Any thoughts on wreck looting?

[100days-a-year]

I reject the premise that removal of artifacts is "looting"
Possibly in cases where there is an established custody or a war grave but not other wrecks.Much of a modern saltwater wreck will be gone within a 100 years in any case,better ending up on a wall or table than corroded or buried under sand.

 

[Jared0425]

No matter what is done or where it ends up. The end result will always be the same. The lakes don't preserve anything, they may have slower rates of deterioration and may be more environmentally protected. However they do and have been destroyed alone by nature.

I am on the fence of warships and mass graves. On one hand, many died in service of their country but on another, isn't it more of crime to be forgotten and left to rot and disappear over the coming centuries?

As I said before, if you are not going to put the time and money in preserving the artifact then let it be. If you do the upmost to stabilize and preserve it for future generations to see then by all means take it.

Don't get me going on NOAA, ASA, or archeonazis.

 

[Diver0001]

I read about stuff being lifted from WWI and WWII submarines and other wrecks in European waters without permission. I was just wondering what other people think about it? Should the things stay on the sunken ships and submarines?

Wrecks can have different statuses depending upon factors such as

- if they lie within or outside the territorial waters of a given country, which makes them subject to that country's laws
- if they are derelict or have an owner who actively decides who can and cannot do what (some governments even do this with regards to derelict wrecks)
- if they are protected for archaeological or historical reasons
- if they are protected due to being a "war grave"
- if there are currently any legal disputes being handled regarding the status
- etc. (my list is likely not exhaustive).

The only wrecks where you can legally take whatever you want are verified derelicts and it can be complicated to find out if a wreck really is derelict or not. My feeling about taking stuff when it is allowed is that I don't care. I personally don't see the point of it and I don't do it as rule but if it turns someone's crank and it's legal then who am I to judge that?

Personally I'm far more interested in the story and the history of the wreck and the fact that they often have a lot of fishes living on/in them. One porthole more or less doesn't change that.

R..

 

[drbill]

I rarely dive wrecks and have heard reasonable opinions on both sides of this issue. My preference is not to. Mel Fisher in his early years stripped our "most famous" local wreck, The Valiant, and I wish it had been left so others could see. I'm much more a take pictures, leave bubbles kind of guy.

 

[Diver0001]

Taking souvenirs from a wreck doesn't bother me. It doesn't destroy the habitat for fishes unless it's done at a colossal scale and as I said above, while I don't see the point, I'm not one to judge.

What DOES bother me is the looting of ENTIRE wrecks for low background steel. I fully understand that there is a potential need to recover some of that steel for industrial applications but wrecks function as artificial reefs and ignoring the potential damage the to local eco system caused by the removal of wrecks isn't something that sits well with me.

In addition there is the issue of the ethics of removing a wreck with human remains on board, which I think needs to be subject to enforceable international policy.

R..

 

[oldschoolto]

A wreck is a wreck... No difference if the people that died had uniforms on or not... I'm taking what I want..

Jim...

 

[DiverDownD3]

I see both sides of the argument. I guess I'm fine with people taking things off the wreck as long as you do your best to preserve them. If you find personal items I think all efforts should be made to return it to the owner or the family.

 

[Diver0001]

A wreck is a wreck... No difference if the people that died had uniforms on or not... I'm taking what I want..

Jim...

Yeah.... well..... What I can I say, Jim. As I stated above I really don't care if someone takes things off of wrecks.

I think it's also clear ... and I want to make this clear to the casual reader of this thread ... that there is a legal framework for ownership of a wreck and/or the cargo and there is a moral framework for handing of things like personal effects and human remains. Most -- but not all -- divers take these factors into consideration and some think only of their own needs and desires.

As a wreck diver I'm often in groups with people who have opinions similar to yours. I don't enter in discussion about it nor really care much what they decide to do. To me a wreck is a pile of junk that happens to be on the ocean floor but some people look at a wreck like they are at IKEA shopping for the next thing to hang on their living room wall..... Sometimes that's "illegal" but I treat it more like J-walking than shop lifting. Where I draw the line is in recovering human remains or explosives. Explosives speak for themselves -- but clearly not to everyone because we've literally had to throw grenades overboard when some idiot with a hole in his head brought some on board the only floating thing on the ocean that's keeping us all dry and alive -- but yeah.

Human remains are bit of a special case. Many people -- and governments -- treat wrecks where casualties have happened like grave sites. To them removing an artifact from a wreck with bodies on board is like taking the head-stone of a grave home. I'm not so principled about that but I think that body parts should not be disturbed, photographed or filmed (or at the very least, not published) without permission out of respect for the living descendants who have a bigger say, in my mind, about how that body is handled than some random diver with a go-pro.

Having said all that, you're a big boy, Jim, so I don't need to try convincing you of anything but I also hope that if you get in legal trouble because of your behaviour that you have the balls to man-up and just plead guilty. What would irritate me would be you having a big mouth now and then trying to hide in a lawyer's skirt when you get caught.

R..

 

[oldschoolto]

I'm not one to play games... That's why I think the way I do... When I get stopped for speeding... I tell them thank you, and don't try and talk my way out of it with a story... Fun thing is, Most cops are very reasonable when they deal with a guy like me.. I've been told it's refreshing to hear the truth..

Jim...

And I would not be taking body parts.. But, I find it funny that we have very respected people that make big money digging up dead bodies and people paying to go see them in the museum.

 

[kelemvor]

I think that body parts should not be disturbed, photographed or filmed (or at the very least, not published) without permission out of respect for the living descendants

That seems odd to me. Like you, I don't really care much what other people do with the treasure they find. It's not my cup of tea, beyond fossil hunting. I wouldn't move or otherwise disturb remains. But filming or photographing remains without touching them? That seems like an odd restriction to me. I haven't ever come across any remains as I don't penetrate wrecks. However, I wouldn't think twice to do that. I'm surprised anyone would care unless it was a recently deceased person that could be identified. In that special case, I agree. I don't think that's what we're typically talking about when we talk about remains in shipwrecks, though.