BmP
New
To add to what has been said, the following email chain has been sent to me with permission to publish. Just for clarification SOS-L is a disccusion list for the topics of Heritage Preservation, Archaeology and related events. If you want you can join via the SOS website at http://www.SaveOntarioShipwrecks.on.ca
BmP
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sos-l@neumes.com [mailto
wner-sos-l@neumes.com] On Behalf
> Of Tim and Marilyn Legate
> Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 7:45 AM
> To: NorthEAquanauts@aol.com
> Cc: GHorn82707@aol.com
> Subject: Tim Legate
>
>
> Louis:
>
> Thanks for letting me know I'm famous - I've enclosed a copy of the
> e-mails accumulated with regard to the shipwreck artifact issue in
> hopes that you will read them and consider posting most if not all of
> the content to your "Dive Report" web page. While I don't
> particularly want to be associated with a spat between you and the
> NYSDA, I do think that the issues raised are important to the sport of
> diving.
>
> I am not now, nor never have been associated with the NYSDA - I am
> from Ontario. I have served two terms as President of Save Ontario
> Shipwrecks, been an executive member of Preserve Our Wrecks (Kingston)
> and have been involved in marine heritage conservation for over 20
> years. I am not now serving in any capacity, and the opinions
> expressed in my e-mails are purely my own, expressed as a sport diver.
>
> Before Sept 11th, St. Lawrence River divers tended to treat both sides
> of the river as their domain, with little real distinction between US
> and Can waters. While the Customs and Immigration folks on both sides
> of the border seem hell bent on changing that paradigm, we are still
> proud of the diving in our area. I'm sorry that you and your group
> saw fit to remove an anchor from our waters. If you read my e-mail (a
> copy of which was sent to you, but bounced back by your server as
> un-deliverable by the way) you will perhaps understand why that is
> the case. By the way - I'd be very interested in the "Salvage Permit"
> that allowed the salvage of the anchor - posting a copy of it might go
> a long way to deflecting some of the criticism of your group.
>
> Comments?
>
> While I fully appreciate that the shipwreck diving in your area is
> different, your web site does not make that clear. Perhaps you could
> review your site with an eye to the fact that it is on the "World
> Wide" web and not have it look quite so much like you are wreck
> stripping.
>
> Regards,
> Tim Legate
> ----------------------------------------------
> The conversations that I have been having with folks south of the
> border have been very interesting, and enlightening. I thought I
> would share these with you so that you can better understand the
> issues, and what has been going on. First of all, it would seem that
> the artifacts recovered by this group largely come from badly
> scattered and buried sites in salt water, although the website does
> not make that clear to anyone who is not local to their area.
>
> When dealing with this sort of issue, IMHO we must be prepared to keep
> our discussions totally reasonable, think about the other person's
> point of view, and accept that there are other points of view than our
> own that are rooted in different experiences than our own. We must
> not rise to the bait when people use sarcasm, etc. but rather try to
> see past that at what they are really trying to say.
>
> In this case, I believe that these e-mails have helped to bridge an
> understanding gap between two sport divers, and this can only help to
> move us all forward. Talk is the key - a wise person once said that
> "If we do not talk and listen to each other, then I cannot know your
> mind. If I cannot know your mind, I cannot be your friend."
>
> What is the value of a shipwreck site?
> Each site in my opinion, has a unique value based on:
> 1) It's "Tourism" value - how interesting is it to look at, how many
> divers (or non-divers in glass bottomed boats) visit?
> 2) It's "commercial salvage" value - what was aboard that has a
> commercial value in today's economy?
> 3) It's "Heritage" value - what can this site tell us about the past
> that we don't already know?
> 4) It's "Ecological" value - what habitat is this site providing for
> flora & fauna?
>
> What activities then should be allowed to go on at any given site, and
> what restrictions or limits should be placed on those activities?
> Should sport divers be allowed unlimited access? Should fishermen and
> divers be allowed to hook anchors into them? Should salvers be
> allowed to dynamite hulls to gain access to cargo? Should people be
> allowed to remove artifacts? Should archaeologists be allowed to
> dismantle and remove large parts of the remains?
>
> All of these activities compete with each other, and to a greater or
> lesser degree are mutually exclusive. So what is right? I don't
> believe that there is a definitive answer. I do think that before one
> undertakes an activity that is irrevocably destructive to the site in
> such a manner that the other uses are diminished, that that activity
> should not proceed until all values of the site are carefully
> considered. Perhaps the purpose could be accomplished in a less
> intrusive way, or perhaps the purpose should be modified, or perhaps
> the purpose is overarchingly important enough to outweigh the others.
>
> So who decides what is the "highest and best use" (to borrow from
> commercial appraisal terminology) of a wreck site? I don't know. I'd
> like to think that the various stakeholders - those that benefit the
> most from the site, could come to gather to discuss and decide. This
> takes vision, patience and persistence.
>
> For me, I will keep on plugging.
> Tim Legate
> --------------------------------------------
> Jan 29, 2003 6:15 am
> Tim to NE Aquanauts: Original e-mail
>
> I am personally appalled that in this day and age, any formally
> organized group of sport divers would not only sanction, but glorify
> the destruction of dive sites to the detriment of all future divers.
> Would you celebrate and post pictures of divers breaking off and
> bringing up black coral from tropical reefs? What is the difference
> in taking artifacts off wrecks, other than, coral grows back - I've
> never known a wreck to grow a new deadeye. Your comments would be
> interesting.
> --------------------------------------
> Jan 31, 2003 5:15 am
> Tim Legate to NE Aquanauts - Louie Schreiner
> Including his response to my original e-mail
>
> I am speaking of the wreck dive sites that are mentioned along with
> pictures of shipwreck artifacts taken from those sites on your web
> site:
> eg: Gal1 - port holes, deck hatch cover, heart eye, dead eye, assorted
> rusty junk etc.
>
> Do I take it from your response that none of the artifacts displayed
> on your site were unbolted, cut or pried from the remains of a
> shipwreck? You actually had to dig down 4 to 8 feet under the mud?
> Are you using sub-bottom profiling?
>
> I prefer to study and photograph wreck sites, rather than come home
> with trophies. I am sure that you enjoy diving these sites
> (regardless of whether they are intact hulls, or surf-damaged debris
> fields. Presumably you would have had more fun visiting these sites
> after I had dived them, than I would have had after you had been
> there. Surely you see that the site is that much poorer for having
> the "neat" stuff removed.
>
> My point about coral was to illustrate a mind set - wreck stripping
> seems to be ok, but reef and coral destruction is not. I was
> attempting to point out the inconsistency - both activities should be
> unacceptable to divers because both degrade the sites we visit.
>
> I am well aware of the differences of wrecks in salt vs. fresh water,
> and cold vs. warm water, having been involved in marine heritage
> conservation projects from Thunder Bay, Ontario to Bermuda over the
> past 20 or so years.
>
> Might I suggest that you and your group consider trying something
> infinitely more challenging? Try looking at one of these sites as an
> underwater archaeological site that requires study and interpretation?
> What artifacts are there, why is this particular one in this
> particular place, what does it tell us about the events leading up to
> the wreck? Kind of like forensics, wreck sites provide a fascinating
> puzzle for unraveling. The skill, knowledge and understanding to
> interpret a wreck are significantly higher than those needed to strip
> one.
>
> No - I've never recovered a deadeye - there are lots in museums - I
> don't have to have on in my rec room - I prefer to see them
> underwater.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: NorthEAquanauts@aol.com
> To: bowsprit@magma.ca
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 10:05 PM
> Subject: Re: Dive Site Destruction
> To Tim & Marilyn Legate,
>
> >>You wrote
> I am personally appalled that in this day and age, any formally
> organized group of sport divers would not only sanction, but glorify
> the destruction of dive sites to the detriment of all future divers.
>
> And what dive site might you be speaking of Mr. Legate??
>
> >>You Wrote
> Would you celebrate
> and post pictures of divers breaking off and bringing up black coral
> from tropical reefs? No I would not we are speaking about two
> different things living coral opposed to wreck diving for artifacts.
> Are you aware that in our NY & NJ waters which I am sure you never
> dove! That these wrecks are low lying broken down and if it was not
> for divers like me and many others no divers would see any of these
> pieces of history.
>
> >> You Wrote
> What is the difference in taking artifacts off wrecks,
> other than, coral grows back
> Coral does not grow in our waters and cover over a wreck site here!
> Did you know that?
>
> >>You Wrote
> I've never known a wreck to grow a new deadeye.
>
> Me either have you ever recovered a deadeye Sir?
> Bet Not!
> If you did you would also know that most if not all deadeyes recovered
> in our area has to be dug out of the mud and most times that's 4 to 8
> ft below the muck. I guess that would be destroying a dive site right?
> I say not.
>
> If you ever did dive here you would never, ever, see it, know it was
> there, or know what one looked like till you seen one on exhibit. And
> that would mean some nasty low down diver dug it up for you to see.
>
> Thanks for the entertainment!
> And say Hi to Tom for me.....LOL
> Louie Schreiner
> Thief of The deep
> And Remember
> Down Below The Waves
> There Is Peace and Tranquility For All That Are Willing To Explore.
> NorthEastAquanauts.com (Click on the Blue and Enjoy) Yahoo! Groups :
> Northeastaquanauts
> --------------------------------------
> Jan 31, 2003 - 7:10 am
> George Horn to Tim Legate
>
> I found the letter written by Tim and Marilyn Legate quite
> interesting. I would like to ask Tim, have you ever seen a single or
> double eye on any wreck? Since I have been diving close to 45 years I
> feel I have the knowledge and the right to comment. I also have more
> reason to comment, I am a technical director for a scientific dive
> team (hydronautics.org). We bring things to the surface for a number
> of differing causes. I personally have no desire to bring things up
> from wrecks, but see nothing wrong with anyone doing so on non
> historic wrecks. The dead eye, a wonderful piece of maritime history,
> to some just a piece of junk. Do we need to salvage them, maybe, why
> would anyone want to? Well I have a few reasons that I can think of
> for someone to bring them up, a primary reason is others specifically
> none divers would get to see what they look like and also see what the
> ravages of the sea can do to wood and metal. The fun of finding one
> is a great thrill that depends on great skill, perseverance and surely
> a lot of hard work. In all the dives I have ever done and that has
> been over 10K I have never seen a dead eye not buried, so they are not
> seen by the average diver either. Now for Black Coral, a beautiful
> site to see, the largest tree I have had the fortune to see is still
> alive in the Bahamas Chain. This magnificent tree is about 12 - 14
> inches across at the base and about 15 feet high on Dog Rocks Wall.
> It is about 130 feet down and most divers would never see that either
> if not shown it. I have to say that 95 % of the divers I have met
> never saw a Black Coral Tree either. Black Coral is taken completely
> because of its great value so it does not grow back as you say. I has
> never been harvested like a sustainable resource. Artifacts from the
> sea should not ever be thrown away, their are far too many museums
> that will take them as long as they are documented as to when and
> where they were brought up from. Saying this I hope that anyone that
> has any please make arrangement for their dispersement when no longer
> wanted. Just my two cents, hope it has made some sense, dive safe
> -------------------------------------
> Jan 31, 2003 6:48 pm
> Tim Legate to George Horn
> Thank you both for your comments and reasoned approach to this
> discussion. In Ontario, we are fortunate to have several shipwrecks in
> the 1800 to 1900 range with dead eyes still attached, belaying pins
> still in the pinrails, portholes and deadlights still in place. Many
> of these wrecks are well within the sport diving range. All marine
> museums, and many of the local small museums have more shipwreck
> artifacts than they can display or conserve. Many years ago now, a
> group of sport divers from the Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto areas hit
> about 30 wrecks in eastern Ontario and "salvaged" many thousand (not
> an
> exaggeration) artifacts. The intent was to start a marine museum in
> Ottawa. This was long before organizations such as Save Ontario
> Shipwrecks, Preserve Our Wrecks (Kingston), Ontario Marine Heritage
> Committee etc. were established, and the paradigm of the day was to find
> stuff and bring it up.
>
> To make a long story short, a few of the artifacts remain on display,
> but the vast majority of the collection languishes unconserved in
> boxes in a warehouse. The will, in all likelihood never see the light
> of day again. As you note, they are not particularly valuable from a
> historical perspective, not in good enough condition to display, and
> too expensive to conserve. They would, IMHO have been better left on
> the sites. They were pretty much in a steady state, and would have
> deteriorated much more slowly underwater, covered by a modest layer of
> silt. Now no-one sees or enjoys them.
>
> This is largely why, if you talk to professional museums, the
> international ethical standards they operate under will not permit
> their acceptance of artifacts recovered from sites (land or
> underwater) unless they are properly excavated under archaeological
> licences. Conservation labs operate under the same code of ethics.
> One of the reasons for archaeological licence requirements for
> underwater sites, is to ensure that someone weighs the pros and cons
> of artifact removal, ensures that there are conservation funds, and
> display / study protocols in place.
>
> Your point about salt-water and the sea insofar as more rapid
> destruction of wrecks is well taken. They do fall apart more quickly
> and differently than fresh water wrecks, but I suggest that your point
> about salvaging deadeyes so that "non-divers would get to see what
> they look like and also see what the ravages of the sea can do to wood
> and metal." is likely a bit off the mark. That could be as easily
> accomplished by bringing up a bit of plank with a spike through it. I
> suspect that it's more the fact that dead eyes are cool and "nautical
> looking". The same with anchors.
>
> In the St. Lawrence River, my friends and I regularly drift along the
> bottom in the 120 to 180 foot depth range, and have enjoyed finding
> and drifting past several anchors on the bottom. Admiralty,
> wooden-stocked, bower and other types can be found if you know where
> to look - or could, until this year when an Ontario charterboat
> operator and some of his customers removed 5 from the bottom at the
> end of the season. I believe they are now on front lawns somewhere -
> we are still tracing them. Now, these were not particularly unique in
> design, we don't know off hand how some of them got there, but there
> is little doubt that a couple of them were involved in the efforts of
> vessels to avoid the catastrophic fate that resulted in their
> wrecking. As no one has yet done the archaeology on those sites, it
> is now impossible to establish their exact role because their location
> and orientation cannot be established. Does posterity care? Perhaps
> not, but I cannot help but think that we are the poorer for it.
>
> As abandoned artifacts on Ontario crown land, those anchors belong to
> the Province. As a citizen of that Province, I feel that I own them
> as much as that charter operator. I am not impressed that he has seen
> fit to selfishly pull them up and remove them. My dives are directly
> poorer for his actions. What gives him the right? In Ontario he has
> contravened a number of statutes, so he certainly has no legal right.
> I don't see that he has a moral right. As a diver, I want to see
> things underwater - that's what divers do - go underwater and look at
> stuff. Do I not have a right to be angry about someone destroying my
> underwater environment? Not to mention the fact that now that these
> anchors are gone, those "customers" now have no reason to charter him
> for that particular dive again. By the way, this is the second set of
> five he's taken - almost got charged the last time. It remains to be
> seen this time, the investigation is still under way.
>
> I've held underwater archaeological licences and been involved in
> several marine heritage conservation projects. I've located virgin
> schooner wrecks, and dived on wrecks that have gone from very pretty,
> intact wrecks to piles of boards simply because people kept throwing
> anchors into them do dive, then not released them at the end - just
> ripped them out.
>
> It may well be, that the deadeyes, portholes and other stuff brought
> up and displayed on your web site was indeed scattered remains, buried
> under sand, etc. The problem is, your site does not make any of these
> points, nor does it address any marine heritage conservation issues.
> What do we teach new divers when we "Old Coots" set such examples.
>
> Sorry if I tend to ramble on, but I am passionate about my time
> underwater - it's precious to me. Tim
> ------------------------------------------------
> Jan 31, 7:29 pm
> George Horn to Tim Legate
>
> I would like to thank you for your response. I now understand your
> position much better than I did before. I realize what you are saying
> now and agree with you more than you think. Unfortunately, I do know
> about the anchor that was brought up, I was not a part of the team
> that did so. Now that you have explained the situation I understand
> your stance against the recovery of even the lowly deadeye. If I
> lived in your area we would probably be standing side by side as I
> even imagine Louie would. If I can ever be of assistance please feel
> free to contact me.
> ------------------------------------------------
> George:
>
> Thanks for your open-mindedness and patience. If you ever find
> yourself in my area (Kemptville is between Ottawa and Brockville about
> 1/2 hour north of the St. Lawrence River, please feel free to look me
> up - I'd be glad to spend a day or two on the River with you.
>
> With your permission, I'd like to send our e-mails to Save Ontario
> Shipwrecks for their newsletter. I think it would help to improve
> communications and understanding between our folks and yours. What do
> you think? By the way, I had a look at your website. I've been
> involved in low-viz underwater archaeological excavation of an Indian
> site. I'm interested in how yours went, what techniques were used,
> and so forth.
>
> Tim
> -----------------------------------------------
> Feb 1, 2003 7:54 pm
> George Horn to Tim Legate
>
> So far we have not begun any work on this site, we are waiting for
> the Army Corps of Engineers water report. This area has some serious
> hazard potential due to heavy metals in the sediment. This site is
> located on Staten Island in Kill Van Kull, If you are coming down to
> the Beneath the Sea show you will be able to see some of the artifacts
> that have been recovered from land area adjacent to the water site.
> You may print anything I have written to you as I believe
> communication is always good. I would consider it a distinct pleasure
> to dive with you and also an honor. The same to you and your guys if
> you come to NYC give me a shout also.
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
BmP
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sos-l@neumes.com [mailto
wner-sos-l@neumes.com] On Behalf > Of Tim and Marilyn Legate
> Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 7:45 AM
> To: NorthEAquanauts@aol.com
> Cc: GHorn82707@aol.com
> Subject: Tim Legate
>
>
> Louis:
>
> Thanks for letting me know I'm famous - I've enclosed a copy of the
> e-mails accumulated with regard to the shipwreck artifact issue in
> hopes that you will read them and consider posting most if not all of
> the content to your "Dive Report" web page. While I don't
> particularly want to be associated with a spat between you and the
> NYSDA, I do think that the issues raised are important to the sport of
> diving.
>
> I am not now, nor never have been associated with the NYSDA - I am
> from Ontario. I have served two terms as President of Save Ontario
> Shipwrecks, been an executive member of Preserve Our Wrecks (Kingston)
> and have been involved in marine heritage conservation for over 20
> years. I am not now serving in any capacity, and the opinions
> expressed in my e-mails are purely my own, expressed as a sport diver.
>
> Before Sept 11th, St. Lawrence River divers tended to treat both sides
> of the river as their domain, with little real distinction between US
> and Can waters. While the Customs and Immigration folks on both sides
> of the border seem hell bent on changing that paradigm, we are still
> proud of the diving in our area. I'm sorry that you and your group
> saw fit to remove an anchor from our waters. If you read my e-mail (a
> copy of which was sent to you, but bounced back by your server as
> un-deliverable by the way) you will perhaps understand why that is
> the case. By the way - I'd be very interested in the "Salvage Permit"
> that allowed the salvage of the anchor - posting a copy of it might go
> a long way to deflecting some of the criticism of your group.
>
> Comments?
>
> While I fully appreciate that the shipwreck diving in your area is
> different, your web site does not make that clear. Perhaps you could
> review your site with an eye to the fact that it is on the "World
> Wide" web and not have it look quite so much like you are wreck
> stripping.
>
> Regards,
> Tim Legate
> ----------------------------------------------
> The conversations that I have been having with folks south of the
> border have been very interesting, and enlightening. I thought I
> would share these with you so that you can better understand the
> issues, and what has been going on. First of all, it would seem that
> the artifacts recovered by this group largely come from badly
> scattered and buried sites in salt water, although the website does
> not make that clear to anyone who is not local to their area.
>
> When dealing with this sort of issue, IMHO we must be prepared to keep
> our discussions totally reasonable, think about the other person's
> point of view, and accept that there are other points of view than our
> own that are rooted in different experiences than our own. We must
> not rise to the bait when people use sarcasm, etc. but rather try to
> see past that at what they are really trying to say.
>
> In this case, I believe that these e-mails have helped to bridge an
> understanding gap between two sport divers, and this can only help to
> move us all forward. Talk is the key - a wise person once said that
> "If we do not talk and listen to each other, then I cannot know your
> mind. If I cannot know your mind, I cannot be your friend."
>
> What is the value of a shipwreck site?
> Each site in my opinion, has a unique value based on:
> 1) It's "Tourism" value - how interesting is it to look at, how many
> divers (or non-divers in glass bottomed boats) visit?
> 2) It's "commercial salvage" value - what was aboard that has a
> commercial value in today's economy?
> 3) It's "Heritage" value - what can this site tell us about the past
> that we don't already know?
> 4) It's "Ecological" value - what habitat is this site providing for
> flora & fauna?
>
> What activities then should be allowed to go on at any given site, and
> what restrictions or limits should be placed on those activities?
> Should sport divers be allowed unlimited access? Should fishermen and
> divers be allowed to hook anchors into them? Should salvers be
> allowed to dynamite hulls to gain access to cargo? Should people be
> allowed to remove artifacts? Should archaeologists be allowed to
> dismantle and remove large parts of the remains?
>
> All of these activities compete with each other, and to a greater or
> lesser degree are mutually exclusive. So what is right? I don't
> believe that there is a definitive answer. I do think that before one
> undertakes an activity that is irrevocably destructive to the site in
> such a manner that the other uses are diminished, that that activity
> should not proceed until all values of the site are carefully
> considered. Perhaps the purpose could be accomplished in a less
> intrusive way, or perhaps the purpose should be modified, or perhaps
> the purpose is overarchingly important enough to outweigh the others.
>
> So who decides what is the "highest and best use" (to borrow from
> commercial appraisal terminology) of a wreck site? I don't know. I'd
> like to think that the various stakeholders - those that benefit the
> most from the site, could come to gather to discuss and decide. This
> takes vision, patience and persistence.
>
> For me, I will keep on plugging.
> Tim Legate
> --------------------------------------------
> Jan 29, 2003 6:15 am
> Tim to NE Aquanauts: Original e-mail
>
> I am personally appalled that in this day and age, any formally
> organized group of sport divers would not only sanction, but glorify
> the destruction of dive sites to the detriment of all future divers.
> Would you celebrate and post pictures of divers breaking off and
> bringing up black coral from tropical reefs? What is the difference
> in taking artifacts off wrecks, other than, coral grows back - I've
> never known a wreck to grow a new deadeye. Your comments would be
> interesting.
> --------------------------------------
> Jan 31, 2003 5:15 am
> Tim Legate to NE Aquanauts - Louie Schreiner
> Including his response to my original e-mail
>
> I am speaking of the wreck dive sites that are mentioned along with
> pictures of shipwreck artifacts taken from those sites on your web
> site:
> eg: Gal1 - port holes, deck hatch cover, heart eye, dead eye, assorted
> rusty junk etc.
>
> Do I take it from your response that none of the artifacts displayed
> on your site were unbolted, cut or pried from the remains of a
> shipwreck? You actually had to dig down 4 to 8 feet under the mud?
> Are you using sub-bottom profiling?
>
> I prefer to study and photograph wreck sites, rather than come home
> with trophies. I am sure that you enjoy diving these sites
> (regardless of whether they are intact hulls, or surf-damaged debris
> fields. Presumably you would have had more fun visiting these sites
> after I had dived them, than I would have had after you had been
> there. Surely you see that the site is that much poorer for having
> the "neat" stuff removed.
>
> My point about coral was to illustrate a mind set - wreck stripping
> seems to be ok, but reef and coral destruction is not. I was
> attempting to point out the inconsistency - both activities should be
> unacceptable to divers because both degrade the sites we visit.
>
> I am well aware of the differences of wrecks in salt vs. fresh water,
> and cold vs. warm water, having been involved in marine heritage
> conservation projects from Thunder Bay, Ontario to Bermuda over the
> past 20 or so years.
>
> Might I suggest that you and your group consider trying something
> infinitely more challenging? Try looking at one of these sites as an
> underwater archaeological site that requires study and interpretation?
> What artifacts are there, why is this particular one in this
> particular place, what does it tell us about the events leading up to
> the wreck? Kind of like forensics, wreck sites provide a fascinating
> puzzle for unraveling. The skill, knowledge and understanding to
> interpret a wreck are significantly higher than those needed to strip
> one.
>
> No - I've never recovered a deadeye - there are lots in museums - I
> don't have to have on in my rec room - I prefer to see them
> underwater.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: NorthEAquanauts@aol.com
> To: bowsprit@magma.ca
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 10:05 PM
> Subject: Re: Dive Site Destruction
> To Tim & Marilyn Legate,
>
> >>You wrote
> I am personally appalled that in this day and age, any formally
> organized group of sport divers would not only sanction, but glorify
> the destruction of dive sites to the detriment of all future divers.
>
> And what dive site might you be speaking of Mr. Legate??
>
> >>You Wrote
> Would you celebrate
> and post pictures of divers breaking off and bringing up black coral
> from tropical reefs? No I would not we are speaking about two
> different things living coral opposed to wreck diving for artifacts.
> Are you aware that in our NY & NJ waters which I am sure you never
> dove! That these wrecks are low lying broken down and if it was not
> for divers like me and many others no divers would see any of these
> pieces of history.
>
> >> You Wrote
> What is the difference in taking artifacts off wrecks,
> other than, coral grows back
> Coral does not grow in our waters and cover over a wreck site here!
> Did you know that?
>
> >>You Wrote
> I've never known a wreck to grow a new deadeye.
>
> Me either have you ever recovered a deadeye Sir?
> Bet Not!
> If you did you would also know that most if not all deadeyes recovered
> in our area has to be dug out of the mud and most times that's 4 to 8
> ft below the muck. I guess that would be destroying a dive site right?
> I say not.
>
> If you ever did dive here you would never, ever, see it, know it was
> there, or know what one looked like till you seen one on exhibit. And
> that would mean some nasty low down diver dug it up for you to see.
>
> Thanks for the entertainment!
> And say Hi to Tom for me.....LOL
> Louie Schreiner
> Thief of The deep
> And Remember
> Down Below The Waves
> There Is Peace and Tranquility For All That Are Willing To Explore.
> NorthEastAquanauts.com (Click on the Blue and Enjoy) Yahoo! Groups :
> Northeastaquanauts
> --------------------------------------
> Jan 31, 2003 - 7:10 am
> George Horn to Tim Legate
>
> I found the letter written by Tim and Marilyn Legate quite
> interesting. I would like to ask Tim, have you ever seen a single or
> double eye on any wreck? Since I have been diving close to 45 years I
> feel I have the knowledge and the right to comment. I also have more
> reason to comment, I am a technical director for a scientific dive
> team (hydronautics.org). We bring things to the surface for a number
> of differing causes. I personally have no desire to bring things up
> from wrecks, but see nothing wrong with anyone doing so on non
> historic wrecks. The dead eye, a wonderful piece of maritime history,
> to some just a piece of junk. Do we need to salvage them, maybe, why
> would anyone want to? Well I have a few reasons that I can think of
> for someone to bring them up, a primary reason is others specifically
> none divers would get to see what they look like and also see what the
> ravages of the sea can do to wood and metal. The fun of finding one
> is a great thrill that depends on great skill, perseverance and surely
> a lot of hard work. In all the dives I have ever done and that has
> been over 10K I have never seen a dead eye not buried, so they are not
> seen by the average diver either. Now for Black Coral, a beautiful
> site to see, the largest tree I have had the fortune to see is still
> alive in the Bahamas Chain. This magnificent tree is about 12 - 14
> inches across at the base and about 15 feet high on Dog Rocks Wall.
> It is about 130 feet down and most divers would never see that either
> if not shown it. I have to say that 95 % of the divers I have met
> never saw a Black Coral Tree either. Black Coral is taken completely
> because of its great value so it does not grow back as you say. I has
> never been harvested like a sustainable resource. Artifacts from the
> sea should not ever be thrown away, their are far too many museums
> that will take them as long as they are documented as to when and
> where they were brought up from. Saying this I hope that anyone that
> has any please make arrangement for their dispersement when no longer
> wanted. Just my two cents, hope it has made some sense, dive safe
> -------------------------------------
> Jan 31, 2003 6:48 pm
> Tim Legate to George Horn
> Thank you both for your comments and reasoned approach to this
> discussion. In Ontario, we are fortunate to have several shipwrecks in
> the 1800 to 1900 range with dead eyes still attached, belaying pins
> still in the pinrails, portholes and deadlights still in place. Many
> of these wrecks are well within the sport diving range. All marine
> museums, and many of the local small museums have more shipwreck
> artifacts than they can display or conserve. Many years ago now, a
> group of sport divers from the Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto areas hit
> about 30 wrecks in eastern Ontario and "salvaged" many thousand (not
> an
> exaggeration) artifacts. The intent was to start a marine museum in
> Ottawa. This was long before organizations such as Save Ontario
> Shipwrecks, Preserve Our Wrecks (Kingston), Ontario Marine Heritage
> Committee etc. were established, and the paradigm of the day was to find
> stuff and bring it up.
>
> To make a long story short, a few of the artifacts remain on display,
> but the vast majority of the collection languishes unconserved in
> boxes in a warehouse. The will, in all likelihood never see the light
> of day again. As you note, they are not particularly valuable from a
> historical perspective, not in good enough condition to display, and
> too expensive to conserve. They would, IMHO have been better left on
> the sites. They were pretty much in a steady state, and would have
> deteriorated much more slowly underwater, covered by a modest layer of
> silt. Now no-one sees or enjoys them.
>
> This is largely why, if you talk to professional museums, the
> international ethical standards they operate under will not permit
> their acceptance of artifacts recovered from sites (land or
> underwater) unless they are properly excavated under archaeological
> licences. Conservation labs operate under the same code of ethics.
> One of the reasons for archaeological licence requirements for
> underwater sites, is to ensure that someone weighs the pros and cons
> of artifact removal, ensures that there are conservation funds, and
> display / study protocols in place.
>
> Your point about salt-water and the sea insofar as more rapid
> destruction of wrecks is well taken. They do fall apart more quickly
> and differently than fresh water wrecks, but I suggest that your point
> about salvaging deadeyes so that "non-divers would get to see what
> they look like and also see what the ravages of the sea can do to wood
> and metal." is likely a bit off the mark. That could be as easily
> accomplished by bringing up a bit of plank with a spike through it. I
> suspect that it's more the fact that dead eyes are cool and "nautical
> looking". The same with anchors.
>
> In the St. Lawrence River, my friends and I regularly drift along the
> bottom in the 120 to 180 foot depth range, and have enjoyed finding
> and drifting past several anchors on the bottom. Admiralty,
> wooden-stocked, bower and other types can be found if you know where
> to look - or could, until this year when an Ontario charterboat
> operator and some of his customers removed 5 from the bottom at the
> end of the season. I believe they are now on front lawns somewhere -
> we are still tracing them. Now, these were not particularly unique in
> design, we don't know off hand how some of them got there, but there
> is little doubt that a couple of them were involved in the efforts of
> vessels to avoid the catastrophic fate that resulted in their
> wrecking. As no one has yet done the archaeology on those sites, it
> is now impossible to establish their exact role because their location
> and orientation cannot be established. Does posterity care? Perhaps
> not, but I cannot help but think that we are the poorer for it.
>
> As abandoned artifacts on Ontario crown land, those anchors belong to
> the Province. As a citizen of that Province, I feel that I own them
> as much as that charter operator. I am not impressed that he has seen
> fit to selfishly pull them up and remove them. My dives are directly
> poorer for his actions. What gives him the right? In Ontario he has
> contravened a number of statutes, so he certainly has no legal right.
> I don't see that he has a moral right. As a diver, I want to see
> things underwater - that's what divers do - go underwater and look at
> stuff. Do I not have a right to be angry about someone destroying my
> underwater environment? Not to mention the fact that now that these
> anchors are gone, those "customers" now have no reason to charter him
> for that particular dive again. By the way, this is the second set of
> five he's taken - almost got charged the last time. It remains to be
> seen this time, the investigation is still under way.
>
> I've held underwater archaeological licences and been involved in
> several marine heritage conservation projects. I've located virgin
> schooner wrecks, and dived on wrecks that have gone from very pretty,
> intact wrecks to piles of boards simply because people kept throwing
> anchors into them do dive, then not released them at the end - just
> ripped them out.
>
> It may well be, that the deadeyes, portholes and other stuff brought
> up and displayed on your web site was indeed scattered remains, buried
> under sand, etc. The problem is, your site does not make any of these
> points, nor does it address any marine heritage conservation issues.
> What do we teach new divers when we "Old Coots" set such examples.
>
> Sorry if I tend to ramble on, but I am passionate about my time
> underwater - it's precious to me. Tim
> ------------------------------------------------
> Jan 31, 7:29 pm
> George Horn to Tim Legate
>
> I would like to thank you for your response. I now understand your
> position much better than I did before. I realize what you are saying
> now and agree with you more than you think. Unfortunately, I do know
> about the anchor that was brought up, I was not a part of the team
> that did so. Now that you have explained the situation I understand
> your stance against the recovery of even the lowly deadeye. If I
> lived in your area we would probably be standing side by side as I
> even imagine Louie would. If I can ever be of assistance please feel
> free to contact me.
> ------------------------------------------------
> George:
>
> Thanks for your open-mindedness and patience. If you ever find
> yourself in my area (Kemptville is between Ottawa and Brockville about
> 1/2 hour north of the St. Lawrence River, please feel free to look me
> up - I'd be glad to spend a day or two on the River with you.
>
> With your permission, I'd like to send our e-mails to Save Ontario
> Shipwrecks for their newsletter. I think it would help to improve
> communications and understanding between our folks and yours. What do
> you think? By the way, I had a look at your website. I've been
> involved in low-viz underwater archaeological excavation of an Indian
> site. I'm interested in how yours went, what techniques were used,
> and so forth.
>
> Tim
> -----------------------------------------------
> Feb 1, 2003 7:54 pm
> George Horn to Tim Legate
>
> So far we have not begun any work on this site, we are waiting for
> the Army Corps of Engineers water report. This area has some serious
> hazard potential due to heavy metals in the sediment. This site is
> located on Staten Island in Kill Van Kull, If you are coming down to
> the Beneath the Sea show you will be able to see some of the artifacts
> that have been recovered from land area adjacent to the water site.
> You may print anything I have written to you as I believe
> communication is always good. I would consider it a distinct pleasure
> to dive with you and also an honor. The same to you and your guys if
> you come to NYC give me a shout also.
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
