Important - Everyone in Diving should read!

[Jim Ernst]

Book Marking this thread.

 

[ComputerJoe]

Quote: "My favorite dive to date is the St James in Lake Erie."

Where hemp rigging does not survive, and wire rigging is broken we do have these schooners that are upright with masts standing...Cornielia Windiate, Kyle Spangler, Defiance, and when the exact where abouts of Dave Trotter's find "H.P. Bridge" are known it will be our second three mast schooner/brigantine. Maybe, if you give us a chance, we might present a couple of challenges to the St. James. To get an idea of the number of shipwrecks KNOWN around here, a couple of years back I put together Wreck Sites (look for the red dots!) I am preparing an update which shoulds be out by the end of march.

 

[obxdivemaster]

So, are we supposed to be up in arms about the government protecting the wrecks from guys with crowbars?

Well, maybe we can legislate that they be protected from hurricanes, nor'eaters, saltwater corrosion, bacterial attack, and all the other things that do way more damage that a diver with a crowbar could ever dream of doing.

Or what about depth charging, wire dragging, and the like the government saw fit to do? I guess that's ok. But a diver looking to save an artifact from the ravages of the sea and bring it to the surface where the 98% of the public that doesn't dive might have a chance to see it. We just can't have that.

I have no problem at all with protecting wrecks that will survive the elements in their location. In fact, I have personally advocated the protection of historically significant or intact wrecks. As an example, before you'll be taken to the U-701 on our boat, you agree that there will be no salvaging or other activities detrimental to the condition of the wreck. It stays buried in the sand most of the time and is thus somewhat shielded from the elements. But protecting a pile of rubble that's already been bombed, wire dragged, tossed about by storms, ect. and is going to vanish anyway, that is where I draw the line.

But that's not the point. The big issue here is access for all divers. I can only speak from experience with regards to the Monitor Marine Sanctury, and here diving of any kind is severely restricted, whether you're on the Monitor itself or not. And yes, there are other wrecks in the area, which incidentally have never even been explored due to restrictive governmant practices. Who knows what wrecks could be discovered there? Looks like we'll never know.

Here's how it works in the MMS, which is one of the proposed areas of expansion. First, you have to navigate a heap of government red tape and shell out a pile of cash to obtain a permit. I'm not sure what the current price tag is, but several years ago it was $5,000 for one week, not counting the time and money involved in the process leading up to the actual purchase of the permit. This gives you access to the sanctuary for a specific week chosen well in advance. If weather or other factors prevent you from diving that week, which is quite frequent in this area, sorry about your luck. And, by the way, we're keeping your $5,000. If you want to try again later, you have to restart the whole permitting process over from the beginning and buy another $5,000 permit.

Then, if you're lucky enough to have picked the right week, you have to carry a NOAA observer on board. Not only does this take away space that could be occupied by another diver and thus raises the cost per head, you have to pay the observer and provide him with food and lodging. And, yes, this expense is still incurred in the event the trip is blown out. Overall, plan on spending better than $10,000 for a dive that may or may not happen.

The observer is there to make sure you don't take anything or even touch the wreck. Upon surfacing, you are inspected head to toe for evidence that you may have touched something. A rust spot on your wetsuit will earn you a hefty fine, even if it came from another wreck and there's no way they can link it to the Monitor.

Don't touch the wreck is the bottom line. That is if you're a private citizen. If you're the Navy, go ahead and do whatever you want. Rather than using a dedicated salvage team, they let practically every diver in the Navy have a turn. Come join the party. There is video of a Navy divers jumping up and down on the wreck while wearing lead diving boots and waving an American flag. They saw it a nice publicity shot. We saw it as Navy divers doing what would earn us thousands of dollars in fines. Brings us back to the old cliche that so aptly apllies to government, "do as I say, not as I do".

Explosives were used, though they'll deny it. I was in the water when they removed the prop. I felt the shock wave and heard the boom from many miles away. Those diving after the Navy left reported that the wreck had been torn apart and was littered with trash thrown overboard from the Navy dive barge.

Anyway, that should give you an idea of the rules for diving in the sanctuary as they currently exist. If you think these rules will be relaxed after the sanctuary is expanded to cover most divable wrecks along the Outer Banks, you've lost your mind and have no clue how a bureaucracy functions.

This is simply a power play by NOAA. All they care about is expanding the areas under their control so they can justify a bigger budget and the hiring of more bureaucrats.

 

[obxdivemaster]

Comments should be on content of the plan. The comment period is not a referendum on the proposed action or alternatives. Preferences as to outcomes may be expressed, but only substantive comments on the content will be analyzed. Agencies are looking for substantive comments that modify alternatives, develop and evaluate alternatives not previously given serious consideration, make factual corrections, or supplement, improve, or modify the analysis.

If only we could know what the plan is. So, far in public and private meetings with NOAA officials they have been completely evasive as to there intentions and would not answer any questions with regard to the plans content or proposed rules that would be in effect. The only specifics given are the proposed area to be included.

Seems to me that they are testing the waters to judge public reaction and see what they can get away with.

All we have to go on is current rules and past experience. If they are any indication of what is to come, it will be a truly grim day for divers, and fishermen for that matter, who want to visit the Outer Banks. Not only will you not be able to use the beach, a seperate issue we're dealing with right now (Google "Outer Banks beach closures" for more on this), but you won't be able to dive or bottom fish offshore.

 

[Scubakevdm]

Don't touch the wreck is the bottom line.

Now you're talking.

 

[obxdivemaster]

Big news!

According to a trusted source NOAA shelved the plan for expanding the Monitor Marine Sanctuary. A NOAA official told him today that an unexpected and overwhelming public outcry has led them to reconsider their position.

Guess they thought they could slip one past us but learned otherwise. Let's hear it for speaking up and taking a stand!

Now, if the left wingers will just let us have our beaches back, we might be able to avoid an armed rebellion.

 

[LHermley]

I love North Carolina diving; it's where I live and, for a while, it's how I earned a living. That said, I am interested in two things- the promotion of NC diving and the preservation of our underwater resources. I've been to the NOAA meetings and I've spoken with the people in charge My impression is that the expansion of the Monitor Sanctuary is consistent with my aforementioned priorities. NOAA is a large organization. They have access to countless resources and I would welcome the application of those resources off the coast of NC. There's a lot of criticism over NOAA's treatment of the Monitor, but I think there is another way to look at it. The recovered elements from the Monitor are now housed in a $20 million dollar facility- appropriate digs for the American icon. There is interpretive information, impressive displays, conservation- all in service of promoting the appreciation and understanding of our maritime heritage, not to mention the boom for local tourism. Thanks to NOAA, the Monitor, as well as the general public, is far better off than it would have been if the ship had been left to rust on the bottom of the ocean.

Now, the situation is very different with respect to other NC shipwrecks. Let me be clear: I AM OPPOSED TO ANY MEASURE THAT WOULD RESTRICT DIVER ACCESS. But, that's not what is being considered, and I'm left wondering where people are getting information to the contrary. While still in its nascent stage, from my understanding, the model being discussed for the expanded NC sanctuary is more akin to what has been done at Thunder Bay. And, who benefited most from the establishment of that sanctuary? The diving industry, divers, and the shipwrecks themselves, probably in that order. They have an interpretive center, built in advertising and promotion, topside educational programming, working partnerships with the local dive community. Would I love to see something of that scale and nature happen here? Absolutely!

Does that mean that artifact hunters will have to look elsewhere? Yup. But, it seems that the potential advantages for the dive industry far outweigh the disadvantages. Too long has NC wreck diving been out of the limelight. North Carolina has some of the best shipwreck diving in the world, yet our dive industry continues to struggle financially. If you take NOAAs resources (talents, equipment, leverage, funding), and combine it with the Graveyard of the Atlantic Museum in Hatteras, the NC Maritime Museum Beaufort, and half a dozen of the world's finest dive operators, North Carolina shipwrecks and diving might finally acheive the stature they deserve.

 

[obxdivemaster]

The recovered elements from the Monitor are now housed in a $20 million dollar facility- appropriate digs for the American icon. There is interpretive information, impressive displays, conservation- all in service of promoting the appreciation and understanding of our maritime heritage, not to mention the boom for local tourism.

You've touched a pretty sore nerve around here. How does taking something out of our backyard and putting it in a museum in Virginia 150 miles away result in a boom for local tourism?

 

[Jim Lapenta]

This is what I'm always saying. If you are going to display something do it close to where it was found. If I find a new wreck that is not a war grave or contains obvious human remains why should the government decide who gets to look at it, dive on it, salvage from it, etc.? Why should my hard work and risk be used to further the aims of lazy bureaucrats and others who would never have seen any of it. Finders keepers when it comes to salt water. As for the Monitor true it is a naval vessel but what if it had been discovered before all this hoopla by government sanctioned tomb robbers and thieves. WHat if the people who actually discovered her just kept their mouths shut and salvaged what they could before announcing it? To me I'd say bully for them!

They did the work, took the risks, and made the find. Screw the govt. I'm betting that 20 million dollar govt funded museum could have been built privately for half that near where she was found. Instead it gets moved 3 hours away and put in a place run by a govt agency which means it's probably operating in the red and staffed by non divers. No justice in the world.

But you can bet that if the trip I plan to NC comes off it'll be to bring home some goodies. Because what's to stop the paleo goomers from saying all the meg teeth that are getting brought up should be in a museum? Who ever does the work should reap the rewards, whether it be in having a trophy on the mantle or collecting a fee from someone who wants to look at it. I'm speaking of wrecks or artifacts that would otherwise be lost completely.

My stance on freshwater stuff as in the great lakes or st lawrence is somewhat different. But if I was to find an undiscovered wreck full of british gold off of an Erie shoreline I doubt everything found would be documented. Maybe in my memoirs from the new country I'd be living in. Published after I was long dead.

 

[obxdivemaster]

My elation from a couple of days ago may have been premature. Now, I'm hearing that NOAA may be trying to put up a smokescreen to quell public opposition. They are communicating with individuals who voiced oppostion and telling them the expasion is off, while at the same time continuing to develop a plan for expansion.

I've learned that despite the fact that 90% of the public comments received by NOAA voiced opposition to the expansion, a Monitor Marine Sanctuary expansion committee has been formed.

Now, there's democracy in action! But then again, what else would you expect from an unelected bureaucracy looking to expand its power base.

As a side note, all this sanctuary talk is leading up to some unintended but very real consequences. The wrecks are going to see pressure like they've never seen. Just the mere thought that artifact hunting might be regulated out of existence has people scrambling to get everything they can while they can still get it. Divers who would normally show up once, maybe twice a year, are planning as many trips as possible. People are asking about dredges, air lifts, etc. Even divers who wouldn't normally be interested are looking for things to bring up.

I know for me personally, there will be no more dives to pick up sea shells, sharks' teeth, or simply be a "tourist", which coupled with spearfishing made up the vast majority of my diving. In fact it's been a few years since I've done any digging or even looked for a relic. But from here on out I will not leave the boat without my tools, and every dive is going to be an intense and focused search for artifacts. That's just me, and I'm sure there are hundreds, maybe even thousands of divers who could write this same paragragh.