NOAA is trying to expand Marine Sanctuary to gain control of Mid- Atlantic Wrecks.
Posted by Atlantic Diver on 5/9/2012, 8:05 pm
NOAA is trying to expand Marine Sanctuary to gain control of Mid- Atlantic Wrecks.
As a tax paying citizens, I urge you to protest NOAA's gross mismanagement overseeing the U.S.S. Monitor Sanctuary. The site was dramatically damaged by NOAA's neglect while allowing the wreck to remain in situ, and further by their abhorrently wasteful pet excavations, where tax payers financed multi-million dollar projects that could have been financed privately with less destruction.
NOAA has unreasonably restricted public access to the site to control and prevent damage to the historic site. In fact, the evidence of the deterioration of the wreck was predicted and proven during the first photographic expedition by privately funded members of Gary Gentile's Photographic Project in July of 1990. The final decimation inflicted by NOAA's misguided leadership was the death blow to the site where tax payers financed the unwarranted removal of the foundational turret structure. The wreck immediately collapsed after the gutting and today is no longer a worthy photographic site. What once was an attractive dive site for future photographic and historical research divers has been ripped to shreds by a power hungry controlling few of NOAA's unrestricted pontificating minority. NOAA's failure to manage has wasted obscene amounts of unneccessary tax moneys with no warranted benefit.
If we don't complain to our representatives, seven years to get a permit will be the norm... to dive any wrecks. There should be unrestricted access to all these sites and NO PERMITS. NOAA is not saving anything except their jobs... They are gaining public sanction to destroy and regulate more wrecks like the Monitor.
Write your representatives and tell them how NOAA is wasting excessive tax dollars and destroying the economy of fisheries, boating, marine industry and diving industry.
Note: This will include the New Jersey coastline with no limit on the expansion area.
I strongly urge you to sign the petition against NOAA's proposal for it's Expansion Action Plan and gross waste of tax payers money.
Although we are not able to be there in person, please accept these words in lieu of our attendance. We, Atlantis Charters, speak not only for ourselves, but also for tens of hundreds of recreational divers who have dedicated countless hours to discovering, researching, and/or repeatedly visiting the shipwrecks off the coast of North Carolina. Please be sure that this letter is read during the public comment period, and thank you for including the complete text in the official meeting minutes.
It is frustrating that:
1. MNMS meeting agendas are not posted on the website in advance of the meetings. 2. MNMS meeting minutes can take 10 weeks to post on the website. 3. NOAA/MNMS meetings are held on weekdays, often in remote locations. This leaves far too many interested parties unable to attend and be heard. 4. Comments from the public seem to be valid only when made at ‘official’ meetings.
For example:
• -At the October 22, 2008 ‘informational’ meeting: many people voiced strong opposition to any imposition of the government into recreational diving activities. Where was that strong opposition documented? • -Multiple direct individual comments (by phone) have been made supporting the status quo of NC diving. How have those comments been documented? • -Individual divers and dive operators who visit the NC wrecks (and who stand to be most affected by the idea of sanctuary expansion) are not being represented adequately at official NOAA meetings. The average citizen: who will never dive these wrecks and will never be directly affected by government regulation of dive sites is being over-represented, while it appears that local and regional diver opinions are minimized. • -NOAA evidenced a clear bias by releasing a series of press releases in 2008, which were unreasonably disparaging to the NC recreational diver. That method of influencing public opinion is neither impartial nor fair to all parties involved. Frankly, it reflects rather poorly on the tactics of a government entity. Even after repeated questions as to the intent or retraction of the published words, NOAA has yet to formally address their informal claim that their press releases were enhanced/altered by the media.
There are tens of hundreds of recreational divers who are against any change to government involvement in their diving activities off the coast of NC. Those people would like to know how their voices could be heard. They do not wish to discuss the actions, plans, or lack of plans for NOAA to expand the MNMS boundaries. They simply wish for the Monitor Sanctuary to remain as-is, and for their tax dollars be spent on matters of greater importance to the future of the United States.
There is nothing about the activities of recreational divers off the NC coast that can’t be improved by a simple grassroots effort of communication/education at the diver level. Please let these comments (and any subsequent discussion) be made a permanent part of the official MNMS Advisory Council meeting minutes.
Thank you,
Renate Eichinger, for Atlantis Charters, et al. (Morehead City, NC)
Here's a link to the Professional Marine Explorers Society. This group is fighting for wreck diving freedom and putting a stop to NOAA's Expansion. Join for only $25.00. Money well spent to maintain your wreck diving. Also here's the link to Sanctuary Alert for anyone interested in keeping up with what the Society is doing. Sign into the group. (it's free)
Here is a letter of response written by Gary Gentile, that can be used as an example to sent to your local representative:
Gary Gentile
RISE OF THE FOURTH REICH
The following letter is self explanatory. NOAA plans to annex every shipwreck of the eastern seaboard. Use my letter as a template to write your own. Send copies to your State and federal congressional representatives as well. I did.
Re: Opposition to Expansion of Monitor National Marine Sanctuary May 8, 2012
Beverly Perdue, Office of the Governor 116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Phone: (800) 662-7952 or (919) 733-2391
I have been diving off the coast of North Carolina for more than thirty years. I continue to dive in North Carolina waters on an annual basis. I have many friends who dive and fish in North Carolina waters. We have all enjoyed the freedom of diving and fishing when and where we like without hindrance from the government.
The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) currently administers the Monitor National Marine Sanctuary (MNMS) off the Diamond Shoals, and has done so since that Sanctuary was established, in 1975. According to the Draft Revised Management Plan of April 2012, NOAA is now proposing to expand the MNMS to include every shipwreck off the coast of North Carolina (under the rubric "Graveyard of the Atlantic NMS"), and eventually every shipwreck off the entire eastern seaboard (under the rubric "Battle of the Atlantic NMS").
I strongly oppose any proposed expansion on several grounds and for a variety of reasons:
The expansion proposal is a blank check for NOAA to create a Sanctuary whose boundaries are unlimited.
The expansion proposal allows NOAA to impose any and all restrictions without regard to public input.
The denial of voter input contradicts the basic principle of a democratic government whose Constitution was ratified to guarantee freedom from oppression for its citizens.
Unfettered expansion will create an economic disaster for the State of North Carolina.
The proposal contains no language to guarantee free and uncontrolled access to all shipwreck sites. It has already taken four federal lawsuits for people to obtain permission to photograph at the Monitor. Nonetheless, NOAA has subsequently either denied access, or has imposed a permitting process so cumbersome that it effectively prevents access by recreational divers who lack the means and resources to combat NOAA's expensive obstructionist tactics.
A condition of the permitting process is that recreational divers must perform work, free of charge, that NOAA arbitrarily and capriciously considers useful. Recreational divers are not permitted to simply look at the wreck because of its significance to their national and cultural heritage: the reason for which the MNMS was established.
The proposal is replete with misleading statements and outright prevarications. Here are only a few of the most egregious examples of subterfuge: NOAA claims that "many" shipwrecks in the area are military gravesites, when in fact only six of the thousands of North Carolina shipwrecks qualify for such a designation.
The proposal claims that in previous scoping meetings, "many" commenters favored expansion. In fact, attendees state categorically that there was universal opposition to the expansion program.
The proposal claims that NOAA's Advisory Committee favors expansion. This may be true, but only because committee members were selected on the basis of their favoritism. Volunteers who opposed expansion were excluded from membership.
The proposal advertises that in 1990, NOAA issued permits for recreational divers to photograph the Monitor. It neglects to mention that it required six years and three federal lawsuits to force the issuance of those permits; and that subsequent permits were issued only after another federal lawsuit was prosecuted, followed by direct Congressional intervention. NOAA's partial truth is contrived to put NOAA in a false light of benevolence.
The proposal states, "During the 2008 scoping meetings for the Monitor National Marine Sanctuary management plan, many of the commentors [sic] expressed an interest in expanding the sanctuary to include additional shipwrecks off the coast of North Carolina." This statement is deliberately misleading because all the expressed interest opposed such expansion. The sentence is cleverly worded so that readers who are ignorant of the truth are led to believe that the "interest" favored expansion; any hint of opposition was cunningly avoided.
Any proposal that is not based on honest reporting is not a good proposal.
Present regulations deny shipwreck access without a permit. Permits often require a lawsuit to obtain. If the Sanctuary is expanded, access to every shipwreck that the Sanctuary encompasses will be automatically denied.
Present regulations in the NMMS prohibit anchoring or grappling. This prohibition makes it unsafe, difficult, or impossible to access shipwrecks. The proposal contains no language for deleting this prohibition which, by default, will still stand. Thus shipwreck access will be denied without an affirmative assertion of denial.
The proposal fails to explain how expansion will benefit the public that will be asked to fund the Sanctuary, but will not be allowed to visit its assets.
The proposal states, "These shipwrecks offer a unique opportunity to study and better understand our maritime history." This is equivalent to stating that the study of rusting cars in a junk yard can yield important information about twentieth-century traffic patterns. Even if the statement about shipwrecks were true, shipwrecks can be studied without being located within a Sanctuary. Furthermore, thousands of books and articles have already been written about this maritime history; the proposal neglects to state what expansion can add to the understanding that is readily available. Additional study is largely redundant.
The proposal neglects to describe how expansion will protect shipwrecks from natural deterioration in a corrosive environment. In fact, the proposal avoids the issue altogether. Never once does it mention how this so-called "protection" is to be provided. The word "protection" is left undefined.
The control of shipwrecks is not part of the charter of the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act, under which the MNMS was established. The MPRSA was passed by Congress solely as a measure to protect endangered marine life. Thus the MNMS was established and is operated under illegal sanction.
NOAA has misallocated much of its funding by using taxpayers' money to send their employees on all-expenses-paid shipwreck extravaganza vacations that they euphemistically call "surveys," when in fact the wrecks that they claim to have "surveyed" were surveyed years ago, and the results of those surveys are a matter of public record.
NOAA wants to increase the number of so-called "surveys" by re-examining shipwrecks under the guise of the "Wreck Oil Removal Program," the putative purpose of which is to examine tankers that were torpedoed by Nazi U-boats during World War Two, and to assess their oil-leakage potential. A thorough examination in this regard was conducted in 1967. Called the "Sunken Tanker Project," Coast Guard investigators found that World War Two tankers presented no current or future risk to the environment because their hulls had already collapsed, their tanks were open to the sea, and the cargo had long since leaked away.
The economic impact of the proposed expansion will be catastrophic for the State of North Carolina because tourism will drop dramatically. If divers are not permitted to dive on shipwrecks, and if anglers are not permitted to fish on shipwrecks, diving and fishing in North Carolina waters will practically cease to exist. Charter operations will either fold or move elsewhere; dive shops will close; bait and tackle stores will go out of business; restaurants, motels, and local vendors will see a sharp decrease in income.
The only beneficiary to NOAA's expansion proposal is NOAA. NOAA funding would be better spent on forecasting weather, maintaining neglected aids to navigation, and engaging in other functions that benefit the public. Gary Gentile
Make an effort today to act in order to STOP NOAA's Expansion.
Everyone needs to get on board with this. I've been involved with a Monitor expedition and have been around these NOAA people. They want to control and restrict access to everything !
Re: NOAA is trying to expand Marine Sanctuary to gain control of Mid- Atlantic Wrecks.
Here is a link to NOAA's proposed "management plan." I read it and they really do want to be the keepers of every 'Colonial Commerce, Piracy, Shipbuilding, the American Civil War, WW1, WW2, as well as a wide range of materials associate with regional coastal heritage..." or any wreck of historical value that there is, so they can "assist the public" by "studying" human impact on them and protect them from degrading further, etc. NOAA is clearly looking to expand elsewhere beyond NC.
Can you imagine applying for a permit from NOAA every time you want to dive the Resor, Arundo, Gulf Trader, Tolten, Stolt, U-869, etc.? Reading this just made my blood boil and prodded me to buy Gary Gentile's book "Shipwreck Heresies."
Though they mention it several times, go to Page 102 in the report link below to read their expansion plans.
"As such, constituents such as veterans groups, historians, archaeologists, divers, the preservation community, the general public and the MNMS Advisory Council have approached NOAA to formally assess their national significance and consider expansion of the Monitor National Marine Sanctuary as a means to protect and preserve these historic sites."
What DIVERS?
Re: NOAA is trying to expand Marine Sanctuary to gain control of Mid- Atlantic Wrecks.
They have been hatching this for a few years now, so why all of a sudden a panic ? Do you really think your Reps in DC give a S--- about wreck divers and no place to dive !
Re: NOAA is trying to expand Marine Sanctuary to gain control of Mid- Atlantic Wrecks.
This is just information. You can still sit back and watch it happen. Once it becomes effective there will be little recourse.
We should be concerned about what we are allowed to do now. We should be free to dive all these wrecks without prosecution or persecution. You should be allowed to spear fish, photograph, or just observe without filing for a pseudo scientific permit. You should be incensed that you will not be allowed to dive these wrecks because you are considered proletariat. Only those whom have been touched by NOAA's scepter are worthy. If we don't care we deserve less freedom.
When I dived the Monitor in 1990, I was asked by the NOAA observer why I wanted to dive this wreck when there was so much documentation of the site? I answered that I wanted to feel the power of the wreck's history. Every American who is capable should have that privilege without prejudice. If your not passionate about this as an American you are not breathing.
Write your representatives and tell them how NOAA is wasting excessive tax dollars and destroying the economy of fisheries, boating, marine industry and diving industry.
Good Wreck Diving! Atlantic Diver
Re: NOAA is trying to expand Marine Sanctuary to gain control of Mid- Atlantic Wrecks.
Disclaimer of Liability: The materials on the NJ Scuba Divers Message Board web site are provided to you free of charge, "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL NJ SCUBA DIVERS MESSAGE BOARD OR BOARDHOST.COM BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER, INCLUDING SPECIAL, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES OR DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, REVENUE, USE, OR DATA WHETHER BROUGHT IN CONTRACT OR TORT, ARISING OUT OF OR CONNECTED WITH ANY NJ SCUBA DIVERS MESSAGE BOARD POST OR BOARDHOST.COM WEB SITE OR THE USE, RELIANCE UPON OR PERFORMANCE OF ANY MATERIAL CONTAINED IN OR ACCESSED FROM ANY NJ SCUBA DIVERS MESSAGE BOARD POST OR BOARDHOST.COM WEB SITE.
Link Disclaimer: We provide links to web sites operated by other parties. The links are provided for your convenience only. The presence of a link does not imply any endorsement of the material on the web sites or any association with the web site's operators. We do not operate, control or endorse any information, products or services provided by third parties through the Internet. We are not responsible for the content and performance of these sites. Use of linked sites is strictly at your own risk including any risks associated with destructive viruses.
If you like this website, and would like to give something in return, you can make a donation Your donation will be used to pay for domain & maintenance costs ONLY! Click the PayPal Donate button below....THANK YOU!