when a wreck becomes a gravesite?

[runvus4]

For the wreck types I listed, I object to divers taking objects because it is either outright illegal as international law still recognizes legal ownership by a current entity (person, company or country), or it has significant value in being studied, and it is/will be studied. Sites of mass death tragedies are sensitive issues to people and I learned early in my life that it usually is not worth the hassle of messing with other people's "sacred graveyard" sites. Perhaps one too many trips to the movie theater to watch Poltergeist.

For the rest of the wrecks, it's just a supply/demand argument. Within my diving ability, there is a limited number of "good" (ie interesting) wrecks. Unfortunately, the range of my diving ability is over-populated with other divers who also go to wrecks. If I remove items, and they do as well, the consumption of these limited reasources will decrease the supply of interesting wrecks far faster than it is replaced by new wrecks. Pretty soon, if everyone strips the items, then there will be no wrecks worth diving to.

By my leaving the items to slowly degrade into rust will unfortunately reduce my personal interaction with the wreck, but will allow others to have at least a shot of experiencing something. I try to make up the lack of "physical" momentoes by underwater photography, and hopefully underwater filmography one day.

Non-culturally/historically significant wrecks who are abandoned "fair game" to divers. For example, a fishing boat that goes down during a storm and no salvage operation planned is fair game IMHO. It has no significant historic/cultural value, no issues of legal ownership or legal salvage rights assigned to anyone. While I personally will follow my own code of conduct at the dive and not remove anything, it wouldn't upset me very much or at all if others removed items.

Ships and other non-purpouse-built-reef-creation items sunken for artificial reefs are not wrecks, they simply are hunks of metal abandoned on the ocean floor to create good PR for participants that was of greater value than the scrap costs they would have received by dis-assembling the item.

 

[Diver0001]

runvus4 once bubbled...
Ships that I feel should not be touched by divers:

1) Warships. They are still usually considered owned by the flag country of the ship, yes even U-Boats. The governments of warships have no practical way of persuing small acts of theft (a coin here, bolt there, etc) but they will act upon aggregeous looting/treasure hunting.

This is mandated by law in many countries. Some governments forbid diving (our own fault) and some governements maintain a "look but don't touch" policy.

2) Sunken ships where the sinking involved massive loss of life.

Is a small loss of life less significant for those involved?

3) Ships that are under active historical/archaelogical study or planned future historical/archaelogical study.

This is mandated by law.

4) Ships that are considered cultural heritage or world heritage sites.

This is an example of #3. An object with archeological significance

5) Ships that have sank recently who's owner is planning to undertake salvage/recovery operation.

This is mandated by law. In this case the owner makes the rules.

6) Ships that have been claimed by a salvage operation and have filed paperwork to salvage that site.

This is an example of #5. Salvage rights belong to the owner of the ship. The salvage company either owns the ship or is hired by the owner.

Other historical/ancient recks I also think should be left relatively untouched, but I am much less adamant about.

This is either an example of #3 or it's a derelict.

Recks that don't fall into any of the above catagories I either haven't thought of or don't care about in terms of others souvenir hunting, though I personally prefer to leave sites untouched for other divers who come after me.

By this I think you mean derelicts.

So to summarize you mentioned:
1) warships
2) ships protected for archaeological study
3) ownership
4) loss of life
5) derelicts.

As I said, 1,2 & 3 are subject to the law. Your feeling on the issue is obviously shared by many or these laws wouldn't exist.

On the question of ownership you need the owner's permission to dive it. It's not always forbidden.

Derelicts are clear. Or are they? This is just junk that nobody wants and/or cares about. Right? But what about derelicts with bodies on them? They exist in large numbers. What if a derelict has 1 body on it? What if it doesn't have any bodies on it but 300 drowned and the bodies were subsequently recovered? What if you don't know? What if it was 100 years ago? 500? 1000? What if a derelict has a body on it but you show "respect"? How do you show respect? "Look but not touch?" This is one way but is it universal? Is that what the families want? Is there a universal way to show respect? Is removing an object from a populated derelict always wrong? What if it helps identify it? What if it's a tradition (ships bell)? Or "just one little coin"?

Questions like these are the grey area that we end up in. Because you can't see #4 and #5 separately. Personally I find the discussion very interesting. What I think should happen is this: "Look but not touch" on every wreck (except those set aside for archaeological study) until it becomes a derelict. Policy for diving a particular derelict should be determined by the direct descendents of those who died and enforced by the government under ownership laws. Seems to me that Canada does something along these lines. Once all direct descendents are gone then the wreck to be made a standard derelict and let the junk-yard dogs have at it.

And some derelicts obviously have a value to the scuba industry. IN that case, let the industry lobby governments to declare them artificial reefs and bring them under some kind of ownership. This pprobably only formalizes the defacto situation anyway but then dive operators have something to work with when someone damages such a wreck.

That's my 2c worth.

(Sorry WW, I tried).

R..

 

[WreckWriter]

Diver0001 once bubbled...
(Sorry WW, I tried).

R..

Not very hard

 

[WreckWriter]

Diver0001 once bubbled...
What I think should happen is this: "Look but not touch" on every wreck (except those set aside for archaeological study) until it becomes a derelict. Policy for diving a particular derelict should be determined by the direct descendents of those who died and enforced by the government under ownership laws.

You're kidding, right?

First of all, until a wreck is abandoned it already is no touch so that part I have no issue with. The part about letting the descendents decide I don't buy at all. That's same thing as saying "as long as there are living descendents, no diving". That I won't buy.

WW

 

[runvus4]

Most of the quoted text I had already clarified my position a little in a subsequent post.

Taking on one issue I didn't go into :

Death/bodies is a sensitive issue for some people. Personally, dead bodies on a sunken boat dosn't bother me. The only actions I consider "beyond the pale" would be stripping items off of a corpse or taking part of a corpse. Leaving the corpses in peace untouched is respectful enough usually. I consider their grave as the immedate surroundings, not the entire vessal.

I would also think poorly of (while not quite as much, I won't be hanging around with you either), taking personal artifacts that are easily identifiable as to who the owner was/is for the express purpose of monetary gain.

For wrecks associated with mass death as opposed to wrecks with a small number of deaths, the many of mass death wrecks have passed into a country(ies)/cultural group(s) historical heritage. While I may not have much attachment to these wrecks personally, the negative associations associated with divers "plundering" such wrecks is so very detrimental to diving in general that I think it's not unreasonable to ask people to abstain from momento taking for the good of diving in general.

In the end, as long as you don't break any laws, don't get caught and don't do anything as crass as mass looting/auctioning on ebay, I don't care. While I won't take items and most of the people I dive with don't take anything either, I don't think it's the end of the world for others to do so and I won't treat them as lepers.

 

[divevawreks]

Back to the point of where do you draw the line, Do we leave the cars alone on the highway where people died in an accident. If anyone is concidering disturbing a body then they are going to get anything said here.

 

[runvus4]

The analogy of a car wreck and a ship wreck just doesn't hold water. The two situations are entirely dis-similar in terms of scope, salvage/recovery options and traditional customs.

Anyway, at this point, I'm pretty sure that I've clearly outlined where I personally draw the line...

So where do you draw the line?

 

[WreckWriter]

runvus4 once bubbled...
The analogy of a car wreck and a ship wreck just doesn't hold water. The two situations are entirely dis-similar in terms of scope, salvage/recovery options and traditional customs.

Anyway, at this point, I'm pretty sure that I've clearly outlined where I personally draw the line...

So where do you draw the line?

It holds water perfectly well but since you don't see it that way, how about we use a plane crash as an example. There we have a perfect parallel.

It is, currently, up to each of us where we draw that personal line. The main thing I want to avoid is having some gomer in congress draw the line for me.

WW

 

[runvus4]

Car wrecks are a recent occurance. To extend the analogy historicly, you can also look to carriage wrecks. They both are are easily accessable and bodies are easily retrieved. By tradition and by law, bodies are always recovered and properly disposed, sometimes with a autopsy. Anyway, while the car wreck is by the roadside with a dead body in it, is it moral/legal to loot items off of the dead bodies to take personal effects? It it acceptable to drive up to a wreck and "salvage" parts?

Plane crashes as well are more readily accessable than a sunken wreck. They may approach and sometiems exceed some shipwrecks in scope of loss of life, but in those circumstances, usually the entire wreck including bodies are recovered for study, and then the bodies properly disposed. Anyway, if someone was to loot a body of a plane wreck, or sell personal effects of a deceased recovered from a planewreck then I think that you would find that they would quickly be brought to task by society.

Boat wrecks are an age old occurance. By tradition, bodies are considered "buried at sea" as until only relatively recently they have not be recoverable/salvageable at all and bodies were unable to be properly disposed. By law, Naval wrecks are considered gravesites.

Aside from the fact that all three situations involve and accident of some sort and loss of life, they are entirely dis-similar in terms of the recovery and disposal of bodies by tradition and law.

Anyway, for Navy vessals, some gomer in congress has already drawn the line, as well as gomers in most other governments, and soon the UN will also.

 

[WreckWriter]

runvus4 once bubbled...
Anyway, for Navy vessals, some gomer in congress has already drawn the line, as well as gomers in most other governments, and soon the UN will also.

True, that line has been drawn. As for the UN, who cares what that useless organization does anyway?

I don't advocate looting bodies, only advocate trying to hold on to the freedom to pursue one of the few things that I really love doing, wreck diving.

WW