Grand Traverse Board Sinks Boat Project

[calvillo]

Last Wednesday night the Grand Traverse County Board of Commissioners withdrew approval of the plan to sink the M/V Togue in Grand Traverse Bay citing inconsistencies in the claims of the proponents.


TRAVERSE CITY RECORD-EAGLE
Traverse City, Michigan

Published: November 03, 2007 09:45 am
http://www.record-eagle.com/saturday/local_story_307094516.html/resources_printstory http://www.record-eagle.com/saturday/local_story_307094516.html/resources_mailprocessor
GT County Board sinks boat project

By Brian McGillivary

bmcgillivary@record-eagle.com

TRAVERSE CITY -- The Grand Traverse County board pulled a unanimous about-face and won't lend its support to a plan to sink a vessel in Grand Traverse Bay.

The board reined in its original support for a plan to sink the 85-foot Togue as a diving attraction. A $2,737 bill for seven months of liability insurance, coupled with conflicting public statements by a project proponent, prompted the board's change of heart.

"If it's going to cost us over $3,000 a year for liability insurance, I can't support it," said county Commissioner Larry Inman.

The board voted 9 to 0 Wednesday to rescind its decision to obtain the Togue, a converted shrimp trawler once used for drug running in the Gulf of Mexico. The board referred the issue back to the county Parks and Recreation Commission until all of its concerns and questions are answered.

The shrimp boat was used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Great Lakes research until its retirement last year. The Grand Traverse Bay Underwater Preserve Council wants to clean and strip the Togue before sinking it in the southern end of West Bay as a dive attraction and pilot project for more intentional sinkings on the Great Lakes.

County Commissioner Christine Maxbauer said she switched her vote after spending two weeks researching some of the assurances made by project proponent Greg MacMaster, a local television meteorologist, at the county board's Sept. 26 meeting.

MacMaster told the board then that the state would assume liability for the boat once it hit bottom.

"That is incorrect," Maxbauer said.

She said one of the two boats intentionally sunk in Lake Superior is still owned by that area's underwater preserve council.

"I do not want county residents to own a boat that is at the bottom of Lake Michigan in perpetuity," Maxbauer said.

MacMaster did not return calls seeking comment and the group's other spokesman could not be reached.

County Administrator Dennis Aloia said in addition to the liability issues the group doesn't have a firm commitment from Traverse City to store the Togue at the city marina over the winter. Nor does it have firm agreements from volunteers who were to strip down the boat.

Aloia said he'll compile a list of commissioners' concerns and send it to the Parks and Recreation Commission for its December meeting.

"When the concerns are answered they can bring back a request for the board to purchase (the Togue)," Aloia said.

 

[dab]

It's unfortunate that it has come to this, but not surprising considering how the project has been handled by those in charge. We all loose out.

 

[Fastbird]

This is certainly a loss for the community but it also dings the credibility of an future attempts by this or other underwater preservation groups. Too bad.

 

[moneysavr]

It can be a win-win for all look at the Florida Keys!
We had a local dive club our way prep a boat out of Sturgeon bay to be sunk near Two Rivers and that got nixed too and she got pulled to Chicago and sunk go figure.
I see the life that lives on the wrecks in Florida,and see the life in spring and early summer that moves in on the wrecks in rec range in Lake Michigan and look and see the mostly baron lake bottom and realize that the fish like structure to be safe-spawn-live as to add a dive attraction who can loose out?
Gee if every diver that gets offed penetrating wrecks or killed diving one survivors sues the intentional sinking authority insurance company state the body of water she lies in I would like to see the courts rulings on that.Dont think there is a case on the books,its the dive operators liability insurance that gets that one and you sign your life away prior to the splash any how!
I hope some one can get the state to get err done as Michigan has some great preserves and adding a new one would be GREAT!
Dive safe,
Brad

 

[calvillo]

Hi moneysavr your points are well taken. It is possible to sink a ship in a Michigan preserve - the law allows it.

The problem here is not the project itself. It is the way it was handled. If the County Board received straight up information from the beginning, some of these fears might have been resolved. The problem was a lot of assurances and name dropping that, when investigated by the press, turned out to be erroneous. In one case, a claim was made that the sinking was discussed with the state attorney general who denied such a discussion occurred. It was represented that some local politicians would "babysit" the state approval process. They denied it. There is more.

Michigan law allows a ship to be sunk in each preserve. The Grand Traverse Bay Underwater Preserve does not even exist. As far as anyone knows, no proposed preserve has begun the process to sink a ship before it was even created. This put the County Board here in the peculiar position of being asked to buy into a project where no actual application was pending (and may never exist). It is a classic "cart in front of the horse".

Had this been handled in a sensible way by bringing people on board following the system instead of trying to bully it through, it could have received a green light. What happened here, on more than one issue, the facts turned out to be different than what the Board was told.

The lesson is to be honest and open if community support is going to be given. Let's hope this is a lesson learned for the future.

 

[deepH2Odiver]

4 days was not enough time to soak it all in. But there's always next year.



Okay, can't stay long. I did learn as much as I could about this Michigan organization and hearing their side tells me there's much more to the story than what is written here, which was supported by DEMA, Reef Makers and the California S2R group. "A clarification was made but wasn't written in the news article" is what I was e-mailed. If this group is blazing a trail to new opportunities, either join in or get the hell out of the way!



Some say that this Michigan group is being "de-railed" by a few who like to cause trouble (and it's not hard to find them on this board). Now, you're going to love this, DEMA said that someone from a Michigan preserve (who's not even a DEMA member) called them about some legislation that was being forced down the diver’s throat and to do what they could to stop it. Now, here's DEMA, who represents the dive shops - and they're being told to write the legislators to stop these bills? If it promotes diving and sales increase, why would DEMA want to stop that?



Like I said, there's much more to this whole mess and I don't care to get involved as it looks to be a moot point, some here are fighting a battle to prove their worthlessness. If Michigan doesn't want a ship sunk, then lose out! Send all your divers to another state and watch money go down the drain, with your low lake levels. I do remember the organization from Muskegon going through hell and back trying to do the same thing. That failed too. As I understand it, a Muskegon scuba shop went out of business last month? That's sad! It would be nice to dive something close to shore and have more choices available.



Anyway, I digress; after scouring through this thread at the DEMA show with DEMA watching over the shoulder and the other reefing organizations (which was so depressing that we went out for beers afterwards). They came up with a few comments that I'll end on:



"Some people on here have their head up their *****." and

"Why would divers not want a ship sunk in their local area? Do they not see the incredible benefits? It sounds like they just aren't educated in what reefing can do to their states economy."



And my final comment: If you want to hear both sides of this story - contact the Michigan organization directly. You'll get a vastly different story that will make sense from what you read here. Draw your own conclusions afterwards.

 

[dab]

deepH2Odiver,

I think we are all weary of this. For your benefit I feel compelled to say that a lot of the assumptions you have made and conclusions you have have drawn are erroneous. I have witnessed ths unfold from the beginnng and originally was very excited about what was happenning, as was a lot of others. I am personally aware of the several organizations and many individuals that have been ailenated along the way as it has been mishandled. The merits of the project have never been in question, but how the project has been handled leaves a lot to be desired. I won't go into details here but would be happy to sit down over a cup of coffee and share actual facts, not others opinions. That's an open invitation.