(3/21/05) Cruise ship damages reef and almost runs down dive party

[derwoodwithasherwood]

Should the divers have been out that day and at that time? Not so much should they have been at the location where they were. But because they were at that location, there was additional, inherent risk. Do you not agree?

No, I for one do not agree. I think your logic is akin to saying a woman bears some responsibility for her own rape because she was out alone at night.

 

[zydecocruiser]

Before we go any farther, I do not, and did not, fault the divers. I do question the dive operator and the dive master and what percentage blame should be assigned to them as far as any risk/damage to the divers. To disagree with me on the percentage is fair game.

As for damage to the reef, it is all cruise ship, but again, I question who is responsible for the cruise ship being where it was.

What difference does that make? Both the pilot and the Carnival crew are required to obey maritime law.

The only difference is of liability. I have never said the cruise ship was not where it was.

Would not the dive boat operator be required to follow the same law?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but generally speaking you will find that the ship preceeds the propellers,

In general, yes, but I don't think that is accurate in this case. I think the business end was pointed in the divers direction.

Are you trying to say that the divers were mistaken, and that the ship was in fact some indeterminate distance away?

What I was saying was I know how long my arm is (approximately), but if I could not see my hand, but could see a propeller, I think the only way that could happen would be if the propeller had chopped my hand off. Apologies for the graphic.

How exactly does one "clean up" the type of damage one would suppose was caused by a ship? It's not like they backed in to someone's minivan at Wal-Mart; reefs are extremely fragile ecosystems. How do they unkill the corals that the sediments buried? I understand that the ship did not, in fact, run aground; however, large volumes of sand & sediments burying corals are every bit as bad as pulverization. I've seen first hand what cruise ships do to a reef; have you

Yes, coral is very fragile. One would clean up by removing any sediment kicked up that settled on the reef. You are correct, dead coral cannot be born again.

Sediment can indeed kill coral; on the other hand, I believe long term studies of what Ivan did to coral around Grand Cayman will prove it to be beneficial. It is possible that while kicked up sediment may have killed some coral, it may also have saved other coral that would have otherwise suffocated.

I have seen reef damage and dead coral. My guess is mostly from humans and nature. Not sure how much I can attribute to cruise ships, but no doubt there is some.

? I've also seen & have photos of cruise ships dumping garbage and even sewage overboard from one side of the ship, while offloading tour groups on the other (an offence for which the cruise line was required to issue an apology and pay a fine).

Me too. I have alse seen and have photos of non-cruise ship operaters violating all kinds of marine park rules. Feeding fish is a common example. Marine toilets on boats is a great example. Holding tank? What holding tank. Pump it into the water. Toilet? What toilet? Here's a bucket.

Your posts have indicated that the divers should share some repsonsibilty for the incident, apparently based on the fact that the weather was inclement and they had no business being there. However, maritime law doesn't say "masters, keep your vessels clear of a dive flag unless you don't think the divers should be where they are".

Not the divers. I am questioning the dive operator and/or diver master. To me, there was clearly a breakdown in communication. The cruise ship was not out for a Sunday (whether or not it was Sunday does not matter) drive throught the marine park. Do you really belive it was?

Whether or not the divers were there, the cruise ship had no business in the marine park.

What I question is, whether or not the cruise ship even existed, did the divers have any business being in the water, given the weather conditions and possible recall? When I say divers, they would not have necessarily known, but the dive operator and/or dive master?

I do understand the rules of the road, whether a sailboat vs a power boat, a divers flag, a skiers flag, whatever. I also understand, to some extent, weather.

Thank you. I snorkel - sinuses and such do not lend themselves to diving. I free dive when possible, but probably not deeper than what a cruise ship draws. I would like to dive, but so far has not been possible. I do know some divers.


well, we'll see if i have the quotes and what not right...

 

[zydecocruiser]

No, I for one do not agree. I think your logic is akin to saying a woman bears some responsibility for her own rape because she was out alone at night.

Have to disagree with your intrepretation of my logic.

To use your example, my logic is more along the lines of the woman's father was present and told her it was ok to be there and she trusted him. Only to find out the father (aka dive op/dive master) lied.

Did the father lie and/or mislead is my question?

If you are questioning whether or not the coral was raped, and not a woman, it probably was.