Don't Mind Me.....

[Jeremy]

And then if a structure was legally put in, could someone decide it was trash and take it out with no legal ramifications?

Aren't there penalties for taking anything out of Edmonds?

[Jeff Pack]

If doing this is even anything like remotely similar to wetland mitigation work I've done, then dont even bother.

There are too many heads to deal with, too many divergent interests, plus certain groups that plain will fight you every step.


In general, its easier to beg forgiveness, than ask for permission.

[BDub]

I don't understand the point of placing "stuff" as a habitat.

Diving allows us, a small, very privileged group, to explore parts of our planet totally unlike the part of our planet we reside and function in.

Why the desire to bring our junk to a completely different world, where it's totally unnecessary, and often times harmful?

If you want look at "stuff" (junk), rearrange it in your own garage, living room, etc. but please leave it out of the water. If it's *that* important to you to look at trash underwater, toss it in your own swimming pool. There's enough junk down there from people who have no respect for it. We should be the last group adding to it. It's not cute. It's not fun. It's junk.

Seems to me we should all think back to the first few dives we each had. I know I certainly was in awe of this completely different world, all these different creatures that I'd never seen before, the feeling of being weightless and just the entire experience. A stop sign certainly would not have been the memorable part of those dives.

Joe, I'm happy to help, however we're in the lake on Monday. Depending on when you plan on removing it, I may be able to make it up there to help.

[John Rawlings]

Curious...what makes an object a "mess" or not?

Could my buddy and I decide that the geodome is a pile of trash and go remove it tomorrow?

We have been down this road before. Some of us think the Geodome is trash (me among others) and prefer it not be there. However since its a memorial we respect the motives of the diver who placed it, repairs it, and leave it alone. If you don't like it go someplace else.

Agreed - 100%. Since it's a memorial it has been left intact by pretty much everyone, but that doesn't stop me from wishing that it had never been put there. I'd rather see a pile of boulders there or even just the sandy bottom, myself. I understand the motive of the diver that built it....but that doesn't mean that I have to like it.

- John

[CaptnJack]

If doing this is even anything like remotely similar to wetland mitigation work I've done, then dont even bother.

Its worse as there's no regulatory "path" for artificial reefs.

The activities at Edmonds are permitted, however they got that permit because they basically pre-date the HPA process (the park was created in the 1970s). The lead agency for any artificial reefing effort would be DNR, in collaboration with the Army Corps, the Coast Guard, Ecology, NOAA, and WDFW at a minimum. WDFW does not want artificial habitats in Puget Sound, they have made the policy decision very loudly and very clearly. They have support from Ecology, DNR, and the Governor's office, so honestly its way too much effort to go up against that as they are "non-starters".

[Jeremy]

If doing this is even anything like remotely similar to wetland mitigation work I've done, then dont even bother.

Its worse as there's no regulatory "path" for artificial reefs.

The activities at Edmonds are permitted, however they got that permit because they basically pre-date the HPA process (the park was created in the 1970s). The lead agency for any artificial reefing effort would be DNR, in collaboration with the Army Corps, the Coast Guard, Ecology, NOAA, and WDFW at a minimum. WDFW does not want artificial habitats in Puget Sound, they have made the policy decision very loudly and very clearly. They have support from Ecology, DNR, and the Governor's office, so honestly its way too much effort to go up against that as they are "non-starters".

That's very interesting, thanks for commenting. Reminds me of conversations I had with other divers complaining about how hard it is to sink a wreck here in Washington compared to BC.

I wonder if that means the Mukilteo Dive Park rumors are just poppycock.

[CaptnJack]

If doing this is even anything like remotely similar to wetland mitigation work I've done, then dont even bother.

Its worse as there's no regulatory "path" for artificial reefs.

The activities at Edmonds are permitted, however they got that permit because they basically pre-date the HPA process (the park was created in the 1970s). The lead agency for any artificial reefing effort would be DNR, in collaboration with the Army Corps, the Coast Guard, Ecology, NOAA, and WDFW at a minimum. WDFW does not want artificial habitats in Puget Sound, they have made the policy decision very loudly and very clearly. They have support from Ecology, DNR, and the Governor's office, so honestly its way too much effort to go up against that as they are "non-starters".

That's very interesting, thanks for commenting. Reminds me of conversations I had with other divers complaining about how hard it is to sink a wreck here in Washington compared to BC.

I wonder if that means the Mukilteo Dive Park rumors are just poppycock.

Not completely. Salt Water State Park just placed a new reef to replace their old tires. You need alot of money and some political clout. I don't think WSDOT really wants another dive park right next to another one of their terminals though, so there's probably some rough water ahead if its ever even proposed at all.

[Jeff Pack]

Political clout and money always works, its always just a matter of how much of each to make it happen.

Keep in mind certain conservation groups are well funded, well organized, and alot of poltical and legal clout as well. I doubt they'd approve of this sort of thing either.

[H20doctor]

Redondo.. Placed junk..Three tree.. Placed junk.. seems alot of photos here have been shot with sea creatures living in and on placed junk ,
I agree with the sign stuff. But not with good junk habbitat.. And no, I didn't do it..

[coulterboy]

Redondo.. Placed junk..Three tree.. Placed junk.. seems alot of photos here have been shot with sea creatures living in and on placed junk ,
I agree with the sign stuff. But not with good junk habbitat.. And no, I didn't do it..

I was there when you did it. You even used your ancient boat for the project. No seriously, just kidding here.

On a serious note, this is such a "gray area". Joe has a very good point of taking it out, if indeed this was a stolen sign. On the other hand, I agree with Jeremy. What is junk, and what is not junk? The manequin (I met the man), the satellite dish, the pvc pipes (Geodome) at the Muk. Well, we all could wish it would be a positive habitat for any underwater living creature. Chris (H2oDoctor) pointed out the junk that could be seen at TTN (Satellite dish, boat with golf balls, tires, etc).
Redondo has it's own junk too. So the question is, should we consider anything that does not support the means of habitat for any underwater creature a "junk"? If that's the case, should we all have a concerted effort to retrieve all the golf balls at TTN? I don't know.

Not too long ago, some divers put up some sort of guide lines/ropes (correct me if I'm wrong) at one of the Coves, in the hopes that it would be a good implement for training or any other use. Is this considered junk too? And believe me, this is not to hijack the original post, or expose things that other divers did. Was there a permit to put it on?

Did the culprit of this so-called "street sign" at the Muk Dive Site, had intentions for it to be a sort of a guide or sign? Don't know.

On the other hand, we cannot let it happen randomly. If that's the case, this would open up to "wanna be" marine biologists that have nothing better else to do, than dump some "junk" cause they think they're making the habitat down there better. The day will come where, it won't be "I met the man", but will be, " I met the couple, or I met the band" at the Muk. Of even perhaps, H20Doctor's 1962 Uniflite next to the skiff at 120' fsw.

Like I said, very "gray" area.

[ArcticDiver]

How do you know they are stolen?

Street signs are not "given away" or legitimately sold to the public. Any street sign not on the street or in the maintenance shop is stolen.

Maybe true in your area. Not true where I live, nor anywhere else I know about. Several ways a person can obtain a street sign or highway marker sign. The ones I had were free from change-out programs.

[John Rawlings]

All -

I was contacted privately by an extremely respected member of the PNW dive community and of this board. To my stunned surprise he said that he was the one that had put the signs underwater at Mukilteo. He asked me to post this, but because of the opposition to the signs he has asked me not to mention his name here. He asked me to make it clear to you all that he was given the signs and as far as he knows they were not stolen. He intends to investigate, however, to make certain that this is true. He also asked that no one remove the signs yet - telling me that he will deal with it.

- John

[Nwbrewer]

All -

I was contacted privately by an extremely respected member of the PNW dive community and of this board. To my stunned surprise he said that he was the one that had put the signs underwater at Mukilteo. He asked me to post this, but because of the opposition to the signs he has asked me not to mention his name here. He asked me to make it clear to you all that he was given the signs and as far as he knows they were not stolen. He intends to investigate, however, to make certain that this is true. He also asked that no one remove the signs yet - telling me that he will deal with it.

- John

Where they came from is less important to me than the fact that they really don't belong there, along with the rest of the junk that seems to have sprouted up lately. I'm hoping that "deal with it" means removing it.

[John Rawlings]

Where they came from is less important to me than the fact that they really don't belong there, along with the rest of the junk that seems to have sprouted up lately. I'm hoping that "deal with it" means removing it.

Agreed. That is what I want to see happen as well.

[CaptnJack]

Please let him know we appreciate his humorous good intentions but appreciate toning it back a bit. Piles of rocks might not be flashy, but more will grow on, around and under them. They'd be viewed as an asset now and 10+ years from now.

[Fishstiq]

Where they came from is less important to me than the fact that they really don't belong there, along with the rest of the junk that seems to have sprouted up lately. I'm hoping that "deal with it" means removing it.

Agreed. That is what I want to see happen as well.

I agree too. Stolen/not stolen isn't really the issue, just a contributing factor. Dive sites should be treated just like any other park or recreational area. Planting a tree in a park is one thing, dumping your junk there is totally different. Even neatly stacked, it's still junk. I accept that people will always want to add to dive sites, that's never going to change. I just wish they would take the time and effort to do it properly, keeping with natural environmental features and creating or improving habitat.

[John Rawlings]

Please let him know we appreciate his humorous good intentions but appreciate toning it back a bit. Piles of rocks might not be flashy, but more will grow on, around and under them. They'd be viewed as an asset now and 10+ years from now.

He’s been reading these comments and so will see your words himself…for all I know he probably already has. I’m also a big fan of rocks. It's amazing how even one rock can attract so much life...all the while looking like it always belonged there!

I just wish they would take the time and effort to do it properly, keeping with natural environmental features and creating or improving habitat.

I couldn’t have said it better myself!

[Norris]

I am an advocate for more natural looking features such as rocks, logs, and what not, but if it were not for the efforts of some to create an artificial habitat of some sort, Redondo, Mukilteo, AND the precious coves would be barren and boring. Would I gladly donate to the "Switch out all junk with natural habitat" cause, HELL YES.
That being said this is an easy bandwagon to jump on, but I applaud the efforts of the gentleman that has been putting their time and effort in keeping up the site and assuring the Geodome is healthy.
It would only take a small window of neglect to transform the GeoDome into a worthless ugly pile of piping. So before we start grabbing our pitchforks and torches let's go off more than the initial rant of "HEY SOMEBODY IS STEALING SIGNS AND THROWING THEM ALL OVER MUKILTEO!!!!!" Remember while many of you dive Mukilteo and enjoy the wolfeels in the Geodome, the deep boat and "the man" if you are not down there week after week putting in YOUR time to help keep this up, is it really fair to have the initial attack be one out of emotion and anger?
So a little research and legwork would easily uncover who might have put that sign up for fun. After which I bet a civil conversation with the nice man who did so could have convinced him that maybe it wasnt appropriate. Then the sign would be removed and we could use pitchforks on hay, and save torch oil.
Last I was there, I believe I saw the sign being spoken of and it is sticking straight up out of a pile of bundled PVC which is on standby for GeoDome repairs. Not sure if there is another, but for people that are not diving there, the person guilty of this has done 20X more positive additions to the T-dock area than the sign shenanigans.
Oh and I repeat, I like natural habitats better than man made...did I mention that? Want to make sure my stance is recorded.

[Grateful Diver]

I haven't dived the T-dock in years ... but back when I lived up north and dived there regularly there was a "School Zone" sign down at about 20 feet, where someone had placed a line for OW students to hang onto during classes. Is it still there? Can that sign be the "inspiration" for what you're seeing now?

A year or so ago we had a similar conversation about Redondo ... when someone was placing Barbie dolls, Godzilla and other "interesting" items around the dive site. We had our own geodome ... since collapsed into a useless pile of junk ... a swinging porch chair, and a bunch of other "interesting" items placed down there. You're right, those things don't belong down there, and sometimes they are an eyesore ... but so are a lot of the other things that ultimately turn into "interesting" destinations for some ... the carousel boat, the VW ... the pipe boat ... the piles of reflectors ... dishwashers, old stoves, toilets, and other such trash that have made their way into the water. Seems to me that pretty much everybody who dives Redondo wants to go to these places ... or to the bottle field. All of it's junk, yanno. But ask yourself this ... remove it, and what are you gonna go there to look at?

Where do you draw the line? Personally, I'd like to see a lot of stuff removed. But the critters only seem to live around where there's structure ... and, oddly, it's what I know a lot of you participating in this thread go look at when you dive these sites.

I know I do ...















... Bob (Grateful Diver)

[coulterboy]

Bob,

First up, those are great pics. Next is, I totally stand on the same ground about your statement. That's why I ask, on my response earlier, "What is junk, and what is not? True, if it weren't for the junk (for the lack of a better term) dumped at Redondo, there would be no interesting site map you can print off the internet, and most certainly, nothing to talk about topside discussing what you saw during the dive. Those structures make important landmarks for people to talk about, or use as navigational guides.

Rick, I agree with your statement too. The culprit for this street sign has done more "good" for the T-Dock than destroying it.

[CaptnJack]

I'll go out on a limb here and say that something that critters live on or in is less junk than things which critters avoid.

Non-junk (I hesitate to say habitat)
pipes
bottles
rocks
wrecks
occasional statuary

Junk
golf balls
street signs
toilets
aluminum crosses
PVC anything

Imagine what it will look like in 5 or 10 years before placing artificial materials. Get some feedback and "peer review" on any proposals.

[Fishstiq]

The culprit for this street sign has done more "good" for the T-Dock than destroying it.

I just learned who the "culprit" is, and I agree, he has defiantly done way more good there than not so good. He's also a super nice guy, which makes me feel like an @$$ (not a new feeling btw), but I stand by my original sentiment. Piles of rock and other natural additions are welcome more often than not. Road cones and toilets and other garbage, not so much.

Adding to a dive site is a grey area, with a lot of opinions. I understand the desire to "improve" a dive site, especially one where a person regularly dives and takes some mental ownership of. I also get the people who believe simply diving and enjoying the underwater world around you should be enough. If there was a middle ground, where both sides could grudgingly agree, I believe it would be in adding natural structure in a responsible manner or focusing your efforts on topside improvements.

[Jeremy]

When I dive TTN, Edmonds, Mukilteo, Redondo, Alki Junkyard, and the coves - I head straight for the junk. That's where the life is. Sometimes I'll see something cool on the way too, which is also fun.

If people prefer diving at featureless barren sites over the junk spots...lord knows we have no shortage of such sites available.

This reminds me of the argument to remove pilings due to the chemical treatment they received. Even though they are interesting and virtually exploding with life, some people would rather destroy all that and return the site to a barren empty bottom.

Anyone dive the Edmonds Oil dock site anymore? I'm guessing way fewer than dove it before. I never even got a chance to see it.

Obviously nobody would be opposed to a Z's reef at their local shore dive as opposed to junk, but the junk is still interesting to me.

[DiverChris]

I believe there is plenty of non-controversial clean-up that can occur.

I dove Redondo last week and saw the major landmarks mentioned above with some really neat critters around them. We proceeded deeper and saw fields of trash devoid of life which I did not enjoy. Plastic bottles, clothing, bags, bits of debris, etc, etc. It could by no means be called a landmark and certainly wasn't providing habitat. It wasn't placed there on purpose but likely floated in, washed in by storm drains or was discarded from a boat. I wished I had a goodie bag to pick some of it up at the time.

I think there is some "low hanging fruit" when it comes to cleaning up and habitat improvement that could and should be done without debate. I know there are many people on the board involved in non-controversial clean-up and I wish to say thank you. Hopefully everyone passionate about sign removal is also passionate about picking up the trash that was not purposefully placed.

I really do not have the energy to devote to the debate of junk vs habitat. I prefer to focus on the black and white instead of the grey. I am however glad there are those that do have the energy to debate the issue because it encourages us all to at least give it some thought.

-Chris

[Tom Nic]

How about this - everyone get lift bags, learn how to use them, and then start bringing the largest rocks that they and their buddies can carry, wheel barrowing or some other means to get them to the shore, and beginning to create rock piles at our different local mud holes. Enough folks doing it, with many dives as are done, we could build some good potential habitat.

Thoughts?

I don't think I need a permit to put a large rock in the water.

Hard work? Sure, but no harder than removing car batteries.