HMCS Annapolis - attempts to sink "sunk" by DFO?

[DaleC]

Again, you probably think you sound good but to us that know better you now just sound like a NIMBY troll trying to invent excuses.
Oops, sorry, make that NIMAS (not in my anchorage site).

 

[bygolly]

Heavy sigh....just one well placed NIMBY/NIMAS can cause so much trouble with a fear campaign. It seems every neighborhood has one...the unofficial mayor that everyone is afraid of that uses others to further their own selfish interests. Pure speculation on my part...JMO.

As most of you know a similar situation has been brewing in Aus over the proposed sinking of the HMAS Adelaide. The process has been halted for now but there seems to be a glimmer of hope there as the judge hearing the case has rejected most if not all of the evidence presented by the opponents.
http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/5155894-post52.html
The main holdup there would seem to be procedural.

It seems in our case though a DFO biologist is on-side with the no-sinkers so the fight may be fiercer. I can only hope that the judge who will hear this case will really see the overwhelming evidence that is stacked up against this biologist's case. Hmmmm...I wonder where the biologists true allegiances lie.

I found the ARSBC's position paper great reading and Howard Robins did a great job of refuting the propaganda published on the savehalkett website. Kudos to Howard and the society.

 

[sunkmail]

What could go wrong??? That's a whole other can of worms we've not even touched on yet - as you can see from even the ARSBC literature, sinking a ship is not exactly an exact science - from turning on it's side, to moving position etc - and as noted again on the ARSBC website, the sink site is actually quite specific in acceptable orientation - any deviaton and now you are potentially affecting marine traffic.
Or, for another arguments sake - what happens if, as the DFO officials want to avoid, you now cover up 1,400m2 (DFO estimate) of sea bed - and just to play devils advocate what if that is enough to completely decimate the local crab population that has been haning on by a thread?
None of the above are givens, but merely possible "what could go wrongs" that you are obviously willing to risk for a new "reef" when the bay is surrounded on 300deg of existing "reef" (the rock walls of the bay).

Since Porteau has proven to be a successful site (primarily since there are no natural structures nearby), why not sink this one there? Make a good site even better, keeps the habitat happy, keeps the users happy, win/win. Not only that, but keeps it a shore dive opportunity - keeps it accessable to more users.

Alrighty - I'm gone for a day and look what happens.

So we won't be taking your sailboat.... I wonder if we may be able to hitch a ride out with someone with a faster boat?

Since it seems your desire to boat and anchor in 100' of water outweighs diving, I can't forsee us coming to a happy agreement.

I know the layout of the sink site, as I was one of the volunteers that did the depth survey. This was done a different day of Bob's video, and I can say I only saw one crab, not 2. Otherwise, just a few things on the garbage that was dumped (probably) by pleasure boat users.

-On a side note, to the locals of the area: While doing our survey dives, we were quietly anchored during our Surface Interval, enjoying a quiet lunch, with a few laughs. During this time, we witnessed at least 1 (possibly 2 or more, I'm a little fussy on this particular detail) power boat, being piloted in what I would call an 'aggressive' manner within the bay - full power, close to shore, etc. - while blasting loud music and with beers in hand (we could make out the cans when they came close). Perhaps the extra few diver boats will make the area a little less desirable to the rowdy groups, and make for a quieter area? Of course anyone is welcome in teh bay with the dive boats - as you say, people anchor there (generally not near teh sink site) to enjoy the natural surroundings. That's exactly what we're doing - but our enjoyment is above and below the water ... in a way, we're enjoying the area more.

The bottome consistancy is not 'mud' as you would find in other places in Howe Sound. You can pick it up and tell it's different - It's gooey. Have you ever been diving in a small, fairly stagnant lake with lots of trees around? The bottom is pretty similar - slowly rotting material - it's not gravel, it's not soil, it's not solid. In short, not a place sea life seems to like.

If the ship managed to sink onto it's side, the marine traffic would be less 'hindered' as the beam of the ship is only 40', rather than the approx 95' height. Sure, it will be a little more one way or the other, but not substantually, and again, in water deeper than boats typically achor in.

If it comes to something as sensative to a local crab population (using your example) that suddenly pops up in the next few months, Id be happy to do a quick survey dive on the morning of sink day to make sure they're not under the boat.

From what I saw of the shoreline area, it's not a drop-off in teh water - it's actually pretty much a slope - so nowhere for the life to attach too. (I KNOW between the sink site and shore it is a shallow angle up to 60'. I'm not sure how much longer this continues on it's way to the surface, but I think it's safe to say the opportunity for a reef to form is limited in the immediate area of the sink site.

Porteau is not a suitable site, for a variety of reasons. One I know is that the ARSBC does not want the ship to be a shore dive ... this is not to line the pockets of charter operators, as the opposition claims, but to purposely limit the number of divers at any one time. This has several beniefits, some for divers, some for the environment. (One for each: Less people at a time = lower chance of someone else silting you out. A break in the time between groups, allowing the reef animals to go about their activities undisturbed.) Anyone with a boat, that can rent a boat, build a boat, borrow a boat, etc, will have access, at no fee.

I do find it interesting that you feel that because you have used the above water area of the bay, you feel that there cannot be any good coming from the below water area. Just because it looks good on the surface, doesn't mean it continues down below.

In extension, most sea life, like seals and such will not be near the bay on sink day, as there will probably be a lot of extra boat traffic in the area that day - including (I'm assuming) a BC Ferry that will come with people to watch, as is the tradition when a ship goes down.

To follow with Bob's example ...

I am NOT an agent of the ARSBC. I do volunteer with them, and talk with them while doing so. The opinions & views expressed in this message are my own.

 

[Underwater Ogre]

There are way too many CAVE people..."citizens against virtually everything" Its not even worth wasting your breath to get through to them.

ARSBC takes a few years to finally come to a determination of where to sink an artificial reef...they don't finalize the decision over a couple of beer...and then hit the switch. Trust me when I say they are the last people who want to destroy our oceans. Its not like they get a commission for everything they sink.

U/O

 

[mayday1234]

Okay, one more post and I'll stop beating my head against the wall. As someone stated, It's obvious we are not going to come to an agreement on this one.
In general, I think we've gotten off topic and been focusing on what may or may not be impacts on the environment - a few posters have blamed me of NIMBYism - of course that is what it is - but you also don't seem to want to acknowledge that there might be valid reasons for that.
Since we've taken up boating as our main recreation, Halkett has been our primary location for weekends - there is no other place within a 5hr radius that meets the same parameters. Now you are proposing to introduce an activity that will potentially negatively impact our recreation experience. How could you logically expect us to welcome that with open arms? Not only that, but it is an activity that is primarily commercial based (boat vs shore dives)
As divers, you have other options for experiencing almost this exact same type of activity using current sites (heck you can see Porteau from Gambier) instead of trying to force this where other users have stated opposition to.
In our point of view, it's almost like someone living next to a small park, busy but manageable, and now you want to put in a baseball diamond (yes, I know I'm exaggerating, just trying to make a point) and we we voice oppposition, you say NIMBY and CAVE.
Just trying to look out for what we feel is in our (marine park users) best interest.

 

[BradnerBoy]

I've refrained from posting on this topic, mostly due to the amount of rhetoric which serves no useful purpose, but something you said caught my eye and I wanted clarification from you, if you would.

you are proposing to introduce an activity that will potentially negatively impact our recreation experience

What exactly is the "activity" you refer to?

Is it boating? Is it swimming? Is it fishing? Is it crabbing? Is it whale watching (c'mon, I had to throw that in).

I'll wait for your reply before responding further.

Thanks.

 

[mayday1234]

What exactly is the "activity" you refer to?

Is it boating? Is it swimming? Is it fishing? Is it crabbing? Is it whale watching (c'mon, I had to throw that in).

Since you asked - primarily, that bay gets amazingly busy with anchored boats on summer weekends - most are in the head of the bay but as it gets busier, late arrivals are forced over to spread out near where the prososed site is, and my concern is that I'm going to show up one weekend and not be able to find a spot to anchor.
And before Sunk chimes in with something silly about anchoring in 100' of water - you should know that to anchor a boat, you need proper scope to hold effectively - a minimum ratio of 5 to 6 to 1 is recommended, so at 30' water depth, I need a 180' swinging arc. Also, if you look at the map provided on the ARSBC website, they even show an "exclusion zone" arc extending around the actual ship location that would intersect with normal boat arcs.

 

[BradnerBoy]

Since you asked - primarily, that bay gets amazingly busy with anchored boats on summer weekends - most are in the head of the bay but as it gets busier, late arrivals are forced over to spread out near where the proposed site is, and my concern is that I'm going to show up one weekend and not be able to find a spot to anchor.

You don't camp much in BC, do you? Welcome to 2 months of summer. First come, first serve for this sort of thing is generally how society works. However, I suspect you'll suggest that by sinking the ship, it results in fewer anchorages. Yep, it does. But it's a big ocean, people will adjust and find another spot. I can't think of another popular area on the water in Coastal BC where that sort of thing doesn't take place virtually every summer weekend, but I digress.

Back to the subject of "too many boats in the bay". Do you know how many commercial scuba charter operators there are within a reasonable distance that would likely travel to the bay? (I'll give you a hint, it's more than zero and less than two).

Even if you factor in non-commercial dive boats, I don't think the numbers will be high. We dive off my boat and I can count on one finger the number of other boats with divers I saw last summer in Howe Sound....and it was the charter boat I referred to above! And if boats come to the bay to dive the wreck, won't they be moored over top of the wreck and thus, not further impacting "your" anchorage as that area would already be excluded for non-diving boats.

We dive year round. Do you use the bay in your boat year round?

I suspect the vast number of visitors to the bay would decline considerably outside of a typical summer weekend, would you agree? If so, then really what we're taking about here is your concern that on approximately 24-30 days a year (Weekends, Jun-Aug), there might be the possibility that you can't anchor your boat in Halkett Bay.

That about sums it up, right?

Thank God. I was starting to think you might have a REAL argument against sinking the Annapolis in Halkett Bay.

 

[mayday1234]

then really what we're taking about here is your concern that on approximately 24-30 days a year (Weekends, Jun-Aug), there might be the possibility that you can't anchor your boat in Halkett Bay.

That about sums it up

You've summed it up perfectly - for 24-30 days a year you are proposing that I might not be able to anchor my boat. And you expect me to be happy about that?

I think you'd have a much different opinion if you only had one place to dive, and I was telling you "too bad, stay home" for 24-30 of your precious dive days.
(and yes, we used to camp but tired of the crowds; and yes, we do use our boat year round)

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Just trying to look out for what we feel is in our (marine park users) best interest.

First off, I think this gets to the heart of your objections ... thank you. I also think it's a valid thing to do ... we divers are also trying to look out for what we feel is in our best interest.

So we have some common ground around which to share a dialogue.

But I think you are basing your concerns on some misconceptions.

Let's start with the notion that putting the ship in there is going to increase boat traffic ... not noticeably. If you spend any time looking at the two most popular ARSBC wrecks ... the Cape Breton and Sasketchewan ... you will find on a week-end there will be between two and four commercial boats out there on a given day ... and not all at the same time ... and perhaps a handful of private boats coming and going at various times. It's rare to see more than one boat at a time on any of the current wrecks ... and almost never more than two. So boat traffic is negligibly impacted by this "activity".

Now let's disabuse you of the notion that this is a "commercial" venture. It's not. Lots of people dive out of their own boat, and there has never been a prohibition on any ARSBC wreck that disallows these divers from using them. Once down, it is as much a park resource as the anchorage you enjoy using.

Finally, yes you need scope. So what? Anchored boats aren't what dive boats worry about ... the dive boat's on a mooring that doesn't have hardly any scope at all, and divers will be decending and ascending on these lines. It's the folks flying around in the cove at top speed not paying attention to what's going on around them, and getting too close to boats that aren't underway, that we worry about. My guess is that if you're anchored, you're a bit concerned about those folks too.

Where I live one of the most popular dive sites is in a small cove. A few years back the Seattle Parks Dept. decided that cove would be a great place to put a cross-bay water taxi. There was a lot of opposition ... some from the folks who used the adjacent fishing pier ... lots of influential folks suggesting that the taxi should take priority to other activities ... and others saying that divers had plenty of other places to go. But rather than fighting each other, we all got together and asked how we could share the resource in a way that everyone could get what they wanted. We identified everyone's concerns ... discovered that while some were legitimate, most were really not ... hammered out a few compromises ... and moved forward in a way that accommodated all the different users. It's been eight years now, and none of the problems that so many people predicted came to be.

My guess is that this Halkett Bay situation is not much different ... everyone who's using the place now wants it to stay as it is. Why shouldn't they ... y'all have the whole sandbox now, there's no real motive on your part to share it with other users. But the reality is that it isn't YOUR resource ... it belongs to the public, and another part of the public wants to share it with you. I've yet to see a valid reason why they shouldn't ... just a lot of assumptions and misinformation designed to confuse any real issues and a lot of obstinance from people who don't want to talk about how to make it work rather than how to prevent it from working.

I don't buy that as a legitimate way to resolve anything.

I don't blame you for looking out for your best interest ... that's what people do. I just think that, in reality, your best interest won't be as negatively impacted by this ship as you think it will ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)