Why not more artificial reefs?

[Jake]

Why use ships at all ?

I'm all for creating artificial reefs/habitats, but given any associated hazards with sinking ships, cars, pollution etc etc, it seems to me more sensible to use something else. All that steel and aluminium could be recycled and re-used.

Is it that as its a ship it is more attractive to divers than products already available ?

Are the diving fraternity being selfish in wanting something exciting to look at and dive on with the reef creation just an added bonus to that ?

As the population of whatever structure takes time to happen so is not so interesting, are ships just a quick fix for veiwing/diving pleasure and revenue for the local area without the need for waiting for life to get established?

My fiencee used to work for a company making honeycombed prefabricated concrete structures just for this purpose in Indonesia, so I know the products exist.

In the case of what I'm specifically after, it is more of a "selfish" thing as you state. Basically, there are huge expanses of wide open ocean here with nothing to see. There have never been any reefs there, so the creation of a reef is not a restoration project per se.

I have no problem with a reef like what you describe (concrete objects), but it would certainly be a more immediately rewarding dive site if a structure of interest could be put down. I'd take either, quite frankly.

Good luck on your OW stuff. Your new addiction awaits you.

 

[Amy B]

In the case of what I'm specifically after, it is more of a "selfish" thing as you state. Basically, there are huge expanses of wide open ocean here with nothing to see. There have never been any reefs there, so the creation of a reef is not a restoration project per se.

Perhaps there is a reaosn there has never been a reef there? Perhaps the conditions are wrong?

Perhaps creating an artificial reef will disturb what marine organisms there ARE there (a suprising amount of organisms live in sand, for example - just because we can't see them and it's a bit boring doesn't mean it's not an extremely important habitat for them) and encourage other organisms into the area that have previously not been there... Which could have huge future consequences on food webs etc.

It's a very tricky subject and needs VERY thorough investigation before something is proposed.

For example, Scylla was sunk in Whitsand Bay, close to an existing wreck (the James Eagan Layne). The Layne is (unfortunately) deteriorating very rapidly these days, but has prolific marine life. Once it's gone, there's a good chance the marine life will migrate over to the Scylla (many species are already common to both wrecks).

Just something I thought I'd mention, because a) I'm a marine biologist, and we've had to study this sort of thing (consequences of new predators in a system, etc), and b) noone else seems to have thought about it so far...

 

[Hank49]

Perhaps there is a reaosn there has never been a reef there? Perhaps the conditions are wrong?

Perhaps creating an artificial reef will disturb what marine organisms there ARE there (a suprising amount of organisms live in sand, for example - just because we can't see them and it's a bit boring doesn't mean it's not an extremely important habitat for them) and encourage other organisms into the area that have previously not been there... Which could have huge future consequences of food webs etc.

It's a very tricky subject and needs VERY thorough investigation before somthing is proposed.

For example, Scylla was sunk in Whitsand Bay, close to an existing wreck (the James Eagan Layne). The Layne is (unfortunately) deteriorating very rapidly these days, but has prolific marine life. Once it's got, there's a good chance the marine life will migrate over to the Scylla (many species are already common to both wrecks).

Just something I thought I'd mention, because a) I'm a marine biologist, and we've had to study this sort of thing (consequences of new predators in a system, etc), and b) noone else seems to have thought about it so far...

Excellent points. And maybe they should be called "artificial habitats" and not reefs.

 

[Amy B]

Thanks.

I'm not saying they're a bad idea; in fact, in the right circumstances they can be a VERY good idea.

Just adding some points to the discussion...

 

[MantaRey]

Was it in the 70's that down here in Lauderdale thousands of tires were dumped in a failed attempt to make a reef? In the end the rubber proved to be more detrimental to the environment than good. Are those tires still down there?

Ships make great reefs as they are large, have elaborate passages, makes a great superstructure for a reef. But aren't they short lived? After all they are made of steel, so they definitely deteriorate.

I'd love to see a material which cannot be recycled- like the plastic in styrofoam, rubber etc- be recycled in a way to make reef structure.

 

[joe rock]

New Jersey has one of the most active artifical reefs programs in the USA. See this site for more information.

http://www.njscuba.net/reefs/index.html

 

[Rickg]

I've always wanted to organize one too. It's a lot of work. On top of the money, planning, and any permits you may need; there's the biological factor. Artificial reefs aren't just dropped in random places, certain conditions need to be met. Lot's of studying goes into it.

Here are some pictures that I acquired from somewhere while I lived in Japan. As you can see the Fishery Associations over there take their artificial reefs/fish habitats quite seriously.

Rickg

 

[HarveyS]

Dear Jake,

Hi. I'm President of the Sunken Treasures Society of Los Angeles, and Vice President of California Ships to Reefs. You ask a very good question, i.e. why not more reefs? The answer is that it hs only been recently that a dedicated group of us decided to make CA the wreck diving capital of the world, and it is an adventure and a lot of work. For more info check out www.sunkentreasures.org, and you can contact me if you want to become involved. I work with Dick Long who sank the Yukon in San Diego a few years ago. Currently, we're working on an offer from the US Navy to give us the largest conventionally powered submarine, i.e. the Sailfish. Would love to have your help.

 

[Hollywoodivers]

Dear Jake,

Hi. I'm President of the Sunken Treasures Society of Los Angeles, and Vice President of California Ships to Reefs. You ask a very good question, i.e. why not more reefs? The answer is that it hs only been recently that a dedicated group of us decided to make CA the wreck diving capital of the world, and it is an adventure and a lot of work. For more info check out www.sunkentreasures.org, and you can contact me if you want to become involved. I work with Dick Long who sank the Yukon in San Diego a few years ago. Currently, we're working on an offer from the US Navy to give us the largest conventionally powered submarine, i.e. the Sailfish. Would love to have your help.

I vote that you all go to the Sunken Treasures meeting this weekend on Saturday January 13th in Burbank. The Sailfish Submarine will be more good on the bottom than where it is presently. It is now tied to a dock rotting away like most of the scrap naval fleet. It will not generate sealife where it is now. It will continue to take our tax dollars and the Navy's resources to keep her afloat. I dove the Yukon 3 months after if was sunk as an artificial reef. It was as clean as could be. No toxic leaching, no pcbs..etc.Junk a hunk of metal...
Go dive it toady and you will see a totally different story. Amazing !

http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0857201.jpg see the submarine

 

[Hollywoodivers]

awww dangit,
I tried to show you a pic of the sub but...duh...any way see the link or just google sailfish.

It's big and would be a great artificial reef for Redondo Beach / L.A. Area.