Is the US Navy banning diving on Military wrecks?

[njdiver1]

What do you expect will be the impact of this regulation on the existing wrecks at the NJ shore?

USS San Diego

Texas Tower

U.S.S. Murphy - DD-603

Sub Chaser SC-209

U.S.S. Turner - DD-648

U.S.S. Jacob Jones - DD-130

R.C. Mohawk

Sub Chaser SC-635 "Bronx Queen"

USS Akron - Airship ZR-4

ZPG-3W "Reliance"

Scuba Diving - New Jersey & Long Island New York - dive Wreck Valley - Dive Sites - Warships


U.S.S. Bass - V-2 / SS-164

U.S.S. S-5 - SS-110

U.S.S. L-8 ( SS-48 )

U.S.S. G-2 ( SS-27 )

U.S.S. Spikefish ( SS-404 )

U.S.S. Blenny ( SS-324 )

Scuba Diving - New Jersey & Long Island New York - dive Wreck Valley - Dive Sites - Submarines- American



U-853

U-853

U-869

Scuba Diving - New Jersey & Long Island New York - dive Wreck Valley - Dive Sites - Submarines - U-Boats



All will be off limits other than sightseeing, photography and "fishing". The dive boat will not be able to tie onto the wreck.

 

[Wookie]

If they push it to any sunken vessel that was carrying goverment property at the time of its sinking. This is still a proposed rule. It may have a temporary restraining order filed against it shortly.

Yes, it is a proposed rule, but it is already law. The only question is how the law gets enforced.

 

[njdiver1]

Yes, it is a proposed rule, but it is already law. The only question is how the law gets enforced.

And here it is:

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/fhpl/sunken_military_craft.pdf

 

[Jared0425]

I read nothing about banning diving on the wrecks. I saw the severe limitations of taking artifacts or disturbing the site. I wonder what they will learn from scuttled vessels or the ones that the TAXPAYER built during the second world war.

 

[Wookie]

I read nothing about banning diving on the wrecks. I saw the severe limitations of taking artifacts or disturbing the site. I wonder what they will learn from scuttled vessels or the ones that the TAXPAYER built during the second world war.

Disturbing is the key word and tricky phrase here. There was a case the lawyer told us about in California where 4 folks were charged with fanning silt away from the wreck, and were charged and fined for disturbing the wreck. I can't find any evidence of this, so it may be dive lore. The fourth guy was charged with taking an artifact, although the artifact was never seen, and fined $40k. Again, this may be dive lore. The concern would be, if an Atlantic wreck boat throws a shot line and the mate chains in on a closed chock, is the wreck disturbed? If a dive operation gets a permit to install a buoy, can another operator use that buoy without a permit?

We do not allow the taking of any artifacts on any Navy wrecks, and we have no war graves (or any other wrecks folks died on) that we dive. I guarantee the crap the fishermen leave behind, including anchors, chain, nets, a ton of lead and monofilimant, etc. do far more to disturb the wreck than we ever thought of. They are exempt from regulation.

 

[Omisson]

Give me a F****** break! Rediculous!

Thanks a bunch for sharing this. Forwarding to as many like minded Buds as I can.

The Navy takes war graves very seriously, as it should. Most warship wrecks inside US costal waters are already protected and artifact removal prohibited.

The new issues relate to enforcement methods, fines, and licensing.

Licensing sounds bad because it will lead to further restrictions, and unequal enforcement. The problem is the damage already done to such sites.

 

[aue-mike]

Disturbing is the key word and tricky phrase here. There was a case the lawyer told us about in California where 4 folks were charged with fanning silt away from the wreck, and were charged and fined for disturbing the wreck. I can't find any evidence of this, so it may be dive lore. The fourth guy was charged with taking an artifact, although the artifact was never seen, and fined $40k. Again, this may be dive lore. The concern would be, if an Atlantic wreck boat throws a shot line and the mate chains in on a closed chock, is the wreck disturbed? If a dive operation gets a permit to install a buoy, can another operator use that buoy without a permit?

We do not allow the taking of any artifacts on any Navy wrecks, and we have no war graves (or any other wrecks folks died on) that we dive. I guarantee the crap the fishermen leave behind, including anchors, chain, nets, a ton of lead and monofilimant, etc. do far more to disturb the wreck than we ever thought of. They are exempt from regulation.

I think it's all urban legend, otherwise there would be something to cite. Even in cases I am aware of like the Lightship bell or the MURPHY artifacts, the guys only got a warning and had to turn over the artifacts. There were threats and all sorts of stuff, but no penalty. Even the recovered bell off the USS SCHURZ (though I believe that predated the SMCA but still against standing USN policy) was allowed to stay at the dive shop in NC after an agreement was worked out.

As long as you don't do something major like tear off a major section of the wreck, IMHO it would be hard to make a case for disturbance - especially when a fishing boat can throw a hook right next to a dive boat without a care in the world.

 

[Jared0425]

I agree with you Wookie. Time and mother nature will determine what happens to the wrecks, not the government. Here in the lakes we had the DNR accidentally destroy a wreck by dropping unused harbor stones on it without knowing and made the wreck collapse and destroying whatever was below the decks and cabins.

 

[pasley]

1. This is not a NEW law. It is a CHANGE to existing law fixing a flaw. Specifically the existing law has no teeth. This provides for fines for violations.
2. The wrecks in question are the property of the United States Navy or other some other County's Navy or were under contract carrying navy cargo when they sank.
3. In many cases these are grave sites for our brave service men and women who gave their lives in service to their country. Let their remains rest in peace.
4. It is now and has been illegal to disturb a war grave. You can look from the outside respectfully but not enter or take anything.
5. for genuine historians/archeologist to enter the wrecks to study them and possibly, with permits remove selected items for public display and/or study.
6. Puts teeth into the law to help preserve the wrecks from amateur "historians/archeologist" who are currently removing items in violation of the existing law.
7. Time and nature will eventually take their course as it does for all things. The wrecks in natures time will disappear eventually but until then this law adds teeth to the existing law to help protect the wrecks (albeit it a little late) from the ravages of man (amateur historian/archeologist and plain old souvenir hunters).

Not a popular opinion, but I wish them well in getting it passed.

 

[drbill]

If the Navy is so concerned about these wrecks, they should remove them from our waters. It's just more military junk left behind IMHO. DISCLAIMER: I rarely dive wrecks although I understand their appeal to those with an interest in history