Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Hi Aldo- Please allow me to address your comments: >You miss the main point: many of the "technical divers" are wreck >gutters and cultural heritage killers. Cultural heritage killers? The recovery, conservation, and display of artifacts recovered from shipwrecks that would otherwise go unknown or undocumented "kills" heritage. I think the converse is applicable here -- many technical divers are not killers, but rather those leading the way for increased attention on shipwrecks, especially those at deeper depths. >some operators make PR for their diving trips showing the >pictures of themselves (or their customers) with the material >they "salvage" or the animals they've killed. It seems now you also take issue with harvesting animals? You find spearfishing or fishing in general offensive? As a self-professed "fisheries biologist" I think you are displaying quite a bit of ignorance here. Perhaps you think you are a "marine biologist" -- there is a world of difference between the two Aldo. >Destruction of cultural heritage is a kind of terrorism which >denies the knowledge of history and the identity to many people. And now it is terrorism? Attitudes such as this is exactly why the issue has been so polarized between archaeologists and divers, and why we find ourselves in this situation. >I hope UNESCO succeeds in its cooperation with governments to >regulate access to both natural and cultural heritage worldwide. I politely disagree. However, I can understand how this opinion can originate from a cyberdiver. Arbitrary prohibitions in the name of "conservation" is not the same as conservative or protective management. >You can still go to your US Parks and see bears, salmons, >millenium trees, fossils, etc. BECAUSE the US Gov had the vision >to create the park service in the late 1800: they saved the good >for the future. And you can also go to some US parks and *not* be able to see some shipwrecks because of the overzealous vision of some individuals. Aldo, I have no problem with proper protection being implemented should it be warranted. However, I think a blanket prohibition on all shipwrecks is a tad excessive. Also, I do not see why most people think this is a black versus white issue. With the tens of thousands of shipwrecks out there that will *never* be documented should some archaeologists be left to their agendas, the benefits that you and others tout in the name of "cultural heritage" will go unrealized. There are also wrecks that have a minimal impact on cultural heritage, though some feel that every (from soup cans to nut shells) submerged object should be treated like the Holy Grail. Regards, Mike (wreck diving terrorist and marine ecologist) Michael C. Barnette Association of Underwater Explorers Because it's there...somewhere...maybe. http://www.mikey.net/aue >From: "Aldo Solari [APS]" <aldo.solari@ho*.se*> >Reply-To: "Aldo Solari [APS]" <aldo.solari@ho*.se*> >To: "Michael Barnette" <aocfishman@ho*.co*>, "techdiver@aquanaut.com" ><techdiver@aquanaut.com> >Subject: Re: UNESCO >Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 22:09:37 +0000 > >You miss the main point: many of the "technical divers" are wreck >gutters and cultural heritage killers. You see it in this forum: >some operators make PR for their diving trips showing the >pictures of themselves (or their customers) with the material >they "salvage" or the animals they've killed. A truly disgusting >practice carried out by ignorant people who dont see beyond their >noses. > >Diving became to be regulated in many places because of the many >abuses: the "take a piece home" philosophy many of you either >practice/d or allowed others to practice (divers, operators, >etc.) is leading to the limitation of basic freedoms for civil >citizens. > >Destruction of cultural heritage is a kind of terrorism which >denies the knowledge of history and the identity to many people. > >I hope UNESCO succeeds in its cooperation with governments to >regulate access to both natural and cultural heritage worldwide. > >You can still go to your US Parks and see bears, salmons, >millenium trees, fossils, etc. BECAUSE the US Gov had the vision >to create the park service in the late 1800: they saved the good >for the future. > >Cheers, > >---- >aldo.solari@ho*.se* (fisheries biologist) >Home page, www.ccbb.ulpgc.es/fish-ecology/solaris >---- > >aocfishman@ho*.co* > >MB> The following is a reply I made to an archaeologist on >MB> another list-serv who apparently does not understand why >MB> divers may be opposed to the UNESCO Convention on Underwater >MB> Cultural Heritage (UCH). For those of you unfamiliar with the >MB> UNESCO Convention on UCH, I strongly suggest you read it. You >MB> can find the .pdf file at: > >MB> http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001232/123278e.pdf > >MB> As you will see, it may have very important repercussions on >MB> technical diving. To date, I have not been worried about the >MB> government regulating technical diving activities. However, >MB> upon reading this Convention and noticing an innocent looking >MB> rule, I saw a potential open door for regulation. This >MB> troubles me greatly. > >MB> Anyway, here is the reply which helps to describe the potential >problems... > > >>So please tell me, what's the big problem? > >MB> I have read the document and, since you asked, here is a list of what >MB> troubles me: > >MB> Rule 28. HUGE issue here that I felt needed to be mentioned first >(from my >MB> perspective). Since they included safety as an issue, this alone could >MB> preclude my diving activities that include mixed gasses and inwater >MB> decompression to depths easily exceeding 200fsw. This really opens the >door >MB> for increased regulation in technical diving by those that have no >MB> background or clue to those activities. They may simply prevent it >"for the >MB> sake of safety." That is not acceptable. > > >MB> Article 2, Item 5. As stated earlier "in situ" preservation is not an >MB> effective management measure if, as stated in Item 3, your objectives >are to >MB> conserve UCH for the "benefit of humanity." > >MB> Article 2, Item 10. You are correct there is a provision to encourage >MB> non-intrusive access, however the final words are what is troubling. >Who >MB> decides when non-intrusive access becomes incompatible with UCH >protection >MB> and management? Call me a pessimist, but I have a feeling that in some > >MB> (many) instances, prohibiting all access may be easier for managers >than >MB> having to monitor diving activity. This has already happened in >National >MB> Parks and elsewhere. *THAT* is what troubles me and fellow divers. > >MB> Article 5. Potential repercussions from fishermen. Do they even know >about >MB> this document??? I have witnessed how the prohibition of one group >(e.g., >MB> fishermen, due to incidental damage to UCH) will impact other >activities due >MB> to political pressure and perceived equity issues amongst user groups. >When >MB> fishermen were recently prohibited from a marine protected area, they >saw >MB> that their inclusion was not possible so they went after divers. Even >MB> though the impacts of non-consumptive divers were negligible, they were >MB> prohibited to appease the other user groups. So, while there are >statements >MB> that encourages access on UCH (Article 2, item 10), the document also >leaves >MB> an "escape clause" that can be utilized by other user groups that can >easily >MB> prevent access. > >MB> Article 9, Item 1. I enjoy researching, diving, and documenting new >MB> shipwrecks as I see fit. I don't want to have to be faced with red >tape and >MB> bureacracy. > >MB> Article 10, Items 2, 3, 4. I question who will be making these >decisions >MB> and their rationale. > >MB> Article 11, Item 1. Same as Article 9, Item 1. > >MB> Article 12, Item 1. My diving activities are exclusively (with minor >MB> exceptions) directed at deepwater wreck sites from 200-400+fsw. Many >times >MB> we have no idea what we are diving on and will be the first to document >the >MB> site. It is possible that these activities may be preceived to run >counter >MB> to this Convention and, at best, I may get static and be hassled, and >at >MB> worst, my diving activities may be prohibited. > >MB> Article 18, Item 1. The artifact police. This item does not indicate >MB> whether or not the artifacts collected before the implementation of >thic >MB> Convention is included. I do not like the potential open-endedness of >this >MB> Item. > >MB> Article 18, Item 4. It is hard enough to get access to view and >photograph >MB> artifacts (you know, for the "public benefit") recovered by >archaelogists >MB> (in some instances). This reminds me of the last scene from "Raiders >of the >MB> Lost Ark" > >MB> Annex > >MB> Rule 1. See above. >MB> Rule 6. >MB> Rule 7. See above. >MB> Rules 9-13. >MB> Rules 22-23. > >MB> In short order, I plan to have a link on the main page of the AUE >website >MB> with e-mail addresses so that you can contact those (U.S. >representatives) >MB> involved with the UNESCO Convention to urge them not to ratify this >treaty. >MB> Please check the AUE website Monday morning. > >MB> Regards, >MB> Mike > >MB> Michael C. Barnette >MB> Association of Underwater Explorers >MB> Because it's there...somewhere...maybe. >MB> http://www.mikey.net/aue > > > > >MB> _________________________________________________________________ >MB> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at >http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > >MB> -- >MB> Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. >MB> Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to >`techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'. > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp -- 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]