Mailing List Archive

Mailing List: techdiver

Message Display

On Wed, 6 Apr 1994, Carl G Heinzl wrote:

> First, who *other* than wreck divers will ever benefit from these
> ships.  Why does the damn government think that *it* can claim
> whatever is down there for it's own use - this sounds pretty much 
> antithetical to the ideas that founded this government hundreds
> of years ago (I bet they're rolling in their graves so much these 
> days they look like spinning tops!).

Carl --

I begin to suspect you're one of those naive saltwater-only divers. <g>

The "government" -- often the state, county, or municipal version rather 
than the Federal version -- sets wrecks aside as protected areas *for* the 
wreck divers. Yes, specifically for those people who are able to submerge 
and examine and appreciate the historical and human significance of a 
particular piece of industrial debris. The problem these government 
agencies confront is that of those wreck divers who are scavengers -- er, 
excuse me, "salvagers" -- who would remove objects that characterize 
or enhance the historical and human nature of the wreck.

Some of the most active organizations for getting wrecks designated as 
protected sites are wreck divers! Take, for example, Save Our Ships 
(SOS), a Great Lakes based organization of wreck divers dedicated to 
keeping the ships intact on the bottom so they can be explored, pondered, 
and appreciated. These are guys who routinely dive deeper and longer than 
I ever would on advanced technology that I would never try. (I work with 
too many software engineers to trust the bleeding edge of high tech. <g>) 

> Shipwreck parks - what a euphamism for "government controlled".  Most of
> these ships are sitting down there rusting away and the government acts
> as though it's a piece of gold that's going to be there forever.  In
> the past couple of years that dives have been allowed on the Monitor,
> signifigant deterioration has been noted.  Indeed, divers could have
> been viewing, taking pictures and enjoying this wreck for many years
> but the government in it's infinite stupidity forbode it.  I would like an 
> answer as to why diving *anywhere* should be limited this way (well, a freshly
> downed nuclear vessel would be a different story), but the Monitor
> certainly plays no part in national defense.
> 

Ok, I recognize a Libertarian stance when I see one, and I have no 
problem with it -- the stance, that is. I don't *know* why the original 
restriction on the Monitor was imposed, but I suspect it has long since 
been lost on bureaucratic self-propulsion. If I remember correctly, 
and I think I do, the off-limits rule on the Monitor was imposed 
for the same reasons that SOS works so stridently to preserve 
the shipwrecks of the Great Lakes. There was a real, and IMHO valid, 
concern about salvagers stripping the Monitor -- ruining it for every 
wreck diver with self control who got there too late. 

The ocean is big, very big, and the agencies responsible for regulating 
activities on it and in it are and always will be overstretched. 

It costs a lot of money to make sure nobody takes stuff off or out of 
the Monitor, so there was an understandable (IMHO) reluctance to leave it 
open for one and all once it was found. (The agencies responsible for 
protecting the aquatic world are perpetually short on money, which makes 
them appear incompetent at best and apathetic at worst.)

And now I will quote you one more time:

"Sorry for the long post."

John H-C 

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]