Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] BOATING AND WATER USE ACTIVITIES

[David Buchner <buchner@wcta.net>]

On Thursday, July 22, 2004, at 01:41 PM, gordon alexander wrote:

> Does anyone know what the evidence for this assertion is?
> "The threat to the safety of visitors and submerged natural, cultural or historic resources far outweigh any inconveniences to the public that may result from implementation of the regulation."
>
> Gordon Alexander
> Shakopee, MN

Ah, you beat me to it. That's the bit that caught my eye, too.

Evidence? When you read the claim that a "threat far outweighs any inconveniences," you might well think some kind of actual "weighing" has happened. But it's more likely just a pronouncement pulled out of somebody's, um, hat. Regulatory "law," the largest part of U.S. law these days, doesn't seem bound by the same rules of evidence you and I might use to evaluate claims. It is undemocratic, unaccountable, and unobjective. We have minor unelected bureaucrats making these kinds of judgment calls all the time, and issuing these little proclamations we are expected to obey. 

(Upon reading Gordon's question this morning, I launched into reading about 10 articles about runaway regulation at http://www.capmag.com/category.asp?action=cat&catID=60 -- so now my blood pressure's up and now I'm feeling all cornered and ornery!)

Why has so much power to mess up our lives been given away so quietly? One guess is that it has to do with a risk-averse society feeling that laws ought to prevent any bad things from happening, ever, and willing to give power to those with the magical power to make it so (which leads to another question: how did we get so risk-averse?). In this climate, guys who want to engage in risky "unnecessary" behavior like skydiving or building their own submarines, will be increasingly regarded with suspicion, resentment, or anger.

It reads like this whole Park Service rule linked is aimed at no actual identified problem -- but to head one off before it might happen, because somebody writing regulations for a government agency can imagine there COULD be a problem. (I think the legal term is "prior restraint.") So, p-subbers might find themselves up against officials who want to "err on the side of caution" and prevent them diving on grounds that they MIGHT carelessly surface in front of waterskiers, or MIGHT loot underwater artifacts, etc. 

You'll shoot yer eye out, kid.

Steve's goal of gathering up such regulations is laudable and makes sense, and I salute him for it -- but it stinks that we must look over our shoulders, worrying we'll run afoul of petty bureaucrats and anxious busybodies -- instead of just concentrating on real, practical dangers, and being safe and responsible. 

David Buchner
Osage, MN