Welcome to ScubaBoard, an online scuba diving forum community where you can join over 205,000 divers from around the world discussing all things related to Scuba Diving. To gain full access to ScubaBoard (and make this large box go away) you must register for a free account. As a registered member you will be able to:
Participate in over 500 dive topic forums and browse from over 5,500,000 posts.
Communicate privately with other divers from around the world.
Post your own photos or view from well over 100,000 user submitted images.
Gain access to our free classifieds marketplace to buy, sell and trade gear, travel and services.
Use the calendar to organize your events and enroll in other members' events.
All this and much more is available to you absolutely free when you register for an account, so sign up today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact the ScubaBoard Support Team.
Does a blanket approach (ie. all shipwrecks and aircraft wrecks underwater for X number of years) good or bad?
Well...... clearly the risk you run with picking a random date is both of including wrecks that are just old junk and excluding what are probably bona fide heritage sites (consider the Edmund Fitzgerald) but that aren't old enough to fit the criteria yet. It also seems ridiculous to me that a wreck could be free for plundering (I mean diving) for let's say 50 years and THEN get protected...... that's the world on it's head. If it's worth protecting after 50 years then you have to protect it from the moment it sinks.
I think a better blanket inclusion is "ALL unowned wrecks" period. That's clear for everybody.
I'm not trying to be a smart as# but what makes the Edmund Fitzgerald special?
Thanks Jason
She was very well known on the lakes. She was also the biggest ship lost in years and years.
If I remember correctly she held a number of load records, largest vessel ever sunk on the Great Lakes, deepest dive on the great lakes. I think she had the largest crew ever lost at one time but I could be wrong.
Oh yeah and a Gordon Lightfoot song.
Was she a cultural icon? Probably. Salvagable? Probably not at 530 ft deep.
I believe the SS Atlantic in Lake Erie lost many more then the 29 men on the Fitzgerald. If it hadn't sunk would anyone have cared about the records she had broke if she had have outlived her time and was scrapped in the yards? Publicity is the only thing that makes this wreck a name that most across both borders recognize. A tragedy indeed but as are most wrecks many with no survivors to tell the story. I feel the same about the Titanic. The only historical significant event that happened was the first broadcasting of the SOS. Another tragedy, but not necessarily a Heritage Site.
Jason
Originally Posted by Ontario Diver
She was very well known on the lakes. She was also the biggest ship lost in years and years.
If I remember correctly she held a number of load records, largest vessel ever sunk on the Great Lakes, deepest dive on the great lakes. I think she had the largest crew ever lost at one time but I could be wrong.
Oh yeah and a Gordon Lightfoot song.
Was she a cultural icon? Probably. Salvagable? Probably not at 530 ft deep.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Originally Posted by Ontario Diver
Reply With Quote
