Northwest Dive Club

.....I'm just here to complain.

Dear self-made dive site fixer-upper person,

I'm writing in regards to your recent efforts to improve local dive sites, specifically Mukilteo. While I'm sure your heart is in a good place, your head is up your backside. Recently your addition of at least 3 stolen road signs to this site is, at best, horrible judgement. You are illegally stealing signs that tax payers get to pay to replace. You are illegally dumping them under water. You are making a beautiful natural underwater environment look like a construction site. Oh, and while you are in the process of all that, you are single-handedly threatening to undo all the work the divers in this community have done to have a good relationship with the Mukilteo city council.

Please remove the signs. Please return them to the proper owners and pay for the damage you caused when stealing them. Please don't tell anyone, ever, that you are a diver or why you stole/vandalized government property as it will reflect on the rest of us.

I will be diving Mukilteo on Memorial day. I hope the garbage is removed by then. If it isn't, I will remove it and clean up your mess for you. Anyone willing to help me, your time and efforts will be both welcome and appreciated. After the job is done, we can have a drink at the Diamond Knot and perhaps discuss welcome improvements to our local dive sites.

I noticed a new sign just west of the Geodome - are there more? I haven't dove there for a couple of weeks.

How do you know they are stolen?

I dove Saturday and "saw" (in 5' viz) what was obviously a brand new ROAD CLOSED sign. The placement was quite elaborate and looked like it took a lot of time. However, I agree with the OP, not appropriate. I tolerate some of the stuff there because on some level it is habitat but this is just someone trying to be cute.

Jeremy wrote: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.

You can purchase street signs very easily. There is a specific spec and companys that specialize in making such signs.

When I had my own excavating business, I used to buy these signs.

They are not cheap though.

Odd's are they are stolen. They do have to be available to the public somehow since MANY public folks need them. The big one that comes to mind is all the stop sings in private parking lots (Walmart, Fred Meyer, Safeway, ect), private construction area, construction work by contract on public roads, new housing developments that do not use public streets, ect.

I'm definitely with Joe (Fishstiq) on this one - for two aspects: 1) Thieves are despicable and, 2) unnatural garbage such as signs, plastic and toilets simply make what could be a beautiful underwater site look like a damn dump. Thieves who dump garbage underwater are even worse.

Joe, I'm not back in the water yet or I'd come help you remove that crap....

Nwcid wrote:Odd's are they are stolen. They do have to be available to the public somehow since MANY public folks need them. The big one that comes to mind is all the stop sings in private parking lots (Walmart, Fred Meyer, Safeway, ect), private construction area, construction work by contract on public roads, new housing developments that do not use public streets, ect.

Maybe I misunderstood "street"? "Road closed" is not "I-5" like I was imagining.

But yeah nobody bought whatever they dumped there.

Yeah I-5 would be kinda obvious or you are REALLY lost

Joe's right though, dumping crap at Muk is NOT a good way to stay on the city's "good citizen" list. Especially crap which may very well be city property.

John Rawlings wrote:I'm definitely with Joe (Fishstiq) on this one - for two aspects: 1) Thieves are despicable and, 2) unnatural garbage such as signs, plastic and toilets simply make what could be a beautiful underwater site look like a damn dump. Thieves who dump garbage underwater are even worse.

Joe, I'm not back in the water yet or I'd come help you remove that crap....

I appreciate the support John, and I hope you are well enough to dive soon!

Richard, sorry, maybe "street signs" wasn't the best description. You are still correct though, whoever put them there didn't own them, and if the city were to find out it would give the dive community a bad image pretty quickly.

Assuming dive site improver person doesn't clean up their own mess, will anyone else be available to help me clean things up on Monday? I'm flexible on times for dives.

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?

Jeremy wrote: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.

Jeremy wrote: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?

I'm not sure where the "Mess/Not Mess" line is drawn. It's a grey area. However, when a person elects to steal property, possibly vandalizing in the process, and then dump said stolen property in the sound at a very well used site in a city that went from banning divers to considering building a dive park, I'd say that's on the "mess" side of the line.

If the structure was acquired legally, an argument can be made. If the structure provided something, like habitat for critters, an argument can be made. If the structure was placed legally and responsibly, an argument could be made. If the structure somehow improved the dive site, an argument could be made. These signs do none of the above.

So in theory, yes - a group of divers could decide it's trash and remove it?

I personally like the geodome. Mukilteo is barren enough as is. I'd love to be a part of putting more objects down there as the OP suggests.

provide underwater navigation landmarks?

Fishstiq wrote:

Jeremy wrote: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?

I'm not sure where the "Mess/Not Mess" line is drawn. It's a grey area. However, when a person elects to steal property, possibly vandalizing in the process, and then dump said stolen property in the sound at a very well used site in a city that went from banning divers to considering building a dive park, I'd say that's on the "mess" side of the line.

If the structure was acquired legally, an argument can be made. If the structure provided something, like habitat for critters, an argument can be made. If the structure was placed legally and responsibly, an argument could be made. If the structure somehow improved the dive site, an argument could be made. These signs do none of the above.

Do you have to ask the city to put something in at the T-dock? Did the city give permission for the geodome?

I'm curious, not trying to start anything. As I mentioned, I feel Mukilteo is a pretty barren site and would love to be part of putting some additional habitat there.

Jeremy wrote:

Fishstiq wrote:

Jeremy wrote: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?

I'm not sure where the "Mess/Not Mess" line is drawn. It's a grey area. However, when a person elects to steal property, possibly vandalizing in the process, and then dump said stolen property in the sound at a very well used site in a city that went from banning divers to considering building a dive park, I'd say that's on the "mess" side of the line.

If the structure was acquired legally, an argument can be made. If the structure provided something, like habitat for critters, an argument can be made. If the structure was placed legally and responsibly, an argument could be made. If the structure somehow improved the dive site, an argument could be made. These signs do none of the above.

Do you have to ask the city to put something in at the T-dock? Did the city give permission for the geodome?

I'm curious, not trying to start anything. As I mentioned, I feel Mukilteo is a pretty barren site and would love to be part of putting some additional habitat there.

You can't legally place "stuff" as habitat. You'd need a hydraulic project approval from WDFW and you won't get one for things like road signs, PVC pipes, or or really anything else for that matter. For a practical perspective everything artificial out there was illegally dumped. Some of it does provide homes to desirable creatures. So is more of a neutral, some is an eyesore. Its not grey in the eyes of the law though.

Jeremy wrote:So in theory, yes - a group of divers could decide it's trash and remove it?

I personally like the geodome. Mukilteo is barren enough as is. I'd love to be a part of putting more objects down there as the OP suggests.

Sure, but its going to start something ugly. And I would prefer that NWDC play no role in it.

Joshua Smith wrote:

Jeremy wrote:So in theory, yes - a group of divers could decide it's trash and remove it?

I personally like the geodome. Mukilteo is barren enough as is. I'd love to be a part of putting more objects down there as the OP suggests.

Sure, but its going to start something ugly. And I would prefer that NWDC play no role in it.

Agreed. Plan illegal activities elsewhere, please.

spatman wrote:

Joshua Smith wrote:

Jeremy wrote:So in theory, yes - a group of divers could decide it's trash and remove it?

I personally like the geodome. Mukilteo is barren enough as is. I'd love to be a part of putting more objects down there as the OP suggests.

Sure, but its going to start something ugly. And I would prefer that NWDC play no role in it.

Agreed. Plan illegal activities elsewhere, please.

Trying to understand a diving issue is not planning illegal activities. At all.

Jeremy wrote:Trying to understand a diving issue is not planning illegal activities. At all.

read:

Jeremy wrote:I'd love to be a part of putting more objects down there as the OP suggests.

.

Fishstiq wrote:After the job is done, we can have a drink at the Diamond Knot and perhaps discuss welcome improvements to our local dive sites.

Doesn't sound illegal to me.

And I was crystal clear about how this is about curiousity, not getting into an argument. I have no interest in that.

Jeremy wrote:

Fishstiq wrote:After the job is done, we can have a drink at the Diamond Knot and perhaps discuss welcome improvements to our local dive sites.

Doesn't sound illegal to me.

And I was crystal clear about how this is about curiousity, not getting into an argument. I have no interest in that.

Welcome does not equal legal. And I'm just making it clear that any talk of adding material to a dive site that is not vetted through proper channels does not being on this forum.

spatman wrote:

Jeremy wrote:

Fishstiq wrote:After the job is done, we can have a drink at the Diamond Knot and perhaps discuss welcome improvements to our local dive sites.

Doesn't sound illegal to me.

And I was crystal clear about how this is about curiousity, not getting into an argument. I have no interest in that.

Welcome does not equal legal. And I'm just making it clear that any talk of adding material to a dive site that is not vetted through proper channels does not being on this forum.

I doubt the diving community would welcome illegal activity at their sites. The whole point of this thread has made that clear.

I remain curious though. How does one legally put in an artificial reef? Who would you have to talk to? Someone said that there was talk of turning Mukilteo into a dive park - is there already a group out there engaged with this?