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

[DaleC]

It's pretty sad when our DFO, the supposed authorities, have no clue as to what they are talking about. Pehaps someone from "the office" should go dive an artificial reef and compare its life to that found on a shallow, silty bottom. Watch out, You might impact a Humpback whale!

 

[sunkmail]

I just sent a email to the ARSBC main people to make sure thhe are aware of this new 'story'.

I can't imagine they tried too hard to get ahold of anyone - Everytime I've had to reach one of them they answer either right away, or return my call soon after.

 

[burna]

Don't you just love some of the comments...

"I have some old furniture behind my woodshed that would make a great artificial reef. Once submerged, divers could explore an amazing reef-world among the cushion springs and table legs. Any takers?"

I love this one...

"The blast needed to sink this ship is enough to cause nearby seals lungs to burst."

I wonder what studies these are???

"Studies have shown that the fish populations in artificial reefs aren't the same as in the natural environment, but have failed to demonstrate that they increase the actual number of fish. "

These 'NIMBY' groups seem to be more like professional protesters from what I can see. You guys do have some brothers in arms tho'.
http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/au...aide-being-sunk-27th-march-central-coast.html

I think part of the problem (certainly here is Oz) is with the terminology. For the Government to approved the sinking of the ship they have to sign a 'Sea Dumping Permit'. That term 'Sea dumping' is an old term from a time when that was exactly what it was. The average punter just doesn't understand that the ships are thoroughly cleaned hence comments like above about dumping old cars or furniture.

Changing it to an 'Artificial Reef Placement Permit' or something I reckon would help.

My 2 bob.

 

[Skookumchuck]

It's pretty sad when our DFO, the supposed authorities, have no clue as to what they are talking about. QUOTE]


The DFO have a long and well documented history of ineptitude. Their position on enviromental issues has been, and apparently still is, based on politics not science. Farley Mowat's "Sea of Slaughter" demonstrates this well.

 

[bighiller]

I got an Notice of Public Participation from Bruce Clark which I have attached.

I think, unless they already have it, we should send in the video of the bottom. Also need to find out the impacts and benefits of other artifical reefs. Also go to that Save Hacklett website and refute each point they *try* to make.

 

[drbill]

Bob... since you have dived the site, were there no infauna present in the silty bottom? Although I'm not terribly familiar with the biota of the area, one would not expect a lot of fish to be present unless they were ones that feed by digging, right?

A few good videos of artificial reef sites showing the abundant fish life around established wrecks should at least give good visual evidence of the changes a sink can create.

 

[wedivebc]

Bob... since you have dived the site, were there no infauna present in the silty bottom? Although I'm not terribly familiar with the biota of the area, one would not expect a lot of fish to be present unless they were ones that feed by digging, right?

A few good videos of artificial reef sites showing the abundant fish life around established wrecks should at least give good visual evidence of the changes a sink can create.

Bill, I don't know that this is the case here but there are for instance beds of eelgrass that are essential for herring spawning that are only found on flat gravelly bottoms within a certain depth range. Gravelly or muddy bottoms are preferred by many species such as geoducks which although not endangered have a high commercial value. What is more likely one of the NIMBY residents of Gambier Island or a relative is a DFO employee and are able to push this. Fish habitat as you know is a very delicate balance. I am not saying they are right, just saying that DFO could mount a good case against if they were so inclined

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Bill, I don't know that this is the case here but there are for instance beds of eelgrass that are essential for herring spawning that are only found on flat gravelly bottoms within a certain depth range. Gravelly or muddy bottoms are preferred by many species such as geoducks which although not endangered have a high commercial value. What is more likely one of the NIMBY residents of Gambier Island or a relative is a DFO employee and are able to push this. Fish habitat as you know is a very delicate balance. I am not saying they are right, just saying that DFO could mount a good case against if they were so inclined

If this were eelgrass beds, I would see their point ... but eelgrass stops growing at something like 20-25 fsw, because it needs a certain amount of ambient light to grow and at the depths we're talking about (100 fsw) there is precious little ambient light in Howe Sound even on the brightest days.

Bill, by infauna I assume you're referring to critters that live in the mud. No ... I didn't see any signs of such. The types of life I would expect to see at those depths and topography would be crabs, bivalves, tubeworms, and certain types of burrowing anemones. There were precious few of any of those evident during our survey. Nor any of the usual bottom-dwelling fish like sole, flounder, ronquils, pricklebacks, or sculpins. And without something for them to feed on, I didn't expect to see them.

Contrary to what this agency is claiming, putting some structure down there would attract this life by providing a place for the organisms they feed on to grow.

Right now, there's just nothing there.

If these folks cared to see what a difference it makes, they have to look no further than Porteau Cove ... just a few miles north of the proposed site. Compare the life around the Nakaya ... which is at a comparable depth ... to the life growing a couple hundred feet distant from it ... where there is no structure for anything to grow on.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[sunkmail]

Ok, some things to note:

These are FACTS not opinions:

- Halket Bay was used to store log boons for many decades.

- Log boons rub together and break off small bits of bark and wood - much of this sinks to the bottom.

- After enough time, the build-up of this material on the sea floor becomes substantial.

- Existing fauna within the sea bed becomes smothered and does not generally survive.
- New fauna does not 'take root' within the layer of forest material (It's not the natural environment, or even a close approximation)



Something else to note - according to the ARSBC, the memo quoted by the Halketeers is around, or over, 5 months old. The position of the DFO, stated in the quoted paper, was a statement of concern, something to ensure isn't the case.

Personal thoughts:

- Another quote taken out of context. What a new concept for them!

- The video of the bottom of the Bay, and NWGD's (and others) statements of the condtion of the bay fit exactly with my own experiences diving at the sink location.

- I wonder how much natural environment (ie, trees, shrubs, animal trails, animal homes) was destroyed to make that nice property the leader of the halketeers lives on...... And how many new animal homes were created by that construction ......... Hmmmm.

 

[Underwater Ogre]

My 2 bob.

burna!...what are you doing lurking around here mate? Looks like I'll be back towards the end of next Jan. Gotta get on the Canberra next time!


As soon as I read the problems they are having here, I immediately thought of the Adelaide. Maybe we need to have a few rallies here like they did down under. Hopefully things work out on both sides.

The best comment I have read so far is "Bomb the boat, boost the community & bury the BS."

DFO might get their heads out of there ass someday...
U/O