Restricting access

[wedivebc]

A discussion on another thread has brought up an interesting topic. Should the access to perceived dangerous locations on an artificial reef be restricted by the agency that prepares and sinks the ship or should we leave the ship completely open and use common sense, and good judgement to limit access? Do people need to be protected from themselves?
I would like to hear your opiions on this

[wedivebc]

Originally Posted by dave4868

A valid point, but any efforts made by the "scuba industry" to act "responsibly" and regulate itself for the primary purpose of placating lawmakers will only suffice until more zealous lawmakers step forward to "help" us.

This is probably just a disagreement over how far is too far and where the regulating will end. An honest difference of opinion and/or philosophy.

Wouldn't it be fair to say that individual decisions were the key factors in this death, not those of the "scuba industry"?

Unless one views individual decisions as somehow enmeshed and dependent on the actions of others, the individual who died was solely responsible, IMO.

Unfortunately, public policy rationale is headed ever increasingly toward the enmeshed view with no end in sight to the efforts to regulate.

We see it every day as freedoms get eroded little by little to protect people from themselves. How can one argue against being protected?

Even in today's pre-socialist political environment, it might still be possible to discourage lawmakers from excessive regulating by making it unpopular to do so.

I'm just doing my part by re-emphasizing the greater importance of individual freedom and responsibility.

Dave C

The ramifications of this accident have already been felt in tightening of regulations pertaining to charter operators. Although there was no fault of the operator in this case the government responds with a knee-jerk reaction as they do with every accident of this type.
You will find if you ignore the situation regulations will come into play without our input. When someone dies in any activity the beauracrats will ask what is being done about that. They can't accept a person screwed up they can only respond with regulation. we need to be proactive to limit the regulation not ignore what will inevitably come to pass if we don't fight back.

[JeffG]

Originally Posted by wedivebc

Should the access to perceived dangerous locations on an artificial reef be restricted by the agency that prepares and sinks the ship

How are they going to restrict it?

a) Restrict to all via Welding doors/openings shut?

b)Restrict to a few via a "Rule" (Require a PADI Wreck divers badge to go "in")?


I'm going to assume you are talking about "b" (even though solution "a" has some problems too)

What problem are they trying to solve?

Let use the ARSBC (Artificial Reef Society of British Columbia) as an example

Here is their Mission Statement.

The Artificial Reef Society of British Columbia (ARSBC) creates and promotes artificial reefs for use by SCUBA divers as a means to:

*
Promote economic activity in the vicinity of artificial reef sites;
*

Promote the technologies and procedures required to establish safe and environmentally-friendly artificial reefs;
*

Promote the use of artificial reefs as a means to minimise the impact of recreational SCUBA divers on historical wreck sites and other ecologically-sensitive dive sites;
*

Monitor developments of all our artificial reefs for environmental impact and diver safety.

Creating rules and regulations with have an opposite effect on the "Promote economic activity" part of their mission statement. (I for one will promote a boycott of BC dive destinations that try to impose any such rules.)

for what purpose?

How many people have died on these wrecks?
How many people have died traveling to these wrecks in their car?

Originally Posted by wedivebc

should we leave the ship completely open and use common sense, and good judgement to limit access?

Yes

Originally Posted by wedivebc

Do people need to be protected from themselves?

No

[JeffG]

Originally Posted by wedivebc

The ramifications of this accident have already been felt in tightening of regulations pertaining to charter operators. Although there was no fault of the operator in this case the government responds with a knee-jerk reaction as they do with every accident of this type.
You will find if you ignore the situation regulations will come into play without our input. When someone dies in any activity the beauracrats will ask what is being done about that. They can't accept a person screwed up they can only respond with regulation. we need to be proactive to limit the regulation not ignore what will inevitably come to pass if we don't fight back.

They/We should be fighting back by getting divers support and to start lobbying the gov, saying that they are going to kill the dive industry (and lose X number of jobs...etc etc)

Not by imposing rules on ourselves before the government does.

(a uniquely Canadian solution)

[wedivebc]

Originally Posted by JeffG

How are they going to restrict it?

a) Restrict to all via Welding doors/openings shut?

b)Restrict to a few via a "Rule" (Require a PADI Wreck divers badge to go "in")?


I'm going to assume you are talking about "b" (even though solution "a" has some problems too)

What problem are they trying to solve?

Let use the ARSBC (Artificial Reef Society of British Columbia) as an example

Here is their Mission Statement.



Creating rules and regulations with have an opposite effect on the "Promote economic activity" part of their mission statement. (I for one will promote a boycott of BC dive destinations that try to impose any such rules.)

for what purpose?

How many people have died on these wrecks?
How many people have died traveling to these wrecks in their car?


Yes

No

You know the drill, diver gets bit by shark, 1000 sharks are killed to find the culprit. ARSBC have to comply with the regulations they work under. They don't make the regulations the government does. If feds say the engine room and boiler room have to be welded shut or you don't sink the ship, they have to comply.

[wedivebc]

Originally Posted by JeffG

(a uniquely Canadian solution)

Haha then you have no idea what is going in Europe. Ask them how many different tank valves they have to own.

[JeffG]

Originally Posted by wedivebc

You know the drill, diver gets bit by shark, 1000 sharks are killed to find the culprit. ARSBC have to comply with the regulations they work under. They don't make the regulations the government does. If feds say the engine room and boiler room have to be welded shut or you don't sink the ship, they have to comply.

The ARSBC could take a leadership role and try an fight for divers instead of giving into the government.

[JeffG]

Originally Posted by wedivebc

Haha then you have no idea what is going in Europe. Ask them how many different tank valves they have to own.

Yes, the argument that "They are acting like weenies and whiners" ergo we should do the same doesn't fly with me.

[JeffG]

Very similar to what your argued for 3 yrs ago.

Graduated license???

How come the government hasn't taken over the BC dive industry then?

[Walter]

Originally Posted by wedivebc

Should the access to perceived dangerous locations on an artificial reef be restricted by the agency that prepares and sinks the ship or should we leave the ship completely open and use common sense, and good judgement to limit access?

I vote for B. I realize that with few exceptions A will actually happen. People are afraid of lawsuits.

Originally Posted by wedivebc

Do people need to be protected from themselves?

Define "need." If you mean will some folks hurt or kill themselves if they aren't protected from themselves, then yes, many people do need such protection. OTOH, I see no need for society to provide such protection. Anyone who needs such proptection is not someone we should be protecting.