# USS Massachusetts



## gamefisherman (Oct 6, 2007)

I have fished the Mass occasionally over a 35 year period. I visited the site on Saturday morning during an incoming tide on a calm day to find bait and noticed that the turrets are not visible as they once were. With low light and calm conditions it was not possible to see the wreck. I am astonished that someone who is not familiar with the area has not been seriously hurt by hitting the wreck at speed. I sent an email to the Coast Guard and, surprisingly, I received a response. The text is below, unedited. Note that the staff member believes that a marker that is 148 yards (444 feet) away from the wreck is adequate.  I completely disagree and believe the buoy should be moved on top of the wreck, or augmented in some fashion. 

FROM THE US COAST GUARD:


_Good afternoon Mr. Grimes,

We have reviewed your concern as per your email and thank you for your
response on this matter. However, after reviewing the chart and location of
the Navigational Aid Lighted Buoy WR2 just south of the USS MASSACHUSETTS,
we feel the location of this Aid satisfies marking of this wreck. Please see
our review of the area and location of the wreck and aid below. Please feel
free to contact me with any other concerns on this matter. 

V/R

BMC Matt Fonville
D8 Federal Projects
Hale Boggs Federal
500 Poydras Street 
New Orleans, LA 70130
PH: 504-671-2108
Cell: 904-803-2193
FAX: 504-671-2137


I looked on the chart 11383. The USS MASSACHUSETTS is currently charted and
labeled awash MLLW. It is in approximately 20 feet of water and is south
west of shoal water which is also marked on the chart. There is LB WR2 QR
approximately 148 yards southwest marking the USS MASSACHUSETTS.

I think the current marking is appropriate and provides the mariner with
the correct signal to navigate this area. I do not believe an isolated
danger mark would be appropriate given the length of the wreck and the fact
the CG would be unable to mark it in the center of the wreck. There is also
an artificial reef east of the USS MASSACHUSETTS as per below:

An artificial reef is to be established approximately 9 nautical miles
southeast of Pensacola Pass in an area bound by the following approximate
positions:_


----------



## Caleb 850 (Mar 23, 2016)

the mass is one of the best king spots I've ever fished and all this is just crazy I've heard of boats hitting it tons of times so i agree they need to move that buoy right on or at least right next to it to stop them from hitting it.


----------



## WhyMe (Apr 21, 2013)

444 ft away is a joke.
I agree with you 110%.
I was with a guy one day and he hit the damn thing and we were looking for the turret. Rough waters. We were in a 77 Robolo CC needless to say trip ended fast, but the Robolo ended up with a small ding in the hull. That's was the scariest moment on the water to day. The captain was not drinking and plus we had kids in the boat.
Whyme


----------



## sealark (Sep 27, 2007)

Come on guys use your head how the hell will a coast guard. Buoy tender get close enough to the wreck to place or repair the buoy. The wreck is accurately plotted and the buoy is in the area close to the wreck. Yes a few years back the entertainer hit the wreck. And two or three other boats also hit it.


----------



## fishboy (Oct 6, 2007)

I would think a fixed marker like the ones offshore in the keys would be a good idea. Personally I have both high sides marked on my gps, so it won't be an issue for us. If you can't see it, stay off a ways to be cautious.


----------



## Ocean Master (May 20, 2008)

Someone should just throw a chain and large orange fender ball in the center and it will be marked. If I'm ever that way I'll do it myself.


----------



## RMS (Dec 9, 2008)

sealark said:


> Come on guys use your head how the hell will a coast guard. Buoy tender get close enough to the wreck to place or repair the buoy. The wreck is accurately plotted and the buoy is in the area close to the wreck. Yes a few years back the entertainer hit the wreck. And two or three other boats also hit it.


So is that what the real issue is, that the Coast Guard is too incompetent to mark the wreck?
It would be nice if the Coast Guard would give a complete explanation of its logic in the placement of the hazard bouy.


----------



## sealark (Sep 27, 2007)

The coast guard did what was required. You need to learn how to read a chart. Currents and swells could push the CG ship up on the wreck while working on the buoy. Plus you are not allowed to tie to a buoy. Last those buoys require maintance quite often. I would bet you wouldnt call the coast guard incompetent if you were in distress offshore.


----------



## sealark (Sep 27, 2007)

Ocean Master said:


> Someone should just throw a chain and large orange fender ball in the center and it will be marked. If I'm ever that way I'll do it myself.


Kiet there were several small polyform buoys on it. They disappear in about a week.


----------



## MaxxT (May 9, 2015)

Good grief, don't the Coastguard have rubber boats and divers to properly maintain? Since when is "what is required" by any Federal Agency enough? I see many markings needing repair or moved to their proper location or even not enough markings. Everyone on the water is not a Licensed Captain or 20 years of experience.

I think they do a great job, most of the time.


----------



## FenderBender (Oct 2, 2007)

Someone paint an old empty (key word empty) propane tank bright orange and weld or attach with a sturdy lock about 10 ft of 1 inch chain to it. Give me a big screw pin shackle and 2 wrenches you don't care about getting salty and a ride and I'll gladly dive on it and mark it in a more permanent fashion.


----------



## FenderBender (Oct 2, 2007)

I'm not offering or suggesting to weld an empty propane cylinder btw. Probably better to find a non flammable air tank for your buoy.


----------



## Try'n Hard (Oct 23, 2008)

Don't mark it. It'll get bleached!


----------



## RMS (Dec 9, 2008)

sealark said:


> The coast guard did what was required. You need to learn how to read a chart. Currents and swells could push the CG ship up on the wreck while working on the buoy. Plus you are not allowed to tie to a buoy. Last those buoys require maintance quite often. I would bet you wouldnt call the coast guard incompetent if you were in distress offshore.


1. I can read a chart.

2.The Coast Guard can be ultra competent when they *want to be.
I am grateful for that capability, but I also expect it, given their resources.

3. I have been catching bait at the Mass for 12 years without incident.

4. My concern is for the less than expert boaters. Several years ago a boating family coming from Orange beach to the Blue Angels show hit the turret and launched out of the water. Fortunately they landed upright and did not sustain terminal damage. A marker on top of each turret is not too much to ask of an agency that can be as competent as they need to be if called upon.*


----------



## captken (Feb 24, 2008)

*I made many thousand passes around the Mass in the mid 60's.*

I never hit it but came close once when we had 4 big Cobia on at one time on kingfish trolling gear. 

We caught thousands of pounds of kingfish trolling there. On week day charters I'd be the only boat fishing there. On weekends there'd be 4-5 boats fishing there. If they were trolling and knew how to fish a "Mackerel circle" we all caught fish and never had a problem. We'd have to fish the up current side if there was a live baiter anchored there.

I kinda hate to admit this but I had a bunch of Georgia "Garbos" aboard one day and we had to go back to Rusty's to offloaad fish at lunch then went back and caught another hundred or so. Most of them were 5-6#.

Do you know what a "Garbo" is?


----------



## Ocean Master (May 20, 2008)

If we did mark it ourselves keep in mind we could get into trouble. I don't go there but always pass it on the way out and back. I would like to see it clearly marked at the wreck not like it is now.


----------



## Play'N Hooky Too (Sep 29, 2007)

I agree it needs to be marked since no part of it is now above seal level. However, as far as the Coast Guard is concerned it is adequately marked for commercial navigation purposes. If you stay in the designated safety fairway navigation channel south of the marker buoy you are in no danger of hitting it. 

The wreck is actually owned by the State of Florida. It should be the State's responsibility to mark it.


----------



## FenderBender (Oct 2, 2007)

captken said:


> Do you know what a "Garbo" is?





Charter customers that were never happy unless they brought home a huge garbo(age) can full of fish?


----------



## 2RC's II (Feb 2, 2012)

sealark said:


> Come on guys use your head how the hell will a coast guard. Buoy tender get close enough to the wreck to place or repair the buoy. The wreck is accurately plotted and the buoy is in the area close to the wreck. Yes a few years back the entertainer hit the wreck. And two or three other boats also hit it.


Well that is the posters point!


----------



## welldoya (Oct 5, 2007)

I always wondered why the marker was so far away. Doesn't make sense.


----------



## 153 Large fish (Nov 30, 2013)

If they put a marker right on the wreck, it would ruin baitfishing as folks know it on the mass...you just gotta know what's up, have a bottom machine and be careful. ..but many folks drift right atop the mass and even fish inside the turrets...


----------



## sealark (Sep 27, 2007)

Here's some cheese to go with the wine, both end of the mass. In Garmin format. You could ask the incompetent coast guard to convert it for you. Now I gonna go kill some fish hope I dont hit the Mass. 
:thumbup::thumbup:
30 17.818
87 18.692

30 17.797
87 18.726


----------



## Play'N Hooky Too (Sep 29, 2007)

Those are pretty close to the coordinates that I have for it also. However, as I recall from the one or two thousand times I've powered up my GPS unit there is always that annoying screen that I have to hit "enter" to get past that says something about not relying solely on the GPS unit for navigation purposes. I understand that the reason for this is that it can occasionally be off by as much as a USS Massachusetts length or three (or four, or five, or...).:yes:


----------



## tbaxl (Mar 13, 2013)

What difference will the buoy make the newish boater as is your concern. A buoy just means pay attention, it does not say where and the Mass is rather long so a collision is not mitigated by a center "Mass" marking. The only thing that would truly make a difference is a ring a buoys, then some may take notice. I have run aground with no buoy nearby, you why , because i was not doing my job and paying total attention to the task at hand, same goes for hitting the Mass or most anything else for that matter.


----------



## a (Oct 2, 2007)

tbaxl said:


> What difference will the buoy make the newish boater as is your concern. A buoy just means pay attention, it does not say where and the Mass is rather long so a collision is not mitigated by a center "Mass" marking. The only thing that would truly make a difference is a ring a buoys, then some may take notice. I have run aground with no buoy nearby, you why , because i was not doing my job and paying total attention to the task at hand, same goes for hitting the Mass or most anything else for that matter.


This is kinda like the great job the EPA and DEP do protecting our environment.

Is it not the responsibility of the coast guard to help protect boaters too? Every time I get near that buoy I wonder where the actual risk is. Here, lets put out a buoy to show where nothing is, and maintain it there.


Put a marker in the middle of it.


----------



## Orion45 (Jun 26, 2008)

This topic comes up every few years.

Lots of discussion.

Nothing ever changes.

It's marked on the charts. Place a marker on your plotter.

http://www.pensacolafishingforum.com/f21/mass-buoy-relocate-questionnaire-62225/


----------



## Play'N Hooky Too (Sep 29, 2007)

Keep in mind that the Coast Guard is a Federal entity funded by federal dollars. If you read about the history of the ship you will find that after the army was done using it as a target, the feds were in the process of bidding it out to be scrapped. That would have permanently removed it as a navigation hazard of any kind. Instead, the State of Florida sued to prevent it from being scrapped and as a result was awarded title to the wreck. At that point the feds effectively washed their hands of the whole deal and it became the responsibility of the State to maintain it. The wreck is located in State waters outside of the commercial navigation lanes. It is of no concern to the Coast Guard beyond the navigation marker buoy that they maintain seaward of wreck's location.

If a marker is to be placed directly on the structuret, perhaps it would be better to pursue the issue with the State...

http://dos.myflorida.com/historical/about/staff-people-programs/


:thumbsup:


----------



## welldoya (Oct 5, 2007)

There are a lot of new boaters in the water around here. And really, if somebody gets hurt or killed does it matter whether he should have been paying better attention ?
That's a heck of a price to pay for inexperience. 
For what little it would cost, I don't understand why it's not better marked. 
When the Entertainer hit it a few years ago, that should've been a wake-up call.


----------



## Dusky (Jul 3, 2016)

If they move it now it may cause a problem with people that have already hit it. Hence a lawsuit saying it was improperly marked in the first place.


----------



## Outside9 (Apr 30, 2008)

I hit the Oriskany once.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Snagged Line (Sep 30, 2007)

Outside9 said:


> I hit the Oriskany once.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk



I would hit it.....


----------



## jim t (Sep 30, 2007)

I watched her go down...

Just sayin'

Jim


----------



## Outside9 (Apr 30, 2008)

jim t said:


> I watched her go down...
> 
> Just sayin'
> 
> Jim


I took my son (almost 23 now) and we were there with video running.


----------



## mongo (Apr 30, 2008)

I was in a boat that hit the Oriskany. When we were preparing for the sinking, my department and the ECSO alternated taking our SWAT teams on and off the boat the day before and the day of the sinking to protect against any environmentalists or other people that might have tried to board it and prevent the sinking. We were practicing doing this while it was still anchored at NAS because to do it underway we had a rope ladder going from the hanger deck down to the water. Our boat had to load a single operator at a time so we would put an operator on the bow, pull up to the rope ladder, and once he was on the ladder we would back away. We did that in case he fell he'd hit the water instead of the boat deck. Its also why we did one at a time. One of my crew members, while practicing pulling up to the ladder, got too hard on the throttle and actually rammed it about three times. After explaining to him that a PIT maneuver wouldn't work on an aircraft carrier, he was replaced at the wheel. A side note, doing that underway with the chop and wake was nothing like at anchor. Lots of puckering going on the morning of the sinking....


----------



## Orion45 (Jun 26, 2008)

mongo said:


> I was in a boat that hit the Oriskany. When we were preparing for the sinking, my department and the ECSO alternated taking our SWAT teams on and off the boat the day before and the day of the sinking to protect against any environmentalists or other people that might have tried to board it and prevent the sinking. We were practicing doing this while it was still anchored at NAS because to do it underway we had a rope ladder going from the hanger deck down to the water. Our boat had to load a single operator at a time so we would put an operator on the bow, pull up to the rope ladder, and once he was on the ladder we would back away. We did that in case he fell he'd hit the water instead of the boat deck. Its also why we did one at a time. One of my crew members, while practicing pulling up to the ladder, got too hard on the throttle and actually rammed it about three times. After explaining to him that a PIT maneuver wouldn't work on an aircraft carrier, he was replaced at the wheel. A side note, doing that underway with the chop and wake was nothing like at anchor. Lots of puckering going on the morning of the sinking....


Why prevent environmentalists from going aboard before the sinking?

Let them board and then sink the whole lot of them.

Problem resolved. :whistling:


----------



## mongo (Apr 30, 2008)

^ 
I suggested that sir, Navy command was on board. Mine, not so much


----------

