Restricting Diving on NE Shipwrecks?

[Rick Murchison]

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.

Right you are, and artifacts would be a tangential issue entirely but for its use by those who would deny access to "protect" those artifacts.
Rick

 

[Jeff Toorish]

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

Sadly Rick is absolutely correct.

I have 30 years experience in public policy, both as a journalist covering government and involved in other aspects. The number one priority of any burearcracy is perpetuating itself. The best way to do that is through onerous regulations that create a need for that burear to continue.

It is also true that, no matter how well intentioned a law is, it will be enforced to the greatest possible degree eventually. The intent of the law is meaningless (The USA Patriot Act comes to mind here).

This is not good news.

Jeff

 

[Scubakevdm]

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.

It seems as though, unfortunately, that one is affecting the other.
There is evidence in the responses in this thread that even after you make a sweeping statement that "everyone understands that they are not to dismantle the wrecks and that it's not a problem," there are arguements for doing that very thing.

 

[DA Aquamaster]

I think we are pretty much in agreement. The government's goal is to keep the plundering hordes away and they will do it liek they did at Lake Meade - issue an extremely limited number of permits to specific operators they "trust" and thereby restrict the number of divers on the sites to those on boats who will exerta great dal of oversight.

The alternative here would be for NE charter boat captains to voluntarily and en mass begin enforcing a self imposed oplicy of no artifacts on the boat. Inspect the divers as they come aboard, toss any divers over the side and the ban the offending diver for a year, and pretty soon the offending divers will get the word. They will whine, bitch, complain, and ultimately threaten to take their business somewhere, else but if every captain did it, there would be no where else.

Of course, that implies that the charter boat community has the stones to look at the long term and as a group enforce preservation policies that render any legislation as redundant. When sincerely done that usually means the legislation does not get passed and the bureaucrats and their self promoting and excessive rule making never becomes an issue.

The reality here is that charter boat captains and to a lesser extent wreck divers can't stop bashing each other long enough to even consider trusting, let alone working with each other, and if that does not change, we will clearly be sending the message we cannot regulate ourselves and bureaucrats will step in and do it for us.

It's our choice, we need to make it a good one.

 

[MSilvia]

The alternative here would be for NE charter boat captains to voluntarily and en mass begin enforcing a self imposed oplicy of no artifacts on the boat. When sincerely done that usually means the legislation does not get passed and the bureaucrats and their self promoting and excessive rule making never becomes an issue.

Interesting idea, but it ignores the fact that Massachusetts has a board of underwater archaeological resources that already manages submerged cultural resources in the state's waters. It even specificly designates a list of shipwercks "exempt" from the usual salvage and permiting procedures, effectively endorsing their non-destructive salvage/plunder.

There's already a bureaucracy regulating it, and as I understand it, NOAA isn't sharing info with them either. Even if that idea were practical, and something diver operators would all agree to (it's neither, IMHO), that ship has pretty much sailed.

 

[oceanpout]

the goverment has everbody looking in the wrong direction is noaa not funded buy grants who decides were the money goes some of the finest nuckle heads ever to be elected and keep being elected have all the say what noaa does so next time there is an election get rid of the knucle heads it is my belief that in the beginig noaa was doing the right thing with the whale and all the enviromental stuff but know it is in the bussiness of my good budddy needs a job so lets create some new positions buy making new laws and requireing permits to issued for the average joe so lets smartin up and get rid of these knuckle heads that create all these new tax payers funded positions sorry for the horible spelling went ot school to work with my hands what this great country was founded on

 

[jamiep3]

... 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 have to amend my original post. There probably needs to be seperate policy for Fresh Water vs Salt Water wrecks. I do believe that the archeologist should get first crack at wrecks that are historically significant, thatr would not apply to a lot of salt water wrecks.

 

[rmannix]

I fail to see any "archeological significance" to anything sunk in the past 100 years. Many have surviving examples preserved somewhere or the original plans archived.

 

[Rick Murchison]

I fail to see any "archeological significance" to anything sunk in the past 100 years. Many have surviving examples preserved somewhere or the original plans archived.

Well, there are certainly exceptions - WWI & II wrecks in particular often have historical value in figuring out what sunk 'em and how.
However... there are for sure wrecks with "no significant archeological value." These are wrecks where the "no touch" policy actually makes sense. Since there's no real value in salvage, the value in them is to leave 'em alone for the most folks - and fish - to enjoy until they're dust.
Rick