Blue Heron Bridge Trolls

[T.C.]

The aspect of this that needs to be understood by everyone that is annoyed right now....is that it is totally illegal to teach a class in the park, without a permit....at least this is my understanding. If someone wants to check on the law on this, that may be a way to go...But ultimately, you are not supposed to be able to sell a service or a product AT the BHB or any other County park, without a permit ( which costs money). At least that is my take on this. Nothing about this is about the RIGHT of divers to dive there....Divers do not need to get permitted to dive in daylight hours, and divers don't need permits....only shops or those selling instruction or classes need permits.

Dan, I think the discrepancy comes from what the shops are actually doing. They are not selling anything at the bridge. The sale has already been made; back at the local shop. There isn't a law against teaching there, but against selling services/products at the park. But there is no sale happening with a dive class while at the bridge.

I think the belief about needing a permit to actually teach a class is more speculation than it is accurate.

 

[danvolker]

Dan, I think the discrepancy comes from what the shops are actually doing. They are not selling anything at the bridge. The sale has already been made; back at the local shop. There isn't a law against teaching there, but against selling services/products at the park. But there is no sale happening with a dive class while at the bridge.

I think the belief about needing a permit to actually teach a class is more speculation than it is accurate.

Then someone....you or one of the locals, might do well to email the park service about this, or contact Little Deeper and ask them to follow this up....To me this sounds like a very valid question, that is going to need to be dealt with, if the Park is going to remain the harmonious playground for divers that it is now.

I think they feel that the sale of the class is USING park property to make the sale....and due to this, I think they feel they need to permit classes. I am no lawyer, and do not have a good sense of how this would go in the legal system..

Thanks TC

 

[T.C.]

Then someone....you or one of the locals, might do well to email the park service about this, or contact Little Deeper and ask them to follow this up....To me this sounds like a very valid question, that is going to need to be dealt with, if the Park is going to remain the harmonious playground for divers that it is now.

I think they feel that the sale of the class is USING park property to make the sale....and due to this, I think they feel they need to permit classes. I am no lawyer, and do not have a good sense of how this would go in the legal system..

Thanks TC

But they're not using the property to make the sale. It happens off-site. As long as there isn't money changing hands at the bridge; I don't think they'd have legal standing to do anything about a class without a permit.

The park is free for anyone to use; just like the roads. This is akin to buying a driver education class, and getting out on the public roads to train. They don't pay extra or get a permit in order to take student drivers out.

 

[danvolker]

But they're not using the property to make the sale. It happens off-site. As long as there isn't money changing hands at the bridge; I don't think they'd have legal standing to do anything about a class without a permit.

The park is free for anyone to use; just like the roads. This is akin to buying a driver education class, and getting out on the public roads to train. They don't pay extra or get a permit in order to take student drivers out.

I am pretty sure they feel that the class could not occur if not for the Park....In another place, a shop will schedule a dive class, and pay a pool so much per half day...and the cost of renting the pool is rolled into the costs of running the class. The class could not be run without some pool for skills....In any event, any shop that uses park property to complete their class requirements for in-water skills, IS using the Park for the sale. At least that is my interpretation of this.

I would say that if the students did not need the BHB to get their cert...then maybe the BHB would not be part of the sale.

If this still does not fly with your thinking, I could copy some of the salient points brought up so far, paste into an email, and run this by some of the Park people I know....Would you want me to do this?

 

[T.C.]

I am pretty sure they feel that the class could not occur if not for the Park....In another place, a shop will schedule a dive class, and pay a pool so much per half day...and the cost of renting the pool is rolled into the costs of running the class. The class could not be run without some pool for skills....In any event, any shop that uses park property to complete their class requirements for in-water skills, IS using the Park for the sale. At least that is my interpretation of this.

I would say that if the students did not need the BHB to get their cert...then maybe the BHB would not be part of the sale.

If this still does not fly with your thinking, I could copy some of the salient points brought up so far, paste into an email, and run this by some of the Park people I know....Would you want me to do this?

You don't think that Scuba Diving could be taught in South Florida without the Blue Heron Bridge? I think it probably can...

This isn't a pool; it can't (or should not) count as confined water training. So comparing it to a pool is not accurate. For OW training; I'm sure that diving at the bridge is a selling point...but it is one that a non-diver would understand? I don't think so. If you tell a non-diver, "you're going to dive at this crowded, low viz bridge" vs. "you're going to dive off this boat, in clear water, with just the people on the boat", I think many non-divers would pick the boat; it's more in line with what they expect; what they think they'll enjoy more, what they believe Scuba Diving to be.

Using public property is not the same as making a sale there or using it for the sale. To use my Driver's Ed analogy, does the sale take place on the street? Or in the shop? It's public property- and open for lawful public use. That includes training; just as the roads are open for use in Driver's Ed. Both are lawful uses of public property.

Unless they can point to a law that states instruction will not take place without a permit; they probably don't have legal grounds to object. This is what will cause the most friction; these shops applying what they think is the law... but isn't really true.

 

[danvolker]

You don't think that Scuba Diving could be taught in South Florida without the Blue Heron Bridge? I think it probably can...

This isn't a pool; it can't (or should not) count as confined water training. So comparing it to a pool is not accurate. For OW training; I'm sure that diving at the bridge is a selling point...but it is one that a non-diver would understand? I don't think so. If you tell a non-diver, "you're going to dive at this crowded, low viz bridge" vs. "you're going to dive off this boat, in clear water, with just the people on the boat", I think many non-divers would pick the boat; it's more in line with what they expect; what they think they'll enjoy more, what they believe Scuba Diving to be.

Using public property is not the same as making a sale there or using it for the sale. To use my Driver's Ed analogy, does the sale take place on the street? Or in the shop? It's public property- and open for lawful public use. That includes training; just as the roads are open for use in Driver's Ed. Both are lawful uses of public property.

Unless they can point to a law that states instruction will not take place without a permit; they probably don't have legal grounds to object. This is what will cause the most friction; these shops applying what they think is the law... but isn't really true.

TC,
It used to be taught in Palm Beach county using pools and then ocean/boat dives....then some years back, some dive shops realized they could either make much more money with no pool cost each day...or, they could offer the classes cheaper, hoping to make the discount point drive higher volume in the shop.
Some now no doubt use the class being taught at the world famous BHB Marine Park , as a further selling point.
So if the BHB is so non-essential to the "Sale" of the instruction, then all these central Florida shops bringing van loads of students to the BHB for classes, wont think twice about using a pool instead, rather than paying a per student cost at the BHB in their permits....and then we don't really have any problem
If these shops don't think they can make the sale without the BHB, then they are going to pay whatever they are asked to pay for the right to sell classes they will teach at the BHB.

 

[T.C.]

Just because it's a selling point, doesn't mean it needs a permit. The law, as you quote it, bans selling services on the park. That does not equate to using it as a selling point.

Second; the Park is not the same as a pool. They are not interchangeable. I don't think the bridge is so indispensible that these shops will pay to teach there. They'll go where they can; and as I see it, I don't think they're really using it as a selling point to students. Most non-divers don't know about the bridge, and few would object to where their instructor says to dive.

My point is simple: I don't think it's right to charge one group (dive training) for something that others are using for free. Having someone responsible for monitoring for illegal activity at the bridge is good (Another question; will they be empowered and willing to do something about the drug use there? Last time I was there it smelled like a fire in a rope factory); but empowering one business with the authority to influence another business is of dubious legal standing and the potential for abuse is very high. I fear that that authority will likely imperil the positive aspects of this.

 

[Arubandi07]

Guys, wouldn't it make sense to, in terms of the legal aspects/existing regulations re this matter, first get your ducks in a row before arguing your respective positions any further? ... Just sayin' ...

 

[JahJahwarrior]

State parks charge a permit fee for instruction in state parks. I'm not sure what the laws are, but what's so wrong about a place having a policy? For example, it's not illegal for scuba divers to submerge in the swimming area, but that's the policy at Blue Heron, and we all try to abide by it when the swimming area is "open" ie when lifeguards are there.

Arguing the finer points of the law won't get you anywhere here, as I highly doubt the Park staff are reading this and putting in calls to the Florida Attorney General to make sure they do have a law on the books that allows them to charge a permit.

It's not that I'm against challenging bad policies. For example, once the state park system decided that annual passes didn't cover scuba diving. Since it was covering scuba diving when I bought mine, I wrote them a very nice letter stating that I felt it was not fair to change the policy mid year without offering refunds, as the terms of use changed dramatically. A week later, they decided based on the over whelming volume of polite letters and well placed calls by a few people who acted as some sort of representative of the broader body of divers, that they actually shouldn't be charging divers or horse riders any different fee than the regular entry fee. Ironically I also protested that move, as when divers pay $15 to dive, we provide a nice incentive for them to keep diving policies friendly to divers, to encourage us to visit and pay money. I was sad to see them lose the revenue.

But, they still charge that permit fee for instructors, and I'm fine with that policy, just like I'm fine with not being able to submerge in the swimming zone, I just wish the lifeguards didn't yell so much for honest mistakes, but oh well, generally I find the lifeguards awesome and appreciate their presence.

 

[danvolker]

Just because it's a selling point, doesn't mean it needs a permit. The law, as you quote it, bans selling services on the park. That does not equate to using it as a selling point.

Second; the Park is not the same as a pool. They are not interchangeable. I don't think the bridge is so indispensible that these shops will pay to teach there. They'll go where they can; and as I see it, I don't think they're really using it as a selling point to students. Most non-divers don't know about the bridge, and few would object to where their instructor says to dive.

My point is simple: I don't think it's right to charge one group (dive training) for something that others are using for free. Having someone responsible for monitoring for illegal activity at the bridge is good (Another question; will they be empowered and willing to do something about the drug use there? Last time I was there it smelled like a fire in a rope factory); but empowering one business with the authority to influence another business is of dubious legal standing and the potential for abuse is very high. I fear that that authority will likely imperil the positive aspects of this.

TC, I think you stated your idea well....we will have to see where this goes.