Posted by SLANG on August 03, 2000 at 15:00:41:
In Reply to: ???????????? posted by MHK on August 03, 2000 at 09:50:12:
You're missing my point. If you read my original post again, you'll notice that I never once criticized any of your points 1 - 5 listed in your response. My disagreement with you stems from your desire to regulate my personal diving freedoms. My opinions are identical to what Jason stated in his response. Some people are going to do stupid things diving this wreck. So what? People do stupid things every day in every facet of life. It's called "Natural Selection." I too have had the unpleasant task of dealing with the remains of what minutes before had been a living person who just didn't understand their own limitations. Bottom line: You can't go around worrying about protecting people from their own stupidity.
Regardless of whether it's DIR training or not, you are proposing that commercial boats not take anyone out to the Yukon who doesn't have acceptable training. Who then determines what is "acceptable" training? What agency or individual are you going to empower to oversee that? The USCG? IANTD? George Irvine? It is just this disregard for the personal freedoms of CA divers (some of who have been diving these waters for a very long time and somehow managed to survive without any additional training from the technical diving community) that prompts many of us to have a knee-jerk negative reaction to the phrase "technical diving."
As far as addressing your points:
1. Nitrox - I have no objection to allowing the use of mixed gases on this wreck. If, as you say, there is a hard bottom of 100 fsw, I myself will most likely choose to dive this on EANx 36%. HOWEVER, it should always remain my choice to do so.
2. Rule of Thirds - Personally, I've got no problem with this, I believe in it and practice it when it's applicable. In spite of that, I don't feel you have a right to demand any diver follow the rule. And exactly how are you going to make something like this mandatory? How could it ever be regulated?
3. Running lines - One would have to be foolish not to run a line when penetrating an overhead environment - but to choose to be foolish should still be their right.
4. Buddy diving - Come on Mike, making a buddy mandatory is not the CA way. I'm not going to argue that having a good buddy isn't a real good idea in an overhead environment, it is; but to REQUIRE you to have a buddy before you can go in the water near the Yukon is something I can't support.
5. Required training - No. That's not the answer. Closing off portions of the ocean previously open to the public is not the way to build support for "technical" diving. Making advanced training more available to the recreational diver is how you do that. And telling people that in order to even start training, they have to throw away all the gear they currently own and buy new stuff so they can be identical to everyone else, that sure doesn't make it more accessible to the average diver.
Do you really think that this ship would ever have gotten sunk if everyone involved thought it was only going to be for the enjoyment of that small percentage of the public that consider themselves technical divers? Not a chance. Now that it's actually sunk, you think you can turn around and say to everyone who fought for this, "Thanks for the cool wreck; now you all go get stuffed."? That doesn't seem to be a prudent move.
Sure, it should be emphasized to everyone signing up for this dive that it is an advanced dive, and that penetration of the wreck can be extremely dangerous for the untrained diver - but the ultimate decision should be left up to each diver. Any agency or individual who tries to take that decision out of the hands of the average diver, will always be fighting an uphill battle in Southern California.
Just My opinions.
Post a Followup