Diving licences are nothing [Archive] - ScubaBoard - Scuba Diving Forum - Diving Social Network

View Full Version : Diving licences are nothing


Sponsored Link

mad
August 5th, 2004, 05:04 AM
In Italy there are no national rules or laws giving a value to our licences. We have only local laws in some areas but I wonder if it's right. Nevertheless limits in these areas are different for different levels, of course.
The problem is that if the police ask your licence you're not probably supposed to have nor expecially to show your computer, they can only officially ask your documents.
These are different interpretation of things.

In your counties is it different? maybe with common law, different from our civil law system you don't need a national law, do you?

Ciao

Tobagoman
August 5th, 2004, 07:09 AM
The police have no right to ask to see our "papers" here in the states, although many of them try. They forget that this country is a "free republic" and not a totallitarian police state. As far as dive cards, it is not governed by any state or federal entity.
Many people in the USA think we live in a Democracy and not a Republic, shame on them!!

mad
August 5th, 2004, 08:18 AM
sorry, I didn't mean to enter a political feeling but I think it's the same permissions policemen have in Italy...

DennisS
August 5th, 2004, 10:02 AM
There are people in Florida that want to start a diver license program. If it passes police will be able to stop you and check your license to insure you are legal.

RDP
August 5th, 2004, 10:16 AM
There are people in Florida that want to start a diver license program. If it passes police will be able to stop you and check your license to insure you are legal.

When I was in Florida the LDS held my card until I returned my rental tank.

FreeFloat
August 5th, 2004, 10:20 AM
There are people in Florida that want to start a diver license program. If it passes police will be able to stop you and check your license to insure you are legal.
Québec has implemented something like that. If you're caught diving in Québec you need to have a provincially-issued card now. Of course, any legal program is only as good as its enforcement.........

DennisS
August 5th, 2004, 10:23 AM
They intend to use funds generated by the license for marine enforcement.

Pay your money to the state so they can bother you on the ocean.

DORSETBOY
August 5th, 2004, 10:41 AM
what form of marine enforcement? dont get me wrong I hate taxes and hate paying them but I accept there are very often good reasons. In the uk for freshwater fishing you have to have a rod licence which is for a minimal amount, something like £12 per year - this money is then invested in conversation work, pollution monitoring and control, water bailiffs to monitor this resource, etc - none of these are bad reasons.

Is the only reason for them insisting on a licence for them to fund 'marine enforcement' what do they mean by this? Are there any other uses intended for any funds derived from the licence such as conservation?

Boatlawyer
August 5th, 2004, 10:58 AM
In your counties is it different? maybe with common law, different from our civil law system you don't need a national law, do you?
Ciao

In the U.S., the legal hierarchy is something like this:

1. Treaties and Conventions (law controlling U.S. vis-a-vis other nations
2. Federal Law (national law controlling its citizens and residents)
3. State law (law of each state)
4. County law (law of counties within each state)
5. Municipal law (law of cities within each county)

Those laws are divided into civil, criminal and quasi-criminal (ordinances and the like) matters.

Our civil law is divided into statutory law and common law (judge-made).

Our diving certifications are observed on sort of a common law basis, which means that the possession, or lack thereof, would likely only be relevant in a civil case to whether a defendant was acting prudently. For example if a dive shop filled tanks or a dive charter took on divers without checking C-cards and then someone got hurt, the failure to check the C-card would be used as an act of negligence to bring the shop/charter into the line of causation.

Governmental bodies make laws under their "police powers" which exist to protect the public's health and welfare. They are reluctant to (and constitutionally prohibited from) make statutory law without a significant public health interest.

For example if one person decides to tie helium balloons to a lawn chair in an attempt to fly (I did not make this up) and kills himself, it is unlikely the legislature would convene to draft a law against it. But if there was a trend and a good part of the public starting forming helium lawn chair flying clubs, resulting in death, injuries (increased insurance claims and hospital bills, reduction in the work force, and other social ills) then the government would likely act in the public interest, by either prohibiting or regulating the practice.

Failing governmental action, risky activities are usually controlled by Darwin's theory (survival of the fittest and smartest) and by (you all are going to love this one) personal injury lawyers, whose cases establish common law standards of negligence and thus dictate standards of care.

I would think that most divers, and related dive business prefer self policing as opposed to governmental regulation.

But that's just my .02 psi.

Theresa :dazzler1:

simbrooks
August 5th, 2004, 11:10 AM
They intend to use funds generated by the license for marine enforcement.

Pay your money to the state so they can bother you on the ocean.
Why dont boat owners have to have a license, or do they already have them, but it means nothing except they paid the fee, learned nothing and run over any kind of flag/buoy/person in the water that they see (or rather dont see) fit?

lairdb
August 5th, 2004, 11:51 AM
Why dont boat owners have to have a license, or do they already have them, but it means nothing except they paid the fee, learned nothing and run over any kind of flag/buoy/person in the water that they see (or rather dont see) fit?

You miss the point (in the U.S., at least.) Review Boatlawyer's message and filter for philosophy.

The question under the U.S. system is "Why should boat owners have to have a licence? I.e. what compelling public interest exists that justifies enforcement at gunpoint?" (Make no mistake, when you invoke the government, that's what it comes down to in the end -- you are willing to use force to enforce compliance.)

Buoyant1
August 5th, 2004, 11:53 AM
Personally, I don't see my certification being a "license" to Dive...If I want to do that I'll just take a resort course, pay a little extra and take a little time extra each time, and do my dives with a certified pro... I see getting my certification card as a means to KNOW what the heck I'm doing in order to keep myself (and others) safe.

So far I think that the course is a "here's what to do in case you get into trouble so you don't KILL yourself" course.

I'm sure that once I'm through, and certified I'll still be diving with people with experience for a long while until I feel comfortable to go with friends that are "casual recreational" divers. It's supposed to be fun, not dangerous (well unless you're into that sort of thing)

DennisS
August 5th, 2004, 11:58 AM
Most divers have a C card. This is not a certification. It is a license fee,

Cop to diver getting out of water: Where's your license
Diver: My what, here's my C card
Cop: No your state of Florida Divers license-here's your $50 ticket

There are people pushing to get divers licensed, they want the money it generates. No tests, just pay the fee.

simbrooks
August 5th, 2004, 11:58 AM
You miss the point (in the U.S., at least.) Review Boatlawyer's message and filter for philosophy.

The question under the U.S. system is "Why should boat owners have to have a licence? I.e. what compelling public interest exists that justifies enforcement at gunpoint?" (Make no mistake, when you invoke the government, that's what it comes down to in the end -- you are willing to use force to enforce compliance.)
It was a tangent off the side of the whole license to dive theme, just saying that if divers are required to have a license to dive (even though they could really only kill themselves or a buddy), and drivers (using a large, fast moving projectile on the roads) have to have one, why dont recreational boat operators (i understand boat charters have to have them), as they are also fast moving, potentially lethal vehicles. Its seems weird to ask divers to have a license, but not boat owners, i know who is a greater risk to the general public - also who isnt trained to use such vehicles, just jump on and put it in gear.

As for c-card being a license to dive, learners permit is a phrase i used a lot on here, its a bit of both, but it certainly doesnt mean you are a master at diving.

CBulla
August 5th, 2004, 12:01 PM
You miss the point (in the U.S., at least.) Review Boatlawyer's message and filter for philosophy.

The question under the U.S. system is "Why should boat owners have to have a licence? I.e. what compelling public interest exists that justifies enforcement at gunpoint?" (Make no mistake, when you invoke the government, that's what it comes down to in the end -- you are willing to use force to enforce compliance.)

Come dive in South Florida and you'll never ask that question again.

I think Boatlawyer answered the C-card question better than I could ever have hoped. What you'll find most in the US is shops looking for those certifications and covering their legal butts that you were "trained".

Scubaguy62
August 5th, 2004, 12:35 PM
The question under the U.S. system is "Why should boat owners have to have a licence? I.e. what compelling public interest exists that justifies enforcement at gunpoint?" (Make no mistake, when you invoke the government, that's what it comes down to in the end -- you are willing to use force to enforce compliance.)As my fellow conchdiver, CBulla, has so eloquently stated, come dive South Florida, then ask "Why should boat owners [should] have to have a licence?"

The State of Florida makes no requirement of private boat owners to have any type of boat licensing or for that matter education (Sometimes I wonder if being able to read is also not a requirement, especially when you see, and hear about manatees being killed due to boat owners not "seeing" the sign "MANATEE ZONE IDDLE SPEED NO WAKE"). That's a recipe for disaster, and in many instances, has spelled disaster. Just ask Gloria Estefan. Unfortunately, the boating community in Florida has "superhuman" lobying powers in Tallahassee, which is something we, the SB diving community in So. Fla.(yes Colin, take the credit), are desperately trying to change.

As far as willing to use force to enforce compliance, not necessarily. The use of force is only authorized in the face of threat of great bodily harm, or death. Enforcing compliance is more of a deterrent than a call for the use of force.

miketsp
August 5th, 2004, 12:48 PM
As my fellow conchdiver, CBulla, has so eloquently stated, come dive South Florida, then ask "Why should boat owners [should] have to have a licence?"

The State of Florida makes no requirement of private boat owners to have any type of boat licensing or for that matter education (Sometimes I wonder if being able to read is also not a requirement, especially when you see, and hear about manatees being killed due to boat owners not "seeing" the sign "MANATEE ZONE IDDLE SPEED NO WAKE"). That's a recipe for disaster, and in many instances, has spelled disaster. Just ask Gloria Estefan. Unfortunately, the boating community in Florida has "superhuman" lobying powers in Tallahassee, which is something we, the SB diving community in So. Fla.(yes Colin, take the credit), are desperately trying to change.

As far as willing to use force to enforce compliance, not necessarily. The use of force is only authorized in the face of threat of great bodily harm, or death. Enforcing compliance is more of a deterrent than a call for the use of force.


Is there no third party insurance requirement for boats in S.Florida?
In many countries the thing becomes self-policing because you need insurance.
Then the insurers will charge more to non-qualified buyers as the risk is higher.
So there is an incentive to get qualified.

A similar thing happens here with car insurance. My son, as a young driver gets his car insurance loaded because of his age, but there is a significant reduction if he has completed a (one day) safe driving course in the last 2 years.
So all drivers in this age group end up doing the course voluntarily.

DennisS
August 5th, 2004, 01:27 PM
Is there no third party insurance requirement for boats in S.Florida?
In many countries the thing becomes self-policing because you need insurance.
Then the insurers will charge more to non-qualified buyers as the risk is higher.
So there is an incentive to get qualified.


There is a price reduction in boat insurance if you have taken a power squadron safety course.
Insurance is not required but is strongly advised. Responsible people go this route.

Insurance is required to drive an automobile but ignored by a large segment of the population in south Florida. My favorite is the cardboard placard with some numbers on it and the "lost tag" notation. Florida drivers licenses can be obtained by anyone.

If anyone thinks having a boaters license will make diving safe, go bicycling in south florida and see how safe it is, with all those licensed drivers. It's a question of attitude, "They're in my road", "What are they doing this far out in "my boat lane".

Scubaguy62
August 5th, 2004, 01:52 PM
If anyone thinks having a boaters license will make diving safe, go bicycling in south florida and see how safe it is, with all those licensed drivers. It's a question of attitude, "They're in my road", "What are they doing this far out in "my boat lane".It's a question of numbers though Dennis...there are far more drivers than there are boaters, yet, there are designated bicycle lanes in So. Fla.

DennisS
August 5th, 2004, 02:12 PM
It all comes down to attitude. A license will not change the moron that goes running 50 yards off the beach at 50 mph. It will not change the behaviour of the auto driver that sees how close he can get to the bicyclist when passing on the road. It won't change the loon that goes zipping in and out of 40 mph traffic at 60. A licensed loon is still a loon. If you take his license away he'll still run his boat, he just figures he won't get caught. A license will just inconvenience the rest of us.

Besides that, its suicide for any politician to endorse one.

This is the state that voted automobile inspections be eliminated.

Paul Evans
August 5th, 2004, 02:33 PM
Québec has implemented something like that. If you're caught diving in Québec you need to have a provincially-issued card now. Of course, any legal program is only as good as its enforcement.........

How does this work if your a tourist coming to Quebec to dive :11:

lairdb
August 5th, 2004, 02:58 PM
As my fellow conchdiver, CBulla, has so eloquently stated, come dive South Florida, then ask "Why should boat owners [should] have to have a licence?"

So what. Once again: compelling public interest. If you get hit, sue the pants off them, civilly. Other than that, it shouldn't be any of the state's business.


As far as willing to use force to enforce compliance, not necessarily. The use of force is only authorized in the face of threat of great bodily harm, or death. Enforcing compliance is more of a deterrent than a call for the use of force.

Nonsense. See what happens if you refuse to pay your speeding fine. Eventually, the agents of the state will use force against you.

lairdb
August 5th, 2004, 03:03 PM
It was a tangent off the side of the whole license to dive theme, just saying that if divers are required to have a license to dive (even though they could really only kill themselves or a buddy), and drivers (using a large, fast moving projectile on the roads) have to have one, why dont recreational boat operators (i understand boat charters have to have them), as they are also fast moving, potentially lethal vehicles. Its seems weird to ask divers to have a license, but not boat owners, i know who is a greater risk to the general public - also who isnt trained to use such vehicles, just jump on and put it in gear.

This is what happens when people (not you, simbrooks) use language imprecisely. Though they may be using the term "license", that's a mangling of the word's meaning (as most interpret it: as a proof of some basic level of training or skill).

"Fee receipt" or "tax stamp" would be a better term for what's being proposed, though it may be cloaked in the sheep's clothing of "safety".

Scubaguy62
August 5th, 2004, 03:14 PM
So what. Once again: compelling public interest. If you get hit, sue the pants off them, civilly. Other than that, it shouldn't be any of the state's business. Tell you what.., if you could, go and make that argument to Clarence Earl Gideon. I'm sure you could figure out who he is (hint, Gideon v. Wainwright, 83 S. Ct. 792 (1963). For those who would care to know, Clarence Earl Gideon was a Florida inmate who appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court because a trial court denied him representation at trial, contrary to the U.S. Constitution, simply because he could not afford to hire an attorney. He had to represent himself and was convicted of petty larceny. His appeal changed the law and served to create what we know today as the Public Defender's Office, and the reason why police officers say "if you can not afford an attorney one will be appointed for you." Point being, unless someone makes it a matter of compelling public interest, it will not ever be one.



Nonsense. See what happens if you refuse to pay your speeding fine. Eventually, the agents of the state will use force against you.Actually, I don't know where you live, because your profile isn't filled in, but in Florida, if you refuse to pay your speeding fine, your license gets suspended and it will cost you a lot more to get it reinstated. I don't see any force in that.

lairdb
August 5th, 2004, 03:38 PM
Tell you what.., if you could, go and make that argument to Clarence L. Gideon. I'm sure you could figure out who he is (hint, Gideon v. Weinright). Point being, unless someone makes it a matter of compelling public interest, it will not ever be one.

Wainwright, not "Weinright". 372 US 335.

Fuzzy language leads to fuzzy thinking again. People do not make things into matters of compelling public interest -- people, or a person, in the case of Gideon, may raise an issue so that it is recognized to be of compelling interest, but it is or isn't on it's own.

If you want to argue that there is an unrecognized compelling public interest in certifying the skill of boat operators, that's it's own bowl of soup.



Actually, I don't know where you live, because your profile isn't filled in, but in Florida, if you refuse to pay your speeding fine, your license gets suspended and it will cost you a lot more to get it reinstated. I don't see any force in that.

Your license is suspended, you are adjudged in default of the judgement. A warrant is issued. If you further fail to pay, you are subject to arrest and jail. If you do not go to jail, they will take you there; they will use force to take you and keep you.

Scubaguy62
August 5th, 2004, 03:54 PM
Wainwright, not "Weinright". 372 US 335. Corrected


Fuzzy language leads to fuzzy thinking again.Sounds like Bush's comments to Gore's explanations.."fuzzy math." Please tell me you're not running for president.

People do not make things into matters of compelling public interest Last I looked, the Supreme Court Justices are people...they were the ones who made the issue one of compelling public interest and told the states what how to interpret the 6th ammendment according to the 14th.

-- people, or a person, in the case of Gideon, may raise an issue so that it is recognized to be of compelling interest, but it is or isn't on it's own.It may not be, but you just validated my previous argument. Until someone raises the issue, it will not become one of compelling interest.

If you want to argue that there is an unrecognized compelling public interest in certifying the skill of boat operators, that's it's own bowl of soup.Yes it is, and yes there is.

Your license is suspended, you are adjudged in default of the judgement. A warrant is issued. If you further fail to pay, you are subject to arrest and jail. If you do not go to jail, they will take you there; they will use force to take you and keep you.Perhaps in your state, but in FL., if your license is suspended because you fail to pay a fine, it's just suspended. You are only required to surrender it, if you're unable to pay the fine, or reinstate it by paying the fine plus the cost of reinstatement. If you get caught driving with a suspended driver's license, you get another ticket for driving with a suspended license. More money for the State, more money for the insurance companies for the next three years of your life. And if you just happen to be a habitual offender, your license gets revoked. Then you can petition for a license to drive yourself from home to work, because Florida is a right to work state.

If we're going to continue to argue points of law, let's do it in elsewhere...

lairdb
August 5th, 2004, 05:58 PM
Last I looked, the Supreme Court Justices are people...they were the ones who made the issue one of compelling public interest[...]

No more than the Constitution "made" rights. People have them, other people recognize (or fail to recognize) them. The matter is one of compelling interest, or it isn't -- whether or not people have recognized it as one. A subtle (though important) distinction, perhaps.


Perhaps in your state, but in FL., if your license is suspended because you fail to pay a fine, it's just suspended. You are only required to surrender it, if you're unable to pay the fine, or reinstate it by paying the fine plus the cost of reinstatement. If you get caught driving with a suspended driver's license, you get another ticket for driving with a suspended license. More money for the State, more money for the insurance companies for the next three years of your life. And if you just happen to be a habitual offender, your license gets revoked. Then you can petition for a license to drive yourself from home to work, because Florida is a right to work state.

I don't have quick access to Florida statutes or cases to cite, but from any number of quickly Googleable websites we can find that Florida classifies driving with a suspended license as a "criminal infraction", for which you can be jailed despite it's not being a "crime". That it's rarely enforced doesn't make it any less the law.


If we're going to continue to argue points of law, let's do it in elsewhere...

Agreed.

dweeb
August 5th, 2004, 06:27 PM
The police have no right to ask to see our "papers" here in the states, although many of them try.

You're behind the times. The gang of nine changed all that a few weeks ago in an appeal of a Nevada case.

"The Supreme Court is now in session - no man's life, liberty, or property are safe."

dweeb
August 5th, 2004, 06:36 PM
In the U.S., the legal hierarchy is something like this:

1. Treaties and Conventions (law controlling U.S. vis-a-vis other nations
2. Federal Law (national law controlling its citizens and residents)
3. State law (law of each state)
4. County law (law of counties within each state)
5. Municipal law (law of cities within each county)


I think you forgot something. First on that list is a little piece of paper that begins with the words "We the People." Furthermore, parts of that document strictly limit when and where federal law supersedes state law.
Oh, and the treaties and conventions only apply if your military isn't able to kick the butts of any objecting nations, as the USA, USSR, and PROC proved for decades.


Governmental bodies make laws under their "police powers" which exist to protect the public's health and welfare. They are reluctant to (and constitutionally prohibited from) make statutory law without a significant public health interest.

Technically, yes, but that doesn't stop them.


For example if one person decides to tie helium balloons to a lawn chair in an attempt to fly (I did not make this up) and kills himself, it is unlikely the legislature would convene to draft a law against it.

1. He didn't die.
2. He was in violation of several existing federal laws, and was prosecuted.

dweeb
August 5th, 2004, 06:39 PM
You miss the point (in the U.S., at least.) Review Boatlawyer's message and filter for philosophy.

The question under the U.S. system is "Why should boat owners have to have a licence? I.e. what compelling public interest exists that justifies enforcement at gunpoint?" (Make no mistake, when you invoke the government, that's what it comes down to in the end -- you are willing to use force to enforce compliance.)

Yup, except properly, it should be, "what compelling public interest exists that overrules an individual's inalienable right to be left alone, AND which cannot be addressed by any other means?"

dweeb
August 5th, 2004, 06:42 PM
Personally, I don't see my certification being a "license" to Dive...If I want to do that I'll just take a resort course, pay a little extra and take a little time extra each time, and do my dives with a certified pro... I see getting my certification card as a means to KNOW what the heck I'm doing in order to keep myself (and others) safe.

The COURSE gives you that. The card is a credential. The credential represents to OTHERS that a (supposedly) trusted third party that you (supposedly) know what you're doing.

The four years in med school make sure you know how to cure people - the sheepskin is just a representation from a trusted party that you have in fact demonstrated that you know.

dweeb
August 5th, 2004, 06:46 PM
As for c-card being a license to dive, learners permit is a phrase i used a lot on here, its a bit of both, but it certainly doesnt mean you are a master at diving.

Except that it's NOT a learners' permit. In most states, when you get a learner's permit for driving, it requires that a licensed driver (in many states over 18) must occupy the passenger seat or you go to jail.

There is no policy requiring ANY supervision or oversight to be verified before renting equipment or selling air to a C-card holder.

dweeb
August 5th, 2004, 06:54 PM
As my fellow conchdiver, CBulla, has so eloquently stated, come dive South Florida, then ask "Why should boat owners [should] have to have a licence?"

I might see lots of things I personally find egregious.
Doesn't mean it justifies a law.


The State of Florida makes no requirement of private boat owners to have any type of boat licensing or for that matter education (Sometimes I wonder if being able to read is also not a requirement, especially when you see, and hear about manatees being killed due to boat owners not "seeing" the sign "MANATEE ZONE IDDLE SPEED NO WAKE"). That's a recipe for disaster, and in many instances, has spelled disaster. Just ask Gloria Estefan. Unfortunately, the boating community in Florida has "superhuman" lobying powers in Tallahassee, which is something we, the SB diving community in So. Fla.(yes Colin, take the credit), are desperately trying to change.

And licensing won't do a thing about the issues you raise.
Drivers must be licensed, and yet our highways are often bathed in blood. Legal sanctions of at risk, or openly harmful, ACTIONS on boats, applied consistently and reliably, will be far more effective. How many people could easily pass a licensing test, then slam down a six pack and mow down some manatees? Now, if the next guy to run down a manatee did some hard time, THAT would have far more deterrent effect.


As far as willing to use force to enforce compliance, not necessarily. The use of force is only authorized in the face of threat of great bodily harm, or death. Enforcing compliance is more of a deterrent than a call for the use of force.

Um, that would be the standard for DEADLY force. There are other forms of force besides a bullet. Handcuffs are a form of forcible restraint. His statement was correct that the reason the Constitution restrains govt, and not private institutions, is that govt. reserves to itself the allowance to use coercive force.

dweeb
August 5th, 2004, 06:57 PM
Is there no third party insurance requirement for boats in S.Florida?
In many countries the thing becomes self-policing because you need insurance.
Then the insurers will charge more to non-qualified buyers as the risk is higher.
So there is an incentive to get qualified.

Or even without an insurance requirement, you can essentially require insurance by not allowing unrecoverable people to walk away from civil liability. Bring back the debtor's prisons, the workhouses....

dweeb
August 5th, 2004, 07:00 PM
How does this work if your a tourist coming to Quebec to dive :11:

Look at other recreational licenses - time-limited, non-resident licenses to fish and hunt are outrageously expensive. After all, the tourist can't vote.

dweeb
August 5th, 2004, 07:02 PM
So what. Once again: compelling public interest. If you get hit, sue the pants off them, civilly. Other than that, it shouldn't be any of the state's business.

One problem with that - what if they're unrecoverable?
Civil liability only works if you have a way to make it
hurt the deadbeats.

Personal responsibility is definitely the best way to go, but then you have to make it universal, and in today's society, that's considered too mean.

dweeb
August 5th, 2004, 07:06 PM
Actually, I don't know where you live, because your profile isn't filled in, but in Florida, if you refuse to pay your speeding fine, your license gets suspended and it will cost you a lot more to get it reinstated. I don't see any force in that.

And in most states, there is no way to get it reinstated without paying the fine, and if you're caught driving on a suspended license, you will learn about force in the form of handcuffs and jail walls.

quimby
August 5th, 2004, 09:03 PM
The State of Florida makes no requirement of private boat owners to have any type of boat licensing or for that matter education (Sometimes I wonder if being able to read is also not a requirement, especially when you see, and hear about manatees being killed due to boat owners not "seeing" the sign "MANATEE ZONE IDDLE SPEED NO WAKE").


. How many people could easily pass a licensing test, then slam down a six pack and mow down some manatees? Now, if the next guy to run down a manatee did some hard time, THAT would have far more deterrent effect

Whoa, Whoa, dont even start with the manatee stuff unless you know something about it. Not meant as a hijack but the manatee ***** is a sore point and leave it be said there is a lot more to it than what was illuded to in the above two posts.

Oh and lets just pass another law, we passed a law to stop the drug problem in the US and now no more drug problems right? Hey with approx 14000 gun laws we no longer have problems with guns right?

Sorry;..... please continue with your verbal randori

Scubaguy62
August 5th, 2004, 10:17 PM
Trolling, trolling, why do folks like trolling....

Scubatooth
August 6th, 2004, 12:42 AM
The State of Florida makes no requirement of private boat owners to have any type of boat licensing or for that matter education (Sometimes I wonder if being able to read is also not a requirement, especially when you see, and hear about manatees being killed due to boat owners not "seeing" the sign "MANATEE ZONE IDDLE SPEED NO WAKE"). That's a recipe for disaster, and in many instances, has spelled disaster. Just ask Gloria Estefan. Unfortunately, the boating community in Florida has "superhuman" lobying powers in Tallahassee, which is something we, the SB diving community in So. Fla.(yes Colin, take the credit), are desperately trying to change.

what about estafan i dont follow i didnt think she had anything to do with boating. care to elaborate

also never underestimate the power of the lobby as at times they make me wonder if they even live in reality

tooth

quimby
August 6th, 2004, 09:33 AM
what about estafan i dont follow i didnt think she had anything to do with boating. care to elaborate

http://www.rbbi.com/folders/acc/estefan.htm

Buoyant1
August 6th, 2004, 12:23 PM
I've always said that there has to be a "bottom third" to every medical class..where do THOSE Dr's end up? (hopefully not at the "business" end of my colonoscopy!)

Yeeeesh!

tinman694
August 6th, 2004, 02:00 PM
why dont recreational boat operators (i understand boat charters have to have them), as they are also fast moving, potentially lethal vehicles. Its seems weird to ask divers to have a license, but not boat owners

Many states now license boat operators--Alabama was one of the 1st to require it. You have to complete a test either through the State Examiner or through an approved USCG Site and then have it added to your regular Driver's license at the Probate Judges office...

Costs you an extra 28 bucks... Isn't the government wonderful???

Scubaguy62
August 6th, 2004, 02:13 PM
Costs you an extra 28 bucks... Isn't the government wonderful???
Of course, almost the same it costs me about 19 bucks to be allowed to go bug hunting!

Sponsored Link

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1