NOAA and Thunder Bay rules

Hi GLWC,

Sorry if this has been covered recently but a quick search didn't turn the topic up.

NOAA has a new draft plan to extend the Monitor NMS to the Outer Banks under the rules used at Thunder Bay. I'd like to hear opinions from divers who are regulars or experienced at Thunder Bay. How have those rules affected your diving? What do you think of NOAA and the NMS program as it is run at Thunder Bay?

NOAA's management of the Monitor sanctuary has created tremendous resentment among a number of east coast wreck divers so you almost never hear anything that isn't fairly bitter or angry when this topic comes up.

My experience of diving here in Alpena (Thunder Bay NMS) is a positive one. One can dive anywhere within Thunder Bay NMS, the local community has a great working relationship with the people that work at NOAA in Alpena. I don't know how other Sanctuaries are managed, I recall a few years back Stellwagen Banks divers had issues, As a member of the Sanctuary Advisory Council the folks at NOAA will listen to our concerns / issues, and work with the people to come up with a solution. It might not get fixed with a snap of a finger, but that's the Federal Gov't.

Of course there are rules for diving within Thunder Bay, and here is link to those Dive Regulations they are pretty straight forward.

NOAA has not been as controlling in Thunder Bay as they have been on the East Coast. The only thing SO far that most divers have been ticked about is the artifacts. NOAA manages thousands of artifacts from these wrecks that the public does not get to see. I much rather see them on the wrecks for a decades to come instead of rotting in a warehouse or so called restoration facility where no one gets to see them. They are no better than the people who are trying to steal them. Also we have complaint about, what gives NOAA ownership of these wrecks? Why is that we have to fight in courts over wrecks and artifacts while NOAA can take them with not so much as word by our state. We fear that since they have the power to restrict access to the wrecks (but have not used it yet), is enough to label them as a threat to divers. On the other hand, unlike the East Coast, NOAA has brough tourism dollars and education on the subject.

NOAA manages thousands of artifacts from these wrecks that the public does not get to see.

Click to expand...

Thunder Bay NOAA has received the majority of the artifacts from local citizens that collected them during the pre-underwater preserve era, the State has also turned over the artifacts they have "received". So these artifacts were all ready sitting in a warehouse, pole barn, or yard rotting. It was common place around Alpena to see anchors, and other artifacts adoring peoples yards, heck you can go to a downtown restaurant and the bar is made from shipwreck wood.

So if I read the rules correctly:

You can dive any site at will, no permissions needed.
You can grapple onto a wreck if it isn't buoyed.

Yes, and yes. Why would one think they need permission to dive Thunder Bay

NOAA does a good job bouying the wrecks which helps preserve the wrecks and makes diving them much easier than a wreck which is not bouyed. My concern is giving them more area of control that they COULD limit diving for what ever reason THEY deem appropriate. If history teaches us anything, it is if you give government power there will come a time when that power gets abused. One example that comes to mind is the "seatbelt law" in Michigan. When it was first adopted they could not pull you over and write a ticket just because you didn't have your seatbelt on, but now they are actively seeking out drivers without their seatbelts on and writing tickets which makes money for the government.

---------- Post added ----------

Another thing that NOAA does good is operate the museum at no charge to the public. Lots of people (divers and non-divers) can learn about some of the wrecks around Alpena (not to mention it's a great place to go when you get blown off the lake and can't dive). But why does NOAA need to expand its boundries to "protect" the wrecks. If I'm not mistaken, Michigan already has laws that protect the wrecks so why do we need any Ferderal Government involement anyway?

alpenadiver:

Yes, and yes. Why would one think they need permission to dive Thunder Bay

Click to expand...

Because I've never been closer than Chicago . And people out here are more familiar with the rules on diving the Monitor, where you do need permission. That's all the exposure we really have to the NMS program.

But why does NOAA need to expand its boundries to "protect" the wrecks. If I'm not mistaken, Michigan already has laws that protect the wrecks so why do we need any Ferderal Government involement anyway?

Click to expand...

Yes they do, however the State isn't known for throwing the book at wreck thieves, maybe a slap on the hand. NOAA has their own lawyers that will prosecute these people. The one that sticks out in my mind is the case of the Northwestern, up in Rogers City the individual was caught with numerous artifacts from the wreck. The State prosecuted the person, the outcome return the artifacts and a fine. All the artifacts must not of fit in a five gallon bucket, so the individual used a hammer to make sure they all fit.

Sorry it took so long to get back. Artifacts that NOAA claims to be donated are rumored to be part of NOAA or were threatened by them, I cannot confirm that part. NOAA has set up the system so that no negative feedback can be included. I and a few others have written letters of disapproval and have not gotten a response from them. The next stage is politics on a state level.
Jared