njdiver1
Contributor
Regardless of your opinion on marine life feeding, should the "Government" be permitted to ban a specific user group from participating in an action, while condoning it for others? 
You, NO. Them, uh...Ok!
- Thread starter njdiver1
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 27, Number 39, September 28, 2001, Section II - Proposed Rules 4513-4514
FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Marine Fisheries
RULE CHAPTER TITLE: Miscellaneous
RULE TITLE: RULE NO.:
Divers: Fish Feeding Prohibited; Prohibition on Fish Feeding for Hire; Definitions 68B-5.005
PURPOSE AND EFFECT: The purpose of this proposed new rule is to prohibit the practice of the introduction of food or other substances by divers to feed or attract marine species, whether by persons offering their services for hire to patrons for interactive dive experiences or by private individuals. The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has found that such practices may disrupt or have the potential to disrupt marine animal behavior to the extent that it may threaten public safety. The effect of this effort should be to reduce to the greatest extent possible any such disruption of the behavior of such species vis-a-vis humans, particularly with respect to larger predators, such as sharks.
SUMMARY:
Subsection (1) of proposed new Rule 68B-5.005 prohibits the practice of fish feeding. Subsection (2) prohibits the operation of any vessel for hire for the purpose of carrying
passengers to any site to observe fish feeding.
Subsection (3) of the rule defines the terms diver and fish feeding. The proposed effective date for this new rule is January 1, 2002.
SUMMARY OF STATEMENT OF ESTIMATED REGULATORY COST:
The proposed rule would ban the feeding marine wildlife such as sharks, rays, and other marine fishes, by divers for the purposes of aggregating fishes. Marine life feeding directly associates people with food, potentially creating user conflicts and adversely affecting the behavior of marine wildlife. Two local coastal governments have regulated the activity based on public safety concerns and several have requested the FWC prohibit the activity. The proposal would apply to all divers in Florida state waters. There are four commercial dive boat operators in the state that conduct feeding dives for a fee. While the activity has created user conflicts, other for-hire dive boat operators have stated they follow the feeding dive excursions to take advantage of the activity. By following feeding dive excursions, for-hire vessels do not need additional crew members, which are necessary during feeding dives. Testimony to the Commission also indicates that private boat dive trips and individuals on for-hire dive trips sometimes offer food to various fish species to attract and aggregate them. There are an estimated 500 for-hire vessels in the Southeast Florida region (Palm Beach, Broward, Dade, and Monroe counties). These resulted in 3.7 million passenger days in 2000, of which 53% were for fishing, 23% were for scuba diving, and 24% were for snorkeling. Based on preliminary operator profiles, the four commercial dive operators who conduct feeding trips conduct one or two trips per week while also conducting 13-20 nonfeeding dive trips per vessel. Using a $44/person/trip charge and an average of 15 passengers per trip, business losses range from $660 to $1,320 per week per business. These losses assume that the divers do not elect to take a nonfeeding dive trip and so may overstate potential losses. These losses do not include incidental retail purchases of dive equipment, clothing, or additional air refills. Fee losses may account for 7% to 14% of fee-based revenues. Therefore, the proposed rule would affect small businesses. The rule may affect employment levels of these small businesses. The rule should not affect the costs or revenues of small cities or small counties. The rule would not create additional paperwork or reporting requirements. Agency implementation costs were considered in development of the rule. Those costs included costs to conduct hearings, workshops, for promulgation, and for enforcement. The largest cost item will be for enforcement. A ban on the activity would eliminate the ability to advertise for the commercial activity. Enforcement of the proposed rule, or any rule alternative, would require both general law enforcement observation activities and use of a dive unit. Currently, such a unit does not exist. Any person who wishes to provide information regarding the statement of estimated regulatory costs, or to provide a proposal for lower cost regulatory alternative must do so in writing within 21 days of this notice.
SPECIFIC AUTHORITY: Article IV, Section 9, Florida Constitution.
LAW IMPLEMENTED: Article IV, Section 9, Florida Constitution.
THE FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC RULEMAKING HEARING ON THE PROPOSED RULES AT THE TIME, DATES AND PLACE SHOWN BELOW:
TIME AND DATES: 8:30 a.m. 5:00 p.m., each day, October 31, 2001 November 2, 2001
PLACE: Westin Beach Resort, U.S. Highway 1, Mile Marker 97, Bayside, Key Largo, Florida
Pursuant to the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person requiring special accommodations to participate in this workshop/meeting is asked to advise the agency at least 5 calendar days before the workshop/meeting by contacting Cindy Hoffman, ADA Coordinator, at (850)488-6411. If you are hearing or speech impaired, please contact the agency by calling (850)488-9542. All written material received by the Commission within 21 days of the date of publication of this notice shall be made a part of the official record.
SECTION 286.0105, FLORIDA STATUTES, PROVIDES THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS HEARING, HE WILL NEED A RECORD OF
PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSES, HE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS BASED. THE PERSON TO BE CONTACTED REGARDING THE PROPOSED RULE IS:
James V. Antista, General Counsel,
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 620 South
Meridian Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600
THE FULL TEXT OF THE PROPOSED RULE IS:
68B-5.005 Divers: Fish Feeding Prohibited; Prohibition of Fish Feeding for Hire;
Definitions.
(1) No diver shall engage in the practice of fish feeding.
(2) No person shall operate any vessel for hire for the purpose of carrying passengers to any site in the saltwaters of the state to engage in fish feeding or to allow such passengers to observe fish feeding.
(3) For purposes of this rule:
(a) Diver means any person who is wholly or partially submerged in the water, and is equipped with a face mask, face mask and snorkel, or underwater breathing apparatus.
(b) Fish feeding means the introduction of any food or other substance into the water by a diver for the purpose of feeding or attracting marine species, except for the purpose of
harvesting such marine species as otherwise allowed by rules of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
PROPOSED EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2002.
FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Marine Fisheries
RULE CHAPTER TITLE: Miscellaneous
RULE TITLE: RULE NO.:
Divers: Fish Feeding Prohibited; Prohibition on Fish Feeding for Hire; Definitions 68B-5.005
PURPOSE AND EFFECT: The purpose of this proposed new rule is to prohibit the practice of the introduction of food or other substances by divers to feed or attract marine species, whether by persons offering their services for hire to patrons for interactive dive experiences or by private individuals. The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has found that such practices may disrupt or have the potential to disrupt marine animal behavior to the extent that it may threaten public safety. The effect of this effort should be to reduce to the greatest extent possible any such disruption of the behavior of such species vis-a-vis humans, particularly with respect to larger predators, such as sharks.
SUMMARY:
Subsection (1) of proposed new Rule 68B-5.005 prohibits the practice of fish feeding. Subsection (2) prohibits the operation of any vessel for hire for the purpose of carrying
passengers to any site to observe fish feeding.
Subsection (3) of the rule defines the terms diver and fish feeding. The proposed effective date for this new rule is January 1, 2002.
SUMMARY OF STATEMENT OF ESTIMATED REGULATORY COST:
The proposed rule would ban the feeding marine wildlife such as sharks, rays, and other marine fishes, by divers for the purposes of aggregating fishes. Marine life feeding directly associates people with food, potentially creating user conflicts and adversely affecting the behavior of marine wildlife. Two local coastal governments have regulated the activity based on public safety concerns and several have requested the FWC prohibit the activity. The proposal would apply to all divers in Florida state waters. There are four commercial dive boat operators in the state that conduct feeding dives for a fee. While the activity has created user conflicts, other for-hire dive boat operators have stated they follow the feeding dive excursions to take advantage of the activity. By following feeding dive excursions, for-hire vessels do not need additional crew members, which are necessary during feeding dives. Testimony to the Commission also indicates that private boat dive trips and individuals on for-hire dive trips sometimes offer food to various fish species to attract and aggregate them. There are an estimated 500 for-hire vessels in the Southeast Florida region (Palm Beach, Broward, Dade, and Monroe counties). These resulted in 3.7 million passenger days in 2000, of which 53% were for fishing, 23% were for scuba diving, and 24% were for snorkeling. Based on preliminary operator profiles, the four commercial dive operators who conduct feeding trips conduct one or two trips per week while also conducting 13-20 nonfeeding dive trips per vessel. Using a $44/person/trip charge and an average of 15 passengers per trip, business losses range from $660 to $1,320 per week per business. These losses assume that the divers do not elect to take a nonfeeding dive trip and so may overstate potential losses. These losses do not include incidental retail purchases of dive equipment, clothing, or additional air refills. Fee losses may account for 7% to 14% of fee-based revenues. Therefore, the proposed rule would affect small businesses. The rule may affect employment levels of these small businesses. The rule should not affect the costs or revenues of small cities or small counties. The rule would not create additional paperwork or reporting requirements. Agency implementation costs were considered in development of the rule. Those costs included costs to conduct hearings, workshops, for promulgation, and for enforcement. The largest cost item will be for enforcement. A ban on the activity would eliminate the ability to advertise for the commercial activity. Enforcement of the proposed rule, or any rule alternative, would require both general law enforcement observation activities and use of a dive unit. Currently, such a unit does not exist. Any person who wishes to provide information regarding the statement of estimated regulatory costs, or to provide a proposal for lower cost regulatory alternative must do so in writing within 21 days of this notice.
SPECIFIC AUTHORITY: Article IV, Section 9, Florida Constitution.
LAW IMPLEMENTED: Article IV, Section 9, Florida Constitution.
THE FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC RULEMAKING HEARING ON THE PROPOSED RULES AT THE TIME, DATES AND PLACE SHOWN BELOW:
TIME AND DATES: 8:30 a.m. 5:00 p.m., each day, October 31, 2001 November 2, 2001
PLACE: Westin Beach Resort, U.S. Highway 1, Mile Marker 97, Bayside, Key Largo, Florida
Pursuant to the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person requiring special accommodations to participate in this workshop/meeting is asked to advise the agency at least 5 calendar days before the workshop/meeting by contacting Cindy Hoffman, ADA Coordinator, at (850)488-6411. If you are hearing or speech impaired, please contact the agency by calling (850)488-9542. All written material received by the Commission within 21 days of the date of publication of this notice shall be made a part of the official record.
SECTION 286.0105, FLORIDA STATUTES, PROVIDES THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS HEARING, HE WILL NEED A RECORD OF
PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSES, HE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS BASED. THE PERSON TO BE CONTACTED REGARDING THE PROPOSED RULE IS:
James V. Antista, General Counsel,
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 620 South
Meridian Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600
THE FULL TEXT OF THE PROPOSED RULE IS:
68B-5.005 Divers: Fish Feeding Prohibited; Prohibition of Fish Feeding for Hire;
Definitions.
(1) No diver shall engage in the practice of fish feeding.
(2) No person shall operate any vessel for hire for the purpose of carrying passengers to any site in the saltwaters of the state to engage in fish feeding or to allow such passengers to observe fish feeding.
(3) For purposes of this rule:
(a) Diver means any person who is wholly or partially submerged in the water, and is equipped with a face mask, face mask and snorkel, or underwater breathing apparatus.
(b) Fish feeding means the introduction of any food or other substance into the water by a diver for the purpose of feeding or attracting marine species, except for the purpose of
harvesting such marine species as otherwise allowed by rules of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
PROPOSED EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2002.
Ontario Diver
Guest
I think that that happens already.......
licensed drivers can drive cars, people without a license can't
18 and older vote, 17 and under can't
19/21 and older can drink beer; the rest can't
those who get deer/bear/game tags can hunt, the rest can't
airline pilots can fly 747s, I am not allowed to (I bought flight sim 2000 for nothing)
jest my 2 cents (Canadian) worth (or about 1.3 US cents)
licensed drivers can drive cars, people without a license can't
18 and older vote, 17 and under can't
19/21 and older can drink beer; the rest can't
those who get deer/bear/game tags can hunt, the rest can't
airline pilots can fly 747s, I am not allowed to (I bought flight sim 2000 for nothing
)jest my 2 cents (Canadian) worth (or about 1.3 US cents)
Both of our Countries are based on the Democratic/Republican ideas of representative government. If left to the "Polititians" we would all be dancing to the tune of the "Deepest Pockets". That we aren't already on the dance floor continually is in no little consequence of the greatness of our Constitutions. I wish to see if anyone else looks beyond the sensationalizm of the ban and sees the door about to open on regulating every aspect of our sport.
Ontario Diver
Guest
Canadians have always seemed to be willing to trade off for a more structured societies.
See how we treat gun controls as an example. (and I am very pro firearm)
One of the first places to place strong hunting and fishing conservation laws in place was Ontario. It was done mostly after pressure from the Ontario Federation of Hunters and Fisherman.
we had similar issues with bears and dumps/bear feedings. They were all banned <period> No exceptions. New rules for dumps as well. So far it seems to have done the bears a lot of good.
So I guess that the issue in question is very much a "Canadian" style compromise. (That is basically that no one is completely happy with the out come - but everyone is kinda happy with some resolution)
Thanks for the postings tho' learned alot - Darned if I know the answers
Matt
See how we treat gun controls as an example. (and I am very pro firearm)
One of the first places to place strong hunting and fishing conservation laws in place was Ontario. It was done mostly after pressure from the Ontario Federation of Hunters and Fisherman.
we had similar issues with bears and dumps/bear feedings. They were all banned <period> No exceptions. New rules for dumps as well. So far it seems to have done the bears a lot of good.
So I guess that the issue in question is very much a "Canadian" style compromise. (That is basically that no one is completely happy with the out come - but everyone is kinda happy with some resolution)
Thanks for the postings tho' learned alot - Darned if I know the answers
Matt
Se7en
Contributor
Feeding sharks is an essential liberty?
(Not that I agree with the ban, but if I was to list the liberties that were important, the freedom to feed fish would be a long way down the list - way past freedom to dive in 'shark infested' waters)
ciao
Mike
sharpenu
Contributor
You have to wonder what motivated this decision. Florida tourism took a hit in the press because of the sensationalism of the summer's shark bites by the press in an otherwise slow news period. So, to show we have "solved" the problem, we pass a law that makes it all better. Tourism should return. Now if we could only ban feeding of terrorists...
If the FWC was serious about preventing behavior altering activity, I believe that:
Fishermen chumming to attract fish
Fishermen washing fish cleanings into the sea
Fishermen fishing in areas where swimmers are
should also be banned. The tons of bait, chum and fish scraps dumped in our waters every week by fishermen certainly has a greater effect than the 20 or so pounds from shark feeding. Of course 4 dive operators don't bring in the tourist dollars like fishing and SOMEONE had to "take one for the team". Note that it is NOT illegal for divers to bait sharks if they are going to "harvest" them. Harvest = kill. Some "sport". My $0.02...
If the FWC was serious about preventing behavior altering activity, I believe that:
Fishermen chumming to attract fish
Fishermen washing fish cleanings into the sea
Fishermen fishing in areas where swimmers are
should also be banned. The tons of bait, chum and fish scraps dumped in our waters every week by fishermen certainly has a greater effect than the 20 or so pounds from shark feeding. Of course 4 dive operators don't bring in the tourist dollars like fishing and SOMEONE had to "take one for the team". Note that it is NOT illegal for divers to bait sharks if they are going to "harvest" them. Harvest = kill. Some "sport". My $0.02...
Similar threads
- Suggestion
Suggestion
Slowing thread with semantics.
