Posted by Brendon Baillod on December 21, 1999 at 12:31:24:
Hi All,
I too believe that Bill 13 is unfairly and unnecessarily restrictive. The bill further aggrevates divers in that
few avocational divers or dive groups were consulted or asked to participate in the decision making
process. I personally think that definitive action needs to be immediately taken by sport divers around
the lakes to organize formal opposition to this measure, as I understand it. Perhaps some form of
legislation is needed, but it must be formulated by a consensus of the effected parties, not by state
edict. As I understand it, one of the defenses of the Bill is that CO2 and Oxygen from divers exhaling
is corroding the metal in air pockets of some wrecks. Restricting access on this basis is amazingly
tunnel visioned and shortsighted. These metal wrecks will corrode into nothing within 100 years whether
they are visited or not. Zebra mussels are destroying them far more rapidly than divers. This is
exactly the type of mindless, heavy handed government intervention that gives credence to the critics
of other government efforts to preserve Great Lakes wrecks.
However, I don't think there is necessarily a parallel here with the efforts in Thunder Bay or elsewhere.
Most recent efforts in the state of Michigan have tried to actively involve the diving community in the planning
process. In particular, I'm not aware of any plans to place any wrecks off limits at Thunder Bay or
any other locations in the Great Lakes (with the exception of the Lady Elgin, which is off limits because of a
private salvor.) At worst, the Thunder Bay sanctuary might require a diver to register or pay a nominal
access fee, but its whole purpose is to allow divers continued access to these wrecks while still
keeping the wrecks from being destroyed. The only legitimate gripes I've heard against the sanctuary
are that it is a waste of tax dollars; that the local community does not really support it; that much of
the motivation of the creators is to provide jobs for themselves and that it should be state run instead
of federally run. I think these are defensible positions, but much else of what I've heard sounds like
anti government ranting that overlooks the very real problems that confront us. As I see it, there are
only three options:
1. Leave things as they are - i.e. - allow divers completely unregulated access to the wrecks with no
system for monitoring and no sanctions other than the remote threat of being boarded by the DNR or
Coast Guard. Have only "paper parks" like Michigan's underwater preserves that have no funding
and no formal organization. (Under this system, the wrecks continue to be stripped at an alarming
rate, despite the efforts of avocational and gov't groups.)
2. Fund some form of formal organizations, either at the federal, state, provincial or local level, with
the authority and responsibility for maintaining buoys, providing info. about the wrecks, monitoring
diver access, monitoring the condition of the wrecks, etc. These could be funded by a small access fee
or by tax dollars or by a combination thereof. (This is being attempted, but in order to be successful
it must be planned with input and authority from the sport diving community and must insure that no wrecks will
be placed off limits or have access restricted, and that avocational wreckhunting [wreckhunting
without intent to seek title] will not be restricted.)
3. Permit State, Federal or Provincial gov't to step in and issue restrictive legislation without input
from the sport diving community. (Ontario is about to find out how well this works. The folks from
the State and Federal gov't attempting to establish the Thunder Bay sanctuary are also finding out
that a large segment of the diving and maritime history community are concerned about the potential
for this happening under their plan.)
I am very much opposed to options 1 and 3, in that they do not solve the problem at hand. Either
option will ensure that our wrecks continue to be stripped. Option 3 is especially bad in that the
only people visiting the wrecks will be those intent on stripping. I am inclined to believe that the
efforts being made at Thunder Bay fall more under the heading of option 2. The government
agencies involved there appear to be more enlightened in that they have involved the sport diving
community. However, I am not blindly optimistic and I think any plan will have to earn the respect of
effected parties before it can be effective. Ontario conversely, has made the mistake of discounting a
very large and influential group of people who have time and resources to mount an effective
opposition.
I'd be very interested to know where the folks from SOS and POW stand on Bill 13.
As Canadian wreck preservation organizations composed of avocational and sport divers, this must
place them in an awkward situation. I'd welcome a post from any of their officers.