- Messages
- 5,884
- Reaction score
- 2,998
- Location
- Lake Worth, Florida, United States
- # of dives
- I'm a Fish!
I've used the area as a source for recreational activity for years. My recreation includes taking and collect tropical marine organisms. However, if this area is such a pristine and unique habitat that has unmatched diversity, then I am willing to sacrifice my chosen recreational activity. I hope other divers are willing to as well.
This clearly being the real issue for you....because you are a tropical fish collector, the entire sanctary idea is obnoxious to you. This is sad, because you should understand the idea of a marine estuary and juvenile nursery grounds....and also be aware that most of the fisheries in the world are depleted......as there is certainly significant "pressure" in "take" volumes of fish along the east coast, it is not a smart idea to allow significant "takes" to occur in juvenile nursery grounds, such as the BHB area.
Rather than seeing this sanctuary concept as a big threat to your own way of life, you could easily adopt the stance many island nations have---that locals can have permits for "take", but tourists can NOT. The area of BHB has supported collectors for many generations. Now however, it is becoming famous worldwide. If the number of visitors becomes multiplied several times, and the collector numbers rise exponentially with the heightened awareness ---the ability of the nursery ground to sustain its role in replenishing species would be dangerously compromised.
I doubt most of the people interested in the sancuary concept would have a big problem with a small number of collector permist being issued, with strict limits imposed to prevent unethical collectors from damaging the system
If you would like to push for this limited and controlled form of collection, we can talk about this on this forum, and probably many would help you.
I think there are some very serious issues with taking a navigable channel and turning it into a "dive park", or some other type of preserve. I had no idea sailboats need to drive right through that area, thank goodness it is a rare occurance, I have never seen it.
Dan V's idea of an underwater horn that sailboats would need to carry and deploy in only one place in the world: (the BHB) is utterly ridiculous. What authority would the local government call upon to make this new law?
This sounds like you have your nose out of joint because you are afraid of the sanctuary idea hurting your future collecting. It is laughable to imagine you a "champion" for the rights of sailboaters or for "navigation law".
What is utterly ridiculous, is your attacking anything that scares you about the future of collecting. Again, why not see if local collectors can have special permits, and tourists can not...and that each collector has to follow "take guidelines" as with lobster.
Logic would dictate that if this is a designated, navigable channel, then there is no way that they can put dive bouys up in this area. Designating this specific area as a santuary, is serving to promote diving within the navigable waterway. As a county tax payer, I am very concerned about the potential for an increase in the County's liability for accidents that might occur in this specific area. What next, a county play ground in the median of I-95? The boundary area obviously needs to be adjusted to accomodate the need to maintance navigable waterways.
There is no need for dive bouys in the channel. There is no need to effect the navigation of boats passing under the bridge. There is a need to prevent selfish collectors from depopulating rare speices, and feeling it is their God given right to do so....
In the entire time I have been diving at the bridge, I have NEVER seen or heard of this passage issue in the channel east of the main channel.
We do not have problems with boats going past the sailboat anchoring area, and the proposed zone should have zero effect on boaters navigation--it should only have effects on collectors....and maybe just of the number of collectors and the amount of their take in a specific area.
Shockingly childish and petty comment... I hope you were not really serious when you wrote that---from the large number of posts of yours I have read through the years, while I did not always agree with you, I would have never imagined you such a small person that you would really think or act this way...even if you were not serious, I think you should apologize to the forum on this issue...wow.The boundary of the dive area really needs to be reduced in order to avoid putting unsuspecting divers into harms way with a large, deep draft sailboat plowing right through the designated "dive area". If they are going to eliminate MY recreational activity of (collecting recreational quantities of marine life), then I see no problem with taking away other divers ability to dive in the area. Clearly, an ordinance should be passed that precludes diving in this alternate channel.
I see other issues with the proximity to the designated fishing pier. The dive area should be further reduced to preclude divers from coming within 25 or 50 feet of the designated fishing pier. To make a designated diving santuary in the same footprint as a designated hook and line fishing pier is silly. I think it will make a personal injury attorney very happy when a diver is hooked badly by a fisherman (especially when both individuals are engaging in perfectly lawful (and County-approved activities in "the park"). I would definitely support a no-dive zone, a safety buffer around the fishing pier in order to formally recognize that intense utilization of the same area by incompatible user groups is the only way to protect the novice divers and our county from excessive liability. We don't have a County-sponsored easter egg hunt in the same area where hunting of small game is promoted, do we? Clearly, intense, high density recreational diving and hook and line fishing is not compatible at the exact same time and place. Drawing the designated santuary and dive zone under a fishing pier makes no sense at all.
More childish rantings. I have an image of you writing this with tears in your eyes, and constant pummeling of your desk
Try to remember you are a diver.
The county is supposed to allow multiple user groups to enjoy county resources.
The county needs to support the divers as much as it needs to support the fisherman. If we ever had problems because there were too many immature divers and fisherman to co-exist ( divers paying no attention to fishing lines and sometimes getting hooked... fisherman throwing their lines where they think they might be able to hook a diver), then the sensible solution would be divers get the 2 hours previous to high tide, the high tide, and the hour after slack high tide, and the fisherman get the other 20 hours per day for their exclusive use.
But this would be required only if huge numbers at the park decided to act like morons...and honestly, most of the interactions I have seen have been far more mature and "nice".
I strongly suspect that this plan of action will further legitamize this dive site, drawing many more divers to the park and thus increase impact to the very special, unique eco-system that exists ONLY under the BHB. I think that if "the santuary" is established, the County should spend some money to do some studies to document what kind of effects all the many new, inexperinced divers will be having on the benthos.....{snip the remaining drivel and slobering }
DD, you need to "man up" with your attitude. Get over this.
Sit down with me at the park and discuss solutions to the issue, rather than making posts like this to incite the entire forum. Like it or not, there are a bunch of us who will be trying to make things better for the future. I believe your collecting can still be possible, and in all liklihood, any imposed limits would probably be for a much larger take volume than you would ever want.
Instead of all this drama, work with us on a solution the locals here can all agree to.
How about sending me an email and planning this ... dan@sfdj.com