Re: Boycott Beneath the Sea

Subject:

Comments:
: : : : : : : Until the State of New York moves forward with prosecution of the parties who took the anchor there is little to talk about. Unless states and provinces show a will to enforce the laws, it will be considered "technically illegal" to remove artifacts from Great Lakes wrecks. Rather than chiding BTS for their complicity in applauding the violation of a state law, people should be chiding the state for failing to enforce the law. : : : : : : : There have been only two recent instances where the removal of artifacts from historic Great Lakes wrecks was successfully contested by the salvor. The first was Harry Zych who successfully argued that the State never legally owned the Lady Elgin in the first place because the insurer had never abandoned her. The second was Paul Ehorn's removal of the Bentley figurehead, wherein the State of Michigan failed to prove that he removed the figurehead after the state law was instituted. The argument of a superceding federal law appears to have been shot down in the recent Rosinco decision, but Mr. Ehorn is likely going to appeal it. Stacked against these two exceptional cases are at least a dozen cases of successful prosecution of souvenir collectors and illegal salvagers of historic Great Lakes wrecks. However, you only hear about the exceptional cases rather than the successful prosecutions. : : : : : : : In the case of the anchor off Clayton, the State of NY could very likely successfully prosecute the theft if they wanted to. Either the right people in law enforcement haven't been notified or the NY political climate is such that the State doesn't want to expend the resources on this type of enforcement. Perhaps all the fanfare associated with the very few successful defenses has cowed the authorities into turning a blind eye. : : : : : : : : Fellow Divers: : : : : : : : : A very serious wreck preservation issue has caused a BOYCOTT and letter writing campaign of Beneath The Sea and we are looking for your support. : : : : : : : : Last fall an anchor (about 2,000 lbs.) was stolen from the Historic Wreck site of the Maggie L. The Maggie L is a 1889 three masted schooner that sunk in 1927 and sits on the bottom of the St. Lawrence Seaway in Clayton N.Y. The theft of this anchor is not in dispute as one of the participants (Louie Schriener) confessed on his own web site. During this theft his film crew recorded the whole process and plans to show it at BTS. It is a direct violation of New York State laws and completely unethical. It is also not in dispute that they were warned in advance that this is illegal in New York State. : : : : : : : : Why boycott BTS? In order to protect the integrity of BTS and Wreck Preservation in NY, BTS was informed of the entire situation and was asked to remove this presentation from their show. BTS has chosen to tell us that they have NO responsibility to the dive community, New York State or Wreck Preservation, and therefore has refused to remove or even edit this program. Even though contacted by several organizations both in the US and Canada, including state agencies they have chosen to play games in order to deceive us. Their only concern is to how much MONEY the show will take in! : : : : : : : : I have personally volunteered at BTS for a number of years and also have presented a program at the show, my wife has also been a room chairperson. We are appalled at the arrogant attitude and total indifference towards the dive community that BTS has shown and believe that the only way left is to hit them in the pocket which seems to be all they care about. : : : : : : : : As many of us have already participated in trying to resolve this matter with BTS, we are now encouraging you and your group to take part as we are doing. : : : : : : : : Send Letters and e-mails to BTS at info@BeneaththeSea.org and Zig4BTS@aol.com and also Boycott the Show. We think the Laws and Wreck Preservation are everyone's responsibility! : : : : : : : : PLEASE HELP WRECK PRESERVATION AND FORWARD THIS MESSAGE TO AS MANY DIVERS AS POSSIBLE. Thank you. : : : : : : : : Syracuse Scuba Club : : : : : : : : Tom Zielinski : : : : : : Brendon: Someone has misinformed you reguarding both of my cases. In Michigan the case involving the James R Bentley was not decided by any type of date. The case was resolved by Judge Victoria A. Roberts stating that federal law prevails over state law. Michigan never owned the Bentley which was awarded to me after filing the necessary papers. The Rosinco is a little more complicated and still on going so I can not comment on it at this point. Reguardless of what the state people are telling the public, Federal law still does and will prevail over state law in admirality cases until legislation is passed stating otherwise. : : : : : From: David Trotter : : : : : I sure did NOT intend to make any comments about this anchor stuff until I see inaccurate information about the Great Lakes situation. : : : : : I have reviewed the Paul Ehorn matter on the Schooner John Bentley, and he (Paul) won based on the accurate presentation that the Bentley rests on the bottom, not in it. This is the key point in determining whether or not the state of Michigan owned the Schooner Bentley. Therefor the state of Michigan (and any other state) claiming ownership of a shipwreck site will have to do it based on it being embedded. : : : : : However, most of the shipwrecks in Lake Huron, Lake Michigan and Lake Superior rest on the bottom, not in it. This is less likely to be true in Lake Erie with the sites "settling" into the softer bottom. Each site in Lake Erie would be judged on its own merits. : : : : : We are all entitled to our opinions, however, it is encumbent upon all of us to accurately state the events and the outcome of court decisions. : : : : : If I had to guess on the Rosinco matter, she is unlikely to be embedded in the bottom. If the state is able to "somehow" establish ownership by a subsequent event, anything that occurred prior to the date the state becomes the owner would have no basis for being considered illegal. So if divers were diving the Rosinco 10 or 15 years ago and retriving items, there would be no legal issue. : : : : : The purpose of these comments is to describe the situations in as accurate manner as possible, and does not include my personal preferences. : : : : : David Trotter : : : : : : : : I appreciate the clarification from both Paul and Dave. None the less, I do think that the interpretation and application of the law regarding historic shipwrecks on the Great Lakes is largely a matter of the political climate in the State and the judge you get. I will be very interested to see what happens with the Rosinco ruling and I wonder if the final decision, regardless of outcome, will even cite embeddedness in the bottom or a superordinate federal law. : : : : It is simply frustrating to see the laws interpreted and applied differently depending on the situation and the place. Obviously, I believe that certain historic vessels should be publicly owned and are best preserved by being left underwater. However, that not withstanding, I think it is unethical to allow one person to remove artifacts from an historic wreck without question, while another gets charged with a felony. I realize that this may be an overly simplistic view, but I think it does point out the need for a revamping or at least a consistent interpretation of the laws regarding historic Great Lakes wrecks. : : : From: David Trotter : : : It is a mistake to call all shipwrecks historic. To be old is not historic, and by the way, Great Lakes shipwrecks are very young by historical standards. There are very few shipwrecks in the Great Lakes that are truly historic. To be historical usually means "one of kind", tied to unique happenings, etc. There are a great many shipwrecks to be enjoyed by divers, and we can and should be fascinated with the events surrounding their demise. For this reason, I find it preferrable to have the wrecks in good condition to be enjoyed by fellow divers. Now I have given my personal preference, which should NOT enter into this matter. : : : The reason that the State of Michigan lost the Bentley case, and the initial ruling was in favor of Mr. Ehorn on the Rosinco, is very straight forward. For the states to have an arguable effective "immediate" claim, the site needs to be embedded, or the state must have acted in some manner (historial register?). If not, the state (I suppose) is somewhat on an equal basis with anyone else when it comes to admiralty law. Mr. Ehorn apparently filed for ownership per procedure. : : : Basically, being embedded is a non-starter for most of the wrecks in the Great Lakes, except Erie. : : : Beware of what you ask for on legislative matters after you "C" what the archeologists (aka: archeo-nazis) managed to sneak through in Canada without diver awarness. : : : Cheers! and an end to my comments. : : : David Trotter : : : : : One "point of order" regarding Dave T.'s comments: : : It is premature to assume that the interpretation of the meaning of "embedded" as "totally buried" is a final absolute. It is merely the opinion of one judge. Future judges could rule differently and if this happens, things could end up quite differently. If these future judges choose to interpret the term embedded as something less than totally buried the first judge's ruling may not stand up, and could fall by the wayside. A single judge's opinion and ruling does not set a final precedent. Normally it takes several rulings to set the final precedent. : : I read the entire Abandoned Shipwreck of 1987, and considered the term "embedded" versus the total context of the entire document, and I got a totally different flavor. When I look at this law from this total "big picture" perspective, I am actually very surprised that this judge ruled the way she did. In total context, the term embedded, to me, means anything but totally buried. Of course I am not an attorney or a judge, so my opinion is just another opinion. It will be quite interesting to see how the Rosinco case turns out and how these future judges will rule. : : Mike Spears : Mike, I disagree with your interpretation. I do not understand how much clearer the term embedded could be. The following is a from the Abandoned Shipwreck Act: (a) the term "embedded" means firmly affixed in the submerged lands or in coralline formations such that the use of tools of excavation is required in order to move bottom sediments to gain access to the shipwreck, it's cargo, and any part thereof. I have only seen one wreck in Lake Huron, Lake Superior and Lake Michigan that might even come close to fitting this definition. Another interesting bit of information comes from a report written by Mr Udall, from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. His report states that 5-10 percent of the shipwrecks in the navigable waters of the United States have historical significance. This is quite different from the blanket coverage which many states have attempted to apply. Paul Ehorn

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: