Reply from Viking re: Oriskany ripoff

[Soggy]

Not as often as I'd like, and very little penetration, as I do not have the training for any serious penetration. But I have dove a few here and there in Gulf and Caribbean and my policy when diving them is same as when diving a reef or anywhere else, 'take only pictures, leave only bubbles' so that future divers can also enjoy what I have.

So you have only dived recently laid-down artificials? Probably the Spiegel Grove, the C-55 or C-53 in Mexico, etc?

When you have dived a few real wrecks and have seen what happens, then I think you will at least understand our point of view on this matter. You may not agree, but I think you'll at least 'get it.'

 

[NadMat]

When did I express a desire to take anything from the ship? I thought I was very clear in expressing that it's a pile of junk with nothing worth the effort of bringing up.

which is why I stated 'yours or others'

... no, the parts striped before the sinking were removed to appease the EPA. I guarantee that the legitimate owner wouldn't have removed a lot of that stuff if the EPA didn't get involved.

The only way to completely clean that wreck would be to cut her into sections and completely shred her apart. That was stated directly by the man in charge of the whole project. They removed what they needed to in order to get EPA approval.

so what part of 'enviromental, safety, and other concerns did you not get? Hint: EPA stand for Enviromental Protection Agency

 

[Soggy]

Ok, more justification on your part, 'we live next to the water, so we can do what we want in it'.

No, I have no interest in taking artifacts, especially off a lousy artifical that is only interesting because of its sheer size and has had everything of value already taken off of it. I just think we might have a slightly different perspective on this issue that relates to differing experiences with shipwrecks that have been in the ocean for more than a few years.

 

[Frog77]

I find it interesting that most of the "anti" people are in landlocked states and most of the "pro" (or don't really care, like me) are on ocean bordering states. Perhaps some of you don't really understand what happens to wrecks or how fast it happens?

That must be it. I apologize for my "lack of understanding".

 

[NadMat]

So you have only dived recently laid-down artificials? Probably the Spiegel Grove, the C-55 or C-53 in Mexico, etc?

When you have dived a few real wrecks and have seen what happens, then I think you will at least understand our point of view on this matter. You may not agree, but I think you'll at least 'get it.'

No, I have dove wrecks off the gulf coast that are almost unidentifiable as such, if you didn't know beforehand what you were looking at.

Your argument seems to be 'the ocean will destroy it in time anyway, why not speed up the process' and as stated before, I like to leave it there for others who may come after me.

 

[Soggy]

Your argument seems to be 'the ocean will destroy it in time anyway, why not speed up the process' and as stated before, I like to leave it there for others who may come after me.

You are welcome to 'like' that, but don't try to impose your beliefs on others, or someone else's business.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I find it interesting that most of the "anti" people are in landlocked states and most of the "pro" (or don't really care, like me) are on ocean bordering states. Perhaps some of you don't really understand what happens to wrecks or how fast it happens?

I'm not so sure that's the case ... and at any rate, I don't think it's as simple as that. People who object are doing so for a variety of reasons ... the most legitimate of which (to my concern) is that if it's not yours, you shouldn't take it ... especially when doing so breaks the law.

An analogy ... around here a couple years back there was a diver who would follow all the local scuba forums. When someone reported finding an octopus den at one of our popular dive sites, he'd go out and harvest the octopus. Perfectly legal ... but it wasn't real popular with the dive community. After all, once it's gone it ain't there for other divers to go look at.

When the truth came out, the uproar was stupendous ... ridiculously so, in fact. Some even went so far as to call his house and make death threats. I didn't agree with what the guy was doing, but I felt that the response was way outta proportion ... and what he was doing was legal even if I thought it wasn't right. Point is, most of the dive community prefers to think about the benefit of the community, rather than the individual. And it bothers them when others don't see it that way.

And in any case, it doesn't appear that taking this console from the ship was legal. Does the law only apply to "certain" people? Or does it only matter if you get caught? Because that seems to be the mentality that you're promoting ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

You are welcome to 'like' that, but don't try to impose your beliefs on others, or someone else's business.

But if (as seems to have been already established) that it's illegal to take things from this ship, isn't he really really only trying to "impose" what amounts to legal behavior that's supposed to apply to all of us?

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Soggy]

And Texas is not exactly land locked, more land and coastline than any of your NE states.

Not that it's important to the argument, but someone just pointed out to me that Maine has the 2nd longest coastline in the country...Alaska is the longest. So, you lose on that one...we got more coast than you do. (notice the smiley)

 

[Thalassamania]

With all due respect, it appears to me that the laws, regulations and Ms. Manners all coincide with NadMat's views. When you remove items you are imposing your beliefs on someone else. When you abstain from removing items (and expect others to do the same) that is much less of an imposition of your beliefs.