Cozumel Anchor Ahoy

Today (Nov 15) is the second day the port is re-opened to cruise ship,
requiring all ships to be anchored or moored because all the cruise
ship
piers had been severely damaged by hurricane Wilma.

Four cruise ships are in Cozumel today, and tomorrow -- the most this
week, with only one ship scheduled to come in on Thursday, Friday, and
Saturday, according the Festival annoucement on Nov 11:

http://www.cometocozumel.com/english/wilma/default.asp

The Star Princess anchored at approximately 7:15 am (local), and
passengers are being tendered to shore by boats I've not see in Cozumel
before -- several identical blue-and-yellow ferry size boats, with
capacity
of 400-500 passengers (according to the Princess patter briefing)
instead
of the much smaller tenders of the cruise ship.

These must be ferry boats brought from Cancun, for the tendering tasks
this week. Even with those large special tenders, the transfer of
2,600
passengers to shore is expected to take 2-3 hours.

The Star Princess is anchored at a distance of between 1/2 and 3/4
miles
from shore -- a surprisingly long distance away, possibly as a special
rule for the week that anchoring must be outside the boundry of the
marine part, It's directly off the shore of the Puerta Maya Pier where
the
ship would have docked had the pier not been destroyed by Wilma.

For those divers who are concerned with the anchoring cruise ships
damaging the reefs of Cozumel dive sites, I can say positively and
unequivocally (based on my well over 1,200 dives in Cozumel) that there
is NO WAY in Hell (ooops, that's in the next stop at Grand Cayman) that
the anchoring at that distance from shore in the channel that it could
damage any coral (if there's any at that distance and depth) that is
ever
seen by any diver in Cozumel, nor could it possibly make any difference
to the reefs south of the Puerta Maya pier.

So, that's good news. Reefs and diving will not be adversely affected
in
any way by the presence of the cruise ships, provided the DIVE SHIOPS
themselves have sufficiently recovered (or survived) from hurricane
Wilma's physical and economical impact.

This is the first time in 18 years that we are in Cozumel WITHOUT our
dive gears, because it didn't appear that Cozumel could handle the
cruise ship traffic by yesterday, when we left home 10 days ago. We
had already written off Grand Cayman as a port to dive since we had
already done all the sites that are worth diving there (within striking

distance of the cruise ship) and we were already sick of diving
Stingray
City (having done it more than a dozen times, and sat out the last
two).
None of the other ports of call is worth the trouble of getting wet.


So, we are not in any hurry to get into the long line of passengers to
scramble ashore, and plan to go as soon as the crowd clears, two to
three hours from how, and still have all afternoon to re-visit the
town,
for the third time this year.

-- Bob.

"Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1132064108.318298.132480@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
> For those divers who are concerned with the anchoring cruise ships
> damaging the reefs of Cozumel dive sites, I can say positively and
> unequivocally (based on my well over 1,200 dives in Cozumel) that there
> is NO WAY in Hell (ooops, that's in the next stop at Grand Cayman) that
> the anchoring at that distance from shore in the channel that it could
> damage any coral (if there's any at that distance and depth) that is
> ever

Just curious... Could you find out what's the depth of the water where
they're anchoring...

Reef Fish wrote:

>
> For those divers who are concerned with the anchoring cruise ships
> damaging the reefs of Cozumel dive sites, I can say positively and
> unequivocally (based on my well over 1,200 dives in Cozumel) that there
> is NO WAY in Hell (ooops, that's in the next stop at Grand Cayman) that
> the anchoring at that distance from shore in the channel that it could
> damage any coral (if there's any at that distance and depth) that is
> ever
> seen by any diver in Cozumel, nor could it possibly make any difference
> to the reefs south of the Puerta Maya pier.

What about the reefs north of the damaged pier? We can't not consider
those - they're the mating areas of eagle rays. I realize not a lot of
divers go there, but that's beside my point. Everything matters, not
just the parts most divers see. Out of sight != out of mind.

>
> So, that's good news.

Cruise ships are always bad news.



--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

"Jer" wrote in message news:11nk0o4f3srqc44@corp.supernews.com...
<crossposting-snipped>

> Cruise ships are always bad news.

Not necessarily... They might make good wreck dives...

Grumman-581 wrote:
> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1132064108.318298.132480@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
> > For those divers who are concerned with the anchoring cruise ships
> > damaging the reefs of Cozumel dive sites, I can say positively and
> > unequivocally (based on my well over 1,200 dives in Cozumel) that there
> > is NO WAY in Hell (ooops, that's in the next stop at Grand Cayman) that
> > the anchoring at that distance from shore in the channel that it could
> > damage any coral (if there's any at that distance and depth) that is
> > ever
>
> Just curious... Could you find out what's the depth of the water where
> they're anchoring...

I would guess that it's in excess of 400 ft, from my vague recollection

of the depth chart on my Cozumel map. I'll ask the ship captain when
I'll have lunch with him (invited among the "most frequent Princess
cruisers" on board.)

-- Bob.

"Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>of the depth chart on my Cozumel map. I'll ask the ship captain when
>I'll have lunch with him (invited among the "most frequent Princess
>cruisers" on board.)
>
>-- Bob.
>
And he continues his self-aggrandizing comments. Hey look at me. I
am wonderful. Cruise ship captains request my audience. I am Bob
Ling...most exalted of all in my presence.

Ron Lee

Ron Lee wrote:
> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> >of the depth chart on my Cozumel map. I'll ask the ship captain when
> >I'll have lunch with him (invited among the "most frequent Princess
> >cruisers" on board.)
> >
> >-- Bob.
> >
> And he continues his self-aggrandizing comments. Hey look at me. I
> am wonderful. Cruise ship captains request my audience. I am Bob
> Ling...most exalted of all in my presence.
>
> Ron Lee

IDIOT Ron, I was merely responding to Grummy on his question. What's
so self-aggrandizing about stating that own a map with depth chart (at
home but not with me) and that I would ask the captain about it, when I
have lunch with him with a small group?

You cannot let an ordinary discussion of Cozumel, diving, or cruising
with you making your anal-fixated NOISE!

Grow up, little Poster Boy!

-- Bob.

"Reef Fish" wrote

> IDIOT Ron, I was merely responding to Grummy on his question. What's
> so self-aggrandizing about stating that own a map with depth chart (at
> home but not with me) and that I would ask the captain about it, when I
> have lunch with him with a small group?
>
> You cannot let an ordinary discussion of Cozumel, diving, or cruising
> with you making your anal-fixated NOISE!
>
> Grow up, little Poster Boy!


I would guess that it's in excess of 400 ft, from my vague recollection

of the depth chart on my Cozumel map. I'll ask the ship captain >>>when
I'll have lunch with him (invited among the "most frequent Princess
cruisers" on board.)<<<

Hmmm, seems like a lot of trivia added to "I'll ask tonight".

More fun than the kitten has with a mouse.

Curtis

Jer wrote:
> Reef Fish wrote:
>
> >
> > For those divers who are concerned with the anchoring cruise ships
> > damaging the reefs of Cozumel dive sites, I can say positively and
> > unequivocally (based on my well over 1,200 dives in Cozumel) that there
> > is NO WAY in Hell (ooops, that's in the next stop at Grand Cayman) that
> > the anchoring at that distance from shore in the channel that it could
> > damage any coral (if there's any at that distance and depth) that is
> > ever
> > seen by any diver in Cozumel, nor could it possibly make any difference
> > to the reefs south of the Puerta Maya pier.
>
> What about the reefs north of the damaged pier? We can't not consider
> those - they're the mating areas of eagle rays. I realize not a lot of
> divers go there, but that's beside my point. Everything matters, not
> just the parts most divers see. Out of sight != out of mind.

First of all, you have to know a bit more about the geography and
current of the island.

The mating areas of eagle rays are in the upper NORTH (near the
East side) of the island. Even if there is constant excavation of sand

and silt at the spot the cruiseship was anchored, the direction of the
current will likely NEVER get there!

It takes MILES before it reaches the San Juan Reef north of the
Square. Then the 3-4 knot current of San Juan goes WEST when
it meets the current of the Barracuda Reef.

Besides, what make you think that the eagle rays would be affected
by a few drops of sand. They stir up more sand looking for food than
the cruise ships!

Eagle mating season in Cozumel (Dec - Mar) was a relatively new
phenomenon discovered by some locals where dive shops DON'T
go. I was diving with those eagle rays in 1998 before any dive shop
even knew about the eagle ray mating in the North. I posted this
in March 2000, when someone reported that Blue Angel was taking
divers to the spot between downtown and San Juan reef where
eagle rays visit regularly from the North:

<<From your description, I think you were at the site where I dived, a
ledge
at 75 to 90 fsw of very swift current. I am curious as to what profile
you
did with Blue Angle (depth/time). When I did it privately, we were
always
small groups of air-misers and we dived with EAN36 and were able to
stay
at 80 fsw for nearly an hour, hanging near the ledge while watching the

squadrons of rays pass by over and over again. That was a couple of
years
ago, before any dive shop took divers out there.>>

That put my first encounter with those squadrons of eagle rays back
to 1998, before the new cruise ship piers were built. The arrival of
the cruise ships, as much as 10 on some days, did not affect the
annual mating of those eagle rays one whit.

The marine animals are much smarter and can adapt to changing
environments (as "survival of the fittest") much better than homo
sapiens, or the myopic give them credit for.

> >
> > So, that's good news.
>
> Cruise ships are always bad news.

Only to the myotic and prejudiced.

-- Bob.

Curtis is exactly right below. Bob is so full of himself that he
can't see the obvious.

Ron Lee

"\"Magilla\"" <cavey_curtis@$$ yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Reef Fish" wrote
>
>> IDIOT Ron, I was merely responding to Grummy on his question. What's
>> so self-aggrandizing about stating that own a map with depth chart (at
>> home but not with me) and that I would ask the captain about it, when I
>> have lunch with him with a small group?
>>
>> You cannot let an ordinary discussion of Cozumel, diving, or cruising
>> with you making your anal-fixated NOISE!
>>
>> Grow up, little Poster Boy!
>
>
>I would guess that it's in excess of 400 ft, from my vague recollection
>
>of the depth chart on my Cozumel map. I'll ask the ship captain >>>when
>I'll have lunch with him (invited among the "most frequent Princess
>cruisers" on board.)<<<
>
> Hmmm, seems like a lot of trivia added to "I'll ask tonight".
>
> More fun than the kitten has with a mouse.
>
>Curtis
>
>