Anchors away!!

[Bubble Boy]

I thought this attached letter might be of interest to the rest of you OFWF's. It was writen by Brian Prince.....

Open letter to: Mr. Alan Bauder - Chairman Ad-Hoc Committee on Underwater Resources NY State

From: Save Ontario Shipwrecks (SOS)


Mr. Bauder,

Your name was given to me as the best place to start regarding strengthening and especially enforcing the laws regarding the removal to culturally significant underwater artifacts. In speaking with various NY state persons, I hear that NY laws are very inadequate to protect heritage resources. In the case below, we have a self incriminating publicly documented case that seems to qualify only for a private slap on the wrist. I urge you to use every tactic at your disposal to make an example of this case that is basically a public slap in all our faces by this group of renegade divers.

This case is the one about the removal of an anchor (I now hear more than one in the Clayton area and one in Ogdensburg as well) from the St. Lawrence River last summer. Below are links to the website where the persons are self proclaiming removal of artifacts with photos and also putting down NY State Divers Association (NYSDA) members for disapproval. Some question was raised as to whether these pictures are of the anchor in question... This point is moot since they are publicly displaying and have documented the illegal removal of marine artifacts. See the links below for the full disclosure of illegal activity.

When and how it was done with photos: http://www.northeastaquanauts.com/salvage.htm
Story of Aquanauts vs. NYSDA: http://www.northeastaquanauts.com/dive_report.htm
Photos of other artifacts removed: http://66.155.20.216/gallery1.htm

Since both (NY and Ontario) share the River, activities like this continue due to lack of education, enforcement and publicity of enforcement on both sides. The proclaimed reasons for removal (salvage permit, not on a shipwreck, commercial diver present) are seriously unjustified as these items are all government property regardless of location and taken without license. For those that might not know, all bottom lands are protected and owned (including abandoned items) by the government in NY and Ontario. Artifacts on or off a heritage site are NOT to be removed without conservation plans under license. Clearly this was not documented as the case. A valid salvage permit as they proclaim is usually site specific for a more recent specific loss.

This person, group of people and accomplices (like the marina & charter boat) should be charged to the full extent of the law since they did not have a valid permit. In our opinion, the dive boat, photo equipment, dive equipment, forklift confiscated and the website & club shut down. The anchors should be returned to the water by the USGC where they can most importantly be preserved and secondly appreciated by all in the aquatic environment. These people and films should be banned from publicly spreading the word that this is a condoned activity. They should be required to publicly speak on why they should NOT do this as part of their restitution. The whole fiasco should be widely publicized in news articles in US and Canada and by National Geographic since they are named as taking part (under Sept 28 10am section).

These people say they are going to spread the word and show the film of the recovery at Beneath the Sea on what a great place the St. Lawrence is for treasure hunters. It is long past due that the ever decreasing number of divers learn the laws and the costs of breaking them. They are stealing from the rest of us for their own satisfaction. Prosecution is difficult in most cases, but with such a blatant admission of undertaking and photographic evidence publicly stated... the case is clearly made. A letter saying "put it back" as was said to have been sent is simply not enough action and is paramount to a private slap on the wrist which serves no educational purpose which is the main ingredient needed. If this is not properly actioned and publicized, then the NY Government is proclaiming open season on all artifacts large and small on the US side of the St. Lawrence River which gives complete access to the Ontario side.

Part of the problem might be the fact that there is only an Ad-hoc Committee for underwater resources in NY. While this is a good start, more needs to be done to promote an appreciation for taking care of our non-renewable heritage resources. Here in Ontario, we have an avocational group of divers promoting marine heritage preservation working with government. NY state can start up their own chapter of SOS just like Ohio did. This would go a long way to helping educating divers and non-divers alike that our valuable non-renewable marine heritage is worth protecting.

Please update all of us on your actions to date, proposed actions and the out come ASAP so that we may help to spread the word. All concerned divers who visit these sites and charter operators who depend on these heritage resources await your response to this outrage.

Respectfully,
Brian Prince
Save Ontario Shipwrecks
Board Member-at-Large

[reefraff]

First that I've heard of this - I have a few questions that you may not be able to answer, but maybe someone else can help out...

Was the anchor removed from the Canadian side or the US side of the river?
Does it matter if the anchor was removed from the US side of the river?
Was the anchor removed from a definable wreck site?
Was the removal of the anchor a violation of any law or regulation?
If this wasn't a violation of any law or regulation, is it generally agreed that the removal is a violation of community standards?
Should this be classified as a disagreement between two diametrically opposed schools of thought?
Is there a better way (for either party) to resolve this issue?

This kind of sounds like a fight between a couple of river rats, which anyone that's ever spent time on a river can tell you is bound to be violent and usually results in anyone and everyone in the vicinity getting hurt. A pi**ing match between two guys wearing wetsuits also seems kind of pointless, although it might make a good comedy skit. Maybe they both need to develop a little perspective, not to mention respect for each other.

Steven

Oh - and one more thing: it's "anchor aweigh," aweigh meaning raised just clear of the bottom. :) Very appropriate!

[taz22]

reefraff once bubbled...

This kind of sounds like a fight between a couple of river rats, which anyone that's ever spent time on a river can tell you is bound to be violent and usually results in anyone and everyone in the vicinity getting hurt. A pi**ing match between two guys wearing wetsuits also seems kind of pointless, although it might make a good comedy skit. Maybe they both need to develop a little perspective, not to mention respect for each other.



Are your seriously agreeing with what these people are doing??

I don't think it is a pissing match. I think Brian has made some very good points that need to be addressed.

What is comes down to is some jerk taking valuable artifacts from there resting place where they should be and this type of blantant robbery should stop.

[Uncle Pug]

taz22 once bubbled...
What is comes down to is some smuck taking valuable artifacts from there resting place where they should be and this type of blantant robbery should stop.
what it comes down to is some folks are of the mind that valuable artifacts belong to the finder and other folks are of the mind that valuable artifacts belong to the government.

[DivingGal]

I raised the questions to Brian, and he'll most likely be joining us soon.

I remember only some of the discussions concerning this anchor, which is why I ask Brian to respond to reefraff's questions.

If the anchor was in Canadian waters - then it would have been considered property of the Crown, and should not have been removed. In Ontario we have very clear laws about this.

[canuckdiver]

"what it comes down to is some folks are of the mind that valuable artifacts belong to the finder and other folks are of the mind that valuable artifacts belong to the government."

UP, I think that it's a case of some people figure that the valueable artifacts belong to EVERYBODY, not the government.

at least that would be my view.

[Uncle Pug]

canuckdiver once bubbled...
UP, I think that it's a case of some people figure that the valueable artifacts belong to EVERYBODY, not the government.

That is just a subset of "belongs to the government."

[WreckWriter]

he will almost certainly find that he the support of the members of his own organization and a serious lack of respect from much of the rest of the wreck diving community.

I would suggest that he'll be better of worrying about the laws of his own country and keeping his mind, and his hands, off the laws of ours.

An anchor, such a valuable artifact!

WW

[canuckdiver]

just to clarify guys, I have no problem with removing artifacts from wrecks. I feel in a lot of cases it is necissary in order to preserve the artifact in question.
what I have a problem with, is the people that remove artifats, and hide them away so that no-one gets a chance to see them.
I tend to see a big difference between artifact preservation, and trophy hunting.

I also realize that this is a very controversial subject, so before the flames start, I would invite anybody that would like to disuss this, or even just tell me I'm an idiot, please do so by PM'ing me.

[WreckWriter]

I have no problem respecting existing preservation laws. If I dive Canadian waters, I will happily look but not touch. My problem in this thread is some government lackey, or wannabe government lackey, trying to insert himself in affairs that don't concern him, IE U.S. artifact recovery laws.

WW

[canuckdiver]

I tend to agree with you WW, government intervention is not the most pleasant way of solving the issue.
I don't know that I agree with EITHER governments standpoint on this one. The canadian government is too restrictive, and the u.s. seems to go a bit farr to the other extreme.

again, only my opinion

[Bubble Boy]

I could be wrong (it definitely would not be the first time) but I thought there was a guy a couple years ago that grabbed some stuff of the Canadian side and brought it back to the states and got away with it under the savage regulations of NY state but then the IRS & US Customs went after him for failure to declare the importation of a valuable asset.

Just look at the stuff taken off of and the damage done to the Keystorm in the last few years. Even the Munson in Kingston has had stuff taken off of her in the last couple of years.

Education is the key and SOS and POW are very active in this regard.

[DivingGal]

Bubble Boy once bubbled...
... Just look at the stuff taken off of and the damage done to the Keystorm in the last few years. Even the Munson in Kingston has had stuff taken off of her in the last couple of years.

Education is the key and SOS and POW are very active in this regard.

Couldn't have said it better.

The NAS courses given by Peter E, also help along the road to educating what valuable assets we have u/w. In his lectures Pete relates many occurences of not-so-nice folks taking things which are not for the taking. Preservation of artefacts is only part of the whole story.

[reefraff]

taz22 once bubbled...


Are your seriously agreeing with what these people are doing??

I don't think it is a pissing match. I think Brian has made some very good points that need to be addressed.

What is comes down to is some smuck taking valuable artifacts from there resting place where they should be and this type of blantant robbery should stop.

I'm not agreeing with anything - I asked some (leading) questions that have been largely ignored.

Brian Prince states "that NY laws are very inadequate to protect heritage resources." I don't know enough to agree or disagree with this statement, however I'm one of those cranks that likes to be careful about passing laws - for a variety of reasons - and before I endorse a law that would make the removal of this anchor a crime, I'd like for someone to demonstrate that it's an important piece of cultural heritage.

Brian also states that Northeast Aquanauts is a "group of renegade divers." Although they are certainly thumbing their noses at Mr. Prince, "renegade" means an individual who rejects lawful or conventional behavior. Mr. Prince seems to acknowledge in his letter that there are no laws or regulations being violated ("..the case...seems to qualify only for a private slap on the wrist.") although later he states otherwise ("they are publicly displaying and have documented the illegal removal of marine artifacts"). Clearly there exists no consensus regarding this issue among divers or the general public. Therefore referring to the group as renegades can be considered insulting and inflammatory - you know that this is how the NE Aquanauts perceive the comment.

I repeat: this seems to be two diametrically opposed groups that are resorting to insult and innuendo in an attempt to achieve their goals. In the vernacular, that's called a pi**ing match. Both sides would be better served by turning down the heat and expending more energy on rational persuasion.

The fundamental issues at the center of this argument seem to be:
Does society have a legitimate interest in protecting or acquiring "cultural artifacts" such as this anchor?
If so, is that interest great enough to warrant the use by the state of coercive and punitive force to support?


Finally, the issue of cultural hegemony lurks in this matter. I'm sure that every Canadian on this board can relate to the knee-jerk resentment that results from foreign nationals attempting to impose their values on what most perceive as a strictly domestic issue. The fact that it's Canadians trying to impose their standards on Americans is only an ironic twist - unless this is going to start an affirmative action argument, as well.

Steven

Oh, and by the way, it's spelled schmuck (even in Canada), it's Yiddish and it means "penis." If you're going to be insulting, at least spell it correctly.

[taz22]

Uncle Pug once bubbled...

what it comes down to is some folks are of the mind that valuable artifacts belong to the finder and other folks are of the mind that valuable artifacts belong to the government.

What is your view on the subject?

One mind is finders keepers losers weepers the other believes that preservation of the wreck as a whole is the way to go.

I am of the mind that the wreck is a wreck and should be left in tact for all to enjoy. The thought of some jerk taken an anchor just to have it on his/her front lawn as a prize I find truly unacceptable.

[sparky30]

taz22 once bubbled...


I am of the mind that the wreck is a wreck and should be left in tact for all to enjoy.

I completely agree... diving would be pretty boring of all he wrecks were picked clean... Its sad to see that we even need laws to prevent this type of activity. An old anchor left on the wreck it blongs too is much more exciting than an old anchor sitting on someones front lawn next to a flower bed.
While I realize that most Americans feel that someone is medling in an internal affair, I am sure they would do the same thing if the roles were reversed.
As far as I'm concered as long as the artifact hunting in confined to the US side of the border, go ahead.. raise all the artifacts you want. Its your country, you can do what you want, but please don't try to do the same thing on our side.. We enjoy our wrecks intact... We may never agree on the topic, but its a big Lake with more than enough room to both of us..
Besides.. after your side is all picked clean and boring, feel free to come on over (but don't take anything :D)...

[reefraff]

sparky30 once bubbled...

I completely agree... diving would be pretty boring of all he wrecks were picked clean...
Couldn't agree with you more. Most wrecks - everywhere - have been picked clean of the best bits and it's a damn shame.

Its sad to see that we even need laws to prevent this type of activity.
I'm less than certain that passing laws is the best answer. Maybe a calm, rational and friendly program of education would be more effective.

An old anchor left on the wreck it blongs too is much more exciting than an old anchor sitting on someones front lawn next to a flower bed.
Definitely. Although I do have a photo of a group of us posed in front of this really huge prop that someone recovered...

While I realize that most Americans feel that someone is medling in an internal affair, I am sure they would do the same thing if the roles were reversed.
There is a distinctly more "communal" feel to Canadian society, vis a vis the American "independent" spirit. Canadians have outlawed wreck scavenging, which Americans will tend to see as a decision that fails to achieve a satisfactory balance between the rights of the group and the rights of the individual. Americans are reluctant to declare everything on the bottom of anything as community property, which Canadians see as an abrogation of civic responsibility. We are (I hope) good enough friends that we can discuss these issues. We are (also, I hope) understanding enough to realize that no matter how close our friendship, when the conversation shifts from friendly discourse to name-calling and propaganda, not much is going to be achieved.

As far as I'm concered as long as the artifact hunting in confined to the US side of the border, go ahead.. raise all the artifacts you want.
An important point - and one that appears to be germaine to the issue at hand. Where was this anchor located?

Its your country, you can do what you want, but please don't try to do the same thing on our side.. We enjoy our wrecks intact... We may never agree on the topic, but its a big Lake with more than enough room to both of us..
A good place to start, but let's keep working at coming to some sort of mutually satisfactory agreement - especially in areas where we share a common resource like the St. Lawrence.

Besides.. after your side is all picked clean and boring, feel free to come on over (but don't take anything :D)...
We're on our way! :cold: Well, maybe we'll wait till this summer...

Steven

[BmP]

Hello to All,

I've been invited to join in the conversation as would like to answer some of your questions....

Is this Canada or the US? Clayton NY is in the USA on the St. Lawrence River near Alexandria Bay NY on the St. Lawrence River one of the worlds greatest waterways leading to the worlds largest bodies of freshwater. Truely one of the best Freshwater Diving locales in the world. 100 Divers on a single wreck at one time on a weekend indicates this. There are 20+ charter operators working in and around the 1000 Islands.

Am I a government employee? NO, I'm self employed in the computer consulting business and volunteer to help preserve our marine heritage by designing plaques (U/W, shore based), webmaster the SOS website (http://www.SaveOntarioShipwrecks.on.ca), project manage and participate in the buoy program placing buoys on Ontario Shipwrecks to avoid anchor damage (50 new ones going in summer 2003 across Ontario), write for the newsletter, update the SOS bylaws and much more.

Why stick my nose in USA business? The way many of us look at it is that sites and drift dives on the US side are just as important as those on the Canadian side. The invisible dotted line between the countries is just a customs related demarkation. We enjoy them all and want our diving to be interesting. We loose artifacts on both sides and education is the most important key to success. This can be accomplished by peer pressure, presentations, speaking up, attending dive conferences etc.

What's the big deal about an Anchor in the middle of no place anyways? Simple, something to make the dive interesting... Something to make you wonder how it got there (was it part of the wreck over yonder, just dropped off a passing ship, helped to avoid a grounding). Everthing on the bottom tells a story based on where it is, the design style eluding to the date made/used, what else is near to it just for starters.

US Laws versus Canadian Laws... They are about equal in intent, but less equal in wording and enforcement. My letter posted above was to a US official who has the power to help change the situation. The fact remains, both sides require you to apply for a license to disturb, move or remove anything on land or underwater.

Definition of Renegade Divers... Don't over analyze things please! The point is everyone needs to help spread the word that taking from the bottom is paramount to taking from all of us. Do you want a boring dive or do you want to see something other than rocks, silt, clay and zebra muscles, fish, weeds or corals? Think of shipwrecks with all the found tools layed out on the deck for everyone to enjoy... Where would these tools be if someone took them? In their garage or basement disintegrating... Don't laugh, we have a few sites like this... Everyone respects them and leave all for everyone to enjoy.

Why Not put these items in museums for divers and the public? Sounds good, but not practicle. Museums only have room to display less than 5% of their collection. The rest are stored at great cost to taxpayers. Conservation is very costly... An example is of a Ships Wheel that was removed from an Artic wreck of the Breadalbane that has been in storage for 15 years in a cooled nitrogenated water bath because of lack of conservation technology and has now taken 4 years to conserve at a cost of about $60K. Get the full story from the 22 page booklet on the SOS website (URL above) called "Preserving Our Marine Heritage".

Freshwater VS. Salt Water? Cold Freshwater will preserve artifacts for 100's of years. Buried in the silt in Freshwater will preserve artifacts for 1000's of years. We can barely do 100 years in the air today at enormous cost. Salt water quickly destroys artifacts, so some think I better take it before it is gone forever. How many of these actually get conserved - treated to inhibit decay? How many will ever be on public display?

This is getting long and I'm not here to rant, just help spread the word that many of us enjoy seeing stuff on the bottom when we dive. Rules or not, it does us all better (and the artifacts too) if we keep things where they are and just enjoy them. There are a decreasing few who still think finders keepers and think nothing of the consequences to the artifact(s) and the diving public.

I hope this helps clarify my position and that of SOS.

Yours in Diving,
Brian

[WreckWriter]

Your position here is stated quite eloquently and makes a lot of sense. The problem I have is with your previously posted letter suggesting such things as confiscation of personal property of the "renegade divers" who chose not to play by your rules.

Once again, the U.S. has plenty of our own well meaning but misguided persons who would have every aspect of our lives regulated by the government, we don't need any help from you.

WW

[BmP]

Thx for your response. I don't want to dabble in law making, but when it affects all of us someone has to put presure on the officials to do something about it. We do it here as well and you are welcome to help out if it affects you. There are a few bad guys on both sides and we have to work together.

Who was it that said something like:

"If you do the crime, you should be prepared to do the time"

"Ignorance is no excuse for the law"

We both have much harsher laws and punishments for much less. When a Charter Operator is involved, a large Marina and a well organized group launching expeditions to a fresh cache of stuff already well preserved, it is at all our expenses. Making an example of wrong behaviour might help educate or deter (whichever is appropriate to them) those few hard to reason with people and get thier attention. Even the suggestion of such might help at this point.

If it was just a simple person making a small mistake we would be helping to convince them and assist them to put it back with no fanfare. That has clearly not worked yet in this case. Their website speaks for itself and the unfortunate need to raise the stakes.

BmP

PS: They are not my rules... They are the laws that exist and the socially accepted practices that most believe in.

[BmP]

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:owner-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.
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>
>

[Uncle Pug]

taz22 once bubbled...
The thought of some jerk taken an anchor just to have it on his/her front lawn as a prize I find truly unacceptable.
I realize that name calling and appeals to subjective evaluation is the resort of those whose arguments are insufficient... but I don't think you should be throwing in the towel so soon.

[taz22]

Hi Brian! Welcome to the Board!

Thanks for sharing the emails on this matter.

:doctor:

[Dundas]

Fantastic job Brian!!!

The website for the North East Aquanauts, actually made me sick to my stomach. I honestly thought that it made sense to most divers to leave artifacts on the wrecks, but as seen on their website this is not the case. AND the worst part is the gloating and the attitude. Someone innocently taking something without knowing is one thing,... but this is quite different.

Thanks again Brian!!!

Jeff

[chloro]

Yep, as you sdaid Brian, conservation is very costly... just to give you an example, I worked indirectly on the archaeological excavation of the Elizabeth and Mary, a 1690 shipwreck found in Baie-Trinité, Québec in 1994.

Parks Canada, in charge of the archaeological work has spent nearly a million dollar for the excavation which nearly a 1/4 of it is allocated to restauration and conservation. The main body of the wreck has been extirped from the sea and buried in the silt of a fresh water lake somewhere in Québec. This proves that salt water is constantly damaging artifacts.

Indeed, we talk about salt water here. As the OFWF deals mostly about fresh water diving, the costs would be less but still, conservation rules apply as soon as an artifact has left it undisturbed environment, i.e. silt and fresh water. It has been proven that the Hamilton and the Scourge, the 1813 shipwrecks that are at the bottom of lake Ontario (300ft) are totally intact and undisturbed. Both af their figureheads are perfectly preserved.

Therefore, it is way simpler to leave it underwater, unless a new wreck is found and is judge as being significant to our heritage ...

For more informations on conservation, you can consult :

http://www.cci-icc.gc.ca/
http://www.ccq.mcc.gouv.qc.ca/anglais/aindex.htm