Bob Ballard comments
vince garcia
marine salvage, no one really had a problem with the hard-working salvor
who managed to find his own buried treasure and actually make a profit
off it. Even Mel Fisher, a guy I have problems with for his (unfair)
registration of numerous wreck sites he isn't personally working on,
earned every cent he made by blood, sweat and tears, including the loss
of his son and daughter-in-law.
Now along comes Bob Ballard to pontificate against the salvage of sunken
vessels, suggesting that anyone in disagreement is a greedy,
money-hungry rapist of the tombs of the dead.
Well, what if I think to even film a "sacred" site like the TITANIC--not
to mention penetrate its interior--is a sacrilege. What if I think Bob
Ballard's an SOB for daring to even disturb the rest of the dead by
filming the site of their graves? Does that mean Mr Ballard should live
his life by MY standards? Does that give me the right to lobby Congress
and the UN to enact laws forcing Him--and everyone else--to treat wreck
sites by MY own arbitrary viewpoints?
It seems to me that Mr Ballard is trying to impose his own standards of
propriety on the rest of the world, and the heck with those who hold a
different view. Unfortunately for him, we live in a world where overall
the opinions of others hold equal weight with our own, and I personally
find it disturbing that my potential for making a living off the Sea (I
used to work for a commercial diving company) could be placed in danger
by Mr Ballard who sometimes comes off to me as if he has appointed
himself Admiral of the Ocean Sea, and become its conscience.
v
Visitors always welcome at my LUSITANIA site, RMSLUSITANIA.COM
http://unique-antiques.com/rmslucy/lucy.htm
Wopke Postuma
vince garcia heeft geschreven in bericht <35F033...@ix.netcom.com>...
So what's your point? You don't like Ballard, fine. But are you in favour of
demolishing a ship that foundered such a long time ago?
vince garcia
>
>
> So what's your point? You don't like Ballard, fine. But are you in favour of
> demolishing a ship that foundered such a long time ago?
In answer to your question, yes--I am four square in favor of legal
salvage of ANY vessel in International waters, should some enterprising
group or individual wish to place their capital at risk on the venture
v
Wopke Postuma
vince garcia heeft geschreven in bericht <35F052...@ix.netcom.com>...
So if someone has the dole to exhume somebody else's corpse, it's alright
with you? You sound like alt.necrophelia.titanic to me!
Wopke
DavidN1327
Bravo! If anything, RMS Titanic Inc. leaders aren't going far enough, in my
opinion. They should never have appeased their critics by agreeing to avoid
recovery of artifacts from any part of Titanic.
The company should recover as much of Titanic as the company chooses to afford
regardless of what it recovers.
vince garcia
>
>
> So if someone has the dole to exhume somebody else's corpse, it's alright
> with you? You sound like alt.necrophelia.titanic to me!
>
> Wopke
Please, Wopke--that was a childish, ad hominem attack. If you can't see
the difference between a wreck site and walking down to the local
cemetery and digging up a grave to loot a corpse, I can't explain it to
you.
v
Titanic
>the difference between a wreck site and walking down to the local<BR>
>cemetery and digging up a grave to loot a corpse, I can't explain it to<BR>
>you.<BR>
And if you cannot see the similarities, I cannot explain it to YOU. In my
opinion, there is NO difference between a wreck site and digging up a cemetery.
The gravesite argument aside - the wrecks of ships that have played a
signifigant part in our history (Titanic, Lusitania for example) should be
protected from unscrupulous and unqualified looting by individuals or groups
that only want to make a quick buck.
Regards,
Bill Walden - Talent, Oregon
Wopke Postuma
Titanic heeft geschreven in bericht
<199809050356...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
I agree 100 %. Nothing can be gained from looting the wrecksite, not even if
it would be carried out in a more respectful way than Tulloch has done so
far.
Wopke
vince garcia
resorting to ad hominem attacks :)
C'mon, tho--how much outrage did you feel during the salvage of the
ANDREA DORIA or when stacks of double eagles were retrieved from the
CENTRAL AMERICA? I'll wager not much.
v
Wopke Postuma
Human beings are inquisitive by nature, and there is nothing wrong with
that. Excavations have been done in Pompei to learn about the way society
worked over 2000 years ago. Pompei has great scientifical value because the
Vesuvio caused a sort of snapshot of the city.
For simular reasons, the wreckage of TWAs flight 800 has been collected from
the sea bottom to be able to investigate what caused the explosion. Finding
the cause of the accident will make air travel saver in the future.
No such correct motives apply to RMSTI.
What can we learn from the things they remove from the ship (more than once
by brute force) and bring to the surface? Nothing.
Will sailing the oceans be saver after the noble expeditions by RMSTI? No.
Does tearing telephones from crows' nests give us any insights into
sociological aspects of life in the second decade of this century? No.
Concluding and in all reason, I'm sure you will agree that nothing is gained
from bringing Titanic up.
Kind regards,
Wopke Postuma
vince garcia
anything up. However, my point was not to maintain the necessity for
salvage in order to enhance historical knowkedge, but rather to support
the notion of lawful salvage of sunken vessles, the laws of which have
been respected by most nations since the 1700s. We could leave the
treasure of the ATOCHA to remain buried in the sand; we can leave the
TITANIC to rust, but I see no reason why George Tulluch or any salvor
should be villified for retrieving lost valuables. Keep in mind, he
isn't taking jewelry off of skeletons; he's retrieving debris. I suppose
those who want to view the TITANIC as a tomb will feel happy if the ship
is left in peace, but as a former commercial diver who views such things
not from the luxury of an armchair, but from the perspective of one who
made his living by the sea, I just do not view the subject in the same
way you do.
Similarly, I don't particularly care about the spotted owl, especially
when I see American workers being put out of a job because some Liberals
environmentalists from San Francisco think animals should come before
people. (No, I'm not for raping the land and putting up
factories/strip-mining, etc.--I just feel things should be kept in
balance and viewed rationally, not emotionally).
Ah, and I still dream of getting my hands on the $2,000,000,000 aboard
the ADMIRAL NAKIMOV if I can ever get out to the Tsushima
straights...hope whomever lucks into THAt pile will be able to enjoy the
fruits of his labor without being attacked for it!
DavidN1327
sociological aspects of life in the second decade of this century?"
It's a lie to suggest that RMS Titanic Inc. tore any telephone from the Titanic
crow's nest.
"Concluding and in all reason, I'm sure you will agree that nothing is gained
from bringing Titanic up," w_po...@planetall.com.
In your opinion, maybe. I disagree.
Tom Pappas
Okay. I'll play devil's advocate today, and take the side of the plunderers.
>Human beings are inquisitive by nature, and there is nothing wrong with
>that. Excavations have been done in Pompei to learn about the way society
>worked over 2000 years ago. Pompei has great scientifical value because the
>Vesuvio caused a sort of snapshot of the city.
Yeah, but so what? Why is it important that we learn about the way society
worked over 2000 years ago? Is the voyeuristic interest of scientists
somehow more valid than that of the average guy? Why do we assume that what
archeologists learn is any more important than the emotional experience of a
layperson who is moved by seeing the artifacts? In other words, what is
scientific value, and why is it intrinsically more valuable than Six Flags
amusement rides?
>For simular reasons, the wreckage of TWAs flight 800 has been collected
from
>the sea bottom to be able to investigate what caused the explosion. Finding
>the cause of the accident will make air travel saver in the future.
This is right on target, but I don't really think the reasons are similar.
Solving a forensic puzzle is in an entirely different category than salvage
for the sake of filling museums.
>No such correct motives apply to RMSTI.
>What can we learn from the things they remove from the ship (more than once
>by brute force) and bring to the surface? Nothing.
Except, as I said above, that displaying artifacts brings pleasure to the
people who see them.
>Will sailing the oceans be saver after the noble expeditions by RMSTI? No.
>Does tearing telephones from crows' nests give us any insights into
>sociological aspects of life in the second decade of this century? No.
Fair enough. But won't peoples' lives be enriched by the experience of
having their heart strings tugged in contemplation of the bits and pieces of
so many lives cut short under such tragic circumstances?
>Concluding and in all reason, I'm sure you will agree that nothing is
gained
>from bringing Titanic up.
I will agree that nothing of scientific or public safety value is gained.
But do we not have both minds AND hearts that need nourishment?
>Wopke Postuma
Tom Pappas
--
Half-baked Titanic theories galore at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~tomswift1
"But this script can't sink!"
"She is made of irony, sir. I assure you, she can."
Andrys D Basten
Tom Pappas <toms...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>I will agree that nothing of scientific or public safety value is gained.
>But do we not have both minds AND hearts that need nourishment?
Eloquent devil's advocating.
--
===========================================================
Andrys Basten <and...@netcom.com>
CNE, Basten Micro Consulting
San Francisco/East Bay - 510/235-3861
Have music, will travel: piano, harpsichord, recorders
http://www.andrys.com -Online resources
http://www.andrys.com/indox.html -Peru photos w/Canon Elph
Wopke Postuma
vince garcia heeft geschreven in bericht <35F16C...@ix.netcom.com>...
>Yes, I will entirely agree that nothing new will be learned by bringing
>anything up. However, my point was not to maintain the necessity for
>salvage in order to enhance historical knowkedge, but rather to support
>the notion of lawful salvage of sunken vessles, the laws of which have
>been respected by most nations since the 1700s.
Unfortunately, I am not an expert on legal aspects dealing with this
subject. One could wonder however: who gives RMSTI the right to 'salvage'
Titanic?
> We could leave the
>treasure of the ATOCHA to remain buried in the sand; we can leave the
>TITANIC to rust, but I see no reason why George Tulluch or any salvor
>should be villified for retrieving lost valuables. Keep in mind, he
>isn't taking jewelry off of skeletons; he's retrieving debris.
I do not agree with that: If he would stick to retrieving coal, that's one
thing, but from what I understand, he is actually jerking parts off the
ship.
Perhaps there is a difference between American and European attitudes on
this subject: I would the detest the idea of TitanicWorld, where little kids
can take splashy rides in EJs bathtub for 'big bucks' and where lovers can
have their picture taken in a yet to be 'salvaged' Rose & Jack Renault.
>I suppose those who want to view the TITANIC as a tomb will feel happy if
the ship
>is left in peace, but as a former commercial diver who views such things
>not from the luxury of an armchair, but from the perspective of one who
>made his living by the sea, I just do not view the subject in the same
>way you do.
That is your good right of course. Please forgive me this comparison:
If you were a professional hitman for the mafia (or for one of its
associated organisations - such as the Vatican), would it be unfair to
accuse you of being a murderer, even if that is your only means of living?
This is not meant as a personal attack - it's just my way of clearing things
up.
>Similarly, I don't particularly care about the spotted owl, especially
>when I see American workers being put out of a job because some Liberals
>environmentalists from San Francisco think animals should come before
>people. (No, I'm not for raping the land and putting up
>factories/strip-mining, etc.--I
>just feel things should be kept in balance and viewed rationally, not
emotionally).
In the Netherlands we have the same discussions on environmental issues, of
course. Should our new national airport be constructed off the coast in the
North Sea and how would that affect marine life? This question is much more
difficult to answer than the one about salvaging Titanic.
Back to your 'balance' issue: To me, the balance points towards 'No
salvage'. I can't think of any reason to justify salvation.
>
>Ah, and I still dream of getting my hands on the $2,000,000,000 aboard
>the ADMIRAL NAKIMOV if I can ever get out to the Tsushima
>straights...hope whomever lucks into THAt pile will be able to enjoy the
>fruits of his labor without being attacked for it!
>
You're just saying that to provoke me. I'll see you in
alt.historical.looters :-)
Kind regards,
Wopke
Wopke Postuma
Tom Pappas heeft geschreven in bericht
<6srq1j$akh$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>>Very well, let's get into this a little deeper.
>
>Okay. I'll play devil's advocate today, and take the side of the
plunderers.
Thanks, Tom :-)
>
>Except, as I said above, that displaying artifacts brings pleasure to the
>people who see them.
I personally would prefer to see the artifacts as a whole. Therefor, I would
much rather watch the IMAX film than look at an exhibited doorhandle of the
Titanic.
>Fair enough. But won't peoples' lives be enriched by the experience of
>having their heart strings tugged in contemplation of the bits and pieces
of
>so many lives cut short under such tragic circumstances?
You make a point there. But there are bits and pieces that were taken off
the Titanic before she left Queenstown: letters, pictures and so on.
Examining one of those letters in the Woolhouse, Southampton brought home
the message to me in a better way a rusted rivet could.
>
>I will agree that nothing of scientific or public safety value is gained.
>But do we not have both minds AND hearts that need nourishment?
>
Of course we do! But to what lengths should we go? For instance, is our
interest in the love life of a British princess worth her death?
Kind regards,
Wopke
Wopke Postuma
DavidN1327 heeft geschreven in bericht
<199809051703...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>"Does tearing telephones from crows' [sic] nests give us any insights into
David,
I would be very disappointed if your [brackets] appear out of disrespect for
the fact that English is not my first language. I am perfectly willing to
answer your postings in Dutch, if that would be more convenient for you.
>
>It's a lie to suggest that RMS Titanic Inc. tore any telephone from the
Titanic
>crow's nest.
>
Merely suggesting something can never be a lie, of course. It's just that I
have serious doubts about the way parts of Titanic are being recoverd and
feel that commercial motives play a major role in attempts to recover these
artifacts.
Anything that can be connected to Titanic is very popular these days, so
once again speed takes precedence over safety.
Kind regards,
Wopke Postuma
Hilversum, the Netherlands
vince garcia
>
> Unfortunately, I am not an expert on legal aspects dealing with this
> subject. One could wonder however: who gives RMSTI the right to 'salvage'
> Titanic?
According to marine salvage laws, any ship that has formally been
abandoned (And Smith gave a formal oder to "Abandon ship") is considered
flotsam and any salvager able reach it may claim full salvage rights.
Technically, if another vessel had arrived on the scene and taken the
TITANIC in tow and by some miracle prevented her from going under, the
owners of that ship could have claimed the TITANIC as a prize and sold
her back to IMM. The situation isn't much different if the ship wasn't
formally abandoned; you may have some legal wrangling in that event,
however. Ballard lost his shot by not registering his claim on the
wreck, which he had the legal right to do as its discoverer. Tulluch
took advantage of the fact. (Note: I just have to say I shake my head at
the way George has tried to come off like he's taking a High Road by
refusing to "sell" any of the artifacts. Only an idiot would think his
critics would be placted by that promise. If one is going to take a
moral High Road, leave the ship alone--don't even invade its sanctity by
filming it! Otherwise, let's be honest and admit the job was done to
make money for the investors, and let's be sincere enough to go all the
way and sell/auction the stuff. Heck--I'd be glad to bid on some
artifacts! (I just bought a pocketwatch salvaged from the LUSITANIA, for
instance, and am darn proud to have it. It makes a great conversation
piece and provides me an opportunity to give the story of the sinking to
people who don't know about IT as well as they do the TITANIC))
> this subject: I would the detest the idea of TitanicWorld, where little kids
> can take splashy rides in EJs bathtub for 'big bucks' and where lovers can
> have their picture taken in a yet to be 'salvaged' Rose & Jack Renault.
Gee...i must confess I'd go and visit it! (I've already reserved space
on two TITANICS if they ever get built). I hear also of talk of a
TITANIC theme hotel-casino in Vegas. I'd go and stay there to get a
"feel" of the original ship.
>
> That is your good right of course. Please forgive me this comparison:
> If you were a professional hitman for the mafia (or for one of its
> associated organisations - such as the Vatican), would it be unfair to
> accuse you of being a murderer, even if that is your only means of living?
> This is not meant as a personal attack - it's just my way of clearing things
> up.
The difference would be that the Mafia hitman is engaging in an illegal
act. A salvor is abiding by the law in retrieving valuables from a
vessel he has made a legal claim on.
> Back to your 'balance' issue: To me, the balance points towards 'No
> salvage'. I can't think of any reason to justify salvation.
I can respect your view, and I have no problem with you--or
ballard--living by the sincerity of their convictions. What bothers me
is that Mr ballard desires to outlaw marine salvage and force me,
Tulloch and everyone else in the business to abide by what HE has
decided is a moral High Road. (Same way some of the same Spotted Owl
Liberals would like to take our cars away from us too in order to clean
up the air.)
> >
> >Ah, and I still dream of getting my hands on the $2,000,000,000 aboard
> >the ADMIRAL NAKIMOV if I can ever get out to the Tsushima
> >straights...hope whomever lucks into THAt pile will be able to enjoy the
> >fruits of his labor without being attacked for it!
> >
>
> You're just saying that to provoke me.
no...but I'll wager if i could prove to you without any question I could
give you a 10,000% return on your investment on salvaging the NAKIMOV I
could talk you out of a few bucks :)
v
DavidN1327
My use of a bracketed "sic" is the common way of telling the reader of quoted
text that an incorrect spelling or use is in the original. I suggested nothing
about my opinion of your ability to communicate in any language, but, since
this seems to have been a recent topic elsewhere on this site, I'd suggest a
less self-centered attitude -- "sic" isn't about you.
"[S]uggesting something can never be a lie," w_po...@planetall.com.
Huh? Of course it can. My suggestion that you're from another planet hardly
makes it less of an untrue statement.
"It's just that I have serious doubts about the way parts of Titanic are being
recoverd and feel that commercial motives play a major role in attempts to
recover these artifacts. Anything that can be connected to Titanic is very
popular these days, so once again speed takes precedence over safety,"
w_po...@planetall.com.
None of which has any relevance to my opinion that your original statement
about "tearing telephones from crows' [sic] nests" was a lie. Stop lying.
Scott
>
> "Does tearing telephones from crows' [sic] nests give us any insights into
>
> It's a lie to suggest that RMS Titanic Inc. tore any telephone from the Titanic
> crow's nest.
Now we are given to arguing over SEMANTICS? The point made by the author
of the origonal quote is well taken, IMO.
Gee, I've noticed that in pictures from when the wreck of Titanic was
first dicovered, the crows nest was still standing, but in later
pictures it has fallen over. What happened? I sure hope that when the
mast fell, it didn't do any damage to the ships bell... *long, innocent
look*
Scott
>
> "Concluding and in all reason, I'm sure you will agree that nothing is gained
DavidN1327
w_po...@planetall.com.
A U.S. District Court did. No one has appealed the decision. It was legal and
binding according to international maritime law.
vince garcia
> A U.S. District Court did. No one has appealed the decision. It was legal and
> binding according to international maritime law.
What I don't understand is how a US court (let alone the darned
Congress) would even have the right to involve itself in the salvage of
a British vessel in international waters. (Unless, somehow, Ballard, an
American, sued Tulloch, claiming after the fact that HE had the right to
claim salvage despite failing to legally register his claim on the
vessel.) I admit it's been 20+ years since I was involved in commercial
diving, so perhaps someone can enlighten me on this point of law.
v
Tim Miller
Could the fact that White Star Lines was owned by the American
International Mercantile Marine and was thus indirectly an American
owned ship have put the right to decide ownership of the wreck in the
hands of US rather than British court? Still, wonder why the court gave
the rights to Tulloch.
-Tim Miller
Chris Nyborg
Tim Miller wrote<35F1E4...@ibm.net>...
[snip]
>Could the fact that White Star Lines was owned by the American
>International Mercantile Marine and was thus indirectly an American
>owned ship have put the right to decide ownership of the wreck in the
>hands of US rather than British court?
No, that wouldn't have made any difference. Although she was technically
owned by an American company, she was still a British vessel, registered in
Liverpool. It was also part of the agreement between WSL and IMM that she
the ships would still be British and that the Admiralty could commandeer
them in case of war (which happened a few years later, when WSL ships like
Britannic were used in war service).
>Still, wonder why the court gave
>the rights to Tulloch.
I suggest searching Dejanews at http://www.dejanews.com/ - there have been
several posts explaining all the legal considerations. Briefly (and I have
to say that the American legal system is still a mystery to me), RMSTI was
the first who brought an object up, and since they handed one of those
objects over to an American court, that court had jurisdiction over the
salvage right. Since the ship lies in international waters, no country has a
claim on it.
Chris Nyborg
cny...@online.no
Visit my R.M.S. Titanic site at http://home.sol.no/~cnyborg/
Chuck Anderson
> What's to be gained by letting it sit there and rot?
> The search teams for the Swissair crash say they will not
> rest until every body is brought up (assuming that many bodies
> are still strapped into their seats in the fuselage at the bottom).
> The bodies that may have gone down inside the Titanic are long gone,
> so what's being disturbed? I just don't see any point in letting
> all of the artifacts disappear. As it is, the ship is disappearing
> on its own and what's to be gained from that? m.p.
A mentor and scholar that I respect, Joseph Campbell, said that we (in the modern
western world) have become desanctified. So I would say leaving it alone is an
investment in our future sanctity. An example to the ages that material value and
logic are not the keys to truth and living.
When I saw all the items already salvaged on A&E last night (the Titanic Special
about Titanic Specials :-) it just felt wrong. I put faith and stock in that
feeling. There is a sanctity to the Titanic and what it represents. I would
rather see nature consume the Titanic than some ego driven human enterprise.
(Just MHO, of course.)
> Wopke Postuma wrote:
>
> > Concluding and in all reason, I'm sure you will agree that nothing is gained
> > from bringing Titanic up.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Wopke Postuma
********************************************************************
Chuck Anderson chuckanderso at (see below - no "home.")
Boulder, CO http://home.earthlink.net/~chuckanderso
********************************************************************
The Viper
> Human beings are inquisitive by nature, and there is nothing wrong with
> that. Excavations have been done in Pompei to learn about the way society
> worked over 2000 years ago. Pompei has great scientifical value because the
> Vesuvio caused a sort of snapshot of the city.
>
> For simular reasons, the wreckage of TWAs flight 800 has been collected from
> the sea bottom to be able to investigate what caused the explosion. Finding
> the cause of the accident will make air travel saver in the future.
>
> No such correct motives apply to RMSTI.
> What can we learn from the things they remove from the ship (more than once
> by brute force) and bring to the surface?
We can validate, or invalidate the historical, but questionable reports of
damage to her hull if we bring her up (The bow section).Common people can visit
her, and see for themselves what the fuss has been about for all these years
(Yes, We all know that it's because she was "UN-sinkable," and that she SUNK on
her maiden voyage, but if we can touch her, she --and the passengers she
carried-- will be that much more "REAL" to us. We will be able to "feel" the
catastrophe that much more so.
I want to see her, I want to feel her, I want to experience her.
Dante Hicks
[portions deleted]
> I want to see her, I want to feel her, I want to experience her.
...Someone needs to take a cold shower. :)
Dante :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I've always been one to take it each and every day. Seems like by
now I'd find a love who would care, care just for me."
-Eric Clapton, "Running On Faith"
Email:PlutoEVH [at] concentric [dot] net
AOL-IM:Dante ADD
vince garcia
>
> The Viper wrote:
> [portions deleted]
> > I want to see her, I want to feel her, I want to experience her.
>
> ...Someone needs to take a cold shower. :)
>
> Dante :)
I think Viper's just thinking about Kate Winslett and the TITANIC at the
same time :)
v
CommanderL
writes:
>In answer to your question, yes--I am four square in favor of legal
>salvage of ANY vessel in International waters, should some enterprising
>group or individual wish to place their capital at risk on the venture
>
But then again, what gives the US Courts the right to grant salvage rights to
an American company to a vessel that lies in International waters?
Susan R.
Newberg, Oregon
vince garcia
>
>
> But then again, what gives the US Courts the right to grant salvage rights to
> an American company to a vessel that lies in International waters?
>
> Susan R.
> Newberg, Oregon
So far as I know, none! (But then the law has confused far greater minds
than mine.)
It's going to boil down to two prime factors: The territorial waters the
ship sank in (which automatically give the courts of that nation
authority over salvage); and the nation in which the ship's current
owners reside. I have NO idea how US courts would have the slightest
jursidiction over the TITANIC. The best guess I can make was that
Ballard, after the fact, sued Tulloch, a fellow American, alleging that
he (Ballard) had a first right of salvage on the ship because he got to
her first, and that Tulloch's arrangement with LLoyd's (or whomever he
secured the rights from) was invalid for that reason. Problem was,
Ballard failed to follow through on his claim and legally make his claim
on the wreck, so Tulloch beat him out--and won in court!
v
Bob Botts
Just in case anyone is interested, here's an approximation of the legalese
for those wrecks laying in Canadian waters...
DIVING ON SHIPWRECK
What is a Receiver of Wreck?
A Receiver of Wreck is an officer of the Canadian Coast Guard appointed by
Order-in-Council under Part X of the Canada Shipping Act to act as a custodian
of "wreck" in the absence of the rightful owner.
What is wreck?
Wreck can be a ship or boat of any description, an aircraft, or part of a ship,
boat or airplane (e.g., cargo, stores, tackle); it can be any part of a shop,
boat or aircraft that floats, sinks to the bottom or lands ashore; it can be
cargo or the personal belongings of the crew or shipwrecked persons.
Who can salvage wreck?
A salvor may be an individual, a company, the owner of wreck or the owner's
representative, or municipal, provincial or federal agencies.
As a salvor can I keep any wreck I recover?
Not unless you are the owner. A ship that sinks or goes aground, or cargo that is
lost over the side is still the property of the shipper, the company to which
a vessel is registered or an insurance company.
What must I do as a salvor when I recover wreck?
The salvor, unless acting on behalf of the owner of wreck, has a statutory
obligation to deliver wreck to the Receiver. Upon delivering the wreck to the
Receiver, the salvor is required to complete a Notice to Salvors of Wreck form.
What is the role of the Receiver?
The Receiver of Wreck acts as custodian for wreck in the absence of the rightful
owner. The Receiver has a responsibility to attempt to locate the owner within
a one year period. If after one year no owner is located, the Receiver may
dispose of the wreck to the salvor or sell the wreck through public sale.
Under some conditions wreck may be disposed of in less than one year.
Where is the Receiver of Wreck located?
All receivers are officials of the Canadian Coast Guard. There are 19 wreck
districts across Canada administered by 25 Receivers of Wreck.
Would I be compensated for any costs involved in delivering wreck to the Receiver?
Salvors are entitled to reasonable salvage costs and expenses for their efforts.
What happens if the owner is located?
The owner must pay the salvor reasonable salvage costs and expenses. For
wreck of low value the amount can be set by the Receiver. The Federal Court
of Canada will decide in most significant cases.
What happens to wreck if the owner is not located?
If the wreck is of minimum value the Receiver may sell the wreck to the salvor
in lieu of salvage expenses. If the wreck is disposed of through public sale
and the salvor is not the successful bidder, he or she is still entitled to
reasonable salvage expenses.
Who receives the proceeds of the wreck?
Proceeds from the sale of wreck go first to the Receiver General for Canada to
cover the expenses of the Receiver. Beyond that, all or part of the proceeds
may be available to cover a salvage award beyond the salvor's expenses. The
remainder (if any) reverts to the Receiver General for Canada.
What happens if a person is successful in buying wreck or produces proof of
ownership to wreck I delivered to the Receiver?
In either case the salvor may claim and is entitled to reasonable salvage
fees from the owner. Salvage expenses should be indicated on a Notice to
Salvors of Wreck form.
What is most frequently salvaged?
a) Modern day wreck (derelict)
b) Old commercial ships
c) Pleasure boats
d) Parts of cargo of ships or boats
e) Wreck of intrinsic value
f) Aircraft
What should a salvor not salvage and why?
a) Military wreck. In most cases neither the Canadian nor foreign
governments will grant permission to salvors to salvage military wreck
because of danger associated with unexploded ammunition.
b) Wreck that consists of or contains goods of a dangerous nature (e.g./ PCBs,
chemicals)
c) Wreck of known historic or archaeological value should not be
disturbed.
As a salvor how can I protect my find (wreck) from other salvors? Will the Receiver
assist me?
Unless the owner has given permission, salvors have no specific legal right
to the property they are diving on. Any number of salvors may dive on the
wreck without interference from the Receiver, but all material recovered must
be delivered to the Receiver.
What are the consequences if I do not deliver to the Receiver?
The deliberate failure to deliver to the Receiver wreck that has been removed
from the site is considered to be plundering. When wreck is hidden by a
salvor, the Receiver may take action such as search and seizure or legal
action.
Where can I obtain a list of shipwrecks for Canada?
Salvors should first try to obtain information through their local public libraries.
A list of vessels, their deck plans, cargo and other information may be obtained
from the Marine Archivist, Public Archives Canada, S701-396 Wellington Street,
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N3.Lists of wreck indicating vessel's name, location and
year of sinking are also available from the Canadian Coast Guard Receivers or
Aids & Waterways, Navigable Waters Protection Act Division, Canadian Coast
Guard, Place de Ville, Tower "A", 6th Floor, Ottawa, K1A 0N7.
vince garcia
surprised at Canada's apparent concern for the "owner" of a shipwreck.
(It's good to know their stand as well since I still fantasize about
raising the GUNILDA from Lake Superior since she reportedly had a
fortune in diamonds aboard and supposedly is in pristine condition to
boot because of the water condtions despite being sunk in 1897.)
I so yearn for the Days of Yore when we didn't have so damn many laws...
v
Bob Botts
writes:I'm sure the actual legal diction is somewhat more complicated.
How deep is the Gunilda? Everything in shallower water is inundated with
zebra mussels... (a shame...we used to be able to read the Plimsel lines).
I'm just back from Lake Huron, (actually, Georgian Bay, at Fathom Five
National Park), where I was on the Forest City, (150'+) for awhile. The zebra
mussels inhabit just about everything above the thermocline (+/- 70'), where
the water gets down to about 38 degrees
I couldn't help but notice the little rust 'buttons' that were growing all
about the boilers. I don't know if they're similar to the now famous,
'rusticles", but, I presume them to be.
The1236 ton, Forest City struck the dolomite cliffs of Bear's Rump Island
head-on, June 5, 1904...(made me wonder about how Titanic would
have fared...but, then at 150', maybe it was just the N2), remained wedged in
the rocks for several weeks before sinking.. Incidentally, there was nothing
recognizable at the bow...just twisted metal and strewn deck planking.
Cheers...Bob
vince garcia
>
> In article <35F7C6...@ix.netcom.com> vince garcia <vgga...@ix.netcom.com>
> writes:I'm sure the actual legal diction is somewhat more complicated.
>
> How deep is the Gunilda? Everything in shallower water is inundated with
> zebra mussels... (a shame...we used to be able to read the Plimsel lines).
>
> I'm just back from Lake Huron, (actually, Georgian Bay, at Fathom Five
> National Park), where I was on the Forest City, (150'+) for awhile. The zebra
> mussels inhabit just about everything above the thermocline (+/- 70'), where
> the water gets down to about 38 degrees
> Hi Bob. Gunilda is 300' down in 34 degree water. She's in a hole or something that keeps water from circulating, hence there is minimal oxygen surrounding her. In the 60s they pulled up one of the masts, with pulleys still greased, and the 34 volt running light came on when power was run to it. Thus the ship--at least at that time--was seen to be in about as perfect a shape as a fresh water wreck can be. It's been 3 decades since then, but I wager she's still in pretty nice shape. She was owned by one of the founders of Standard Oil and "accidently" sank in 1911 when towed off a rock in the channel. According to insurance records, all the jewelry was left onboard...ah, how I start to dream when I think of it!
A few years ago there was a PBS series on the Great lakes and someone
evidently got down to the wheelhouse to do some filming, since they
showed it. Unfortunately I accidently taped over it! One or two divers
have been lost diving on it
v