Ethical practice in wreck diving

[mudchick]

I saw a program today about the Edmond Fitzgerald and many of the victims families are upset that scientists and salvagers are basically playing around their fathers' graves. I understand why they feel this way but it began to make me think about other wrecks we dive that don't have televised families offering their valid input in the matter. So I'd like to pose a couple of questions. Their purpose NOT to inflame and it is NOT my intent to troll around here creating arguments. By posing these questions I hope to create a serious dialog about this issue, or determine if an issue even exists. Disagreements will no doubt occur but please be curteous, professional and consider treating others as you would like to be treated yourself.

Does anyone out there choose not to dive a wreck or other similar structure because you know that people died as a result of its sinking? Does it matter to you if the vessel sunk as a result of military activity and the wreck belonged to our government's enemy or if it was a ship that was a US Navy or Coast Guard ship?

Are you uncomfortable diving anything that wasn't intentionally sunk to build a growing reef project? Are you uncomfortable diving on passenger vessels?

Do you feel like we may be just messing around in someone's grave, who likely didn't go in a peaceful manner.

I'd like to hear Joe Sixpack's opinion on this and I hope to hear from any academics who may have some background in this kind of psychology, sociology, philosophy and salvagers who make their living at securing dangerous environments and recover valuable property of ships owners.

This not meant to inflame or troll but it is meant to start a discusson of a subject I'd never considered before.

Thank You,
Mudchick.

 

[Tigerman]

I saw a program today about the Edmond Fitzgerald and many of the victims families are upset that scientists and salvagers are basically playing around their fathers' graves. I understand why they feel this way but it began to make me think about other wrecks we dive that don't have televised families offering their valid input in the matter. So I'd like to pose a couple of questions. Their purpose NOT to inflame and it is NOT my intent to troll around here creating arguments. By posing these questions I hope to create a serious dialog about this issue, or determine if an issue even exists. Disagreements will no doubt occur but please be curteous, professional and consider treating others as you would like to be treated yourself.

Does anyone out there choose not to dive a wreck or other similar structure because you know that people died as a result of its sinking? Does it matter to you if the vessel sunk as a result of military activity and the wreck belonged to our government's enemy or if it was a ship that was a US Navy or Coast Guard ship?

Sunken ships with casualties that has not been recovered is considered gravesites here (Norway) and is generally not allowed to be dived "just for fun" as far as ive been told.

Are you uncomfortable diving anything that wasn't intentionally sunk to build a growing reef project? Are you uncomfortable diving on passenger vessels?

Nope. If its not a gravesite or otherwise "protected" object, Ill dive there.

Do you feel like we may be just messing around in someone's grave, who likely didn't go in a peaceful manner.

The real question here is "If I died at sea, would I mind people diving my wet grave?". The answer for me is that if they did it respectfully and didnt mess up anything, I wouldnt mind that any more than people walking around at the graveyard. In other words it depends on your behaviour.

I'd like to hear Joe Sixpack's opinion on this and I hope to hear from any academics who may have some background in this kind of psychology, sociology, philosophy and salvagers who make their living at securing dangerous environments and recover valuable property of ships owners.

This not meant to inflame or troll but it is meant to start a discusson of a subject I'd never considered before.

Thank You,
Mudchick.

 

[NudeDiver]

Does anyone out there choose not to dive a wreck or other similar structure because you know that people died as a result of its sinking? Does it matter to you if the vessel sunk as a result of military activity and the wreck belonged to our government's enemy or if it was a ship that was a US Navy or Coast Guard ship? Are you uncomfortable diving anything that wasn't intentionally sunk to build a growing reef project? Are you uncomfortable diving on passenger vessels?
Do you feel like we may be just messing around in someone's grave, who likely didn't go in a peaceful manner. I'd like to hear Joe Sixpack's opinion on this and I hope to hear from any academics who may have some background in this kind of psychology, sociology, philosophy and salvagers who make their living at securing dangerous environments and recover valuable property of ships owners.

I know my view is "non-traditional" - but here it is anyway. I don't believe in any concept of "hallowed ground". The dead, as wonderful as they may have been, are in fact, dead. Their time has come and gone. I believe the world is for those still living. Personally, I think it is a crying shame that valuable real estate is set aside for a collection of dead bodies (cemeteries). I think it's a serious waste of space that could be put to much better use (not to mention the costs of coffins, funerals, etc.). I certainly don't think that underwater wrecks are special in any way, just because someone died there - no matter who it was or why they died.

FWIW - when I die, please don't lock my body up in a box or urn. Just dump me off in a ditch somewhere and allow my nutrients to benefit those still living. If I die in a shipwreck, you guys are more than welcome to come and check me out - and if you want my watch, wallet, wedding ring, skull, or anything else I've got, you're more than welcome to take it - as I will no longer have any use for it.

Cheers!
nd

 

[PvtStash]

you approach the dive/site with the knowledge/respect of the lives lost and that you disturb/take nothing while your there. Then I think its ok.

but just because someone died somewhere is not in of itself grounds to bar anyone else from going there again. The cemetary was a good analogy... of course No one would approve of a bunch of pinheads whooping it up/messing around in our loved ones place of final rest, but have no problem at all with those that visit Respectfully.

Its all in how you conduct yourself.

 

[BDSC]

I know my view is "non-traditional" - but here it is anyway. I don't believe in any concept of "hallowed ground". The dead, as wonderful as they may have been, are in fact, dead. Their time has come and gone. I believe the world is for those still living. Personally, I think it is a crying shame that valuable real estate is set aside for a collection of dead bodies (cemeteries). I think it's a serious waste of space that could be put to much better use (not to mention the costs of coffins, funerals, etc.). I certainly don't think that underwater wrecks are special in any way, just because someone died there - no matter who it was or why they died.

FWIW - when I die, please don't lock my body up in a box or urn. Just dump me off in a ditch somewhere and allow my nutrients to benefit those still living. If I die in a shipwreck, you guys are more than welcome to come and check me out - and if you want my watch, wallet, wedding ring, skull, or anything else I've got, you're more than welcome to take it - as I will no longer have any use for it.

Cheers!
nd

I didn't know anyone out there thought exactly the same as myself. I couldn't agree more. When I die my spirit/soul will have left my physical body. That is no longer me. So if you guys would like, drag me out to one of those shark dives, stick me a few times to get things going, and watch the action. And be sure some of you folks have a video camera.

 

[tiggrr]

I don't have issue with diving any wreck for any of the reasons you have stated.

What I do have issue with is taking any property off of the wrecks. I don't mean when say, the Bell is taken to be displayed in a museum. I mean when JoePlumber diver takes a piece of whatever for his own personal use/collection. Pretty much ruins it for the rest of us.

 

[DA Aquamaster]

I have walked numerous battlefeilds and have found that doing so gives me a greater appreciation for the terrain, for why the battle developed and was fought the way it was, and also a greater understanding of the human events and decisions that occurred. Diving a wreck where people died is no different.

I think if we treat them like a cemetary with a measure of respect and conservation that there is nothing wrong with diving them and indeed there is a great deal of value in terms of developing an understanding of those events and passing that understanding down through suceeding generations.

I have issues with people who go at a wreck with crowbars, etc to break pieces off that then end up in prvate collections as it is disrespectful (along the lines of vandalizing a grave yard or tomb stone) and also steals something from every other diver that would have ever come along and viewed that item. Plus the additional damage inflicted to the wreck just hastens the degradation of the wreck.

Times have changed - we are not 20 years past WWII with intact wrecks everywhere to be viewed by a very small number of divers. The shear numbers of divers who enjoy wrecks are far greater today increasing the potential impact and damage while at the same time changing the dynamics of the "lost to the sea" argument . In the past you could make a semi-valid argument that if you did not recover an item now it would just be "lost to the sea", but now that is not the case. The wreck you are on today will most likely be frequently visited by divers and the object you take would have been viewed by hundreds of other divers. Consequently the "salvage" culture of diving where you looted an item before someone else beat you to it has to change.

For example, I know a diver who "salvaged" a diving alarm off the U-352. Once it is done soaking/desalinating in his toilet tank the odds are good it will not be further conserved, restored or displayed and in effect is just another piece broken off a wreck that is, despite the heavy diver traffic, still a war grave. All of it is wrong on so many levels.

The U-352 is a beautiful dive and I'd be more than satisfied to have a similar dive site as a grave site, but divers tearing bits and pieces off just because, makes no sense and is in the end incredibly disrespectful.

That also brings up the point of nationality. It should not make a difference but I often hear from American divers who value Japanese or German grave sites less than US or British grave sites. The rationale is they started the war and or lost the war therefore their sacrifices mean less. That is a sadly mistaken point of view. Consider, for example, the realities of a U-boat sailor. The vast majority were not **** party members and in fact by tradition and regulation the Kriegsmarine discouraged membership in any political party. They were sailors who over the course of the war experienced 70% casualties (rising to as much as 90% casualties when you consider only those sailors actually serving on war patrols) and in the last year of the war faced an 80% expection of not returning from any given war patrol. Yet they did their duty and that deserves a measure of respect regardless of the people leading them. We as Americans argue the same thing in regard to our troops in Iraq and Afganistan everyday regardless of how we feel about the war, the reasons we are there, or the current administration. That is as it should be as the politics behind a war should never dampen or denigrate sacrifices of those who fought for their country or families despite the eventual failings of their leaders in the ultimately historical context.

Yet some of us have problems extending that same respect and compassion to anyone other than ourselves. In my experience, those indivuals tend to show that lack of respect to everyone, being just as willing to loot any wreck showing no real distinction between a German U-boat, British armed trawler or escort, an American destroyer or a merchantman of any allied country where seamen died on the wreck. Most are too ignorant or too insensitive to realize that sailors or passengers died on the vast majority of non-artificial reefed wrecks they dive. They are and will remain self centered and/or clueless.

It is up to the rest of us to raise the bar, raise the expectations and hold all divers accountable to a higher standard of respect and conservation of the wrecks that our status as wreck divers has entrusted us with.

 

[Bob]

I have dived wrecks in Truk Lagoon that have Japanese remains that are clearly visible as you swim through the ships. I have no issue with this. It's no different than going to your family cemetery plot to pay your respect to the dead. We learn to treat cemeteries with respect and honor from a young age, and wrecks such as the Edmund Fitzgerald, and all wrecks that hold the remains of the dead, should be treated the same way. It's just common courtesy to do so. I agree with tiggrr, we shouldn't take anything off of a wreck. Leave it there for someone else to enjoy. almtree: Bob

 

[Garrobo]

If you can get to it, dive it but leave it intact.

 

[shoredivr]

I saw a program today about the Edmond Fitzgerald and many of the victims families are upset that scientists and salvagers are basically playing around their fathers' graves.

Must have been an older program, the Canadian government has banned diving on the wreck for some time now under the Marine Heritage Act. You need a license to dive the Fitz and no licenses have been issued.

Shipwreck Society News

"Shipwreck Society Responds to Allegations of Illegal Fitzgerald Dive March 21, 2005

On Tuesday, March 15, 2005, the Sault Star, a daily newspaper in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, ran an article on the front page in response to an allegation made by the Whitefish Point Preservation Society. [...]

The story says the Whitefish Point Preservation Society of Paradise, Mich. alleges that the Great Lakes Shipwreck Historical Society, led by Thomas Farnquist, executive director of Great Lakes Shipwreck Museum, conducted an illegal dive to the legendary shipwreck three years ago, and the Preservation Society alleges that the Historical Society was not issued an archaeological license or dive permit as required under the Ontario Heritage Act for a dive in the summer of 2002.

These allegations are false. There have been no violations. The Shipwreck Society has not, nor would ever, do anything to break the trust of the Fitzgerald family members nor the trust it has with the Canadian Government. No dives have been conducted on this wreck by the Shipwreck Society since 1995 when a permit from the Canadian Government allowed recovery of the ship's bell."