New Wreck In Picton!!!

[SoScuba]

Boy you guys are touchy!! I wasn't doing anyone a disservice! And I don't remember tearing a strip off of anyone. I was merely making a point which most of you don't get or don't want to acknowledge. That point still stands. Disturbing anything on a wreck is against the law. Don't get me wrong here (as some of you have). I think its great you cleaned up the wreck and removed all those un-natural attachments (pun intended just for you steve). But really...as I understand it , it's still illegal! Legally those are not our wrecks to do with what we please. They are owned by the government who have made laws regarding the handling of "their" property. Those who add grappling hooks and line are breaking the law. So are the ones who remove it! Am I wrong here?????

Dan - "no justification necessary" You'll break the law if it suits your ideals. No judgement here.....just clarity. Again, i'm just making a point.

JamesP - "Maroon"!!!!! "maroon of your calibre set about destroying wrecks"???!!!!
You talk like you think you know me! Boy you got issues! Who's the maroon? I greatly value the wrecks I am lucky to dive on. Again..there was no judgement for or dissagreement with the divers who cleaned up the wreck. I was simply stating a point..which still stands.... Its not my fault some of you dont get the point.

A law is a law. Everyone has their own opinion as to whether or not a law is just. In this case the law doesn't state that its illegal to disturb a wreck unless you of course you decide to clean it up..then its ok. I say it's ok... but thats not the point! The law doesn't say its ok!

(still enjoying yourself Steve? Hehe)

Some of you guys need to leave the coffee alone until your done surfing!

 

[SoScuba]

Or drink De-caff

 

[JamesP]

...as I understand it , it's still illegal! Legally those are not our wrecks to do with what we please. They are owned by the government who have made laws regarding the handling of "their" property. Those who add grappling hooks and line are breaking the law. So are the ones who remove it! Am I wrong here?????


maroon of your calibre set about destroying wrecks"???!!!!
You talk like you think you know me!

A law is a law. Everyone has their own opinion as to whether or not a law is just. In this case the law doesn't state that its illegal to disturb a wreck unless you of course you decide to clean it up..then its ok. I say it's ok... but thats not the point! The law doesn't say its ok!

(still enjoying yourself Steve? Hehe)

!

Dude
Your post still looks like a troll. Even this one above is still trolling. Case in point.

(still enjoying yourself Steve? Hehe)

!

It is you that talk like you think you know us. Near ever post since yours has been of sarcasm and/or humour. Even Adams post was taken lightly by the rest of us. But if you knew us you would know that….. What a maroon…. yakyakyak….. It still looks like you are trolling here but I can play along for awhile.

And yes like it or not we see entry level deco divers of your calibre crawling all over the deeper wreck on air as they do not get narced at depth. They are highly trained and skilled divers. The group I seen on the Jodery this past weekend was a prime example of this….. What a bunch of maroons… yakyakyak!!!

You seem to know "Steve hehe". Well do not hold back and don't hide behind your SoScuba handle. Step up front and introduce yourself.

Finally, I will bite on this one.

Want is the law that you are talking about. Please list the name of the law with its section and subsection numbers. Please post a link to this if possible. I would like to see it. If there is something to learn here I am game.

I am especially interested where it states that entanglement hazards placed by other persons and that are not part of the wreck and that can and/or will lead to the wrecks premature demise cannot be removed.

I really don't mind learning but you have to qualify your statements. Anything less is trolling.

 

[Scuba_Steve]

Gents:

Yes I know SoScuba. I also know he's "wreck" friendly, not a troll, just making an observation, which happens to be similar to Mr Adams as I understand it. SoScuba is a fairly long time Deco diver, and by all acounts a very student friendly and attentive Instructor. He's an all around nice guy, and I wouldn't begin to say that if I didn't think it was true.

I think his comments have just been misunderstood to a point. I know he certainly didn't mean to have things get to this point, and his comments to me were because I am watching these posts as a "human pyschology" issue.

I know we all do agree on this topic, we just have different angles on how we look at it.

Regards

Steve

 

[Ontario Diver]

Want is the law that you are talking about. Please list the name of the law with its section and subsection numbers. Please post a link to this if possible. I would like to see it. If there is something to learn here I am game.

I am especially interested where it states that entanglement hazards placed by other persons and that are not part of the wreck and that can and/or will lead to the wrecks premature demise cannot be removed.

Here are a few links.

http://museum.gov.ns.ca/arch/wrecklaw.htm#Ontario

This gives a good overview of several laws, thier penalties, and some of the issues in the enforcement of them.

One of the primary elements was case law, specifically the "Atlantic" court case http://www.kwic.com/~pagodavista/atlantic.html

Basically, there is an interesting component of crown based ownership, protection under a myriad of "heritage" acts, "professional" competance, and case law. But remember - in Canada "someone" always owns the wreck and the articles on/within it.

If I remember correctly, my NAS instructor pointed out that without "professional" accreditation - you cannot make the call about whether an item is or is not an artifact and even if you are sure about the item being garbage and not an artifact - information like silt accummulation can tell a real archeologist a tonne of information.

Basically, it is not just the law that matters - it is also how the courts/cops choose to interpret it.

SoScuba is in fact correct - from what I have been told and read the law makes no distinction between "stripping" a wreck and "cleaning" a wreck. However the government has great latitude in being selective in how they choose to enforce or prosecute these laws.

 

[Mr Adams]

Greetings


Man O man you guys are incredible, I thought you were all under the same roof on this issue. Wrecks kept in good condition bring in dollars for both the diving and hospitality businesses, this is a good thing. I know who that guy is kneeling on the deck of this wreck in the photograph and I know the two guys who picked it clean four years ago, but thats my secret. I also need to stress that when shooting professional video underwater, the camera man doesn't have time to watch out were he's going as its up to his two tenders on each side to guide him through his shoot run, thats there job, but in this case it looks like they were asleep on the job and yes! at times the camera man may go off course and bump into something, so relax nothing is as clean cut as you see it on TV, and if some one tries to tell you it is clean cut work there full of ****.

Mr A

 

[Scuba_Steve]

:lam:

I think this is what I looked like after reading the above!

I gotta say, I believe you.

 

[Tom R]

I know the dude on the wreck also, and I got a classic shot of him kneeling in a cloud of silt with a nice grappling hook in the wreck behind him. Stuff for my private videos.

 

[JamesP]

[Here are a few links.

http://museum.gov.ns.ca/arch/wrecklaw.htm#Ontario

This gives a good overview of several laws, thier penalties, and some of the issues in the enforcement of them.

One of the primary elements was case law, specifically the "Atlantic" court case http://www.kwic.com/~pagodavista/atlantic.html

SoScuba is in fact correct - from what I have been told and read the law makes no distinction between "stripping" a wreck and "cleaning" a wreck. However the government has great latitude in being selective in how they choose to enforce or prosecute these laws.

Sorry folks but I just took a look through this stuff and I don't see where it says SoScuba is correct. Would you please take the time to post the section and/or subsection of the heritage act that says it is so. I do see a lot of other information which allows for latitude and individual interpretation but nothing else.

All I ask is please show where it states you are in fact correct. I am asking that you look at what the act really says; not what you think it says or what someone else has told you it says.

This is of interest to the majority of us.
Thanks

 

[JamesP]

Greetings

...... the camera man doesn't have time to watch out were he's going as its up to his two tenders on each side to guide him through his shoot run, thats there job, but in this case it looks like they were asleep on the job and yes! at times the camera man may go off course and bump into something, so relax nothing is as clean cut as you see it on TV, and if some one tries to tell you it is clean cut work there full of ****.

Mr A

Mr Adams,
I have to say that camera work can and does go off without a hitch. I have had the prililedge to seeing the unedited footage of a couple of GUE expeditions and the footage is magificant and all with out the aid of tenders. I am telling you it is clean cut work when you are on top of you game.