What Activities should be allowed/restricted on Wrecks?

[RJSDiverNJ]

I realize that no posts have been made to this thread for some time, however, I recently came back from a trip to Brockville where I was unbelievably disappointed in the condition of the Robert Gaskin. This is one of my favorite wrecks. Just a year ago, it was fine, now it is a mess. This wreck has been down for more than 100 years and it seems to have deteriorated more in 2008 than it has in all of its time on the bottom. We were told that Open Water classes were being held on its deck - this is a shame and should NOT be allowed on Canada's wooden ship wrecks!

 

[MartianBeerPig]

I recently attended a seminar. One of the speakers (Marc-Andre Bernier of Parks Canada) briefly discussed this topic. Apparently each province is responsible for local legislation. Marc-Andre suggested that a national policy is perhaps a better way to manage sites in Canadian waters. Perhaps getting in touch with Parks Canada may be a way to influence the policy.

 

[gert7to3]

I was thumbing through the Canadian section and thought to respond to this thread, albeit belatedly.

The biggest problem one faces with any sort of salvage is how to conserve what was recovered. Wood, leather, iron, even ceramics will deteriorate when brought to the surface and dried out. It's arguably worse than letting the stuff rot in place. Salvage also destroys the archaeological context of the artifact.

One of the ways we are preventing damage to historic wooden wrecks in the Chicago area is to sink steel ships as dive attractions. The Straits of Mackinaw, an old car ferry, was sunk off Chicago five years ago. It has been hugely popular and relieved much of the pressure from more delicate wooden wrecks.

We are also cleaning up a 100 ft. party boat, currently named the Buccaneer, as a dive attraction. For Canadians this boat has some historic significance. It was built as a U.S. Coast Guard revenue cutter to enforce Prohibition during the 1920's and 30's. As the USCGRC Dexter it distinguished itself by sinking a Canadian flagged sloop named "I'm Alone" in international waters (oopsie) precipitating an international incident (or shall we say "act of war"?). It did redeem itself with service during WW II and ended its days as a booze barge.

 

[aklinz]

I am amazed at how polite everyone is on these forums. Nothing like some of the Backpacking and Mountain Climbing forums ! Nice to see...

 

[miketsp]

I think O_D has good handle on what is ok, so lets open it up a bit. What about coastal/seawater wrecks where the life of the wreck is short-lived (50-100 yrs). When does it become ok to remove artifacts (not human remains)? Wait too long and they will be rust. Too soon, and lots of other divers miss the oppty to see the wreck in all of its glory.

I'm surprised that you consider 50-100 years short-lived.
I just got back from a holiday diving wrecks on the NE coast of Brazil where thare are many wrecks of varying ages but in general the ones that are over 50 years old are totally dismantled.
Various of the wrecks are obsolete tug-boats sunk as artificial reefs and the interesting thing is that some sunk in 2002 are in much better condition than others sunk in 2004+ even though they are only a few miles apart at similar depth. It all depends on the prevailing currents.
I've observed turtles and parrot fish causing far more damage to wrecks and coral growth than even some of the worst divers.
I've also seen cases where wrecks have suffered extensive damage from fishing nets.
So IMHO prohibiting recreational diving with the objective of protecting wrecks is meaningless. They deteriorate fast with or without the presence of divers.

 

[patpicos]

I'm surprised that you consider 50-100 years short-lived.
I just got back from a holiday diving wrecks on the NE coast of Brazil where thare are many wrecks of varying ages but in general the ones that are over 50 years old are totally dismantled.
Various of the wrecks are obsolete tug-boats sunk as artificial reefs and the interesting thing is that some sunk in 2002 are in much better condition than others sunk in 2004+ even though they are only a few miles apart at similar depth. It all depends on the prevailing currents.
I've observed turtles and parrot fish causing far more damage to wrecks and coral growth than even some of the worst divers.
I've also seen cases where wrecks have suffered extensive damage from fishing nets.
So IMHO prohibiting recreational diving with the objective of protecting wrecks is meaningless. They deteriorate fast with or without the presence of divers.

Your comment applies to Sea Water. In fresh water, wrecks preserve beautifully...hence this thread in Canadian forum

 

[miketsp]

I think O_D has good handle on what is ok, so lets open it up a bit. What about coastal/seawater wrecks where the life of the wreck is short-lived (50-100 yrs). When does it become ok to remove artifacts (not human remains)? Wait too long and they will be rust. Too soon, and lots of other divers miss the oppty to see the wreck in all of its glory.

Your comment applies to Sea Water. In fresh water, wrecks preserve beautifully...hence this thread in Canadian forum

Might help if you read all the posts more carefully. Look at my post again and look at the quoted section. My answer was a response to the comment "What about coastal/seawater wrecks where the life of the wreck is short-lived (50-100 yrs)."