fire_diver
Contributor
I got tons of guages. How about I just give every one and we can all be happy.
FD
FD
Reply from Viking re: Oriskany ripoff
- Thread starter Allison Finch
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Soggy, I don't understand your thinking, but you are well inside your rights to think that way. If I dive the O and see interesting things, what makes it right for me to take it and not allow you the same view? I just don't understand that selfish thinking. There is nothing on the ship I would want to take and keep others that have spent the same money to see. And as a Captain of a boat making my living taking people to see the ship, why defend, protect, assist others in making the site less attractive? Ok, John Doe here has never dove with me before, I can take him out to the reef and let him dive. Mr. Sleepy dives with me all the time and I'll just let him do as he wishes and make the site less attractive. If you go to a strip joint and there is nothing but ugly old women whose best years are behind them, would you go back?
Spectre
Contributor
Don Wray:
It depends. Are you interested in seeing beautiful women, or are you interested in the architecture of modern day strip clubs?
If it's the former, I'd avoid the old beat up strip clubs with the rusted hags in the first place. If it's the latter, than I could care less if there's strippers there at all.
notabob
Contributor
So let me drive a parallel here... I prance through a huge field in the park on a sunny summer day (I don't prance, even through fields on summer days, hence this statement establishes the example as purely hypothetical, but nevertheless relevant to the topic at hand). I see a pretty flower and pick it. I'm happy because I now have a pretty flower to look at. A few hours later someone else prances through the same part of the park. They no longer see the pretty flower I picked because it's no longer there, and I alone am now enjoying the flower. They have no idea that the flower was ever there, nor do they even notice the hole in the ground that I plucked it from... After all, there're many other flowers in the field, and the field itself is just very pretty to look at... green and expansive. Everyone is happy. I got my flower, and the other person is delierious with glee at the site of a gorgeous field, even without my flower there. Afterall, there're many other flowers and shrubs in the field...
So was I morally wrong to pick that flower? It certainly was no longer there for the other person to look at and enjoy. But did they notice? No. Did they care? No. Would they have even noticed the flower at all even if I hadn't picked it? Not very likely, unless they just happened to be in exactly the same spot as I was in this huge field, and even then they probably would've looked right past it.
Mr. Sleepy picked a flower because he thought it was pretty and it meant something to him. Captain in question shrugged and said "well, it's only a lowly flower, but if it makes him happy, let him be happy." Now, some other person who happened to notice Mr.Sleepy and his flower got bent out of shape because they suddenly got upset that if they happened to stumble on that particular square inch of that vast field, they would no longer see that flower there. Nevermind that by tomorrow or the day after that flower would've been picked by someone else, eaten by a rabbit, or stomped on by a moose. In fact, the person that got upset should be happy that they got to see the flower in the first place! Almost no one ever goes to that little corner of the field where the flower was picked anyhow, and they most certainly never would've. But it's certainly easier (not to mention more entertaining) to *****, moan, point fingers, and cry bloody murder (or criminal larceny) than to calmly step back and think about the situation in a grander scheme of things...
So was I morally wrong to pick that flower? It certainly was no longer there for the other person to look at and enjoy. But did they notice? No. Did they care? No. Would they have even noticed the flower at all even if I hadn't picked it? Not very likely, unless they just happened to be in exactly the same spot as I was in this huge field, and even then they probably would've looked right past it.
Mr. Sleepy picked a flower because he thought it was pretty and it meant something to him. Captain in question shrugged and said "well, it's only a lowly flower, but if it makes him happy, let him be happy." Now, some other person who happened to notice Mr.Sleepy and his flower got bent out of shape because they suddenly got upset that if they happened to stumble on that particular square inch of that vast field, they would no longer see that flower there. Nevermind that by tomorrow or the day after that flower would've been picked by someone else, eaten by a rabbit, or stomped on by a moose. In fact, the person that got upset should be happy that they got to see the flower in the first place! Almost no one ever goes to that little corner of the field where the flower was picked anyhow, and they most certainly never would've. But it's certainly easier (not to mention more entertaining) to *****, moan, point fingers, and cry bloody murder (or criminal larceny) than to calmly step back and think about the situation in a grander scheme of things...
WilDive4Food
Registered
So the moral of this story is.... if you didn't know it was there and someone else takes it, it doesn't cost alot of money, and it doesn't physically harm another.. then sure, it's just fine and dandy. Take any and all that you need!
What a sad outlook...
What a sad outlook...
Diver Dennis
Contributor
Here is what the authorities have to say...
Originally Posted by Robert Turpin
Mr. Murray,
Thank you very much for contacting me regarding the removal of items from Ex-Oriskany. As the Project Manager for the County, I am responsible for the Oriskany and our other artificial reefs. Oriskany was reefed as a combined effort of Escambia County Marine Resources Division, Florida Fish and Wildlife, and Navy's Inactive Ships Program Office.
It is unlawful to remove any part of Oriskany, and these activities could jeopardize the entire "Ships to Reefs" program if it appears that stakeholders cannot be trusted to comply with the Navy's regulations. I foresee Oriskany veterans complaining that "robbers" are removing parts of their old ship (I hope we don't see anything offered on EBay!!).
It would be unfortunate for the Navy to reef all future ships deeper than 400 feet to deter theft. The "Reef-Ex" counterpart, called "Sink-Ex", consists of deepwater (6000 feet) sinking by military weaponry. As you can imagine, there are many Navy folks that prefer this method because the cleanup standards are less rigorous than Reef-Ex.
The Oriskany Reef is being closely watched by the Navy as the "test case" for future reefings. Until now, we have demonstrated a high degree of success. It would be a shame to kill all that success by the actions of some of the people we have tried to serve.
Please feel free to post my answer to your question on your website.
Sincerely,
Robert Turpin, Chief
Escambia County Marine Resources Division
Originally Posted by Bill Horn
To whom it may concern (I did not get your name)
It is this office’s opinion that it is vandalism to remove or destroy part of an artificial reef like the Oriskany.
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission holds title to this vessel, because we hold the permit to the artificial reef site. We signed a vessel title transfer agreement with the Navy. In my opinion, this is not a salvageable wreck in the open ocean, since it is an intentionally placed artificial reef intended for fisheries habitat.
I am not an attorney, nor is this a legal opinion
We are researching the legal aspects of this issue and will let you know soon about what we find out.
This is certainly not black and white.
We appreciate this discussion and look forward to coming up with a final determination.
Bill Horn
PS-We dove the ship yesterday and it is looking good, see the attached photo.
William Horn
Fisheries Biologist IV
Artificial Reef Program
620 South Meridian Street, Maibox 4B-2
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission www.myfwc.com
PH: 850-922-4340 ext 208
Originally Posted by Robert Turpin
Mr. Murray,
Thank you very much for contacting me regarding the removal of items from Ex-Oriskany. As the Project Manager for the County, I am responsible for the Oriskany and our other artificial reefs. Oriskany was reefed as a combined effort of Escambia County Marine Resources Division, Florida Fish and Wildlife, and Navy's Inactive Ships Program Office.
It is unlawful to remove any part of Oriskany, and these activities could jeopardize the entire "Ships to Reefs" program if it appears that stakeholders cannot be trusted to comply with the Navy's regulations. I foresee Oriskany veterans complaining that "robbers" are removing parts of their old ship (I hope we don't see anything offered on EBay!!).
It would be unfortunate for the Navy to reef all future ships deeper than 400 feet to deter theft. The "Reef-Ex" counterpart, called "Sink-Ex", consists of deepwater (6000 feet) sinking by military weaponry. As you can imagine, there are many Navy folks that prefer this method because the cleanup standards are less rigorous than Reef-Ex.
The Oriskany Reef is being closely watched by the Navy as the "test case" for future reefings. Until now, we have demonstrated a high degree of success. It would be a shame to kill all that success by the actions of some of the people we have tried to serve.
Please feel free to post my answer to your question on your website.
Sincerely,
Robert Turpin, Chief
Escambia County Marine Resources Division
Originally Posted by Bill Horn
To whom it may concern (I did not get your name)
It is this office’s opinion that it is vandalism to remove or destroy part of an artificial reef like the Oriskany.
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission holds title to this vessel, because we hold the permit to the artificial reef site. We signed a vessel title transfer agreement with the Navy. In my opinion, this is not a salvageable wreck in the open ocean, since it is an intentionally placed artificial reef intended for fisheries habitat.
I am not an attorney, nor is this a legal opinion
We are researching the legal aspects of this issue and will let you know soon about what we find out.
This is certainly not black and white.
We appreciate this discussion and look forward to coming up with a final determination.
Bill Horn
PS-We dove the ship yesterday and it is looking good, see the attached photo.
William Horn
Fisheries Biologist IV
Artificial Reef Program
620 South Meridian Street, Maibox 4B-2
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission www.myfwc.com
PH: 850-922-4340 ext 208
sorry
If you change your story from a flower, which lasts for one season and reproduces, with "breaking the hand off a garden gnome in a little corner of the park," then you might have a parallel.
Diver Dennis
Contributor
No problem Frog. It did seem to be circling down into the abyss...
Similar threads
