Wrecked Wreck

[Scott McWilliam]

Wrecked Wreck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Meanwhile back at the scene of the crime . . . we loaded up the uplander and took the crew down to the scene of the crime in Port Dover. It may only be a working hypophysis but it is entirely possible that they were never able to maintain a population capable of producing intelligent life there due to the lack of parking.


The new monument to this lack of inelegance can be found on the pier. The mast that was dragged off one of the wrecks sits in public few were it is decomposing at an incredible rate. As you can see the wood is shrinking checking and cracking flakes cover the concrete under the mast.

The mast appears to be white pine and did not enjoy extensive finishing work. I can not tell which of the Long Point wrecks these clowns are tearing apart as there are at least three schooners South of the point it could be from. Very likely a Canadian built schooner of scow schooner.


In the faint hope of mentioning this type of thing was not good for archaeological sites I stopped over at the local museum. In the parking lot I found the museum curator (the die job strawberry blond) in the full embrace of contagious ignorance. I watched as the maritime equivalent of Beavis and Butthead proceeded to dump their newly ripped off rudder arm, off the back of back of their truck onto the museum lawn. I overheard the curator thanking them for the new artifact as it may go with the rudder (which is falling apart due to lack of conservation in the museum).


As a result of there lack of professionalism and smarts the good fisher-folk of Port Dover trashed a $3,000.00 net an archaeological site and a great dive site. It is less expensive if you do not drag your nets over the spot marked "snag" on the charts. They are hoping to bring in more artifacts next week. Smells like government intervention and regulation coming (kind of like the smell of dead fish on the beach).


I do not even know how to talk to these people any more.

 

[bradells]

Wow

BRad

 

[fullytek]

If the good fisher folk of port dover were 1/2 as smart as mr. Mc William then this incident would definitely been avoided. thankfully Scotty rushed to the town to point out the error in there ways.

I find it hard to believe that the towns people wouldn't be receptive to scotts self proclaimed expertise.

It must be hard to sleep at night knowing that you are so much better than every one else.

Bender

 

[Scott McWilliam]

Bender you do not have a clue what is going on here but you sure would fit right in with the Port Dover crowd.

 

[Jared0425]

The commercial economy of the lake takes priority over that of a wreck. What makes this an "archeological" site? If I had to bet it came from a 2 masted schooner between 115-135ft in length that there is literally thousands of at the bottom and dozens in the Long Point area. I would love to have this on my front lawn instead sitting on the bottom collecting zebra mussels.

 

[underH2Oman]

The commercial economy of the lake takes priority over that of a wreck. What makes this an "archeological" site? If I had to bet it came from a 2 masted schooner between 115-135ft in length that there is literally thousands of at the bottom and dozens in the Long Point area. I would love to have this on my front lawn instead sitting on the bottom collecting zebra mussels.

The law makes it an archaeological site.

Under the Ontario Heritage Act, a marine archaeological site is an archaeological site that is fully or partially submerged or that lies below or partially below the high-water mark of any body of water. (O. Reg. 170/04, s. 1.)

knowingly removing an artifact without a license is a crime. Snagging it with a net not a crime but having it sit out of water and disintegrating as it will is a loss of a great artifact. Proper conservation would take time and money which I think may be hart to get. Best option would be to return it to its original home-the lake bottom.

 

[Scott McWilliam]

While Dean is right he also has a pragmatic "fix" that is a good thing. It is easy to criticise but few come up with a solution. There is a little burned out tug in 60 feet of water the Wilma a couple of clicks from the dock that would make a fine "interim" home for the mast and rudder stock. Of course we could apply for a grant and reinstall it, that ought to run around $450,000.00 LOL.


Simply put, while my efforts to draw attention to the issue to this particular problem may have been a little less than gracious, I think it is the better way. Accidents happen, that is how a lot of shipwrecks end up on the bottom in the first place. I am more than willing to consider and give the benefit of the doubt to Captain Glenn Spain while piloting th mighty "Iron Fish" had a bad day and hooked up a net, with the result being the mast coming to the surface.

After that this was handled poorly. By analogy, if you were in an accident with your car it might be considered to be in poor taste if you mount the bumper grill and head of the other driver on your front lawn for public display. The mast now enjoys that type treatment. We are at a crossroads in terms of submerged cultural resource management in Ontario. Many with good arguments do not agree with me and think that we need new legislation so the Province can rush out and fine Captain Glen and people who think the front lawn is a good place for artifacts of this type. I do not see it with that way. If small internet post educate, or if necessary embarrass others in the public eye and achieve the same end I think it is the better way to go. We do not need more legislation. We need more responsible people pointing fingers and saying I do not agree with way you are doing things and this is why. This is a education problem not a leagel problem in my view.


The museum has a donation box if it gets full as a result of artifacts being ripped off wreck, and if this kind of behaviour is encouraged you have people vying for the opportunity to have there "better than the other guys" artifact in the museum. I think this should be curbed and guess what? If you do not agree with me you do not have to.

 

[Jared0425]

I am seeing it from a pragmatic/ legal standpoint. The laws that protect shipwrecks on both sides of the border are obsolete and obscure. For instance in Ontario, it is unlawful to use sidescan sonar to locate objects of historical value, yet a fish finder that can find a 550ft freighter or a 120ft passenger steamer is legal. People in Ontario are always asking for new discoveries to dive on when there in no incentive to locate them or go through the permit BS to look for something that 19 out of 20 times is not there. The Province also does not take into consideration the increased deterioration of the wreck by natural means. Back in the 80's artifacts could be left in situ and still look similar like the day they went down. Today is not the same. Weight from zebra mussels and increases sunlight to deeper wrecks increases the damage done. Now this was an accident that could have ruined a wreck, but was the wreck marked on charts or well known? This could have played a factor in the net hitting it. Lake Erie is filled with a mess of wrecks and debris and could be a stand alone piece of wreckage that was not attached to an actual shipwreck in the first place. Back in the 90s the DNR on the Michigan side destroyed a intact steamer near Harbor Beach by dumping left over boulders from the harbor on it! Yet no one was up in arms on that one.

 

[Scott McWilliam]

Perhaps but at the moment I see it as two and a half tons of rotting mast that will likely end up cut up with a chain saw and burned on the beach long before new legislation arrives.

 

[DaleC]

I guess it depends on perspective as well as facts.

Is the mast actually of achaeological relevance? Is the ship it came from considered unique in some way and designatable as a protected site. That would be a fact. If it is then you could claim they were doing something wrong based on fact and seek government intervention.

If it is not, then the perception of wrongdoing is an opinion, based on which POV you hold. As divers we like to see things underwater, so to remove them is wrong. As fishermen, stuff underwater has no value other than the damage it can do to nets. So it is not. Who's right and who's wrong?

You can't easily change a fact, but you can change an opinion.

You can do this by appealing to financial incentive by informing the townspeople that divers may be willing to spend money to see intact wrecks. That they are destroying a secondary source of income.

You can do this through education by showing townspeople how to properly preserved specimens and the increased value they represent. That might even be a good diver piloted project that builds good will between two communities.

One way you are pretty well promised not to change opinions is by shaming or ridicule. That will only act to polarize the townpeople and make them even more unwilling to consider alternative ideas. If they feel they can get away with it, they may even cause more damage, just to spite the person(s) who insulted them.

How important it is to try to change opinions depends on how likely the facts are going to generate a legalistic response from government. If that's unlikely, and you want to make a difference, you may want to reconsider the approach.