itmaiden
Hero Member
- Sep 28, 2005
- 575
- 7
Permits & Leases
A number of you have stated that Florida has not been issuing the rights to explore and salvage for quite some time, and seem quite puzzled by it.
It is quite simple actually. We know the state "ideally" would like to put a state archaeologist on board every salvage vessel if possible. The state does not trust salvors and fears that they will be overwhelmed with salvors pillaging and plundering wreck sites and that "they"...the state, won't get their cut. The state's view is they can't watch you every minute, and can only deal with keeping up with a certain number of companies at a time.
Bottom line: The state wants their share of the plunder.
That's all Florida ever really wants...is money.
But as you know they have to "disguise" that fact under "archaeological and historical preservation".
These artifacts are so precious to Florida, they were willing to "sell them" last year, and they keep many things they have acquired out of public knowledge.
However, they acquired the "rights" to "make the rules" to the game, and unless you come up with a win win situation that works for both, those ships are going to continue to sit on the bottom.
Yes, currently they receive 20-25% of the artifacts/treasure, but again they aren't so sure they are getting their full 20-25% and that salvors are not being honest with them.
Could the state actually afford to hire a couple of more archies ? In reality, Florida could. If the bribes and pocketing would stop and they eliminate some of the unnecessary or overly bureaucratic positions they could.
Face it, the state can't stop pillaging completely, so either they give permits/leases and get a good chunck or they can sit there and not share in the booty. They have plenty of booty in their vaults now (and probably in their private homes), but you know how it is, with greed, one can never have enough.
So how do you appease Florida, that you are not doing reef damage, disturbing sunken land artifacts/archaeological sites, and guarantee you are cataloging everything and giving them their fair share ?
Your word you say ? Well they know that your word is "as good as theirs", and they already know what they are, so that isn't going anywhere.
With all of these things in mind, can a new state/salvor working structure be developed that would be workable and affordable to both ?
What are the options ?
Raising Fees ? That would be unfair to lower income salvors who cannot afford high fees, and create inequality in salvaging.
More archies ? The state doesn't seem to trust independent archies only "their archies".
A permit/lease lottery perhaps ?
For any one group to dominate the salvaging history to the point other groups are being excluded is unfair.
So should the number of years any particular company can hold permits and leases be limited, and then that rotated to another group to be fair to all. Every "x" number of years, someone else is given permits/leases with the the rights to certain sites held in "suspension" until the rotation allows for an original lease holder to re-apply to continue work on an old site ?
Let's come up with a realistic solution that works for both sides.
itmaiden
A number of you have stated that Florida has not been issuing the rights to explore and salvage for quite some time, and seem quite puzzled by it.
It is quite simple actually. We know the state "ideally" would like to put a state archaeologist on board every salvage vessel if possible. The state does not trust salvors and fears that they will be overwhelmed with salvors pillaging and plundering wreck sites and that "they"...the state, won't get their cut. The state's view is they can't watch you every minute, and can only deal with keeping up with a certain number of companies at a time.
Bottom line: The state wants their share of the plunder.
That's all Florida ever really wants...is money.
But as you know they have to "disguise" that fact under "archaeological and historical preservation".
These artifacts are so precious to Florida, they were willing to "sell them" last year, and they keep many things they have acquired out of public knowledge.
However, they acquired the "rights" to "make the rules" to the game, and unless you come up with a win win situation that works for both, those ships are going to continue to sit on the bottom.
Yes, currently they receive 20-25% of the artifacts/treasure, but again they aren't so sure they are getting their full 20-25% and that salvors are not being honest with them.
Could the state actually afford to hire a couple of more archies ? In reality, Florida could. If the bribes and pocketing would stop and they eliminate some of the unnecessary or overly bureaucratic positions they could.
Face it, the state can't stop pillaging completely, so either they give permits/leases and get a good chunck or they can sit there and not share in the booty. They have plenty of booty in their vaults now (and probably in their private homes), but you know how it is, with greed, one can never have enough.
So how do you appease Florida, that you are not doing reef damage, disturbing sunken land artifacts/archaeological sites, and guarantee you are cataloging everything and giving them their fair share ?
Your word you say ? Well they know that your word is "as good as theirs", and they already know what they are, so that isn't going anywhere.
With all of these things in mind, can a new state/salvor working structure be developed that would be workable and affordable to both ?
What are the options ?
Raising Fees ? That would be unfair to lower income salvors who cannot afford high fees, and create inequality in salvaging.
More archies ? The state doesn't seem to trust independent archies only "their archies".
A permit/lease lottery perhaps ?
For any one group to dominate the salvaging history to the point other groups are being excluded is unfair.
So should the number of years any particular company can hold permits and leases be limited, and then that rotated to another group to be fair to all. Every "x" number of years, someone else is given permits/leases with the the rights to certain sites held in "suspension" until the rotation allows for an original lease holder to re-apply to continue work on an old site ?
Let's come up with a realistic solution that works for both sides.
itmaiden