Important - Everyone in Diving should read!

[ComputerJoe]

In Thunder Bay we were told there are two ways they can go about expanding boundries. The "easiest" is by Congressional action (to have a bill submitted and voted on by the Congress at large) The second way is procedural and internal to NOAA.

Artifacts salvaged tend to end up in someone's garage or attic, where the item's provenance gets forgotten, and the the diver dies. Then the family looks at all that "junk" Uncle Frank has stored and a dumpster is hauled in and the artifact is lost forever.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

Just like it would be if no one found it in the first place. Kinda ironic ain't it?

 

[cwkline]

I've dove NC and can't believe that there are divers out there that support this plan. I don't think any of the wrecks are completely intact, and most are showing their age and are becoming just a pile of rubble.
And do we really want to trust the parent agency of the NMFS (No More Fish Service). Just look how well they handle the fisheries end (over 85% over fished).

 

[LHermley]

I'm really trying to get a handle on the different points of view here to figure out if there's a way we can come to some sort of consensus. That said, if the opposition to the sanctuary is mainly philosophical, (e.g. the federal government is bad), then there really isn't much to discuss. Same goes for the fundamental belief in "finders keepers", or "fewer people = more for me", where the interests of a few outweigh the interests of the many. There's no place to negotiate, or even have meaningful exchanges, when these are the foundations of the argument, as the establishment of *any* entity, be it a museum, sanctuary, or preserve is purely antithetical.

But, if the opposition is based on more specific concerns, it seems that there are many places where all of us can agree, and isn't it more productive to start from there? For example, can we agree that the diving industry benefits from public outreach focusing on shipwrecks? (ie. Deep Sea Detectives, museum displays, Titanic) Can't we also agree that, as diving professionals, we derive enjoyment, as well as money, from enabling others to participate in the sport that we so dearly love? And, aren't all of us concerned, in some form or fashion, about preservation of our underwater heritage (whether it's underwater, in a museum, or on a mantle.) Certainly there are others. (Stop me if I get too touchy feely...all this anger and hotheadedness brings out my softer side.)

I know that Hatteras feels slighted because the Monitor was moved to Virginia (although, certainly a historical case can be made that Hampton Roads is where the Monitor should be.). Is it possible that a facility could have been built in Hatteras for, as Jim mentioned, half the price? I don't know and I don't think anyone else does either. (In these economic times though, it is also remiss not to acknowledge the jobs that project generated.) But, the fact is, NOAA and the Mariner's Museum had the resources and the foresight to make it happen where Hatteras did not. (Kudos to Joe Schwarzer for the Graveyard of the Atlantic Museum, though.) I will say, however, that a big debt of gratitude is due to those who did put forth considerable time, energy, and resources, to say nothing of personal risk, to find the Monitor. I hope they, at least, take considerable pride knowing that so many others have benefited from their efforts.

As far as the "pillage while you'll still can" contention is concerned, all I can say is, Johnny, please don't. Let's all take a deep breath, put our heads together, and figure out how we can all do well, with or without a sanctuary.

-Lauren

 

[covediver]

To oversimplify, "Finders keepers" on a wreck is the outcome of a legal procedure. In the United States, the process starts in the Federal district court. Its a pretty straightforward, if somewhat arcane, process. I had the chance to see it a few years ago in the District Court for Alaska. Pretty interesting. For historic wrecks states have varying rules regarding the removal of objects. Most don't allow it.

No one, repeat, no one has the absolute right to remove anything from a wreck outside of the legal process.

I can't understand this obsession with removing artifacts as it denies for everyone who comes after the very thing that the finder so highly prizes, the excitement of discovery.

 

[rdbradish]

Intelligent dialog is always fun, but let's leave out the conjecture when the facts are so readily available.

Monitor permits-. While not as easy as they could be, all you have to do is provide a research project for approval. Jeff Johnson, the lead archeaologist will review it, and in most cases I am aware of, offer guidance for how to work through the process. There are no fees and no charges. Don't ask me, ask them, or Joel Silverstein for that matter!!! Jeff does go on every ride, so yes, you do loose a seat, but that is also at no charge.

The expansion committee- The Expansion committee didn't exist, and as yet, still doesn't. The meeting in which the topic was brought up (open to the public mind you) was there to do two things. First, dissolve some of the existing committtees due to a ruling that people had to be part of the Sanctuary organization. David Ahlberg recommended dissolution of those committees, so that they could be reformed in a more open manner, allowing non organization members to be apart of them.

Right to salvage- Ok, so you want a piece of brass, go ahead, but be aware, as every legitimate operator out there already knows, salvage of any sunken military vessel, regardless of it being in US waters or not, is illegal in accordance to the Sunken Military Crafts Act of 2004. and further supported by the UNCLOS. If it is a military vessel, regardless of age, you haven't had a right to salvage it anyhow. The Monitor is the only vessel off of NC under Sanctuary rules currently. NOAA was requested to review the disposition of three german u-boats at the request of the German Government. Why? Not because of the weather breaking them down, but because operators, in some cases, allowed people to illegally salvage the u-boat wrecks and then talked about it in magazines and newsrags. The German government got pissed at the salvage of their vessels and gravesites without their knowloedge or permission. The biggest damage however? They are still looking at the findings, but it is looking more like weather, and the use of the wrecks as an anchorage. Gee, who'd guess??

Now, make no bones here, I am (currently, but could be swayed depending on FACTS) in opposition to the creation of a broader sanctuary out there. David Alberg knows it, and Lauren and I have discussed it as well. But, If you want to combat something, and you do it with supposition and BS, what you do is throw support to the opposition. They are using facts.

If you want to build a case on facts, you need to contact the operators around Thunder bay, The Florida Keys, Georgia Bank and Flower Gardens bank, to name a few.
Find out how they were negatively impacted. How they lost their businesses. How they were unable to feed themselves. Those would be real facts.

Curiously, it seems those that have chimed in so far are pleased with what has occured.

 

[laboe]

Hi OBXDIVEMASTER, I can understand your concern about the future of our shipwrecks off
the coast of NC. Having lived here over 60 years and enjoyed diving here since the mid 1950's
(more than 6000 now), I'm also concerned. Concerned enough to serve as the Recreational Diving Chair for NOAA's Monitor Marine Sanctuary. We both want unlimited access and longevity for these pieces of history that so define the North Carolina Coast.

The concept of including some of these shipwrecks in a sanctuary is as far as I know just that.
One of many ideas that could be used to help assure that these wrecks will last as long as possible and be available for our fellow divers to enjoy in the future. Unfortunately sooner or later the do nothing alternative may not work any more. Some plan whether it be a sanctuary of wrecks or something else that the dive community can come up with will become more important as time goes by. I wish you or any other diver concerned about the future of our shipwrecks
would give me a call at 252-441-4447 to discuss these issues and attend our next Sanctuary Council Meeting at the Graveyard of Atlantic Museum in May. jim bunch

 

[rdbradish]

Nice to see you Jim!!

 

[laboe]

Thanks Bob, hope to see you in May in Hatteras. Bring along as many interested folks as you can.
By the way anyone interested in sending me an e-mail re: questions about Sanctuary Advisory Council news can contact me at jbproductions@beachaccess.com

 

[fireflock]

Interesting stuff.

Can I toss in some of my perspective as someone who isn't involved on the government side, or as a dive operator, or someone who promotes tourism. I've posted about this elsewhere, and made no secret that I'm not in favor of any expansion. My perspective comes as (a) someone who enjoys these sites and enjoys the freedom to dive them, (b) someone who is interested in the history surrounding them, and (c) a member of the class who will be paying the bills (as opposed to collecting checks) for the results of any expansion.

First - We wouldn't be talking about this if a small number of dive operators and divers could behave themselves. I'm not an artifact collector at all, but I have paid enough attention to notice what have essentially been repeated warnings over the past few years to knock off the questionable behavior or all divers are going to suffer.

Second - NOAA has some work to do regarding their reputation among people who visit these wrecks. Some of this goes all the way back to the establishment of the Monitor Sanctuary, some comes from the NMFS, and some comes from the way surveys were conducted this past summer. Can I humbly suggest a repeated commitment to openness and accessibility (even when the initial reaction might be negative) would be a good step towards fixing this problem.

Third - The vast majority of what we already know regarding the history of these wrecks has come from private individuals and not from federal or state projects.

Fourth - I haven't seen a clear written explanation of what exactly the problem is, or why a sanctuary expansion would be a reasonable solution. Can someone point me to something I've missed?

Rich