57 replies to this topic

[WreckWench]

Fresh water wrecks are a new discovery for me...partially cuz they are in cold(er) water and partially because until I met DiverBrian and a few others...I would not have imagined myself actually diving any of them.

Last year DiverBrian told me about the St. Lawrence River and some awesome fresh water wrecks in reasonable depths...70-120 ft and in reasonably WARM water...about 78-79 degrees at depth! Yes you read that right...we has 79 degrees in Sept last year over Labor Day weekend diving some really pristine fresh water wrecks sunk in the 1700 and 1800 hundreds.

What was really cool was that the wrecks were SOOOOOOOO preserved and these particular wrecks had lots of artifacts that had been found and were lying out for others to see. Quite the underwater memorial.

Yes it was hard not to covet those treasures for myself but the wrecks in Brockville as well as other places in that area are protected and you can look...even touch but you can't take. I did fulfill some of my wreck urges by finding some porcelain myself and adding it to the collection...on the wreck that is. (Had it been on a salt water wreck it would have been added to an entirely different collection!)

Will I dive more fresh water wrecks? Absolutely...seeing wood that old is utterly amazing. Brockville is easy both to get too and of course to dive in since the water is soooooooooo warm. And yes I'll eventually graduate to more serious fresh water wrecks but for now...I'm perfectly content to dive these and enjoy them!

Speaking of which...anyone want to join me next year diving these great wrecks? I think its time to do another trip there!!!

[Diverbrian]

Going to dust this thread off for a moment...

For those of you who enjoy wreck diving...

Do you prefer to dive shallow or deep wrecks?  And do you prefer freshwater or salt.  I think most are aware that deep freshwater wrecks are the holy grail if the SHIP is important to why you dive, or shallow salt water wrecks are where you go if marine life is what you seek.

My only question is why the deep, freshwater wrecks have to be in such COLD WATER!

LOL!

-P

Actually,

There are some reasons that the "Holy Grail" freshwater wrecks are cold and deep.

Until relatively recently, freshwater wrecks had very little protection from divers recovering artifacts. The deeper, coldwater wrecks are harder to get to, so they have more artifacts left to look at. These include things like deadeyes and lines on the schooners. These were removed by many divers in the early days.

The deeper wrecks are protected from the infamous "Gales of November". Remember a hurricane was enough to upright the Spegiel Grove in little over 100 ft. of water in Florida. Now imagine a wreck seeing pounding from these types of storms (Yes, we do get them in the Great Lakes. See the Armistice Day Storm of 1940 or the November 10-13 Storm of 1913 for examples.). If the wreck is shallow, the water and ice from the winters will beat it up.

The cold is a better preservative of wood which is basically an organic material.

Now, having said all of this.

There are some beautiful wrecks in Brockville as Wreck Wench points out. The water is bearable and the visibility is good due to the river action. There is some lovely wreck diving the Straits of Mackinaw that is in 60-120 ft. of water. Port Sanilac is loaded with two victims of the 1913 Storm that are great dives.

My familarity with salt water wrecks is limited. I am just about set to where I can start shifting more of my diving funds from training/ brand-new gear stuff to travel.

I plan to get to the U-Boats in NC next year. Preferably, I would like to get the Tarpon and the U-352. Some marine life company would be outstanding as I typically don't see it up here. It makes decompressions quite boring.

[TraceMalin]

I prefer wrecks that are just deep enough to not be hazards to navigation so by intact wreck standards, I prefer shallow wrecks. The reason is simple. You have much more time to explore the interiors than deep wrecks allow and you usually can do so on your first dive on a shallow wreck. In North Carolina, for example, my two favorite wrecks are the Spar and the Indra because my first dives on them lasted over an hour and allowed my buddies and I to really poke around inside. The downside is that if you're main thrill is looking for artifacts, the shallower wrecks are dived far more and are picked clean or are often artificial reefs. After watching the Scapa Flow episode of Deep Sea Detectives, I'd much rather shore dive the wrecks they have in 50 feet of water placed there for a blockade and spend all day exploring rather than going out and diving the scuttled WW I German fleet. I would rather shoot video than recover artifacts so I'm not worried about collecting items anyway. I don't have a problem with people removing artifacts either. It's just too bad that divers get "the fever" and strip everything off wrecks they can find. I think I believe that the environment has a lot to do with my attitude toward artifact recovery as well. Since cold freshwater can preserve a wreck, I think that divers should refrain from bringing up artifacts that will destroy a wreck. I mean if you found a tea cup lying in the sand alongside a shipwreck in freshwater by all means take it. It's not an archaeologically important item because chances are that so many divers will pick it up & look at it & put it down that it will find its way around a shipwreck over time & offer no real beneficial knowledge regarding the sinking or to how a wreck was constructed. Picking a debris field clean on the other hand would be affecting any future study of a wreck. Salt water wrecks are going to be claimed by the sea, so it would be far more beneficial to recover objects so that they can be displayed as preserved items over time long after a ship has disintegrated. Though, there will always be wrecks in salt water that should not be touched too and others in freshwater that would do better having objects recovered. I'm equally happy diving both freshwater and salt water wrecks. I guess it becomes a trade off between wanting to see marine life or wanting to be lazy about rinsing my gear. My favorite shipwrecks lie in salt water right now and most of these are deep, but if I had my choice I'd go for a huge wreck in warm shallow ocean water.

Trace

[Diverbrian]

I prefer wrecks that are just deep enough to not be hazards to navigation so by intact wreck standards, I prefer shallow wrecks. The reason is simple. You have much more time to explore the interiors than deep wrecks allow and you usually can do so on your first dive on a shallow wreck. In North Carolina, for example, my two favorite wrecks are the Spar and the Indra because my first dives on them lasted over an hour and allowed my buddies and I to really poke around inside. The downside is that if you're main thrill is looking for artifacts, the shallower wrecks are dived far more and are picked clean or are often artificial reefs. After watching the Scapa Flow episode of Deep Sea Detectives, I'd much rather shore dive the wrecks they have in 50 feet of water placed there for a blockade and spend all day exploring rather than going out and diving the scuttled WW I German fleet. I would rather shoot video than recover artifacts so I'm not worried about collecting items anyway. I don't have a problem with people removing artifacts either. It's just too bad that divers get "the fever" and strip everything off wrecks they can find. I think I believe that the environment has a lot to do with my attitude toward artifact recovery as well. Since cold freshwater can preserve a wreck, I think that divers should refrain from bringing up artifacts that will destroy a wreck. I mean if you found a tea cup lying in the sand alongside a shipwreck in freshwater by all means take it. It's not an archaeologically important item because chances are that so many divers will pick it up & look at it & put it down that it will find its way around a shipwreck over time & offer no real beneficial knowledge regarding the sinking or to how a wreck was constructed. Picking a debris field clean on the other hand would be affecting any future study of a wreck. Salt water wrecks are going to be claimed by the sea, so it would be far more beneficial to recover objects so that they can be displayed as preserved items over time long after a ship has disintegrated. Though, there will always be wrecks in salt water that should not be touched too and others in freshwater that would do better having objects recovered. I'm equally happy diving both freshwater and salt water wrecks. I guess it becomes a trade off between wanting to see marine life or wanting to be lazy about rinsing my gear. My favorite shipwrecks lie in salt water right now and most of these are deep, but if I had my choice I'd go for a huge wreck in warm shallow ocean water.

Trace

If you watch the Deep Sea Dectectives episode on the Regina, you will see why the freshwater wrecks in Michigan are basically untouchable now. This was a package freighter that flipped over in the 1913 storm (something about 30-50 ft. seas). The debris field was basically picked over within a year after she was found and the wine bottles and such that she was carrying are now in someone's (most likely several someones') garage.

The wreck is a great dive in 70 ft. of water and lies turtled with all kinds of bottom time, but if she hadn't been protected, there would be no debris field left to make the dive of interest to the people that don't want to penetrate or look at the huge blades of the propellor (This was a 255 ft. freighter after all). Yes, I love to dive this one for the reasons that you mention on diving a shallower wreck.

I am more a photographer than an artifact person. But, I have no problem with others taking any artifacts off of salt water wrecks. Just please keep the cold chisels and hammers away from my beloved museums in the fresh water.

[TraceMalin]

If you watch the Deep Sea Dectectives episode on the Regina, you will see why the freshwater wrecks in Michigan are basically untouchable now.

Brian, yeah, I saw that episode too and I have a problem with any shipwreck that sounds... well, that sounds... that sounds kind of like... well, I had a neighbor named Regina (Reh-gee-nah) and a hall at my college called Regina (Reh-gee-nah) Hall, but I thought Chatterton was a pervert because that is one screwed up pronunciation of the name Regina. :lam:

Trace

Edited by TraceMalin, 10 October 2005 - 11:29 PM.

[Diverbrian]

If you watch the Deep Sea Dectectives episode on the Regina, you will see why the freshwater wrecks in Michigan are basically untouchable now.

Brian, yeah, I saw that episode too and I have a problem with any shipwreck that sounds... well, that sounds... that sounds kind of like... well, I had a neighbor named Regina (Reh-gee-nah) and a hall at my college called Regina (Reh-gee-nah) Hall, but I thought Chatterton was a pervert because that is one screwed up pronunciation of the name Regina. :lam:

Trace

Canadian pronouncian explains it. The Regina was a Canadian vessel and the accent is different. I know what you mean though!

[TraceMalin]

Canadian pronouncian explains it. The Regina was a Canadian vessel and the accent is different. I know what you mean though!

Oh, Canada... yeah... that explains it.

Trace

[hnladue]

Trace, I have to agree with your about artifacts on wrecks... salt water wrecks will disappear.... they need to be brought up and preserved!! I even believe they should raise the titantic.

I prefer fresh water wrecks just becasue of the level of preservation. For one thing, you can still tell it's a ship!! It's not covered in coral. They MAY be covered in zebra mussels however, but they still look like a ship. Only thing I wish sould change is penetration. In Lake Champlain, you can't go in any wrecks. I'd love to see the furnature and the stoves and such! But not up there!

WW- I may be able to have a trip up to Lake Champlain this summer. Talking with Mel to see what he can do for a boat, as his is too small for a big group.

Here's the horse ferry:
http://ina.tamu.edu/LChorseferry.htm

And other sites:
http://www.champlain.../preserves.html

Also the Water Witch is a site I've been trying to get to for a while. It's a schooner.
http://www.lcmm.org/...waterwitch.html

They also found another one, just 10 m from her.

Also this year they opened the last gunboat of Benedict Arnold's for diving. It was just found a couple years ago.

Edited by hnladue, 11 October 2005 - 07:57 AM.

[TraceMalin]

Heather, thanks for the information. I'll have to head up that way & do some diving with you guys. I haven't been to the Great Lakes since the mid-90's.

Lake Champlain diving... Brian, get ready to split this thread off into "lake monsters!"

Trace

[jholley309]

Truer words were never spoken. I cringe when I hear others talk about doing this with their AOW or after they take a cavern class.

I don't know about cavern, since it's not part of the PADI AOW curriculum, but the PADI AOW "Wreck" dive is limited to swim-bys; no penetration. In fact, the crew pack makes a big deal about it not being a penetration dive. The AOW wreck dive is pretty basic: don't break anything off, don't pick anything up, don't go inside.

For my money, that diving time could be allocated to something more useful in terms of skills development, like peak performance bouyancy. What PADI calls a wreck dive is more like diving on an artificial reef; I can do that now (in 60' or less) without paying an instructor to take me.

By the way, I haven't yet done any wreck diving (my semi-regular dive buddy isn't overly comfortable with the idea of open ocean boat dives just yet, and I haven't made very many contacts with other potential dive buddies), but it's something I'm very interested in (from a "look, don't touch, don't go in" sorta perspective), especially freshwater wrecks. I love poking around in museums, and diving a well-preserved wreck would be the ultimate museum trip for me. When I can swing the vacation time (and the cost; gotta recover from buying the new gear first), I'm going to try out G Reef near Savannah or some of the shallower wrecks around Panama City.

Hey, does anybody know where the B-29 is at in Lake Mead, or how deep it is? I caught part of a special on it a few months ago, but missed most of the details. That would be a cool dive, too! I'm also a huge aviation nut; that would be the coolest way to combine two interests in one trip.

Cheers!

Jim

[TraceMalin]

Hey, does anybody know where the B-29 is at in Lake Mead, or how deep it is? I caught part of a special on it a few months ago, but missed most of the details. That would be a cool dive, too! I'm also a huge aviation nut; that would be the coolest way to combine two interests in one trip.

Cheers!

Jim

That was probably an episode of Deep Sea Detectives. John Chatterton & Richie Kohler accompanied archaeologists from the National Park Service to dive the wreck in approximately 300 ffw. That's definitely a Trimix dive. The bomber is a federally protected site.

I've heard that the spacecraft crash scene from the original "Planet of the Apes" with Charlton Heston was shot on location at Lake Mead and the anchoring system for the mock up spacecraft is still on the bottom. Anyone else heard about this?

Trace

[jholley309]

That was probably an episode of Deep Sea Detectives. John Chatterton & Richie Kohler accompanied archaeologists from the National Park Service to dive the wreck in approximately 300 ffw. That's definitely a Trimix dive. The bomber is a federally protected site.

Bummer! I guess that's off the short list for now...

Cheers!

Jim

[PerroneFord]

By the way, I haven't yet done any wreck diving (my semi-regular dive buddy isn't overly comfortable with the idea of open ocean boat dives just yet, and I haven't made very many contacts with other potential dive buddies), but it's something I'm very interested in (from a "look, don't touch, don't go in" sorta perspective), especially freshwater wrecks. I love poking around in museums, and diving a well-preserved wreck would be the ultimate museum trip for me. When I can swing the vacation time (and the cost; gotta recover from buying the new gear first), I'm going to try out G Reef near Savannah or some of the shallower wrecks around Panama City.

I'm not that far from you. Savannah is 4 hours away, and Panama City is 1.5 hours. I am all about wreck diving, but I am a couple of months away yet. I am working toward wreck penetration and the ability to go do things like that B-29, Scapa Flow, etc. It'll take me years to get there.. but that is my interest.

Once I get myself sorted out, I'll be game to do PLENTY of wreck dives.

[casematic]

Hey, does anybody know where the B-29 is at in Lake Mead, or how deep it is?  I caught part of a special on it a few months ago, but missed most of the details.  That would be a cool dive, too!  I'm also a huge aviation nut; that would be the coolest way to combine two interests in one trip.

Cheers!

Jim

That was probably an episode of Deep Sea Detectives. John Chatterton & Richie Kohler accompanied archaeologists from the National Park Service to dive the wreck in approximately 300 ffw. That's definitely a Trimix dive. The bomber is a federally protected site.

I've heard that the spacecraft crash scene from the original "Planet of the Apes" with Charlton Heston was shot on location at Lake Mead and the anchoring system for the mock up spacecraft is still on the bottom. Anyone else heard about this?

Trace

There is a website that tells a little about it...

http://www.indepthco...B29/B29Lost.htm

and some pictures too.... Not sure how deep it is now, but I think the lake has probably dropped about 80 feet in the last 5 years.... Last time I asked anyone, they still weren't allowing anyone to dive on it... I know a couple of people who are far more informed than I, so I will ask a few questions and then post what I find out...

[peterbj7]

We British live for wreck diving, which for us means exclusively the salt water kind. Unfortunately for many people the only reason for diving seems to be to strip anything of interest leaving nothing for the next guy to see. If the artifacts are indeed properly restored & preserved, and are then put on display and given archealogical context by study, then all well and good. Most stuff removed from wrecks ends up unrestored & forgotten at the back of someone's garage. I'm definitely of the "look & photograph but don't remove" way of thinking.

Trace would probably love the Normandy wrecks, the ones that were sunk during the landings there during WW2. And obviously a lot of American/Canadian interest there - lots of your boats went down with many casualties. I don't think any are deeper than 25 metres, and many are shallower.

The key thing is that the French authorities long ago decided that they didn't want these wrecks stripped - whether it was respect as many are war graves, or just the more general principle, I don't know. So they prohibit the removal of anything at all, and enforce it by frequent unannounced boarding of dive boats. I know of a liveaboard boat out of England that was boarded three times in a week. Nothing had been taken so nothing was found - if they do find anything the consequences are draconian. If the diver concerned owns up and the Coastguard are convinced others (including the crew) knew nothing about it, then that diver is likely to have all his dive gear confiscated, and to be taken on shore to be locked up and charged. If they can't find who was responsible, or if they think there was collusion, they can confiscate everyone's gear AND the boat, and lock everyone up ready for charging. They really do take it very seriously, and the consequence is that those wrecks are pristine and are really great to dive.