Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary Expansion

[Jared0425]

NOAA has limited access to the wreck USS Monitor which sank off of Cape Hatteras. This raised a 5 year court battle in which NOAA lost to Gary Gentile. It was determined that NOAA has no right to enforce it's own laws or policies when it comes to shipwrecks. Our primary fear is NOAA trying to limit access to certain wrecks in the proposed preserve. An example would be the Keystone State or RG Coburn which were carrying respectable amounts of silver ore and gold. Because of the risk divers pose, NOAA might implement restrictions on the site. NOAA claims to use the policy "take picture, leave bubbles". In reality they take artifacts of high value, such as bells, whistles, compasses etc and confiscate them. NOAA also hasn't been friendly when it comes to the wrecks they found (that we ran across). Ex: schooner Red, Blue, and Yellow south of Alpena. So until NOAA can show the diving and wreck hunting community that they can work together instead of dominate it, I think it is best that the preserve stays where it is at currently.
Jared

 

[ComputerJoe]

If "not being friendly" means not releasiing numbers I have to agree, Ballards find of the corscian I think, in 2002 still has not been officially released even though everyone seems to have its numbers...Thanks to Burt. The Sancutary is not being friendly to the deep wrecks up here by NOT buoying them because of their lawyers not because of their own predisposition. They still have a handfull of buoy permits that they have never buoyed because of the legal eagles. Which makes me wonder if their govermental immunity dosen't protect them from liability how liable are those who do buoy these wrecks.

Still the State of Michigan has had little to no luck protecting shipwrecks in court, maybe the feds will. Unfortunately I don't know how disposed they would be to allow salvaging of ore cargo if one was to share the location of one of those wrecks.

 

[Jared0425]

Well that kinda shows how unintelligent the expansion is. If NOAA does not buoy the deeper wreck sites because of their lawyers, then why expand the preserve? Everything outside both to the North, South, and East is beyond 200-300 ft.

Federal Law trumps state law. Maritime Law applies to all shipwrecks. According to lawyers, less than 12% of shipwrecks are owned by the state in the entire U.S. That includes the Great Lakes. I'm not too educated about how NOAA lawyers or policies work so I can comment to much effect. If they do expand the preserve, I hope that it does its job by "protecting" the wrecks. NOAA has done much for the community by tourism and introducing kids into it though and that is a positive thing I like as long as it is not a sham to increase power.
Jared

 

[ComputerJoe]

As in all things there are good things and there are bad things with every decision. Trying to see the unintended consciquences is hard. They have truely made a commitment to the educational effort. Artifacts are continuing to dissapear from the wreck where there is no agency showing stewardship. Just the federal presence makes those who are looking for a trophy think twice.

 

[StanS]

I have personally worked with the NOAA people in Alpena and they are a great group. I think expanding the preserve is a great idea. NOAA is actively searching for new wrecks in the area and they are not afraid to share their finds. Mr. Trotter has found many wrecks and is done with them and still will not share many of his finds. No one can keep a wreck from being robbed but divers are getting better and I think it is time to open up these wrecks so everyone can enjoy diving them.

 

[ComputerJoe]

Stan touched on a difficult subject. Is it better to keep locations of shipwrecks quiet or release numbers for everyones enjoyment? Certainly if only one person knows a wrecks location and they are not pirates at heart no items would be taken than if the numbers were broadly circulated. But keeping a jewel in the attic dosen't improve life for anyone, these things deserve to be enjoyed and respected otherwise what are they worth to anyone?

When found should everything of value be taken from a shipwreck and placed in a museum for the enjoyment of the public at large. Doing this would steal from diver the expirence of seeing an item in its native surroundings and can it get much better than this? Man this is a tough call.

I feel that when a site found with public monies, once it is documented, the location should be released for the enjoyment of the public and not metered out to buddies and academia. When it's found by a private individual, as much as I hate to admit it, it is their call on what they tell others.

Legally I believe that no shipwreck is "public property" until some stewardship of the wrecks is shown. Just declaring that every shipwrecks in Michigan waters belongs to the State has been proven to not hold water (sorry). What irks me is the story I heard of the Florida when its location was offered to the State for a barrel of whiskey that was believed to yet be on board. What would the State benefit from a barrel of whiskey compared to the knowledge of the wrecks location. I would have said "take your barrel, give me the numbers." They did'nt and the ocation was kept secret for awhile.

 

[Jared0425]

Well Stan, I must respectively disagree with some of your statements. Dave has released a few wrecks in the past. The best example would be the W.C. Franz. Most of the wrecks he finds are busted up old schooners in 2-300 ft of water that has nothing on them. I've spent much time in researching these wrecks and have gone over hours of underwater footage, talk with the divers, and going through my files trying to identify them with little luck. The URA spends much money and time hunting for these wrecks. Being a shipwreck hunter yourself, you know the frustration and accomplishments of hunting. As for NOAA "sharing" it's finds, I think it is quite contrary. As stated in above posts, NOAA has not released the Corsica found over 10 years ago, and very few people even know the existence of schooners Red, Blue, and Yellow. We will see what they will do with the Merrick and Etruria. How many bells and wheels can a museum have before it is enough?
Jared

 

[ComputerJoe]

Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary has NEVER restricted access to a wreck site, they might not release nmbers right away but never have they done what was done on the Monitor. This I think is a non-issue up here.

Can they stop all robbery... I doubt it but they can keep honest people more honest. Sooner or latter someone is going to get caught and Admirality law will not be a defense if taking from a Sanctuary wreck. IMHO

Dave seems to wait till someone jumps him on a site and then he releases the numbers rather than selectively judging who is deserving and who is not. So either the locations are known only to URA or they are released for everyone's benefit.

I have visited ThunderBay.noaa.gov and have found they have posted the numbers for Corsican. Make sure you scrool to the bottom of their web page and click the pull down for sailing vessels, Motor Vessels, or barges

 

[Jared0425]

It's not they have, but a fear they might. Like I said above, Dave has released the numbers before, but I dont know the story why. Thanks for the info though. I will have to look it up.
Jared

 

[ComputerJoe]

Anyone can view the Management Plan for Thunder Bay here
http://thunderbay.noaa.gov/pdfs/management plan_final.pdf