Question Why was the Oriskany NOT sunk off of Key Largo?

[Rob9876]

My memory (17 years ago!) is that you could have stayed at 130 and above and easily done/seen the flight deck...just with not much bottom time. For shallower/longer rec dives there was plenty to see higher up on the island.

You're right. I was there in 2022 and (while it would have been cool to touch down on the flight deck) there was actually plenty to see within recreational limits. The viz was great where I could see clearly see the flight deck and that I really wasn't missing anything on the flight deck itself - it really wasn't encrusted with corals, sponges, etc. like the more shallow parts of the carrier are. Deepest I went was 122 feet but could see the flight deck clearly probably from at least 100 feet or shallower.

 

[tursiops]

You're right. I was there in 2022 and (while it would have been cool to touch down on the flight deck) there was actually plenty to see within recreational limits, and the viz was great where I could see clearly see the flight deck and that I really wasn't missing anything on the flight deck itself - it really wasn't encrusted with corals, sponges, etc. like the more shallow parts of the carrier are. Deepest I went was 122 feet but could see the flight deck clearly probably from at least 100 feet or shallower.

Coolest thing about the flight deck to me was all the empty scallop shells on it left by foraging octopuses.

 

[100days-a-year]

There are a lot of other wrecks and natural bottom there that have hosted private and charter divers for decades. The fisheries are far healthier as well.

 

[Rob9876]

Wrecks are not sunk for divers. Divers are cheap bastards and won’t pay the bazillions it costs to clean a wreck for sinking.

Wrecks are sunk for fishermen. Fishermen want to create habitat in otherwise marine deserts so they can fish.

Follow the money to see why wrecks are placed where they are.

@Wookie your statement caught my attention at the time, and I'm sure that is true to some extent, but I do believe that a number (perhaps hundreds) of reef modules and wrecks have been intentionally placed for divers and/or even snorkelers in the Florida panhandle. Just for example (I know there are more, like the Joe Patti barge) check out some of the sites on the web page below (78 reef modules on the Navarre snorkeling reef alone):

Shore Dive Sites

mbtdivers.com

All of this to say that while you may very well be correct for most places, I do believe the Flordia panhandle has really been making quite an effort to attract us cheap b@st@rd divers and snorkelers.

 

[Wookie]

@Wookie your statement caught my attention at the time, and I'm sure that is true to some extent, but I do believe that a number (perhaps hundreds) of reef modules and wrecks have been intentionally placed for divers and/or even snorkelers in the Florida panhandle. Just for example (I know there are more, like the Joe Patti barge) check out some of the sites on the web page below (78 reef modules on the Navarre snorkeling reef alone):

Shore Dive Sites

mbtdivers.com

All of this to say that while you may very well be correct for most places, I do believe the Flordia panhandle has really been making quite an effort to attract us cheap b@st@rd divers and snorkelers.

While you may be right, see who funds artificial reefs.

Artificial Reefs

Artificial Reefs

myfwc.com

"Through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sport Fish Restoration Program and state’s saltwater fishing license revenues, the FWC Artificial Reef Program provides annual financial grants to local government, nonprofit organizations, and state universities for new reef construction and monitoring. To date, Florida has distributed more than $26,575,000 for artificial reef related activities."

When you look at the total cost of providing artificial reefs as well as artificial reef programs, you will see with just a little digging that every gulf coast state artificial reef program is managed by the state Fish and Wildlife organization, funded in the most part by fishing license revenues.

Federal grants will typically help prepare ships for reefing, but the actual placement of the reef, the site selection, the monitoring, the post deployment monitoring, basically everything except the ship preparation.

The exception to the rule is Texas and Louisiana. Those artificial reef programs are almost exclusively funded by the offshore oil companies, who make "donations" to those state's artificial reef funds to be allowed to dump rigs in state and federal waters offshore.

Divers contribute to the economy, but rest assured, reefs are created for fishermen using funds from fishing licenses.

 

[Belzelbub]

Divers contribute to the economy, but rest assured, reefs are created for fishermen using funds from fishing licenses.

For sure. I totally agree with your comment on divers not being the primary reason. Yes, they do contribute to the economy. Mainly by paying for charters, fuel, fills, gear. But that pales in comparison to the impact of recreational fishermen. Licensing fees, tackle, bait, etc. all dwarf the impact of divers. If only by sheer numbers. While there are quite a few dive shops in my area, that is dwarfed by the number of places that sell hook and line fishing gear and supplies. To get dive gear, I pretty much have to go to one of the dive shops. To get hook and line fishing supplies, I can literally go anywhere. I can find at dedicated tackle stores, marine supply stores, my local Ace Hardware, Walmart, and even grocery stores.

While FWC (via fishing license fees) is not the only contributor to the Artificial reefs, they are certainly one of the largest. I found this economic impact study on the website of my home county's artificial reef program. Just looking at the For-hire breakdown gives a good idea of who is providing the majority of benefit. They broke the For-hire vessels into 4 different categories. Charter/6-pack, Head/Party, Dive, and guide. Of those, only the dive boats catered primarily to divers, and apart from the Head boats (which can carry a LOT of fishers), the dive boats were the lowest by total count.

https://pinellas.wateratlas.usf.edu/upload/documents/Economic-Impacts-Artificial-Reefs-6-SWFla-Counties-2011.pdf

ETA: This is also supported by anecdotal evidence. One of the areas I like to dive is not very far from one of the local artificial reef locations. I often pass by. If there are 10 boats at that reef, no more than 1, sometimes 2 are dive boats.

 

[covediver]

Divers were not the primary reason as I recall but they were a major souce of support for the project. The problem with the Florida panhandle is there is not a lot of hard bottom habitat offshore, a few limestome outcrops as I recall or other artificial reefs like sunken bridge spans. rubble piles, etc. The dive business hoped that putting the Oriskany would spur greater activity especially in tourism.

As far as Key Largo, depth is a factor but I also believe the marine sanctuary takes a dim view of purposely sinking ships as artifical reefs in the sanctuary boundaries. It also seems like sinking ships as a tourist attraction has waned in the last 20 years. Ir was a hot idea at the time.

I recall the enthusiasm generated with the creation of San Diego's wreck alley with the NOSC tower, the Ruby E (which I had a chance to dive shortly after she was placed, and finally the USS Yukon which really was a community effort. I recall speaking with Rick Cassens who ran America (6 pax) and America II (12 pax) hoping that the artificial reefs would make it possible for the smaller boats to do morning and afternoon trips from Mission Bay. It seemed to thrive for a while. The DUI founder, Dick Long, really was a real dedicated advocate for Ships to Reefs programs in Canlifornia. I think it is an idea whose time came and appears to have gone.

Of course, in California it seems like the whole thing about ships to reefs got tangled up in the whole rigs to reef controversy. I did see that a few months ago the government issued an environmental analysis that called for the removal of all rigs off the California coast without reefing.

 

[aue-mike]

A lot of misinformation and blatantly wrong statements made in this thread.
There were criteria established by USN and MARAD for potential disposal of the ex-ORISKANY and they solicited proposals from any interested coastal states. A state could only present one site proposal with supporting narrative based on their criteria. Ultimately, USN/MARAD received four proposals (TX, MS, FL, GA/SC). In submitting their proposal, the FWC considered several options for various locations around Florida pitched by local groups, but ultimately selected the Panhandle (Pensacola) as it was determined it ticked the most boxes in the USN criteria (particularly the area's association with naval aviation), and gave the best chance for Florida to be awarded the former carrier. South Florida was a close second during the FWC hearings. I don't recall the Keys being in the running due to likely impediments related to FKNMS permitting. FWIW, I was at the FWC hearing and was asked to provide dive-related (primarily safety) feedback; I humorously avoided a direct question regarding placement from one of the commissioners (roughly - he asked if I had a preference for where the carrier should be sunk and I said "yes, Florida" which drew chuckles from the commissioners and attendees, and I was commended for my diplomatic dodge).
Anglers and local groups did not fund this project -- the USN/MARAD funded the remediation, preparation, and tow from Texas. Upon sinking, title of the vessel was transferred to Florida.
Depth was going to be an issue regardless of where it was sited due to the amount of relief and need for minimum required USCG clearance.
Any other questions, ask away...