Annapolis to the US?

[FishLovingStudent]

^
"awarded costs to the federal government and the Artificial Reef Society of B.C."

I think that means they did? WOHOOOOO

 

[aaen]

Brilliant!!! Now let's get that sucker under the water!!!!




Steve

 

[deepdiverbc]

Agreed! Sink her before they think of another excuse to save Halkett Bay from all the marine life that will move in once the ship is sunk. It seems not only do they want to keep divers out of the bay but they also want to keep out any more cod, anemones, nudibranchs, octopus, crabs, etc etc etc.......Because it's all about the environment right?

 

[cooldives]

Hopefully not an April Fool's joke - set to sink on Saturday, April 4th.

Regular updates posted on our Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/pages/CoolDives/140948460597

Finally set to become the closest (and 'bestest') artificial reef to Vancouver,

 

[aaen]

Easy there tiger. Us Nanaimo folk may take offence!! We are jealous after all and it cost us a bloody fortune to try to back the nimby's so we could get another wreck to dive on in the area. Sadly many of us nearly went broke.

Obviously kidding for you folks who read way to much into things and don't understand sarcasm.


Regards

Steve

I suffer from fat finger syndrome and a tiny keyboard on an iPhone. So I apologize for the typos and misspellings.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

She's down ... at last ... ARSBC - 1, NIMBYs - 0

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[MarkH]

She's down ... at last ... ARSBC - 1, NIMBYs - 0

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

I wouldn't call them NIMBYs. That term seems to be used nowadays for anyone who doesn't agree with something. Originally, it meant someone who agreed with something (eg. homeless shelters) as long as they weren't next door to them (Not In My Backyard). A proper NIMBY would be a supporter of artificial diving reefs, who doesn't want one sunk near their house. In a way I sympathize with the Halkett bay residents. For people who aren't divers or interested in naval history, the ship is just a giant piece of scrap garbage. And it's being dumped in what to them is a pristine, wild, peaceful area. Even though they can't see it when it's sunk, knowing it's there probably gives them a different feeling about their surroundings compared to what they felt about the place when they moved in. Sometimes this feeling is hard to express logically, so opposition is justified because of "toxic paint" or "increased marine traffic". The benefit of increased habitat for marine life is sometimes not so clear to non-divers either. Imagine if someone proposed dumping an acre or so of old concrete pipes in a national park to increase habitat for marmots or whatever. It may be beneficial to wildlife, but most people see it as junk dumped in a once-natural area. I personally like the idea of sinking old ships for diving, but I don't buy the argument of "increased habitat for marine life". There's plenty of habitat here already. I like the idea of sinking the ships instead of scrapping them as a way of "connecting with history" and it's somehow satisfying knowing they're still around long after they've been decommissioned.

 

[aaen]

Hooray!!


It's finally down and dives on it can commence Monday!! Hoping I get to dive it here sometime soon myself. Be nice to check it out and play around for a dive or two.

Hopefully this will help jump start divers starting to come back to the BC coast for diving, as there has been a huge decline in divers over the past few years.




Regards

Steve

I suffer from fat finger syndrome and a tiny keyboard on an iPhone. So I apologize for the typos and misspellings.

 

[FishLovingStudent]

I personally like the idea of sinking old ships for diving, but I don't buy the argument of "increased habitat for marine life". There's plenty of habitat here already. I like the idea of sinking the ships instead of scrapping them as a way of "connecting with history" and it's somehow satisfying knowing they're still around long after they've been decommissioned.

Have you been to the Britannia natural wrecks? Its a sand wasteland between the three sites and once you hit the wrecks biodiversity and biomass explodes. You can see the same things at Porteau. The same will happen at Halkett bay considering the divers who did the survey reported sand with the occasional crab and that the area has been practically destroyed by the acidic wood mulch put in there in the past, at least thats what we hope.

 

[MarkH]

Have you been to the Britannia natural wrecks? Its a sand wasteland between the three sites and once you hit the wrecks biodiversity and biomass explodes. You can see the same things at Porteau. The same will happen at Halkett bay considering the divers who did the survey reported sand with the occasional crab and that the area has been practically destroyed by the acidic wood mulch put in there in the past, at least thats what we hope.

I meant that there's plenty of solid rocky/vertical habitat in the general area of Howe Sound. The extra marine life on the Annapolis is a drop in the bucket compared to that, just like the life on the MacKenzie is just a blip compared to all the steep, rocky structure in the surrounding islands. I don't know if hard-structure marine life is more important than sand/mud marine life, but I agree that I find it more interesting as a diver.
Anyways, I don't think the purpose of these artificial reefs is to increase the amount of marine life (although that sounds good for sinking permits) or to provide recreation for divers (if that was the case, they'd sink them in shore-accessible spots where the largest number of divers could enjoy them). The purpose of these wrecks is to promote the local dive industry.