Wazee

[Rob929]

Anyone know where that line goes??? Starts at 180ish....ends ????

[Todd J]

If you are talking about the one over by the wall, it leads to "Jimmy Hoffa" at around 215

[Rob929]

YEA that's the one....it keeps going after Hoffa though...have you followed it further?

[Todd J]

No I have not followed it much further.  It might be worth a trip if the Lakes are rough though

[john j]

Hoffa as you know, is on a long shelf at about 210 feet of depth.  The line contines beyond Hoffa and eventually comes to a large boulder which is about the size of a car.  Depth there is a little deeper than Hoffa, I think ~215-220.  At the boulder, the line splits, with one line continuing in the original direction and one line turning somewhat to the left (if you are facing the center of the lake).  Both of these lines lead to the deepest part of the lake found so far, which is 320 feet.  The original line is the one that goes straight from the boulder and the line leading to the left was a second attempt to find a deeper place.  From the shore at site 2, it is about a 1200 foot swim one way to reach the end of the line at 320 feet.

[Rob929]

that'd be a nice little swim if you could start at the 320 mark and work your way back up into the shallows. Any plans to mark it with a buoy? It makes me yawn just thinking about all that deco in open water with nothing to look at.

[john j]

Get a scooter!

I have had discussions about marking the 320 foot spot with a buoy but the argument against that idea seemed to be that if it was marked, it might tempt inexperienced people to try doing very deep bounce dives and there could be an accident.  There is actually quite a lot of that kind of thing going on at the 150 foot ledge where the garden globe is.  Some inexperienced people, without redundant equipment, doing bounce dives.  That is also why the buoy at Sherwood Forest that was at 190 feet was removed by local divers (not me).  On that buoy line, there had been reports of inexpereinced or untrained divers following the line down to 160+ feet and getting into a little trouble because they weren't looking at their depth gauges until they were way down there.  They just followed the line down and figured they would stop when they hit the bottom, not realizing how deep it was.  I personally wouldn't blame the bouy line for that kind of thing, I would blame the diver.   While I can understand the reasoning some people have for not wanting a buoy at 320 feet, I am also a strong believer in the idea that everyone needs to be responsible for themselves and if a diver knowingly goes far beyond his training and experience, then that's his choice and the rest of us shouldn't have to be responsible for that.  Of course, the argument will next proceed along the lines of the hazards to the people who have to recover or resuce the person who went down the line and went too deep and so on.  It's one of those liability/safety arguments that is hard to win if you are not on the side of the conservatives.  I'm sure you are well aware of this kind of stuff.  I think a buoy at 320 feet would be very useful to technical divers, but I suspect the park would have it removed for the reasons I mentioned above.  But, a submerged buoy, not visible from shore, maybe 10 feet under the surface....well that might be something to think about. 

If it was up to me, I'd have lots more buoys at Wazee because it is such a good place to train for technical diving.

[Rob929]

Those are all very good points. Buoys do have a sort of lure about them...almost as if they were saying "descend upon me". I agree with you though that divers need to be responsible for their own actions and dive withing their limits. I would hope that a buoy marked "DANGER 320 feet" would stop untrained divers, but people are going to do what they want, and the buoy can't be blamed for that. I think a submerged buoy is a great idea. I can foresee great frustration with trying to locate a submerged buoy while wearing 5 tanks and a drysuit, but if it will help protect life while at the same time marking a prime spot in the lake, I'm all for it.

[deep_al]

at the fortune pond in the UP, we have all the buoys submerged about 15ft under the surface, ice doesn't bother them, and people who know where they are, know where they are, people who don't, don't know where to find them.  then again the fortune pond's 80ft of visibility makes it easier to locate things under the surface. 

[arcFlash]

I've been frustrated with the safety of the dumbest for a long time. It's a losing policy. The safer we make stuff the safer it's view and the dumber the users. I'm not saying a lot of people have to die but then I'm not sympathetic to people killing themselves. I'd vote to put in the buoys as well.

My best defense is, people drive 80 mph because they believe others made the car safe. I've had people argue they don't speed because the car is safe. So I challenge them. I'll put a 7 inch steel spike on the steering wheel and you get out in traffic and drive 80. If you don't feel safe doing that, then you're relying on the car to save you. That others were responsible for your well being regardless of your abuses. That is, your speeding because you believe others made it safe for you to speed.

Scuba, if made to appear that others have made it safe is the same fallacy. The safer we make it look the less people with assume the risk themselves.