The Wreck Diving debate/'scare' - continued.

[Finless]

Diver mag appeared through my letterbox this AM.

On page 21 there is a 1/3 page article entitled - FIFTY-YEAR WRECK BAN THREAT REMOTE, SAYS LAWYER. YD gets mentioned!

The response, whilst heartening, still leaves me with grave (apols for the pun) concerns. Phrases such as "I can assure divers that to date I have not seen any proposals ......" and "but I simply wish to assure them that their concerns are premature"

Maybe just poor choice of words. Maybe I am just being cynical.

FYI, I will be posting this on ALL dive the fora I visit.

Bryan.

[Badders (Dave)]

This sort of threat has to be kept on top of. I can speak from experience from my last "hobby".
Keith assures us that there are people at the BSAC who are monitoring the situation. Which is good news.

Keith said this on:
http://www.bsacforum.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=3948

Hi Dave

As "a body of people" that's exactly what we have been doing on this issue, and the one before it as well! Within NDC we have Jane Maddocks, our Marine Heritage Officer, who is a specialist in this type of thing. Jane and her team were involved in this one from the very start, we made a full representation to the consultation process that preceeded the current issues. We continue to be very heavily involved and there is no way that we will allow this type of thing to just creep up on us.

Cheers

Keith L

Badders

[Mike Rowley]

This sort of threat has to be kept on top of. I can speak from experience from my last "hobby".
Keith assures us that there are people at the BSAC who are monitoring the situation. Which is good news.

Keith said this on:
http://www.bsacforum.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=3948



Badders

Jane will be making a statement soon on the current situation. Be assured she is well on top of this issue.

Cheers

Mike

[garethwebber]

What was your last hobby?

Gareth

[Badders (Dave)]

As you ask although you'll proberbly wish you hadn't. all things Landrover. The part I am referring to is the green laning bit. I'm still an enthusiast! but draconian legislation changes have been railroaded through and have put allot of unnecessary restrictions on that one. wrecked it completely from my perspective. Don't get me wrong there were lots of idiots and some issues needed sorting but what happened and is still happening is a typical knee jerk reaction which closed lots of rights of way that have existed for thousands of years. like I said a discussion for somewhere else. here is a couple of links for both sides of the argument.
**Please note we are talking about established (for thousands of years) unmetalled ROADS (B.O.A.T's or R.U.P.P's) here NOT footpaths**
B.O.A.T= Byway open to all traffic R.U.P.P= Road Used as a Public Path

US
http://www.laragb.org/
http://www.juracid.demon.co.uk/greenlanes/argument.html

THEM
http://www.ramblers.org.uk/footpaths/ridgeway.html

Anyway there isn't much new left for me to explore above water so I'm looking forwards to exploring the world beneath the waves!

[Finless]

Be assured she is well on top of this issue.

Cheers

Mike

I'm sure there is a joke to be had somewhere but ........... :)

I had to make two representations to my local MP. Apparently the House of Commons internal email distribution system is subject to losing emails! :eek:

Anyway, I got my letter back on 20th March and ..... well ........ it doesn't really say anything or do anything ....... I suppose there is the implication that further investigations may be undertaken but .......

2 bits of "interest" are:-

You may be aware that my colleague Anthony Sheen MP asked the question on the 8th February about who the members of the working groups were, and which organisations they represented. The response from Culture Minister, David Lammy MP, confirmed that there was no representation from diving organisations.

The Government intends to publish the Heritage Protection Review White Paper in the Spring, and this may include proposals made by the working Groups. I assure you that we will look carefully at any recommendations made, and will take your particular concerns on board whilst doing this.

I'm not sure what response I expected but ......... :(

[Paul Duckworth]

Those that visit another diving site may have seen this :D but this is the reply that I got from Mr Lammy via my local MP (Dr Andrew Murrison)

"As part of the original 2004 DCMS consultation on the protection of the marine historic environment, the British Sub-Aqua Club (BSCA), Sub-Aqua Association (SAA) and Professional Association of Diving Instructors International (PADI) were invited to participate in consultation seminars. Licensees, and sports and salvage divers were also invited to attend. BSAC, SAA and PADI attended the seminars and officially responded during the consultation. Their responses were reflected in the summary of the consultation responses, Protecting or Marine Historic Environment – Making the System Work Better, published in July 2005.

The Marine Historic Environment Working Groups were set up in November 2005 to develop recommendations following the consultation exercise. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has aimed to ensure that all aspects of the marine historic environment are reflected in the make-up of the working groups, whilst maintaining a workable size group. BSAC, SAA and PADI are all members of the Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee (JNAPC), the umbrella group whose membership spans archaeological bodies, diving organisations and other bodies with responsibilities for underwater cultural heritage. The JNAPC is represented on the Marine Historic Environment Review Salvage and Reporting Working Group.

In addition to representation through the JNAPC, a number of members of the working groups are members of BSAC or the Association of Diving Contractors. We expect there individuals to bring the full range of their experience to bear when contributing to the work of the group.

The working groups have not yet made their final recommendations but I can assure Mr Duckworth that there are no proposals to designate all wrecks over 50 years old or to recommend any blanket bans on diving or salvage. The Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 is Ministry of Defence legislation and is not under consideration by the working groups.

The working groups are only one part of the consultation process on the future protection of the marine historic environment and they are no the final stage. There will be further opportunities for consultation on any recommendations or proposals arising from the Review.

In this context, in November 2005 I met with representatives of the JNAPC to discuss, among other things, progress on the Marine Historic Environment Review. My officials are also meeting with BSAC, and other diving organisations that wish to attend, to discuss the progress of the Marine Review and other working groups."

Also there is a bit on the Nautical Archaeological Society web site that states:

"16 vessels have been proposed for designation as Controlled Sites. A Controlled Site is a restrictive designation, requiring licensing of certain activities within the exclusion zone and knowledge of precise co-ordinates.

Additional designations as Controlled Sites will be made if vessels are subject to sustained disturbance or are considered dangerous.

5 vessels that lie in international waters have been proposed for designation as Protected Places. A Protected Place is one where activities are permitted in the vicinity of a vessel, on a look but don't touch basis. Knowledge of precise co-ordinates is not required, only the name of the vessel.

A rolling programme of identification and assessment against the criteria is to be established to designate all other vessels that were in military service when lost as Protected Places."

Note that the two do not exactly match :( , now there is a supprise :rolleyes: