How would you handle this?

[lamont]

Dear Deep Down Diver,

Don't quit your day job to start a new career as a lawyer, you're grasp of the law is thin.

Since the information that Bob posted was public information, clearly of general interest the diving community, the free speech issues are going to outweigh any harm done. We have the right to argue and bicker in public. And you can try to spin Bob's characterization of Dylan however you like it, but the courts recognize that opinion and even vulgar abuse (which is a line that Bob didn't cross) are defenses against defamation. All the statements that Bob made were with a reasonable belief that they were true (when Dylan gave him crap about the octo being female and being on eggs there was nothing Bob could have known otherwise until afterwards when the octopus was examined by WDFW), which is also a defense. Speech on a matter of public interest is also protected and is a defense against defamation.

 

[dumpsterDiver]

There was some nasty cyberstalking that took place, but Bob didn't do it. Bob and another of my friends posted the photographs and the story in a number of places -- I think the backlash exceeded anything they expected to have happen.

What this young man did wasn't illegal, but something doesn't have to be illegal to be wrong. It is abundantly clear that he violated the norms of the Pacific Northwest diving community -- and what he did was found interesting and noteworthy enough to be aired on TV, make the front page of our local newspaper, and make it to national media. A great many people, including a number who actively hunt on scuba, have found his actions reprehensible.

The good side of this is that we may get the area where he was hunting designated as a no-take-on-scuba zone, which would be a very good outcome. The bad side is that we have seen the immense and pretty uncontrollable power of the internet and social media . . . it's like a gun where, once you have pulled the trigger, you have no control over how many bullets get fired or where they go. I have been guilty, a few times in my life, of manipulating some power I had access to, and launching them at someone whose actions I deplored. But in those days, it was one-on-one, and the process stopped there. Nowadays, it's frighteningly easy to start a mob, and I think everybody who has been involved in this issue locally has learned something about that.

The TV coverage was NOT the result of a kid taking an octopus... I kill them for bait to use for hook and line fishing. The national media doesn't really care about some guy taking one octopus in a legal manner.

The thing that made this story news-worthy is the cyber-stalking, not the legal take of an octopus. Let's be serious here.

By the way, many people, (including myself) feel that women who are unwed, giving birth to several successive, illegitimate children who they cannot support financially or emotionally or fully care for is reprehensible. Their actions are legal although I think their irresponsible behavior causes much more harm and suffering than the taking of an octopus.

Is it acceptable to petition the places that these women do business with to get them banned, to stalk them on the internet or elsewhere? Would that be an acceptableuse of free speech? I find it surprising that so many people feel empowered to unleash this kind of negative energy upon an individual, just because it may be legal to do so.

 

[CAPTAIN SINBAD]

The kid did nothing illegal! What I consider to be the norm may not be someone else's norm. This is why societies are built around laws instead of norms. If someone is operating within established laws and you go out and confront him then that makes you a VIGILANTE whereas he is still a "law-abiding citizen." Even glorified mythical Vigilantes like Batman and Superman enforced established laws. Comics would become utterly ridiculous if Vigilantes went about enforcing "unwritten norms."

Here is what it is looking like:

One older man sees a teenager pulling an octopus out of water and sees that as a perfect opportunity to approach and bully the kid. What would a 19 year old know about conservation laws right? He could just approach this kid in an authoritarian "cop-like" tone and the kid should buckle under and start apologizing. The old man would then go home as the victorious crusader of the scenario and mentally replay this act of heroism in his mind over and over again. Well it didn't turn out that way. The kid did not come under pressure and told the old man that he knew he was hunting within the law so ... get lost! After that, all the rage was about some "unwritten code of honor among divers" that got violated. Excuse me???

I love the ocean. I am a photographer and I believe in shooting wild life strictly with a camera. I also feel that in some areas, stricter laws need to be placed to preserve wild life. This whole issue seems more about one person not getting the answer they had hoped for.

 

[shoredivr]

How to sex a GPO: With a male octopus the third arm from the middle on the right hand side has no suckers on the end of it, this is called the hectocotylus. It is used to push the packet of sperm into the female octopus' mantle.
The Giant Pacific Octopus: Adaptation

(On page 4 of the NWDiveclubs' Facebook page about this, there is a photo purported to be taken from the octopus hunter's FB page when it was still public, in which an octopus is stretched out on the floor with a tape measure over it....the resolution on this phone is not the best, check third arm from the middle on the right, does it have suckers all the way to the end?
Anybody with better resolution can perhaps shed more light on this photo, if it is the octo in question.)

 

[ams511]

I find it hard to imagine how you can be a diver, and not be familiar with an area being described as a "petting zoo", and for you not to know what that means. It does not mean divers pet or touch the marine life. You are familiar with the idea of a metaphor, right? We are discussing a dive site where sightseers and photographers go to see concentrated marine life of a spectacular nature, and where it is known by common sense that a diver hunting or killing any of this life, would be acting as a parasite to the entire community, and those choosing to act in such a way would be purposely making themselves into a pariah.
At the Cove 2 site (from what I have heard), and at BHB, it is by a beach-dive anyone can walk into, and it is a "baby'dive", in terms of environment and challenge.

Places like this that the public has embraced for this purpose, will evolve the support from the county and state to become full-fledged parks with full protections. In these 2 cases, the locals created the socially based protections, and the community has set these boundaries. The State will follow through in time, and of course it takes longer for government to address such a creation.

Let's say this again..We are talking about places where there are very clear norms and values expressed by all that dive these places, and these norms are lived by and embraced by all. These are both shared with any newcomer, and quite obvious. Any "hunter" that goes to either place, has an absolute knowledge, that they are engaging in behavior that the entire social network of the dive community in the area considers to be taboo. This is almost like running over dogs with your car at a dog park, because there is no law against it. Try to imagine how a "person" could drive into a big meadow area with 5 dozen people there playing with their dogs, and then decide it s OK to purposely drive in a manner that it likely going to guarantee the car will run over one or more dogs ( this being the clear intent ), even if the driver wants to claim it as an "accident"...and then say he did nothing illegal, anyway, with a smirk.

Well as a diver I am familiar with petting zoos. I remember a dive operator in Key Largo that used to feed a barracuda named "Psycho" fish out of his mouth. This same operator would pull a moray out of its hole and pass it along to divers to hold and then sell you a video tape of the whole sad affair. The operator also complained bitterly when a fisherman caught poor Psycho. You have been in South Florida a while so I think you know the operator I am referring too. So yes I have seen divers including dive professionals "pet or molest" wildlife in so called "petting zoos".

As far as norms go who gets to set them? Also why should a person be forced to follow norms they may not personally agree with? It seems the only person who was really upset with this was Bob and he seemed to instigate the "outrage" against this person.

Also I do not know how things work up in Palm Beach but in Miami it is illegal to run over dogs in a dog park. Again dogs are domesticated animals and someone's private property and octopi in the ocean are not.

 

[smellzlikefish]

I am going to timidly stick my neck out and suggest that we try to learn something from this situation beyond the social aspects of the internet.

With the dismal status of fish stocks, there is a growing need to deal irresponsible fishermen (legal or not) with a firmer slap on the wrist. I find nothing wrong with holding someone's feet to the fire for taking something that I enjoy. The punishment in this case may have been a bit harsher than intended, but hopefully one outcome will be that fishers think a little more about the impacts of taking a life. It is open season on the ocean with far too many hands thinking they have a right to take what they can before its all gone.

Before I add the name "Smellslikefish" to the stake burning ceremony, I'd add that I occasionally eat seafood knowing that it came from a responsible source. I'm just sick of seeing people (like this kid) taking their quota because the law says it is okay. It isn't. The lesson is take only what you need, not trophies! Instead of spending our energy getting huffy at NWGD, I see a moral back-story about responsible fishing practices that could benefit all of us. The public seems to be listening.

 

[Steve Egner]

One older man sees a teenager pulling an octopus out of water and sees that as a perfect opportunity to approach and bully the kid. What would a 19 year old know about conservation laws right? He could just approach this kid in an authoritarian "cop-like" tone and the kid should buckle under and start apologizing. The old man would then go home as the victorious crusader of the scenario and mentally replay this act of heroism in his mind over and over again. Well it didn't turn out that way. The kid did not come under pressure and told the old man that he knew he was hunting within the law so ... get lost! After that, all the rage was about some "unwritten code of honor among divers" that got violated.

Bob did nothing to "bully" this punk. And if you weren't so far away, you'd know how dearly we regard our "unwritten code of honor among divers". Given that, you're simply ignorant.

Steve

 

[ams511]

With the dismal status of fish stocks, there is a growing need to deal irresponsible fishermen (legal or not) with a firmer slap on the wrist. I find nothing wrong with holding someone's feet to the fire for taking something that I enjoy. The punishment in this case may have been a bit harsher than intended, but hopefully one outcome will be that fishers think a little more about the impacts of taking a life. It is open season on the ocean with far too many hands thinking they have a right to take what they can before its all gone.

I would guess a long-line fishing trawler takes more tonnage of fish than all of the members of Spearboard combined. It seems to me that Spearfishermen (I am not one) always get the short end of the stick when it comes to restrictions and recreational and commercial fisherman always seem to get a pass. So what Bob will do is get spearfishing banned at that location but people can still catch fish there with hook and line.

 

[Steve Egner]

By the way, many people, (including myself) feel that women who are unwed, giving birth to several successive, illegitimate children who they cannot support financially or emotionally or fully care for is reprehensible. Their actions are legal although I think their irresponsible behavior causes much more harm and suffering than the taking of an octopus.

Is it acceptable to petition the places that these women do business with to get them banned, to stalk them on the internet or elsewhere? Would that be an acceptableuse of free speech? I find it surprising that so many people feel empowered to unleash this kind of negative energy upon an individual, just because it may be legal to do so.

Nice Straw-Man argument here, but nothing of substance. The fact is, we revere these creatures here, and all divers in this area are taught to observe them, record them, but never disturb them.

Your level of unfiltered ignorance is common on the internet, and I dismiss it as wind through my hair.

Steve

 

[ams511]

Nice Straw-Man argument here, but nothing of substance. The fact is, we revere these creatures here, and all divers in this area are taught to observe them, record them, but never disturb them.

Your level of unfiltered ignorance is common on the internet, and I dismiss it as wind through my hair. Steve

If everyone in your state reveres these creatures so much, then why don't the laws of your state reflect it? According to the website of the Washington Fish and Game Commission it is legal to take octopi year round all areas except marine area 12. You can even keep one if snagged on a fishing lure which I find a bit odd.