Need Help/Info on Admiralty Filing for New Wreck past 3 miles

Mad4wrecks,
That's what I've been saying all along! I never had a doubt you felt the same way. They can talk all the crap they want about their "Cultural Heritage" but when it comes time to "Put Up" they "Shut Up".
Aquanut
 

Salvor6,

Florida does not have any choice about whether they recognise a Federal Treaty.

Shipwrecks and maritime law have traditionally been a Federal responsibility, but in 1987 the Federal Government enacted the Abandoned Shipwrecks Act (ASA). Under this, responsibility for, and title of, ABANDONED wrecks were devolved to the coastal state in whose waters the wreck lay. That remains the case. However, since the SeaHunt ruling, Spanish shipwrecks in US waters, are not "abandoned" except by specific action or statement by their owners. So Spanish ships in US waters are nearly all not "abandoned" and therefore not subject to the 1987 ASA.

Of course, until a wreck is identified, you can't say whether it is a Spanish ship, but once identified, the State involved, be it Florida, Virginia or any other, loses all claim to ownership and jurisdiction. The State has no choice. It cannot issue a salvage permit, because it has no right to do so. This what Virginia did in the SeaHunt case, and the Spanish Government, at the behest of the US Department of State, sued both Virginia and SeaHunt in the Court of Appeals, and won.

I think that the one grey area concerns other agreements that had been reached prior to the SeaHunt ruling. I keep reading that the Fishers had been granted rights to recover all the 1715 fleet, for example, and it might be that if this is the case, then that agreement will stand, despite the change in the interpretation of the 1902 Treaty. However, I don't think it would apply to any other Spanish wrecks, including the 1933 fleet. If anybody knows of a licence that has been issued by the State of Florida to recover a newly-discovered Spanish shipwreck, then I would be very interested to hear about it and understand the circumstances.

Mariner
 

I realize this will open a whole can of worms...but Spain can go take a flying sh$t for all I care. They raped and pillaged to get the gold and silver in the first place. Should the indigenous people of central and south america file a suit against Spain in turn? I say finder's keepers.

Of course that's easy for me to say since I'm not into real salvaging...it's just the principle of the matter that pisses me off to no end.
 

Of course, if the wreck is an unknown ship of unknown origin. You will not know if its Spanish or not until you study the wreck and bring up evidence. Don't muddy the waters suggesting it may be a Spanish ship, and may have vast amounts of treasure without knowing for sure.
Even if the wreck is of Spanish origin, it could have been captured by legally authorized Privateers of the British Crown. :coffee2:
In this case the ship would no longer be Spanish property and not protected by the treaty (kinda like the gold and silver taken aboard ships of the line were no longer the property of the indigenous people of the New World).
 

Mariner thats just my point. Spain can't pick and choose which wreck is covered by the 1902 treaty. And Mad4wrecks is right, Tristan de Luna's fleet had no treasure on board. It was a fleet intent on establishing a new colony so Spain is not interested in the tons of worthless Spanish cultural artifacts found by UWF.
 

Hey Mariner, one more thing. I notice you are online on this forum 24/7. Don't you have a job?
 

Salvor6,

It's true that I have odd sleep patterns, as my wife will tell you. I am semi-retired and work as a business consultant to fund my interest in history and shipwrecks.

How about you? You seem to be omnipresent!

Mariner
 

I have been unemployed since last June. I know I spend too much time on Tnet! :'(
 

PcolaBoy said:
I realize this will open a whole can of worms...but Spain can go take a flying sh$t for all I care. They raped and pillaged to get the gold and silver in the first place. Should the indigenous people of central and south america file a suit against Spain in turn? I say finder's keepers. .
Click to expand...

Exactly!!! :thumbsup:
 

There are always ways to work out deals with who ever it takes.Spain,the feds ,someone has the ability to grant you the rights to work you just have to figure out who profits the most and they will do whatever it takes.Anyway there are others that were in your shoes and they have recieved permits or leases.Just keep going you'll figure it out.Best of luck Capt Rodney
 

Two years ago, I was told that we could not remove any artifacts from an 18Th century British vessel in our waters. It that still the case today ????

Thanks Simon.....
 

Simon,

Who told you that? It depends on a number of things, including the location, but you should probably contact the department in the British Government who are responsible for cultural heritage. I can dig up a name, if you want to do so. If you can trace the current legal successor to the owner of the ship at the time it sank (and that might be the British Government or a private owner) and got their permission to recover it, a US Federal Court would find it hard to assert that it was abandoned. The Appeals Court judge in the SeaHunt case made this general statement when discussing the general principle of abandonment. There are also some particular circumstances that might be relevant. For example, the Oregon Treaty, though very short, deals with British-owned items found south of the Juan de Fuca Strait subsequent to the signing of that Treaty in 1846.

Mariner
 

Mariner, are you sure that the ASA would extend beyond the 12 mile limit? It was my understanding that the 12 - 24 mile zone or contiguous zone only protected mineral rights and natural resources.

Tom
 

Tom,

By its very nature, the ASA only applies to abandoned shipwrecks that are in Coastal State waters, which is generally 3 nm from the coastline. (In the case of Florida, I think that it extends further for the west coast than for the east coast.) However, the 1902 Treaty, for example, applies to "US waters" which would include both the Territorial Sea, which extends 12 nm, and the Contiguous Zone, which extends a further 12 nm.

President Reagan extended the Territorial Sea from 3 nm to 12 nm, and then in August 1999, President Clinton issued Presidential Proclamation #7219, which established the US contiguous zone. You can find the full text at http://www.prosea.org/articles-news/current/clinton_cont_proc.html but in the introduction to it, it says specifically that "Moreover, this extension is an important step in preventing the removal of cultural heritage found within 24 nautical miles of the baseline.

The same rights, rules and laws apply within the contiguous zone as exist within a Country's Territorial Sea.

Shipwrecks are fundamentally a Federal responsibility in the US, but the 1987 ASA devolves title and management of abandoned wrecks within a coastal state's waters to that state. Wrecks that are not "abandoned", or that lie outside the State's waters but within the 24 nm limit remain under the control of the Federal Government. Wrecks outside the 24 nm limit are subject to the Laws of the Sea, including the International Convention on Salvage.

Mariner
 

jeff -- the US govt by moving the "contiguous zone" via extention in 1999 -- out to 24 miles * in effect claimed "control" of those "cultural resources" on the sea bed out to 24 miles -- under 3 miles --states waters it rest in ----3 to 24 miles --us (fed) govt -- outside 24 miles * open sea (international maritime salvage laws apply )

the 87 law was passed after the state of florida and the US fed govt lost to mel fisher in court ***---it was designed to prevent folks like the fishers from using the federal "maritime" courts to gain control of shipwrecks -- by turning over "control" of shipwrecks in waters out to 3 miles to the various states --the fed in effect shut the federal maritime court house doors (* where salvors could win their cases) by being able to say --not our jurisdiction anymore.

once the state of florida * got control of the wrecks ---they then set up "permitting" process that is next to impossible to meet the standards of -- as a result of this florida has not issued many if any new "for profiet" harvest permits -- sure you can get "exploration" or "research type" permits ( thus spend lots of money collecting data which you must share with the state as part of the permit "process")--but when its time to issue a "haul it up so you can sell stuff and make money permit" -- nope --so sorry charlie no can do -- only the old alreadly issued permits won by the fishers in their court case long ago are "renewed" and as these are worked over and over again the returns get less and less
 

Ivan,

Just a small correction: President Clinton did not so much "move" the Contiguous Zone in 1999, but created it, taking advantage of the opportunity available to a country under the existing Laws of the Sea. As you say, by doing so, the US did take control of shipwrecks lying between 12 and 24 nautical miles from the coast. Prior to that, these wrecks would have been regarded as being in International Waters.

Mariner
 

by moving --I meant moving the line of govt control --from 12 to 24 miles --thus grabbing control of a additional 12 miles of what as you say was formerly "international" waters .

as a forner seaman -- I was working onboard ship during that time -- it meant the coast guard and us fishery folks could board "foreign" ships that other wize would have been in "international" waters before the new law was in effect and thus unable to be boarded without a big stink being made.

which was very important to help stop drugs and illegal "over" fishing
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

old ship building plans

⬅️ Previous Thread

Aquanuts Friends

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Metal Detecting Stuff

Latest Discussions

Back
Top