Comment Submitted by David Nilsen

I’m writing this comment as I’m unsure about the importance of establishing this temporary safety zone. When it comes to firework displays, It has been my experience that there are two types of people. Those who avoid the center of the firework display, and those who run towards the origin point for whatever reason. I find that these people ultimately understand the risks of going towards the origin point and still choose to anyway. Furthermore, as this takes place over water, a person seeking the origin point would have to either swim or get in their boat and drive there. I assume these types of people aren’t going to be deterred from going to the origin point, even if it is designated as a safety zone. As such, the safety zone won’t really stop any harm, as those who would be responsible near the origin of the fireworks would be turned away, and those who wouldn't would still try to enter the zone. While I find protecting marine life a noble goal, I’m a little confused about how this seems to do that. Denying people access doesn’t seem like a qualified solution in this case, as to me, most of the pollution is from the fireworks themselves. Unless the patrols are planning on picking up the debris and catching the embers, most of the pollution is bound to happen anyway, safety zone or not. This is especially strange to me as the safety zone is only in effect for two hours, meaning the amount of pollution prevention seems minimal. I would like more information on why this designated zone is needed, and what benefits this seems to bring. This doesn’t sound like a bad idea, and the cost of implementing it doesn’t sound like a lot either, and so I’m not strongly against the implementation of the safety zone. I’m just not sure how necessary it is.