Kittiwake site closed. Ship listed in Tropical Storm Nate

[Bison]

The Duane was sunk almost 30 years ago (Nov 27, 1987) while the Kittiwake was sunk less than 7 years ago (Jan 5, 2011) - that’s a HUGE difference in the amount of time they’ve been submerged to allow for marine growth to accumulate...

Great point on the time down. I should have compared to the Lady Luck wreck that was sank off Pompano Beach Fl. a little over a year ago. The Lady Luck appears to have the encrusting sponges, algae, early coral and fish. It appears to already have a larger biomass than the Kittiwake. it just appears that way to me since Im just a casual diver. Maybe somebody else has covered this topic in a more appropriate thread. I'm just glad the Kittiwake is open and safe for us divers! The positive things is that this looks like a new and interesting wreck dive thanks to MotherNature.

 

[scubadada]

The Duane was sunk almost 30 years ago (Nov 27, 1987) while the Kittiwake was sunk less than 7 years ago (Jan 5, 2011) - that’s a HUGE difference in the amount of time they’ve been submerged to allow for marine growth to accumulate...

Oh come now, nearly 7 years and no growth, something is wrong here. It looks like it was just sunk.

 

[Joneill]

Oh come now, nearly 7 years and no growth, something is wrong here. It looks like it was just sunk.

I'm not a marine growth expert so I was just pointing out an obvious difference in time sunk as there is no way the Kiitiwake should be compared to the Duane. Do you have examples of ships that had significant growth after 7 years? And I wouldn't say that there is no growth on the Kittiwake - just very little.

 

[scubadada]

I'm not a marine growth expert so I was just pointing out an obvious difference in time sunk as there is no way the Kiitiwake should be compared to the Duane. Do you have examples of ships that had significant growth after 7 years? And I wouldn't say that there is no growth on the Kittiwake - just very little.

I dived the Spiegel Grove many times between 2002 and 2009, no comparison in the amount of growth in 7 years. This is just an observation, why are you so defensive?

 

[Joneill]

I dived the Spiegel Grove many times between 2002 and 2009, no comparison in the amount of growth in 7 years. This is just an observation, why are you so defensive?

I'm not intending to be defensive - it's just that there seems a lot of "attitude" towards the Kittiwake in this thread when it is a pretty cool, accessible dive for those that may not be interested in deeper, offshore wrecks. I've dived some older wrecks that certainly have more growth, but they also have been down alot longer, deeper and farther off shore in "cooler" water (78/79F vs 84+F) - so I have no idea if the Kiitiwake is taking longer than expected to develop more growth. No one has posted any pics to show what would be expected in 7 years. Here are some clips from sites I've dived:

Renaissance Airplanes in Aruba (sunk in 2004 @~ 85 feet) - not a tremendous amount of growth:

Mi Dushi wreck in Aruba (sunk in 2015 @ ~ 110 feet) - not much growth:

And two wrecks with significant growth, but both sunk back in the 80's:

Morning Star in Aruba @~ 95 feet (deck):

Jane Sea in Aruba @~ 60 feet (deck):

So I'm not sure what expect in 7 years in shallow, clear and very warm water as is the case with Kiitiwake?

 

[hilljo88]

Disrespectful to the sailors that served on it? You are talking to a Chief my friend....sailors are well aware that our old ships become reefs, razor blades etc...and we aren't easily offended.

Unintentional wrecks are just that...purpose sunk wrecks are for all intents and purposes...giant reef balls. Just like Speigel, and oriskany and bradford...etc. Most sailors can appreciate that their former home is serving a new purpose other than making bic razors.

Friend of mine served on the Kittiwake and was excited to dive on her. He was happy she found a purpose at the end of her useful service life. Personally, I thought she looked a bit too clean and perfect. (I guess I like them a little bit dirty!) The photos of her on her side look much more realistic and interesting. I'm a big fan of GC diving and hope to get back there in the next few weeks.

 

[KathyV]

The other military ship sunk as an artificial reef in the Caymans is the Russian Frigate, renamed the Captain Keith Tibbets off Cayman Brac. It has a lot more growth but it has been underwater since the late 1990s. I remember the first time we saw it, it was siting upright and intact and it had growth but it was pretty clean - then Hurricane Ivan ripped it in half and scattered debris over the sea floor and the sea has continuously been working to devour the remains - it's a cool wreck dive, see the pics at the link below. I am sure that the Kittiwake will go the same way eventually.

Dive Site: The MV Captain Keith Tibbetts

 

[Tienuts]

I lived in, and dived the wrecks of south Florida for 11 years. I now live and work in Grand Cayman. The biggest difference in the amount of growth in the wrecks is the Gulf Stream. That current that blows along the entire length of the Keys and south Florida brings a lot of nutrient- rich water which make the wrecks explode with growth. In Cayman, the kittiwake doesn't get that same degree of current in West Bay.

Also there is growth on her, just not nearly as much. There's corals and sponges. There were some massive tube sponges on the starboard side 2nd deck until something broke them off.

 

[Tienuts]

And the site is open again. Not sure what additional measure may be in the offing, if any, to securely anchor the wreck again. Another move or two like this one and she'll just drop over the wall to a depth too deep to dive.

There's been a lot of talk of anchoring it, which in my opinion is idiotic. Now that it's on it's side, there's a ton of sand piled up on the side facing the wall/sand chute, as you can see in the video. If a storm comes along with the magnitude to move it now, the island of Grand Cayman will be wiped off the map. It will get broken apart eventually but not moved again.

 

[scubadada]

I lived in, and dived the wrecks of south Florida for 11 years. I now live and work in Grand Cayman. The biggest difference in the amount of growth in the wrecks is the Gulf Stream. That current that blows along the entire length of the Keys and south Florida brings a lot of nutrient- rich water which make the wrecks explode with growth. In Cayman, the kittiwake doesn't get that same degree of current in West Bay.

Also there is growth on her, just not nearly as much. There's corals and sponges. There were some massive tube sponges on the starboard side 2nd deck until something broke them off.

I have also heard that there is an inverse relationship between water clarity and growth on the artificial reefs, for the very same reason that @Tienuts mentions.