which diver are you?, part *three*

"Dan Bracuk" wrote

> But, as you said, if it was important enough, you would hire your own
> boat.

As you know, I both bought my own boats and, when it's more practical, have
hired somebody else's. On occasion, I've very clearly stated that the rules
proposed by an operator are unacceptable, informed the operator that I will
take my business elsewhere and proceeded to do so. So far, it has not been
because I was asked to pay for a checkout dive.

Lee

-hh wrote:
> Well,
>
> Here's one more operator? that missed the point.
>
> I don't intend to "snivel" about anything.
>
> I merely offered my perspective, which is that while I can understand
> the nature of a dive operator's problems, in the end, they're still HIS
> problems and not mine.

The problem with captkeywest's attitude is symptomatic of much
the ills in DIVING as well as other industries in the USA:

Regulate instead of Educate.


> Personally, I question the wisdom of a strategy of imposing an
> additional time & cost burden on your customers - - especially on that
> your competitors don't do.

That's why the Free Market Principle works, both for the majority
of the competent divers in rec.scuba AND for captkeywest who
caters to the clueless divers like Joe (the one who panics and
pops to the surface when a HP hose pops and thinks others who know
better are full of shit ) who is dangerously ignorant about
every aspect of scuba diving.

-- Bob.

Lee Bell wrote:
> "-hh" wrote
>
> > Personally, I question the wisdom of a strategy of imposing an
> > additional time & cost burden on your customers - - especially on that
> > your competitors don't do.
>
> Unfortunately, the average tourist diver could care less. They'll accept the
> additional overhead without a lot of question...

Unfortunately, all too true.

The basic problem is a philisophical one for the business: do you want
to operate under the "there's always another fish in the ocean" (aka PT
Barnum approach), and be at the mercy of the feast-or-famine of the
economic cycle?

....or do you wish to develop a faithful repeat customer base who will
come spend their money to dive with you generally regardless of the
whims of the economy?

YMMV, but to just name a few, I don't think that Bruce Bowker's Carib
Inn (Bonaire) or Gladys Howard's Pirate's Point (Little Cayman) have
suffered significantly from lost customer revenues due to occupancy
rates due to economic flucuations, or for that matter, even hurricane
damage...their faithful following flocked back as soon as they
reopened.

-hh

-hh wrote:
>
> Lee Bell wrote:
>
>>"-hh" wrote
>>
>>
>>>Personally, I question the wisdom of a strategy of imposing an
>>>additional time & cost burden on your customers - - especially on that
>>>your competitors don't do.
>>
>>Unfortunately, the average tourist diver could care less. They'll accept the
>>additional overhead without a lot of question...
>
>
> Unfortunately, all too true.
>
> The basic problem is a philisophical one for the business: do you want
> to operate under the "there's always another fish in the ocean" (aka PT
> Barnum approach), and be at the mercy of the feast-or-famine of the
> economic cycle?
>
> ...or do you wish to develop a faithful repeat customer base who will
> come spend their money to dive with you generally regardless of the
> whims of the economy?
>
> YMMV, but to just name a few, I don't think that Bruce Bowker's Carib
> Inn (Bonaire) or Gladys Howard's Pirate's Point (Little Cayman) have
> suffered significantly from lost customer revenues due to occupancy
> rates due to economic flucuations, or for that matter, even hurricane
> damage...their faithful following flocked back as soon as they
> reopened.
>
> -hh
>


One wonders if that same faithful following in the past had provided the
necessary funds to rebuild, thereby providing them the confidence to
spend those funds knowing that their faithful following would remain so
securing them a future among the survivors.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Reef Fish wrote:
> -hh wrote:
> > Well,
> >
> > Here's one more operator? that missed the point.
> >
> > I don't intend to "snivel" about anything.
> >
> > I merely offered my perspective, which is that while I can understand
> > the nature of a dive operator's problems, in the end, they're still HIS
> > problems and not mine.
>
> The problem with captkeywest's attitude is symptomatic of much
> the ills in DIVING as well as other industries in the USA:
>
> Regulate instead of Educate.

Unfortunately true. And even more unfortunate is how quickly people are
willing to give up freedom and embrace the false security of
regulations.

In this case, I would add that the regulating, originally proposed by
captkeywest, albeit indirectly, was to require "checkout" dives for
first time visitors to prove buoyancy skills, in order to protect the
reef.

The resulting discussions illustrated the sad condition that some
people actually welcome a loss of freedom if it's sugar-coated with
some altruistic goal, even if the goal is unrealistic. Perhaps "feeling
good" is more important to them than thinking objectively.

But, that's just my prejudice talking....

The Florida Keys, compared more distant locations, may be getting a
disproportionately higher level of divers who might damage the reef,
but I'd like to hear captkeywest (or others) address the following
issues directly and give a basis for their opinions:

1. How much damage to the reef is caused by poor diver skills? Compared
to storms?

2. What proportion of divers in the Florida Keys have poor skills that
might damage the reef? Is it higher than 10%?

3. What proportion of those inadequately-skilled divers would actually
be _effectively_ screened by a "checkout dive"? Might 3/4 of the
damaging divers get through the checkout dive okay?

4. Would the checkout dive "program" he mentioned require all dive
operations in the Keys to participate? My business would certainly go
to the ops that allow the most diving freedom. Would he be willing to
suffer economic losses for the sake of the altruistic goal or
protecting the reef?

5. Does he think more extensive regulating of scuba divers for their
own _welfare_ is needed and desirable?

6. Does he feel a dive operation would or could be held legally liable
for dive accidents resulting from the diver's own poor skills on
non-guided dives?

> > Personally, I question the wisdom of a strategy of imposing an
> > additional time & cost burden on your customers - - especially on that
> > your competitors don't do.
>
> That's why the Free Market Principle works, both for the majority
> of the competent divers in rec.scuba AND for captkeywest who
> caters to the clueless divers

<snipped the personal attack on Joe>

Agree completely.

Promoting relatively safe, low-impact diving would be best accomplished
by allowing as much freedom of choice as possible, providing education
and peer pressure and making sure divers know that _they alone_ are
responsible for their own welfare underwater.

The least desirable solution is to be regulated by
bureaucrat-wannabe's. IMHO.

Dave C

Dave C wrote:
> Reef Fish wrote:
> > -hh wrote:
> > > Well,
> > >
> > > Here's one more operator? that missed the point.
> > >
> > > I don't intend to "snivel" about anything.
> > >
> > > I merely offered my perspective, which is that while I can understand
> > > the nature of a dive operator's problems, in the end, they're still HIS
> > > problems and not mine.
> >
> > The problem with captkeywest's attitude is symptomatic of much
> > the ills in DIVING as well as other industries in the USA:
> >
> > Regulate instead of Educate.
>
> Unfortunately true. And even more unfortunate is how quickly people are
> willing to give up freedom and embrace the false security of
> regulations.
>
> In this case, I would add that the regulating, originally proposed by
> captkeywest, albeit indirectly, was to require "checkout" dives for
> first time visitors to prove buoyancy skills, in order to protect the
> reef.
>
> The resulting discussions illustrated the sad condition that some
> people actually welcome a loss of freedom if it's sugar-coated with
> some altruistic goal, even if the goal is unrealistic. Perhaps "feeling
> good" is more important to them than thinking objectively.
>
> But, that's just my prejudice talking....
>
> The Florida Keys, compared more distant locations, may be getting a
> disproportionately higher level of divers who might damage the reef,
> but I'd like to hear captkeywest (or others) address the following
> issues directly and give a basis for their opinions:
>
> 1. How much damage to the reef is caused by poor diver skills? Compared
> to storms?
>
> 2. What proportion of divers in the Florida Keys have poor skills that
> might damage the reef? Is it higher than 10%?
>
> 3. What proportion of those inadequately-skilled divers would actually
> be _effectively_ screened by a "checkout dive"? Might 3/4 of the
> damaging divers get through the checkout dive okay?
>
> 4. Would the checkout dive "program" he mentioned require all dive
> operations in the Keys to participate? My business would certainly go
> to the ops that allow the most diving freedom. Would he be willing to
> suffer economic losses for the sake of the altruistic goal or
> protecting the reef?
>
> 5. Does he think more extensive regulating of scuba divers for their
> own _welfare_ is needed and desirable?
>
> 6. Does he feel a dive operation would or could be held legally liable
> for dive accidents resulting from the diver's own poor skills on
> non-guided dives?
>
> > > Personally, I question the wisdom of a strategy of imposing an
> > > additional time & cost burden on your customers - - especially on that
> > > your competitors don't do.
> >
> > That's why the Free Market Principle works, both for the majority
> > of the competent divers in rec.scuba AND for captkeywest who
> > caters to the clueless divers
>
> <snipped the personal attack on Joe>

We seem to have perfect agreement on the issue. The above line is
my only disagreement with what you posted. Perhaps you were thinking
of a different Joe (after all, Joe Doe is as common as John Smiht).
But the Joe in question (in part 1 of this thread) was the one who
attacked ME for providing the CORRECT information that could save
his, and his buddy's life, some day. Instead, he wrote,

> Joe wrote:
> > Reefer you never responded how you removed your brown stain from your
> > wetsuit.

> > The other "stuff" about your theories about LP and HP behavior is as
> > full of sh*t as you are.

and my "attack" was using his "full of sh*t" except spelling "shit"
correctly

RF> caters to the clueless divers like Joe (the one who panics and
RF> pops to the surface when a HP hose pops and thinks others who know
RF> better are full of shit ) who is dangerously ignorant about
RF> every aspect of scuba diving.

How should I have put it, Dave?

Nevermind.

-- Bob.


>
> Agree completely.
>
> Promoting relatively safe, low-impact diving would be best accomplished
> by allowing as much freedom of choice as possible, providing education
> and peer pressure and making sure divers know that _they alone_ are
> responsible for their own welfare underwater.
>
> The least desirable solution is to be regulated by
> bureaucrat-wannabe's. IMHO.
>
> Dave C

Reef Fish wrote:
> Dave C wrote:
> > <snipped the personal attack on Joe>
>
> We seem to have perfect agreement on the issue. The above line is
> my only disagreement with what you posted. Perhaps you were thinking
> of a different Joe (after all, Joe Doe is as common as John Smiht).
> But the Joe in question (in part 1 of this thread) was the one who
> attacked ME for providing the CORRECT information that could save
> his, and his buddy's life, some day. Instead, he wrote,
>
snipped the recounting of Joe's initial attack and Bob's _justified_
counteract.
>
> How should I have put it, Dave?
>
> Nevermind.
>
> -- Bob.

Whoa... easy now, big fellah...

Oops, sorry, Bob, I didn't mean to get your defenses up!

Your counteract on Joe _was_ justified.

It's just a style thing. My issue.

8^)

Regards,

Dave C

Reef Fish wrote:
> Dave C wrote:
> > Reef Fish wrote:
> > <snipped the personal attack on Joe>
>
> We seem to have perfect agreement on the issue. The above line is
> my only disagreement with what you posted. Perhaps you were thinking
> of a different Joe (after all, Joe Doe is as common as John Smiht).
> But the Joe in question (in part 1 of this thread) was the one who
> attacked ME for providing the CORRECT information that could save
> his, and his buddy's life, some day. Instead, he wrote,
<snipped Bob's recounting of Joe's initial attack on Bob and Bob's
_justified_ counterattack>

> How should I have put it, Dave?
>
> Nevermind.
>
> -- Bob.

Whoa... easy now, big fella....

Oops, sorry, Bob, I didn't mean to get your defenses up!

Your personal counterattack on Joe _was_ justified, it's just not my
style, so I didn't want to repeat it. Just a style thing, not
substance.

Regards,

Dave C

Reef Fish wrote:
> Dave C wrote:
> > Reef Fish wrote:
> > <snipped the personal attack on Joe>
>
> We seem to have perfect agreement on the issue. The above line is
> my only disagreement with what you posted. Perhaps you were thinking
> of a different Joe (after all, Joe Doe is as common as John Smiht).
> But the Joe in question (in part 1 of this thread) was the one who
> attacked ME for providing the CORRECT information that could save
> his, and his buddy's life, some day. Instead, he wrote,
<snipped Bob's recounting of Joe's initial attack on Bob and Bob's
_justified_ counterattack>

> How should I have put it, Dave?
>
> Nevermind.
>
> -- Bob.

Whoa... easy now, big fella....

Oops, sorry, Bob, I didn't mean to get your defenses up!

Your personal counterattack on Joe _was_ justified, it's just not my
style, so I didn't want to repeat it. Just a style thing, not
substance.

Regards,

Dave C

Dave C wrote:

> 6. Does he feel a dive operation would or could be held legally liable
> for dive accidents resulting from the diver's own poor skills on
> non-guided dives?

At least for operators in the US, I think this is an area where they may be cutting
their own throats. It's already becoming problematic when an operator who only
provides basic transportation transports somebody who injures themselves and starts
looking for somebody else to be held responsible. It's a bit tougher to deny all
responsibility when you've turned away some divers as lacking the skills for any
given dive, but, in effect, have told a diver who gets injured that the dive was
within their ability.

--
Steve

The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable
belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.

If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.