Edmund Fitzgerald

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

WreckWriter once bubbled...


Many, maybe even most, wrecks have bodies inside them. Sure, most have long turned to bones or beyond but theoretically they're still there, right?

I'm not trying to minimize the loss of the Fitz families, just saying it sets a precendent that's dangerous for the future of wreck diving.

If my relative had been on her I think I would want diving allowed and would hope that my relative's body could be recovered.

Tom


Like it or not many wrecks are grave sites and like grave sites they should be visited but not disturbed (at least not while the loved-ones of the deceased still live). I'm sure the families of victims would agree that if we could look and not touch there is no quarrel. The problem is divers. We plunder wrecks and essentially desecrate graves. The families are not responsible. The government is not responsible. *We* did it and *we* need to re-win the trust of those who, quite rightly, no longer trust us.

R..
 
Diver0001 once bubbled...
Like it or not many wrecks are grave sites and like grave sites they should be visited but not disturbed (at least not while the loved-ones of the deceased still live). I'm sure the families of victims would agree that if we could look and not touch there is no quarrel. The problem is divers. We plunder wrecks and essentially desecrate graves. The families are not responsible. The government is not responsible. *We* did it and *we* need to re-win the trust of those who, quite rightly, no longer trust us.

R..

WE did it? Did we? Let's say a diver recovers a signigicant artifact, bell, steam whistle, helm, etc., from one of your "grave site" wrecks. In what way has he or she "desecrated" the site? Agreed, if he scatters bones or recovers a skull, its a problem, otherwise you're wrong.

You're living loved ones argument doesn't fly either. Lots of relatives of Titanic victims are still around, my step-mother is one of them. Should she be left alone too?

Should every location where people die be left alone? Imagine the state of our highways and airports. Every battlefield throughout history as a memorial, suddenly there's no land left that's not set aside.

Sentimentality is great, in its place.

Tom
 
> WE did it? Did we?

Yes we did. Divers have been unscrupulously plundering wrecks without considering the wishes of survivors and victims families since the very beginning of the sport. We created the need for controls, we brought it down on our own heads and we have nobody to blame for it but ourselves. If we (and I mean divers as a whole) would have shown *respect* for the gravesites and to the survivors and victim's families, the situation would be very different. Nobody would think to control who can enter a cemetery but then we don't run around desecrating graves in a cemetery. As I said, like it or not, shipwrecks are gravesites. You said you don't like it. Ok, that's your prerogative, but look in a mirror and ask yourself *why*, what personal need do you have that would motivate you to reject that simple fact.

> Let's say a diver recovers a signigicant artifact, bell, steam
> whistle, helm, etc., from one of your "grave site" wrecks. In
> what way has he or she "desecrated" the site? Agreed, if he
>scatters bones or recovers a skull, its a problem, otherwise
>you're wrong.

If you steal a grave marker like a head stone you're desecrating a grave. You don't need to disturb the bones...... As divers we are in the unique position of being able to offer the service of recovering something tangible for the victim's families. I would submit, however, that recovering it without having been requested to do so is sloppy at best and given where most artefacts end up I find it often tasteless, rude and even unethical.

> You're living loved ones argument doesn't fly either. Lots of
> relatives of Titanic victims are still around, my step-mother is >one of them. Should she be left alone too?

Are you asking if the Titanic should be left alone? I don't think the rules for the Titanic should be any different than for any other ship. My personal opinion (which you are quite welcome not to share) is that if survivors and/or direct decedents of victims want it left alone it should be treated like a gravesite. It *is* after all a gravesite. Visit but don't disturb.

> Should every location where people die be left alone? Imagine
> the state of our highways and airports. Every battlefield
> throughout history as a memorial, suddenly there's no land left
> that's not set aside.

A car wreck is not recognised as a gravesite. Shipwrecks are. You're confusing the argument with an apples and oranges comparison. Battlefields are not considered gravesites either but the cemeteries where the battle dead are buried are. Would you advocate the plunder a war-cemetery?

> Sentimentality is great, in its place.

Agreed, as is sensitivity. I see we don't agree and I don't hold any anticipation of being able to convince you to adopt my view. Feel free to present your own side of the argument as articulately as you can and let others who may read this decide on their own where their conscience will lead them.

R..
 
The wreck is closed through sheer respect for the families who lost love ones on her. Its so dam cold down is just one reason I just can't see that dive as being fun. Open circuit complications and the long deco stops just arn't worth it. Plus you would need an increadable amount of support staff and a sat bell to perform that dive. Just look at thediving complications the brittish divers ran into on salvaging the Kurst for the Russians which is 140' shallower.
 
Diver0001 once bubbled...
> WE did it? Did we?

Yes we did. Divers have been unscrupulously plundering wrecks without considering the wishes of survivors and victims families since the very beginning of the sport. We created the need for controls, we brought it down on our own heads and we have nobody to blame for it but ourselves. If we (and I mean divers as a whole) would have shown *respect* for the gravesites and to the survivors and victim's families, the situation would be very different. Nobody would think to control who can enter a cemetery but then we don't run around desecrating graves in a cemetery. As I said, like it or not, shipwrecks are gravesites. You said you don't like it. Ok, that's your prerogative, but look in a mirror and ask yourself *why*, what personal need do you have that would motivate you to reject that simple fact.

> Let's say a diver recovers a signigicant artifact, bell, steam
> whistle, helm, etc., from one of your "grave site" wrecks. In
> what way has he or she "desecrated" the site? Agreed, if he
>scatters bones or recovers a skull, its a problem, otherwise
>you're wrong.

If you steal a grave marker like a head stone you're desecrating a grave. You don't need to disturb the bones...... As divers we are in the unique position of being able to offer the service of recovering something tangible for the victim's families. I would submit, however, that recovering it without having been requested to do so is sloppy at best and given where most artefacts end up I find it often tasteless, rude and even unethical.

> You're living loved ones argument doesn't fly either. Lots of
> relatives of Titanic victims are still around, my step-mother is >one of them. Should she be left alone too?

Are you asking if the Titanic should be left alone? I don't think the rules for the Titanic should be any different than for any other ship. My personal opinion (which you are quite welcome not to share) is that if survivors and/or direct decedents of victims want it left alone it should be treated like a gravesite. It *is* after all a gravesite. Visit but don't disturb.

> Should every location where people die be left alone? Imagine
> the state of our highways and airports. Every battlefield
> throughout history as a memorial, suddenly there's no land left
> that's not set aside.

A car wreck is not recognised as a gravesite. Shipwrecks are. You're confusing the argument with an apples and oranges comparison. Battlefields are not considered gravesites either but the cemeteries where the battle dead are buried are. Would you advocate the plunder a war-cemetery?

> Sentimentality is great, in its place.

Agreed, as is sensitivity. I see we don't agree and I don't hold any anticipation of being able to convince you to adopt my view. Feel free to present your own side of the argument as articulately as you can and let others who may read this decide on their own where their conscience will lead them.

R..

You are correct, our views are not likely to merge and reconcile.

You accuse me of an apples and oranges comparisum yet you persist in the comparisum of an accident scene to a marked grave and state that this is a "simple fact". To you it may be a fact, to me it is a twisting of the facts to bolster your personal point of view. A shipwreck is an accident scene, not a cemetery. To my mind THAT is a "simple fact".

On this particular wreck, due to the depth, its pretty much a moot point but the same circumstances exist on countless wrecks throughout the world. By following your point of view divers will soon be restricted to only diving ships which were sunk only for this purpose. That's not wreck diving.

Until such time as these "controls" are put in place due to the sentimentality and apathy of people who think as you do, it is a choice that each diver must make for him or herself wether or not to visit these wrecks, as well as wether or not to recover artifacts. It is my hope that those who choose to do so will go with respect and will make their recoveries available to the public for the purpose of the spread of knowledge.

Tom
 
WreckWriter once bubbled...


You are correct, our views are not likely to merge and reconcile.

You accuse me of an apples and oranges comparisum yet you persist in the comparisum of an accident scene to a marked grave and state that this is a "simple fact". To you it may be a fact, to me it is a twisting of the facts to bolster your personal point of view. A shipwreck is an accident scene, not a cemetery. To my mind THAT is a "simple fact".

Tom

The whole argument then appears to hinge on your reading of maritime tradition and how you feel the survivors and loved ones should be shown respect.

I did a bit of poking around for any relevant laws and what I found would suggest that you are perfectly justified (legally) in diving on a wreck and removing artifacts (bodies are not artifacts) unless the owner of a wreck forbids it. Removing a body or even part of one may be subject to several laws forbidding this. Cemetary law does not apply because a shipwreck (although it may be a gravesite by virtue of containing bodies) is not a cemetary in a legal sense (this turns out to be my own apples and oranges argument). Gravesites, even deliberate ones, are not offered much legal protection unless the owner of the land (or ship) wants it. North American Indians have also had limited success in protecting ancient burial sites by playing the "sacred" card but some gravesites can be offered legal protectoin by virtue of archeological significance. There would appear to be a real spahgetti of laws that may or may not apply in various circumstances. Even within one country the laws can vary from region to region but the connecting thread seems to be ownership. If the owner is not ok with you diving a wreck and you do it anyway, you could get in trouble. If the owner doesn't care then the options for the families look very limited.

As for the moral argument, this is where your own principles are leading. As I said previously I feel it's disrespectful of survivors and loved ones to remove artifacts from a wreck with bodies in it. Obviously not everyone shares this principle.

R..
 
Diver0001 once bubbled...
The whole argument then appears to hinge on your reading of maritime tradition and how you feel the survivors and loved ones should be shown respect.

I think its more of a disagreement on what constitutes disrespect.

Tom
 
WreckWriter once bubbled...


I think its more of a disagreement on what constitutes disrespect.

Tom
I see the debate continues onward. We each know how we feel about this topic so i won't regurgitate info. However, i can give you an example of how insane some divers can get when it comes to artifact recovery via firsthand witness account.

I'm talking about the Mesquite in Lake Superior. I was lucky enough to dive her right after they sank her. It was some of the best wreck diving i've ever done. I don't remember how they figured it but anything that wasn't worth a certain amount of money was left in her. Something about costing more to recover certain things, than to replace them. Other than the superstructure, which was cut off, she was fully intact, below the weather deck, including many ships furnishings and equipment.

You got to see things you rarely get to see in a wreck underwater. Microwave ovens in the galley, desks with supplies still in drawers, lockers with uniforms and personal effects, etc. I guess it's whatever floats your boat in wreck diving but i thought it was really unique and cool. Generally we tried to dive it once a year so i saw the rather fast process of pillage take place.

Having over 20 dives in her, it got disgusting to be swimming toward a room or deck to show someone who had never seen that something, only to find that something gone. What people would want with a file cabinet full of soggy paperwork i have no idea. The last time i dove her several of the filing cabinets were on the deck, apparently awaiting their rescue to someones garage.

Today, IMO, she is no where near the wreck to dive and penetrate that she was due to the pillage that has occured on her. And that is sad for all divers today. I am far from an archeology-nazi, who thinks nothing on the bottom should be touched but this kind of action by divers, is giving people who feel that way plenty of ammo to fight with.

The depth of the Fitz will definately stop this from happening on her today but who knows what tommorrows technical advances will bring. Look where diving is today versus 30 years ago.

Human nature being what it is, make this whole "to dive or not to dive" question muddier than any of us would like it to be IMO. Forget the respect debate, how about the "leave it as you found it debate." Maybe thats a whole different thread.
 
Just to throw another wrench into the works.......

I can understand the fitz being considered a grave site, and as such, diving on her being controlled. (said understand, not neccissarily agree)

BUT, what is the reasoning on banning dives to wrecks like the gunilda? There were NO deaths on her, she lies in 250', well within the realm of tech diving, and isn't really old enough to be considered an achaeological site?

So, why are we not allowed to dive on her?
:whack:
 
Hey Gedunk,

Happy day to you also! The ship you describe, sunk as an artificial reef, would not seem like a place where divers would take artifacts but you're right, some folks go overboard with such things.

That topic has been covered before I think, with the expected result of none of us agreeing :)

Tom
 

Back
Top Bottom