Northwest Dive Club

spatman wrote:

dwashbur wrote:

spatman wrote:

Chenari wrote:This way, at least, they become part of the environment, being broken down NATURALLY by the creatures living on it.

car tires and plastic dolls? please.

There's life growing on the plastic dolls already, so they don't seem too bad for the life. The tire reef at Langley is one of the premier underwater attractions up on Whidbey.

i'm not disputing the fun factor at all, dave. i'm all for fun. but plastics and car tires are not naturally occurring, nor are they broken down by the creatures living on it. there are better materials than plastics to provide structure for life.

I understand that, and as I recall I even said (in the part you snipped) that they may not be the best materials. For the umpteenth time, what has me baffled is the level of rage over a silly little Buzz Lightyear doll. (Incidentally, they actually wanted to put Woody down there, since he would the the logical one to be riding the animal, but they didn't have one.)

The VW wasn't naturally occurring, either, but the critters looked at it and said "CONDOS!" They moved in en masse. Likewise for the light cones and all the rest. A rock reef a la Salt Water State Park would be nice, but what we have there is pretty darn good, and the critters seem to agree. There's a diversity at Redondo that I just don't see anywhere else in the Sound. The Oil Dock used to be that way too, but the powers that be "fixed" that site and removed structures that were deemed inappropriate or "not naturally occurring." We all know how that turned out. Do we really want to start down that road with Redondo? Yo creo que NO.

Somebody else made a comment about the bottle field; but the bottle field is one of the most popular deep destinations down there, because critters like the bottles and stuff. Yesterday we found a big thing that looked like an old road sign next to the carousel boat, and under it was a HUGE sailfin sculpin. The critters like what we put down there because it gives them more places to hide and play. Then there's this:
This looks like an old welding gas bottle. But that YOY and the tubeworms think it's a great place to live. It's their opinion that counts, not ours.

As for this comment:

A large,plastic t rex is not an environment that anything is going to live in/on............

You don't know that. It hasn't been there long enough for flora to take hold, but there's every likelihood it will. The only difference between it and some of the other items down there is time. Again, the original "bondage Barbie" has lots of stuff growing on it, and a lot of critters eat that stuff. So that one object has made a place for more critter food to grow. I see that as a good thing.

Look at the condition of the VW now. The sea will reclaim what we give it. It just takes differing amounts of time.

And yet again, if somebody wants to impose their view on everybody else and remove it, nobody is stopping them.

And spatty, chenari is not the one having the temper tantrum. The very topic of this thread is a temper tantrum.

Burntchef wrote:

Chenari wrote:


Who are we to say what's structure and what is it? The very nature of marine life is to dominate anything they can to make it their home. If anything, putting things like Buzz, the T-Rex, the Bug, and the barbies down there is the best kind of recycling one can do.

This way, at least, they become part of the environment, being broken down NATURALLY by the creatures living on it.

with statements like these you should be sending your resume off to BP, I am sure they need a new marketing person.

So, Spatman, are you going to nail this person for insults too? I'm just saying, fair is fair...

You know, I generally like to think of Divers as good-natured and easy going people who just like to have fun. People like you all could very easily change my opinion.

Just because the tires and the plastic toys aren't going to break down into their natural states in our lifetime doesn't mean they're condemning to the life down there. Heck, when the plastic dinosaur eventually breaks open, it'll make a nice little hidey-hole for some lucky Gunnel or Grunt Sculpin to hide their eggs in.

I look at this thread and I see nobody arguing about things like the Carousel horse, the Pipe Boat, or even the buoyancy rings. Those aren't natural either, why not rip them out? And while we're at it, let's take out the rope lines leading us down to the deeper parts of the site. Those aren't natural either. Oh, hey, and why not rip out the big pipe while we're at it? I mean NOTHING could EVER benefit from a gigantic structurally sound tube to hide in right?

dave, you have valid points, and as has been demonstrated already in this thread, it is definitely a subjective matter.

this thread's tone is not conducive to this type of discussion, so i'm locking it.

if someone would like to start another on the same topic with a more civil tone, feel free to do so.

ok, nevermind. you guys want to tussle, go for it.

spatman wrote:ok, nevermind. you guys want to tussle, go for it.

Not me, I said my piece and I'm done.

I like peas.



Peas are round.

From my other post:

...

there also is an entirely sober discussion to have over plastics in the sound.

we're starting to realize that some plastics leach phthalates, and since plastics don't break down they tend to break up into smaller and smaller pieces.

steel is actually something that is easier for the environment to deal with.

...

and while the action figures are using hard plastic so probably won't leach phthalates, what will eventually happen to them? and what is going to happen to all the other keyboards and mice and other plastic junk in the sound? some of it is going to get busted up over time. even if it didn't get busted up, do we want to leave a layer of plastic for future generations? who is going to clean that up?

the keyboards and mice down there might actually generate pthalates from the flexible plastic cords. the circuit boards at the pipeline are definitely very sketchy since they could be leaching heavy metals into the sound.

dwashbur wrote: Redondo is my favorite site because it delivers the critters. An awful lot of that "trash" that people put down there encourages those critters to live there.

According to the REEF Top 10 Stats Redondo ranks 6th in species diversity of all the Pacific Coast sites which include California and BC. There have been 125 species reported on REEF surveys.

The other two Puget Sound sites that made the Top 10 were Les Davis 9th with 118 species and Cove 2 at 10th with 117 species reported.

You can form your own interpretations from the data.

There have been some discussions about installing a rock reef at Redondo with the coordination of several different groups that have the pull and resources to pull it off.

Heated discussions are fine and all; but please try to keep this thread civil and polite. Kind of like how we were all taught to be in kindergarden. Is that fair? Because if I see much more bickering and name calling/insulting/ or abusive behavior in this thread, I'm going to lock it again.

coachrenz wrote:

dwashbur wrote: Redondo is my favorite site because it delivers the critters. An awful lot of that "trash" that people put down there encourages those critters to live there.

According to the REEF Top 10 Stats Redondo ranks 6th in species diversity of all the Pacific Coast sites which include California and BC. There have been 125 species reported on REEF surveys.

The other two Puget Sound sites that made the Top 10 were Les Davis 9th with 118 species and Cove 2 at 10th with 117 species reported.

You can form your own interpretations from the data.

There have been some discussions about installing a rock reef at Redondo with the coordination of several different groups that have the pull and resources to pull it off.

Actually you shouldn't just leave raw numbers for people to draw their own conclusions from, since 2 people can readily come to opposite conclusions based on equally erroneous assumptions. Bottom line: This is quite possibly more a function of sampling intensity than actual amazing biodiversity. You need to normalize each site to sampling effort. Alternatively you can do species richness curves which log the number of new species found with each additional unit of sampling effort (e.g. dive or hour) when the richness plateaus to an asymtote its "done".

I feel bad for the op that started the thread......

Dashrynn wrote:I feel bad for the op that started the thread......

I don't ... he's a and needs to have a few before somebody takes a stick and

Just kidding, Wally ... in this case I happen to agree with ya.

Look, it boils down to using a little bit of common sense. A bit of toy and fun here and there is one thing. Problem at Redondo is that it's overdone. Seems like everybody wants to add their own bit of "toys" to the site, and it's looking more like some kid's messy playroom than anything.

Critters need structure, sure ... and to a degree, they use a lot of the stuff that's down there. But T-Rex?? Well, I did see a crab on it once. All the dolls hanging off the geodome? Nothing but silt on their lame asses. Ask yourself what stuff like that really contributes to the underwater experience?

I like Redondo ... heck, I probably dive there more than just about anybody. But even I gotta shake my head sometimes and wonder why the need for even more junk and trash on an almost weekly basis. Divers are supposed to be stewards of the underwater environment ... we really shouldn't be turning our dive sites into an underwater landfill.

To address your comment, Dave ... a bit of trash can be entertaining. A lot of trash is just distracting. It really boils down to what's reasonable. Most people don't dive to look at trash. A lot of what's there should, reasonably, come out.

If trash were make-up, Redondo would be Tammy Faye Bakker. And it, like her, would be more attractive if there were less "enhancement" applied.

Now, if y'all will excuse me ... this stick up my ass is really starting to bother me ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

I have to agree that I am seeing more and more trash at Redondo...
On Sunday I saw a sign advertising a local charity event that is coming up in July. Is this necessary to put this sign down there?
I agree that there should be a cleanup of garbage that is getting "left" down there. I get tired of seeing the crap.
Kirsten

Why don't we have a "stirring the pot" smiley?

Chenari, I think you might have misunderstood what I was trying to say. My point was that if divers want to place structure or attractions at a dive site, they should put a little thought and effort into it. For instance, there used to be a very large glass turtle at cove 2. That took time and effort to make, and some thought as to what fit in with the marine environment (I believe it was also a memorial?). Zip-tieing an action figure to something doesn't IMO. If you want to add something, make it worthwhile.

Lamont, I'm with you on the points you made. Chenari and dave, you mentioned how critters grow and live on plastic stuff and the old edmonds oil dock because "they like it". Well, dogs like antifreeze, that doesn't mean you should just let them drink it. Sometimes you have to protect things from themselves when they don't know better. I'm not picking a fight here, I just don't think that's a valid logical arguement.

Valid? Logical?? How dare you sir, how dare you...

If you take it down with you, it comes out with you... I think something similar was taught in the scouts when I was a kid, I agree that well thought out structures can add to a dive site, I'm just getting tired of seeing stuff I know we ALL would stop to pick up and throw away when we walk at the park ending up as "attractions" at our dive sites...

There have been some discussions about installing a rock reef at Redondo with the coordination of several different groups that have the pull and resources to pull it off.

This is great news! At least some groups are talking about this.
A nice large rock reef at Redondo would have its downside -- Think its crowded now if they do this it would go insane

Grateful Diver wrote: To address your comment, Dave ... a bit of trash can be entertaining. A lot of trash is just distracting. It really boils down to what's reasonable. Most people don't dive to look at trash. A lot of what's there should, reasonably, come out.

Bob,
The problem here is that if you ask four people what's "reasonable" you'll get six different opinions. My two questions remain: who decides what's reasonable (and hence what should come out) and what qualifies them to make the decision? I think these are reasonable questions.

And for the gazillionth time, the "stick" comment addressed the TONE with which the rant was made, not anybody's sexual preference.

Back to lurking.

dwashbur wrote:And for the gazillionth time, the "stick" comment addressed the TONE with which the rant was made, not anybody's sexual preference.

dave, chenari's stick comment has nothing to do with the tone of the thread:

Chenari wrote: Just grow up and get the stick out your @$$.

so you may have meant it one way, but it was taken in another direction all together.

From what I've seen, some kind of sea creature will live in, on, or around pretty much whatever is thrown in there. But I don't really dive to see goofy $hi* tied to the bottom of the ocean. I dive to see the animals. It would be nice if all the "artificial" structure at various dive locations could be semi natural like all the pieces of the bridge at les davis instead of stuff that people dump at shooting pits.

For me, that stuff (toys, junk, etc) just detracts from what I actually dive to see. If you want to sink an artificial structure, put some thought and effort into it instead of tossing something in that you were going to otherwise throw in the garbage.

These are of course my opinions. Other people may get a kick out of seeing appliances and toys while diving. To each their own.

Get yourself a truck, a few friends and a lift bag or 2, and with a couple hours work, you could sink something like this...



"Oh but it's illegal"...well probably not any more illegal than what people dump down there to begin with.

spatman wrote:

dwashbur wrote:And for the gazillionth time, the "stick" comment addressed the TONE with which the rant was made, not anybody's sexual preference.

dave, chenari's stick comment has nothing to do with the tone of the thread:

Chenari wrote: Just grow up and get the stick out your @$$.

so you may have meant it one way, but it was taken in another direction all together.

Actually, I was in the room when she wrote that and the tone IS what she meant. I'll grant it was taken in a different direction, but not by her (at least not intentionally).

After reading through the various posts from a few different people... I think this thread is ridiculous and ill-mannered.

Thank you for posting this wally... and anytime i'm in Tacoma i WILL patronize your shop because you are more interested in the NATURAL environment. I have dove Redondo once and will likely not dive it again. I don't like the unnatural site. I think it's utterly disgusting. As a human being what someone is doing is literally the equivalent to throwing garbage out your window on the freeway. Sure... maybe that pop can will house some type of creature... insects... baby mice... throw a six pack ring out and a bird may use it to build a nest... or choke on it... but at what cost? We produce so many things that are hazardous to our future environment it is sick. The reason they are removing so many pilings in the sound is because they are harmful to the environment, although they are providing habitat to some creatures. We found this out years after putting them in... a lot of the damage is already done.

We must stop doing things without thinking of the consequences... our world is here for future generations. When i go hiking i don't like to see garbage along my route... i like to see plants growing, flowers blossoming and trees providing shelter... when i go diving i like to see similar naturally occurring seascapes.

So please... Stop littering in public. I want to take my students somewhere beautiful and natural... not some garbage can. If you want to enjoy a T-Rex with a Buzz Lightyear riding it put it in your front yard.

Scubak wrote:I have to agree that I am seeing more and more trash at Redondo...
On Sunday I saw a sign advertising a local charity event that is coming up in July. Is this necessary to put this sign down there?
I agree that there should be a cleanup of garbage that is getting "left" down there. I get tired of seeing the crap.
Kirsten

I'm glad somebody finally mentioned those signs (there are at least two). I am all for the charity event, but seriously people....seeing advertisements while I'm in the depths of Puget Sound is annoying and JUST PLAIN TACKY.

I used to think the geodome and attendant Ken and Barbie dolls were a humorous idea, until I actually dove Redondo and saw it in person. Wholly unnecessary and an eyesore, quite honestly. Although one unnamed diver's placement of an abandoned Ken doll on the Dive Around the Clock signage was a brief moment of levity in an otherwise uneventful dive.

I have no idea what the solution is, since one man's trash is another's treasure and none of us own Redondo (or any part of Puget Sound, actually). Although I would gladly assist in an organized clean up effort to return Puget Sound to its more *natural* state.

But, I am still wondering why those of you so offended by finding these trinkets down there don't just bring one or two up with you and toss them in the garbage can on your way back to the parking lot? Yes, of course we are all there to dive (and not collect garbage), but honestly, how hard is it to pick up something that is clearly trash (please make sure no critters are living in/on it, of course), stuff it in your drysuit pocket/belt of your bc/wherever, and dispose of it appropriately topside?

Is it really that much more satisfying to rant about it on this board than take action to solve the problem as you perceive it?

twitch wrote:After reading through the various posts from a few different people... I think this thread is ridiculous and ill-mannered.

Agreed. My "thread locking" finger is getting itchy.

twitch wrote:So please... Stop littering in public. I want to take my students somewhere beautiful and natural... not some garbage can. If you want to enjoy a T-Rex with a Buzz Lightyear riding it put it in your front year.

And that really hits the nail on the head, doesn't it? It's littering. I'm pretty sure it's illegal. And I'm equally sure that anyone is well within their rights to go clean all the "gumby and dinosaur" plastic garbage they want to out of the water. I'm not allowed to scatter crap like that around the park by my house; why is Redondo any different?

Im just curious....on the plastic issue.... what about the geodome everyone loves at Mukilteo? If plastic is so horrible, and Im not saying its not, ... why are we trying to save the geodome instead of ripping it out?

Just a thought...