Annapolis to the US?

[Canadave]

I'm all for promoting the local dive industry. After all this is a DIVE Forum. Btw NIMBY is the correct term for the ironically named "Save Halkett Bay Marine Park Society". Apparently they were not initially opposed to the project just as long as it wasn't sunk in THEIR backyard. Or should I say the backyard of their summer cottages. I doubt they were thinking of the pristine environment when they clear cut their ocean view plots for their escape from the hustle and bustle of the city. I learned in kindergarten it was good to share. Too bad they didn't learn that. Maybe now they will take up scuba diving and see what they have been missing. Congratulations to the ARSBC for having the determination and patience to see the project through. As a diver and nature lover, I appreciate your efforts and look forward to diving the Annapolis just as soon as I can.

 

[FishLovingStudent]

Anyways, I don't think the purpose of these artificial reefs is to increase the amount of marine life (although that sounds good for sinking permits) or to provide recreation for divers (if that was the case, they'd sink them in shore-accessible spots where the largest number of divers could enjoy them). The purpose of these wrecks is to promote the local dive industry.

I agree with that From what I've read the Halkett Bay area has been wrecked pretty bad and they are hoping a solid structure will help. I agree a wreck at Whytecliff or Racerocks would be quite meaningless and wouldn't be much better (or maybe even detrimental) compared to the natural topography.

And the Annapolis will definitely bring in divers for some wreck diving availible from the mainland

 

[blahanson]

Finally!
HMCS Annapolis sunk to make artificial reef - British Columbia - CBC News

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Have you been to the Britannia natural wrecks? Its a sand wasteland between the three sites and once you hit the wrecks biodiversity and biomass explodes. You can see the same things at Porteau. The same will happen at Halkett bay considering the divers who did the survey reported sand with the occasional crab and that the area has been practically destroyed by the acidic wood mulch put in there in the past, at least thats what we hope.

I was one of those divers. After the survey I was asked what was down there. I said that I'd seen two dead crabs ... and that they'd probably died of boredom ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[deepdiverbc]

The amount of marine life that will be displaced by the ships foot print is minimal compared to the biodiversity and biomass that it will bring to the area. But the other factor that makes an artificial reef different than other habitats such as walls or boulder reefs is that marked dive sites such as artificial reefs are rarely fished or poached by fisherman. Slow growing species like cod have a better chance to mature and in a high population area like Vancouver this factor is an important one to consider. So in a way the diving community is in a symbiotic relationship with the marine life we dive with.

As for the Halkett Bay Preservation Society. I can understand their concern for loss of solitude but divers aren't out there blasting rock music and having noisy parties. Also this site is boat access not shore. So the impact is minimal and if you live near a large city that's just the way it goes sometimes. You have to share. From an environmental standpoint their concerns about insulation caught my attention and I felt it was something worth looking into. But when they shifted their attention to depleted antifouling paint they lost my respect and I think they showed their true colors as NIMBYS. At least the divers aren't being hypocritical. We are sinking this for the benefit of the diving community and the benefits to the marine life are a bonus effect. The HBPS has had a stance that this is all about the environment and wouldn't admit what I feel is the truth. That it is all about them not wanting to share their area with others even if it is a benefit to the marine environment.

 

[mayday1234]

Yes, but if it's all about the environment, that's where this whole concept of an artificial reef being needed in that particular spot falls apart - if you know the area, you know that ironically there is "structure" almost everywhere around the whole site, except that one particular spot where the ship was dumped - the natural benthic layer being mud - so you are trying to trade one type of natural habitat for another - and just because we as divers tend to want/desire "structure" types, doesn't necessarily make it the preferred in all cases. That's actually why Fisheries initially rejected (before politics got involved) that proposal as it means a net loss of that type. Additionally, the main scientific paper the ARSBC use to defend the idea of artificial reefs stated they were conditionally a good idea - the main conditions being a set of criteria that this particular site doesn't actually meet - i.e no other structure within a nautical mile (Halkett wall for example) and strong tidal currents. So, if it was really all about the environment, the ship should have gone to Britannia, Porteau or probably even more appropriate somewhere down south that actually desperately need the artificial reefs.

 

[deepdiverbc]

This difference with an artificial reef meant for divers is that you aren't just trading one form of habitat for another. You are also creating a protected area which in turn will have a positive affect on all marine habitat in close proximity to it. And protected areas should be spread out so they can help support a larger zone. It wouldn't be as effective to just add another structure to somewhere like Porteau Cove. If there was a better site for the Annapolis that could also work for the dive community the HBPS should have made that argument rather than focusing just on questionable pollutants.

 

[mayday1234]

Yes, but why should the onus be on the HBPS to find another site?, it wasn't them who proposed that one.
BTW, by "questionable pollutants" I'm assuming you mean the hundreds of pounds of PCB laden insulation, that ended up costing the taxpayer $$ to remove? That the ARSBC was going to happly sink there if not prevented by others? It's for that reason alone I question every "fact" they claim.

 

[deepdiverbc]

Yes, but why should the onus be on the HBPS to find another site?, it wasn't them who proposed that one.
BTW, by "questionable pollutants" I'm assuming you mean the hundreds of pounds of PCB laden insulation, that ended up costing the taxpayer $$ to remove? That the ARSBC was going to happly sink there if not prevented by others? It's for that reason alone I question every "fact" they claim.

If you read my previous posts you will see that the insulation was something I considered worth looking at and it was dealt with. I also said that it was the depleted antifouling that was questionable. And the onus is on the HBPS to find a new site because the ARSBC was approved for this one and therefore was not required to look further.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Yes, but why should the onus be on the HBPS to find another site?, it wasn't them who proposed that one.
BTW, by "questionable pollutants" I'm assuming you mean the hundreds of pounds of PCB laden insulation, that ended up costing the taxpayer $$ to remove? That the ARSBC was going to happly sink there if not prevented by others? It's for that reason alone I question every "fact" they claim.

How did the removal of insulation from this ship cost the taxpayers? I spent several days removing insulation, and did it as a volunteer. In fact, given that I came up there from the USA and spent a minimum of a couple hundred dollars in Canada every time I came across the border, I'd say my work removing that insulation was a net plus to the local economy ... as it will be every time I now come up to dive on the wreck ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)