Re: Roscinco

Subject:

Comments:
: My apologies. I agree that some of my comments were out of line and I shouldn't have personally attacked Mr. Ehorn, especially anonymously. : However, I stand by my original point. I believe there is a larger ethical question here that supercedes the laws (State/Federal), which are currently ambiguous in this matter. Just because Mr. Ehorn CAN take artifacts from the Rosinco, it doesn't mean that he SHOULD. I am not entirely uninformed regarding the discrepancies between the State and Federal law and I've read Mr. Ehorn's previous posts on the subject. The current State law may be bad, but that's not what I am objecting to. : I got hot at Paul because I don't think he went into this with the intention of trying to clarify or challenge a bad law, or to change public policy. It think he went into it simply to take an artifact and ended up pursuing this course to avoid stiff legal penalties. I don't think he's entitled to take a moral high ground by asserting that his motivation was to change public policy. This may be his motivation now, but I don't think it was when he said "you got me" to the arresting authorities. Further, he was not one of the Rosinco's original discoverers and this is widely known. He may have been an early visitor to the wreck, but he certainly removed the porthole after the wreck had been visited by hundreds of divers. Additionally, the Rosinco is not prohibitively deep. Many, many Great Lakes divers visit the Rosinco and her numbers have been published for decades. Perhaps in 1975, a dive to this depth may have been dangerous, but in 2001 it is weekend fundive for legions of suburban techdivers. : I agree with Mr. Radovan that law needs to be clarified. The fact that Mr. Ehorn was able to successfully challenge it in Michigan suggests that it lacks any real effect due to conflicting Federal law. : However, I doubt anyone wants to roll back to the days of goodie bags and crowbars. Believe me, if the souvenir hunting ethic returns in full vigor, even privately held wrecks will not be safe. Harry Zych discovered, obtained salvage rights to and legally owns the Lady Elgin, but it still gets stripped and nobody's there to stop it. Will privately held wrecks fare any better under more relaxed laws? : It appears to me that Mr. Ehorn is trying to strike down all legal protection for publicly held wrecks in the Great Lakes through setting legal precedent. Is this really a good idea? Does Mr. Ehorn really want to see us return to a souvenir hunting free-for-all? Is this the best policy for historic Great Lakes shipwrecks? : In response to Mr. Zeaman's assertion that Mr. Ehorn's hand was forced in this matter, I would simply offer that most divers wouldn't have taken the porthole in the first place. Certainly hundreds of divers have visited the wreck without taking anything. Why should Mr. Ehorn deserve an artifact, when so many other divers were content with photos? : Again, my apologies for personalizing this discussion. My intent was to try and clarify the issues in this matter, not to insult Mr. Ehorn or engage in mud-slinging. : : : I am not endorsing or criticizing what Paul did; however, if the state were after me like that, I would try any means possible to keep from losing everything I owned. : : I also think that if someone is going to come on here and rip into someone else they should have the balls to use their name and not hide behind some "joe diver" anonymous sock puppet name. : : Jon Zeaman : : : I haven't heard anything, but I have to say that it was pretty creepy of Paul to go to a well known shipwreck, found many years ago by others and then try to legally claim it solely to avoid prosecution. If I get caught stealing from the wreck of the Wisconsin off Kenosha, can I claim that I found it to avoid prosecution and force the taxpayers to prove that I don't own it? : : : All Paul did was make himself a pariah in the Great Lakes dive community and cost Wisconsin taxpayers a lot of money. : : : I simply can't understand why Paul would try to set such a selfish and destructive precedent. If he is able, through some loophole, to secure ownership of the Rosinco, the results would be catastrophic for historic Great Lakes wrecks and for the Great Lakes wreckdiving industry. His assertion is much worse than the old finders/keepers ethic. He is actually raiding a wreck found by someone else that was already protected by State law. : : : Just because Paul may be able to wriggle through loopholes in the law, it still doesn't make it right or good public policy. Paul's pursuance of the Rosinco boils down to plain selfishness on his part. He should have simply paid the fines when he got caught stealing and crawled back into his hole. He would have saved the taxpayers a lot of money and there would have been one less challenge to the already tenuous protection that our Great Lakes shipwreck have from souvenir hunters. : : : : : : : : : I just heard that there may have been a resolution in the court case over the ownership of the Roscinco. Has anyone heard about this and do you know what the outcome was? : : : : Thanks, : : : : Ed

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: