Facts? Re: Illegal to search for shipwrecks

Subject:

Comments:
: Brendon, : I must respectfully take exception with your response to some of the "speculation" that is being posted. Most people have heard of entrenched bureaucracy and career politicians. These terms are representative of people who want to spend a lifetime involved in the control process. As far as I can see no one has said that the publicly funded managers want to ban wreck hunting, but I would argue that many of them want more control. Wanting this control is not necessarily a function of what is best for the wrecks and the private citizens involved as it is a perpetuation and expansion of the control process by those funded by public monies. : I am familiar with the study being compiled at Michigan State and I can assure you that the people that are writing it will be involved with the outcome, and the outcome will include greater restrictions upon the private citizen's access to these resources (once again, if you give me money to figure out what you should be doing, you can bet that I will recommend that you should be spending more money on something that will ultimately benefit my ends). It is naïve to think that these people are not interested in regulating sport diving. Viewing the problem from their perspective there is only one way to enhance the preservation of the shipwrecks, that is to impose greater regulation upon access; which equates to regulating sport divers and/or discoverers. Consider for a moment the situation in Tobermory CA; divers are required to have a permit and pay a fee to dive the wrecks in the preserve. As we speak, the province of Ontario has a prohibition against diving a certain wreck called the Gunilda. The site is restricted and the only way it can be dove is through a lengthy permit process in which "managers" can subjectively determine an applicant's worthiness and decide, or not decide, to let that person make the dive. This, of course, is not the only instance of restriction in Canada and I think it is naive to think it couldn't happen in this country. : I am very interested in what type of recommendations will come out of the study at Michigan State and then what will finally be legislated as a result but, as I stated earlier, this will likely be a moribund effort. In the face of the destruction that has been done to the wrecks by the zebra mussels in recent years I think the efforts of Vrana and VanderStoep are a case of "too much, too late" and will indeed just burden us with extra public/government influence. There could easily come a day when divers must get a "permit" to dive a site and/or pay a fee to use the preserve. There may also come a day when searchers must have a "permit" to search and/or dive a new wreck. This, of course, is not banning the activity but anything of the sort is still an impediment. I would argue that these types of regulations, especially in light of the zebra mussels, are a function of bureaucracy and "control" rather then a result of a serious assessment of what the utilitarian "good" is for the wrecks. : Respectfully, J.M. : : Before the speculation gets out of hand, allow me to present : : some of the facts in this matter: : : Last year, the Center for Marine and Underwater : : Resource Management at Michigan State University : : hosted a series of workshops. They invited about : : 20 prominent wreckhunters from around the region. : : The purpose of the workshops was to develop recommendations : : to the state of Michigan for the management of existing : : historic wrecksites and for responding to new discoveries. : : The results are being published next week and will be : : presented to the state. Having been involved in the : : process, I can tell you that there is no consideration : : of banning wreckhunting. The state has no problem with : : wreckhunting, so long as artifacts are not taken from : : the wrecksites. Further, the states and provinces have : : no interest in restricting access to wrecksites. In the : : case of the Lady Elgin, it was Harry Zych who requested : : the injuction against visiting the wreck until the case : : was settled. The Illinois Historic Preservation Agency : : wanted the wreck open for sport divers. They simply did : : not want Zych to strip the wrecksite any further. Zych : : wanted the injuction to keep sport divers from stealing : : artifacts, many of which had already disappeared. The : : Lady Elgin is also a very unusual case because Zych was : : able to find documentation from the 1860s asserting that : : the wreck was never abandoned. That is how he was able : : to make a case for ownership. If you go to my website on : : the Elgin, you'll see that there's really nothing there : : worth owning. As far as I'm concerned the case stopped : : being about the wreck years ago and is now a personal quest. : : Zych should never have vacated his agreement to donate the : : wreck to the state. Hundreds of other salvors : : have discovered wrecks worth far more than the Elgin and : : most of them were happy to place the wrecks in public trust. : : To my knowledge, all states and provinces on the lakes take : : the standpoint that wrecks are a non renewable public : : resource which they manage for the enjoyment of sport : : divers and the scientific inquiry of archeologists. : : Management means prosecuting people who steal, not : : restricting access. It is important to remember that : : "state owned" means publicly owned. When wrecks : : become privately owned, they become "off limits." So, : : when someone steals from a wreck, they steal from all : : of us. : : To my knowledge no states or provinces have ever restricted : : access to a wrecksite. Archeologists may have requested that : : the site not be disturbed while they were doing a survey, but : : divers have generally been welcome and in many cases they : : have been encouraged to assist. Organizations like the : : Underwater Archeology Society of Chicago, the Wisconsin : : Underwater Archeology Association, Save Ontario Shipwrecks, : : the Michigan Underwater Preserve Council and others all : : consist of sport divers who assist state efforts to study : : and preserve wrecksites. : : The state archeology offices generally are so underfunded : : that they are only able to survey one or two sites a year : : and most new discoveries are never professionally surveyed. : : Further, there is limited money for law enforcement to : : protect wrecks from theft. For these reasons, most wreck : : hunters keep news of discoveries and location confidential. : : In short, the states and provinces are not interested in : : regulating sport divers. They are interested in preserving : : the wrecks. They know that the best way to do this is : : not to antagonize divers with regulation. Rather, they : : try to involve sport divers in their efforts. So, rather : : than speculating about the bad intentions of state and : : provincial agencies, I would challenge sport divers to : : become involved in the process by joining a preserve : : committee, conservation organization or contacting the : : agencies involved in order to get the facts. : : : : : : Has any one heard or doe's any one know why the state wants to make it illegal to search for wrecks on the great lakes : : : I have heard that there are individuals in the State of Michigan who work in natural resources that would like to see such a law pass. Presently, of course, it is not illegal to do so but I believe that it is tempting for many who wish to have more control to have such laws. : : : Even though passing such a law seems unlikely I understand that there are people at Michigan State University that are presently involved in a study, using coastal managment funds, to suggest reccomendations to State lawmakers about that very issue. One of the questionable aspects of this study is that the people who are conducting it are using taxpayer funds to make recommendations to lawmakers for the distribution of taxpayer revenue (ask me sometime what you should do with your money and I can gaurentee you that I can make some great investments for you!?!?). : : : The problem, it seems, lies in how much control resource "managers" have in what happens to the wrecks. When private individuals find wrecks then the possibility/belief exists that these resources are irreparably harmed through ignorance and mistreatment and to some extent this is true. I my opinion, what the people who want these types of laws fail to recognize is that there are far more important harms going on that can not be legislated against then shipwreck finders. For example the zebra mussels have done morein one year to make shipwrecks inaccessible to anyone then all of the ignorant divers have in thirty years. Also, as a taxpayer and a shipwreck diver, I would much rather see my taxz dollars; a) returned to me if they don't have a legitimate use for them; b)Used for infrastructure rather spending huge amounts to try and control a very small group of individuals. : : : In short, as a freedom-loving, overtaxed, over-regulated person, I am not in favor of such a law. : : : J.M.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: