A chance to rethink Kittiwake
The recent announcement that the sinking of the Kittiwake has been postponed yet again offers an opportunity to rethink this project. I am totally against the sinking of this old war ship in our beautiful, pristine waters. After all, our ocean is not a dumping ground for marine scrap metal.
It is not uncommon with these ships that, once that are decommissioned, because they cannot be disposed of in their own country’s waters as a result of environmental laws, they seek out tourism dependent locations such as our own islands that don’t have environmental protection. They then give them to us “for free” to dump in our waters — or to put it another way, we are disposing of someone else’s junk for the sake of a few divers.
I understand that the wreck off Cayman Brac does not see the number of divers that were expected to visit, not least because people are becoming more environmentally conscious or eco-friendly and are no longer interested in diving man made wrecks.
If the Cayman Islands Tourism Association (CITA) is really interested in doing something good for tourism then perhaps they should cut their losses with this particular ship, which has been on and off since the day it was first announced, and divert their attention to encouraging divers to travel to Cayman Brac to dive the wreck that’s already there.
This would help to boost the Sister Islands’ economy, which is almost always forgotten about. Divers can get package deals to include day trips as it is safe to dive and fly under 10,000 feet, and I understand that the CAL Express flies at 7,500 feet. Additionally, we do not need to create more marine environments that will promote breeding grounds for the invasive pest, the lion fish.
As an environmental activist, I hope that this sinking is stopped because it is not in any way benefiting our marine environment and seems to be for the sake of only a handful of divers.
We have clean, clear waters and that in itself should be the attraction for those who want to dive and enjoy Mother Nature’s marine environment without being subjected to man made sites that offer nothing in return but future devastation to our eco-system.
Category: Viewpoint
I love people who do not let the facts stand in the way of their opinions, sweet.
I can still remember swimming at Harbor Heights and watching a Ship being sunk as a dive site back in the late ’70s. It is a beautiful and rare opportunity for kids to see one of those big boys go down. Don’t let our children miss the opportunity to see this magnificent event!
Thank you CNS for letting me post my viewpoint here using your forum.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion on the sinking of the Kittiwake, and therefore I thank those who offered support and to those who didn’t you are entitled to your opinion regardless and thankfully, I still live in a democracy whereby I can sign my name to my opinions and I can remain steadfast in my beliefs.
I am an environmental activist and have been concerned about my environment from the age of 10 when I first set foot at the dump which is now Mt. Thrashmore.
I am totally against the sinking of this ship or any other ship in the future in our waters.
I am who I am a daughter of this soil, and one whom has no other country to call home but this one and therefore I will always protest or object to anything that in my belief are against the goodness of our environment.
We must leave a beautiful place intact environmentally for our children to have and enjoy for the future.
Again, thank you CNS.
Kerry Horek
Enviromental Activist
Interesting Kerry. Anytime I see the words "environmental activist" I expect that dogmatic opinion and/or an absence of logic and rational thinking is just around the corner. Your viewpoint did not disappoint me in the least.
It seems that the vast majority of so-called environmental activists I have encountered are enamored with slogan "Save the Planet" but lacking any substantial rational or scientific base for their beliefs. they are usually pretenders who say thay want to protect the environment but they drive cars everywhere further than the limits of their yard, use CUC electricity and have houses packed with plastic and other manufactured goodies. They put all their waste in the garbage can and let it be the landfill’s problem. But I digress…
Kerry, are you an avid diver? Are you at least somewhat familiar with marketing a tourist destination? Have you bothered to research the issue of artificial reefs and their impact on the environment and proximate economy? Probably not, huh? Judging by your comments, I would say certainly not.
I am a diver. I am also concerned about the environment but I am not one of those mindless tree-huggers who views any and all material development with disdain. I was concerned about the artificial reef issue in conjunction with the sinking of the Capt. Keith Tibbetts. My research led to the inescapable conclusion that with proper preparation, and with some critical attention as to the sinking site, a wreck dive site would be a positive move in all aspects, including economic and environmental.
According to reports compiled by several dive industry and related studies on artificial reefs, adding a wreck dive site certainly has the potential to add to the number of divers visiting a destination, translating to a corresponding economic benefit. You were wrong on this point.
Direct economic and arrival increases aside, a wreck will add diversity to the diving a destination has to offer. Divers like other humans enjoy novelty. A new wreck will give divers already familiar with the destination a fresh reason to return to the destination rather than seek a new one. Result? Economic benefit.
Neville Copperthwaite is a marine consultant and Project Coordinator of Weymouth and Portland Wreck to Reef. In his contribution to a debate in the article "Should we create artificial reefs?" Copperthwaite poses several compelling factors in favour of shipwreck reefs. His take on the issue – and he is supported by many artificial reef projects worldwide – is that "artificial reefs provide benefits to the environment and the local community". The article goes on to give some interesting food for thought. He points out that the scuttling of HMS Scylla as an artificial reef , near Plymouth, England, "has brought with it an annual increase of £1.1 million (roughly $1.8 million US) within the local economy and has reinvigorated the local dive industry". The opposing side could only counter with the opinion that wreck diving can be dangerous (Duh! Like any diving if the diver is not properly trained and prepared), and they cited the environmental perils of things like used tire reefs, entirely sidestepping the issue of properly planned sunken ship reef sites.
Copperthwaite further states that even ships that sunk during World War II, now disintegrating and not cleaned when they sank, without exception have become havens for marine life. (Not that I am suggesting not properly preparing the ship prior to sinking.) The Brac wreck well serves to refute your view that such a wreck damages the environment. I have heard of no reports citing any significant adverse environmental impacts relating to the Brac wreck since its sinking.
The environmental organsation Clean Ocean Action (COA) is in support of New Jersey’s very progressive Artificial Reef Program. Provided the plans for each artificial reef are properly implemented they give their blessing for such projects. Sunken vessels are included in New Jersey’s programme. The COA statement on the issue says: "Artificial reefs are valuable. Indeed, artificial reefs are biological systems mimicking local natural ecosystems that last decades and provide important habitats and feeding stations for fish."
So much for your environmental disaster scenario relative to a properly planned wreck dive site.
The Northern California Oceans Foundation (NCOF), is acredible and experienced organisation. One of their hallmark projects is the NCOF’s Ships 2 Reefs Project. The project aims to sink surplus military ships as artificial reefs in California’s coastal waters. NCOF has joined a coalition with other organizations to form the California Ships2Reefs Coalition. Go to their web site for some education on the subject as you may need some facts to fill in the gaps between flights of fantasy.
A paper produced by the very prestigious Scripps Institute helps to shipwreck your critique: A Scripps Institute study was commissioned by the San Diego Oceans Foundation and published in January 2005 in regard to the HMCS Yukon which was sunk off of San Diego. The study reported both significant environmental and economic benefits of the wreck. In addition to creating a new marine environment with significant biomass development within three years of sinking, the wreck has made a tidy contribution to the local economy. A study by the University of California estimated the Yukon brings $4.5 million into the San Diego economy from visitors who travel there just to dive the wreck! (Emphasis mine) The Yukon project supported 225 full time jobs with more then $700K in wages. The San Diego Oceans Foundation, was an avid supporter of the sinking of the Yukon and instrumental in planning the project and is an enthusiastic supporter of other such projects. Many such projects around the world report similar findings.
Perhaps the reason that the Brac wreck site did not live up to the hype is that the hype was really hype. Or maybe, you touched on a point, neglect. Has it ever occurred to your that the Brac site is poorly marketed? As is the whole island in my opinion. I am confident that the new proposed wreck will get substantial long-term publicity, being in Grand Cayman.
To put more torpedoes to your broadside, the Artificial Reef Society of British Columbia, Canada (ARSBC), a nonprofit society that creates reefs from decommissioned Canadian naval ships is another group that have a lot of positive things to say about the benefits of marine vessels made into artificial reefs. One interesting view held by ARSBC is that wrecks actually help an environmentally sensitive dive area by taking pressure off the natural reef structures.
Speaking of the environment, a keen environmentalist such as yourself would really appreciate this fact: A report by the acclaimed RAND National Defense Research Institute concluded that sinking obsolete ships is the most environmentally and economically beneficial ways to dispose of them!
I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that your viewpoint is substantially wrong. About the only truth to your entire contribution is that lion fish can breed on wrecks. But then they also breed on the natural reef, so that point is moot.
No responsible, rational marine environmental group that I know of has produced credible science-based data that negates or overcomes the well-established benefits of a properly implemented wreck dive site. Such opposition is usually due to nothing more substantial or compelling than personal prejudice supported by opinion, conjecture and pseudo-science.
Some so-called environmental groups are simply tree-hugging hypocrites. One of the worst offenders is a group known as "Ocean Conservancy". While purporting to be an environmentally concerned group, one of the ways they raise money is by being one of the opt-in beneficiaries of contributions from people buying or leasing Subaru automobiles! They receive USD$250 a pop on the transaction. Sure, save the oceans by giving people an incentive to buy a new carbon-emitting, pollution machine. Good going guys!
Would it not be more honest to admit that your viewpoint stems from a personal prejudice against things artificial placed in the natural environment? This is a view shared by a substantial number of so-called environmental activists, so no real shame if you think this way. I can understand that mindset, too. But just be honest and practical about it. My personal preference would be to look out my windows or take a walk or go on a dive and see nothing but nature – no buildings, houses, cars, boats, divers, light poles, or other people. But this is an impractical fantasy. Funny thing is that I would not mind a neat wreck dive site near my dream home. So come clean and justsay you do not like the idea of an artificial reef dive site and leave it at that. Or buy your own island where you can set the rules.
stop calling people names. if you want to say something, say it. no need to attack.
A superb response to a rather silly and ill-informed article. Thanks.
Correct. A stupid article. The Kittiwke will greatly enhance diving and snorkeling tourism and the only mistake being made is not moving ahead with more ships in support of the concept of Shipwreck City.
Also, divers are generally more environmentally tuned in than most folks as they easily appreciate the beauty of our oceans.
Ron Kipp
Stupid? That’s your opinion. You seeing $.
you guys don’t have to worry..the flaming boat will sink in the straits of florida on the way down and that will be that.
Yawn……..here we go again.
It’s clear the handful of divers Kerry speaks of have made their voices known, and from the count I would say its about 15 of you against one person making an effort to prevent junk from being placed in the waters off her island.
Give the girl a break, isn’t she the same girl who sent you the Mt. Trashmore photo that you all praised her for?? One thing I can say for her is that she’s consistent when it comes to the environment.
She’s an environmental activist and she’s entitled to speak her mind about how she feels about the sinking of this ship, regardless of whatever research she is accused of not doing by the lot of you, she’s looking out for her environment, something you should all be doing.
I support you Kerry, don’t let a handful of divers distract you, when they get bored with that location, down the road they’ll want to dump another and another until the water is filled with so much junk you won’t be able to see the beauty of the dive for metal mayhem.
Shipwrecks, even ones that are stripped and "cleaned", are bad for coral reefecosystems.
We are idiots to even consider this.
Please read this article:
Shipwrecks Wreak Havoc on Coral Reefs
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2008/08/20-02.html
A few lines from the article:
A new study suggests that the communities can be thrown quickly and seriously out of balance by the iron from sunken ships.
Several previous studies have linked shipwrecks and reefdegradation, but researchers in Hawaii decided to measure the effect in detail.
The research "is an excellent account of the long-term ecological harm resulting from vessel groundings on coral reef ecosystems," says marine biologist William Precht of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary in Key Largo. It underscores the need to remove wrecks from coral reefs quickly, he says.
The problem with shipwrecks appears to be a particularly aggressive reef-dwelling creature called Rhodactis howesii, a type of sea anemone. When nutrients are abundant and there are no predators, R. howesii thrives. Unfortunately, it also eats coral, threatening the foundation of the ecosystem.
In an interview relative to the study to which you refer, Dr. Thierry Work, a scientist at the Field Station USGS National Wildlife Health Center, and the main author of the study had this to say about the R. howesii invasion: "Why this phenomenon is occurring remains a mystery" . Dr. Work goes on to say, "One possibility is that iron leaching from the ship and mooring buoy chains, accompanied with other environmental factors particular to Palmyra atoll, are somehow promoting the growth of Rhodactis". (Emphasis mine)
A true scientist, Work refuses to jump to the conclusion that the shipwreck is the absolutely cause of the rapid proliferation of R. howesii near the wreck at Palmyra atoll.
In any case, the relevance of the R. howesii invasion is of questionable importance to the issue of shipwrecks or sunken vessel dive sites in this region as the species’ habitat is limited to an extremely limited range in the Western South Pacific.
"Shipwrecks Wreak Havoc on Coral Reefs". Puleeze! Your reference to the article really just proves one thing: sensationalist reports with misleading headlines and dogmatic but tenuous conclusions have their fans.
The beautiful pristine waters only appear in the DOT adverts. The vizibility off 7mile beach is compromised by global warming, and by silt in the water created day after day by the raising of cruise ship anchors. The coral is a shadow of what was their even 10yrs ago, and is covered in brown algea.
The wreck will attract new divers and rejuvinate the stagnant stay over tourism industry and hotels. It has been thoughly cleaned and checked out by DOE. Your whole article is flawed, including the dangerous bad advice that you can fly at 10,000ft after diving. You dropped a "0" it should have been 1,000ft; check the DAN website.
Oh Kerry…. you’ve definitely gone into "waters" you know very little about on this one. I assure you that more than a a handful of metal recycling outfits in USA or world-wide would love to get their blow-torches on the Kittiwake .. it’s a goldmine of metal and worth plenty money. Your point about few people diving the Brac wreck is totally off base; Every dive outfit in CYB will correct you on that point.. its been a windfall for them and the marine life around the wreck has blossomed and make a wonderful home for thousands of sea creatures.
It’s time for you to start thinking outside the box Kerry … Cayman needs fresh ideas if it is to continue to prosper. Young minds like yourself are a welcomed asset to the think-tank atmosphere, but please research your ideas before you enter the public arena, and use facts vs. personal ideology.
Kerry- While your enthusiasm for protecting the environment is noble, i ask that you spend some time really researching this, as it appears you have not.
I also have to ask the question – are you a Diver?
This venture has many benefits, but i’d like to just comment on two issues you have raised.
1. Pollution – The ship has been totally stripped of anything hazardous both to the water, sealife and humans.
2. Lionfish – they love this kind of environment and it will make them easier to catch!
I would also like it noted that if you know anything of Nancy & Jay Easterbrook you would know that they would not back anything like this if it wasn’t completely environmentally safe and of benefit to the island as a whole. Please look at their Lighthouse Point development and tell me they don’t care! Some people could take a few notes from them!
again, i ask you find out way more about wrecks around the world and their effects on Tourism, Revenue, Diving and the environment before you comment further!
I guess you don’t dive then?
Wrecks have been a magnet for divers ever since diving took off. The problem is we don’t have enough wrecks to be honest. Pristine reefs are certainly an attraction, but a good wreck is another string to the bow. Unintentional wrecks that occur as a result of human error or storms can indeed cause an environmental disaster too. Thankfully this wreck has been cleaned of anything which might cause polution, and also made safe for divers.
Have you read up on how the wreck was prepared for sinking?
and bars are magnets for tourists. how about one at stingray city?
My concern with the Kittiwake project is that it may be impossible to come close to the necessary ROI for the project. Wrecks in shallow water are extremely vulnerable to hurricanes and there may not be a lot left of the wreck after a year or two. Charging admission to see anything resembling the Oro Verde is unlikely to work. However, that is not my reason for commenting.
Commercial flights are supposed to be pressurized to 8000ft and divers are recommended not to get on any commercial flight. Anything over 1000ft is considered to be an altitude dive and when divers are evacuated after an incident the recommendation is to stay lower than 1000ft and preferably at no more than 500ft.
The ‘handful’ of divers to whom you refer were, at one point, significant contributors to the local economy. It could happen again. Cayman has some of the most accessible diving in the world, great for students and experienced divers alike. Wrecks always have, and always will be, popular with divers.
Finally, to suggest that the sinking of a ship will increase the population of lionfish is an interesting viewpoint. It may make culling easier as they tend to congregate inside wrecks but they have no problem living and breeding on the reef.
Kerry
I don’t quite understand you. I have three questions:
1. What about the wreck providing shelter and a haven for certain fish and wildlife?
2. What about it bringing more than "a handful" of interested tourists here? And…
3. Exactly, how will the wreck itself hurt marine life?
I don’t quite see how you see…
Perhaps, you should had provide an answered to these questions.
it’s certainly gonna hurt whatever it lands on
flawed peice kerry,…where is the evidence that these wrecks do damage?
if you wanted to maintain the reefs and the ocean you should ban all snorkelling and diving….. they do nothing but damage the eco system….
It is NOT safe to dive and fly "under 10,000 feet"! The correct level is 1,000 feet.
"Additionally, we do not need to create more marine environments that will promote breeding grounds for the invasive pest, the lion fish."
So should we dredge up the entire reef around the island too?
The kittiwake isn’t "scrap" junk…if the USA wanted to, they could use the 1,000 tons of steel that the ship is made of in recycling!
What is the intent on this post? Really says nothing
The post is illustrating the woeful level of education and information in Cayman. It shows just how foolish and nearsighted certain people can be when anything someone does will not directly put $$$ in their pocket. To criticize and deride a project like this without any factual basis is just short of criminal.
Then of course there is the further factual nonsense about the altitude a recent diver can fly at. This shows a total lack of understanding of the facts. If you don’t dive, you don’t know what it is like. Don’t pretend to have knowledge and try to make intelligent arguments with falsehoods out of ignorance.
The overwhelming evidence is that when properly planned and executed, these attractions create employment, encourage development of marine life and do little or nothing to impact the natural environment.
As for "what the wreck falls on," the area was carefully surveyed and prepared, with existing marine life moved tominimize such an "impact!"
Think before you speak (or type).