Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Sullivan read the Heritage Policy Interpretation Bulletin MCC-HPB-001 date June 1, 1992 The interpretation States: 2) Historic or archaeological and scientific value of a wreck A wreck may have heritage value and therefore constitute a heritage wreck if it is associated with historical events, persons or time periods or if it contains information which is of value for archaeological and scientific research. A particular wreck may have heritage value for one of, or any combination of, the following reasons: A. Association with an event of historical interest. This could include broad scale events such as World War II, local or regional history or part of the history of a specific community of people. B. Association with a person of historical interest. C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of vessel construction/technology/use. D. Has yielded or may be likely to yield information to history or archaeological research and science. While it is usually criteria C or D that are primary importance in evaluating a wreck, an example of a wreck in Canadian waters which is considered to be of historical interest using criteria A or B would be the HMS Speedy. This wreck is of historical interest primarily because of its association with the deaths of a large number of prominent people. The Edmund Fitzgerld has heritage value because of its impact on the Great Lakes shipping community and the fact that it has become part of the Great Lakes folklore through a famous Canadian song. This interpetation excludes the fifty year limit of the Heritage Act. The Navy was there in July 3,4 September 1 is 8 weeks later. The silt didn't fall off the bottom of the lake Sullivan. MCTR-HACIPB-004 ---------- > From: Randy Sullivan <sulteck@ic*.ne*> > To: Greg Zambeck <gzambeck@us*.ne*> > Cc: techdiver@aquanaut.com > Subject: Re: Fitz was Re: private > Date: Monday, December 22, 1997 6:12 PM > > Greg, again I have to call you a bonehead. Read the act and my post again. > The law that restricts diving on shipwreck has too deal with UNDISCOVERED > wrecks. The Fitz is a discovered wreck. I'll say this again for the last > time, " NO LAW ON THIS PLANET WAS BROKEN DIVING THE EDMOND FITZGERALD" > > As far as silt on the Fitz there wasn't any. The Canadian Navy subs fanned > the hole wreck to make filming better. They did this only a few weeks > before our dive. > > BTW Nice try to get the Ministry down my back. It didn't work. Had a nice > talk though about you being incompetent and there agreed totally. > > Nobody was paid to do this dive or support the operation and thats for the > record. > > Randy Sullivan > Sault Ste. Marie, Ont > sulteck@ic*.ne* > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Zambeck <gzambeck@us*.ne*> > To: Randy Sullivan <sulteck@ic*.ne*>; Paltz, Art <Art.Paltz@R2*.CO*> > Cc: techdiver@aquanaut.com <techdiver@aquanaut.com> > Date: Monday, December 22, 1997 4:52 PM > Subject: Re: Fitz was Re: private > > > >The Heritage Act state that no silt shall be disturbed on the wreck or the > >adjacent bottom lands. > > > >The Ministry of Culture Tourism and Recreation didn't buy your story about > >not anchoring on the wreck and just using your loran. When Tysall jumped > >on the bottom and Zee video taped it to show everyone Sullivan that was a > >direct violation. Tysall and the support diver were being paid to make the > >dive, were was their work permit Sullivan. > > > >Sullivan the list goes on. > >---------- > >> From: Randy Sullivan <sulteck@ic*.ne*> > >> To: Paltz, Art <Art.Paltz@R2*.CO*> > >> Cc: techdiver@aquanaut.com > >> Subject: Fitz was Re: private > >> Date: Thursday, December 18, 1997 5:01 PM > >> > >> Almost all shipwrecks in Lake Superior, or anywhere for that matter, have > >> had death associated with them. Therefore by default the shipwreck is > >the > >> mark of the grave. What makes deep fresh water grave sites different is > >> that the bodies don't decay or get eaten as they would in a marine > >> environment. The bodies of sailors that died 50+ years would still > >> recognizable. These bodies are in a refrigerator at 38*f with very > >little > >> dissolved O2. The bacteria in the stomach that would normally float the > >> body can't, because of temp., produce any gas.(Ever heard of a lake that > >> doesn't give up it's dead. This is why). Knowing this, there have been > >> family members of the crew of the Fitz try to get laws passed to prevent > >> scuba diving on the Fitz. They are concerned that and I quote "We don't > >> want divers going through the pockets of our relatives". > >> > >> The laws concerning shipwrecks and salvage of same, date back a long time > >> ago(Help me out shipwreck buffs). The long and short of them are they > >were > >> written to encourage other ships to help ships in distress. The "Helper" > >or > >> the salvager has claim to the ship until the salvage is paid. These > >salvage > >> / shipwreck laws are international and would take the cooperation, in > >this > >> case, of both the Canadian and US governments to change them. On top of > >> that, Ontario and Michigan have laws concerning the Great Lakes bottom > >land. > >> Both federal governments deal with the Great Lakes as international > >waters > >> where as Ont. and MI governments believe that they own every thing on the > >> bottom of the lakes. Everyone see where I'm going with this. It is not > >a > >> simple task to make an amendment any maritime law without one level of > >> government some where getting their nose bent out of shape. And to this > >I > >> add, if an amendment were to take place for this particular wreck, this > >> would put all wreck diving in jeopardy. Once this kind of law is in > >place, > >> just think about all the reasons that the government could be coerced > >into > >> closing any wreck site they wanted and for any reason they wanted. > >> > >> As far as the Fitz wreck, the site is in Canadian / Ontario waters. The > >> owner is now the insurance company that paid the claim of the tragedy. > >> Technically I can go and raise the Fitz and charge the insurance company > >for > >> the salvage because it is polluting the bottom of the lake ;-). They > >> wouldn't pay, so then I would own the ship. This is by federal law that > >I > >> could do this. Now comes the Ontario government in with their laws. > >They > >> say that you can't touch anything on the bottom and that include the > >> sediment on a shipwreck because they own it. These laws are mainly for > >> undiscovered wrecks but they do have some merit concerning discovered > >> wrecks. > >> > >> So now the media gets into the picture. The media, after a story, sees > >the > >> grieving family members of the Fitz crew and starts stating that the > >wreck > >> is off limits because they, the relatives, want it that way. Bad news > >> stories sell more papers than "First to Scuba the Fitz". Then you get > >bone > >> heads like Zambeck adding to all of the published inaccuracies and you > >see > >> what you get. > >> > >> The Fitz lays in 535'. The Pilot house spikes at 450'. The first and > >only > >> scuba dive to this wreck was on Sept. 1, 1995 > >> > >> Randy Sullivan > >> Sault Ste. Marie, Ont > >> sulteck@ic*.ne* > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Paltz, Art <Art.Paltz@R2*.CO*> > >> To: Randy Sullivan <sulteck@ic*.ne*>; Greg Zambeck <gzambeck@us*.ne*> > >> Cc: techdiver@aquanaut.com <techdiver@aquanaut.com> > >> Date: Thursday, December 18, 1997 9:20 AM > >> Subject: RE: private > >> > >> > >> > NOT FLAMING ANYONE HERE!!!! I'm looking to clarify information > >> >I thought was correct. About a year ago I was watching a special on the > >> >Discovery Channel, may still have the tape. One night was devoted to > >> >the Edmond Fitzgerald. I thought the wreck lied in about 300' of water. > >> >In the special I also thought they said it was considered a water grave > >> >and sport divers weren't allowed to dive on it? Again I'm not saying > >> >anyone is wrong here, just want to clarify information and > >> >misinformation. > >> > > >> > Thanks way in advance, > >> >Safe diving, > >> >Art. > >> >art.paltz@r2*.co* > >> >Last Dive 12/13/97, Mohawk, NJ 70ft/50 min bottom time, 48 degrees F, > >> >28% bottom mix > >> > -- Finally, cold water again! > >> > > >> > > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: Randy Sullivan > >> > Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 1997 9:37 PM > >> > To: Greg Zambeck > >> > Cc: techdiver@aquanaut.com > >> > Subject: Re: private > >> > > >> > Here is just one more example of your total lack of knowledge on > >> >anything. > >> > There were NO laws broken on either side of the border diving > >> >the "Edmond > >> > Fitzgerald"(526'). You were planning to the Fitz the year > >> >before. The > >> > problem with you doing the Fitz dive is that is located deeper > >> >that 30'. > >> > You're just mad because you weren't the first to do the dive. > >> > > >> > Published misinformation about the laws concerning the Fitz is > >> >amazing. I > >> > would like to see a law that prevent stupid people, like you, > >> >from posting > >> > to this list because you would be at the top of that list. > >> > > >> > BTW I would like a copy of the so called laws that we broke so > >> >that I can > >> > light the sauna with it for my ice dive on the Sagamore. > >> > > >> > Randy Sullivan > >> > Sault Ste. Marie, Ont > >> > sulteck@ic*.ne* > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: Greg Zambeck <gzambeck@us*.ne*> > >> > To: gmirvine@sa*.ne* <gmirvine@sa*.ne*> > >> > Cc: Techdiver Mail list <techdiver@aquanaut.com>; Caver Maillist > >> > <cavers@ww*.ge*.co*> > >> > Date: Wednesday, December 17, 1997 7:48 PM > >> > Subject: Re: private > >> > > >> > > >> > > Why you even thought to try your Fitz story was a mistake. I > >> >objected to > >> > >the dive because of what Zee was planning to do. He was given > >> >copies of > >> > >the laws and went ahead and broke laws on both side of the > >> >border. The > >> > >information was all over the magazines and papers. > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to > >> >`techdiver@aquanaut.com'. > >> > Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to > >> >`techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'. > >> > > >> > >> -- > >> Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. > >> Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'. > > > -- Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]