Raising U-352, Chapter 2

[RDBradish]

Like the Monitor site being off limits, what a joke, its a big ocean.?

Please be careful saying that. It perpetuates the rumor that NOAA limits access to the Monitor site. What NOAA does do is request that a diver, or group of divers, submit a dive plan prior to visiting the site. Anyone can obtain a permit. They also do this for the Panther, B-52 wreck in Lake Mead, and Flower Garden reef off of Galveston, to name but a few. In fact, if one checks, I believe they will find all of the

That is a B-29 in Lake Meade Bradish. It crashed when the pilot hot rodded it too low after doing atmospheric studies. B-29s were late WWII long range bombers...the Enola Gay that dropped the first atomic or nucular bomb was a B-29. That bomber is on my hit list if I ever get to Vegas, I could care less about casinos.....I want to dive the bomber.

Tom

Woops!! My Bad!! You are correct sir!!!

[Atlantis IV]

FYI: This article is older than the last, but worthy of a link in this thread.
http://hamptonroads.com/2008/07/noaa-go ... h-carolina

"But still, the U-701 retains much of its original condition, and NOAA has maintained its goal of creating a sanctuary for the wreck.

"This is the one that has the most chance of being preserved and protected for the American public," Casserley said.

The other two submarine sites may also qualify for cultural protection, he said. A goal of the project is to have the wreck sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places as well as to establish diving sanctuaries. There are 14 protected areas in the National Marine Sanctuary System."

Also- http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/missions/ba ... ssion.html
(lots of links on the website)

-

[Bumble]

Ok before I post on this subject can someone give me a 1 paragraph update?

Erik

[fireflock]

In a nutshell, NOAA has started a new project to survey the 3 commonly visited U-boats off our coast. They plan to expand the survey over the next few years to include more WWII wrecks. People are unsure about where it is all leading. Some NOAA reps (see the emails to Bradish) say they are just interested to see how things look today. Others see it as the precursor to an expansion of the Monitor NMS (see other NOAA reps quoted in news articles, as well as the BOA research design documents). Some of the things that NOAA reps have been quoted saying in news reports about the disrespectful behavior of divers doesn't match what regular divers in the area observe. NOAA was posting regular updates about the summer surveys, but they seem to have stopped (and maybe removed some documents from their website?) after the reaction from the local diving community was less than a warm embrace.

In addition to what's posted on NCDivers, see this:

http://www.rebreatherworld.com/rebreath ... -sunk.html

Rich

[Bumble]

Well, I had heard through the grape vine that they were trying to expand the Monitor Sanctuary into, the Graveyard of the Atlantic National Marine Sanctuary. If that is the case then I am worrried. I can see the need for sanctuaries however, I think that the current way that they are governed is not good. To me it is government doing what they can to protect you from you or in this case protecting the wrecks that you want to be able to visit and see for years by not letting you go and see them. I have seen this before in other hobbies that I participate in. For those that are going to jump on me and state that there is no ban from diving the monitor and other sites. I will whole heartedly agree with you there isnt. However do to the requirements to get a permit there is a de facto ban. I think it would also be hard to argue that.

I think it would be less than cool to deny divers access to the NC wrecks. I find that most all divers are very aware of conservation needs and dive boat operators push this because, well if you dont have good wreck to dive, divers wont come to dive them.

If, they are surveying to get baseline data I would like to know what for. What is the ultimate goal, dont tell me are surveying to just survey, as there has to be a reason given in any scientific endevor.

Is the goal to expand the monitor sanctuary and if so will divers have to go through the red tape as scientific divers that they have to go through now to dive the monitor? I would like to know. Remember alot of these wrecks were found through great private work. They are a treasure to us all.

I am a skeptic at this point. I hope I am wrong and if I am I will freely admit it. We will see.

Erik

[RDBradish]

Lets look from a different view. We know that many, including myself if I have the opportunity, would take souvenirs off of a wreck.

Fact is, this has been illegal for years in the US. People just went around it because most of the wrecks were outside the 12 mile territorial waters. That extension was made 4 years ago so that any souvenir hunting on a war grave by any vessel registered in the US is illegal. We all know it, but get away with it because the law has no teeth and the operators ignore it.
Now, as a breed, when hunting Brass, we can be pretty anxious. Hacksaws, Crowbars and hammer & chisel are the norm, in an effort to grab any recognizable piece of metal and salvage it before mother nature, or some other hunter, does. This we can do pretty violently and with a fair amount of damage!!

Many people are clearly ignoring the law with regard to salvage, and since the war crimes acts designates many of these sites as no touch graveyards, perhaps another method of protecting them is required. Since NOAA and the NPS have experience protecting sites in the past, it was logical that they be tasked with this possibility as well. Out of the 40 or so sites that are protected by these organizations currently, including the Monitor, Thunder Bay, Flower Garden Banks and the Arizona, only the Arizona has restricted access. All others are accessible by either pulling a permit, or riding with somebody who has one.

So, the question comes down to this. Are we mad at the possibility of restricted access (which has not yet been the case) or because we want to have our chance at stealing a souvenir??

[RDBradish]

One note about the Monitor and permit acquisition.

Did you know that the ONLY civilian to have applied for a permit, thus far, is Joel Silverstein?? While not saying so himself, Joel has done a brilliant job of encouraging others to think he has some inside knowledge or priviledges within NOAA that allow him access to permits. That simply is not the case, and, if you have a boat you'd like to use, I can have the permit in my hand in a very short time (just a couple of weeks). Now that the research is nearly complete, a new recreational permit is in the planning as well, further streamling the process.

[Bumble]

Rob,
I know of at least one other individual that has tried. The issue is dives on the monitor are not supposed to be pleasure dives but working dives. I am not labeling NOAA as bad people I just dont like the idea.

As far as the Arizona goes it is not a sanctuary. It is the USS Arizona Memorial and Shrine. It does fall under falls under the aspices of a marine protected area though, however the reason that it is restricted is becasue it is a mass war grave and still has alot of enviromental issues both fuel wise and ammunition wise. As well as being in Pearl Harbor itself.


I guess some will argue that some of the wrecks in NC are war graves. I wont argue but the odds of you runnning into human remains are alot smaller than on the Arizona and the odds of you creating and enviromental disaster are smaller as well.


A marine protected area is “Any area of the marine environment that has been reserved by federal, state, territorial, tribal, or local laws or regulations to provide lasting protection to part or all of the natural or cultural resources therein.” –Executive Order 13158 on Marine Protected Areas

This includes shrines and sanctuaries....etc et al.

[RDBradish]

Not sure he has tried- alot of people have said they have, then when faced with the details and the document, do not. For what it is worth, they do in fact tell you that it needs to be research worthy, but I was told that such research can include photography, note taking on the site, or "counting local specimans in specific categories using a spear or speargun" (the last was used at another restricted site)

To be sure, I am not in any way defending NOAA or NPS, but, the fact is, they have a legal leg to stand on, while the NC dive community does not. The issue then becomes do I try to bulldoze, work with, or go around. At this moment, I am tending toward go around. One or two confiscations of vessels and dive gear, however, may change that outlook!!

[RDBradish]

As far as the Arizona goes it is not a sanctuary. It is the USS Arizona Memorial and Shrine. It does fall under falls under the aspices of a marine protected area though, however the reason that it is restricted is becasue it is a mass war grave and still has alot of enviromental issues both fuel wise and ammunition wise. As well as being in Pearl Harbor itself.

Never called it a sanctuary, only listed it as protected by the likes of NOAA and NPS

[Bumble]

I know Rob, just pointing it out for the masses.

[fpsndiver]

The more I think about this whole thing......and the more I think about NOAA's involvement....I'll say this:

I'm ok with Marine Sanctuaries on WWII wrecks. OK, have at em. As long as diving is not restricted on the sites in any manner. Fine, no artifacts, I can deal with that...but spearfishing and photography/videography need to be allowed.

Also, moorings seem to be a concern. Then NOAA should be responsible for their maintanance, not the dive community. Let the Feds shoulder that financial burden, and leave an exception in there that states, "If a NOAA NMS mooring bouy comes undone, or breaks free, that chaters and private vessels can anchor into the wreck in the least invasive method possible, and then list all the approved places.

As far as other wrecks go....especially ones that are still latent amongst some of us...well, what NOAA doesn't know........they don't know.

Tom

[barney]

Did you know that the ONLY civilian to have applied for a permit, thus far, is Joel Silverstein??

That's not true. Cambrian Foundation received permits for several years, and then there was Farb and some others early on.

[Bumble]

Tom,
My concern is that the sanctuary will envelope all the wrecks...I may be wrong but why have a bunch of small sanctuaries when you can have one large one. It would be easier to manage. Then you lose easy access to them all. Its the snow ball effect that worries me. But, I may be wrong and if I am ill admit it. We will see.

Divers are pretty good at policing there own.,

Unfortunately I dont think you will see a bouy policy like that.

[barney]

Fact is, this has been illegal for years in the US. People just went around it because most of the wrecks were outside the 12 mile territorial waters. That extension was made 4 years ago so that any souvenir hunting on a war grave by any vessel registered in the US is illegal.

Sorry, that's not accurate. You can still recover artifacts off shipwrecks in some states (e.g., South Carolina). And there is no prohibition on "any vessel registered in the U.S." - what you are thinking of is the prohibition on any sovereign (i.e., government) U.S. vessel or aircraft (USN, USAF, NASA, etc.). Merchant vessels were not included under that umbrella. War grave has nothing to do with the designation either.