[ Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: baillod
Category: Shipwreck Research
Date: 08 Jul 2004
Time: 15:56:14
Remote Name: 66.84.199.26
I think the State's assertion that they are automatically the defacto owners of all historic Great Lakes shipwrecks is based on a very broad interpretation of the ASA and cannot be consistently defended in court. I also agree with John Vs assertion that the States are often penny-wise and pound foolish as well as tunnel visioned with respect to preservation. However, that still does not negate the fact that it is ethically wrong to remove artifacts from historic Great Lakes wrecks without first obtaining the legal right to do so. If we simply allow avocational divers to be the judge of what is historic, what is important, what should be removed and what should be preserved, we end up with rampant destruction with salvage by crobar, dynamite and hacksaw. Granted, there are many divers who are as qualified as any archeologist, but the vast majority are not.
I don't think anyone disagrees that some wrecks in the Lakes are historically important and should be held in trust by the State. The disagreement is over which wrecks should be protected, who decides which wrecks should be protected, and how the wrecks should be protected.
I think a good long term goal would be to establish a consistent interpretation of the ASA and a consistent method for determining and implementing State protection of Great Lakes wrecks that can be consistently and uniformly enforced and will be recognized by all major stakeholders. I think a good starting point would be a public discussion of which wrecks we think should definitely be protected (i.e. - see where people share common ground).
Obviously most people agree that wrecks like the Griffon and Hamilton/Scourge should not be open to salvage, but should be visitable by divers. However, what about wrecks like the steamer Niagara off Port Washington, or the Lady Elgin? The Lady Elgin is a good case in point of a wreck that probably was worthy of State protection, but the State's heavy handed methods and flawed interpretation of the ASA cost the Public the wreck.
I'd welcome additional thoughts, comments and discussion on the above.