Wreck Exclusion zones

Simon B · 09 February 2006, 13:11

Recent reccomendations below may have some knock on effects for forum users, this from my mate Daz;

"I don't know if you have been following this on various internet forums or not (BSAC & YD). At a recent shipwreck conference held in Plymouth, the recommendations from the Department for Culture Media & Sport review of the protection of the marine environment surfaced. During this review no representation from the any diving agency was allowed although BSAC, SAA & PADI all compiled submissions to the committee.
The recommendations from this committee was as follows.

Any wreck less than 50 years old on which any military or merchant marine personnel died would be subject to a diving ban.

All wreck over 50 years old would be classed as a historic wreck and diving would require a licence. Licences can only be issued to a group for an individual dive. Eg LUEC could apply to dive X on Friday 13th @ 14:00, if blown out the licence would expire. Charter boats currently can not apply for a general licence.

They would have to apply for a licence for each separate dive.

The penalty for infringement is the confiscation of any and all kit involved, eg the boat, any dive kit on the boat and possibly even the car used to tow the boat. Items can be confiscated while investigations are carried out to determine if an infringement has occurred.

Dive sites like the Farnes could be totally out of bounds, the exclusion zone around the wrecks is 200m, with the number of wrecks on the Farnes there would be very few areas where diving could take place without a licence and the risk of divers drifting into an exclusion zone would be great.

No vote in parliament is required to enact this legislation as the primary legislation is already in place, all it requires is the signature from the Secretary of State."

If this preposterous bilge ever becomes law there will be glut of dive ribs on the market and a lot of charter operations will close. Good old Tony Bliar what a @~£* still wont be too long before red diesel goes, then a wind tax on sails. That'll get all those gross displays of disposable income off the water!

There's a prepared letter that British Sub Aqua Club will be using to snowstorm lobby MPs. No link yet but I'll find one.

donutsina911 · 09 February 2006, 13:18

"Any wreck less than 50 years old on which any military or merchant marine personnel died would be subject to a diving ban."

think this part is spot on - the rest is garbage.

Simon B · 09 February 2006, 14:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by donutsina911

"Any wreck less than 50 years old on which any military or merchant marine personnel died would be subject to a diving ban."

think this part is spot on - the rest is garbage.

Most divers wouldnt argue with this, the more modern wrecks tend not to have loss of life. It's all the other asociated cobblers that will kill of more than just the divers sport. It also appears to be the thin end of the wedge. I doubt much time would then be wasted drafting similar crap forcing Marinas to reduce to zero pollutants by having all boats out of the water or to save money on rescue operations ban pleasure boating (thats in areas that arent protected wrecks as they'd be banned already)

I did wonder if this was Tony Bliar doing his utmost to leave Mr Brown with nothing to govern for very long.

codprawn · 09 February 2006, 17:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by donutsina911

"Any wreck less than 50 years old on which any military or merchant marine personnel died would be subject to a diving ban."

think this part is spot on - the rest is garbage.

In principle possibly but what if all the bodies were recovered? And why only military or merchant marine? Does that mean that civillian deaths don't matter?

Yet another example of what Teflon Tony is doing to this country - he just can't leave ANYTHING alone - laws that have been in place for 800yrs - freedoms that people actually died for - none of it matters any more!!!

donutsina911 · 09 February 2006, 17:44

I'm assuming civilian and merchant mean one and the same thing.

Bodies or no bodies, I think it's a bit insensitive to be rummaging about the site where people have lost their lives - just MHO though. I wouldnt be too keen on divers interfering with the wreck were my relatives died and I dived extensively in the RN and in civvy street so v pro diving, even scoobie doos.

Simon B · 09 February 2006, 18:04

People seem to feel the last known position of their loved ones to be the wreck, wherever they sadly perished, living memory also has a powerful effect. The Mary Rose was old and people did not make as much fuss when bones were brought up for study.

The governemnt and other bodies regard wrecks as objects or property, if they need radiation free steel it will probably come from salvaged plate from a wreck. This isnt as widely broadcast.

Wrecks decay and eventually become part of the sea bed again as the Titanic is doing, one could argue that the recovery of artefacts before this occurs is beneficial, someone once asked me if I could bring back something from a wreck on which a relative had perished as a connection to it. Personally I believe in the look but dont touch approach and remember those who did die, others sadly bypass this in favour of the hammer and chisel.

Jono · 09 February 2006, 18:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by donutsina911

..... I think it's a bit insensitive to be rummaging about the site where people have lost their lives.... -

Do you feel the same way about the battle field sites in Europe? What about the old concentration camps?…. Coach loads of tours Etc? ....Farmers ploughing up the old trench sites....... Builders putting roads through fields where thousands of people died in the mud. ...People lost their lives there too.... I'm not saying you're wrong, but where do we draw the line, so to speak?

Simon B · 09 February 2006, 18:37

Thats one of the paradoxes or issues that society glosses over, kind of along the lines of "you dont have to dive that wreck, but its important that this road goes through because its; progress/goes to my supermarket etc"

These are sites that are recorded, what of the countless death sites for road traffic accidents. I regularly drive past the Kegworth air crash site and think of them, but what does this do? Remembers I suppose.

donutsina911 · 09 February 2006, 20:13

kind of agree, perhaps the difference is between sites of accidents and sites where wars, genocide etc have taken place. I'm guessing (big time) that folks whose relatives died at the somme or were gassed at belsen feel that people visiting the sites will learn something valuable from it and every person who is touched by this will be one less person likely to let it happen again which is clearly a good thing. Diving on a merchantman that sank a year ago with loss of life seems (to me) to be a bit more voyeuristic