FWCC failed to have DEMA's lawsuit dimissed.
Glenn A. Arthur
Good news! Divers prevailed in court today. The judge ruled in the dive
industry's favor NOT to dismiss the case as requested by the FWCC.
The lawsuit to challenge the FWCC rule to ban shark/marine life feeding
dives will go forward and will go to trial.
Listen to this Saturday's edition of ScubaRadio for the complete report!
Rather be diving,
GAA
Lee Bell
I'm not sure what divers it is that prevailed except, of course, those who
profit from fish and shark feeding. You're going to find that the majority
of those here supported the feeding ban. Personally, I've become flexible
on the issue. There's little question in my mind that feeding sharks and
other marine life to attract them to tourists is against the best interests
of the sharks. Over the long term, there's little question that controls
will be needed and that they will have to be better and better enforced than
our game and fish rules have been in the past. On the other hand, I've
personally met all of Florida's infamous four feeders and have been diving
with half of them. If we could be certain that the four would be the only
four we have to worry about, I think I'd have to say "let them be." One
operator attracts but does not feed. One feeds a barracuda and a moray,
note, that's A barracuda and A moray. Another operates so far off shore
that he isn't even in state waters. His only concern is that the federal
authorities will follow the state's lead. I know almost nothing of the
fourth operator, which is kind of says a lot too. The names of bad
operators tend to get circulated pretty well.
At any rate, pro or con on the feeding ban, Scuba Radio is the last place I
would go for a complete report. In my opinion, there is no more biased or
less reliable source of information on the subject. If you're interested,
get the facts, all the facts.
Lee
mike gray
>
> Glenn A. Arthur wrote
>
> > This from SCUBA Radio's forum:
> > Good news! Divers prevailed in court today. The judge ruled in the dive
> > industry's favor NOT to dismiss the case as requested by the FWCC.
> > The lawsuit to challenge the FWCC rule to ban shark/marine life feeding
> > dives will go forward and will go to trial.
> > Listen to this Saturday's edition of ScubaRadio for the complete report!
>
> I'm not sure what divers it is that prevailed except, of course, those who
> profit from fish and shark feeding.
Amen.
Greg The Divemaster
authoritative voice on the Internet, yet you continue to spew these childish
attacks on ScubaRadio. All this because I exposed the inaccuracies of your
posts (and what I felt were cheap shots) regarding the shark feeding issue?
I know you didn't like this, however, it was not personal. The goal was to
challenge you to do your own homework before posting BS. While we still seem
to disagree, it does appear to have worked somewhat.
Despite your personal dislike for me, I do report the truth on ScubaRadio.
Of course, if I get something wrong, you can always point it out. And I'll
continue to do my best to provide this same service to you...;-)
I'd rather be diving,
Greg The Divemaster
www.scubaradio.com
"Lee Bell" <lee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:a3702g$r39$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
Dania R.
has to be it!
Scubaradio is the most juvenile, biased and just plain un-entertaining
radio program I have had the misfortune to listen to - unwillingly I
might add as a passenger in someone else's car. Your Beavis and
Butthead approach can't really appeal to anyone past seventh grade.
If the one (and last) show I heard was any example, you seem to have
no concept of what objective journalism means. You broadcast an
amatuerish infomercial for your sponsors and patrons - nothing more.
At least be honest enough to call it for what it is.
Childish attacks? I'd sooner sit through "Bride of Chuckie" again
than listen to 5 minutes of your idiotic banter.
Dania R.
"Greg The Divemaster" <gregthed...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<22J58.483736$oj3.91...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>...
Ness
:o)
"Dania R." <dani...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:625597d4.02012...@posting.google.com...
Scott J. McFadden
>The lawsuit to challenge the FWCC rule to ban shark/marine life feeding
>dives will go forward and will go to trial.
This is supposed to be some "great victory" for the feeders?
I would hold off popping the cork on the champagne bottles if I were you.
I have problems with the FFWCC trying to assert jurisdiction over what goes on
in Federal waters as well. That is cearly questionable.
State waters are another matter altogether.
If you don't believe me, rent a pontoon boat, get some paying tourists who
don't know any better on board, stop by Publix and get a whole bunch of Romaine
lettuce and, go -feeding- the manatees at Crystal.
I understand the Citrus County Jail issues very sytlish orange jumpsuits.
Maybe they'd also let you broadcast "scubaradio" from your cell.
--
SJM
mike gray
> Glenn A. Arthur crowed:
>
> >The lawsuit to challenge the FWCC rule to ban shark/marine life feeding
> >dives will go forward and will go to trial.
To which "Scott J. McFadden", in a rare burst of sagacity, replied:
> This is supposed to be some "great victory" for the feeders?
What I object to is the assertion by ScubaRadio, the feeders, SkinDiver
and others that feeding is something that divers and dive operators
really want.
In fact, it is only a vocal (and greedy) minority that is pro-feeding.
It further pisses me off that my tax money will be used to defend the
Commission against four operators, their trade association, and their
advertising media.
m
"Greg The Divemaster" Holt
show.....don't worry your secret is safe with me...;-)
So you attack the show without pointing out any specifics where we did not
report the facts. Typical...and expected.
"Dania R." <dani...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:625597d4.02012...@posting.google.com...
chilly
""Greg The Divemaster" Holt" <gh...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:oEV58.166322$_w.25...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> You have quite the opinion for someone who has just listened to "one"
> show.....don't worry your secret is safe with me...;-)
>
> So you attack the show without pointing out any specifics where we did not
> report the facts. Typical...and expected.
I can't hear your show from here but I must say, if your standard response
is "typical and expected", you really should be asking yourself about your
content. You must hear this kind of criticism quite often to be saying that
it is "typical and expected". That would put the onus on you and not on
those that take a critical view of your content.
"Greg The Divemaster" Holt
You can listen to ScubaRadio worldwide over the Internet too.
(www.scubaradio.com) So make your own judgment.
As far as "typical and expected." I can assure you we hardly ever get
complaints, however, when we do....it's usually someone who does not agree
with what I have said....regardless of whether it is factual. The shots from
Lee and Dania are typical in this regard....actually, radio research shows
these type of people tend to listen even more than people who like the
show....it's a wacky thing.
The growth of ScubaRadio speaks for itself and we continue to expand. We now
have over 50 stations throughout the US...including Alaska and Hawaii. If we
only appealed to people under seventh grade as Chilly believes, I doubt this
would be the case....ya think?
Anyway, I don't expect ScubaRadio to be a divers only information source,
however, we are a honest source...and that's the truth.
"chilly" <sla...@shaw.canada> wrote in message
news:NCX58.1942$Jq.2...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
Greg The Divemaster
> and others that feeding is something that divers and dive operators
> really want
Do you have anything to show a support to the contrary?...(Other than those
bogus Cyberliar polls)...If the majority of divers were truly against
organized shark dives, they wouldn't exist....yet they continue to be very
popular. You must think it's all those idiot divers who have been
brainwashed by industry marketing and are not as enlightened as yourself?
If you are lumping in this nonsense that divers should not be feeding fish
cheese wiz, well that's another story and isn't supported by
anyone...however, is legislation necessary or is education sufficient. In my
opinion, the latter has worked very well in this regard.
> In fact, it is only a vocal (and greedy) minority that is pro-feeding.
In fact, you might want to just look in the mirror for this "vocal
minority." If you ask a diver if it should be OK to feed a fish to kill it,
but it's criminal to feed a fish to view it...would the majority of divers
agree with this statement?
> It further pisses me off that my tax money will be used to defend the
> Commission against four operators, their trade association, and their
> advertising media.
It pisses me off that any tax money was wasted on this non-issue in the
first place. All because 3 bonehead spearfishermen were upset with a dive
operator who was on a committee that wanted to create a small
replenishment/no-take zone within their fishing grounds. Their diversionary
plan basically worked...I'll bet even better than they thought....it's sad
and should be criminal. (Just my 2 cents)
GTD
"mike gray" <omi...@net.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C5816C1...@net.att.net...
chilly
> Chilly,
>
> You can listen to ScubaRadio worldwide over the Internet too.
> (www.scubaradio.com) So make your own judgment.
>
> As far as "typical and expected." I can assure you we hardly ever get
> complaints, however, when we do....it's usually someone who does not agree
> with what I have said....regardless of whether it is factual. The shots
from
> Lee and Dania are typical in this regard....actually, radio research shows
> these type of people tend to listen even more than people who like the
> show....it's a wacky thing.
>
> The growth of ScubaRadio speaks for itself and we continue to expand. We
now
> have over 50 stations throughout the US...including Alaska and Hawaii. If
we
> only appealed to people under seventh grade as Chilly believes, I doubt
this
> would be the case....ya think?
Uh, I dunno, why don't you ask Morey or Jerry Springer what they think?
Greg Mossman
> As far as "typical and expected." I can assure you we hardly ever get
> complaints, however, when we do....it's usually someone who does not agree
> with what I have said....regardless of whether it is factual. The shots
from
> Lee and Dania are typical in this regard....actually, radio research shows
> these type of people tend to listen even more than people who like the
> show....it's a wacky thing.
Sort of like the Howard Stern phenomena. You may have a point there. But
that still doesn't make the message valid. Some people just crave being
horrified. Look at the popularity of horror movies and Faces of Death.
mike gray
>
> >What I object to is the assertion by ScubaRadio, the feeders, SkinDiver
> > and others that feeding is something that divers and dive operators
> > really want
>
> Do you have anything to show a support to the contrary?...(Other than those
> bogus Cyberliar polls)...If the majority of divers were truly against
> organized shark dives, they wouldn't exist....yet they continue to be very
> popular. You must think it's all those idiot divers who have been
> brainwashed by industry marketing and are not as enlightened as yourself?
I think you are the brainwashed one. Here in Fla there are, how many -
four? - operations doing feeding dives out of how many - 290? -
commercial boats carrying divers. Very popular? And those four are
tourist operations running infrequent divers out to their petting zoos;
a small number of ignorant divers preyed on by less than a half-dozen
rip-off artists who will take money for anything.
FACT: the vast majority of Florida divers oppose feeding.
FACT: the more experienced the diver, the more opposed that diver is
likely to be.
FACT: the vast majority of Florida dive boat operators oppose feeding.
> If you are lumping in this nonsense that divers should not be feeding fish
> cheese wiz, well that's another story and isn't supported by
> anyone...however, is legislation necessary or is education sufficient. In my
> opinion, the latter has worked very well in this regard.
Obviously not. In spite of the consensus of divers, in spite of the
consensus of dive operators, four sleazy operators insist on exercising
their inalienable right to show the rubes from Peoria some tame fish.
As a last resort, maybe legislation is the only thing that will
"educate" these idiots. And using cheese whiz as an excuse for their
arrogance and lack of brain power is prolly not a real good defense.
> In fact, you might want to just look in the mirror for this "vocal
> minority." If you ask a diver if it should be OK to feed a fish to kill it,
> but it's criminal to feed a fish to view it...would the majority of divers
> agree with this statement?
I expect they would not. Chumming for any purpose has always been a
despicable practice, and hopefully all chumming will soon be illegal.
For these four Barnum-wannabes to use the legality of chumming for
fishing as an excuse is the lowest.
> It pisses me off that any tax money was wasted on this non-issue in the
> first place. All because 3 bonehead spearfishermen were upset with a dive
> operator who was on a committee that wanted to create a small
> replenishment/no-take zone within their fishing grounds. Their diversionary
> plan basically worked...I'll bet even better than they thought....it's sad
> and should be criminal. (Just my 2 cents)
Wrong again. No-take zones are coming. (Further advice $400/Hr)
m
Scott J. McFadden
>Do you have anything to show a support to the contrary?...(Other than those
>bogus Cyberliar polls)...If the majority of divers were truly against
>organized shark dives, they wouldn't exist....yet they continue to be very
>popular.
Gee, here I thought the shark feeds were outlawed the first of this year.
Am I mistaken about the effective date the prohibition was (is?) to take place
or do you have knowledge of dive operators engaging in activities which would
result in criminal (civil?) penalties?
The solution to the dilemma you find yourself in is really quite simple. Since
the feeders are too dumb to figure it out, and are only wasting their money on
lawyers, I will help them, just this once.
Start a petition drive to place on the ballot an amendment to the FL State
Constitution which would specifically allow shark feeds in State waters. If it
is so "popular" with everyone, as you claim, it will be no problem to obtain
the +- 275,000 petitions needed.
Of course, after last summer's totally unrelated series of shark attacks on
surfers and swimmers in E & NE FL it may be quite a challenge to win the
general public's approval for such a proposal.
HTH
--
SJM
BenDavison
>organized shark dives, they wouldn't exist....yet they continue to be very
>popular.
If the majority of the people were opposed to child abuse, it wouldn't
exist....if the majority of the people were opposed to the international gun
trade, it wouldn't exist....if the majority of the people were opposed to
people dealing crack, it wouldn't exist.
Greg, you're stepping on your own dawber. As long as a business has enough
customers, it can survive well no matter how many people dislike it.
"Greg The Divemaster" Holt
fact they offer a shark dive, it's just because they have "enough" customers
to survive? Ridiculous.
If you honestly believe (as some expert states in a previous post) the
people who patronize these types of dives are just beginners that have been
brainwashed by industry hype is way off base. Some dive operators keep track
of this type of data for business reasons....the diversity might surprise
you.
None of these other examples you bring up are even businesses....child
abuse?....C'mon Ben, you're better than that.
This is simple....just keep educating people with your belief about how bad
these dives are for whatever reason. If your arguements register, you will
win over enough people to make these dives unpopular and lack of interest
will make them economically impractical from a business point of view.
There are also business incentives for the operations to keep these dives as
safe as possible....both for divers and the animals. Are they without fault,
of course not....but are these dives really as evil (Crack?) as you appear
to believe they are?....In my opinion, definitely not.
"BenDavison" <benda...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020131114734...@mb-fc.aol.com...
Luca Cappelli
> If the majority of divers were truly against
> organized shark dives, they wouldn't exist....yet they continue to be very
> popular.
You might want to re-think this statement. There are but few businesses that
actually operate with a majority customer base. Most businesses do quite
well serving but a minority (be it .000005% to 49%) of the the actual
customers paying for that service. Particularly when the business in
question is not predicated on the one single service (shark feeding dives).
H. NED Huntzinger
>
>
>
> Anyway, I don't expect ScubaRadio to be a divers only information source,
> however, we are a honest source...and that's the truth.
So Greg, does this mean that you've improved your so-called
"Journalistic Integrity" by finally no longer slandering people who
don't happen to agree with you? (Citation: 7 November 1999)
IMO, scubaradio is as baseless as its mathmatics.
-hh
H. NED Huntzinger
>
> fact they offer a shark dive, it's just because they have "enough" customers
> to survive? Ridiculous.
Try these one on for size:
BMW survives as a car maker even though 95% of all car buyers buy
another brand.
Ditto for Apple Computer and PC's: their market is 95% Windows.
An abberation, right? Well, its also "ditto" for Porsche, Saab, Volvo,
Lotus, Mazarati, Jaguar, Bentley, Rolls Royce, Ferrari, Morgan. In
fact, if you add all of them together and add them to BMW, they're still
only ~5% of the total new car market!
Yet somehow, all of these niche products survive, despite your
rediculous commerce notions. Gosh!
> If you honestly believe (as some expert states in a previous post) the
> people who patronize these types of dives are just beginners that have been
> brainwashed by industry hype is way off base. Some dive operators keep track
> of this type of data for business reasons....the diversity might surprise
> you.
"The diversity might surprise you"?
Talk is cheap. You just made a claim. Now as an alledged honest and
impartial "JOURNALIST", substantiate your claim, or do the responsible
thing and print a public retraction.
> This is simple....just keep educating people with your belief about how bad
> these dives are for whatever reason. If your arguements register, you will
> win over enough people to make these dives unpopular and lack of interest
> will make them economically impractical from a business point of view.
There are always a group who will insist on doing things that are "bad"
for them. Take cigarette smoking as an example. Just keep in mind that
based on what Mike has already said, nearly 99% of all Florida operators
are NON-feeders, and wonder why DEMA & PADI are investing so much in
such a small percentage of their alledged consituency.
-hh
"Greg The Divemaster" Holt
goes for every other analogy you bring up. Nitch or not...the product still
has to sell and pie has to be big enough.
The demographic information and certification level of people who go on
these shark dives has been tracked...to think otherwise is naive. Do your
own research and see for yourself...or you can just attack the messenger.
99% of Florida operators are non-feeders....you're claim is misleading. How
many dive centers in Florida patronize these 4 operators? It ends
up....quite a few....Regardless, just because a dive operator doesn't offer
a shark feeding dive for whatever reason, doesn't mean they believe the
activity needs to be banned. You assume too much. How many dive operators
can you name that endorse this ban? More than 3-5?...the only ones I have
ever heard of are competitors of the dive operators that offer these
dives...should that be any surprise?
So you have your assignment....prove me wrong smart guy....;-)
"H. NED Huntzinger" <{rm_to_reply}hum...@webspan.net> wrote in message
news:3C59AA...@webspan.net...
Dan Volker
"few opportunities" to see sharks on the typical dive sites they visit.
While some of us here can see them whenever we like, due to spearfishing, or
due to very advanced conditions of some dive sites that tend to keep sharks
in these areas----many divers have no such opportunities. I for one, think
its selfish for "us", to attempt to prevent divers from access to shark
dives--if this is what they want.
And apparently, many do want this.
If it was really "BAD" to feed sharks, and anyone on this list really
believed that, then the REAL ISSUE would be surf-fishing at public swimming
beaches, pier-fishing at public swimming beaches with a pier, and sport
fishing within 2 miles( or maybe more) of any public swimming beach. This is
where the HUGE volumes of chum are used---many tons of it daily in Florida
alone ( my guess--do the math :-) You can by chum at Publix. This is also
where the absolute highest volume of shark attractants come from--the
struggling fish on the lines, which is exponentially more dangerous to
swimmers than the chum. The chum brings the sharks in, the struggling fish
make them frenzy. Since literally NO ONE on rec.scuba could give a spit
about the threat from fishing, than why are we having this argument about
dive operators who do shark dives???
Greg is doing a WWF Wrestling routine for diving that apparently many divers
enjoy as entertainment, or he would not be airing all over the country. It
does not really matter whether he is on your side of this shark issue, or
the other side... Do you care if Howard Stern agrees with you on anything? I
know I don't :-)
One thing that does matter to me, is having the Sport Fishing people lobby
to shut down Shark Feeding, due to a petty rivalry, and becoming so
successful, that shark attacks caused by fishing ended up attributed to dive
operations. Beyond that, they have managed to get divers to argue against
divers, even limiting our lobbying power further---as if enough of us on
rec.scuba could ever agree on something in enough numbers for a vote to mean
anything ;-)
As Divers, we end up getting the short end of the stick again, and our own
divisiveness is largely to blame.
For much more on the fishing issue, and why fishing is the real cause of
shark attack, DSL or cable users can go here
http://acw.activate.net/vnetworker/sharkfeed.asx
And 56k users can see what kind of people enjoy shark dives---is it wrong
for these people to get the chance?
http://acw.activate.net/vnetworker/education1.asx
Regards,
Dan Volker
"H. NED Huntzinger" <{rm_to_reply}hum...@webspan.net> wrote in message
news:3C59AA...@webspan.net...
mike gray
>
> So when a dive operation spends God knows how much money to advertise the
> fact they offer a shark dive, it's just because they have "enough" customers
> to survive? Ridiculous.
Ya mean feeding is so unpopular that the feeders have to spend a bundle
brainwashing the tourists with a bunch of hype? Is that what ya mean,
bunky?
> If you honestly believe (as some expert states in a previous post) the
> people who patronize these types of dives are just beginners that have been
> brainwashed by industry hype is way off base. Some dive operators keep track
> of this type of data for business reasons....the diversity might surprise
Ya mean feeding is so unpopular that the feeders can tell ya the name
and address of every rube they sucked in? Is that what ya mean, bunky?
m
mike gray
> The demographic information and certification level of people who go on
> these shark dives has been tracked...to think otherwise is naive. Do your
> own research and see for yourself...or you can just attack the messenger.
What an incredibly stupid statement. You actually think people will get
into the feeding business to replicate the data you say the feederes
have collected???
Let's see the data, or don't make the claims.
> 99% of Florida operators are non-feeders....you're claim is misleading. How
> many dive centers in Florida patronize these 4 operators?
What he's referring to is the fact that of about 300 commercial boats
carrying divers, just four were running petting zoos. Don't change the
subject.
> It ends
> up....quite a few....Regardless, just because a dive operator doesn't offer
> a shark feeding dive for whatever reason, doesn't mean they believe the
> activity needs to be banned. You assume too much. How many dive operators
> can you name that endorse this ban? More than 3-5?...the only ones I have
> ever heard of are competitors of the dive operators that offer these
> dives...should that be any surprise?
Pick up a June copy - any June - and you will find a list of almost all
the dive boats in Florida, with a phone number for each. Close to 300 of
them. Call them and ask.
> So you have your assignment....prove me wrong smart guy....;-)
So you have your assignment....prove me wrong smart guy....;-)
m
Greg The Divemaster
the data you say the feederes have collected???
No...I just said the data is available....You could ask them nicely and see
if they would be willing to share it with you. Of course, I doubt you would
believe these evil corporate monsters anyway.
>Pick up a June copy - any June - and you will find a list of almost all
the dive boats in Florida, with a phone number for each. Close to 300 of
them. Call them and ask.
While I haven't called them all, I have called many...have you? I told you
about the ones I found....2.....have you found more? Please share your
findings with the rest of the class.
Once again, just because a dive boat doesn't offer a shark feeding dive,
doesn't mean they believe the activity should be banned. Sounds like you're
the one trying to change the subject....;-)
"mike gray" <omi...@net.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C59C568...@net.att.net...
Paul Schilter
This is getting scary, I'm in agreement with you. It's about personal
choice. No one is forcing anyone to go on a shark feeding dive. If everyone
felt this way there wouldn't be shark feeding dives. Apparently not
everyone feels this way.
Paul
"Dan Volker" <d...@sfdj.com> wrote in message
news:IDi68.8354$Up4.6...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
"Greg The Divemaster" Holt
All shark divers have been brainwashed and implanted with a micro chip so
these operators can monitor and control their every move. Get ready Mike,
they have you in their sights...it's just a little pin prick to
enlightenment. It's fruitless to resist. Submit to their all mighty power
and make it easy on yourself.
The truth is out there.....;-)
"mike gray" <omi...@net.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C59C316...@net.att.net...
Scott J. McFadden
> If it was really "BAD" to feed sharks, and anyone on this list really
>believed that, then the REAL ISSUE would be surf-fishing at public swimming
>beaches, pier-fishing at public swimming beaches with a pier, and sport
>fishing within 2 miles( or maybe more) of any public swimming beach.
You have already demonstrated you know nothing about rec.surf fishing in E FL,
you know nothing about surfing in E FL, and futhermore, you know nothing about
rec.offshore fishing apparently, anywhere in FL.
I am getting real fed up with you tring to confuse the real cause of the sharks
attacks.
This is
>where the HUGE volumes of chum are used---many tons of it daily in Florida
>alone ( my guess--do the math :-) You can by chum at Publix. This is also
>where the absolute highest volume of shark attractants come from--the
>struggling fish on the lines, which is exponentially more dangerous to
>swimmers than the chum.
Do you even begin to realize how nonsensical this sounds? "chum", "many tons",
struggling fish"? WTF?
What "movie" did you see this in?
The original "Jaws"?
Sorry, just like your arguments that was "fiction".
The chum brings the sharks in, the struggling fish
>make them frenzy.
Wrong yet again, the menhaden and mullet that like to form into schools along
the beaches in late summer and early fall are what attracts the sharks close to
shore.
Since literally NO ONE on rec.scuba could give a spit
>about the threat from fishing, than why are we having this argument about
>dive operators who do shark dives???
I do not know. I thought the FFWCC banned this practice effective the fist of
2002. Obviously, I am mistaken or there are dive operators who are
intentionally disregarding this law.
Maybe someone can tell me why it is that the -feeding- of wild turtles,
porpoises, manatees, and alligators is not permitted but that selfish, "do
nothing", "freeloading" dive operators are permitted to "molest, harrass and
interfere with", sharks?
I do not understand this inconsistency.
--
SJM
Dan Volker
"Scott J. McFadden" <sjm...@aol.complicate> wrote in message
news:20020201110838...@mb-mj.aol.com...
> Dan Volker wrote:
>
> > If it was really "BAD" to feed sharks, and anyone on this list really
> >believed that, then the REAL ISSUE would be surf-fishing at public
swimming
> >beaches, pier-fishing at public swimming beaches with a pier, and sport
> >fishing within 2 miles( or maybe more) of any public swimming beach.
>
> You have already demonstrated you know nothing about rec.surf fishing in E
FL,
> you know nothing about surfing in E FL, and futhermore, you know nothing
about
> rec.offshore fishing apparently, anywhere in FL.
>
> I am getting real fed up with you tring to confuse the real cause of the
sharks
> attacks.
Scott,
Apparently you don't have the technical know-how to watch the video I
posted. Had you seen it, you could "easily" see that I can take anyone to
the pier, and show them chum being poured directly into the swimming
area--not even 30 feet from kids swimming. I can also easily show ANYONE,
that boats come in close to the pier all night, and every morning, because
of the chum slick and fish activity near it. We have underwater video of
sharks near a chum ball--and they are lethargic, and we have underwater
video of sharks near a struggling fish---and they are frenzied. Most of the
leading Shark scientists AGREE with me on this, that the surf fishing and
pier fishing is FAR MORE DANGEROUS to swimmers than any off shore shark
feed. And most importantly, they agree with my premise that the chum and
struggling fish represent a huge threat at these swimming beaches.
To send this point home, Abernethy is about to start doing shark dives right
off the Lake Worth pier, and he will not use ANY chum or fish, becuase the
pier and surf fishing does more than he ever could to bring sharks in. He
has divers lined up to do this. Scott, if this is beyond your meager
fisherman's intellect, then come out here and do a dive by the pier with
us--see for your self. I'll have Abernethy put you on the boat for free---If
needed, I would even get a hotel for you. The more people sympathetic to
fishing, that we can show the truth to, the better.
Dan Volker
Popeye
>Date: 2/1/02 6:36 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <a3duja$jg...@eccws12.dearborn.ford.com>
>
>Dan,
> This is getting scary, I'm in agreement with you. It's about personal
>choice. No one is forcing anyone to go on a shark feeding dive. If everyone
>felt this way there wouldn't be shark feeding dives. Apparently not
>everyone feels this way.
>Paul
>
Bingo!
Popeye
Chicks dig scars.
mike gray
So neither of you would object if I lived next door and fed the local
wildlife from my back yard? What's yer favorite? Coons? Possums?
(nothing changes people's attitudes about possums like having a few
hundred gather to feed!) Those pretty Norwegian brown rats?
m
m
Popeye
>So neither of you would object if I lived next door and fed the local
>wildlife from my back yard? What's yer favorite? Coons? Possums?
>(nothing changes people's attitudes about possums like having a few
>hundred gather to feed!) Those pretty Norwegian brown rats?
>
>m
>
We already -do- that here! Of course, we're just trying to lure them in...
Popeye
Chicks dig scars.
mike gray
>
> Apparently you don't have the technical know-how to watch the video I
> posted. Had you seen it, you could "easily" see that I can take anyone to
> the pier, and show them chum being poured directly into the swimming
> area--not even 30 feet from kids swimming. I can also easily show ANYONE,
> that boats come in close to the pier all night, and every morning, because
> of the chum slick and fish activity near it. We have underwater video of
> sharks near a chum ball--and they are lethargic, and we have underwater
> video of sharks near a struggling fish---and they are frenzied. Most of the
> leading Shark scientists AGREE with me on this, that the surf fishing and
> pier fishing is FAR MORE DANGEROUS to swimmers than any off shore shark
> feed. And most importantly, they agree with my premise that the chum and
> struggling fish represent a huge threat at these swimming beaches.
> To send this point home, Abernethy is about to start doing shark dives right
> off the Lake Worth pier, and he will not use ANY chum or fish, becuase the
> pier and surf fishing does more than he ever could to bring sharks in. He
> has divers lined up to do this. Scott, if this is beyond your meager
> fisherman's intellect, then come out here and do a dive by the pier with
> us--see for your self. I'll have Abernethy put you on the boat for free---If
> needed, I would even get a hotel for you. The more people sympathetic to
> fishing, that we can show the truth to, the better.
All very nice, but totally unrelated to the feeding ban.
The pro-feeders keep talking about shark attacks, chumming on public
piers, fat tourists from New Jersey torturing fish, yadda yadda yadda.
The Commission's concern had nothing to do with any of it.
The anti-feeders could not care less about shark attacks, which have
nothing to do with feeding.
At the meetings I attended, the feeders yammered on and on and on about
this topic, about which no one gave a rusty rat's ass. If the feeders
had not spent all their time with this red herring, they might have had
more success.
The Commission banned feeding because they felt it was not appropriate
to feed wild animals in the wild environment. Period.
All the feeders have to do is build a big pool, put some sharks and
morays and turkles and grunts in it and charge tourists to dive in the
tank with the animals.
m
Dan Volker
Dan V.
"mike gray" <omi...@net.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C5B09E9...@net.att.net...
"Greg The Divemaster" Holt
to feed wild animals in the wild environment. Period.
(Unless you kill it)
That's what the Commission said publicly at the last meeting (probably
because of legal reasons) and then spouted off about public safety concerns
to the media. (Makes it look like they are doing something to protect the
public from these awful shark attacks) The more you blab, the more you
expose your ignorance regarding the politics surrounding this issue.
"mike gray" <omi...@net.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C5B0DB4...@net.att.net...
Paul Schilter
No, not if your backyard was remote enough. But than I wouldn't mind if you
drove 10 miles over the speed limit either unless it was icy and you were in
a school zone. It's all a matter of context. What, four operators in the
whole state are going to throw the ecology out of whack? I see a lot of
similarity between this shark feeding issue and abortion. The debate will
never end. If your on one side of the issue it's not likely you'll be swayed
by the other side. Without empirical evidence to settle the matter I say
keep it personal choice.
Paul
"mike gray" <omi...@net.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C5B09E9...@net.att.net...
H. NED Huntzinger
>
> >You actually think people will get into the feeding business to replicate
> the data you say the feederes have collected???
>
> No...I just said the data is available...
Wrong: you said more than that. What an unprofessional twisting of
words by an alleged "Journalist".
What you also claimed was: "[and]...the diversity might surprise you."
(Citation: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:49:13 GMT)
So "surprise" me already with the information you alluded to, "MISTER"
Journalist.
[30+ useless lines snipped]
I see you flunked JOURNALIST'S EDITING 101, too.
-hh
H. NED Huntzinger
>
> to feed wild animals in the wild environment. Period.
>
> (Unless you kill it)
The problem is that if you use any cumming by fisherman as the
justification to not ban shark feeding, what you're really doing is
advocating the position that 2 wrongs make a right.
Is this the level of your personal morals?
-hh
PS: [another 50+ irrelevant lines deleted]
H. NED Huntzinger
>
> Don't know who Bunky is, however, it appears you've figured it out!
>
> All shark divers have been brainwashed and implanted with a micro chip so
> these operators can monitor and control their every move.
So...how many of these paid shark dives have you gone on, Greg?
-hh
H. NED Huntzinger
>
> Dan,
> This is getting scary, I'm in agreement with you. It's about personal
> choice. No one is forcing anyone to go on a shark feeding dive. If everyone
> felt this way there wouldn't be shark feeding dives. Apparently not
> everyone feels this way.
With personal choice comes responsibility.
When individuals become irresponsible, they can affect others, and those
others have the right to get the irresponsible behavour changed.
The problem is when a broad-brushed approach also affects those those
doing essentially the same thing, but who were indeed acting responsibly
all along.
Is this an injustice? To a degree. But what it really is is an
example of the industry failing to adequately regulate itself, so an
outside govornmental entity stepped in and did it.
You reap what you sow.
-hh
"Greg The Divemaster" Holt
outlaw all the other activities first, then I can at least accept the
decision...eventhough I may still not agree with it.
Thanks, but I know what I'm really doing and can do so without your
assistance...;-)
"H. NED Huntzinger" <{rm_to_reply}hum...@webspan.net> wrote in message
news:3C5BF5...@webspan.net...
mike gray
>
> Mike...Aren't you the guy who is feeding the Century Villagers ?? :-)
> Dan V.
Wild.
Life.
But when ya feed em, ya get sexual favors in return.
m
mike gray
>
> The debate will
> never end. If your on one side of the issue it's not likely you'll be swayed
> by the other side. Without empirical evidence to settle the matter I say
> keep it personal choice.
True story: a year ago I really didn't care one way of the other, though
it does irritate me to get mugged by fish that are used to being fed.
Then I went to one of the Commission hearings. The pro-feeders'
presentations were what made me an anti-feeder.
m
mike gray
>
> Paul Schilter wrote:
> >
> > Dan,
> > This is getting scary, I'm in agreement with you. It's about personal
> > choice. No one is forcing anyone to go on a shark feeding dive. If everyone
> > felt this way there wouldn't be shark feeding dives. Apparently not
> > everyone feels this way.
>
> With personal choice comes responsibility.
Yup. And what has been left out of the ScubaRadio version is the fact
that the Commssion offered the feeders permits to feed in restricted
locations. The feeders refused that compromise, demanding the right to
feed anywhere anytime. They ended up with the ban.
If the feeders had accepted this compromise, they'd now be training the
animals to eat garbage and I'd have nothing to rail against.
m
m
mike gray
>
> >The Commission banned feeding because they felt it was not appropriate
> to feed wild animals in the wild environment. Period.
>
> (Unless you kill it)
(entirely separate issue)
> That's what the Commission said publicly at the last meeting (probably
> because of legal reasons) and then spouted off about public safety concerns
> to the media.
Wrongo, boyo. That's what the Commission said from the very first. And
it was the feeders that played to the media. I don't remember a single
TV spot with anyone from the Commission, but Abernethy was on every
night at 5, right after the feminine hygiene commercial, yammering on
and on about his own agenda.
And the newspaper articles are still available. Read em!
Woops, sorry. Have someone read em to ya.
m
mike gray
And BTW, the newspaper articles and Commission statements were posted to
this ng, so you won't have to go to hunt down a journalist that actually
maintains files.
m
Lee Bell
> No...what I'm saying is that this rule discriminates against divers. If
you
> outlaw all the other activities first, then I can at least accept the
> decision...eventhough I may still not agree with it.
I'm a diver, Hugh is a diver, Mike is a diver. There are lots of divers
here. As I recall, the last time this came up, the vote went significantly
against shark feeding. It's not discrimination when we, the divers, are the
ones supporting the ban.
Lee
Greg The Divemaster
The only "compromise" the Commission staff recommended effectively made
every shark dive in Florida illegal. Was that a compromise or just another
way to ban it without officially banning it? This was discussed extensively
on ScubaRadio.
I could care less that you don't like shark diving, but you have your facts
all screwed up.
"mike gray" <omi...@net.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C5C4F1B...@net.att.net...
Bob Paza
you Floridians should decide for yourselves. However, it seems to me
too broad.
1.) "
"Greg The Divemaster" Holt wrote:
>> >The Commission banned feeding because they felt it was not appropriate
> to feed wild animals in the wild environment. Period.
>
> (Unless you kill it)
OK let's ban everyones bird feeders, and no helping starving wild life
out west either.( I've seen film of air drops to deer and moose etc
during esp. bad winters), no feeding squirrels or chipmunks. In fact
lets make it illegal to get close to any wildlife. I believe the
government is overstepping their authority big time with this....just my
opinion.
2.) " Scott wrote
Maybe someone can tell me why it is that the -feeding- of wild turtles,
porpoises, manatees, and alligators is not permitted but that selfish, "do
nothing", "freeloading" dive operators are permitted to "molest, harrass and
interfere with", sharks?
Well if the Commission singled out the sharks for due cause and after
due scientific research that concluded the feeding was definitely a
public safety issue and didn't make it illegal for a individual diver to
feed a few harmless fish
Most of the posts have concentrated on the shark feeding and the
fact it's commercial. Does anyone else oppose this due to it's broad sweep?
Greg The Divemaster
rec.scuba?...(was that 10 people surveyed...20?)...yet I'm the one who's not
credible. Good one Lee...;-)
Regardless, the question should be....Do you believe a ban of shark feeding
dives is necessary?...Not whether you believe shark feeding is good or bad.
"Lee Bell" <lee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:a3i0va$3u4$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
Greg The Divemaster
exclusively on the unsubstantiated crap posted by some goofball on
rec.scuba....;-)
"mike gray" <omi...@net.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C5C5612...@net.att.net...
mike gray
>
> I guess I and rest of the world watch more TV as opposed to relying
> exclusively on the unsubstantiated crap posted by some goofball on
> rec.scuba....;-)
Yup, you betchya, watch TV to avoid unsubstantiated crap.
Or listen to ScubaRadio, the artful melding of Beavis & Butthead with
Geraldo Rivera's discovery of Al Capone's treasure.
mike gray
>
> OK let's ban everyones bird feeders, and no helping starving wild life
> out west either.( I've seen film of air drops to deer and moose etc
> during esp. bad winters), no feeding squirrels or chipmunks.
Sure, I'll go along with that. They used to drop feed into the deer
yards in Maine, too, until they realized that it increased starvation
(!) and disease. And anyone that feeds anything but Warfarin to tree
rats should be shot!
> In fact
> lets make it illegal to get close to any wildlife.
That's a whole different issue. Getting close to hummingbirds is OK.
Slaughtering them with cane sugar mixes just to get close is not.
> I believe the
> government is overstepping their authority big time with this....just my
> opinion.
That's what the gator poachers said. Unfortunately, government has to
step in when it becomes a business that destroys a natural resource.
m
Greg The Divemaster
and fortune. Thanks...;-)
"mike gray" <omi...@net.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C5CA656...@net.att.net...
Bob Paza
Jason O'Rourke
>With personal choice comes responsibility.
>
>When individuals become irresponsible, they can affect others, and those
>others have the right to get the irresponsible behavour changed.
>
>The problem is when a broad-brushed approach also affects those those
>doing essentially the same thing, but who were indeed acting responsibly
>all along.
>
>Is this an injustice? To a degree. But what it really is is an
>example of the industry failing to adequately regulate itself, so an
>outside govornmental entity stepped in and did it.
>
>You reap what you sow.
Sorry, Hugh, I can't agree with this. Shortly translated, you're saying
that the actions of individuals can be held against a group, be it
bikers gangs or murderous anti abortion protesters. Their actions should
not allow society to ban motorcycles or the freedom to protest. A group
cannot self regulate renegades in a free society.
I don't think the state of Florida offered a compelling reason for this
restriction, and so it doesn't matter to me that some of these operators
acted like jackasses.
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com
mike gray
>
> Care to share this "permit" compromise you describe...it's BS.
>
> The only "compromise" the Commission staff recommended effectively made
> every shark dive in Florida illegal. Was that a compromise or just another
> way to ban it without officially banning it? This was discussed extensively
> on ScubaRadio.
>
> I could care less that you don't like shark diving, but you have your facts
> all screwed up.
FACT: The Commission held its first workshop on the subject in October,
1999.
FACT: The Commission proposed to regulate feeding in February, 2000.
FACT: Between February, 2000, and March, 2000, (a) Bob Harris, an
attorney and registered lobbyist for PADI, DEMA and other industry
interests launched a massive campaign to thwart the Commission, and (b)
PADI announced that its 501(c)3 Project Aware would lobby against
regulation.
FACT: In September, 2000, the lobbyists provided free food, "beverages",
and bus rides to the public meeting on feeding. At that meeting, the
Commission determined to DEFER TO THE DIVE INDUSTRY TO ESTABLISH FEEDING
GUIDELINES WITH INPUT FROM THE ANTI-FEEDING FOLKS.
That's not BS, bubba, that's public record.
FACT: Regina Franklin, Exec Director of DEMA, John Stewart, Prex of Dive
Marketing International, and BOB Harris, aforementioned lawyer/lobbyist
for PADI and DEMA boasted at the end of the meeting that "the shark
feeding battle is over", and Harris called the meeting, "the most
important victory for the dive industry in 15 years". They ALL then
refused to communicate with the Marine Safety Group, which the
Commission intended to represent the anti-feeders in drawing up
guidelines.
FACT: That's the point at which the Commission realized that the feeders
were pretty much a bunch of egotistical assholes with big budgets and no
respect whatsoever for the commission.
FACT: If the feeders had kept their big mouths shut, worked with the MSG
to come up with some token guidelines (14 (b) 26: "live babies will not
be fed to sharks") the feeders would still be fucking up shark diets
while the easily impressed ooh and aah.
OPINION: This is proof positive that the feeders are clearly too
brain-dead to be escorting themselves to the toilet, much less escorting
excitable folks to a shark feed.
FACT: Deerfield Beach, Lighthouse Point, Hillsboro Beach, Delray Beach,
and Coconut Creek each ban feeding and each asks the state to institute
a statewide ban.
FACT: May, 2001, the Commission meets again, and the feeders (still
without the required input from the anti-feeders) present a set of
guidelines that were so incredibly stupid as to be embarrassing to the
whole process, including a PADI "Shark Dive" specialty.
FACT: That's the point at which the Commission realized that the feeders
were not only egotistical assholes with big budgets and no respect
whatsoever for the commission, they were incredibly stooooopid.
FACT: Johnny Cochran raises the liability issue of feeding sharks "in
close proximity to beach areas."
OPINION: This whole slimy thing just can't get any more bizarre.
FACT: Yes it can. in August, Rodales' Dave Taylor sends to almost every
media outlet in the US an attack on the professional and personal
reputation of Bill Alevizon, scientific advisor to MSG. Reputable media
check the story, find out it's bullshit, and the ploy backfires with
Taylor getting ripped in non-diving media from coast to coast.
FACT: Later that same month, Reps Garcia and Justice, realizing that the
Commission was too scared of the PADI/DEMA and other industry lawyers to
act, co-sponsored a bill to ban feeding in state waters.
FACT: Meanwhile, back in Tallahassee, the Commission puts together its
own guidelines to ALLOW feeding.
FACT: In September, the Commission holds yet another public meeting, at
which it presents the Commission's guidelines to ALLOW feeding. Bob
Harris rejects the guidelines outright as "financially unattractive".
The Commission, smarting from national criticism and hurt by Harris'
"Fuck you" message, gets even. It votes a complete ban. Rodales runs an
editorial calling the Commission's vote a government conspiracy to get
"control over diving".
OPINION: This whole slimy thing just can't get any more bizarre.
FACT: Yes it can. Spencer Slate and Jim Abernethy send a long rant to
the Commission that includes the now classic, "The Commission's
sacrifice of our way of life, by voting for the ban on 6 September was a
threat to the freedom of every American. We will not stand by and let
this ban happen any more than we will let those perpetrators escape
punishment for the heinous crimes of 11 Sept."
FACT: We're bombing the terrorists.
FACT: There's a ban on feeding marine critters, effective January 1,
2002.
And those, my friend, are the facts.
m
mike gray
>
> I think your last line shows we agree in part, at least. When the
> government needs to step in to protect natural resources or the public
> safety as determined by hard facts then you get no arguement from me.
> But, correct me if I'm misinformed, the regulations deny all divers,
> not just commercial interests, permission to feed any life known to
> man in the ocean, within the States bounderies unless used as bait to
> kill it. That just don't sound right. Sounds like something some
> a**hole up here in Massachusetts might try. Probably will now that
> there is a precedent.
Yup, yer right, the commercial interests have spoiled it for all of us.
m
OldSalt
OldSalt
>Well... Not all divers are for the ban. Being that it's a state ban,
>you Floridians should decide for yourselves. However, it seems to me
>too broad.
It's really past my bed time but I'll try once more. I'm a diver and
I'm against shark feeding. If that means banning chumming from the
piers too, then by all means, do it. Chumming near ppl swimming
doesn't make any sense to me to start with. We don't allow feeding
bears in the parks because of attacks. Why allow it with sharks when
to do so will ultimately teach them the same dangerous behavior that
has caused us to 'put down' or try to relocate bears ?? And those
who say that it won't teach the sharks this type of behavior are only
kidding themselves.
Popeye
>OPINION: This is proof positive that the feeders are clearly too
>brain-dead to be escorting themselves to the toilet, much less escorting
>excitable folks to a shark feed.
<snip>
Perfect.
My favorite part of the whole thing is that reactive legislation came home to
roost on the feeders, with truckloads of warning, and now they are squalling
like a mashed cat. Us gun totin types have been watching these same morons
erode our sport/hobby/rights for years with emotional, baseless, factless,
lie-filled-bullshit-based reactive legislation, and these folks (feeders) had
every opportunity to get involved but took the intellectual and moral high
ground and got their asses handed to them in a hat.
I think feeding large predators is stupid simply from a basic common sense
stand. Doing it on a commercial level is farm animal stupid.
Try and drum up support for a bear, coyote or wolf feeding charter biz, and see
how that flies. Just sounds stupid, doesnt it?
>FACT: Yes it can. Spencer Slate and Jim Abernethy send a long rant to
>the Commission that includes the now classic, "The Commission's
>sacrifice of our way of life, by voting for the ban on 6 September was a
>threat to the freedom of every American. We will not stand by and let
>this ban happen any more than we will let those perpetrators escape
>punishment for the heinous crimes of 11 Sept."
Geez. I really dont feel a lot of my freedom evaporating, as a matter of fact,
I dont feel the ban has imposed upon any freedom I have or can think of. But,
for attempting to use the September 11 mass murder to stir emotional response
in their favor makes them worthy of the "Dumb Fuck of the Year" award.
Shark feeding is a way of life? Gimme a break.
Scott
(from Popeyes computer)
Dan Volker
I understand you don't like shark feeding, but that's no reason to post
"LIES" to rec.scuba and label these as FACTs.
You have succeeded in getting many real FACTS in here, but with the LIES
that you have masquerading as FACTS, you hurt your own credibility, once
again.
> FACT: In September, 2000, the lobbyists provided free food, "beverages",
> and bus rides to the public meeting on feeding. At that meeting, the
> Commission determined to DEFER TO THE DIVE INDUSTRY TO ESTABLISH FEEDING
> GUIDELINES WITH INPUT FROM THE ANTI-FEEDING FOLKS.
>
> That's not BS, bubba, that's public record.
You completely ignore the marketing of "FEAR" along A1A in the Lauderdale
area, where Marine Safety Group memebers or friends, went around telling
condo owners that their beaches would be unsafe for swimming, due to shark
feeds many miles away. You further ignored the media hype the MSG morons
created about the "Killer Sharks invading Beaches". In this atmosphere of
contrived fear, public disinformation with media enforcement, and kneejerk
reactions by nervous politicians, dive operations were being blamed for many
things completely unrelated to shark feeding.
You ignore the entire impetus for this was "shark attacks at beaches". You
ignore the public being hoodwinked into believing that shark feeds on 60
foot reefs, somehow was "sold" to the public, as the cause of sharks being
near shore----that this has them "looking for people". You ignore the FACT
that sharks follow baitfish in to the shore area, and collect where the
baitfish collect. You ignore the lies and deception of the Marine Safety
Group, and suddenly find it useful to represent them as a "rational"
opposing side in this discussion with the puppets on the commision. You
ignore that a number Marine Safety Group members are in fact, commerical
spearfisherman, and have been guilty of illegal harvest at least once in the
last year---these are "NOT" guys who care about the environment--they are
guys who want to protect commercial and sport fishing from No Take Zones and
divers. And guys like you Mike, are what they were counting on.
>
> FACT: That's the point at which the Commission realized that the feeders
> were pretty much a bunch of egotistical assholes with big budgets and no
> respect whatsoever for the commission.
The commision deserves ZERO respect, whatsoever. In my opinion, they are the
worst form of paid for politicians, and have showed again and again, that
they can stare down plain scientific facts, and refute them with "old wives
tales" and the deaf ears of "graft". If the dive industry was not so poor
and incapable of mounting a real fight, it would be insane not to have each
member of the commision have their records checked, to show what they vote
for, and who they are recieving kickbacks from. I am confident it would
show Sport Fishing owns these scum suckers, and I refuse to acknowledge any
right of law to such a corrupt group.
I will enjoy any opportunity I have to uncover more truths about them, in
the coming months.
>
> FACT: If the feeders had kept their big mouths shut, worked with the MSG
> to come up with some token guidelines (14 (b) 26: "live babies will not
> be fed to sharks") the feeders would still be fucking up shark diets
> while the easily impressed ooh and aah.
So Mike, do you ask a Child Molester how kids should get home from school,
so that he is less likely to feel the need to rape them? The MSG is no
better than a bunch of Child Molesters, based on the rape of the environment
they are fighting for, and the level of deception they are willing to
undertake.
>
> FACT: Deerfield Beach, Lighthouse Point, Hillsboro Beach, Delray Beach,
> and Coconut Creek each ban feeding and each asks the state to institute
> a statewide ban.
And of course, you don't menton the "campaign" of terror led by MSG, on
sharks eating condo owner kids, if shark feeds were allowed to continue
here.
And yet, Surf Fishing and Pier Fishing RIGHT NEXT TO SWIMMERS, goes on
without Challenge. Anyone who accepts this without a problem is a moron.
The chum in the water by the pier is constant---fish are hacked up and
cleaned, the blood and pieces hosed right into the swimming water all day
long, and you have struggling fish on lines, frenzying any shark which has
been brought in by baitfish or chumslicks. I have good video of this
happening, and no pathetic little lying scum fisherman is going to refute
this. I am close to becoming pissed off enough to make this my "mission in
life" to outlaw beach side fishing ( surf fishing and pier-fishing)....Keep
telling your lies Mike, and you will end up helping to outlaw
fishing---because of the injustice that lies like your own, are creating.
>
> FACT: May, 2001, the Commission meets again, and the feeders (still
> without the required input from the anti-feeders) present a set of
> guidelines that were so incredibly stupid as to be embarrassing to the
> whole process, including a PADI "Shark Dive" specialty.
Not a fact....again, the MSG are like child molestors, and deserve no rights
whatsoever..but this is unrelated to the lie you have here--you have no
right to say that the guidelines proposed by the feeders was anything less
than appropriate. Your "calling this a "FACT", "makes it a lie".
>
> FACT: That's the point at which the Commission realized that the feeders
> were not only egotistical assholes with big budgets and no respect
> whatsoever for the commission, they were incredibly stooooopid.
The commision are scum. The budget has been tiny, but this may change.
>
> FACT: Johnny Cochran raises the liability issue of feeding sharks "in
> close proximity to beach areas."
Then lets talk about outlawing any fishing within 2 miles of a beach. People
caught surf fishing will need to be thrown in jail.
Fisherman in boats, that fish off a reef near a beach, will need their boats
confiscated and a long jail sentence, for lives of the beachgoers they are
placing in jeopardy.
>
>
> FACT: Later that same month, Reps Garcia and Justice, realizing that the
> Commission was too scared of the PADI/DEMA and other industry lawyers to
> act, co-sponsored a bill to ban feeding in state waters.
Blatantly misleading people again Mike---the two "Reps" should have been
called --"reps for the fishing industry".
>
> FACT: Meanwhile, back in Tallahassee, the Commission puts together its
> own guidelines to ALLOW feeding.
>
Fact---some of us will NOT stand for corruption of this magnitude.
>
> FACT: There's a ban on feeding marine critters, effective January 1,
> 2002.
Bullshit. Fishing boats, fisherman on beaches, and fisherman on piers will
keep right on feeding the fish. The only groups that LOSE from this are the
Swimmers at beaches ( you know the general public--clearly not very
important to the commision, due to misrepresentations by guys like Mike
Gray) and Divers--who are having their choices taken away by fisherman and
crooked politicians....and by you Mike.
>
> And those, my friend, are the facts.
>
> m
Again, Mike does not know the difference between a fact and a lie.
Dan Volker
Dan Volker
And the commercial interests are the fishing lobbies, with the help of guys
like Mike Gray.... Through the divisiveness people like Mike Gray bring to
diving, we have an even smaller lobbying group to stand up for the "rights"
of divers. We are a "user group" of a natural resource, and guys like Mike
are helping user groups which "compete" with us, to strip away our rights in
this natural resource. And of course, there's that big bonus Mike will get
when the next Jessie Arbogast tragedy occurs, and thanks to people like Mike
who are happy to ignore the role of fish feeding by fisherman, and
struggling fish on lines in swimming areas, more attacks like this will
happen. And then, with Mike's help, the commercial netters and long liners
will be allowed to start up shark fisheries again, to strip away all sharks
from our coastal waters , thus "protecting" our beaches. Yes Mike, you and
these shark fisherman will be the "true heroes".
Dan Volker
mike gray
>
> And the commercial interests are the fishing lobbies, with the help of guys
> like Mike Gray.... Through the divisiveness people like Mike Gray bring to
> diving, we have an even smaller lobbying group to stand up for the "rights"
> of divers. We are a "user group" of a natural resource, and guys like Mike
> are helping user groups which "compete" with us, to strip away our rights in
> this natural resource. And of course, there's that big bonus Mike will get
> when the next Jessie Arbogast tragedy occurs, and thanks to people like Mike
> who are happy to ignore the role of fish feeding by fisherman, and
> struggling fish on lines in swimming areas, more attacks like this will
> happen. And then, with Mike's help, the commercial netters and long liners
> will be allowed to start up shark fisheries again, to strip away all sharks
> from our coastal waters , thus "protecting" our beaches. Yes Mike, you and
> these shark fisherman will be the "true heroes".
Red herring alert!
If you want to restrict the fisheries, the anti-feeders will be first in
line to help. How about a no-take zone from Jupiter to Key West out
three miles?
m
Dennis (Icarus)
Hash: SHA1
"Dan Volker" <d...@sfdj.com> wrote in message
news:poa78.50626$Up4.2...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
<snip>
>
> >
> > FACT: If the feeders had kept their big mouths shut, worked with
> > the MSG to come up with some token guidelines (14 (b) 26: "live
> > babies will not be fed to sharks") the feeders would still be
> > fucking up shark diets while the easily impressed ooh and aah.
>
> So Mike, do you ask a Child Molester how kids should get home from
> school, so that he is less likely to feel the need to rape them?
> The MSG is no better than a bunch of Child Molesters, based on the
> rape of the environment they are fighting for, and the level of
> deception they are willing to undertake.
>
<snip>
>
> Not a fact....again, the MSG are like child molestors, and deserve
> no rights whatsoever..but this is unrelated to the lie you have
> here--you have no right to say that the guidelines proposed by the
> feeders was anything less than appropriate. Your "calling this a
> "FACT", "makes it a lie".
>
<snip>
>
>
>
> Dan Volker
>
>
>
Dan,
In much the same manner as the person who said "We will not stand
by and let
this ban happen any more than we will let those perpetrators escape
punishment for the heinous crimes of 11 Sept.", saying these folks
are no better than child molesters really really undercuts your
argument IMO.
Dennis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPF06QE4YKk28aVCcEQIrlgCdHbCo3WxR1fiPGbOzh71qi+wsdKwAoMrw
IC10DDZi07yGezPol0AdCgRw
=3hnQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dan Volker
anyway---spearfishing for personal consumption is fine, I even like to do
this---but too many commercial spearfisherman are underwater rapists. One
can you say about a diver who shoots several tons of fish to be sold for cat
food. ) is more often than not, an environmental rapist. They know better,
and do it anyway. The MSG group not only are commercial, they have been
arrested for illegal harvests.
Suddenly, the MSG is being "painted" as a small group of
"environmentalists", who are concerned for the public welfare. The only
concerns they have, are how much money they can make from shooting fish.
Sorry Dennis, I am afraid I have to discuss these guys in the same sentence
with child molesters.
As for 9-11, I make no comparison, in any way. I don't know what Slate was
thinking when he wrote that e-mail, but it was terribly self-involved and
myopic.
So for now, I will say this thread is absolutely insignificant, in
comparison to the threats and the injustices committed on 9-11.
But we are on a scuba forum, and the discussion is about threats to
beach-goers/swimmers, as well as policies which we are being asked to allow
moral criminals ( the MSG) to assist in drafting. I don't like it, and I
won't sit by and let Mike idolize this scum.
Dan Volker
"Dennis (Icarus)" <nojun...@ever.invalid> wrote in message
news:u5qeuol...@corp.supernews.com...
Paul Schilter
OPINION: Seems this is more of a pissing match between those against and
those for than an ecological issue.
Paul
"mike gray" <omi...@net.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C5CBF97...@net.att.net...
Dan Volker
>
> If you want to restrict the fisheries, the anti-feeders will be first in
> line to help. How about a no-take zone from Jupiter to Key West out
> three miles?
>
>
> m
I could live with the no-take zone out three miles---from Jupiter to Key
West. Hopefully, this would destroy the fishing industry. I can still blue
water spearfish.
Your heroes in the marine safety group, would NEVER support No Take Zones on
our reefs, lot less all along the coast.
The "anti-feeders" may very well support the big no-take zones, but now you
are talking about real environmentalists--not your buddies in the MSG who
are pretending to be environmentalists.
Dan Volker
mike gray
>
> Mike,
> I understand you don't like shark feeding, but that's no reason to post
> "LIES" to rec.scuba and label these as FACTs.
> You have succeeded in getting many real FACTS in here, but with the LIES
> that you have masquerading as FACTS, you hurt your own credibility, once
> again.
>
> > FACT: In September, 2000, the lobbyists provided free food, "beverages",
> > and bus rides to the public meeting on feeding. At that meeting, the
> > Commission determined to DEFER TO THE DIVE INDUSTRY TO ESTABLISH FEEDING
> > GUIDELINES WITH INPUT FROM THE ANTI-FEEDING FOLKS.
> >
> > That's not BS, bubba, that's public record.
>
> You completely ignore the marketing of "FEAR" along A1A in the Lauderdale
> area, where Marine Safety Group memebers or friends, went around telling
> condo owners that their beaches would be unsafe for swimming, due to shark
> feeds many miles away. You further ignored the media hype the MSG morons
> created about the "Killer Sharks invading Beaches". In this atmosphere of
> contrived fear, public disinformation with media enforcement, and kneejerk
> reactions by nervous politicians, dive operations were being blamed for many
> things completely unrelated to shark feeding.
That did indeed happen (remember my post about the sharks attacking the
condos???).
Both sides of the issue acted in ways that would make most marine life
embarrassed to be our ancestors.
But that does not change the fact that the feeders had chance after
chance to save their "way of life" and blew it.
> You ignore the entire impetus for this was "shark attacks at beaches". You
> ignore the public being hoodwinked into believing that shark feeds on 60
> foot reefs, somehow was "sold" to the public, as the cause of sharks being
> near shore----that this has them "looking for people". You ignore the FACT
> that sharks follow baitfish in to the shore area, and collect where the
> baitfish collect. You ignore the lies and deception of the Marine Safety
> Group, and suddenly find it useful to represent them as a "rational"
> opposing side in this discussion with the puppets on the commision. You
> ignore that a number Marine Safety Group members are in fact, commerical
> spearfisherman, and have been guilty of illegal harvest at least once in the
> last year---these are "NOT" guys who care about the environment--they are
> guys who want to protect commercial and sport fishing from No Take Zones and
> divers. And guys like you Mike, are what they were counting on.
Neither side was rational. I won't argue with ya there.
But I can deal with irrational. What pissed me off about the whole
affair was that neither side was willing, or even able, to discuss the
central issue, that being the concept of feeding wildlife in wild areas
for entertainment. Add to that a weak minded, weak willed Commission and
the whole show was a farce.
But that does not make me a liar.
The anti-feeders yammered on about huge gangs of rogue sharks chasing
fat tourists down the streets.
The feeders yammered on about preserving the American way through
friendship with our denticled friends.
Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus!!! Kill em all.
We all have our biases. So yer asshole buddies with Abernethy and
constantly dabble in the commercial side of diving. So I'm a schizoid
that talks to tunicates, and they talk back, and I want the reefs to
remain wild.
But that does not make me a liar, either.
This thread started out as another one-sided attack on the anti-feeders,
and that side was presented with the same lack of objectivity that has
characterized the whole slimy affair.
What the tunicates told me yesterday morning was, "Make sure our side is
heard!"
And I just do what the tunicates tell me to do.
> > FACT: That's the point at which the Commission realized that the feeders
> > were pretty much a bunch of egotistical assholes with big budgets and no
> > respect whatsoever for the commission.
>
> The commision deserves ZERO respect, whatsoever. In my opinion, they are the
> worst form of paid for politicians,
Yeah, and they were getting paid by DEMA and PADI until the industry
humiliated them in public.
> > FACT: If the feeders had kept their big mouths shut, worked with the MSG
> > to come up with some token guidelines (14 (b) 26: "live babies will not
> > be fed to sharks") the feeders would still be fucking up shark diets
> > while the easily impressed ooh and aah.
>
> So Mike, do you ask a Child Molester how kids should get home from school,
> so that he is less likely to feel the need to rape them? The MSG is no
> better than a bunch of Child Molesters, based on the rape of the environment
> they are fighting for, and the level of deception they are willing to
> undertake.
No, this was more like getting the child molesters from the north side
of the street together with the child molesters from the south side of
the street so they could continue to molest the occasional child without
further interference.
> I am close to becoming pissed off enough to make this my "mission in
> life" to outlaw beach side fishing ( surf fishing and pier-fishing)....Keep
> telling your lies Mike, and you will end up helping to outlaw
> fishing---because of the injustice that lies like your own, are creating.
Now yer making my efforts worthwhile!
> Not a fact....again, the MSG are like child molestors, and deserve no rights
> whatsoever..but this is unrelated to the lie you have here--you have no
> right to say that the guidelines proposed by the feeders was anything less
> than appropriate. Your "calling this a "FACT", "makes it a lie".
They were not appropriate because (1) the Commission had required the
MSG - which is dominated by idiots - be included in the formulation of
the guidelines, and (2) the feeders' - dominated by arrogant theives -
guidelines were a self-serving joke that was too silly to be funny. Even
the feeders couldn't keep a straight face.
> > FACT: That's the point at which the Commission realized that the feeders
> > were not only egotistical assholes with big budgets and no respect
> > whatsoever for the commission, they were incredibly stooooopid.
> The commision are scum. The budget has been tiny, but this may change.
> Then lets talk about outlawing any fishing within 2 miles of a beach. People
> caught surf fishing will need to be thrown in jail.
> Fisherman in boats, that fish off a reef near a beach, will need their boats
> confiscated and a long jail sentence, for lives of the beachgoers they are
> placing in jeopardy.
Sounds good to me, but I'd make it three miles.
> Again, Mike does not know the difference between a fact and a lie.
When both sides have only lies as their defense, the lies are facts.
m
mike gray
Is my world turning upside down????
Dan Volker
You got me back into a good mood :-)
Dan V
"mike gray" <omi...@net.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C5D467D...@net.att.net...
H. NED Huntzinger
> >
> >You reap what you sow.
>
> Sorry, Hugh, I can't agree with this. Shortly translated, you're saying
> that the actions of individuals can be held against a group, be it
> bikers gangs or murderous anti abortion protesters.
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough: I'm not saying if it is right or wrong
to do this. What I'm saying is that it does happen.
Its a warning to both the renegade individuals, as well as the peer
group who might have some influence over their behavour - - that they
collectively run the risk of all of them being affected, even if this is
morally wrong.
On the personal opinion front, I'm not a legal expert but IMO, PADI's
"Aware" program should lose their tax exempt status because of they're
really acting as a political lobbying group in this instance. YMMV.
But if that happens, its their own damn fault.
-hh
Lee Bell
> I guess I and rest of the world watch more TV as opposed to relying
> exclusively on the unsubstantiated crap posted by some goofball on
> rec.scuba....;-)
A very good point. I, and the rest of the world think that educational
television broadcasts are a much better source of information, with far less
adverse impact on the environment and it's inhabitants than the offerings of
those who would profit from showing people, first hand, how sharks DO NOT
naturally behave.
I, and the rest of this part of world are quite certain that watching TV of
any sort, reading and posting to goodballs on Rec.Scuba, and just about any
other use of time is more productive than time spent listening to Scuba
Radio.
Lee
H. NED Huntzinger
>
> outlaw all the other activities first, then I can at least accept the
> decision...eventhough I may still not agree with it.
But the fisherman also have the right to say:
"You have to outlaw all of the other activities first, then I can accept
the decision."
You immediately end up with a loop with an end state, but no beginning.
Now what are you going to to, Einstein?
IMO, your personal set of morals is that the fishermen are "worse", so
it is okay for you to do anything less harmful until they're stopped.
Under your alledged logic, every murderer in jail in the USA should
immediately go free, because there's one bigger mass murderer out there
who hasn't been caught yet.
I was down at the Courthouse last week: it doesn't work that way.
Granted, it isn't exactly "2 wrongs make a right", but its that its
acceptable to wrong others, just so long as you're not the worst guy.
-hh
H. NED Huntzinger
>
> Regardless, the question should be....Do you believe a ban of shark feeding
> dives is necessary?...Not whether you believe shark feeding is good or bad.
I believe the shark feeding ban was an unfortunately necessary
consequence that is attributable to a few individuals who were unwilling
to take due care in addressing society's interests. FWIW, it appears
that they bet it all on a single dice roll and ended up losing it all:
to do so was their choice, so they now have to live with the
consequences.
When a couple of assholes insist on doing real or perceived
irresponsible actions despite warnings and are unwilling to accept
reasonable comprimises, are there any reasonable alternatives left to
their peers and soceity other than a broad policy to slam-dunk
everyone's behavour of that type?
I've been a diver for over 20 years and the rule does not discriminate
against me. I also see no Holocaust parallels to be concerned about for
me to be concerned about the welfare of my fellow divers. I also see
valid concern for non-divers which merit addressing, as well as very
crass self serving interests in effect.
-hh
Dan Bracuk
:I was down at the Courthouse last week:
Defendant?
Witness?
Dan Bracuk
Toronto, Canada
Check Dan's Diet Results http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/
Best of Rec.Scuba http://www.chaoticarts.com/~scuba/
Greg The Divemaster
of
> any sort, reading and posting to goodballs on Rec.Scuba, and just about
any
> other use of time is more productive than time spent listening to Scuba
> Radio.
I guess you wouldn't know unless you listen....so I thank you for your
support...;-)
"Lee Bell" <lee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:a3jk53$8s8$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
Scott J. McFadden
>"Scott J. McFadden" <sjm...@aol.complicate> wrote in message
>news:20020201110838...@mb-mj.aol.com...
>> Dan Volker wrote:
>>
>> > If it was really "BAD" to feed sharks, and anyone on this list really
>> >believed that, then the REAL ISSUE would be surf-fishing at public
>swimming
>> >beaches, pier-fishing at public swimming beaches with a pier, and sport
>> >fishing within 2 miles( or maybe more) of any public swimming beach.
>>
>> You have already demonstrated you know nothing about rec.surf fishing in E
>FL,
>> you know nothing about surfing in E FL, and futhermore, you know nothing
>about
>> rec.offshore fishing apparently, anywhere in FL.
>>
>> I am getting real fed up with you tring to confuse the real cause of the
>sharks
>> attacks.
>
>
>Scott,
>Apparently you don't have the technical know-how to watch the video I
>posted. Had you seen it, you could "easily" see that I can take anyone to
>the pier, and show them chum being poured directly into the swimming
>area--not even 30 feet from kids swimming. I can also easily show ANYONE,
>that boats come in close to the pier all night, and every morning, because
>of the chum slick and fish activity near it. We have underwater video of
>sharks near a chum ball--and they are lethargic, and we have underwater
>video of sharks near a struggling fish---and they are frenzied.
So what? When was the last shark attack on a swimmer or surfer within a 100
miles of the LWP? I do not recall any, in the last three years.
Obviously this behavior, as bad as it may be, is immaterial and irrelevant to
the -real-, repeat, R-E-A-L, cause of the shark attacks on swimmers and surfers
250 miles N of LWP
Do not tell me about the behavior of sharks. I have been "spooked" out the
water when surfing more than once in the last 20 years.
Most of the
>leading Shark scientists AGREE with me on this, that the surf fishing and
>pier fishing is FAR MORE DANGEROUS to swimmers than any off shore shark
>feed.
Then, they have no real knowledge of this area or, more likely, are just bought
and paid for "experts" saying what they are paid to say.
And most importantly, they agree with my premise that the chum and
>struggling fish represent a huge threat at these swimming beaches.
Well, we had two dozen or so attacks, again, how many in the vincinity of LWP?
Zero?
Better get another refrigerated, semi truck load of chum dumped in, you are
way, way behind in the attack numbers. And we do not even try to "attract" the
sharks. They just like it here from time to time and, can do whatever they want
to.
>To send this point home, Abernethy is about to start doing shark dives right
>off the Lake Worth pier, and he will not use ANY chum or fish, becuase the
>pier and surf fishing does more than he ever could to bring sharks in. He
>has divers lined up to do this. Scott, if this is beyond your meager
>fisherman's intellect, then come out here and do a dive by the pier with
>us--see for your self.
I'll have to see if this is legal. You see, we have laws up here in dumbass,
redneck, NE FL, fisherman land, that prohibit swimming, surfing, or diving
within a certain distance of a fishing pier. Having seen pier fishermen launch
2 - 3 oz lead sinkers at surfers who get too close to their pier, I'll have to
think about this one.
I'll have Abernethy put you on the boat for free---If
>needed, I would even get a hotel for you. The more people sympathetic to
>fishing, that we can show the truth to, the better.
You're going to put a boat near the pier? Oh Boy, I just might come down to
watch the "fireworks". Believe me Dan, the pier fishermen are not going to like
this one damn bit, so be careful
"The truth" is that the shark attacks have almost all happened in NE FL, "the
truth" is that they happen in late summer and early fall during the mullet /
menhaden runs, "the truth" is that they usually occur in complete crap viz
water, "the truth" is that rec.surf fishermen rarely can be found in the areas
of the attacks.
You come on up during next summer / fall mullet run and I'll show you the "the
truth".
I'll get you a 9' surfboard and even teach you how to surf.
BTW, no one ever answers any of my questions, do they? So I will try, yet
again.
If your shark feeds are such a great idea, and are so very "educational" then
why don't we allow "educational feeds" of wild manatees, alligators, sea
turtles or porpoises?
Why is one a good thing while, the others have been prohibited?
--
SJM
Dan Volker
"Scott J. McFadden" <sjm...@aol.complicate> wrote in message
> So what? When was the last shark attack on a swimmer or surfer within a
100
> miles of the LWP? I do not recall any, in the last three years.
By the same token, when was a swimmer attacked near a shark feed by divers
in Florida?? Never.
>
> Obviously this behavior, as bad as it may be, is immaterial and irrelevant
to
> the -real-, repeat, R-E-A-L, cause of the shark attacks on swimmers and
surfers
> 250 miles N of LWP
>
> Do not tell me about the behavior of sharks. I have been "spooked" out the
> water when surfing more than once in the last 20 years.
>
> Most of the
> >leading Shark scientists AGREE with me on this, that the surf fishing and
> >pier fishing is FAR MORE DANGEROUS to swimmers than any off shore shark
> >feed.
>
You "could" pay "experts" to say most anything...but as far as I know, there
has been no budget to pay shark scientists---it so happens this is extremely
interesting to them, from a behavioral perspective. Dr Erich Ritter, of the
Shark Attack files, has no correlated over 90% of all the shark attacks on
file to have been in close proximity to fishing!!!
> Then, they have no real knowledge of this area or, more likely, are just
bought
> and paid for "experts" saying what they are paid to say.
Ritter has dove in South Florida. He knows the area.
>
> And most importantly, they agree with my premise that the chum and
> >struggling fish represent a huge threat at these swimming beaches.
>
> Well, we had two dozen or so attacks, again, how many in the vincinity of
LWP?
There are sharks there weekly--big ones. So far, as with most beaches, the
swimmers are lucky.
Local lifeguards I interviewed ( on video) do NOT like the fishing threat,
and find themselves on shark patrol, made worse by the effects of the
chumming and struggling fish on lines.
> >To send this point home, Abernethy is about to start doing shark dives
right
> >off the Lake Worth pier, and he will not use ANY chum or fish, becuase
the
> >pier and surf fishing does more than he ever could to bring sharks in. He
> >has divers lined up to do this. Scott, if this is beyond your meager
> >fisherman's intellect, then come out here and do a dive by the pier with
> >us--see for your self.
>
> I'll have to see if this is legal. You see, we have laws up here in
dumbass,
> redneck, NE FL, fisherman land, that prohibit swimming, surfing, or diving
> within a certain distance of a fishing pier. Having seen pier fishermen
launch
> 2 - 3 oz lead sinkers at surfers who get too close to their pier, I'll
have to
> think about this one.
Scott, if you'd just watch the damn video!!! You'd see boats in within 75
feet of the pier, and they are fishing off these boats.
I will take a boat to within 100 yards of the pier, and then swim into much
closer proximity--but avoid casting range. Any dumb f*ck fisherman that gets
pissed can try to get in my face after the dive---I will enjoy this if it
happens.
>
> I'll have Abernethy put you on the boat for free---If
> >needed, I would even get a hotel for you. The more people sympathetic to
> >fishing, that we can show the truth to, the better.
>
> You're going to put a boat near the pier? Oh Boy, I just might come down
to
> watch the "fireworks". Believe me Dan, the pier fishermen are not going to
like
> this one damn bit, so be careful
Yea, a bunch of drunk rednecks, most barely able to walk a straight
line---they pose a minor threat with a fishing hook or a gun, but I have yet
to see any that pose in-person physical threats, and I spent plenty of time
at the pier getting video footage.
>
> "The truth" is that the shark attacks have almost all happened in NE FL,
"the
> truth" is that they happen in late summer and early fall during the mullet
/
> menhaden runs, "the truth" is that they usually occur in complete crap viz
> water, "the truth" is that rec.surf fishermen rarely can be found in the
areas
> of the attacks.
Not quite true---that girl that was bitten last year in NE Florida, had
fisherman nearby when she was bitten--and this in on record. And the
Arbogast attack had surf fishing going on as well. Something tells me, if
the bait fish are in close to shore, the fisherman will be casting among
them---the chance for catching a larger predator is to good for them to pass
this up.
>
> You come on up during next summer / fall mullet run and I'll show you the
"the
> truth".
>
> I'll get you a 9' surfboard and even teach you how to surf.
>
I already know how to surf---and I know surfing in the middle of a huge
baitfish run is not one of the "smartest" things I can do on my weekends ;-)
> BTW, no one ever answers any of my questions, do they? So I will try, yet
> again.
>
> If your shark feeds are such a great idea, and are so very "educational"
then
> why don't we allow "educational feeds" of wild manatees, alligators, sea
> turtles or porpoises?
That's not the issue. One enormous user group is encouraged to feed the
fish--even though it CLEARLY endangers nearby swimmers ( of course, I'm
talking about fisherman) , and their excuse is that its OK to feed the fish,
as long as you are trying to kill them ---but still knowing full well that
most of the fish you attract with your chum will NOT be killed by you.
And when Abernethy does his shark dives, he DOES NOT FEED THE SHARKS....THEY
DO NOT GET TO EAT ANYTHING. They smell dead fish scent, but can not touch
any of it, or eat any of it. So there is NO FEEDING going on, on the only
shark dive I care to defend. However, even though I don't care much for
the other shark dives, there is NO science to cause an intelligent person to
believe that it is OK for millions of fisherman to feed fish every day, but
not OK for a dive operation to feed fish.....So it bothers me when the
rights of divers are so capriciously denied. And again, the only dive I
will defend is Abernethy's, and he does not FEED the sharks.
And now that I did you the courtesy of answering your questions, how about
doing me the courtesy of watch the two videos I posted???
Regards,
Dan Volker
> --
> SJM
>
>
mike gray
>
>
> > BTW, no one ever answers any of my questions, do they? So I will try, yet
> > again.
> >
> > If your shark feeds are such a great idea, and are so very "educational"
> then
> > why don't we allow "educational feeds" of wild manatees, alligators, sea
> > turtles or porpoises?
>
> That's not the issue. One enormous user group is encouraged to feed the
> fish--even though it CLEARLY endangers nearby swimmers ( of course, I'm
> talking about fisherman) , and their excuse is that its OK to feed the fish,
> as long as you are trying to kill them ---but still knowing full well that
> most of the fish you attract with your chum will NOT be killed by you.
Scottie is dead on this time: the issue is, and always has been, whether
we want wild animals fed in the wild environment for commercial
entertainment.
Both sides of the issue try to obscure the debate with spurious and
emotional arguments about shark attacks, the American way of life and
freedom, chumming, European currency trading practices, and whatever
else, because of one simple reason - the argument is one of philosophy
and there's not a single person on either side that has ever had a
philosophical moment in their lives.
Do we want to open up the reefs to every doofus that wants to start a
petting zoo, or do we want to keep them wild? That's the question.
The feeders were offered a few petting zoos in remote places. The
feeders refused to go along with that, demanding petting zoos anywhere
they wanted them.
The feeders ignored a lot of divers out here that have a view of diving
that is different than theirs. Fuck em all.
m
mike gray
>
>
> I could live with the no-take zone out three miles---from Jupiter to Key
> West. Hopefully, this would destroy the fishing industry. I can still blue
> water spearfish.
> Your heroes in the marine safety group, would NEVER support No Take Zones on
> our reefs, lot less all along the coast.
>
> The "anti-feeders" may very well support the big no-take zones, but now you
> are talking about real environmentalists--not your buddies in the MSG who
> are pretending to be environmentalists.
You made MSG my buddies. Let's go with the no take zone! (I don't think
it would destroy the fishing industry, but it would sure piss off both
the commercial and drift boats that fish the reefs. And anchor on the
reefs. And throw their beer cans and plastic bags on the reef. And cover
the reef with #3 sinkers and miles of monofilament.)
m
mike gray
>
> But we are on a scuba forum, and the discussion is about threats to
> beach-goers/swimmers, as well as policies which we are being asked to allow
> moral criminals ( the MSG) to assist in drafting. I don't like it, and I
> won't sit by and let Mike idolize this scum.
I'm hardly idolizing this scum. I don't support them, although I agree
with their specific goal - a feeding ban - in this case.
And the ban was not a case of MSG winning, it was a case of the feeders
losing.
m
mike gray
>
> Mike,
> OPINION: Seems this is more of a pissing match between those against and
> those for than an ecological issue.
That's how it ended up, no doubt about it. The last few Commission
meetings made this ng look like a Nobel laureate's soliloquy.
But it started out (and in a few rare feeble minds, it remains) a
fundamental question about man's relationship with marine critters.
Being a simple sort of guy, I see it as turning the reefs into petting
zoos. Being a real easy-going kind of guy, I had no problem with a few
feeders operating in limited areas. Being an Irishman, I jumped right in
when it became a pissing match.
m
Lee Bell
> I guess you wouldn't know unless you listen....so I thank you for your
> support...;-)
Thank me for not carrying my opinion of your actions and statements in this
forum and more public ones back to your source of income. I think that you,
more than anyone on the pro feeding side of things, have shown a willingness
to provide half truths and false information.
I don't listen to Scuba Radio for two very specific reasons.
1. I don't trust you.
2. I do not want to know who your advertisers are. Twice I have turned
down requests to advise them that I am boycotting their products because of
their association with you. Once I declined to respond to a request for
information by one of your advertisers who had been given my email address
by someone who did contact your advertisers. At times, the temptation to
follow his lead has been significant, but that is contrary to my fundamental
beliefs. I will not support your program by listening to it and I will
neither do business with, nor decline to do business with anybody because
they chose to advertise with you.
Lee
Greg The Divemaster
I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you're a victim of the
irresponsible propaganda of Cyberliar/MSG as opposed to thinking you're just
clueless...;-)
"mike gray" <omi...@net.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C5CBF97...@net.att.net...
> Greg The Divemaster wrote:
> >
> > Care to share this "permit" compromise you describe...it's BS.
> >
> > The only "compromise" the Commission staff recommended effectively made
> > every shark dive in Florida illegal. Was that a compromise or just
another
> > way to ban it without officially banning it? This was discussed
extensively
> > on ScubaRadio.
> >
> > I could care less that you don't like shark diving, but you have your
facts
> > all screwed up.
>
> FACT: The Commission held its first workshop on the subject in October,
> 1999.
>
> FACT: The Commission proposed to regulate feeding in February, 2000.
>
> FACT: Between February, 2000, and March, 2000, (a) Bob Harris, an
> attorney and registered lobbyist for PADI, DEMA and other industry
> interests launched a massive campaign to thwart the Commission, and (b)
> PADI announced that its 501(c)3 Project Aware would lobby against
> regulation.
>
> FACT: In September, 2000, the lobbyists provided free food, "beverages",
> and bus rides to the public meeting on feeding. At that meeting, the
> Commission determined to DEFER TO THE DIVE INDUSTRY TO ESTABLISH FEEDING
> GUIDELINES WITH INPUT FROM THE ANTI-FEEDING FOLKS.
>
> That's not BS, bubba, that's public record.
>
> FACT: Regina Franklin, Exec Director of DEMA, John Stewart, Prex of Dive
> Marketing International, and BOB Harris, aforementioned lawyer/lobbyist
> for PADI and DEMA boasted at the end of the meeting that "the shark
> feeding battle is over", and Harris called the meeting, "the most
> important victory for the dive industry in 15 years". They ALL then
> refused to communicate with the Marine Safety Group, which the
> Commission intended to represent the anti-feeders in drawing up
> guidelines.
>
> FACT: That's the point at which the Commission realized that the feeders
> were pretty much a bunch of egotistical assholes with big budgets and no
> respect whatsoever for the commission.
>
> FACT: If the feeders had kept their big mouths shut, worked with the MSG
> to come up with some token guidelines (14 (b) 26: "live babies will not
> be fed to sharks") the feeders would still be fucking up shark diets
> while the easily impressed ooh and aah.
>
> OPINION: This is proof positive that the feeders are clearly too
> brain-dead to be escorting themselves to the toilet, much less escorting
> excitable folks to a shark feed.
>
> FACT: Deerfield Beach, Lighthouse Point, Hillsboro Beach, Delray Beach,
> and Coconut Creek each ban feeding and each asks the state to institute
> a statewide ban.
>
> FACT: May, 2001, the Commission meets again, and the feeders (still
> without the required input from the anti-feeders) present a set of
> guidelines that were so incredibly stupid as to be embarrassing to the
> whole process, including a PADI "Shark Dive" specialty.
>
> FACT: That's the point at which the Commission realized that the feeders
> were not only egotistical assholes with big budgets and no respect
> whatsoever for the commission, they were incredibly stooooopid.
>
> FACT: Johnny Cochran raises the liability issue of feeding sharks "in
> close proximity to beach areas."
>
> OPINION: This whole slimy thing just can't get any more bizarre.
>
> FACT: Yes it can. in August, Rodales' Dave Taylor sends to almost every
> media outlet in the US an attack on the professional and personal
> reputation of Bill Alevizon, scientific advisor to MSG. Reputable media
> check the story, find out it's bullshit, and the ploy backfires with
> Taylor getting ripped in non-diving media from coast to coast.
>
> FACT: Later that same month, Reps Garcia and Justice, realizing that the
> Commission was too scared of the PADI/DEMA and other industry lawyers to
> act, co-sponsored a bill to ban feeding in state waters.
>
> FACT: Meanwhile, back in Tallahassee, the Commission puts together its
> own guidelines to ALLOW feeding.
>
> FACT: In September, the Commission holds yet another public meeting, at
> which it presents the Commission's guidelines to ALLOW feeding. Bob
> Harris rejects the guidelines outright as "financially unattractive".
> The Commission, smarting from national criticism and hurt by Harris'
> "Fuck you" message, gets even. It votes a complete ban. Rodales runs an
> editorial calling the Commission's vote a government conspiracy to get
> "control over diving".
>
> OPINION: This whole slimy thing just can't get any more bizarre.
>
> FACT: Yes it can. Spencer Slate and Jim Abernethy send a long rant to
> the Commission that includes the now classic, "The Commission's
> sacrifice of our way of life, by voting for the ban on 6 September was a
> threat to the freedom of every American. We will not stand by and let
> this ban happen any more than we will let those perpetrators escape
> punishment for the heinous crimes of 11 Sept."
>
Greg The Divemaster
> more than anyone on the pro feeding side of things, have shown a
willingness
> to provide half truths and false information.
Yet you never seem to provide any specifics.
Look....I really don't care what you think of me Lee, however, I don't
understand why you continue with these type of slanderous attacks. You
obviously don't care for the tongue in cheek attitude I take with some of my
posts, however, they are not mean spirited.
> 1. I don't trust you.
I don't necessarily trust you either...does that mean I think you're some
kind of menace to society?...nah.
I have made an effort to personally contact you with the hope of getting
past this nonsense. Maybe it won't matter, however, maybe we'll both learn
something....Chances are I'm not nearly as evil as you appear to believe.
Some people actually like me...;-) So pick up the phone and call me...what
could you possibly have to loose?...understanding?...enlightenment?
"Lee Bell" <lee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:a3kjdt$1rt$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
H. NED Huntzinger
>
> From "H. NED Huntzinger"
> :I was down at the Courthouse last week:
>
> Defendant?
> Witness?
:-)
-hh
H. NED Huntzinger
>
> Dan Volker wrote:
> >
> > And the commercial interests are the fishing lobbies, with the help of guys
> > like Mike Gray.... Through the divisiveness people like Mike Gray bring to
> > diving, we have an even smaller lobbying group to stand up for the "rights"
> > of divers. We are a "user group" of a natural resource, and guys like Mike
> > are helping user groups which "compete" with us, to strip away our rights in
> Red herring alert!
I agree. Mike's "Commercial Interests" context were the shark feeding
dive operations, not the fishermen: because they opposed any reasonable
restrictions on their activity, they have now ruined it for all of us
divers.
> > And of course, there's that big bonus Mike will get
> > when the next Jessie Arbogast tragedy occurs...
I invoke the Goodwin's Law variants.
-hh
H. NED Huntzinger
>
> Both sides of the issue try to obscure the debate with spurious and
>
> Do we want to open up the reefs to every doofus that wants to start a
> petting zoo, or do we want to keep them wild? That's the question.
Agreed. And that's a lot harder of a question than it appears on the
surface.
> The feeders were offered a few petting zoos in remote places. The
> feeders refused to go along with that, demanding petting zoos anywhere
> they wanted them.
>
> The feeders ignored a lot of divers out here that have a view of diving
> that is different than theirs. Fuck em all.
Amen!
-hh
mike gray
>
> >I think that you,
> > more than anyone on the pro feeding side of things, have shown a
> willingness
> > to provide half truths and false information.
>
> Yet you never seem to provide any specifics.
Nor do you. Yer game is to come up with some silly generalization, eg:
> The demographic information and certification level of people who go on
> these shark dives has been tracked...to think otherwise is naive. Do your
> own research and see for yourself...or you can just attack the messenger
BUT YOU NEVER SEEM TO PROVIDE ANY SPECIFICS.
> Some dive operators keep track
> of this type of data for business reasons
BUT YOU NEVER SEEM TO PROVIDE ANY SPECIFICS.
C'mon greggie, where's the beef?
m
mike gray
>
> Hell...if that's what the "Facts" were, I might agree with you!
>
> I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you're a victim of the
> irresponsible propaganda of Cyberliar/MSG as opposed to thinking you're just
> clueless...;-)
BUT YOU NEVER SEEM TO PROVIDE ANY SPECIFICS.
m
Scott J. McFadden
>Dan Volker wrote:
>>
>> I could live with the no-take zone out three miles---from Jupiter to Key
>> West. Hopefully, this would destroy the fishing industry. I can still
>blue
>> water spearfish.
>> Your heroes in the marine safety group, would NEVER support No Take Zones
>on
>> our reefs, lot less all along the coast.
>>
>> The "anti-feeders" may very well support the big no-take zones, but now you
>> are talking about real environmentalists--not your buddies in the MSG who
>> are pretending to be environmentalists.
>
>You made MSG my buddies. Let's go with the no take zone! (I don't think
>it would destroy the fishing industry, but it would sure piss off both
>the commercial and drift boats that fish the reefs. And anchor on the
>reefs.
No take means just that.
Pull out your "fishing" license and take a look at your crawfish stamp.
No more bug hunting in SE FL or the Keys? Is that what you're wishing for?
Good luck.
--
SJM
ps: keep the ban S of Jupiter, thank you.
Scott J. McFadden
Here are some suggustions I bet even the fishermen would go along with:
1. Ban shark fishing and or chumming from public / private piers in PB,
Broward, and Dade counties
2. Ban shark fishing and or chumming from public beaches in PB, Broward and
Dade counties.
3. Prohibit swiming, surfing, scuba diving and fishing from a boat within 250'
of a public / private fishing pier in PB, Broward, and Dade counties.
Problems solved.
Why this has not been done already (like elsewhere in FL) is anybody's guess.
Dan, we will have to agree to disagree on the feeds.
Also, watch out for pyramid sinkers cast your way during the SI on the LWP
dive.
I'd consider wearing a helmet :-)
--
SJM
Dan Volker
"Scott J. McFadden" <sjm...@aol.complicate> wrote in message
> Dan, I'll put this in front as we are getting "long winded"
>
> Here are some suggustions I bet even the fishermen would go along with:
>
> 1. Ban shark fishing and or chumming from public / private piers in PB,
> Broward, and Dade counties
It would have to be a ban on "any" fishing, since any fishing will attract
and frenzy the sharks---and any fishing is "feeding".
>
> 2. Ban shark fishing and or chumming from public beaches in PB, Broward
and
> Dade counties.
>
> 3. Prohibit swiming, surfing, scuba diving and fishing from a boat within
250'
> of a public / private fishing pier in PB, Broward, and Dade counties.
The only piers know of in south Florida are right on or right at public
swimming beaches. Since the larger user group is the swimmers and
beach-goers, then we would have to shut down fishing on these piers--and
clearly make surf casting a jailable offense on a public beach.
>
> Problems solved.
>
> Why this has not been done already (like elsewhere in FL) is anybody's
guess.
Agreed!
>
> Dan, we will have to agree to disagree on the feeds.
Scott, remember, the "only" shark dive I am defending is Abernethy's, and he
"DOES NOT FEED THE SHARKS"...he just has dead fish in a cage, which release
a scent. There is no touching of fish by sharks, no feeding.
I could care less if a petting zoo in Pompano gets shut down.
I do get pissed when assholes like Picardi try to tell dive operations what
to do, because of the way it effects their commercial fishing---that is the
issue that has me on the bandwagon. That and the fact that Abernethy is a
friend of mine, and I think his approach does no harm, and I believe no
group out there has the right to tell him what to do on this, any more than
I think the old people on A1A ( a coastal road we bicycle on) have a right
to point at the side walk and beep when they drive by us on our bike
rides....especially when we are doing 26mph, and they are only doing 30mph
!!%^&*)
>
> Also, watch out for pyramid sinkers cast your way during the SI on the LWP
> dive.
>
We'll be keeping enough distance :-)
Regards,
Dan V
mike gray
>
>
> No take means just that.
>
> Pull out your "fishing" license and take a look at your crawfish stamp.
>
> No more bug hunting in SE FL or the Keys? Is that what you're wishing for?
>
> Good luck.
Giving up bug hunting for local reefs that look like they did a hundred
years ago is not a bad trade. I'd support no take from the keys through
Florida Bay to Jupiter.
I'd also support more restrictions on bugs; shorter season, max size as
well as minumum (like Maine), stricter interpretation of bag limits.
I also hunt shells, which no-take would restrict or eliminate. I'd miss
that more than the bugs, but I could handle it.
m
Lee Bell
>> 1. Ban shark fishing and or chumming from public / private piers in PB,
>> Broward, and Dade counties
> It would have to be a ban on "any" fishing, since any fishing will attract
> and frenzy the sharks---and any fishing is "feeding".
There's a limit to how much you can expect to do. Banning chumming is one
thing. Banning anything that sounds like, looks like, feels like or is a
struggling fish just isn't going to work. As we've all been told since we
were children, people splashing in the surf sound like wounded fish.
Theoretically, that's why so many get bit. The only way to completely
protect people from sharks that may be attracted to them is to keep the
people out of the water all together. I think you know what the chances of
that happening in S. Florida are.
> Scott, remember, the "only" shark dive I am defending is Abernethy's, and
he
> "DOES NOT FEED THE SHARKS"...he just has dead fish in a cage, which
release
> a scent. There is no touching of fish by sharks, no feeding.
I don't know about everybody else, but that was not real clear to me
previously. If this is so, then maybe the problem is that you've been
taking the wrong approach from the beginning. Jim hasn't done anything I
know of to distance himself from what others are doing, at least not in a
way that the commission is likely to respond to. I noticed, you noticed,
but the commission and the press haven't. While I can understand his desire
for solidarity, there comes a point when he should get returns for the
adjustments that he has already made that others have, so far, not been
willing to make. Forget about getting the ban repealed and work on getting
the wording changed.
This whole thing started out as a ban on fish feeding. Everybody knew, or
thought that they did, that the real issue was shark feeding. What we wound
up with is a prohibition against pretty much any kind of encounter dive that
takes advantage of the attraction of food in the water. I'd have to look
closely to ensure that the dives Jim reportedly plans to do near the piers
aren't illegal also, assuming of course that he believes that it's the
chumming and fishing done there that attracts them. The present ban is a
bit more than I think anyone expected.
While there's a high probability that some people will continue to object to
the dives purely on the basis of the slight but still real adverse impact on
sharks, you might just find that the majority think this is a workable
compromise. You never know until you try, but the try is going to have to
be better than anything we've seen so far.
Lee
mike gray
>
> While there's a high probability that some people will continue to object to
> the dives purely on the basis of the slight but still real adverse impact on
> sharks, you might just find that the majority think this is a workable
> compromise. You never know until you try, but the try is going to have to
> be better than anything we've seen so far.
Personally, I'm working on an artificial chum scent.
Solves the moral dilemna of "feeding".
While the sharks swim around in circles trying to figure out where the
food is, I cut their fins off.
m
Lee Bell
> Giving up bug hunting for local reefs that look like they did a hundred
> years ago is not a bad trade. I'd support no take from the keys through
> Florida Bay to Jupiter. I'd also support more restrictions on bugs;
shorter season, max
> size as well as minumum (like Maine), stricter interpretation of bag
limits.
Fortunately, you'll be part of a minority who would. It's certain that the
powers that be would not since "no take" would include all the money they
currently receive from license, permit and excise taxes and would kill a
multi billion dollar consumer fishing and boating industry. If you want to
return the reefs to their condition 100 years ago, you're also going to have
to reduce the permanent population by about 90%. If people are around,
they're going to use the water that used to flow into the oceans and they're
going to create garbage and sewerage. As a native, I'm staying. Sorry
about the rest of you. You'd have to eliminate the tourist trade pretty
much completely. Oops, there goes another few billion. You're also going
to have to put a stop to almost all of the state's agriculture. What with
the subsidies we pay, that one would probably save us money here, but make a
lot of people who put sugar in their coffee unhappy about how much it costs.
I don't think so.
Lee
Scott J. McFadden
>> Here are some suggustions I bet even the fishermen would go along with:
>>
>> 1. Ban shark fishing and or chumming from public / private piers in PB,
>> Broward, and Dade counties
>
>It would have to be a ban on "any" fishing, since any fishing will attract
>and frenzy the sharks---and any fishing is "feeding".
Oh come on Dan. Grandpa taking little Jimmy and Janey out fishing for whiting,
(little piece of shrimp) or pompano, (little sand flea) is hardly going to
interest any shark.
You must have some real nasty dumpster dwellers fishing at LWP (I am not
surprised at this as you sure got enough of 'em at the boat ramp at Phil Foster
last time I was there) to get you so worked up.
>>
>> 2. Ban shark fishing and or chumming from public beaches in PB, Broward
>and
>> Dade counties.
>>
>> 3. Prohibit swiming, surfing, scuba diving and fishing from a boat within
>250'
>> of a public / private fishing pier in PB, Broward, and Dade counties.
>
>The only piers know of in south Florida are right on or right at public
>swimming beaches. Since the larger user group is the swimmers and
>beach-goers, then we would have to shut down fishing on these piers--and
>clearly make surf casting a jailable offense on a public beach.
That's why I like it up here. There's plenty of room for everybody to do their
own thing.
Oh well, not too smart to swim near a pier if you ask me. (currents, barnacle
encrusted pillings, debris, ect)
>>
>> Problems solved.
>>
>> Why this has not been done already (like elsewhere in FL) is anybody's
>guess.
>
>Agreed!
>
>>
>> Dan, we will have to agree to disagree on the feeds.
>
>Scott, remember, the "only" shark dive I am defending is Abernethy's, and he
>"DOES NOT FEED THE SHARKS"...he just has dead fish in a cage, which release
>a scent. There is no touching of fish by sharks, no feeding.
Well then, I stand corrected I thought he used a chumsicle.
>I could care less if a petting zoo in Pompano gets shut down.
>
>I do get pissed when assholes like Picardi try to tell dive operations what
>to do, because of the way it effects their commercial fishing---that is the
>issue that has me on the bandwagon. That and the fact that Abernethy is a
>friend of mine, and I think his approach does no harm, and I believe no
>group out there has the right to tell him what to do on this, any more than
>I think the old people on A1A ( a coastal road we bicycle on) have a right
>to point at the side walk and beep when they drive by us on our bike
>rides....especially when we are doing 26mph, and they are only doing 30mph
>!!%^&*)
You have not seen me defending any commercial fishermen. (although hook & line
is the best way IMHO)
You did not see me defending the anti-feeder's nonsense about shark feeds
causing "attacks" on swimmers, quite the contrary.
And, you will not see me defending what I feel is a vindictive
"counter-offensive" against -all- rec.fishing that will only prove to be futile
and backfire. You want "no fishing" zones? Fine, then prepare for "no diving"
zones.
Btw, I would have some "enforcers" stationed on LWP during the dive (Popeye &
Curtis B come to mind :-)) to help remind the dumpster dwellers of proper
"etiquette".
--
SJM