Why do people remove artifacts from wrecks?

[Storker]

So... except ranting against this "socialism" thing - which, AFAIK isn't practiced anywhere in the world - your point is...?

--
Sent from my Android phone
Typos are a feature, not a bug

 

[NAM001]

i think hte word was "repatriated" from post 41
i read it wwrong the first time also.

oh crap..... someone brought up reparations..........

---------- Post added September 13th, 2014 at 12:35 AM ----------

Well then as long as we are this far into the discussion of taking things from wrecks????? What are your feelings on leaving things on wrecks? I ask because one dive i found some tags secured with tie wraps on a wreck. I asked what they were and was told that some divers leave these tags on the wreck as a momento of thier visit.

 

[DaleC]

If a car goes in the river is it a wreck... and is the hubcap an artifact?

 

[NAM001]

If there is a body in the car is it a memorial or an undiscoverd accident/crime sceen.

If a car goes in the river is it a wreck... and is the hubcap an artifact?

 

[Mike]

Funny how everyone knows that give two identical wrecks, one that is just a picked clean shell and another that is well preserved with everything intact on the wreck, which one would be the more exciting, the better reviewed, the must dive that everyone would want to dive? We all know it would be the wreck that is the most intact and original with the most to see and marvel at. Yet there is an argument about whether its good or bad to strip a wreck? Typical me, me, me, screw everybody else self-entitled mentality that everyone bitches about, but when it comes to wrecks those self-entitled call it 'salvaging'.

 

[Centrals]

The wrecks in Truk are great because there are so much to see.
The dive at San Francisco Maru will be so much less interesting if the mini tanks were "salvaged" and the ammo removed.

 

[Basking Ridge Diver]

To me - any wreck placed intentionally or through accident on the bottom that is not of maritime significance is a habitat for additional sea life. It is an artificial reef of sorts that support additional life that would not be there any other way. It is not illegal and it is not immoral for anyone to strip it if they so chose. The bulk of the wreck is what is important to sustaining additional sea life in that spot.
We have gotten so sensitive about trying to be politically correct to the point of encroaching on those that are doing nothing illegal - The Infamous Nanny State. Anyone that has worked underwater will tell you - you are not swimming down and stripping a wreck - that would be easy. You need multiple dives to the same spot and location on the wreck - you are working your butt off (which is a skill unto itself) to get a piece of "wreckage or scrap metal" that is only personal to the person who is removing it. It will not be there forever and to pretend that wreckage should be a shrine or added to the Disney World Amusement parks for all to see is slightly over the top.
If you dont like it - stick to the reefs or those wrecks that are declared a sanctuary - but to declare someone as not caring / or immoral because they don't subscribe to your diving values does not seem right either.

 

[FinnMom]

These days there are lots of divers on most sites. What a scavenger removes or damages isn't something that would have been lost to the sea anyway = no foul; nowadays many, many more divers would have been able to see the artifact as it was where it was for many years before the seas and stroms would have destroyed it. That natural elements would destroy it anyway arguement is for most sites plain nonsense.

 

[Mike]

We have gotten so sensitive about trying to be politically correct to the point of encroaching on those that are doing nothing illegal - The Infamous Nanny State. Anyone that has worked underwater will tell you - you are not swimming down and stripping a wreck - that would be easy.

Not sure how this qualifies for political correctness.

Interesting thing today we hiked into an area in the Colorado mountains to a place I had been 10 years ago, there was a hidden little trail that we took again that led to an old site that was mined back in the 1880s. Almost everything was intact from the last time I was there and it was a huge thrill to show a new group of people, relatively new to Colorado this bit of history, to see all this stuff from more than 100 years ago. Was cool to see their excitement. Most of it is rusted junk now being out in the harsh elements for 130 years, but it's still recognizable. Had some people 'salvaged' the site for souvenirs for themselves to put in a box and be lost forever the experience today would have been completely different. There is no doubt the site has seen visits in the last 10 years since I've been there, but it sure is nice that in those 10 years it appears everyone who visited the site respected it enough to leave it alone so others could come by and get a unique experience too. I guess eventually all it will take is somebody to post it's location and enough details about it and some selfish arm chair 'salvager' will destroy it forever for everyone else. But so far it sure is nice to know that everyone who's stumbled upon it so far hasn't had the need to put their own self gratification above everyone else

 

[kelemvor]

Correct you if you are wrong?????....
Around here, someone will "correct you" even if you are right!

Sorry, but you are mistaken. They most certainly will not.



I could use a couple portholes, anyone know where I might find some in Florida?