The Truth about Michigan State Park/diving Legislation

[Greg_MacMaster]

It took awhile, but here's the main site of the Yukon Project and what was learned by it.

http://sdoceans.org/ships_project.html (This, I hope, will answer your questions and miss-conceptions about what I am doing up here in the GTBUP (proposed) and what benefits can be achieved statewide.)

The facts I have are referenced from the links witin this site and many hours of research with other state officials in working with the Maritime Administration and private organizations.

 

[dab]

It took awhile, but here's the main site of the Yukon Project and what was learned by it.

http://sdoceans.org/ships_project.html (This, I hope, will answer your questions and miss-conceptions about what I am doing up here in the GTBUP (proposed) and what benefits can be achieved statewide.)

The facts I have are referenced from the links witin this site and many hours of research with other state officials in working with the Maritime Administration and private organizations.

First and foremost, I need to apologize for making uncalled for personal remarks towards Greg. They were unprofessional and not germain to the topic at hand and I do apologize.

I see things very differently from Greg and see the potential for significant harm to the sport we all enjoy. I have been diving in southern California, have several friends who are divers and intructors out there and I have in fact been on the Yukon (I did not go there for that). To claim that what happened in San Diego is what will happen in the Great Lakes is truely an apples to oranges comparison. The diving community in California consists of reef divers, wreck divers, kelp divers, spearfisherman/ lobster hunters and many other divers of varying interests. Great Lakes divers are mainly wreck divers with an abundance of natural wrecks to choose from. A better comparison would be to study the effects of the ships sunk in Tobermory and Munising. Did they pump millions into the local economies and put these places on the map? Divers already new about these places and wreck divers would have gone there anyway. It did give a greater variety of wrecks to choose from. The first time I went to dive Munising it was to dive all the wrecks there, not because they had intentionally sunk one.
The Yukon study is full of assumptions in drawing some of the conclusions it has reached and it's aim is to cast everything in as positive a light as possible. I would submit that it is far from objective.
Almost every major diving magazine carries articles on Great Lakes diving from time to time, and for those that read Wreck Diving Magazine and Advanced Diver Mgazine, hardly an issue goes to press without at least one article on the Great Lakes. If the State of Michigan begins to promote diving (still don't know where the money will come from) who are they going to promote it to that already isn't aware of what we have to offer? We are heading into dangerous territory here and ultimately divers will pay the price.

 

[Greg_MacMaster]

Thanks for appology dab!

There was no study on either intentional sinking in the Great Lakes. So the pilot program in the GT Bay will be the first "Official Study". Yup, apples and oranges - it's true. And the effects of increased diving will be felt by many businesses. But how it will hurt divers? I don't see that end of it. Maybe because I'm nieve and think that the quality dive training will take care of that. Education is another. Promote from within our own state by creating a need to dive. Bring families in, teach to the schools on what we find in the bottomlands and bring history to their desk - by way of scuba diving. Dive shops make money off new sales and repeat customers. If all the divers are outfitted and don't need anything but air, will that be enuf to support a dive shop to stay in business? I guess it's all relative on how you interpret things and look towards the future. To protect what we currently have is great. To take a charter out on a scuba venture is great, if they're still running. May fold up because of higher gas prices and what not.

It's a chance and the favor of positive outweigh the negative because no one has brought any concrete evidence to support the claim that it will harm other than to say "it will harm". I don't see teh harm in placing 2,3 or 4 sizable ships in the Great Lakes that afford divers all types of training and enjoyment. But I think keeping them away from the prestine wrecks is a must.

Thoughts?

 

[bladephotog]

Thanks for appology dab!

But I think keeping them away from the prestine wrecks is a must.

Thoughts?

I hope you don't mean making pristine wrecks off-limits to diving? If so what's the point? I don't want to put words in your mouth so please clarify the above statement. But the thought of the government deciding to limit my access to what they determine are pristine wrecks scares me.

There are two things, to me, that make a shipwreck a great dive. First, it needs to have a good history, or story behind it. It's one thing to go down and swim around a ship. It's another thing entirely to understand the ships history while you're diving it. It brings it to life.

Second, it's obviously more fun to dive pristine wrecks instead of a pile of boards. When you put the two together, pristine wreck with a great history, you have a superior dive site in my opinion.

Get the government involved and I worry that this is exactly the kind of dive site they'll decide to "protect" or make off-limits to divers. I'm all for protecting the wrecks as far as artifact removal and repsonsible buoying techniques. But why make them off limits? That'd be like closing all the museums. Sure everything would be protected but what's the point if the general public can't enjoy them?

Now if you mean limit the access to pristine wrecks then how do you determine who can dive them? Who decides what wrecks are pristine?

I'm not necessarily opposed to intentional sinking of ships in the Great Lakes. I've got a few dives on the Wolfe Islander in Kingston, Ontario, and its' location has given us something to dive when the weather was too rough to get out to something else. It's a fun dive but it's not nearly as fun as diving a real wreck.

 

[dsc2679]

Please keep us posted on when related meetings, hearings and the like occur so we can relay our input too.

Lastly, congratulations on the purposed ship to be sunk in GT bay. I live in TC and look forward to diving it. Let me know if you need any additional help.

 

[ComputerJoe]

I had to stay away from this site for a few days. After blowing my cork I had to think about apologizing for digressing and I do appologize to this group and Greg for those adjectives but not the opinion.

I have NEVER opposed sinkings, just this Legislation which is this thread was about. It is true we (Thunder Bay) have more than 60 known wreck sites and the luxury of having been around for the last 25 years. Thanks to a few residents that stayed with the NOAA designation process and endured threats of possible physical harm, we all have a fine facility in the Great Lakes Marine heritage Center. Now it looks like the counties to the north and south wish to join with Alpena in expanding our boundries for the legal protection of yet more "to be discovered" shipwrecks. Is this reason to not care what happens in other Preserves and the State? I think not.

Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve Council has been trying to address alternate dive sites as well. Shore dives to intensional sinkings in protected areas would be great alternatives. We have at least 6 sink holes on shore, most unexplored, with up to 90' depths. All are on, or bordering State land but all have had any motorized access removed. I understand Greg's struggle and fustration with regulators. I think he believes that this Legislation will give some him control over those who have obstructed his plans to sink a ship and help fund it as well. I on the other hand do not. No matter how you want to stack it, it is still just an Advisory Committee, making a Great Lakes State park will only inject more regulation. Then will come additional fees and liscensing. If this will be a "State Park" under Park & Recreation control, why would the DNR Parks object to it? They do not want to be made to regulate this thing any more than we want to be regulated...unless it will mean more money in their budget. Now we are back to fees & liscensing again.

Call you legislators, make your opinion known!
A Democracy is given to us...use it!

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." — Voltaire

 

[Teamcasa]

***************** Moderator Post ******************

Gentlemen, I have deleted and edted many of the inflammatory posts in this thread. I also thank you for apologizing to each other for the posts and getting this thread back to a civil debate. State you opinion, react and respond to others but please avoid the personal snipes and attacks.

Your friendly moderator.

Dave

 

[Greg_MacMaster]

I hope you don't mean making pristine wrecks off-limits to diving? If so what's the point? I don't want to put words in your mouth so please clarify the above statement. But the thought of the government deciding to limit my access to what they determine are pristine wrecks scares me.

There are two things, to me, that make a shipwreck a great dive. First, it needs to have a good history, or story behind it. It's one thing to go down and swim around a ship. It's another thing entirely to understand the ships history while you're diving it. It brings it to life.

Second, it's obviously more fun to dive pristine wrecks instead of a pile of boards. When you put the two together, pristine wreck with a great history, you have a superior dive site in my opinion.

Get the government involved and I worry that this is exactly the kind of dive site they'll decide to "protect" or make off-limits to divers. I'm all for protecting the wrecks as far as artifact removal and repsonsible buoying techniques. But why make them off limits? That'd be like closing all the museums. Sure everything would be protected but what's the point if the general public can't enjoy them?

Now if you mean limit the access to pristine wrecks then how do you determine who can dive them? Who decides what wrecks are pristine?

I'm not necessarily opposed to intentional sinking of ships in the Great Lakes. I've got a few dives on the Wolfe Islander in Kingston, Ontario, and its' location has given us something to dive when the weather was too rough to get out to something else. It's a fun dive but it's not nearly as fun as diving a real wreck.

Reclarify.... Not meant to keep them away, but if they want to learn about shipwreck diving...practice on something safer then move on to something a bit deeper and more technical. But it's all about education. Diving should be open to everyone.

Thanks for the question and allowing me to clarify!
G

 

[Greg_MacMaster]

Please keep us posted on when related meetings, hearings and the like occur so we can relay our input too.

Lastly, congratulations on the purposed ship to be sunk in GT bay. I live in TC and look forward to diving it. Let me know if you need any additional help.

We will always accept willing folks to help. Please e-mail me offline and we can go over the details!
Cheers,
Greg
info@gtbup.org

 

[Greg_MacMaster]

I had to stay away from this site for a few days. After blowing my cork I had to think about apologizing for digressing and I do appologize to this group and Greg for those adjectives but not the opinion.

I have NEVER opposed sinkings, just this Legislation which is this thread was about. It is true we (Thunder Bay) have more than 60 known wreck sites and the luxury of having been around for the last 25 years. Thanks to a few residents that stayed with the NOAA designation process and endured threats of possible physical harm, we all have a fine facility in the Great Lakes Marine heritage Center. Now it looks like the counties to the north and south wish to join with Alpena in expanding our boundries for the legal protection of yet more "to be discovered" shipwrecks. Is this reason to not care what happens in other Preserves and the State? I think not.

Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve Council has been trying to address alternate dive sites as well. Shore dives to intensional sinkings in protected areas would be great alternatives. We have at least 6 sink holes on shore, most unexplored, with up to 90' depths. All are on, or bordering State land but all have had any motorized access removed. I understand Greg's struggle and fustration with regulators. I think he believes that this Legislation will give some him control over those who have obstructed his plans to sink a ship and help fund it as well. I on the other hand do not. No matter how you want to stack it, it is still just an Advisory Committee, making a Great Lakes State park will only inject more regulation. Then will come additional fees and liscensing. If this will be a "State Park" under Park & Recreation control, why would the DNR Parks object to it? They do not want to be made to regulate this thing any more than we want to be regulated...unless it will mean more money in their budget. Now we are back to fees & liscensing again.

Call you legislators, make your opinion known!
A Democracy is given to us...use it!

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." — Voltaire

Joe:

"I think he believes that this Legislation will give some him control over those who have obstructed his plans to sink a ship and help fund it as well." No one has obstructed us at all. There's laws in place to follow and we're doing just that. As for funding... This will be the cheapest intentional sinking when we're done. Aside from the sensors to determine the impact... It should be under $500! The push for a state-wide initiative is to open the doors (making opportunities) for others to do the same. we'll already have ours. We're just greasing the wheels for other. And honestly... Why should anyone believe what I say anyway.... Everyone has their opinions and it will be a matter of time when we see what really happens. If it goes sour and I'm wrong, I'll man-up and admit it... But if it goes the other way, will those who were so defiant do the same?

As for your theory of regulating and fees... I'm with you.. I don't want it either, and I don't think it will happen. If the Parks and rec can recieve funding in the millions (with no diver donation) for this set of laws, then why not move forward. I understand everybody's fears... And your legislators have heard you too! Just because it's not "dead" doesn't mean it's going to happen. As one politician put it "it would be political suicide".... But being in the trenches... I don't see it happening. (regulating and fees). Go for the larger preserve by the way! Good luck in accepting more wrecks in the area.

G Mac