Posted by Garry Kozak on December 19, 1999 at 16:07:16:
Dear Mr. Gilchrist
My first reaction to your e-mail, was to respond to you on a point-by-point basis, tit -for-tat. However I will not.
You have placed, in interpreting my posting (letter), a lot of new words into my vocabulary , " WRECK-STRIPPER, WORTHLESS, SELF-SERVING, WORTHLESS HULKS, Etc." That is the great thing about FREEDOM OF SPEECH, it gives us the right to express our views, and as you have alredy sensed, I am a strong believer in FREEDOM.
As far as my personal PAST, I for one, have NEVER DENIED what I have done, right or wrong. You may find it hard to believe that along with freedom, I value TRUTH.
Concerning the collective dive community and BILL 13, it is ultimately in their hands, and I will accept their decision, what ever it may be. However, for them to make that decision, they should be allowed to hear all sides, INCLUDING MINE. I have posted your letter along with mine so the dive community may see your views as well. It is continuing dialog and the voicing of everyones view which will allow the majority to come to a consensus.
Best Regards
Garry Kozak
From: David Gilchrist ivak@vaxxine.com
To: gkozak
Mr Kozak,
Read your recent letter regarding shipwreck diving in the Great Lakes and
Bill 13. I agree that there are some concerns. I feel, however, that
there might be some who read your letter that come away with the impression
that the only FREEDOM that you are truly interested in is the freedom for
wreckstrippers to polish the brass on the artifacts they've collected
after finding the wrecks. ( Anyone been able to see the bell from the
'Carlingford' on a dive at the site). In the same letter you suggest that
we should pity the wreck-stripper who ,in a weak moment, picked up " a
small goodie" and ended up in jail. Who is self serving here? This same
so-called FREEDOM led divers from a Californian company to illegally enter
Canadian waters and raid the wreck of the 'Atlantic' off Long Point,
several years ago. It's this kind of action that has prompted Bill 13. MY
TAX DOLLARS WERE SPENT TO FIGHT THOSE CRIMINALS IN COURT.
What was especially annoying however, was your description of our Great
Lakes heritage as being worthless because it's only " 200 years" old.
Well sorry, Mr Kozac, it may not be old by world standards but it's all
we've got. If we apply your same logic the Declaration of Independance
would probably be a useless document, Civil War Battle Fields and sites
from the War of 1812 would be equally insignificant. Hey, Custer's Last
Stand wasn't that long ago. What's the problem with digging up a few
artifacts? Your suggestions that we go to a library if we want to find all
we want about Great Lakes Shipwrecks is a gross over-simplification. What
is equally disturbing is that some in the dive community might actually
believe you.
And then , there was the criticizm of all the people out there who "pursue
their pet projects". Well I'd like to congratulate people like Joyce
Hayward, David Trotter, Brendon Baillod ,Art Amos, Stan McClellan, Dan
Nelson, Jack Messmer, Rick Neilson, Jim Garrington, Dan Lindsay, John
Veber, Chuck and Jeri Feltner, Barb and Ian Marshall, the Niagara Diver's
Association and, yes the members of many small groups and organizations
on both sides of the border, and all the other so-called "do-gooders" who
spend countless hours and their own money ,sometimes assisted by grant
money to locate, document and research these "worthless hulks" that lie all
over the bottom of the Great Lakes. What an incredible waste of time, eh?
SORRY, NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE. NO SCAM HERE. These people deserve
the credibility they have achieved. Many of these people who have spent so
much time doing legitimate work to research, locate and document these
wrecks, can be TRULY credited with assisting the dive industry, shops, and
charter operations blossom as the sites open up to divers. The sites are
often well marked and properly buoyed by volunteers. Underwater Preserves
for the GENERAL diving PUBLIC have sprung up throughout the lakes.
Sometimes my TAX DOLLARS SUPPORT THESE ACTIVITIES.
WHAT EXACTLY HAVE WRECK STRIPPERS DONE FOR THE DIVE COMMUNITY?
A lot of us had an admiration, perhaps in retrospect a bit misguided, for
the dedication you seemed to exhibit in your search for the 'Dean
Richmond'. We readily admit that you were the first to locate a fair amount
of these wrecks ,but besides trying to salvage the cargo of the Dean
Richmond, what else have you really contributed to Great Lake Marine
History? Now, don't get me wrong I respect your long-standing expertise
with the use of Side Scan technology to locate sunken objects. But I think
when we are all gone, it won't be the finder of a particular wreck that
will be really remembered, it will be the ordinary joe, who out of a
respect for a cultural resource makes an effort for people to appreciate
the site and endeavours to preserve it for future generations.( NO ONE CAN
BE A LOSER HERE)
I too am concerned about the implications of Bill 13 and will attempt to
learn more about it's impact. If it limits diving activities, I will be
most concerned; if it assists in the protection of our resources, I will be
most supportive. I will continue to support the work of the so-called
"dedicated wreck-HUNTERS" who from a deep seated passion to locate,
research and document wreck sites add to our knowledge of these cultural
treasures. I will support their work to complete archaeological studies in
co-operation with government agencies, produce videos and give
presentations on their findings. I will work to produce a Bill that will
provide a balance between access and preservation.
Regards,
David Gilchrist
Niagara-on-the-Lake
http://www.vaxxine.com/ivakweb
http://www.vaxxine.com/navyhallarchaeology
Technical Diver Discussion Group Home Page: Archive: Message #1099 >I respect your views concerning my posting (attached below), but I am Fair enough - I value your views and will do my best to keep them in mind as >Of course it would not be SOS that administers and INTERPRETS the law. It Don't know - would the Tech Diver discussion list give him a chance, or a >In the end, what ever the outcome in Ontario is, it will have no direct I agree - _most_ of them do and are. I hope I haven't given the impression If you read many of the postings over the past 10 days or so, there are many >Times have changed, its true that years ago when I and virtually all other You are quite right - the dive industry has indeed come a long way. I'd >...Of course, if I was swimming across a deck of an old ship and I saw a Sure would - as would finding a gold pocket watch inside a new wreck. I've Have fun diving! Sure hope to - btw - If you're ever up in the St. Lawrence, give me a call. Regards Garry Kozak To: Attn: Tim Legate I respect your views concerning my posting (attached below), but I am steadfast in my beliefs and observations. Of course it would not be SOS that administers and INTERPRETS the law. It would fall into the hands of people like Mr. Peter Englebert and his associates. Do you know this man, his beliefs, his territorial mentality? This man has personally demonstrated to me where he is coming from and if you know him, it should SCARE you too. He is a power and control freak and use's intimidation and threats to try to scare wreck divers from pursuing their love and passion. This would be abuse of power to the max. I sure would like to see him address my posting as well as others concerning this debate. Why is he so quite? In the end, what ever the outcome in Ontario is, it will have no direct effect on me. It just makes me sad to see the further erosion of basic FREEDOM and it is a shame that special interest groups try to rule and regulate the "general public" because they are viewed as unknowledgeable, unskilled, and that they must be protected from themselves. Since you have stated in your response to me that this is fact, I would think that EDUCATION would be a far better alternative than REGULATION. It is this almost cultist mentality that has spawned tragedy with issues like "ABORTION", the continual fight against "GUN" ownership and so on, people trying to force their philosophical ideology onto others. I guess I have more faith in the "general public" and believe most of them are intelligent enough to make responsible decisions. Times have changed, its true that years ago when I and virtually all other divers, went on wrecks, it was to collect GOODIES. It has been a long time since I have done that, and I have seen a dramatic shift in the attitudes of to-days divers (most) to leave artifacts right where they find them. Of course, if I was swimming across a deck of an old ship and I saw a GOLD BAR, I am sure my ethics would be put to the test, but I am positive yours would be to, if your man enough to admit it. Have fun diving! Regards Garry Kozak Ref: BILL13 & Wreck Access I have been following with interest at Do I want to restrict your democratic freedom? Yeah, I guess I do. Never I disagree, depending on what you mean by FREEDOM in this context. If you I agree completely. However, if complete access by the general public would Perhaps not, but we would all benefit from increased and targeted study of Be careful here - sport wreck divers who want free and unlimited access with In the best of all possible worlds, we wouldn't need to subject ourselves to Don't know the answer to this one - first, because I don't know the details, What's wrong with this picture, is that from where I sit, it seems a bit I do hope you are right - I want to see the Province put up $ to establish This is not our goal at all - see our response to bill 13 - but again, the Alas, I fear you are probably right with respect to effectiveness only on Tell me - when have you dedicated wreck hunters been pro-active about giving For those divers who live and dive in Ontario waters, I only hope you Please help us to get it right the first time.
Date: Dec 18 1999 08:49:01 EST
From: "Tim Legate"
Subject: Education vs enforcement
steadfast in my beliefs and observations.
we go forward. This is still very much an issue in progress.
would fall into the hands of people like Mr. Peter Englebert and his
associates. Do you know this man, his beliefs, his territorial mentality?
This man has personally demonstrated to me where he is coming from and if
you know him, it should SCARE you too. He is a power and control freak and
use's intimidation and threats to try to scare wreck divers from pursuing
their love and passion. This would be abuse of power to the max. I sure
would like to see him address my posting as well as others concerning this
debate. Why is he so quiet?
fair hearing? While I'm one of the most even tempered people around, but
others are not. Few people like to stick their heads up for people to throw
stuff at.
effect on me. It just makes me sad to see the further erosion of basic
FREEDOM and it is a shame that special interest groups try to rule and
regulate the "general public" because they are viewed as unknowledgeable,
unskilled, and that they must be protected from themselves. Since you have
stated in your response to me that this is fact, I would think that
EDUCATION would be a far better alternative than REGULATION. It is this
almost cultist mentality that has spawned tragedy with issues like
"ABORTION", the continual fight against "GUN" ownership and so on, people
trying to force their philosophical ideology onto others. I guess I have
more faith than you in the "general public" and believe most of them are
intelligent enough to make responsible decisions.
that I have no faith in the general public. I agree whole heartedly that
education is the better alternative. I would even agree that this is one of
the main raison d'etre's for SOS, and that we have done nowhere near enough
in this area over the past few years. One of the priorities we have
identified for the comming year is to add an Education position to our
Executive and develop training materials and work closely with Local
Chapters and dive training agencies to improve this area. Scuba courses in
Ontario often focus more on diving on reefs and in the ocean than they do on
how to dive on wrecks with minimal disturbance.
stories about small groups of divers consciously or inadvertantly damaging
or ripping off sites, coupled with a tone of frustration over the lack of
action by authorities. I'm trying to find a way to give the tools to the
authorities to do the job, while limiting that job to in such a way that it
has minimal negative impact on the vast majority of the diving public who
are responsible. That's why I advocate the 108 degree shift from bill 13's
position of protection of all wrecks, to a position of protection of the 2%
or so of very significant wrecks, and promotion of safer access to the rest.
divers, went on wrecks, it was to collect GOODIES. It has been a long time
since I have done that, and I have seen a dramatic shift in the attitudes of
to-days divers (most) to leave artifacts right where they find them....
like to think that groups like POW, SOS, OMHC and others have had a
significant part in that change. Not the least of the others would be
Peter. When I was previously heavily involved in SOS he and Phil Wright had
a tremendous influence across the Province in raising the level of awareness
and promoting the change in ethics. He pushed the envelope with respect to
involving avocationals in underwater archaeology at a time when his
discipline was very much into the bubble gum syndrome of keeping all
archaeology to the professionals only, and continues to work hard at this.
He is giving a paper on the benefits of involving people like you and I in
the discipline at the Society for Historic Archaeology at Quebec City in
January.
GOLD BAR, I am sure my ethics would be put to
the test, but I am positive yours would be to, if your man enough to admit
it.
always thanked goodness we don't have the gold bullion problem to contend
with up here. That's a whole other can of sea snakes.
Have you been on the J. B. King, Jodrey, or Oconto?
Cc: "DTROTTER1@aol.com, ggentile@delphi.com, joycehayward@cros.net, MHoward@cambridgeoh.com, bottomtime@sympatico.ca, kmonk@julian.uwo.ca, jjhop@sympatico.ca, gway@canada.com, rjequip@mnsi.net, broy@mnsi.net, MSpears@mail.ford.com, Flyinbye2@aol.com, Kennyl@mail.tds.net, jmak@i-is.com, Duncan@centuryinter.net, mnalepa@mediaone.com, Diver@tir.com, Shipwrecked@novagate.com"
Subject: Response
David - Nice to hear from you by e-mail - trust you and yours are well.
Thanks very much for forwarding Gary's posting. As one of those special
interest groups, SOS would appreciate the group's consideration of my
comments.
http://www.listbot.com/cgi-bin/subscriber?Act=view_archive&list_id=doppler
http://www.baillod.com/wwwboard.html the on-going soap opera
concerning Ontario’s Bill 13 and shipwreck >access. On one hand it is
comical, but on the other, it is very disturbing to see the very real
possibility that some clever >special interest groups may succeed in
restricting (at least on paper) one of the most important rights of a
democracy – >FREEDOM.
really thought about it that way. That's what rules for responsible conduct
do. Any society sets down rules that define acceptable conduct for itself
based on what it sees as important. We select our leaders and task them
with making those choices and evaluations - never an easy choice.
-----
> They place more value on the misguided view that an old rotting hull
lying on the lake floor is more valuable and important >for mankind than the
basic right of FREEDOM.
mean the freedom to dynamite that old rotting hull apart, or drag your
anchor through it to tear it up? I guess I'd like to think that you'd have
to demonstrate why you should be allowed to destroy that hull before being
allowed to do so. Would I oppose that destruction? Depends. If it was the
hull of the Monitor? Hamilton? Scourge? definitely! If it had less
perceived value to the community at large? Less vigorously. Our efforts are
not directed at limiting responsible access. Rather beginning to define
what responsible access should be, and then targeting the meagre government
resources at the appropriate level at the appropriate sites.
----
>It is true that some shipwrecks are historically significant, and that
these should be protected for all mankind. However if this >protection means
complete denial of access by the general public, what’s the point, you are
restricting to the very public you >claim to be protecting these for. Few of
these historically important types of wrecks lay on the bottom of the Great
Lakes.
trash the wreck because the general public does not have the knowledge and
skills to access the wreck without significant damage, then how can anyone
advocate complete access by the general public to all wrecks? Again, I
stress that this Bill 13 will provide an opportunity to build a framework
for defining the access criteria that would be appropriate. I see this as a
good thing.
-----
>Most shipwrecks in the Great Lakes are less than 200 years old, which is
not old by shipwreck standards, and their >construction and history details
are for the most part well documented. Just visit a library sometime and see
the wealth of >documentation available on Great Lakes ship construction and
history. Nothing truly revolutionary to be discovered or >learned here from
most of the wrecks.
wrecks. It would help with identification, dating and so forth. Most gross
hull surveys would in no way need limited access by the general public.
(Provided anchor damage can be mitigated.) That's not what this is about.
Proper and full underwater archaeological assessments such as that by Parks
Canada in Labrador provide reams of information to the record of our marine
past. That assessment destroyed a large part of the wreck site. This type
of activity is not only very expensive, it is not appropriate for the vast
majority of sites. Again, the key is to make reasonable and common sense
choices based on a defined set of values established by the community as a
whole, and not just a special interest group - be it divers in general, or
SOS, or archaeologists. It's got to be a collaborative effort.
-------
>I have been involved with shipwrecks for over 38 years and have watched as
various >legislation has been passed for the >protection of wrecks. I have
observed these special interest groups who lobby to get these laws passed
and I recognized >early that they were really not as concerned with the
protection and making accessible (usually the opposite) of these site’s >for
the general public, as they were with meeting the goals of their own special
hidden agenda’s.
no responsibility strings attached, nor liability for damage done by their
activities (and here I'm _not_ pointing a finger at _anyone_ in particular)
are IMHO every bit as much a special interest group as those who seek to
preserve them.
----
> What kind of agenda’s? For Provincial or State archaeology and historical
agencies it means more justification for their >being, it means more funding
to expand their little government kingdom, but even more it gives those
people in these >positions more power. They thrive on power, just sit back
and observe them sometime. With power comes the potential for >abuse.
this kind of thing. It comes down to the lessor of the two evils. We must
be careful about allocating that power and then restricting the freedom of
its' use.
----
I have seen one case where a local diver made a bad judgement call and took
home a small "goodie" from a local >wreck, and ended up in jail with a huge
fine. The local drug dealer received far less for peddling drugs than the
diver. The >divers personal home life and job was nearly destroyed because
of the excessive action taken to quote "make him an >example". All this for
what was no more than a piece of junk. Where was the logic for the penalty
to match the size of the crime.
but more so that the entire justice system never seems to be able to have
any consistent application - go figure - that's well above and beyond my
ken.
----
The securing of provincial or state funds grants for non-profit
organizations such as S.O.S. to pursue their own pet projects. This gives
these few select members a Carte Blanche license to secure a wreck site via
licensing for their own personal use under the guise of
archeology/preservation. The irony is they get the thrills of diving and
exploring these wreck sites and the costs for their personal enjoyment and
satisfaction doing this are paid by YOUR TAX DOLLAR, from these grants.
What a scam, convince everybody that you are pure and doing this for the
good of mankind, get your way paid doing it and with an exclusive license
that restricts the every day Joe (Jane to)(who by the way PAYS his/her own
way) from enjoying the same things. WHATS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE.
fuzzy. First off, the money that SOS, or for that matter, the entire
resource management system, gets from the Government every year is a
pittance compared to what the nature, quality and extent of the resource
deserves. (IMHO) Secondly, I have never yet seen any archaeological
licence given to any avocational group grant exclusive access. (I'm not
saying it's never happened, but in 18 years around the Ontario marine
heritage community, I've never heard of one. If you have details, or any
examples please let me know - I'd be interested). In the early days, we
used to get about $1,500 to $2,000 from the Ontario Heritage Foundation to
fund basic project expenses. With around 1500 dives per project, all paid
for with the possible exception of free air, and maybe a bit of gas money
for use of boats, this hardly qualifies for the term scam. The larger
grants in recent years seem to have been centred around side scan surveys
designed to open up areas for diving tourism. Erie Quest came out of such
an initiative.
-----
The divers who will be affected most will be the general hobby diver who
wants to book a charter to a known wreck dive site. It will affect those
diving charter business’s who rely on access to these wreck sites to make
their living.
and maintain moorings for use by divers at the majority of known wreck
sites, and am lobbying hard with the Province in this area. I've seen too
many quite pleasant dive sites absolutely trashed by anchor damage by small
individual boats and charter operators alike using inappropriate anchor
procedures on wrecks. You guys know how to do it. I'll bet you throw a
float into the wreck and anchor off it. The general diving public isn't at
that level. SOS also wants to get an educational program afloat whereby
proper wreck diving procedures are incorporated into general scuba training.
We want to improve access, while reducing damage. Help and knowledge by you
people, the most experienced around would be a valuable asset, and I solicit
your support for these types of initiatives.
----
It will restrict and limit those individuals who now document these
shipwrecks on film and video to share the adventures with the general public
at film festivals and local TV documentaries. The general public will be the
losers here.
caveat is that for each site to be accessed, a conscious decision should be
made with respect to access vs risk. The level of thought involved should
be in direct proportion to that site's fragility and heritage value, given
the type of access. Cousteau did a lot to raise the awareness of the
Hamilton Scourge when he was here and filming the site several years ago.
Unfortunately, significant (though I don't believe extensive)damage was done
by the submersible to the wrecks. Was the price worth it? Don't know -
that's by and large an individual evaluation. But it does make me want to
look more carefully the next time.
-----
Policing will only work for the wreck sites that are already known. These
laws will have little effect on those passionate dedicated shipwreck hunters
who have zero interest in known wrecks and who are only driven to find
another "virgin" and to solve another Great Lakes mystery . There is no way
there will ever be enough funding for policing all areas of the Great Lakes
to stop these dedicated few from pursuing what they love to do.
known sites, but - whoever said these dedicated few should stop looking for
new sites? Certainly not me. I see the issue more as what happens after?
You will note that I'm not excited about the prospect of the Government
having to publish wreck site information. To me, that's just asking for
trouble.
-----
This type of law only alienates more, the dedicated wreck hunters, and these
are the ones who are responsible for most of the new and significant wreck
finds. Today’s technology used by the dedicated shipwreck hunter makes
policing a minor concern. Equipped with side scan sonar’s we search the
lake bottoms for new wrecks, differential GPS with electronic charting keeps
track of precisely where we are, interfaced to auto-pilots the boat runs
survey track lines and grids completely hands -off, and the best part is,
that the on board radar is programmed with a intruder alarm zone of any
incoming vessel from more than 10 nautical mile radius to warn of an
approaching craft long before it is visible by eye on the horizon.
Technology has given those dedicated wreck hunters the edge over any
legislation that is passed into law. The quest for new undiscovered wrecks
will go on, only now they will be kept far more secret than ever in the
past.
out the numbers on quality wrecks? Of course not, and I agree with that
stand whole hartedly. Could the reason be that you don't have a whole lot
of confidence in the general diving population, or tourist oriented charter
operators not to do significant damage to them. Let me ask you this
question. Have you ever opened up a new wreck site to the public? If you
have, how did you do it? What were the positive and negative effects, both
short term and long term? What would you have done differently?
-----
WHO WILL REALLY BE THE LOSER HERE. Not us dedicated wreck hunters.
recognize truly what it is in the Pandora’s box that is about to be opened.
There will be no going back once it is done. Funny how that works.
-----
Garry Kozak 12/15/99
Tim Legate 12/16/99