[ Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Craig Rich
Category: News & Rumor
Date: 17 May 2007
Time: 13:35:58
Remote Name: 63.168.29.210
Not to belabor this discussion (I haven't even voiced a real opinion on it yet. I simply was the first person to bring it to this forum)...there are a few "openings" I see that may be of concern to those who have had prior relations with Michigan State officials over the issue of shipwreck discovery, research and documentation. I imagine every bullet point in the law (especially the new text) could be interpreted however a person wanted to, depending on their point of view.
Dave Trotter has been harassed to the point of having to leave the dock at 3am to avoid being chased across the lake like a drug dealer by overzealous Michigan DNR personnel over the past two decades. Does that give him the right to be suspicious? I think so.
A friend of mine was fined $1,000 right at the boat slip in Cheboygan because he found an old rusty 6" piece of petrified cable or rope on the bottom of Lake Huron in 1994 and stuck it in his goody bag. Should he be suspicious? Probably.
Ironically, Dave Trotter (and his team) is probably the one person on the Great Lakes we would all agree deserves to receive grants from a package of laws like this for single handedly invigorating the sport of wreck diving by discovering over 80 shipwrecks.
If you ask recreational and technical divers where they'd like to see money raised from any new laws, they'd probably list, in order of importance:
1. Discovery of shipwrecks 2. Seasonal buoying of shipwrecks. 3. Intentional sinking of new shipwrecks
As I read it, money raised by this voluntary permit (if any) goes to:
1. Manage the parks (which means what?) 2. Administer the law (support the bureaucracy, necessary, but not productive) 3. Maritime history, archeology and materials conservation (poorly worded. What does that mean?) 4. Planning and enhancement of recreation activities (boating, fishing, swimming & diving) Planning what? Enhancing what? 5. Intentional sinking of vessels (good idea, but directly against other existing state laws which would require changing) 6. Tourism research & marketing (again money back to the state itself in most cases) 7. Heritage education (by whom?) 8. Law enforcement (uh oh!....)
Couldn't this money be raised by introducing a new voluntary state license plate? Like the lighthouse folks did? I'm pay an extra $25 to have a shipwreck license plate! (If the money was used for buoys, etc)
Plus 6 of the 11 committee members (the committee would replace the existing UW salvage and preserve committee) seem to represent mostly those who have a vested financial interest. It includes dive shops, charter operators, marine salvagers, maritime museums, academic researchers (not amateurs like you or me, mind you!) and the statewide UW Preserve committee (probably the only proposed recipient who isn't in the "business" to make money". No offense, but who represents regular divers or shipwreck hunters like you and me?
Again, I'm just trying to understand this. It's proposed law right now. It will probably slide right through unchanged unless questions are asked. Then we will have to live with it, both the good parts and the bad (and the unanticipated, since these things always end up being interpreted by agencies and/or the courts then amended over time).
Greg's right on one thing. WE need to be involved in this now that it's been introduced. Whether you’re "fer it or agin' it", each of us as individuals and groups should contact our state legislators and make our feelings known even if those feelings are simply doubt and suspicions.
PS: I tried to contact Sen. McManus through her state web site and my message was automatically re-routed to MY state senator instead of her. That’s a hell of a way to avoid input.
Craig Rich Speaking for myself, not necessarily MSRA
And now for the point by point rebuttal.....