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

[DCBC]

Yesterday in the Globe and Mail

What can I say? Amazing...

 

[mayday1234]

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)

.

Some other "facts" to keep in mind - the area of the bay that was used for booming was in fact on the east (opposite side of the bay from the proposed site) which kind of makes this point invalid - and since the AARSC uses this "logging" point as a main talking point, it negates their main argument.
I'll be up front here - although I'm a diver, I'm also a pleasure craft user who frequents this bay quite often (which I'm sure lots of proponents of the sinking can not say) - it is one of the last " semi-undeveloped" places to anchor in this general area. As such, it gets extremely busy on summer weekends and the proposed site would actually hinder anchoring in the bay. Obvious bias/self interest - no arguments.
Some other "facts" to keep in mind though - although the one video several people mention apparently did not show any "life", I have personnaly seen (and yes caught) many dungeness/rock crab, there is a family of river otters in the bay, a small octopus (in a trap right on the site) that all might be negatively affected - I say might because no-one knows for sure whether it would be a positive or negative effect, and do we really want to take a chance on screwing it up?.
Also, yes, the site is a muddy bottom - but far from being caused by "un-natural" sources, it's actually since several small streams drain into the bay on that side (yes, logging on the upper valley will have contributed a portion but not all of that silt).
Anyways, my main point is I'd probably have a lot more support and/or agree with some of the proponents if they'd been honest and upfront from the begging and said they wanted to sink the ship in this location because it would make a good dive site - period - but they have instead tried to sell it as a "only want to do good" act of generousity.

 

[burna]

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!

Ahhh, just snoopin'

I've only done the Canberra once, I need to get out there more myself.

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

Yeah I wouldn't be surprised if the NIMBYs 'here' and 'there' are sharing info/tactics/BS, so I wonder if the Pro-ship groups are communicating as well.

 

[sunkmail]

Some other "facts" to keep in mind - the area of the bay that was used for booming was in fact on the east (opposite side of the bay from the proposed site) which kind of makes this point invalid - and since the AARSC uses this "logging" point as a main talking point, it negates their main argument.
I'll be up front here - although I'm a diver, I'm also a pleasure craft user who frequents this bay quite often (which I'm sure lots of proponents of the sinking can not say) - it is one of the last " semi-undeveloped" places to anchor in this general area. As such, it gets extremely busy on summer weekends and the proposed site would actually hinder anchoring in the bay. Obvious bias/self interest - no arguments.
Some other "facts" to keep in mind though - although the one video several people mention apparently did not show any "life", I have personnaly seen (and yes caught) many dungeness/rock crab, there is a family of river otters in the bay, a small octopus (in a trap right on the site) that all might be negatively affected - I say might because no-one knows for sure whether it would be a positive or negative effect, and do we really want to take a chance on screwing it up?.
Also, yes, the site is a muddy bottom - but far from being caused by "un-natural" sources, it's actually since several small streams drain into the bay on that side (yes, logging on the upper valley will have contributed a portion but not all of that silt).
Anyways, my main point is I'd probably have a lot more support and/or agree with some of the proponents if they'd been honest and upfront from the begging and said they wanted to sink the ship in this location because it would make a good dive site - period - but they have instead tried to sell it as a "only want to do good" act of generousity.

OK, I'll assume you're not a troll from the otherside, as I like to believe the good side of people, and hope they would not continue to stoop to underhanded methods.

With that said, it is a little suspicious that you have only made 1 post, after just joining today, and not having any personal info ....

So you are saying all the wrecks, artificial, purposeful (war) or accidental, have not been able to show anything about the amount of life that can grow and prospour on an artificial structure?

The ARSBC has never stated they were making it anything other than a dive site, but with significant positive environmental, and economical spin-offs.

I would be happy to accompany you on a dive in Halket for you to show me these amazing spots anywhere near the sink site. As you say, you have a pleasure craft - can we dive off that? And I think NWGD would also be willing to come along with his HD Video Camera to video what we find, or don't find.

Send me a PM and we can figure out a time to meet up and dive.

 

[mayday1234]

OK, I'll assume you're not a troll from the otherside, as I like to believe the good side of people, and hope they would not continue to stoop to underhanded methods.

With that said, it is a little suspicious that you have only made 1 post, after just joining today, and not having any personal info ....

So you are saying all the wrecks, artificial, purposeful (war) or accidental, have not been able to show anything about the amount of life that can grow and prospour on an artificial structure?

The ARSBC has never stated they were making it anything other than a dive site, but with significant positive environmental, and economical spin-offs.

I would be happy to accompany you on a dive in Halket for you to show me these amazing spots anywhere near the sink site. As you say, you have a pleasure craft - can we dive off that? And I think NWGD would also be willing to come along with his HD Video Camera to video what we find, or don't find.

Send me a PM and we can figure out a time to meet up and dive.

I've only made this one post, because in my original search for information on this project, I came across this message board - as a long time diver (certified in 87) I saved the site for future reference as I'm just starting to get my wife into cold water diving and recently came across this post.

I'm not saying all artificial reefs are bad - I'm just saying there is a risk that sinking a ship of this size, in this particular location, comes with ramifications, both known and unknown, that I'm not prepared to endorse. And as regards to the ARSBC, if you read their literature, it has always been opposite to the way you've stated it - it's been pushed as good for the environment first, good for divers as a nice side benefit.

I never stated I've dove in Halkett - I said I've anchored there many times and can vouch for the type of marine life that might be negatively impacted.

As far as my boat goes - yes you can dive off it, although since it is a 30yr old sailboat that does 6kts, it takes a minimum of 3hrs to get there from our dock, so you'd better bring a good book. More to the point though, I'm not sure what that would accomplish as again, I never stated the original video was incorrect or tampered, just that the explanation for what it showed was incorrect.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Mayday ... the proposed site is a shelf at 100 fsw.

Do you normally anchor in 100 feet of water?

Since you admit you've never dived there, how can you state what kind of life the bottom topography at the site supports?

I have dived there. The video we took of the proposed site supports what I have stated. We turned that video over to the ARSBC to be included in the EIS for the permit to sink the vessel. By now it should be public record. Suggest you watch it ... or as Sunkmaili suggests ... let's go diving. Forget about speculation from the surface ... seeing is believing.

Anyways, my main point is I'd probably have a lot more support and/or agree with some of the proponents if they'd been honest and upfront from the begging and said they wanted to sink the ship in this location because it would make a good dive site - period - but they have instead tried to sell it as a "only want to do good" act of generousity.

Now you're the one being dishonest. The ARSBC has never tried to sell this project in the manner you claim. They chose this site on the merits of bottom topography and location. They have never claimed otherwise, or attempted to "sell" the project on any other basis.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[bighiller]

if anyone needs an additional diver to video, I have my HD setup + lights and I would LOVE to get more data for this project.

Obviously, I support this.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

You can see photos taken from the video on pages 15 - 17 of the ARSBC Position Paper which was written in response to the Halkett Bay objections ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[mayday1234]

Mayday ... the proposed site is a shelf at 100 fsw.

Do you normally anchor in 100 feet of water?

Since you admit you've never dived there, how can you state what kind of life the bottom topography at the site supports?

I have dived there. The video we took of the proposed site supports what I have stated. We turned that video over to the ARSBC to be included in the EIS for the permit to sink the vessel. By now it should be public record. Suggest you watch it ... or as Sunkmaili suggests ... let's go diving. Forget about speculation from the surface ... seeing is believing.


Now you're the one being dishonest. The ARSBC has never tried to sell this project in the manner you claim. They chose this site on the merits of bottom topography and location. They have never claimed otherwise, or attempted to "sell" the project on any other basis.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Bob;
I'd gently suggest you re-read my original comments - no where did I state I was disputing what the video showed (and yes I have seen it) - I was disputing whether what you saw was an "unnatural" condition that needed to be "fixed".
I listed marine life in the area that I have personally observed that might be negatively impacted.
As far as anchoring goes - although yes, a portion of the ship would be in 100' of water, by the time you factor in the overall length as well as a normal small exclusion zone (I'm assuming you don't want my 30# anchor dropping near you?) you are now into the normal anchoring spaces - look at the maps provided on the ARSBC website if you don't believe me.
Lastly, sorry but no that is not how I saw the history of the project - it's not as if the ARSBC went out and did a survey and determined that Halkett was #1 on a list of areas needed this type of "saving" - as you know several other original sites were proposed and subsequently vetoed by users, and it became a "where can we put this thing" exercise. From everything I've read I can agree the ARSBC and all it's members are well meaning and do think they are providing a benefit - however I'm sure we can also agree that it is not an exact science and although there are possible benefits, there are also possible risks, and in my opinion, they are risks we should not be taking.
To summarize - just because you have a video showing a "muddy bottom" does not make it unnatural and in need of "saving".

 

[bighiller]

Anyone have background on how the site at Porteau Cove and the Edmonds underwater park were decided upon. I don't know what it was like before the reefs were made, but from my experiences, I'd say they are helping with the underwater life. And I don't hear any complaints about those sites (to my knowledge). Was there a big disupte about those site before they came into being?