Hello Aldo:

The problem with this document is that it is too vague and open ended.  Your
analogy to the park service is invalid because the parks are both clearly
defined AND maintained by the Park Service.  Such is not the case here.

If government wishes to identify specific sites, declare them sanctuaries
and do the necessary work to preserve them, (IE: The Monitor), AND allow
public access, I don't think many of us would take issue with it.  The
problem is that they are simply saying that they control and rule over all
of it and have no program to identify or preserve any of it.  Thus, a
rotting pile of ballast rock that has been dived for 20 years by commercial
dive boats would be potentially off limits because it is over 100 years old
even though it is of zero archaeological value.

I also take issue with them involving themselves in safety matters.  A few
short years ago Nitrox and Trimix were voodoo gases and the depth of the
Monitor was used as a reason to deny divers permits to dive on it.  Tell me
it is a piece of our history and needs to be protected and I agree.  But
don't tell me it's too deep or unsafe.

Most of that which is worthy of preservation is not readily accessable to
the average diver.  (Here in the US at least.)  It is typically too deep,
far out of the way and difficult diving.  Those that have developed the
skills to do these dives have also developed a love and respect for the
environment and would never "pillage" something of apparent archaeological
value.  It is far more rewarding to properly identify and document it.  On
the other hand, I see no harm in a diver taking a porthole off a ship that
is one of hundreds, of no historic value and is essentially just another
large chunk of submerged pollution off our coasts.

These matters should be dealt with on a local basis (IE: Truk Lagoon and
Scapa Flow are clearly places where one should take nothing but photos.)
However, denying access to that which is yet undiscovered is not only absurd
but an an infringement on my liberties.

I also seriously question the motives of those promoting this.  Many
governments have figured out that with the advancements in diving
technologies, ROV's, submersables and sidescan, there are potential fortunes
sitting on the ocean floor and they want to lay claim to it.  The irony in
it is that purists such as yourself see this as a way to protect a resource
when in reality, what will most probably happen is that anything discovered
by the "pillagers" you refered to will either go underground or get melted
down.

Regards.

Joe Citelli





----- Original Message -----
From: Aldo Solari [APS] <aldo.solari@ho*.se*>
To: Michael Barnette <aocfishman@ho*.co*>; <techdiver@aquanaut.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: UNESCO


> 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'.
>
>
> --
> 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]