Restricting Diving on NE Shipwrecks?

[wreckedinri]

From the draft management plan:

"(3.5) Develop and implement a mooring buoy system on
historic sites in collaboration with affected parties and
regional scuba diving charter operators. Mooring buoys
may be emplaced to protect historic sites from anchor
damage and facilitate safe scuba diving."

And:

"The NMSA mandates that the National Marine Sanctuary
Program manage maritime heritage resources in a fashion
that protects the resources while facilitating compatible
public and private use of the resources."

I don't take from this plan that they have any interest in shutting divers out of the sanctuary. They might restrict access on certain wrecks they consider of particular historic/archeological significance but I think you're stretching it a bit when you make comments like this:

I just changed the highlighting. How does it read now?
These are crafty and devious individuals.:11:

 

[Scubakevdm]

Just to help me fill in the blanks here... what is the motivation for the special interest groups in keeping divers off the wrecks? It seems to me that the logical arguement here would be the divers trying to keep the fishermen from trawling the wrecks. Have the wreck divers been conducting themselves in a manner so irresponsible as to have been causing damage to the dive sites?

 

[RIOceanographer]

As for which wrecks, yes; only historically "significant" sites. But who decides what is significant? The Palmer and Crary? Two coal schooners? And before anyone thinks that those wrecks are "too deep" for recreational dives, who would have thought 30 years ago that we would be doing dives on the Bass on a regular basis. In fact divers are currently visiting the Palmer and Crary.

I agree that those are fair and important questions. I am not arguing we shouldn't keep an eye on things to make sure things are handled in a reasonable fashion and aren't carried to far. I just want to make sure we take a balanced look at the issue ourselves.

As for who decides what is historically significant. I don't know the answer and if definitely needs to be clarified. In some places it sounds to me like the wrecks they are talking about restricting would have to first be on the National Register of Historic Places. On the other hand at one point they say there are "18 historic wrecks" and only 3 of those are on the register so it is definitely a bit ambiguous.

National Register of Historic Places Official Website--Part of the National Park Service

 

[Oyster Diver]

Camel's nose under the tent.
As with all government meddling in the affairs of free people, it comes down to "who decides?"
When the decisionmaker is some pointy-headed bureaucrat, "historic/archeological significance" can suddenly expand to the 10,000 pound marshmallow. You can push and pull all you want; you'll just get all gooey and you won't move it.
Rick

Craig MacDonald, the superindentent on the sanctuary admits its just the beginning. The newspaper article linked in the first post says the report "... avoids pushing for controversial restrictions on the bank, such as no-fishing zones." Then MacDonald says "What it does is provide a solid foundation for next steps"


I would like to know what the next steps are. To me, it looks like they are getting in by not really taking anything away from anybody and once they have the authority then they can really start restricting use for the "common good" Of course they get to define "common good"

 

[wreckedinri]

. . . Have the wreck divers been conducting themselves in a manner so irresponsible as to have been causing damage to the dive sites?

No, not at all. In fact, until the recent release of Gary Gentile's latest book, the locations of most wrecks within the sanctuary were not public knowledge and were kept a closely guarded secret by NOAA. NOAA would not even respond to my FOIA request about the wrecks' locations until I enlisted the aid of my Congressman. Fortunately some very talented and tenacious wreck divers/researchers searched on their own and located many of the wrecks in recent years. There is not one iota of evidence, nor any claim that divers have in any way had a detrimental effect on the conditions of the wreck sites.

I agree that those are fair and important questions. I am not arguing we shouldn't keep an eye on things to make sure things are handled in a reasonable fashion and aren't carried to far. I just want to make sure we take a balanced look at the issue ourselves.

Absolutely, I agree. However, as I said previously, from prior dealings with them, I've learned to be aware of the doublespeak.

As for who decides what is significant. I don't know the answer and if definitely needs to be clarified, but it sounds to me from the wording they use that wrecks they are talking about restricting would have to first be on the National Register of Historic Places. So it would appear to be at least part of the process would be getting the Dept of the Interior to declare it a "Historic Place" (according to the plan there are currently three of those, but they mention 18 total that they call "Historic" registered or not, so it is a little ambiguous).

National Register of Historic Places Official Website--Part of the National Park Service

There's the rub. NOAA is acting unilaterally in its decision making progress. They (NOAA) would not even release the known locations of the wrecks via my FOIA request. Basically - after their denial of my request and subsequent appeal of the original denial - I was told, and I paraphrase; If you don't like our decision - sue us!

Does anyone think that they will readily grant permission to dive these sites when they will not even reveal the locations to the public? The same public that paid for the research that located the wrecks in the first place?

When I have a chance, I'll post my FOIA request and the follow up correspondences on the SS website.

Until then, Capt. Heather Knowles has an abundance of relevant and up to date information on the http://shipwreckdivers.org/ site.

 

[Scubakevdm]

NOAA would not even respond to my FOIA request about the wrecks' locations until I enlisted the aid of my Congressman.

Yes, I have known NOAA to be tight with information down here as well, but to rephrase my question... what is the arguement for keeping divers off the wrecks, and who is making it?

 

[Rick Murchison]

Yes, I have known NOAA to be tight with information down here as well, but to rephrase my question... what is the arguement for keeping divers off the wrecks, and who is making it?

I guarantee it is the same as every bureaucrat's argument for keeping the great unwashed away from the pristine - "only we can do it right" which boils down to this:
When a government functionary can use the government as their personal bully to keep others away from "their" piece of the pie, they will do it. If the current holder of the position with the power doesn't do it, then the next guy in the job will.
- or -
When evaluating a new proposed law, regulation or rule, never look at its expressed intent, but rather imagine how that law, regulation or rule can be used and abused in the hands of the most greedy, calculating, unscrupulous scoundrel on the face of the earth - because that is precisely who will eventually end up with the power to wield it.
- or -
The world is filled with sour people whose apparent sole function in life is to suck the joy out of anything and everything they touch, and to deny any fun or joy to anyone else. These people are attracted to government, for that's where they can do the most damage.
Rick

 

[wreckedinri]

Yes, I have known NOAA to be tight with information down here as well, but to rephrase my question... what is the arguement for keeping divers off the wrecks, and who is making it?

I do not have the exact wording that I recieved from NOAA in front of me, but it was very similar to: to protect and preserve a historic resource.

I guess their idea of preserving a wooden shipwreck is to merely let it soak in salt water 200-400 feet deep.

 

[wreckedinri]

When evaluating a new proposed law, regulation or rule, never look at its expressed intent, but rather imagine how that law, regulation or rule can be used and abused in the hands of the most greedy, calculating, unscrupulous scoundrel on the face of the earth - because that is precisely who will eventually end up with the power to wield it.

Dude,

That premise should be taught at every school, in every grade, at every level and through grad. school throughout this land.

If you ever run for office, I'll move to that state to support you!

Dennis

 

[DA Aquamaster]

There are some sports that have done very well self regulating themselves - ultralight aircraft and hang gliding both come to mind.

In comparison we have a wreck community, particularly along the atlantic seaboard, that seems to like dismantling wrecks for artifacts. I'm not opposed to picking something off or out of the sand, as it does not degrade the wreck or speed its natural deterioration, but hammers, chisels, etc are over the top. If you have to remove, move or damage structure to remove an object, you should leave it alone.

Now if we had a new world war and submarine campaign every 20-30 years and did not have GPS and other navigational advances, I'd say go for it, but as it is, really good diveable wrecks that got there through acts of war or God are not a renweable resource - and even the current pace of reefing programs are not enough to replace what's rusting away now.

So if we as a wreck diving community cannot man up enough to police ourselves, I think we can expect to be regulated by someone else. Knowing that we either need to start self regulating or stop whining when someone else inevitably does it to us.