White Bear Lake Nautical Archaeology 1 Project Report

[DetectorGuy]

Now this is going to sound like me venting, and it is just that. I just want to bounce my opinion off some of the most active divers in this great country. I just read this report yesterday and all I can say is 'projectile vomit'! I waited overnight to voice my opinion so I had time to cool off, but as the hours clicked off the clock, the madder I got. Why am I so mad? They started a couple years ago by originally stating at every opportunity that everything on the bottom of a body of water in Minnesota that is over 50 years old belongs to the state of Minnesota. Then later recanted after reading up on it, stating that if any item that has been on the bottom for over 50 years of any body of water in Minnesota, that item belongs to the State of Minnesota. Now they have found several items on the bottom, and through their research have proven how long some of these have been on the bottom. Many items have no possible way of knowing exactly how long they have been on the bottom, hence no way of knowing whether or not they have been on the bottom over 50 years and thus belonging to the State of Minnesota. So they have been doing these 'silt surveys' and interpolating the results to sway the ownership of these items to the State of Minnesota. I am not saying this is even close to accurate, but here is how they think this works: They take a wreck on the bottom like the Judges Boat wreck in a bay just East of the peninsula of White Bear Lake. Through their research they have discovered that this boat was scuttled in 1960. The maths says this boat has been definitely on the bottom for over 50 years and thus belongs to the State of Minnesota. This boat has 35" if silt inside the boat and 35" of silt outside the boat (the gunnels of the boat are just inches above the top of the silt). The incorrect use of interpolation says that in 54 years this boat has accumulated this 35" if silt. They use the formula of 35" of silt divided by 54 known years of this wreck being on the bottom - telling them (incorrectly) that the build up of silt is .64 inches per year. If there is another wreck in the area that they are trying to figure out how long it has been on the bottom, they have used this data to falsely come up with a year that is went to the bottom and therefore claim it belongs to the state. The sediment rate in any lake (or river) varies wildly from one side to the other and sometimes sediment drops faster because of creek inlets/outlets creating slight currents. It doesn't take a degree in archeology to figure out that they are grasping at straws, and buying time (literally), that us simple folk will not figure any of this out until these wrecks have in fact been underwater for over 50 years.

They have found 4 of the 5 boats on the bottom of White Bear lake and some other items. Some of these other items are noted on the bottom of the report and are proven to have gone to the bottom less than 50 years ago. The latest hogwash they have been throwing around is that these items that are proven to be on the bottom for less than 50 years are under the jurisdiction of the DNR. I read that as another level of the state tightening the noose on recreational diving. Case in point: the boat lift mentioned in their report. Nate and I found this in 2013 and attached an aluminum plaque on this aluminum Shorelander boat lift stating the date we found it. This was not to necessarily claim ownership, but to tell the next person to stumble upon this, who found it and when. A week after finding this I went door to door starting at the closest house to this boat lift trying to find the "owner" of this boat lift. Within 3 hours, I found the person that used to own this 10 1/2 years ago. He and his wife told me about how a storm came up and blew their boat lift out into the lake and it landed on the surface completely upside down, floating on its canopy. The same wind that blew it out into the lake pushed this boat lift around the corner and out of the "owners" sight, where is capsized and sank. The "owner" hired a pilot to take him up and try to spot the white canopy through the water, but had no luck. I asked the "owner" if he wants his boat lift back, and he told me his insurance company called it a loss of property, and wrote him a check for a new boat lift which is still sitting on the shoreline (that he and his wife pay taxes on). He proceed to tell me that the submerged boat lift has been on the bottom for 10 1/2 years and that the boat lift that used to belong to him, now belongs to me, to do with what I wish.

Now I don't wish to do anything with this boat lift, but it pisses me off to have someone fill in the blanks between the limits of the law and limit what we recreational divers do with our time. Its only a matter of time before we will need to apply with the state for a permit to go scuba diving similar to ATV's, snowmobiles, and riding horse. Yes, you need a permit to ride horse in state parks, and it won't be long before the lakes will be regulated in a similar fashion.

Here is a link to the latest report:

[Terry]

Hello John,
I would of replied sooner John but was down in Key West bringing up rum barrels submerged in the Vandenberg at 140' for that last several months to test extracting the flavor out of the charcoal on the inside of a well used barrels due to the increase in hydrostatic pressure.
Few weeks back Joe, Scotty and I went to their talk at Excelsior about Tonka wrecks. Dr. Ann stated there that the "artifacts" less then 50 years submerged were under DNR control. I did shake my head when she spoke of the "voodoo science" of silt measuring. If the foot of a wave travels down 7 times its height, stirring up the bottom in shallower areas on windy days, or when a water skier says "hit it" to the driver of 200-300 HP outboard sitting in 4-10' of water, stirring up half of a football field of bottom on every run, I wanted to ask, "does this actually age shallow artifacts due to increasing their silt buildup"?
I went up to speak with her and Chris afterwards, to tell them that we knew of some wrecks that they had not listed and wondered if they might be interested in a little, "tit for tat" (Don't you guys read anything into that, "tat",,, being my initials) She stated that they were not interested, at all, in what information we might have. I found this quite unusual that they would not think the shear volume of finds between, you, Nate, Art, Steve, Joe, Popo, Robert, Scotty, myself and others might not lead to some good, "research potential". I stated we dove for fun and was sure we dove more often then her and Chris, they diving for money and all. The good Dr. took offense at that statement, and I was dismissed with no less then the "F-enheimer". I stated, "I meant, no offense", and offered to shake hands with Chris who had correctly guessed who I was by then, to no avail. It did leave me wondering about the level of "professionalism" (that is always stated by Dr. Ann) that she could not even carry on a civil conversation with someone who might not always hold a analogous viewpoint, I guess it fits right in,,,,, silt measuring

[jasondbaker]

Every sunken artifact is a treasure. These items represent future research opportunities and grant money to people with the right government relationships.

Last year I spoke with a lawyer about a new technology that would greatly improve the efficiency of his practice. The technology would allow him to fulfill his clients' needs faster. He didn't buy the technology because he had no incentive to speed up his practice. The more time he spent on a client project the more money he made.

Some people embrace inefficiencies for their own self-interest. When you volunteered to share some new wreck sites, you were asking them to forego hundreds of hours of future research. I can understand why they rebuffed your offer.