. The e-mail list is at:
http://house.michigan.gov/committeeinfo.asp?lstcommittees=tourism,+outdoor+recreation+and+natural+resources&submit=Go. Divers may also wish to contact West Michigan representatives, Tonya Schuitmaker (
tonyaschuitmaker@house.mi.gov) and Arlan Meekhof (
arlanbmeekhof@house.mi.gov) as these two legislators are supporting the bill.
Divers have written us with some questions on this bills. To clear up some issues...
The bill only applies to Great Lakes or connecting waters (St. Mary's River, St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair, Detroit River). Regardless of the intent of the sponsor, the current wording doesn't exempt private property and "other similar structures" could even be construed to mean a private dock or seawall. That language needs to be fixed.
The bill would not make it illegal to dive without a certification. It would just make it illegal to jump off these structures if you are uncertified (with the amendment I'm working on). However, a person shouldn't be scuba diving anyway unless they are certified or are diving under the direct supervision and/or instruction of a divemaster or instructor. That's not the law. That's common sense.
Some divers are assuming the word "dive" in the bill means to swim underwater. It doesn't. It means to plunge head first into the water as opposed to "jump" which means to go in feet first. The bill does say, "jump, dive or SWIM". It's the word "swim" that has me concerned. To say a person can't swim from a these objects is very problematic. I'm sure supporters of the bill would say we need to trust law enforcement and the courts to use common sense in interpreting the law. Personally, I'd rather have a properly worded bill than can be reasonably enforced.
Clearly, even with the Sheltrown amendment, there will be other issues, particularly enforcement, that will need to be addressed.
Feel free to re-post.
