Diving Wrecks
Lukin
Join Date: 2003-08-23 Member: 20098Members
Join Date: 2003-08-23 Member: 20098Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Of ships</div> This issue hits very close to me, I am a licensed SCUBA (Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apperatus)diver.
I was watching a show on the History channel, about the wreck of a ship known as the Regina that sunk in the Great Lakes. And a friend of mine (someone who is does not know much about SCUBA) asked "How come there hasn't been any SCUBA divers on wrecks like the Titanic." Simple. TOO deep. And quite dumb if you ask me. SCUBA diving isn't very enjoyable beyond 100 feet down. A dive on a wreck such as the Titanic or Bismarck, would have to be accomplished by a <a href='http://www.divingheritage.com/jimkern.htm' target='_blank'>JIM Suit</a> .
Which brings up the discussion topic.
As soon as JIM suits start descending upon shipwrecks such as the Titanic, the Bismarck, the Edmund Fitzgerald, Lusitania, and other famous ship wrecks, they will no doubtedly start bringing up artifacts. Law states that anything found ON or IN a shipwreck cannot legally be removed. But anything found around the ship can be picked up and does not require a court order.
Some radical associations have started petitions to stop dives on wrecks all together. To me, wreck-diving is really fun. So I would disagree.
I was watching a show on the History channel, about the wreck of a ship known as the Regina that sunk in the Great Lakes. And a friend of mine (someone who is does not know much about SCUBA) asked "How come there hasn't been any SCUBA divers on wrecks like the Titanic." Simple. TOO deep. And quite dumb if you ask me. SCUBA diving isn't very enjoyable beyond 100 feet down. A dive on a wreck such as the Titanic or Bismarck, would have to be accomplished by a <a href='http://www.divingheritage.com/jimkern.htm' target='_blank'>JIM Suit</a> .
Which brings up the discussion topic.
As soon as JIM suits start descending upon shipwrecks such as the Titanic, the Bismarck, the Edmund Fitzgerald, Lusitania, and other famous ship wrecks, they will no doubtedly start bringing up artifacts. Law states that anything found ON or IN a shipwreck cannot legally be removed. But anything found around the ship can be picked up and does not require a court order.
Some radical associations have started petitions to stop dives on wrecks all together. To me, wreck-diving is really fun. So I would disagree.
Comments
Some people have the time and the money to enjoy it, let them at least have something to show for it.
On the other hand, if that legislation outlawed diving around the wreck area (as opposed to only bringing items to surface), I'd be against it. As terrible as those wrecks were, their current condition makes them natural points of interest. As long as the area remains relatively undisturbed, divers should be free to explore.
I believe all items that are to be removed MUST have some relevance to the investigation to how the vessel went down, OR be donated to a musuem to educate.
A licenced tour operator took some people down to have a look at a wreck, but warned them all before they went not to take or touch anything, as it was a federal offence.
Anyways, an American fella decided to souvener something from the boat, they hauled him up to the surface, arrested him and threw the full weight of the law at him. Personally I think they decided to make an example out of him simply because he was a Yank, but still we take our wrecks pretty seriously around here.
I think that if you want to dive and have a look at wrecks, you should have to go with some sort of "chaperone", or park ranger. That way you can enjoy the wreck, and ensuring that it will be left in perfect condition for the next diver.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->you should have to go with some sort of "chaperone", or park ranger.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe this, too. Taking an artifact off of a shipwreck for scientific analysis is one thing. But stealing something from a ship wreck, which also serves as a memorial to the sailors who died on that ship, is another.
(Off topic: I want to dive on the Great Barrier Reef SOOOO Bad <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> )
Agreed. Take something from the Titanic site and you're bound to stir up some anger if you get any personal gain from it. It is the grave site of around 1500 people. I think that artifacts from such a site could be brought up, but yeah, only go into a musuem. If it's a recent wreck well finding out why it sunk is valuable information.
Feel free to stop by the Great Barrier Reef whenever you want. While you're there kill some Crown of Thorns starfish or soon there won't be a reef left.
And they did successfully. But the was I believe a sister ship to the Monitor, and it had been totally torn up by looters.
Another wreck that is starting to see much attention now, is also from the US Civil War.
<a href='http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org12-3.htm' target='_blank'>The Hunley, the Confederate Submarine</a>
Many have plans of raising this vessel, which I feel is quite silly. The vessle has been down there for 130+ years. I'm betting if they try and raise it, it would just fall apart.
Things really heat up when you talk about scientists or historians diving on ships and taking stuff up for scientific or historic reasons. That would be like taking a grave stone for it to be examined for the type of stone it is, or what the date is on it. For some people it's ok, just science doing what it has to do, but for others it's not. It's disturbing a grave and a landmark, which is very wrong in their eyes.
My opinion on this matter depends. If it is a relativly new wreck than I think the reason for its sinking should be discovered but when it is discovered, there shouldn't be anything more taken from the wreck unless it is a family members personal belonging. But if the wreck is old, such as the Titanic, and we know how it sank nothing should be taken for science or history. Even retrieving a personal article would be impractical now. It has spent so much time down there that I believe it would be part of the wreck now and would not belong to anyone but the decieced.
It should be like rainforest. Don't take anything, only a picture.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well archaeologists go through the tombs of the Pharoahs, or the Inca, or pretty much anyone. Through what we find there, we learn more about these people and the customs. It enriches our knowledge. If we bring up a plate from the Titanic, arn't we also learning about the people of 1912? Arn't we also providing them with a memorial by placing such an object in a musuem? Some of the death camps of Nazi Germany have been preserved so that future generations can learn about these terrible creations. Should we not try to preserve some artifacts from the Titanic, so that future generations can learn of the people who died and the mistakes that were made? Because eventually it's all going to decay down there. I feel that some kind of tribute, like a musuem exhibition, would be an appropriate memorial to those people who died.