Take Only Pictures, or just take,take,take?

[ajduplessis]

I was not aware that wrecks had visitor counter??

Once wrecks locations are known they are dived. Not sure what you define as seldom/if ever. The point is that they will get dived, dived by us, our children and their children. There is no such thing as seldom/if ever. If attitudes like that are acceptable/justified then yes, wrecks will be dived seldom because selfish/greedy divers spoiled it for diving generations to come. It not just about today and what happens today.

With all the respect in the world. If you feel this was aimed at you then maybe a long hard look in the mirror might reveal something.

Best Wishes
ajduplessis

 

[fjpatrum]

Blegh, I'm nobody. I've never dived a wreck before and likely won't very soon. That said, there's a difference between bringing up a bell (which often has value in IDing the wreck) and grabbing just any old hunk of "cool stuff" you can carry.

Whether the material ends up in private or public hands doesn't really make a lot of difference to me, to be honest. I'd prefer it all be public but the reality of life is that collectors collect. Those who collect a lot generally end up donating said things to museums when they die. I'm good with that. If they don't who's going to really know the difference? A few thousand divers, worldwide?

In the grand scheme of things most of these wrecks aren't of any value to anyone except divers who want to take pictures or see them for themselves. Taking a few pieces from them probably won't even really make a big difference to the marine life that use wrecks to grow/hunt/whatever. So, yeah, it's selfish but I probably wouldn't throw a fit about it. As for the mantra, there are plenty of people who simply don't live by other people's mores. It's trash in the ocean... some divers might even consider it (in some strange way) helping to "clean up man's mess" or something.

I wouldn't personally take anything but pictures, but is it really significantly different than hunting for Meg teeth?

 

[DevonDiver]

With all the respect in the world. If you feel this was aimed at you then maybe a long hard look in the mirror might reveal something.

You can see how I might have interpreted this:

A wreck in recreational depth......

...thus the statement around recreational depth limit is a load of BS

Maybe I did misinterpret it... but there was only one statement about recreational depth.... and you referenced a statement about recreational depth...

I was not aware that wrecks had visitor counter?

If only visited by a single boat, on a couple of trips per year... then records exist of who dived it

Not sure what you define as seldom/if ever.

Typically, something along the lines of: mostly the same 6-8 divers, once or twice per year, but not every year.

The point is that they will get dived, dived by us, our children and their children.

So, if I take a porcelain vase off a wreck, I am depriving someone's future grand-children of seeing it?

If I leave it, it will be there in 10 years? or 5?

There is no such thing as seldom/if ever.

How about I name some wrecks.... and you go around and find anyone that's dived them?

If attitudes like that are acceptable/justified then yes, wrecks will be dived seldom because selfish/greedy divers spoiled it for diving generations to come. It not just about today and what happens today.

Really... I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I felt that the poll/question was very black and white... and merely wished to introduce some 'grey' to the debate.

For the record, I've never taken anything off a wreck

 

[WreckDiver1321]

Okay, how many people here have dived the Lusitania?
The Britannic?

Some wrecks just don't get visited much at all.

I think taking things off wrecks for archaeological purposes and for their historical significance is acceptable. I also believe that the stories of some wrecks simply deserve to be told. When the U-869 was identified, they were able to give the families of the lost submariners some sort of closure. (Not condoning all the pillaging that took place)

There are certainly times when taking things off wrecks, as long as collateral damage is avoided, is acceptable.

When it comes to things like ship's bells, those should go to museums and public collections. Such things allow people to see history right in front of them. And, in some cases, it allows the history of that particular wreck or that particular point in history to be more accurately told.

 

[Wookie]

Those guys that dive the Lusitania and the Britannic? Only one of them comes here. He is an avid collector of artifacts. He may chime in, but probably not. I know most of them. Most have mantles full of very cool salvage. I personally don't collect, but I know many that do, and I take them diving with me, and I take them to places where they can collect. It's no different than the guy who collects seashells while diving. In fact, I'd much rather someone bring up and restore an old piece of brass than collect a shell off the reef.

 

[Scuba_Jay]

I opt for taking only photos for the following reasons:

1. Many wrecks are final resting places and should be treated as such.
2. Bringing up artifacts for archeological purposes is only useful when those artifacts are collected in accordance with archeological standards and protocols.
3. Restoration efforts by non-professionals often destroys any archeological or historical value.

Those things said, I do see value to bringing up items (e.g. the ship's bell) for identification of the wreck. This way proper preservation and archeological efforts can be planned and carried out.

Jay

 

[TMHeimer]

I didn't vote, not really having an opinion. I guess arguements can be made for both sides. Though I have dived a number of wrecks, it's not my primary objective, just happens to be where the charters go. I can say from what I have heard and read, that it seems that there are gov't. regulations against taking stuff from some wrecks and not from others. Let's just let it go at that--the gov't. knows what's best all the time, right? I would imagine the restrictions on taking stuff will grow anyway--that's usually the case.

 

[Ste Wart]

I didn't vote, not really having an opinion. I guess arguements can be made for both sides. Though I have dived a number of wrecks, it's not my primary objective, just happens to be where the charters go. I can say from what I have heard and read, that it seems that there are gov't. regulations against taking stuff from some wrecks and not from others. Let's just let it go at that--the gov't. knows what's best all the time, right? I would imagine the restrictions on taking stuff will grow anyway--that's usually the case.

Not really going on any legal restrictions, more the moral one.

There was a case,very, recently in the UK where someone deliberately took artifacts from a protected war grave site (HMS Duke of Albany); he was prosecuted. However although inherently wrong he is part of culture in the UK (and indeed we've seen it in the excellent Shadow Divers ) that condones trophy hunting.

link: John Bantin | Divers' Blogs

Personally I include Bell recovery in this as well. Because I would like to find a Bell one time and photograph it, then leave it, so another 10, 20. 30 people can photograph it. Perhaps that's why I have such a desire to dive a virgin wreck, there might actually be a Bell there!

Anyway, TM, on wrecks where taking is perfectly legal, what is your view there?



EDIT: Urgh the new Banner avatars are tacky

 

[DevonDiver]

It's nice to know that you condone Bell ends.

 

[Ste Wart]

It's nice to know that you condone Bell ends.

You could say I have a personal attachment.