Breaking News

Well... it's always been said that if you believe that a law is wrong, you don't break it, you challenge it. Otherwise we don't have democracy, we have anarchy.

Society has always designated some places sacred, or off limits. Why should underwater tombs be any different? (This is a question, not a statement of fact or opinion; someone may have a convincing opinion or answer.)

Also, why does someone want a bell, or piece of china from a sunken ship? Is it like taking a piece of petrified wood from the petrified forest, or a pine cone from the giant redwood forest? If so, those acts are prohibited so that all visitors, forever, can share in the splendor. If not, why not and how is it different? Again, just questions. Any opinions?

Why should underwater tombs be different? I'm not sure they should be, conceptually, but here's how they are, practically: They are not truly tombs; they are accident sites.

Nowhere else on earth do we have places where, by choice, the dead have been left where they died. Generally, mankind has some kind of ritual burial or memorial,and the physical remains are taken from the location of their demise. The remaining personal property is either destroyed, removed by the government (if it is a crime scene), or claimed by heirs. What is left, if not on private property, is up for the taking. Many of the wrecks we are talking about were reachable or salvagable. Had people chosen to reclaim bodies or property, they would have. Certainly, insurance companies reclaim ships - with dead bodies - if economically worthwhile.So, harsh as it may sound, some may argue that what we have here is abandoned property left on public property.

It also differs practically from the pinecone and the petrified wood argument, both of which are items given to us by nature, and which are only protected to the extent they are on government land, under laws designating some areas National Parks, and where people of all ages, physical abilities, and wealth may visit if only they choose to.

With man made objects, accidentally dropped on the bottom of a sea owned by no one, most of that argument falls very short. In fact, where a pinecone the size of a football or a rock that could pass for a piece of wood are truly awesome (literally), you have already questioned the desire for a piece of broken china.

Personally, I don't care if I see a broken cup on the floor of the ocean, the floor of my kitchen, or in a museum. It was manmade, lost and broken by accident - sounds like trash to me. Since one man's trash is another man's treasure - why not let them have it, if they want to spend and lose fortunes and lives in its pursuit? Why is it different if it's gold?

Why one would spend thousands of dollars and risk lives for a broken teacup, when nicer intact ones can be purchased by the dozen at Pier One is a discussion for another day!