Pure Rec Diving

[doctormike]

I don't know if anyone is interested, but the reason I did tech training was to spend more time exploring our local wrecks, not to just go deeper for the sake of it. For example, the Oregon is a very cool wreck, an ocean liner that went down off the coast of Long Island in the late 19th century. It is huge, with lots of life, but without a lot of relief (with one exception - the engines). So much of the wreck is within 5 feet of the sand, at 125 feet. So even with a best mix of EAN29, that means that I spend about 24 hours from when I get to the boat the night before, until I finish up rinsing my gear and getting back home, for two 16 minute dives. And given that it takes a while to get oriented, run line, make it back to the anchor line, etc... I'm really left with very little dive time.

Once I started the training, I really found it fascinating (the math, the physiology, the gear stuff), but I realize that not everyone cares about that.

But I don't remember anyone criticizing another diver for doing "only" rec diving....

 

[tursiops]

over 90% of the life in the ocean lives within the first 33'

Where does this statistic come from? I've seen variants of it on SB repeatedly, and wonder about its source. And also about its credibility; I'm skeptical.

 

[EastEndDiver]

I was Tech diving before the term was used we used to be called "Wreck Divers" never took a tech class because they didn't exist back then.You learned by doing with a mentor back then, experienced wreck divers were willing and eager to help out someone who was new.The purpose of this post is that I no longer do wreck dives in the Northeast and enjoy the warm waters of the Caribbean and have no intentions of going back to the cold dark waters of NY/NJ.Yes I have turned into a wimp in my old age.

 

[DaleC]

I think it's an interesting question in the context of the current formal education model of diving; always needing to be taking some form of continuing education. If you want to be a "purely recreational" diver and have the core courses, where do you go next?

I know for me it has been in areas of understanding ecology, videography and history. I have the basic rec diving skill set (well, we'll see about that soon ) so now the question is how to apply it. I think some people lack that direction and just keep thinking they have to learn more and more about diving itself.

 

[ktomlinson]

Most of my dives are in 25'-30' but I've dove plenty of "tech" dives too. Are you limiting yourself to above 80' because you believe beyond 80' is an unnecessary risk? If so, good for you, it is a good thing to define acceptable risk for yourself. How did you come to settle on 80'?

---------- Post added December 8th, 2014 at 08:20 PM ----------

Where does this statistic come from? I've seen variants of it on SB repeatedly, and wonder about its source. And also about its credibility; I'm skeptical.

I could believe 90% of marine species, but I wouldn't believe 90% of biomass.

 

[EastEndDiver]

As DaleC pointed out the way the diver education is set up today is continuing education courses for any additional aspect of diving which I am sure can get confusing for a new diver.I can't fathom some of the courses being given such as "Boat Diver","Dive propulsion Vehicle Diver","Drift Diver" etc. etc.to me these type of courses should not be needed by a well trained diver but the watering down of the basic course has created this scenario.

 

[AfterDark]

I've considered myself a sport diver since day one. What that means to me is I dive for the fun and pleasure. If the fun and pleasure is a shallow dive that day well that's the dive. Another day it may be a deep dark dive to one of NE's wrecks. I've never had "tech" training but like other old timers have been "tech" diving before it was named tech.

Some of my most memorable and enjoyable dives have been at Gooseberry Island Newport using my doubles to extend my time and a max depth of 40FSW.

 

[TMHeimer]

Just depends on your interest. As a shell collector there are very few species of interest below rec. depths. And most of those can also be found at rec. depths. Therefore the additional courses, depth, risks and costs of tech. diving don't make sense for me. But as stated, to each his own.

 

[tomfcrist]

Most of my dives are in 25'-30' but I've dove plenty of "tech" dives too. Are you limiting yourself to above 80' because you believe beyond 80' is an unnecessary risk? If so, good for you, it is a good thing to define acceptable risk for yourself. How did you come to settle on 80'?

---------- Post added December 8th, 2014 at 08:20 PM ----------



I could believe 90% of marine species, but I wouldn't believe 90% of biomass.

approximate figures show that around 95% of the oceans biomass is in the mesopelagic zone( between 200m and 1000m )...that however doesn't mean it is interesting to look at.

 

[Rich Keller]

Where does this statistic come from? I've seen variants of it on SB repeatedly, and wonder about its source. And also about its credibility; I'm skeptical.

I do not remember the exact source of that statistic, I believe it comes from NOAA, but it includes ALL the life in the ocean and that takes into account plankton, zooplankton & krill or biomass if you prefer that term. Most people do not consider them when they are talking about life in the ocean but that is what the larges creatures in the ocean survive on exclusively.

---------- Post added December 8th, 2014 at 09:51 PM ----------

The way I see it, if you're happy blowing bubbles it doesn't matter if it's at 30 feet or 300 feet. Personally, I'm just as content at 25 feet with an AL80 on my back as I am deep into a cave. Diving should be enjoyable.

Amen. Do what YOU want to do in the water NOT what everyone else tells you should be done. Enjoy the experience but if it starts to feel like work you are doing something wrong or too soon.