a couple questions about shipwreck preserves

[parrothead600]

I saw a story on 9and10 news about the Thunder Bay Shipwreck Preserve and possibly extending it's borders. I did not catch the whole story, but they did say that extending the borders would "protect" more shipwrecks. Also, (if I heard correctly) they said that extending the borders had been proposed previously and failed.

My first question is: Why wouldn't anyone want to extend the borders of the preserve?
My second question is: Aren't all of the shipwrecks in the state protected by law, reguardless of wheather they are in a preserve or not? If so, I don't see how extending the preserves' borders would "protect" more wrecks.
Forgive my ignorance on the subject, but I'm just trying to get the whole picture.

 

[alpenadiver]

2008 - 2009 Senator Levin proposed a bill to expand Thunder Bay to include Presque Isle, and Alcona Counties and running out to Canadian waters, that bill failed. March 3rd Senator Levin proposed a new bill the "Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve Boundary Modifaction act" which would include the the previous counties, and International waters. This would expand Thunder Bay from the current 448 square miles, and 115 miles of shoreline to 4,085 square miles, and 226 miles of shoreline.

http://levin.senate.gov/images/news/NewsHeader.jpg

"Why wouldn't anyone want to expand"

I don't know why the first attempt failed, possibly has to do with budgeting

"Aren't all of the shipwrecks in the state protected by law, reguardless of wheather they are in a preserve or not?"

Yes they are, however it is my belief that the prosecution of individuals who blatantly steal artifacts doesn't hold the same "wow factor" (for lack of a better term) for a local prosecutor, as would a drug ring (would look better on ones resume) NOAA on the other hand has their one own legal team that specialize in this type of prosecution.

 

[dab]

Keep in mind that Thunder Bay is not a underwater preserve like the other state protected areas - it is a federal underwater sanctuary, one of a few around the country and is under NOAA jurisdiction.

 

[Gilldiver]

I’d just point out the “Protection” without the funds for patrol, enforcement, and prosecution is just a word in quotations, it doesn’t mean a thing.

Or

It is an excuse for Restriction, ‘we don’t have the funds for patrol, enforcement, and prosecution so we can’t let you dive these wrecks unless you get a permit, which we can't give right now for lack of funds, or until we get the funds for patrol, enforcement, and prosecution.’

 

[ComputerJoe]

The State of Michigan has had a very very low success rate when faced by a serious maritime lawyer. If the artifacts in question can not be proved to have come from a shipwreck in a Preserve the defendant will move to have the case heard in Federal Maritime court, then the laws of salvage take precidence over State Law and the States case falls apart. In a Federal Maritime Sanctuary if you are caught you can not escape the long arm that easily.

So far Thunder Bay has seen no restrictions to diving. There was some discussion about needing a permit to search in the Sanctuary so the management can be aware of those who are searching. Stan Stock and Dave Trotter seem to be on pretty cordial terms with the management up here. I think the days of "I'm going to take it before someone else does" are coming to and end. Lets hope so.