[ Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Larry Sanders
Category: Shipwreck Research
Date: 04 May 2007
Time: 12:27:58
Remote Name: 71.10.3.223
Hi Ross. While your post was intended as comedy (at least I hope so, if not, let me know and I'll send you a check. I trust you a lot more than government), you are not far off the mark.
There is no reason that a foundation cannot be established for the same purposes sought by this "Great Lakes State Park" legislation. It can function parallel to but exempt from any direct tie to state government. It will not be able to impose fees on anyone but it could accept "voluntary" donations in any amount as well as more significant contributions from donors and bequests. It it is free of government appropriations, its funds are beyond the reach of government and it is free to select its own priorities.
Donors are assured that the money will be managed free of government interference, used for diving related activities (including all those set out in the legislation) and invest and manage the principal free of government regulation or decision. It also has the unhindered ability to control administrative costs so it can be as lean as it wants as opposed to government.
It can give grants for promotion, exploration, diving improvements, surveys and anything else by simply having the party or parties apply for a grant or by undertaking it itself. Significantly, if it wants to fund a project (search, survey, even promotion) outside the strict boundaries of the State, it can do it. This can arise when a wreck is located just a short distance outside the strict State boundaries but still accessible from Michigan facilities. I do not see how a State Park fund could have the flexibility to fund such a project outside State boundaries even though it might contribute to Michigan tourism. Even if it could pair with another State, it means negotiating some kind of joint agreement to do so - all taking time and money that will not be used for anything productive.
A foundation cannot impose any rules on diving or hire law enforcement. If it wants to fund any activities like buoying shipwrecks, it can seek government specific government authorization for that limited purpose and immunity for that purpose or provide funding for that specific purpose. If liability is a problem, specific legislation for that sole purpose can be passed. The state has already given what amounts to immunity to dive buddies, charters and dive clubs by declaring diving a dangerous activity in which the diver assumes the risk of injury or death.
There is already precedent for this in Michigan. A private foundation, "Mackinac Associates" works with the State to provide funding for improvements at State facilities on the Island and in Macinaw City. They fund physical improvements the State cannot or will not pay for and have built up a significant endowment to do so. They have a very active program to provide education in the secondary schools and provide materials for that purpose. They have a membership base that selects a board that manages the fund by selecting its directors. Basically, divers and others making donations will control future of a diving foundation and not state employees and politicians.
If anyone steps forward with a proposal that can convince divers it has merit, it will be funded to the extent of available funding from the foundation.
It is just an idea but it avoids this dispute over legislation, the many questions it raises with divers and embraces the idea that more funding is needed for diving. If divers truly mean to make voluntary donatioons, it puts them to the test. They cannot say they do not want to give money to something the State will control (and maybe siphon off or just not spend).
For all the talk about bringing divers to Michigan now, it assumes all these divers exist. The declining dive industry is not going to turn on a dime relying on these mystery divers. What will make change is to bring it home to younger kids in high school and younger. I remember sytaying up to wach Sea Hunt as a kid and wanting to dive. We need kids like that for diving to have a future, especially in cold water. Today kids have more interest in what they regard as more extreme sports. They race dirt bikes, climb cliffs, do extreme skiing and the like. They see those as challenges. Scuba is something their parents do. These kids are the future of diving. Without them, no amount of advertising and promotion is going to bring large numbers divers anywhere - they will become a dwindling and increasingly endangered species.
This is just an idea. It is meant to show that solutions to problems exist without more laws and government involvement. It is something divers can do for themselves. Of course, another option is to send your money to Ross. That is probably better than giving it to the State.