chibracdiver
Contributor
No logic, just $$$$$.
USS Kittiwake damaged by Rina
- Thread starter Ambassador Divers
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
No logic, just $$$$$.
SAPIUS
Registered
No not just "$$$$"... on Grand Cayman there are 3 general dive site areas... West End (Seven Mile Beach/George Town/West Bay), East End (Moon Bay/East End/Gun Bay) and North Side (east and west of Old Man Bay to the outer North Sound). Yes, there is Sting Ray City (inside the North Sound), but that is a shallow 'speciality' site.
Each of the dive site areas present unique diving and diving conditions... such as North Side in the winter months becomes extremely difficult to dive due to winds and corresponding swells/waves and East End has a barrier reef and outside that reef (where some really nice dive sites are located) are sites which border on the walls/drop offs..not much room between the chutes to the abyss.
West End seemed the more reasonable choice for the Kittiwake site... year around diving, area large enough to site the ship, and being about 70' deep allows the wreck/artificial reef to be accessible to beginners/novice divers, which have very limit choices for wreck sites (Captain Tibbetts sits in 110' and is off of Cayman Brac).
But just my opinions and thoughts so I went to a friend who owns Compass Point/Ocean Frontiers located on the East End... this is Steve Broadbelt's comments:
The wreck was specifically sank at the site as it is the largest sand patch on the west bay. It had at least 100 feet buffer from the reef on all sides. This was a requirement before it could be sunk. It is expected to move and the buffer allows for this. The wreck will move slightly with each storm, but less and less as she settles and beds down in the deep sand.
Each of the dive site areas present unique diving and diving conditions... such as North Side in the winter months becomes extremely difficult to dive due to winds and corresponding swells/waves and East End has a barrier reef and outside that reef (where some really nice dive sites are located) are sites which border on the walls/drop offs..not much room between the chutes to the abyss.
West End seemed the more reasonable choice for the Kittiwake site... year around diving, area large enough to site the ship, and being about 70' deep allows the wreck/artificial reef to be accessible to beginners/novice divers, which have very limit choices for wreck sites (Captain Tibbetts sits in 110' and is off of Cayman Brac).
But just my opinions and thoughts so I went to a friend who owns Compass Point/Ocean Frontiers located on the East End... this is Steve Broadbelt's comments:
The wreck was specifically sank at the site as it is the largest sand patch on the west bay. It had at least 100 feet buffer from the reef on all sides. This was a requirement before it could be sunk. It is expected to move and the buffer allows for this. The wreck will move slightly with each storm, but less and less as she settles and beds down in the deep sand.
chibracdiver
Contributor
And we just saw how much it shifted with a Cat 2 that was one hundred miles away. I am sure the chosen location had factored in the above mentioned points, however, with everything else in Cayman, the bottomline is $$$$. There were many who felt this location was questionable, but when the green trumps the blue this is what you end up with.
SAPIUS
Registered
OK...to the two posters which are pressing the "bottom-line is $$$$" could you provide details/concepts/opinions as to how that specifically decided a location for the Kittiwake site. I am just curious as to your collective insight as to a decision making process driven by $$$$ in this particular situation.
The power of water is amazing. Remember that a hurricane uprighted the Spiegel Grove at Key Largo. Water does things that even the largest of cranes cannot.
Deac in the Wake
Contributor
Sapius- first, those aerial shots are fantastic.
Second- you somewhat answer the question you're asking. The site was chosen because others are less accessible, would require more experience/dive skills, and aren't right in "the middle of things" on SMB. Are there better locations? Depends on your point of view but ultimately, the Kittiwake project was expensive and Cayman needs it to pay off. And that means more divers paying that park fee and getting on the ship. Nothing wrong with that, per se. The problem is, as anyone who's dived the Spiegel or Tibbetts can tell, even deep ship-to-reef vessels can undergo astonishing changes due to tidal forces. If these ships become encrusted with sea life only to be flipped or ripped every 5 or 10 or 15 years, aren't we undoing the very thing we're trying to create?
The first thought I and many of my fellow Cayman dive buddies thought was that the site was too shallow. If the Kittiwake ends up getting ripped apart or sliding into the reef, we've created a disaster instead of creating a marine environment. It can become perfect fodder for the groups opposed to ship-to-reef efforts if that happens. So we need to focus efforts to prevent that. Except that I've seen firsthand in Hugo and Katrina and Ivan what nature can do. To use a dated quotation from pop-culture, it was nature, not the "Borg" who first said "resistance is futile."
Second- you somewhat answer the question you're asking. The site was chosen because others are less accessible, would require more experience/dive skills, and aren't right in "the middle of things" on SMB. Are there better locations? Depends on your point of view but ultimately, the Kittiwake project was expensive and Cayman needs it to pay off. And that means more divers paying that park fee and getting on the ship. Nothing wrong with that, per se. The problem is, as anyone who's dived the Spiegel or Tibbetts can tell, even deep ship-to-reef vessels can undergo astonishing changes due to tidal forces. If these ships become encrusted with sea life only to be flipped or ripped every 5 or 10 or 15 years, aren't we undoing the very thing we're trying to create?
The first thought I and many of my fellow Cayman dive buddies thought was that the site was too shallow. If the Kittiwake ends up getting ripped apart or sliding into the reef, we've created a disaster instead of creating a marine environment. It can become perfect fodder for the groups opposed to ship-to-reef efforts if that happens. So we need to focus efforts to prevent that. Except that I've seen firsthand in Hugo and Katrina and Ivan what nature can do. To use a dated quotation from pop-culture, it was nature, not the "Borg" who first said "resistance is futile."
SAPIUS
Registered
Thanks for your perspective... I can seen how some can link $$ to siting. I was pretty amazed in the site and condition comparison of the Captain Tibbetts when I first dove her in 1998 and then again in 2005 and 2007... even at 110' the ship has shifted and IMO is sliding down the slope. Still a nice dive...my dive buddy (wife) got some really nice critter shots there.
chibracdiver
Contributor
Simply quoting a few of my Grand Cayman friends regarding this site. The concern for the depth of this site was voiced early and often. I was able to dive it in July with my son and had a blast. I only hope many more will be able to enjoy the Kittiwake.
live deep, dive long.
Dive Dawg.net...dive apparel that matters.
carriemak
Contributor
Chug - you need to go to the Little Cayman with us in June! A trip you will never forget and you will become addicted to Little Cayman!
Similar threads
