HMCS Annapolis - attempts to sink "sunk" by DFO?

[MXGratefulDiver]

Bob;
I'd gently suggest you re-read my original comments - no where did I state I was disputing what the video showed (and yes I have seen it) - I was disputing whether what you saw was an "unnatural" condition that needed to be "fixed".

I can't say whether it's natural or unnatural ... I've seen other areas like it around various parts of the Pacific Northwest. Howe Sound is in many ways similar to Puget Sound ... which is where I do most of my diving. In that respect, I can say that in topography and depths similar to those I would have expected to see more life than I saw during the survey. And I can say for sure that it's not the "thriving reef" that the Halkett Bay folks have made it out to be.

I listed marine life in the area that I have personally observed that might be negatively impacted.

OK ... let's address what you listed ...

I have personnaly seen (and yes caught) many dungeness/rock crab, there is a family of river otters in the bay, a small octopus (in a trap right on the site) that all might be negatively affected - I say might because no-one knows for sure whether it would be a positive or negative effect, and do we really want to take a chance on screwing it up?.

Dungeness ... in an area roughly 400 feet x 100 feet we saw a sum total of two dungeness crabs. One was dead ... I suspect it died of boredom. River otters don't live at 100 feet. They don't even live underwater ... they live on shore and fish in the open waters. Typically you won't ever see them at the depths this ship is being sunk, as their favored meals are found at shallower depths. Octopus are typically found wherever there are crabs ... that's what they eat, after all. They need shelter for dens. Only the smaller red octopus will burrow into the mud ... and even then only if they're in places where food is readily available. Since reds are so tiny, their preferred food would be small crabs, shrimp and other crustaceans ... which weren't much in evidence during the survey. Neither were any octopus ... and those who dive with me on a regular basis can attest that I'm very good at spotting octopus if they're around.

As far as anchoring goes - although yes, a portion of the ship would be in 100' of water, by the time you factor in the overall length as well as a normal small exclusion zone you are now into the normal anchoring spaces - look at the maps provided on the ARSBC website if you don't believe me.

You can see the maps in the position paper I linked in my previous reply ... and I'll dispute that the ship will be in the anchoring zone. The entire ship will be sitting on a shelf at 100 feet ... in that position paper you will also find a table that shows actual depth measurements at the grid points we surveyed for the ship. Call me skeptical, but back when I owned a boat we didn't anchor in water that deep unless we absolutely had no choice ... for reasons that, if you are indeed a boater, I don't need to explain to you.

(I'm assuming you don't want my 30# anchor dropping near you?)

It's a battleship ... I doubt very much that your 30# anchor would damage it.

Lastly, sorry but no that is not how I saw the history of the project - it's not as if the ARSBC went out and did a survey and determined that Halkett was #1 on a list of areas needed this type of "saving" - as you know several other original sites were proposed and subsequently vetoed by users, and it became a "where can we put this thing" exercise.

I'm not privy to all the considerations that went into the choice for this particular site. My understanding was that depth, bottom topography and environmental considerations were the priority reasons for choosing it. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

From everything I've read I can agree the ARSBC and all it's members are well meaning and do think they are providing a benefit - however I'm sure we can also agree that it is not an exact science and although there are possible benefits, there are also possible risks, and in my opinion, they are risks we should not be taking.
To summarize - just because you have a video showing a "muddy bottom" does not make it unnatural and in need of "saving".

What risks would you like to talk about? There's a 20 year history of using similar ships as artificial reefs in various parts of Vancouver Island. I've dived them all. Have you? What detrimental effects have they brought to the areas in which they were placed?

From reading your arguments and choice of terminology, I have to conclude that you're a plant for the Halkett Bay opposition.

Nice try ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

PS - before you or anyone else in the Halkett Bay opposition decide to take my words out of context and use them against the ARSBC ... which has happened in the past ... let me just state flat out that I do not speak for, nor represent, the ARSBC. I speak strictly my own opinions, as a diver who has volunteered on the preparation of this ship and has a self-interest in seeing it become a dive site.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Anyone have background on how the site at Porteau Cove and the Edmonds underwater park were decided upon. I don't know what it was like before the reefs were made, but from my experiences, I'd say they are helping with the underwater life. And I don't hear any complaints about those sites (to my knowledge). Was there a big disupte about those site before they came into being?

Edmonds Underwater Park is a shallow, sandy area that was part of a park owned by the City of Edmonds. The underwater park was built with their cooperation, as a means to bring tourist dollars into the city. Over the past 30+ years, it has done just that.

The park itself is a case study in how providing structure can enhance marine life. Some of the largest ling cod in Puget Sound can be found there ... at least one I know of topping five feet in length. Ling cod and cabezon nests are mapped and studied annually. Additionally, thriving schools of blue and black rockfish can be found there ... one of the few places south of the straits that you'll find them anymore. The eelgrass beds that stretch north from Brackett's Landing are a literal nursery. Keep in mind that Edmonds Underwater Park gets MUCH higher diver traffic than the Annapolis site will ever see ... and the marine life seems to be thriving.

Porteau Cove would make a great case study for comparison, since it's relatively close to Halkett Bay and has a similar bottom topography. As I mentioned earlier ... anyone who chooses to can go look at the Nakaya ... which sits at a similar depth to what the Annapolis would ... then swim out along the contour line about five minutes and look around. Compare the amount and diversity of life between those two points and get back to us with your findings ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[mayday1234]

[/I] you are basing all the above on one or two dives vs the approx. 10yrs I've been anchoring there? And as you note "octopus eat crabs" and that site is the main habitat for crabs - and I can definately attest to the fact both dungeness and rock crab are found there. Either way, that is exactly why these proposals are evaluated by professional scientists - so that the opinions of well meaning but biased observers are given the appropriate weight.


It's a battleship ... I doubt very much that your 30# anchor would damage it.

Uhm, I wasn't concerned about hitting the ship, it was a diver I was obviously refering to.

I'm not privy to all the considerations that went into the choice for this particular site. My understanding was that depth, bottom topography and environmental considerations were the priority reasons for choosing it. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.
So, you think Halkett was the first choice? Do some research.

From reading your arguments and the choice of terminology you continually to use, I have to conclude that you're a plant for the Halkett Bay opposition.
A plant? I'm a LOCAL diver/park user who may be negatively affected - and to be honest, I'm pretty sure my opinion should carry more weight than a dive tourist who MIGHT use this site once or twice a year.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I'm a LOCAL diver/park user who may be negatively affected - and to be honest, I'm pretty sure my opinion should carry more weight than a dive tourist who MIGHT use this site once or twice a year.

In this we agree ... local area residents should certainly be heard, and given more weight than out of towners.

However, it is not your right to be heard that I'm disputing ... it's your arguments against the project. Most have already been refuted elsewhere.

Ultimately, it'll be neither your decision nor mine that will matter ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[DaleC]

Mayday, you may think you know what you're talking about but to those of us who, regularily dive both barren bottoms and artificial reefs, you're words ring hollow.

Not wanting to create habitat because it might interfere with your anchorage really shows where your concern lies.

 

[mayday1234]

Mayday, you may think you know what you're talking about but to those of us who, regularily dive both barren bottoms and artificial reefs, you're words ring hollow.

Not wanting to create habitat because it might interfere with your anchorage really shows where your concern lies.

Hey, I've been up front about my bias right from the start - which is more than some of the proponents can say. Especially considering Halkett was no where near the top of the list for potential sink site.
And yes, I have also dove both barren and artificial reefs sites but that doesn't automatically make me an expert on the subject - especially when it comes to "oops, I guess we were wrong and now we're stuck with it" type of subjects.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Hey, I've been up front about my bias right from the start - which is more than some of the proponents can say. Especially considering Halkett was no where near the top of the list for potential sink site.
And yes, I have also dove both barren and artificial reefs sites but that doesn't automatically make me an expert on the subject - especially when it comes to "oops, I guess we were wrong and now we're stuck with it" type of subjects.

Of the prior ARSBC sinkings, can you list one that you believe turned out to be a mistake?

Can you describe a single instance where sinking the vessel proved to be detrimental to either the environment or the community in which it was placed?

Since you have stated that Halkett Bay was nowhere near the top of the list for potential sink sites, what other sites were considered? And why were they rejected?

Please ... give us something more than rhetoric to work with here ... if you want to be heard, those are legitimate questions to answer ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[mayday1234]

Of the prior ARSBC sinkings, can you list one that you believe turned out to be a mistake?

Can you describe a single instance where sinking the vessel proved to be detrimental to either the environment or the community in which it was placed?

Since you have stated that Halkett Bay was nowhere near the top of the list for potential sink sites, what other sites were considered? And why were they rejected?

Please ... give us something more than rhetoric to work with here ... if you want to be heard, those are legitimate questions to answer ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Why take my obviously biased opinion about whether or not it might be detrimental - why not read the letter from the independant fisheries scientist that classifys this project as "harmful" in this instance. Not harmful to every site, not harmful to even the whole bay - but harmful to the specific patch of mud.

As far as other sites, as a minimum IIRC Paisly Island (sp?), one of the other bays on Gambier have been mentioned - but again, why take my word for it - why not ask your friends in the ARSBC - see what they say if you don't believe me.

 

[DaleC]

Hey, I've been up front about my bias right from the start - which is more than some of the proponents can say. Especially considering Halkett was no where near the top of the list for potential sink site.
And yes, I have also dove both barren and artificial reefs sites but that doesn't automatically make me an expert on the subject - especially when it comes to "oops, I guess we were wrong and now we're stuck with it" type of subjects.

What have they been dishonest about? That artificial reefs create an anchoring point for many lifeforms and create biodiversity in an otherwise underpopulated aquascapes? That artificial reefs make great places to dive? That the more people dive, the more they will understand the ocean and not be subject to faulty concepts such as the ones you present.

As Bob says; tell us what they could get wrong. It may surprise you but ships have been sinking both accidentally and intentionally for a fairly long time now and the process and effects of colonization are pretty well understood.

Look at the negative impact illustrated here:http://s35.photobucket.com/albums/d190/fishherder/Videos/?action=view&current=Picture2021.flv

 

[mayday1234]

As Bob says; tell us what they could get wrong. It may surprise you but ships have been sinking both accidentally and intentionally for a fairly long time now and the process of colonization is pretty well understood.

What could go wrong??? That's a whole other can of worms we've not even touched on yet - as you can see from even the ARSBC literature, sinking a ship is not exactly an exact science - from turning on it's side, to moving position etc - and as noted again on the ARSBC website, the sink site is actually quite specific in acceptable orientation - any deviaton and now you are potentially affecting marine traffic.
Or, for another arguments sake - what happens if, as the DFO officials want to avoid, you now cover up 1,400m2 (DFO estimate) of sea bed - and just to play devils advocate what if that is enough to completely decimate the local crab population that has been haning on by a thread?
None of the above are givens, but merely possible "what could go wrongs" that you are obviously willing to risk for a new "reef" when the bay is surrounded on 300deg of existing "reef" (the rock walls of the bay).

Since Porteau has proven to be a successful site (primarily since there are no natural structures nearby), why not sink this one there? Make a good site even better, keeps the habitat happy, keeps the users happy, win/win. Not only that, but keeps it a shore dive opportunity - keeps it accessable to more users.