It seems to me that there is a faction of divers, probably anywhere you go, but famous in the NE that preserve artifacts for all who enter their livingroom to see. A good example of the few ruining it for the rest.
Restricting Diving on NE Shipwrecks?
- Thread starter wreckedinri
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
It seems to me that there is a faction of divers, probably anywhere you go, but famous in the NE that preserve artifacts for all who enter their livingroom to see. A good example of the few ruining it for the rest.
... then some interesting artifacts might get preserved for future generations; history might be remembered... rather than disappearing forever in rust flakes on the Atlantic gyre!
There are two sides to the coin, eh?
Rick
I think the public entities share the other side of the coin more than the tool baggers do, for whom sharing their finds with future generations might be limited to their grandkids.
OP
wreckedinri
Contributor
- Messages
- 444
- Reaction score
- 0
- # of dives
Currently, these are the rules and regulations that are in place.
Visit: Diving Regulations: Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary
I do not know of anyone that has a problem with these. As stated earlier, the issue is the continued access to the sites.
Visit: Diving Regulations: Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary
I do not know of anyone that has a problem with these. As stated earlier, the issue is the continued access to the sites.
Gauntlet
Registered
Hi All,
Sorry I am not much of a regular poster on this board, but I wanted to jump in here so I can hopefully point you all to where the issues lie with regard to Stellwagen. First a bit of history:
Stellwagen's first and only management plan (MP) went into effect in 1993 and there have been no revisions since then, until now. When the sanctuary was designated in 1992, it was done so for the purpose of preventing drilling for oil, mining for sand and gravel, and to protect whales - whales that are found in an amazingly high population in this area. At that time, the content of the sanctuary as it relates to shipwrecks (referred to as Maritime Heritage Resources (MHR)), was unknown. In the late 1980s, a number of notable wrecks were found by private researchers; they shared the positions with NOAA thus forming the basis for their future work. Diving was happening in the sanctuary but to a limited extent. Stellwagen's western border is 25 miles east of Boston and although northern portions approach within 3 miles of shore on both the Cape Ann and Cape Cod shores, the sanctuary is considered "offshore" and thus out of the reach of most conventional dive boats.
Now, though the 1990s and into the early part of this decade, an increased awareness and understanding of the sanctuary's resources emerged. This was in part due to collaboration with fisherman and also the availability of multibeam sonar bathymetric data generated by the USGS to create seafloor maps - and these show irregularities on the sea floor that may be shipwrecks. The sanctuary claims to have located 18 unique shipwrecks to date using a combination of this information along with side scan sonar surveying techniques.
With this expanded understanding of the sanctuary's other resources - that being MHR - there was a need and strong desire to assess, characterize, and manage these resources as the current 1993 MP did not contemplate these other types of resources.
In the 2001-2002 time frame, a series of public scoping sessions were held and comments were gathered to provide direction on how to revise the existing MP to address these and other types of needs. The Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC) developed a set of Action Plans (AP) that were approved in 2004 that were created based on the feedback from the public comments collected along with input from working groups organized within the SAC. Unfortunately, during that time divers were not represented on the SAC, and those that were involved were unable to advocate for a better position for divers and our desired uses of the sanctuary in the face of strong conservation overtones. Thus the 2004 AP for MHR proposes very stringent regulation of diving with limited and controlled access - and in some cases NO access unless by permit. There are other issues. I invite you to review them here: SHIPWRECK DIVERS - Action Plan or at the Stellwagen website.
In late 2004 we (the diving community) became aware of the potential changes and set out on a very aggressive campaign to pro-actively push back on the AP since we knew it would form the basis of the MP. I want to point out quite clearly that the issue here is NOT whether we can or cannot remove of artifacts - that is well established as a fundamental premise of a marine sanctuary: NO artifacts are to be removed or disturbed. I cannot comment on whether the NE has a bad reputation for this or not, as it's irrelevant to the discussion, but I can say that this issue is not in dispute. The issue is ACCESS and access is what is at stake in the MP revision.
We set out to pressure NOAA to explain why they would propose such a harsh, access-limited construct in the face of clear success at other sanctuaries such as Thunder Bay, Flower Gardens, Florida Keys, etc -- and the answer was: different sanctuary, different needs. However, I find the most basic problematic concept with regard to Stellwagen to be this: commercial fishing is the greatest threat to any resource in Stellwagen, whether its whales or MHR. Commercial fishing cannot be regulated by the Sanctuary as there are federal regulations outside of the reach of national marine sanctuaries that need to be changed in order to facilitate that. The point is: the sanctuary makes a very compelling case for how the greatest threat to MHR is commercial fishing, yet nothing can be done to stop fisherman from damaging the wrecks with nets, etc. In spite of this, the DMP seeks to establish a management structure that controls access for the lowest impact form of access among human uses - that being diver visitation. This is a very important point and this is a major issue with the DMP - as it's non-specific text and open-ended language very much establish the framework to regulate access to the most extreme, which would be permit-only access for any shipwreck site in Stellwagen.
I invite you to spend some time looking at the Shipwreck Divers website.
http://shipwreckdivers.org/
We have chronicled 3 1/2 years of work there and will continue to post information. I am still working through the 400-page DMP document but I can tell you, I have major issues with it. Finally in closing, for those who think the page is still blank on what will happen in Stellwagen - I tell you it is not. The 2004 AP is very clear about the strategies that the sanctuary would like to implement. All 33 of those strategies were incorporated into the DMP. The language is slightly different, but if you want a peak into the true "ideas" about management of MHR, be sure to review the 2004 AP - because it is the blueprint and is conceptualized in looser language in the DMP.
Please feel free contact me anytime with questions.
Heather Knowles
SAC Diving Member
Northern Atlantic Dive Expeditions, Inc.
Northern Atlantic Dive Expeditions - Wreck Diving, Technical Diving, Deep Exploration
hlk@northernatlanticdive.com
Sorry I am not much of a regular poster on this board, but I wanted to jump in here so I can hopefully point you all to where the issues lie with regard to Stellwagen. First a bit of history:
Stellwagen's first and only management plan (MP) went into effect in 1993 and there have been no revisions since then, until now. When the sanctuary was designated in 1992, it was done so for the purpose of preventing drilling for oil, mining for sand and gravel, and to protect whales - whales that are found in an amazingly high population in this area. At that time, the content of the sanctuary as it relates to shipwrecks (referred to as Maritime Heritage Resources (MHR)), was unknown. In the late 1980s, a number of notable wrecks were found by private researchers; they shared the positions with NOAA thus forming the basis for their future work. Diving was happening in the sanctuary but to a limited extent. Stellwagen's western border is 25 miles east of Boston and although northern portions approach within 3 miles of shore on both the Cape Ann and Cape Cod shores, the sanctuary is considered "offshore" and thus out of the reach of most conventional dive boats.
Now, though the 1990s and into the early part of this decade, an increased awareness and understanding of the sanctuary's resources emerged. This was in part due to collaboration with fisherman and also the availability of multibeam sonar bathymetric data generated by the USGS to create seafloor maps - and these show irregularities on the sea floor that may be shipwrecks. The sanctuary claims to have located 18 unique shipwrecks to date using a combination of this information along with side scan sonar surveying techniques.
With this expanded understanding of the sanctuary's other resources - that being MHR - there was a need and strong desire to assess, characterize, and manage these resources as the current 1993 MP did not contemplate these other types of resources.
In the 2001-2002 time frame, a series of public scoping sessions were held and comments were gathered to provide direction on how to revise the existing MP to address these and other types of needs. The Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC) developed a set of Action Plans (AP) that were approved in 2004 that were created based on the feedback from the public comments collected along with input from working groups organized within the SAC. Unfortunately, during that time divers were not represented on the SAC, and those that were involved were unable to advocate for a better position for divers and our desired uses of the sanctuary in the face of strong conservation overtones. Thus the 2004 AP for MHR proposes very stringent regulation of diving with limited and controlled access - and in some cases NO access unless by permit. There are other issues. I invite you to review them here: SHIPWRECK DIVERS - Action Plan or at the Stellwagen website.
In late 2004 we (the diving community) became aware of the potential changes and set out on a very aggressive campaign to pro-actively push back on the AP since we knew it would form the basis of the MP. I want to point out quite clearly that the issue here is NOT whether we can or cannot remove of artifacts - that is well established as a fundamental premise of a marine sanctuary: NO artifacts are to be removed or disturbed. I cannot comment on whether the NE has a bad reputation for this or not, as it's irrelevant to the discussion, but I can say that this issue is not in dispute. The issue is ACCESS and access is what is at stake in the MP revision.
We set out to pressure NOAA to explain why they would propose such a harsh, access-limited construct in the face of clear success at other sanctuaries such as Thunder Bay, Flower Gardens, Florida Keys, etc -- and the answer was: different sanctuary, different needs. However, I find the most basic problematic concept with regard to Stellwagen to be this: commercial fishing is the greatest threat to any resource in Stellwagen, whether its whales or MHR. Commercial fishing cannot be regulated by the Sanctuary as there are federal regulations outside of the reach of national marine sanctuaries that need to be changed in order to facilitate that. The point is: the sanctuary makes a very compelling case for how the greatest threat to MHR is commercial fishing, yet nothing can be done to stop fisherman from damaging the wrecks with nets, etc. In spite of this, the DMP seeks to establish a management structure that controls access for the lowest impact form of access among human uses - that being diver visitation. This is a very important point and this is a major issue with the DMP - as it's non-specific text and open-ended language very much establish the framework to regulate access to the most extreme, which would be permit-only access for any shipwreck site in Stellwagen.
I invite you to spend some time looking at the Shipwreck Divers website.
http://shipwreckdivers.org/
We have chronicled 3 1/2 years of work there and will continue to post information. I am still working through the 400-page DMP document but I can tell you, I have major issues with it. Finally in closing, for those who think the page is still blank on what will happen in Stellwagen - I tell you it is not. The 2004 AP is very clear about the strategies that the sanctuary would like to implement. All 33 of those strategies were incorporated into the DMP. The language is slightly different, but if you want a peak into the true "ideas" about management of MHR, be sure to review the 2004 AP - because it is the blueprint and is conceptualized in looser language in the DMP.
Please feel free contact me anytime with questions.
Heather Knowles
SAC Diving Member
Northern Atlantic Dive Expeditions, Inc.
Northern Atlantic Dive Expeditions - Wreck Diving, Technical Diving, Deep Exploration
hlk@northernatlanticdive.com
That would be the case if "public entities" actually took artifacts out of the sea, cleaned them, and put them on display in museums. In US they very rarely do. Public policy seems to be "let them rust", and only select few individuals ever get to see them before they rust.
And considering that serious artifact divers bring their collections to dive shows, or often keep them on display in their dive shops, I am willing to bet that if porthole A is taken off a wreck and porthole B is left there, the number of people who will get to see porthole A over the years is many times greater than those who will get to see B.
OP
wreckedinri
Contributor
- Messages
- 444
- Reaction score
- 0
- # of dives
Here's one display that comes to mind:
Pat Rooney's Andrea Doria Display
And from a more recent local show:The Dive Locker, Sea Rovers
Hmmmm... wellll... let's do expand on that, shall we???
I'll use a niggardly 5% (or less, if you'd like) for our "informed, responsible, civic minded, sharing" diver who'd properly preserve what was salvaged and share it outside the immediate family...
And another 10% who'd do it right but keep it in the family...
So... if 1000 pounds (any old arbitrary number will do) of artifacts were recovered, 50 pounds would end up available to the public for historical study and enjoyment, and a lucky few in the immediate family would get to enjoy another 100 pounds, with 850 being lost due to improper care and just carelessness - though some may find its way into a museum somewhere...
compared to....
ZERO available after a century of "don't touch."
Seems a no-brainer to me.
When you get right down to it, "don't touch" only makes sense when one or more of the following conditions are met:
(1) The wreck is an artificial reef - sunk on purpose for that purpose.
(2) The wreck has no historical significance; its demise into oblivion just doesn't matter.
(3) There is an organized salvage effort actually on the books that is realistic in terms of retrieving important artifacts before they're dust.
---
The best of all possible worlds? Marine Archeolgists need to get a dose of reality. They need to understand that there aren't enough of them, and there aren't enough resourses available to recover all those things they'd like to recover before there's nothing left to recover on many sites. And so they need to bend their efforts more towards educating the public on how to properly document what's at a site, how to recover and preserve artifacts from a site, how to have the same respect for the historical significance of a site that the PhD does.
Above all, they need to dump the "us or nobody" attitude towards artifact recovery, and enlist the assistance of the huge (and FREE!) asset that's right there in front of them in the form of passionate interested wreck divers.
Rick
Thank you for this post and you are 100% correct. Let's see, the private sector has two great examples that I can think of: the Mel Fisher Museum and the Whidah museum in Provincetown Ma. On the other side, The State of Rhode Island is in possession of a collection of Artifacts recovered from 2 British Rev War frigates that
are stored away safely from the unwashed masses(us).
OP
wreckedinri
Contributor
- Messages
- 444
- Reaction score
- 0
- # of dives
OK . . . before we get off onto another tangent regarding artifact collecting, the intent of this thread is not "touch or don't touch" . . . let's remember . . . it's all about access.
I, as much as anyone, have a strong opinion regarding artifact collecting and I am guilty of feeding the fire which is about to divert this thread. Let us remember that whether you're into taking pictures, taking brass, or merely sight-seeing, there may well be no future for any of either activity if we allow bureaucrats to proceed unchecked in setting rules for the use of public properties like Stellwagen. We, as a community, must stay informed and whenever possible, get involved in the process which sets the regulations governing public access to sites that we enjoy.
I'll get off my soap-box now and get back to work.
Dennis
I, as much as anyone, have a strong opinion regarding artifact collecting and I am guilty of feeding the fire which is about to divert this thread. Let us remember that whether you're into taking pictures, taking brass, or merely sight-seeing, there may well be no future for any of either activity if we allow bureaucrats to proceed unchecked in setting rules for the use of public properties like Stellwagen. We, as a community, must stay informed and whenever possible, get involved in the process which sets the regulations governing public access to sites that we enjoy.
I'll get off my soap-box now and get back to work.
Dennis
Similar threads
