Posted by Brendon Baillod on October 31, 19103 at 13:01:41:
In Reply to: Re: That's not the point here... posted by extremediver1 on October 31, 19103 at 12:02:59:
I know who the guy is that's selling the artifacts. He's sold quite a few in the past year. He did recover the pieces legally and I believe it is not correct to say he stole them. I'm not happy to see them for sale on ebay and I do question his decision to do so. However, he's in Texas and probably isn't aware he could get a big tax deduction (probably more than the pieces could get on ebay) for donating them.
To me, whether they piece was recovered "legally" or not is entirely secondary to the question of what public policy toward Great Lakes shipwrecks should be. I don't think everything should be left on the Lake bottom, particularly not in high energy zones and artifacts that are at a high risk to be taken. The problem is deciding what should be removed and where it should go. I don't like to see private collecting because it tends to encourage mindless wreckstripping. Someone snatched the wheel off an extremely historic unidentified wreck off Manitowoc last year. That's a clear example of something that should have been left where it was. However, the muskets on the Lady Elgin should definitely have been removed immediately and the State should have worked with Harry to remove them instead of starting a turf war. Recent events show that most divers haven't exercised good judgement concerning removal of wreck artifacts. Unfortunately, the states don't have a good track record either. However, I do think the best solution is to make recovery of all Great Lakes shipwreck materials beyond a certain age illegal and to discourage commerce involving artifacts already in circulation.
That policy serves to protect both state owned wrecks and wrecks owned by private interests.
I do think this is an important topic for discussion because I doubt we've seen the last prosecution for artifact theft or the last accusation of theft levied against someone. There are lots of extreme views out there and many people with tunnel vision and limited information.
: You are right about that Brendon. While the wreck does have local histoical signifigance, it is not an archeolgical site. I think that alot of divers would like to donate items that were recovered under questionable circumstances but may fear legal problems would soon follow. So many people try to quote these laws and no one knows what they really are. I was out diving a wreck this summer when I was approached by the DNR boat. Besides the fact that he ignored my dive and alpha flag (luckily divers were just getting ready to enter the water) he did not even know that there was a wreck at that location or any information about it. He was very interested in the information that we gave him but I don't think that he would have been able to initiate the enforcement of one of these laws if it were being broken. So who really does enforce these laws and how? Are divers expected to rat on each other and get the government knocking on their door asking to see what's on the bookshelf in their living room?
:
: : The people of Rogers City would take issue with you on the historical signfigance of the Cedarville.
: : I agree with you about the laws and their abuse. They are easily challenged and unevenly enforced. They apply the same protection to the Griffon that they afford a pile of boards abandoned in the 1930s.
: : However, there are many communities and museums around the Lakes that would love to have some of these artifacts for public display and would be happy to give you a tax deduction for donating them. That way we all get to enjoy them and they don't disappear into a collection that could be thrown out or left in the attic/basement when the collector dies.
: : : I completely agree with Craig. The states have overstepped their boundries and have caused some people to turn into some sort of scuba police for the rest of us. Personally, I feel that this porthole should have been brought up simply if it's soul purpose was to spark this discussion. Why do some people feel the need to try "enforce" a law that doesn't even have a clear definition. If someone recovered this artifact 37 tears ago and gained some enjoyment from hanging it in his den then more power to him. At least he is trying to pass it on to someone else who will appreciate it. Let's face it, it's a broken porthole from a historically insignifigant shipwreck. It's not the Holy Grail