shipwreck management: developing strategies for assessment and ...

SHIPWRECK MANAGEMENT: DEVELOPING STRATEGIES FOR ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING OF NEWLY DISCOVERED SHIPWRECKS IN A LIMITED RESOURCE ENVIRONMENT Gail A. Vander Stoep

Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources Michigan State University (U.S.A.)

Kenneth J. Vrana

Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources Michigan State University (U.S.A.)

Hawk Tolson

Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources Michigan State University (U.S.A.) Abstract: Shipwrecks and other submerged cultural resources are receiving increasing popular and legal attention. Debates rage as to whether they are public or private property; which of the many values and uses should take priority; how wreck sites should be managed; and who should make the decisions. In the meantime, shipwrecks (even deep ones now accessible through use of improved technology) are being damaged or lost by a combination of natural and human causes, including storms and zebra mussel infestations, anchor and fishing net damage, legal salvage and illegal collecting of artifacts, and inadvertent damage by uncontrolled or inappropriate recreational diver behavior. Salvagers, historians, archaeologists, dive businesses, recreational divers, and tourists all have different opinions about how these resources should be used and managed . . . and whether they should be found at all. Governments have limited human and financial resources to research and manage them. This study, involving input from varied stakeholders, develops recommendations for managing Michigan shipwrecks using a variety of partnership strategies that recognize multiple values. Keywords: integrated coastal management, stewardship, education, shipwrecks

Introduction "When deep-sea treasure is found, who owns it?" -- Christian Science Monitor (July 10, 1997). “Shifting treasure? Investors hope ship rumors prove true" -- Flint Journal (1998). "Ocean explorer finds treasures thought lost in the deep forever" -- Bay City Times (July 31, 1997). "Pirates of the Whydah: Survivors swore the Whydah was packed with plunder . . .” -- Webster (1999). These are examples of recent news headlines that tantalize and keep alive the mystique of ships and shipwrecks, of plundering pirates and chests of treasure, of high seas adventure and piles of gold and silver ingots. The romance and sparkle of gold in the eyes of the public are piqued with blockbuster movies such as Paramount Pictures' Titanic, by best seller accounts of

126

Vander Stoep, Vrana and Tolson

shipwreck finds such as Gary Kinder's Ship of Gold in the Deep Blue Sea (1998), by Discovery Channel television specials and National Geographic articles such as Pirates of the Whydah (Webster, 1999), complete with full-color glossy photos. Many Americans were sucked in by media hype in the early 1980s when, glued to their television screens for a special hosted by Geraldo Rivera, they watched as Andrea Doria's safe (interpreted as “treasure chest”) was opened for the first time during a live broadcast. Many expected the chest to spill a river of treasures. Even an occasional museum exhibit reinforces the “treasure” images of shipwrecks. The faux seaman's chest filled with faux jewels and coins, tucked in a corner of the “kids' exhibit area” at the Vancouver Maritime Museum, is one example. But the stories and fantasies and dreams, the glitter and adventure are not exclusive to the late 1900s. There is simply a resurgence of interest, perhaps more universal as popularized by the media. Stories of treasures lost at sea - whether in troves of pirate plunder or in lost shipments of the California Gold Rush - have always fascinated, and lured people to search for both real and imagined treasure. Yet there are other “treasures” aboard those lost ships: clues to the wreck events for vessels lost at sea before marine radios provided verbal clues; cargo and personal objects that help tell the stories of people and ways of life long ago; a record of technological developments and innovative vessel modifications; remnants of strains of grain and other crops now lost in a world of mass produced, engineered crops. A caption in a 1987 National Geographic article expresses this viewpoint: “From this oldest known shipwreck may come secrets as precious as the pharaoh's” (Bass, 1987: 732). The motivations of those seeking to find the two different kinds of “treasure” are divergent, often contradictory; yet the image conjured by the “treasure” label for most spectators, vicariously joining the “hunt” from chairs in front of TVs or computer monitors, is one of gold coins, silver ingots, and jewels. Visions of Atocha and Central America and Titanic treasures float in their minds. The reality is

that, more often than not, the “treasures” are in the stories and history held in silent, watery storage. Nevertheless, the motives of those who search for vessels often affect the techniques used, the level of care taken in exploration and recovery, and opinions about what should be done with a vessel and contents once found. Therein lies a dilemma . . . a dilemma succinctly stated on the cover of a recent issue of Preservation Magazine: “take it, or leave it?” (Goodheart, 1999). Again, the dilemma is not new, it is simply in the spotlight again as technological advances enable searching into ever deeper and more remote areas. The endeavors are expensive. Long gone are the days when pipelines of government dollars flowed to support such exploration and research. Return on investment, at least at break-even and preferably at some profit, drives the efforts, motives, and outcomes to some extent. Is there a way to make the two “camps” compatible, or to devise win-win solutions and outcomes?

Context and Purpose of This Study Many of the “treasure ships” alluded to in the introduction have been wrecked in salt water, either on the high seas or in coastal areas along major oceanic shipping lanes. In the Great Lakes basin, in the cold “sweet” (fresh) water where the lakes typically have been used to transport more mundane cargoes - lumber, iron ore, stone, agricultural products, fish, immigrants and vacationers - the “treasure” usually is not gold or silver. Yet the allure remains; the search for shipwrecks continues. An estimated 10,000 shipwrecks exist within the Great Lakes, with between 1,100 and 1,400 on or embedded in the bottomlands of Michigan waters. Michigan has legal responsibility for protecting and preserving, for the public interest, abandoned historic shipwrecks owned by the State. Other states/provinces bordering the Great Lakes have responsibilities for shipwrecks in their waters. In most cases, several state and federal agencies share responsibilities; these agencies traditionally “have functioned relatively independently

Vander Stoep, Vrana and Tolson in developing law and management for [shipwrecks and other underwater cultural resources]” (Vrana and Mahoney, 1993: 5). In Michigan, several state and federal laws have implications for ownership and management of these resources. Federal legislation includes the Federal Submerged Lands Act of 1953, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, and the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987. State legislation includes Public Act No. 171 of 1899, Public Act No. 306 of 1969, Public Act No. 451 of 1994, and more specifically, Parts 325 (Great Lakes Submerged Lands) and 761 (Aboriginal Records and Antiquities and Abandoned Property). Additionally, in 1980, Public Act 184 (revised in 1988 by Public Act 452) first authorized designation of Michigan bottomlands preserves (Vrana, 1995; Halsey, 1996). Currently, nine underwater preserves have been officially designated and another two are under consideration. As with most government entities these days, the State of Michigan has limited financial and human resources to meet the responsibility for managing underwater cultural resources. To date, the State's Legislature has not authorized any funding to manage the underwater preserves. Consequently, development and management activities for the preserves are minimal and uneven, and are conducted by volunteer preserve committees. Preserves located adjacent to other state or national parks (such as the Manitou Passage Underwater Preserve near Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore and Alger Underwater Preserve near Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore) may receive some assistance from those agencies. Some preserves receive support from nearby museums, often maritime museums (such as the Great Lakes Shipwreck Museum near the Whitefish Point Underwater Preserve and the Michigan Maritime Museum near the proposed Southwest Michigan Underwater Preserve). The other volunteers are a mix of avocational maritime historians, recreational SCUBA divers, and dive business operators.

127

Historic shipwrecks continue to be discovered in the Great Lakes by avocational historians and recreational divers. As in salt water environments, technological advances (e.g., remotely operated vehicles, side scan sonar, mixed gas breathing systems, minisubmarines) increase access to deeper and deeper wrecks, which likely are more intact than shallow wrecks exposed to storm waves, ice and dredging. No organized approach has been developed in the public or private sector to assess or monitor these wrecks, so questions abound. What rights do private individuals have to search for in public waters and find submerged cultural resources (e.g., shipwrecks) held in public trust? What happens to wrecks once they have been discovered? Do the discoverers bear any responsibility for their “finds”, which are legally held in public trust by the State? What are their rights to intellectual property gained during the research and search? What are the State's responsibilities (and realistic abilities) to preserve, conserve or manage those resources when minimal or no State resources are available to do so? Do individuals have rights to recover costs incurred in the process of search and discovery? The questions and issues are numerous; the implications are complex. Thus, the purpose of this study is to provide recommendations to the State for the development of an assessment and monitoring program for newly discovered shipwrecks that considers these and other questions, and considers input from shipwreck discoverers, resource management agencies, and relevant research.

Methods It was impossible to consider assessment and monitoring without the broader context of the search and discovery process engaged in by avocational divers and historians; thus, the project's scope was broadened to include discovery, documentation, assessment, monitoring and stewardship development. Definitions used throughout the study were as follows.


128

•

•

•

Shipwreck discovery process included historical research, search and survey, discovery, exploration and identification, documentation, and assessment and monitoring. Assessment was defined as judgments about the condition and significance of historic shipwrecks. Monitoring was defined as activities used to determine the condition of a resource over time.

To gather input from as many stakeholders as possible, the study involved five major components: 1.

2. 3.

4.

5.

A review of relevant federal and state/provincial law, policy, and practice associated with Great Lakes shipwrecks. A mail survey of shipwreck discoverers. Two modified nominal group workshops with shipwreck discov-erers. A workshop on assessment and monitoring, involving various stake-holder groups. A telephone survey of Great Lakes shipwreck resource managers (U.S. and Ontario).

In addition, two recent shipwreck discovery-related situations were used as case studies to illustrate other study results and issues. Shipwreck managers (law enforcement, environmental quality, and archaeology) in the State of Michigan were involved throughout the process. The focus of this paper is on results obtained through the mail survey and the three workshops. The first stakeholder group we asked for input about issues and procedures related to newly discovered shipwrecks was avocational shipwreck discoverers. To assure both depth and breadth in responses, three methods were used to gather input: a written survey, two full-day small group workshops, and one multi-stakeholder workshop. The survey was used to gather information from shipwreck discoverers active in Michigan waters about their discovery ac-

tivities, recommendations for what to do with newly discovered shipwrecks, and beliefs about the potential for state/avocationalist partnerships. The first two workshops were used to gather more in-depth information (values, recommendations and rationale) about the shipwreck discovery/documentation/ as-sessment process and to allow for sharing of ideas and debate among discoverers. The third workshop, having a different purpose and structure, was designed to bring together representatives of various stake-holder groups interested in shipwrecks to learn from each other and to discuss results of the survey and first two workshops. Survey A four-page survey instrument was developed to solicit: 1.

2.

Descriptive information about shipwreck discovery activity (past and current activity levels and locations, procedures and equipment used, types of resources sought). Opinions about shipwreck discovery activity (constraints; recommendations for search, assessment, monitoring and protection procedures; willingness to assist the Sate of Michigan in documenting, assessing and monitoring shipwrecks).

The questionnaire included both closed and open-ended questions. The questionnaire was used to gather input from as many active avocational Michigan Great Lakes shipwreck discoverers as possible (this excluded those involved in discovery as part of job responsibilities as public resource managers). Because the tradition and culture of shipwreck discovery incorporate a code of secrecy, no “list” of such individuals existed. To develop a sampling frame, a snowball technique was used. The process began with a “seed list” of shipwreck discoverers known by the researchers, and not involved in discovery as part of a job in public resource management. Each was contacted by phone and asked a series

Vander Stoep, Vrana and Tolson of screening questions to determine if individuals 1) were currently active in shipwreck discovery, and 2) were currently active in Michigan Great Lakes waters. Each was then asked to identify other Michiganactive shipwreck discoverers who they believed should be also contacted for input. The seed list contained names of 39 individuals, each of whom was called at least six times or until contact was made. Of these, 34 individuals were successfully contacted. Fifty (50) primary referrals were identified from the 34 seed list individuals contacted. Fifteen were already on the seed list, resulting in identification of an additional 35 people. Of these, 13 were contacted by phone and asked the screening questions. The other 22 were either unreachable or determined ineligible. The 13 people contacted during the second wave were also asked to identify other discoverers (secondary referrals). Most were already on the seed or primary referral list. The additional 18 people were not contacted due to time and resource constraints. Of those on the seed and primary referral lists, six were determined ineligible. Therefore, questionnaires were distributed to the remaining 41 individuals, either during one of the first two workshops or via mail. Individuals contacted by mail received reminder postcards and follow-up phone calls as needed. Workshops I and II Two day-long workshops, conducted during the spring of 1998, were used to gather input from discoverers. This enabled participation by more individuals than those able to attend the first workshop. First, a list of individuals to receive invitations to participate was developed. For each name on the list of eligible shipwreck discoverers identified in the survey methods section, the total number of peer referrals (excluding initial listing by researchers) was tallied. All individuals who received at least three peer referrals were invited to participate in the first workshop. Those unable to attend that workshop, plus all others on the list of eligible discoverers, were invited to participate

129

in the second workshop. Eight individuals indicated willingness to participate in Workshop I; however, a snowstorm reduced participation to seven. Of seven planning to attend Workshop II, two had work conflicts that prohibited their participation. Thus, a total of 12 discoverers participated in the two workshops. The workshops were originally planned to follow a modified nominal group process, using individual generation of responses to guiding questions, small group discussion of individual responses, individual prioritization of responses, then full group discussion of responses. However, due to the low number of participants at each workshop (less than 8), the format was modified so all participants interacted as one discussion group. Some of the “individual response” worksheets were used, but participants seemed more interested and willing to talk than write. So the majority of the input came from full-group discussion, using focus group procedures that assured input from each participant. Because confidentiality was promised for discoverer participation, no video or audio recorder was used. Only written notes, by participants and researchers, were used to record responses. Each workshop was preceded with refreshments, informal discussion, and participant completion of the written survey and a Gift Form. Three research associates served as a workshop facilitator, assistant facilitator, and technical expert for the structured portion of the workshop. Individual participant response sheets, coordinated with a set of guiding questions, covered the following major topics: • •

• •

Benefits of use of shipwrecks to discoverers (multiple values). Descriptive information about their personal shipwreck discovery activity. Aids and hindrances to their shipwreck discovery activity. Recommendations about what they believe should happen when new shipwreck discoveries are made.


130 •

•

Willingness to partner with the State of Michigan to conduct shipwreck documentation, assessment and monitoring, including conditions under which they might assist. Recommendations for policy and practice related to documentation, assessment and monitoring.

Individual response sheets were used to allow participants to generate their own ideas prior to discussion, during which they might be influenced by peers. Notes from discussions were taken on flip charts and a notepad; individual participants' written responses on worksheets enabled confirmation or clarification of discussion comments and facilitated inclusion of responses that might not have been discussed orally. However, because all individuals participated actively in discussion and seemed reluctant to write their responses, only three of the twelve prepared worksheets, with the following questions, were used: •

•

•

What are your recommendations for dealing with newly-discovered shipwrecks in ways that both meet your needs and the State mission to preserve and protect shipwrecks? With whom would you be willing to work in activities related to shipwreck identification, documentation, assessment and monitoring? (If there are specific conditions related to your willingness, please indicate those conditions to the right of the “category”) In order for you to be willing to work as a “partner” in shipwreck identification and documentation, assessment and monitoring, what policies, procedures or resources do you recommend be in place related to each of the elements or actions identified below? (list followed)

No deliberate process (e.g., voting) was used to determine group consensus; however, there was general agreement on some issues, varied opinions on others, and special conditions or contexts presented as ca-

veats for other opinions and recommendations. Participants had difficulty expressing clear responses to the final section (recommendations for policy and practice to be applied to shipwreck documentation, assessment and monitoring). This was probably due to a combination of the following: the limited time available for discussion, participant fatigue, and participant discomfort with providing concrete recommendations without adequate time to think about them. Near the end of each workshop, the technical expert orally presented a summary and synthesis of group responses, based on written notes taken during the workshop. Participants provided clarification or corrections as needed. After each workshop, comments were compiled. No attempt was made to summarize, synthesize or analyze comments; contradictory comments and opinions were all included. These results were sent to participants, with an invitation to review responses for accurate and complete representation of their comments. Also, they could add comments they felt had not been presented during the workshops. Only one set of written comments was received. Workshop III The third workshop was designed to bring together those involved with shipwreck discovery or management, both avocationally and professionally. The goals of this workshop were to: •

•

•

Exchange information and experiences on assessment and monitoring of historic shipwrecks in Michigan Great Lakes waters. Facilitate discussion on concepts and practices in assessment and monitoring of public resources. Identify issues and opportunities related to the development of programs and projects, including in partnership, in Michigan for shipwreck assessment and monitoring.

Vander Stoep, Vrana and Tolson Workshop III participants included those invited to participate in the first two workshops, individuals known to have past and/or present involvement in shipwreck assessment and monitoring, and representatives of agencies having shipwreck management responsibilities. Among participants were maritime museum staff, avocational shipwreck discoverers, Michigan DNR Conservation Officers and State Archaeologist, and academics. The workshop consisted of a variety of presentations (including presentation of results from the survey and first two workshops), discussions, and field-based shipwreck documentation demonstrations. Presenters provided copies of presentation notes or handouts to project coordinators. Formal notes were taken during a final “campfire discussion” about ideas for developing public/private stewardship-based partnerships for dealing with newly discovered Michigan shipwrecks.

Results As stated in the methods section, a fourpage questionnaire, containing 14 questions grouped in two sections (A: descriptive information about their shipwreck discovery activity, and B: their opinions about what should happen with newly discovered shipwrecks), was developed. A total of 25 questionnaires were returned, 12 from workshop participants and 12 from other shipwreck discoverers. The 25th questionnaire was returned almost a year late, so was not included in the analysis. Thus, the overall usable response rate was 59%. For results presented below, unless otherwise indicated, all 24 respondents provided some response on the closed questions. Section A of the questionnaire dealt with descriptive information about respondents' shipwreck discovery activities. Of 20 respondents who identified the number of years they had been involved in shipwreck discovery, six (30%) had been involved one to 10 years, seven (35%) for 11 to 20 years, and seven (35%) for 21 years or more. The

131

greatest number of years reported was 40. Results, reinforced during workshop discussion, indicated that most active discoverers had considerable experience, with few “young” people becoming involved. Only three respondents indicated they were not actively involved in shipwreck discovery in Michigan Great Lakes waters. However, those three, plus nine others, were active in non-Michigan Great Lakes waters. All 24 planned to stay active within the Great Lakes. Only one did not conduct his own archival research. Of those who did conduct archival research, all but one used maps and charts, books and/or articles written by others. All but two used newspaper articles, Coast Guard/U.S. Life Saving Service/U.S. Lighthouse Service records, and leads from local fishermen. Less frequently used archival records were personal diaries (n=12; 50%) and insurance records (n=10; 42%). Other sources, identified by one or two respondents each, included personal interviews (unspecified), the Internet, historians and other researchers, sea fables, private collections, court records, ships' logs, customs records, enrollments, Army Corps of Engineers records, and other shipwreck hunters. Twenty-three respondents (96%) were involved in the actual water-based shipwreck search process. Nineteen (79%) used their own boats as the primary search platform; the others used someone else's boat. None searched from shore or used aircraft. Of the 22 responding to the question about with whom they most often search, half (n=11) searched with an informal group of friends. Six (25%) searched most often with an organized group, five (21%) searched alone. Traditional scuba and sidescan sonar were the types of search equipment used most often. All those actively involved in the search process (n=23) used scuba. Just over half of these (n=12; 52%) used mixed gas; only two (87%) had used a rebreather system. A large majority (n=20; 87%) used sidescan or sector-scanning sonar. Other technologies were used by fewer discoverers: magnetometer (n=6; 26%), sub-bottom profiler (n=5; 22%), surface-supplied air (n=3;

132


13%), and remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) to ground truth (n=3; 13%) or search (n=2; 9%). Other equipment included bottom finders, depth recorders, SHARPs, and a remotely towed ROV (n=1 for each). Just over half (13 of 24; 54%) of the discoverers searched for other cultural or natural resources, including: lake bottom features and other geologic formations (trenches, drop-offs, bottom profiles, cave systems, sink holes); old forests; remnants of lighthouses, docks, and piers; prehistoric sites; bottles, tools, anchors, and other artifacts. Section B dealt with respondents' opinions about the shipwreck discovery process and activities. When asked if they believed there are conditions that unfairly restrict their discovery activity, only three indicated “yes”. Reasons given included natural and personal conditions (inclement weather, limited personal time to search, high cost of searching), a proposed federal marine sanctuary (assumed to bring with it a host of regulations and restrictions), and the belief that the Coast Guard does not allow use of airplanes for search activity. An additional response stated that the “public belief that the discoverer's knowledge is public property” negatively impacted their search activity. One respondent stated that, while weather/time/cost were constraints, they were not “unfair”. The one specific recommendation for reducing constraints was: “Eliminate the ‘all wreck hunters are wreck rapers’ attitude”. Question 13 provided a list of 10 actions that could take place when a shipwreck is discovered or identified. Respondents were to indicate which, if any, they believed should occur; they could add other actions. Unanimously, respondents agreed that wrecks should NOT be promoted to and opened for access by the general public. All 24 respondents checked at least one of the options for what SHOULD occur. The most strongly supported actions (each supported by 21 of 24 respondents, or 88%) were: 1) determining accurate coordinates for shipwreck locations, 2) photo- and/or video-documenting the wreck, and 3) mapping the site. Five re-

spondents (21%) believed that the location should be reported to a managing authority or provided to a central database. Respondents were most divided about how much to restrict or promote the discovery to the public, and what should occur before and after documentation has been completed. Seventy-one percent (n=17) supported restricting all public knowledge of wrecks until documentation is complete. The rest (29%; n=7) indicated that discovery of the wreck should be promoted, but the location should not be disclosed and public access should not be permitted. Five indicated that the discovery and location of wrecks should be restricted to the discoverers and their associates. When asked about what should be done with valuable artifacts, four supported removing them from the wreck site for protection; three supported securing such artifacts to the wreck. Several respondents wrote additional comments on the questionnaire. Some provided circumstances under which they would agree to a certain action. One indicated that decisions about what to do when a shipwreck is discovered should be left entirely to those who had invested their time and resources for search and discovery. One believed that valuable items could be removed from the site, but it was important to first “work out [a] protection plan for valuable artifacts; even if they include legal, organized removal for public display - this is the Huge Grey Area”. Another supported removal of artifacts, but only “IF [a] museum wants [the] items.” One respondent supported restriction of public knowledge about a wreck until documentation is complete, but only “as long as documentation is done in a timely manner” (“timely manner” is undefined). Another stated that the choice of whether or not to promote knowledge of a shipwreck discovery before completing documentation "would depend upon the historical/archaeological value of the site, and the assessed risk of loss by state authorities of that value". When asked about their willingness to contribute to State of Michigan efforts to docu-

Vander Stoep, Vrana and Tolson ment, assess and/or monitor newly discovered Great Lakes shipwrecks, the majority (79%; n=19) said they would. Three did not respond to the question; two said “no”. One added the caveat that “As a contractor (PAID), whatever is required. To volunteer my services without compensation, NOTHING”. Nine respondents indicated specific activities they would be willing to do with or for the State, including archival research, identifying wrecks, documenting, mapping, assessing, inventorying portable artifacts, reporting missing artifacts (monitoring), providing equipment and the expertise to operate it, and monitoring diver/charter boat impacts on wrecks. Two respondents, respectively, said: “[I'd w]elcome participation and share imagery with the State of Michigan” and “[I'd g]ive any info that the state wants from us, do any work they would like us to do”. Two indicated they already were or had been involved with the State. Others provided caveats to their participation. Overall, respondents provided few comments to the questionnaire's open-ended questions. However, workshop discussions provided insight into the rationale behind survey responses, and provided insights into the factors, values, and varied opinions related issues about the shipwreck discovery process. Summary workshop results are presented below. Motives for shipwreck discovery involvement (interest in history, shipping, machinery, technology developments; interest in “unlocking the mysteries of the sinking” and clarify the historical record; adventure and thrill of the “hunt”; joy of exploration and discovery; to educate others; for economic benefit) are varied and based on multiple values and benefits. All must be considered in shipwreck management decisions. Discovery activities, conducted primarily by people with many years of experience, include both historical research and physical searching. Most engage in shipwreck identification efforts, varying levels of documentation (e.g., still and video photography, taking measurements, re-

133

cording basic vessel and cargo characteristics). Some develop site plans, artist perspectives, or models. Some produce video or slide productions (for sale or diver showcase showings); others produce books, articles or CDs. Very little assessment (as to the site condition and values) or formal, regular monitoring (inspection of the site over time) occurs, though informal returns to a site, occasionally incorporating photography that could used for condition comparisons, sometimes occur. Opinions about what should happen to loose, valuable artifacts varied, ranging from authorized or unauthorized removal, to vessel attachment, to hiding, to doing nothing. Perceived constraints to private discovery activities included personal factors (distance, limited time and money), unpredictable lake and weather conditions, freighter traffic, lack of nearby support services and facilities, government restrictions and “bureaucratic attitudes”, and the need for secrecy (difficult to maintain). Their activities are facilitated by access to a variety of historical resources and helpful individuals (e.g., fishermen), improving technology, relatively few legal restrictions and the ability to earn dollars for shipwreck products. Individuals' attitudes, reflected in their perceptions of barriers and aids to discovery, also influenced their opinions about what should and should not happen when shipwrecks are newly discovered. Thus, opinions varied about the most effective ways to manage shipwrecks, and who should be responsible. Everyone agreed that the State has limited staff and resources to allocate to shipwreck management, with most activities being reactive rather than strategic or proactive. Consequently, recreational divers have assumed responsibility for most discovery activity in Michigan Great Lakes waters, and they conduct varying degrees of documentation and assessment. Discoverers, for the most part, were protective of intellectual property rights associated with their discovery activities. As a group, they recognized a variety of natural and human factors that

134


can damage wrecks, including intentional and unintentional damage by recreational divers and boaters, and occasional theft of artifacts by a small number of divers. Their discovery activities are perceived as not intrusive or destructive. Typically, discoverers are passionate about their shipwreck activities; some were willing to share discoveries, benefits and responsibilities while others preferred to keep their activities and discoveries secret. Some were very willing to partner with state agencies and universities while others were not. Potential partners (stakeholders) identified included avocational historians, museum professionals, historical societies, government agencies, and recreational divers. Barriers to partnerships included misperceptions, misunderstanding and distrust between shipwreck discoverers and resource managers. Therefore, most believed strongly that discoverer participation in any type of shipwreck management partnership must be voluntary. A series of potential incentives (e.g., tax incentives, provision of support facilities, formal recognition, preservation of intellectual property rights) were identified as ways to encourage voluntary participation. Most discoverers believed that education and stewardship are important components of shipwreck management. Additionally, some indicate that certain areas of relevant law and policy need clarification, especially in light of recent court decisions about ownership and salvage rights. These and other recommendations are discussed in more detail in the final section.

Recommendations and Discussion Discoverers voluntarily invest substantial amounts of personal resources and time in shipwreck discovery. However, some insist the government owes them something (reimbursement for investments) if it requests any information about the discoveries. Several questions arise. What are discoverers' rights to recover costs incurred during

search and discovery in which they voluntarily engage? Does the answer depend on the discoverer's motivation? If the venture is engaged in with the express purpose of earning a profit (as a business venture), is the expectation different than if engaged in out of personal passion during one's personal “leisure time”? When does that motivation change? Only when someone (e.g., government) wants a piece of it, regardless of the discoverer's initial motivation? On the other hand, the constraints and frustrations expressed by the state archaeologist (Halsey 1996) -- the State's lack of sophisticated equipment, financial and human resources; by some divers' lack of a sense of responsibility for newly found wrecks; site disturbance or incomplete documentation by well-meaning divers; “demonization” of resource managers -- all still exist. But perhaps the most important result of this study is the diversity of opinion expressed by shipwreck discoverers. While the sample size was relatively small (by quantitative analysis standards), the representation of diverse divers and the qualitative study components exposed a range of opinions and values, often masked in the past by strong, sometimes inflammatory opinions, voiced by diver icons and opinion leaders. Many expressed deep concern about the multiple values of the shipwrecks, the need for their protection, the importance of education - and the economic realities of shipwreck discovery and management processes. Yes, relation-ships still must be built; respect must be earned and given. But the diversity of opinion and willingness of some to try public/private partnerships provides an opportunity to begin to build those relationships, to design win-win strategies. Avocational divers -- with their passion, skills, and sometimes access to equipment can be invaluable partners. But volunteers, in shipwreck management activities as in anything else, are not a panacea (Flanagan, 1996); they have other responsibilities, paying jobs, and limited time. And they are more likely to choose, during their valuable leisure time, the most exciting activities (e.g., diving vs. tedious data entry) and the

Vander Stoep, Vrana and Tolson most exciting wrecks. They cannot be “dumped on” or simply “used”. Government partners must also bring something to the partnership table, even if in nontraditional forms. As this research project progressed, it became clear that assessment and monitoring could not be addressed without dealing with the broader discovery process (i.e., search, discovery, exploration, identification and documentation) and addressing nondivers. The first of these issues must be addressed because each phase of the process has implications for the others, the second because shipwrecks are held in the public trust. Thus, they belong also, in some way, to the non-diving public (albeit the often unaware public) and their future depends on the awareness, values attributed by, and actions of others. This includes non-diving Michigan residents and visitors (it's hard to care about, vote for protection of, or financially support something you don't even know about); law enforcement officers who have more serious criminals to apprehend than stealers of rotting wood planks; judges who have more serious crimes to prosecute; fishermen who view wrecks as net tanglers. Therefore, the need for resource stewardship and education programs, targeted at many different groups, is fundamental to long term success of other recommended actions. Two sets of recommendations were developed: one based on existing conditions and resource constraints; the other based on an assumed condition of unlimited financial and human resources. Recommendations based on existing conditions included: clarification of recent court decisions and definitions embedded in the wording of some laws; evaluation of the State's current management activities; enhancement of law enforcement efforts for priority shipwreck management areas; and development (in cooperation with shipwreck discoverers) of voluntary procedures and incentives for discoverers to cooperate with the State in shipwreck discovery process and information exchange.

135

Recommendations under the “unlimited resources” condition included: development of a framework for integrated resource management; development of a statewide management plan; completion of a professional inventory of shipwrecks; development of partnerships among recreational divers, avocational historians, state officials, professionals, and other stakeholders for documenting, assessing and monitoring shipwrecks; and development of stewardship and education programs involving multiple stakeholder groups. Specific ideas include: •

•

•

•

•

Developing avocational archaeology and historic assessment training workshops. Instituting various incentives (e.g., financial incentives such as launch and dockage fee waivers and tax deductions; formal recognition [e.g., attribution, publicity); development of a central database indicating areas previously searched; archival and database access, confidentiality of discoveries for a certain period of time; and access to surplus and obsolete government equipment) for discoverer cooperation with State activities. Clarifying discoverer responsibilities which accompany their citizen rights and privileges. Developing educational programs for discoverers, tourists, judges, local businesses, and other key stakeholders - about the history and values of such resources, their role in Michigan's development and culture, their potential for economic contributions through use as tourism attractions (for divers and nondivers). Discoverer development of a selfpolicing system, to be supplemented by official enforcement as needed.

While the recommendations presented above may sound straight forward, the challenges of implementation are great - due to

136


the entrenched culture of private discovery activities, mistrust between groups, government apprehension about having to manage vast resources with limited funds, and previous verbal and legal battles. But the allure of shipwrecks will remain; the dream of sunken treasure will not die easily. The challenge is to develop appropriate, equitable management approaches that consider the diverse values of shipwrecks. This will be accomplished only through participation of varied stakeholders. Development of partnerships leading to win-win solutions will require sincere desire (or at least openness) on the part of all groups, and a slow building of trust reinforced by behavior compatible with the decisions.

References Bass, George. (1987). Oldest known shipwreck reveals bronze age splendors. National Geographic, 172(6): 693-691. Flanagan, Joseph. (1996). The art of the possible. Common Ground. 1(3/4): 34-39. Goodheart, Adam. (1999). Into the depths of history. Preservation: The Magazine of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, 51(1): 36-45. Halsey, John. (1996). 20 years on shipwreck preservation in Michigan. Common Ground, 1(3/4): 28-33. Kinder, Gary. (1998). Ship of Gold in the Deep Blue Sea. Grove/Atlantic, Inc., New York, NY. Vrana, Kenneth J. (ed.) (1995). Inventory of maritime and recreation resources of the Manitou Passage Underwater Preserve. Michigan State University, Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources, Center for Maritime and Underwater Resource Management, East Lansing, MI. Vrana, Kenneth J. and Mahoney, Edward. (eds.) (1993). Great Lakes Underwater Cultural Resources: Important Information for Shaping our Future. Michigan State University, Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources, East Lansing, MI.

Webster, Donovan. (1999). Pirates of the Whydah. National Geographic., 195(5): 6477.