Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
---------- From: Mullins, Robert To: owner-techdiver Subject: RE: Wreck Laws - all bad?? Date: Wednesday, March 15, 1995 4:03PM -From: "Broadwater, J." <jbroadwater@oc*.no*.no*.go*> WHOA!! I've been reading all the comments and *WARNINGS* and *ALERTS* and *WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN* on techdiver about nasty, totally unwarranted laws to protect shipwrecks. There was all the old stuff about "most wrecks aren't important," and "besides, they'll all be destroyed by the *ANGRY [CORROSIVE] SEA* real soon if we don't all go rip 'em up right away." There were the protests of "renewed bureaucratic efforts to yank away our last vestiges of *INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS*," etc. Apparently, it's all the result of the United Nations plan: "Buenos Aires Draft Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage." Okay, most of us are opposed to too much interference by government, but doesn't anyone on techdiver think some shipwrecks should be preserved? Sure, SOME wrecks in some very well defined circumstances for some very well defined reasons..... Doesn't anyone believe that by protecting historic shipwrecks the government is actually preserving the rights of those divers--now and in the future--who want to enjoy seeing the wrecks as they now are? Since when is it the government's job to protect the rights of divers to see any wrecks at all? I just don't follow this line of reasoning....We're talking about scrap metal and wood here, these are wrecks that have not been claimed by their owners as not worth the time, expense, trouble, etc... Were it not for the fact that they are at the bottom of a lake, ocean, or whatever, and therefore out of sight and out of mind, they would have been cleaned up as garbage a long time ago. Anywhere else they'd be considered an eyesore. Maybe we should also preserve some of the really neat train or plane wrecks for the benefit of future scholars. Doesn't anyone liken shipwreck preserves to national parks or marine sanctuaries that protect representative examples of things that make our lives richer and more meaningful? I recognize the value of preserving, in a limited way, specific sites that allow people to remember historic events and honor personal sacrifices, such as the Pearl Harbor attack, and similar memorials, but not for their value as the objects of future archaeologists' curiosity. To some extent, this is a matter of archaeologists creating a "raison d'etre." And . . . come on now . . . do wreck divers really think that a few shipwreck preserves will leave you with "no place to dive"?!? As you correctly point out, much of the discussion is based on second hand info, and there may well be some hyperbole involved.....That's nothing new on either side of the discussion. But the fact is that many states, and Maryland is one, have strict laws against taking "artifacts" aka junk, from sites that few peple will ever see, and the only ones who really benefit are the archaeologists who are employed to find and "protect" these sites. To echo the sentiments expressed in another post, is there no limit to what we can/need to learn about the last 200 years, in which many, if not most of these wrecks occurred? We seem to be pursuing these things in a mindless way, never questioning the benefit or value, seemingly convinced that government protection is the answer. I'm ready to discuss any issue with any body, but I HATE illogical, emotionally-charged B.S.! (Can I say B.S. on the net??) You can say that and a lot more until the government gets involved ;-) Please, folks, don't oppose preservation laws without looking at them fairly and objectively. OK, but as I stated earlier, I think the burden of fairness and objectivity rests with those who advocate the laws....show the benefit....and the cost......and be realistic. As an archaeologist, I don't try to save everything that's connected with the human race, unfortunately, that approach doesn't seem to be shared by many of your colleagues. and, by the same token, I'm hoping that most people don't want to destroy all evidence of our past. not at all.... How about somebody (is there a suitable spokesperson?) stating the issues as follows: (1) the ACTUAL wording of the offending proposed legislation (too often, we only get someone's interpretation, not the real facts), sounds good to me (2) the major objections from the dive community and (3) the suggested alternative approach to the problem. I'll be happy to discuss these issues, and I know there are others who will do the same. Thanks. John D. Broadwater MONITOR Nat. Marine Sanctuary Bldg. 1519, Ft. Eustis, VA 23604 804-878-2973 (fax 878-4619) jbroadwater@oc*.no*.no*.go* -- Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@opal.com'. Send subscription/archive requests to `techdiver-request@opal.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]