Posted by Craig on August 28, 19101 at 23:13:36:
In Reply to: Re: Roscinco posted by Joe Diver on August 27, 19101 at 11:15:03:
you go and make a printed fool of yourself, you should do a bit of research to back up your claims, most of which migI think before ht just be incorrect.
For starters, most of the tax payer dollars spent were in the state of Michigan. Other dollars spent came from the pockets of Mr.. Ehorn, in a desperate attempt to rid his name of a felony conviction. As to the statement of Mr Ehorn's attempt to "wriggle through loopholes" was merely a test to what most of the old school divers felt was a very unfair blanket law that gave the state ALL rights, and the diver none. In fact, the mere possession of an artifact can land felony charges. Mr. Ehorn has proven that the State government incidentally is not immune from corruption (if you view court transcripts) and also from grossly misinterpreting the ASL which held firm in their beliefs that all wrecks, located or not, belonged to the state from which waters it lies beneath. Brought up were issues of embedded wrecks, wrecks requiring excavation, and wrecks sitting on the bottom, not embedded in sand or mud.
One important consideration that deserves mention is the finders of the wreck, which as I recall took place back in the late 70s or early 80's. I have to apologize, I am only going by memory alone here. If I am not mistaken, Mr.. Ehorn was among the group which located this wreck and did some recovery of artifacts also, which at that time was a perfectly legal and often encouraged activity. Artifacts recovered when it was considered "Legal" become the sole property of the person who displayed some serious fortitude to descend the 200 feet on air and recover their "junk". Just as a soap box announcement from the what it's worth department, don't refer to items recovered legally, prior to the still questionable preservation law as stolen by looters. These items were legally collected.
As far as Mr.. Ehorn's claim to the Rosinco, I honestly believe that someone who was dragged through the legal system just so that a human example can be made by the various state preservation agencies, who incidentally was vindicated, should be entitled to some sort of compensation, especially when one learns of the details of the court proceedings, which should make any diver out there just little suspicious of the legal system. Guilty until proven innocent. I was happy to see that the government can in fact be held accountable and not all rules are written in stone.
One last thing. What harm is there in allowing the rosinco to be titled to Mr.. Ehorn ? Have any of you dove the 200 plus feet of poor visibility water to visit her remains ? I have, and so have others. Damn few others. Certainly many, but not all of her artifacts were removed years ago by as so many of you call "looters" which I can only say is the wrong term for legally obtained artifacts. Lets get our facts straight before we go smearing our fellow divers and historians with incorrect information on poorly written summaries
And by the way Mr. Joe Diver, I am sure Mr. Ehorn would have no objections to you diving his wreck. At 200 plus feet, a small yacht, up to the mud to her regular load line, usually with no markers to tie to, and superb visibility of nearly 5 feet at times, I am sure you have the qualifications to visit this easy dive.
This is my opinion ONLY, and most information was drawn from my memory rather than printed sources, so if correction is needed, I stand ready to set the record straight