Question for the Outerbanks people

[anytime]

Do the charter operations up there actually salvage the wrecks on a regular basis? I was talking with some other divers this weekend and they were telling me that some of the operations up there use the surface interval to salvage bulk metal for sale by the crew.

[beenaround]

Do the charter operations up there actually salvage the wrecks on a regular basis? I was talking with some other divers this weekend and they were telling me that some of the operations up there use the surface interval to salvage bulk metal for sale by the crew.

There is only ONE operation that does it, please do not group the rest of us in with them.

[anytime]

I did not mean to lump any operations together. I was just looking for how many boats did that sort of thing. Thanks for response it was what I was looking for.

[RDBradish]

Most of the operations run really good programs, but, like everything, there are also one or two bad apples. It is the bad apples that NOAA is using to focus the attentions of the Marine Sanctuary Program on.

[fireflock]

It is the bad apples that NOAA is using to focus the attentions of the Marine Sanctuary Program on.

+1

I've often wondered if some kind of Dive Op standards for conduct and diver education (drafted by and signed on to by all the major dive ops) would go anywhere. Let's be straight....things would be a lot better off if just a small handful of people would knock off one or two questionable activities. If not, a small minority is going to keep making things worse for everyone.

Of course, until NOAA will identify what they think the problems are, it's hard to draft a policy to address reasonable concerns.

Rich

[Jason B.]

I just got off the phone with David Alberg from NOAA. He's the contact person on this effort.

According to him, some folks are way off base with this issue.

He claims the original meetings were about the Monitor site going through a management review. For one, to see if it even still needed to be protected. According to him, of all the meetings they advertised and held over a 60 day period throughout various locations in the state, only about 40 people actually showed up and maybe another 35 sent emails.

He claims NOAA as no position on expansion at this time.

He also said he wants to hear from you via a phone call. I called and left him a message and he promptly returned my call and we spoke for a good 30 min or more on the subject.

While there is some concern over a few wrecks (not all are worth protecting he said), what they are looking is for input such as thoughts on mooring balls on some of the more delicate sites as anchors are doing more damage than anything to these sites.

His phone number is (757) 591 7326. give him a call, he wants to hear from you.

You can also email him at David.Alberg@NOAA.gov - he will not reply (and no info needs to be in the email) but this will put you on their email list and you will get info on upcoming meetings and any other info they are putting out.

According to him, a famous divers newsletter started all this with no basis for any of it (again, the meetings were to be about the Monitor Marine Sanctuary management review, not expansion to the rest of NC).


Oh, he also said their next meeting will be held in Hatteras, May 19 2009. Attend if possible.

[Scotttyd]

You can also email him at Daivd.Alberg@NOAA.gov - he will not reply (and no info needs to be in the email) but this will put you on their email list and you will get info on upcoming meetings and any other info they are putting out.

FYI, David is spelled wrong in your message - took me sending the message twice and getting rejected.

[Jason B.]

Corrected - thanks!

[slaterson19]

I have been wanting to put moorings on alot of the wrecks (especially when there are 3-4 boats trying to dive one wreck). However, I heard that they use to do this in the Morehead City area and fishermen would cut the line.

[fireflock]

At Jason and Rob's suggestion, I took some time to call and talk to Dave Alberg too. He mentioned that his phone has been ringing today, so I guess some others are calling as well. He spent close to an hour talking to me, and I think I understand where he's coming from (even if we don't agree on the solution).

To start with, Dave seems like a reasonable, articulate, and educated guy, as you would expect someone with his job to be. We covered a lot of ground, but in summary I think it's fair to say that (1) Dave and NOAA think that there is a problem with some of the things divers have been doing off the coast, (2) NOAA is committed to educating and working with recreational divers, (3) NOAA isn't committed to one particular solution yet, but they are interested in a solution and (4) the jabber about NOAA controlling the raindrops doesn't really help things from either side.

For my part, I tried to get across the message that (1) the vast majority of divers would agree that there are some bad actors along the coast, and (2) a lot of divers are worried that any solution could be worse than the actual problem. I also tried to get across (but I'm not sure how well it was received) that some clear communication from NOAA (even just outlining what they think the problem is) would go a long way towards helping the average diver understand what's going on. It would also give something for people to provide feedback about. He encouraged me to attend the meeting in Hatteras, and I encouraged him to video the meeting so people who weren't there could get some idea about where he's coming from.

I'm not sure my suggestion about video will move to the top of his to-do list, but I do genuinely think that it would help both sides if some clear communication was out there that was as easy to access as some of other info and diver newsletters.

After agreeing on some of the big issues, I think we differed on how the public would benefit or be hurt by some kind of top-down regulation or controls. We talked about both the perspective of the average diver and the incentives for people who want to go out and uncover some new history. He seemed to be big on diver education and peer pressure and a way to help in a lot of cases. I expressed the desire to see some of the worst offenses stopped using existing laws, and he was sort of stuck admitting that existing laws aren't really enforced by anyone, ever. I didn't get the impression that we should expect any change on that front.

I'm afraid we're still heading towards something that raps everyone on the knuckles because a few people won't behave.

I think I'm being fair with that summary, and I also hope someone will let me know if I'm not. I'd rather let the folks from NOAA speak for themselves, but they seem reluctant to do so unless it's one on one or at a designated meeting.

Rich

[diveonthefive]

I have been wanting to put moorings on alot of the wrecks (especially when there are 3-4 boats trying to dive one wreck). However, I heard that they use to do this in the Morehead City area and fishermen would cut the line.

When a small group put moorings out, there was no way to restrict the use of them by others. Who is going to maintain them once they are installed? This was one of the problems with the mooring on the sub.

Also, the mooring had to be close enough for the divers to be able to reach the sub and not have the chain hit the sub, a problem with the mooring that was installed there.

It is not as simple as dropping a mooring by the wreck.

[RDBradish]

Hey Rich,

I won't go through my association- most know it, and my views. While David repeatedly states, and I believe him, tha NOAA has not stated any purpose, as of yet, and that the Sanctuary has no marching orders outside of discussion, I also believe that the mere fact that NOAA has been asked to look into the situation is very telling. To my knowledge, the reports I have seen or heard about are all very clear. While the salt water and weather clearly breakdown any vessel sunk on our coast, divers and Fisherman have clearly contributed as well. The question then becomes, quites simply, how much longer would such wrecks last were people restricted from physically touching one of these wrecks.

So, the German Government asks for an investigation into the contribution of divers and fisherman into the "decay" of they German gravesites. The findings are that, while anchoring against the structure has certainly contributed to the breakdown of the vessels, there is additionally clear evidence of entry and the disturbing of these gravesites which could only be performed by divers and he removal of souvenirs.

It seems clear that, regardless of my own beliefs, if faced by those results as a politically responsive country, some action must be taken. The question now becomes on of to what level. While it might seem easier to say "no access on the wrecks", I venture that it is easier to circle an area and say, "no touching wrecks in these areas".

Now, if you believe all of that, you merely have to decide how best to respond in order to insure your own interests.

At Jason and Rob's suggestion, I took some time to call and talk to Dave Alberg too. He mentioned that his phone has been ringing today, so I guess some others are calling as well. He spent close to an hour talking to me, and I think I understand where he's coming from (even if we don't agree on the solution).

To start with, Dave seems like a reasonable, articulate, and educated guy, as you would expect someone with his job to be. We covered a lot of ground, but in summary I think it's fair to say that (1) Dave and NOAA think that there is a problem with some of the things divers have been doing off the coast, (2) NOAA is committed to educating and working with recreational divers, (3) NOAA isn't committed to one particular solution yet, but they are interested in a solution and (4) the jabber about NOAA controlling the raindrops doesn't really help things from either side.

For my part, I tried to get across the message that (1) the vast majority of divers would agree that there are some bad actors along the coast, and (2) a lot of divers are worried that any solution could be worse than the actual problem. I also tried to get across (but I'm not sure how well it was received) that some clear communication from NOAA (even just outlining what they think the problem is) would go a long way towards helping the average diver understand what's going on. It would also give something for people to provide feedback about. He encouraged me to attend the meeting in Hatteras, and I encouraged him to video the meeting so people who weren't there could get some idea about where he's coming from.

I'm not sure my suggestion about video will move to the top of his to-do list, but I do genuinely think that it would help both sides if some clear communication was out there that was as easy to access as some of other info and diver newsletters.

After agreeing on some of the big issues, I think we differed on how the public would benefit or be hurt by some kind of top-down regulation or controls. We talked about both the perspective of the average diver and the incentives for people who want to go out and uncover some new history. He seemed to be big on diver education and peer pressure and a way to help in a lot of cases. I expressed the desire to see some of the worst offenses stopped using existing laws, and he was sort of stuck admitting that existing laws aren't really enforced by anyone, ever. I didn't get the impression that we should expect any change on that front.

I'm afraid we're still heading towards something that raps everyone on the knuckles because a few people won't behave.

I think I'm being fair with that summary, and I also hope someone will let me know if I'm not. I'd rather let the folks from NOAA speak for themselves, but they seem reluctant to do so unless it's one on one or at a designated meeting.

Rich

[RDBradish]

Even NOAA agrees that, with the number of "younger" divers visiting our coast, drift diving is not a really good choice for every wreck

Here is one of the ideas. Rather than dropping a buoy onto a wreck, and anchor is placed 100' off of the wreck with a length of chain laying along the bottom to the wreck. While that may mean a challenge when mulitple dive boats arrive at the same site, that is a matter of protocol, and, for really popular site, multiple anchors may be required.

Sometimes, it is not a matter of why it can't work, but rather a discussion of how it might.

I have been wanting to put moorings on alot of the wrecks (especially when there are 3-4 boats trying to dive one wreck). However, I heard that they use to do this in the Morehead City area and fishermen would cut the line.

When a small group put moorings out, there was no way to restrict the use of them by others. Who is going to maintain them once they are installed? This was one of the problems with the mooring on the sub.

Also, the mooring had to be close enough for the divers to be able to reach the sub and not have the chain hit the sub, a problem with the mooring that was installed there.

It is not as simple as dropping a mooring by the wreck.

[beenaround]

Oh, he also said their next meeting will be held in Hatteras, May 19 2009. Attend if possible.

I wonder if Hatteras was chosen for the next meeting because: A) it is in a remote location and thus many will not attend because of this B) The offending wreck destruction operator runs out of there.

[fireflock]

I heard the German Government wants us to do something angle too, but didn't discuss it much.

I'll just say that the US Government isn't in the habit of letting other countries tell us what we should or should not do. The feds have way too many problems on their plate to be forced unwillingly into action over something like this.

In other words, we ignore reasonable requests on small issues from foreign governments all the time (and they ignore us). We do sometimes use a request as an excuse to do something we wanted to do anyway.

Rich