The formal handing-over of the ship's bell of the HMS Vestal

jamiemac

[quote=trimix;185000]Its always fun to find a bell or ID a lost ship, Ive been involved with a few discoveries myself - but lets be clear the Navies dont want you disturbing their wrecks and dont want you bringing the bells up.

I agree 100% + with these sentiments. I just posted a big reply to a member regarding the recent trip to the Gulf of Thailand, where a number of 'artifacts' were brought up - no offense was intended, but I hope as a technical diving community we can be respectful and protective of these rare treasures that only we have the prividelge to be able to see for ourselves.
The more we take away from the wrecks, the less remains for us and our buddies to see in the future. The 1970's are over, fellas. Leave it on the bottom where it will actually be of value to us all.

Hello Trimix,

Let me know if I can help you with any details about the Gulf of Thailand trip. It's already been suggested that as we recovered some artifacts from a maru and some post war frieighters we've also removed items from a wargrave, the USS Lagarto - that's incorrect, I assure you.

There are good vald points to both sides of the artifact collection debate - my point is that the older wrecks are fast disintegrating into the sand, other wrecks we just won't return to because they're just not interesting - barges containing beer bottles and freighters carrying 1980's batteries. I don't think the historical community would spend any time with these and a porthole or two won't be missed by anyone.

Once again , though, USS Lagarto is protected , not only by law but by us.

Jamie Macleod MV Trident

trimix

There are good vald points to both sides of the artifact collection debate - my point is that the older wrecks are fast disintegrating into the sand, other wrecks we just won't return to because they're just not interesting - barges containing beer bottles and freighters carrying 1980's batteries. I don't think the historical community would spend any time with these and a porthole or two won't be missed by anyone.

Once again , though, USS Lagarto is protected , not only by law but by us.


Yes I agree there are some wrecks that have no apparent historic significance - but who decides what is significant?
Locally we have many wrecks that, at time of sinking, were anonymous and unremarkable - coastal freighters, tugs, even barges under tow. But over time (decades) their significance can grow. The Malahat, for example, was a log barge that was eventually tied up near Powell River, BC as a breakwater, where it was left to rot and eventually sink. Remarkable? Not at the time. But in better days the barkentine rigged Malahat was reknowned as the 'mother ship' in the roaring 20's, smuggling thousands of cases of Canadian liquor across to US waters, where cases would be picked up at sea by 'rumrunners' while the Coast Guard tried to stop them...
It would be a shame to see a historic wreck like this picked clean, so some wag could boast of how he wrestled his prized lump of brass from some wreck in Canada...

As a charter operator you have a vested interest in ensuring that all the sites you take divers to, have that 'virgin' quality to them - if their condition declines, your potential clients won't be paying you to take them out to see a picked over hulk, rotting in the current- regardless of its historical significance. If I were looking to pay $2000+ to go to Thailand and board the MV Trident, I wanna see something good. I can see the picked over stuff at home, where it's already too late. That 'porthole or two' missed by no one is now gone - thanks to divers a decade ahead of me, their greed has left me and the current generation of divers nothing significant to see, although the wreck itself remains.

As a charter operator, you and your fellow operators are probably the only real line of defense for these wrecks you visit - please explain to your clients why they should not remove anything from the wrecks, so they understand the permanent damage they do. And if you see 'booty' coming up from the bottom, demand that it goes back - it's just going to rot faster now that it's at the surface, and then it's of value to no one. Military wreck or not, it is theft.

You say you protect the USS Lagarto - that's great. But the protection should extend to all the sites you visit, not just the contentious ones.

__________________
Just another piece of Mel's Train Wreck !
BOOM!

Drmike

the huge majority of wrecks are and will always be anonymous and unremarkable -period. Yes there are exceptions - but the huge majority are historically insignificant and no museum in the world would ever want any tat off any of them ever.

This was exactly what Jamie says to anyone who dives the Lagarto - because he respects a) its historical significance, b) its a war grave.

nonsense. Wrecks are scrap. Abandoned scrap. over time that scrap will be buried and lost as wrecks collapse and currents spread the contents. whats romantic or responsible about leaving it there where nobody will ever see it. Wrecks have a finite life, they tend to stand looking relatively intact for decades then suddenly in a short period of time they collapse. The rate of deterioration is fast once it starts. I have seen wrecks that have been standing for 40 years fall apart in a matter of a few years. What is the point in leaving stuff on wrecks that will collapse soon anyway? Other that some misguided romantic ideals.

The lagarto is a war grave crammed full of the dead bodies of her courageous crew. A modern steel cargo boat is just a modern steel cargo boat. Not all wrecks are created equally just as not all are historically or in vast majority of cases will ever be historically significant




I'm diving the Repulse next weekend. Ive dived it probably around 100 times. Never during that time have I felt I didn't enjoy diving it because I didn't see items (such as the bells or stepping plate) because

1) its a 700foot long 40,000 ton wreck bristling with huge guns and a bell and stepping plate in comparison size wise are nothing
2) Even if the bell and stepping plate were there chances are high 99.9% of divers would never notice it (because its buried under crap of hidden in dark silty rooms) - as is evident by the fact the last bell was found about 10 years ago and yet hundreds of divers had visited before then (and not seen the bell)


People (often those that don't do much wreck diving) often have a very rosy idea of what artifacts look like in situ. 99% of the time the average passing diver wouldn't even know that under all that crud and shell growth is anything more than more crud and shell growth.

IMHO what motivates many divers who complain about salvage is jealousy. They want to see the bells, the telegraphs, helms and portholes. they live in countries where (they think) they can never do that - but this is often not the case. There are heaps of virgin marks off coast of UK just as there are many parts of the world - but somepeople are plain lazy, they expect/want things to be laid out for them. They (unlike people like Jamie, myself, KevinD, the likes of Leigh Bishop and his mates in UK) are prepared to put the effort (financial, time wise and physical) to get off our asses and go looking for virgin wrecks because we too want to see this stuff. If you really want to see this stuff, instead of waiting to be nannied and taken there by the hand why don't you spend the time and money we do and go find it yourself?

And when you do that (and you find some historically insignificant commercial vessel laying buried under heaps of fishing net at 70m, a vessel in the arse end of nowhere that only you and your mates will ever dive, a vessel that's collapsing. When you enter into the deepest darkest part of that wreck and buried under a mound of silt you find a beautiful piece of porcelain....will you leave it there? Will you put it back into that silt mound where nobody will ever ever see it again, deep in darkest recesses of the wreck in 70m of water. In a room there's a 99% certainty not a single other diver will ever enter (and dig and find that pottery) ?...be honest now

Jamie and his divers would likely take it - as I have little doubt you would

Maybe you would find a historical WW2 wreck, perhaps even a submarine. Would you report the find immediately to the USN? would you refuse to allow anyone to do any salvage at all on that wreck? would you protect it? would you work with USN to document it, work with the relatives, the museums?

Just like Jamie and his divers did?


The point is not all wrecks are created equal. Jamie knows that as does anyone who applies a bit of logic and sense to the discussion.
A sensible person recognises that fact and recognises that each wreck should be and can be treated seperately according to its status (war grave, historically significant, modern commercial etc)

Warships remain property of the Military in perpetuity. Not true with non warships that become officially 'abandoned' by their 'owners' (usually insurance companies) unless salvage is undertaken or planned to be undertaken by said owners. So the argument that taking something of all wrecks is thieft is not always true.

__________________
Get a girlfriend you sad twat - a Rebreather is an unfaithful mistress - dont blind yourself to her faults just because she goes down on you

dive2dive2000

Dr Mike,

kudos very well put

__________________
Safe Diving,
Martin

"but what's the fun of getting what you need, instead of what you want?"

wedivebc

I agree. Good post!

__________________
Cheers,

Dave....

Man is the only animal burdened with the knowledge he will eventually die

PCDiver

A true wreck diver speaking! Great post Mike. Don't you get bored diving the Repulse, again.

__________________
>>>>> www.submergeproductions.com dedicated to promoting technical diving
>>>>> Check out our dive show video interviews at http://www.submergeproductions.com/A...nterviews.aspx
>>>>> Wreck dive videos http://www.submergeproductions.com/A...omthedeep.aspx

undrh2o

I'm on the fence on the whole artifact recovery issue is see reasons on both sides so I have no axe to grind here.
Strangely I do see a contradiction in some of the debate with respect to war graves surely some of the most boring commercial freighters could be the final resting place of some of her crew - surely those lost souls deserve similar respect as to that given to military personnel. Or even the family of the crew would like to know where their loved ones met their fate.
Am I wrong?

The wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald in the great lakes is one such wreck that has gotten lots of debate. Although at the depth she rests, she is out of the reach of all but the most technical of technical divers. Initially the families sought closure due to her location not being known - once she was found - the families didn't want anyone diving the site as it is the grave of their loved ones. The bell was recovered and put in a maritime museum for the families to have a place to grieve but even that was not agreed to by all.

matt_reed

Crikey! 3 people agreeing with Mike in one page...it must be a special day!

Drmike

I know...its just all wrong


better post something quick to retain balance, or even I might start believing my crap LOL!

.
PS can you email/pm the link to the photos we took at your place?

__________________
Get a girlfriend you sad twat - a Rebreather is an unfaithful mistress - dont blind yourself to her faults just because she goes down on you

KevinD

Mikey mate, you are waxing lyrical, and quite eloquent old chap!

Given the reference to the above wreck I would like to just make mention of what I have always considered to be one of the great unsung wreck dives of the last, errr, well, err, well since so called 'technical' diving began. And that has to be Terrence N Tysall's and The Crazy (no offence meant) Russian's (Mike Zee) dive on the Fitz on 1st Sept 1995 to 161m/528ft on OC. As you may know, Lake Superior, at the best of times, is not all that warm, so that was quite a feat. Quite a feat! And although the bottom time may not have been long compared to todays 'standards', it was not just a 'touch and go' to say "I was there" either, and while supported ably and safely, was done so minimumly and without fuss. (Unlike some peoples dives, even now. And surprise surprise, they even came back and told the truth about it. How old fashioned.)

As a matter of fact TNT racked up a few pretty big 'remote location' dives (for that time period) on OC that year; a 120m/400ft+ series in the Blue Hole off Belize (IIRC Matt?) which was no 'touch and go' either, and then a mere 110m/360ft in November of the same year for the first scuba dive (Bob Ballard had 'dived' there previously in a submersible) on the USS Atlanta off Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands. Again, no bounce there either.

Not a bad effort back then, and I think in the space of three months, if you ask me.

PS. Just a clarification so no misunderstanding. Re USS Atlanta; It was not untill 1997 that TNT and I went back to Atlanta and made some video survey dives on her to her max depth of 131m/430ft. As stated, that first visit in 95 was just to 110m/360ft.

K.