A whole bunch of points.... Let me address some of them
Kennedydive:
I'm really not liking the blanket clause they mention in their legislation. They want to include everything so that they don't have to use resources to put a particular wreck on the list. This way everything is on the list from 50 years and older.
I'm all for preserving wrecks that have a) historical significance. b) Sensitive issues. or (c) A wreck that is in fantastic condition and is worth preserving for others to see.
The blanket clause is there precisely because they (Parks Canada and Transport Canada) do not have the staff to check every wreck that they are told about. Without a blanket clause a newly discovered wreck would be considered open until some government body is made aware, has a meeting, and publishes an order to close it.
Canada has the ability right now to declair wrecks as heritage sites. Parks Canada has done this already on the wrecks that they are investigating in the St. Lawrence. Ontario and most other provinces have similar acts which don't work at all. British Columbia has a blanket clause at 2 years (IIRC) and Austrailia has 75 years.
It is not useful to discuss which wrecks are protected without knowing what the protections (and limitations are).
If there is not limit on non-intrusive, low impact, recreational diving for protected wrecks - then I would suggest that as active divers we would want the blanket coverage so we would have more wrecks to dive.
Kennedydive:
Some of our wrecks are spread out over 2 square miles. Beat up by the violent ocean and currents. All the schooners have been eaten away by sea worms and if you are lucky you may find an anchor or an engine if it had one. Other wrecks have been commercially salvaged after the war by very violent methods using explosives and a claw grab. Most of the wrecks from 1850's to date we know everything about them. We have ship building plans, cargo manifests and sometimes due to divers we know why they sank.
During the meeting we had in Halifax I was told that if a wreck was deemed not a heritage wreck than it could be taken off the list. I worry that once it is included than they would never dare admit that it was not a Heritage wreck and also even if they did, if their reasoning for the blanket cause was to avoid the expense, time and resources than wouldn't taking a wreck off the list require these same resources? This leads me to believe that they just tried to blow smoke up my as#.
Heritage wrecks are not just about archeology. They may be culturally or historically significant as well and deserve protection. A good example is the Empress of Ireland. Yes we have plans and pictures, log books and builder's specs... but she is still a cultural icon.
You are correct, that if the process is to put the wreck onto a list (rather than it starting there through a blanket clause) then it will probably never come off. Although unless diving is prohibited - don't we want more wrecks protected than not?
Kennedydive:
Another issue is in the idea of permits. Who's to stop them from issuing permits just because you don't hold a degree or have the two letters Dr. before your name? This would also require several positions in the government to be created to issue the permits all across Canada. Although I'm in favor of jobs being created, to try to convince the everyday Joe who could give a rats as# about what is below the water to give up his hospitals, road maintenance along with every other cutback the gov't has done in the last ## of years would be a feat in itself.
The UNESCO backbone and Parks Canada agree with you. Obviously, if the purpose of the act is to protect wrecks some level of permit will be required for the archeological survey of such wrecks and the excavation if such is desired. Please note that one of the priciples of the current discussion paper is that
in situ preservation is the first option to be considered. Parks Canada relies heavily on amateur archeoligists (usually having taken the NAS course) to do thier work. There aren't enough PhDs running around to get anything done.
Kennedydive:
As divers become more educated their views are changing. 20 years ago I'm sure the opinion of salvage in the Great Lakes was different than it is now.
Yes, very much. Same as in BC. Same as on the East Coast I would think.
Kennedydive:
Instead of forcing policy down the throats of divers they should educate them and work with them to create a resource with numbers that could not be achieved without recreational divers. Nova Scotia does not have a single U/W archeologist on staff. The Gov't does not have the money or resources to map and investigate the 15,000-20,000 wrecks that liter our shoreline. Educate the divers and work with them don not push them away with legislation and red tape. When it comes right down to it if you try to force the divers they will just do it anyway because there is no way they can enforce the legislation. There isn't even enough police/RCMP to do their job on land and with all the cutbacks in the Coast Guard there is no way they can patrol the seas to stop a couple of divers. On top of that who finds the wrecks? If divers are not welcomed on wrecks and they come across one that no one knows about then why would the report it?
You are right again. There is no way to police wrecks, force people to stop diving on them, or report new wrecks. But there is an opportunity for a new set of regulations to come out to act as a single point of reference, to be the basis of education and to confirm the right to dive and protect the underwater heritage
Kennedydive:
Thanks for giving me an opportunity to voice my opinion and I believe that every diver in Canada and the US should voice their opinion for or against it. This could be a crossroad and what we do, say or NOT say may make a difference in how diving recreationally is effected in years to come.
Jason
Cool Jason, you can dive with me anytime - or hang out over a few to swap wreck stories.
