Put away your metal detectors sheeple

Bum luck, you say:

"Tom, this is (A) never going to happen, and (B) would have no legal standing at all. No cop or councilman (on a park bench, really!) is going to say anything like this."

Re.: (A) do you mean the hypothetical park bench with cop or council-man? Or that a FL cop or bureaucrat with the current FL agenda? If you mean the hypothetical park bench in anytown USA park, then: Yes, it happens all the time. People either go into city hall, or a police station to "inquire ahead" of laws, all the time. And it can be a cop, a desk clerk, a park's supervisor, a council-man, or ANY of a myriad of persons who field their question. So I don't know what you mean that it's "not going to happen". But if you meant in terms of the current FL situation, then what do you mean it's "not going to happen?" IT HAPPENED!! This Hayes fellow (a duly appointed official, akin to the "council-man" in my illustration) has been quoted as saying .... basically .... "go ahead". So in both ways, I don't know what you mean by it's "never going to happen".

As for (B), the legal standing: Sure, you would be "appraised differently". And then asked to stop, and the "authority" you cited would therefore be "overturned". But no, you would not be in legal trouble, because you DID inquire ahead of time, and you DID get an "ok" (no matter how ill-informed that "ok" was). It would be that authority in hot water, not you. And then.... sure: once their say-so is overturned, and if you continued to detect anyhow, *then* you would be in hot water.

Remember Bum Luck: we're not talking robbing banks, murder, etc... where this "so & so told me I could" is not a valid defense. The comparison is not the same. There is no "ambiguity" on murder, bank robbery, etc... Unlike this topic, you will find NO LACK of persons on forums debating the meaning of it, the loopholes, what "specimens" is, what "archaeological" is, and so forth. While it does seem that it *does* apply to our 1960 pennies, yet the mere fact that there is debate over the topic, means that it *is* something that "reasonable people differ on", thus allowing you to go to a duly appointed authority, for his say-so.
 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!
Thanks for the update, Fisheye...there are actually people on this forum who believe we "overreacted" to this legislation. They are AFRAID we might draw "unnecessary attention to our hobby". It looks like the heavyweights who signed the letter you posted don't think so!!!
I will go with their opinion every time.
 

I am still looking for the "Like" here on t-net
 

its good to see that the " big time salvage operators as well as the "we the people"little guys with metal detectors get a say in the laws that govern us * -- personally I'm all for protecting indain burail sites --hell I'm part native american myself (cherokee decent) -- but this bill goes too far -- it gives "total control" of all public lands over to the dept of archies (via the state owned or controlled lands , and any "political sub division " ie any city or county owned or controlled lands ----without any consulting of city or county folks at all , the dept of archie can just declare a public area "off limits" on their say so alone , peroid -- no appeal no challanging it -- we said so and thats it. --have a nice day -- if found guilty of breaking their "law" one can not get a trial only a "admin hearing' WTF -- no trial by your peers or at the very least a judge --those who said you broke the law act as cop , judge and jury -- so your screwed .

its simple bad law 101 .--it badly needs to be "reworked" to protect the rights of innocent hobbyist type folks , while still allowing them to punish the really guilty folks that do "knowingly rape " historcial sites with bulldozers. .
 

FISHEYE said:
You can always go out past the 3 mile limit on the east coast and hunt and keep whatever you want.
Click to expand...

Fisheye~
Then we get to duke it out with the Feds to the 11-mile, right?? Short of hiring a Maritime attorney for the answer, I'm still not clear on who you have to get approval from, or if you even NEED approval to conduct recon/salvage ops in Fed waters from the 3 to 11 mile line?!?!?
Anybody got a valid answer to that?? :dontknow:
 

You still need to file a Federal Admiralty Claim, much easier to get than a Florida Salvage Permit. Once you have the Federal Admiralty in hand, you are the sole owner of the wreck and its contents....until Spain hears about it and comes knocking.

It's my personal opinion that all ships past 3 miles are pirate ships and cannot be definitively identified or linked to a sovereign nation. :-)
 


I agree with you wholeheartedly, Jason! They're ALL pirate vessels or FUBAR... No middle ground here! I'm assuming from your post that you don't need to file the Admirality for magging/recon/investigation...Is that correct?? Only need to file to begin salvage ops??
 

That is my understanding, but I would verify with a good maritime attorney like David Horan, he'd probably answer that one for free. I never understood the need for the exploration permit anyhow, I believe it is just a tool to allow the state to say they give out permits, and to take your money. Salvage is a different story, but to require a permit just to LOOK for a shipwreck never made sense to me. If my boat is moving, you can bet that the side imaging sonar is on and recording, and that the strange cable coming out the back probably has a mag on the end of it. Just testing equipment of course, and if I'm towing a tow FISH, technically I'm fishing, and I have a state permit for that. Maybe I should fashion a non-ferrous hook and attach it to the back of the mag tow fish. LMAO
 

any skilled seaman and people who know the ways of the old saliing vessels will know with the way the spanish sailed using "dead reckoning navagation " that they often sailed within sight of land while cruising up / down the east and west coast of florida -- this caused tthe vast bulk of spanish treasure shipwrecks to occur within the state of florida claimed 3 mile limit * as these shallow water coastal sailing treasure fleet vessels -- when they were hit by sudden strong summer storms or "hurricanes"were driven into shallow waters either hitting reefs -- bottom bouncing thill their hulls burst --or just running aground and being beat to bits by storm waves .

in deep ocean waters , short of running into one another or thru warfare , ships as a general rule , do not just "fall apart" -- only a very small amount of vessels just "broke up" in deep open waters because of being hit by a storm -- they basically have to be either badly unseaworthy or massively mishandled for this to occur normally.
 

salvors need to watch this law -- very carefully * via the "submergered lands" controlled by the state of florida clause -- it covers from the high tide line out to the 3 mile limit ***** by saying no one can "remove "ANY ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE" (ANYTHING OVER 50 YEARS OLD ) --ALL HISTORIC SHIPWRECK RECOVERY WOULD BE ILLEGAL * -- only modern cargo vessel less than 50 years old could be legally salvaged within the 3 mile limit --thus all historic shipwrek salvor would in effect be put out of bussiness within the 3 mile state of florida water zone --no permits ever again * --this violates the legal settlement of the mel fisher 1715 fleet court ruling when the judge knowing that the state and feds would try to retaliate for losing their case --spelled out in detail that they had to having a legal process for the "issuing of permits" in the future to prevent them from shutting off access to shipwrecks in the future *

the 1985 abandoned shipwreck act was cooked up by florida and the feds --that never again would they lose their case in court --- it was tailor designed to shut off access to federal maritime courts for wrecks within the 3 mile limit ( the feds basically "gave" over all the wrecks with the coastal 3 mile limit over to the states of which the wrecks laid in ( thus leaving it up to the states to issue the "rules" needed to obtain a salvage permit)--this shut the doors of the federal maritime courts to salvors unless its past 3 miles out (state limit) -up to 12 miles out --(fed limit) -- if its over 3 miles out and up to 12 miles out * only then you can apply for a claim via the fed maritime courts as far as a us waters claim goes .
 

Ivan, don't take this wrong as I am most decidedly against this bill, but it does state "without a valid permit from the DHR". This means that current lease holders with salvage permits will not be affected by the new law. Anyone swinging a metal detector anywhere else WILL be adversely affected, but not legally permitted salvors...I hope. The clause stating who the state considered worthy of excavating may become the problem for salvors, as they do not fit into the category in most cases. This may be used as an excuse to cancel the existing contracts at renewal time. We won't know for sure until people start renewing salvage leases.
 

REMEMBER WHEN THE STATE TRIED TO PUT THRU THE "NEW" SALVAGE RULES ?

I spotted and brought to light at the public meeting that they were "forced" as part of the "public comment" stage of the rule change process to have -- the fact that the one of the "rule changes" that they were purposing required you to have a "project archie" from a certain "state approved group of archies" on staff as your "project archie" to get a permit .

the " legal catch 22" was the same exact group that the rules insisted you have a "project archie" from had just a short time before passed a new by law for "their group" that stated that no member of the group shall work for any "for profiet group" - and that if they did so they would be expelled from the group-- thus they would no longer belong to the "approved archie group"

this made it legally "impossible" for a "for profiet group" to hire one of the state approved group archies --since if he signed on as the "project archie" he would be kicked out of the "approved group"and thus lose his status as "approved" --and no "approved group archie for your project archie = no permit to be issued.

if passed into law at that time --it would have by legal "catch 22" trickery made it impossible to meet the state "standards" needed to obtain a permit --thankfully --I caught it at the time and in open "on the record" public forum addressed this highly illegal "catch 22" that was about to be made into law.

beware legal trickery is alive and well in the florida state arch dept.

bottom line --be very very careful * they want to kill off the salvors by any means they can dream up , I have personally went "undercover" to open to the public gatherings of archie types and the supporters and heard them 'crowing" about how they have not issued any "new permits' for a long time -- they hate salvors -plain and simple they veiw salvors as for money greedy "looters" and destroyers of historic sites. peroid.
 

My knowledge parallels Ivan's similarly, and he's dead right.

I've heard the same thing, and seen it with my own eyes here.

Again, Kudos to:
Taffi Fisher-Abt, President, Mel Fisher Center, Sebastian, Fl
Jim Sinclair. Archaeologist, VP SEAREX Inc.
Gary Randolph, VP and operations manager Mel Fisher’s Treasure, Key West
John Brandon, Director of the Historic Shipwreck Salvage Policy Council of Florida
Attorney Marlowe White, Tallahassee, Fl.
Special thanks to Jim Smith

I've met Taffi, and she's a great lady. A real tribute to Mel, and a hero to us all.
 

ivan salis said:
any skilled seaman and people who know the ways of the old saliing vessels will know with the way the spanish sailed using "dead reckoning navagation " that they often sailed within sight of land while cruising up / down the east and west coast of florida -- this caused tthe vast bulk of spanish treasure shipwrecks to occur within the state of florida claimed 3 mile limit * as these shallow water coastal sailing treasure fleet vessels -- when they were hit by sudden strong summer storms or "hurricanes"were driven into shallow waters either hitting reefs -- bottom bouncing thill their hulls burst --or just running aground and being beat to bits by storm waves .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

in deep ocean waters , short of running into one another or thru warfare , ships as a general rule , do not just "fall apart" -- only a very small amount of vessels just "broke up" in deep open waters because of being hit by a storm -- they basically have to be either badly unseaworthy or massively mishandled for this to occur normally.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you, Ivan...The Edmund Fitzgerald was a seaworthy old girl too, till the weight/draft/swell equation went to helll in a handcart...breakup (structural/sub-surface contact) or swamp, they still end up aquarium decorations :icon_pirat:...Just kickin around a couple other scenarios...Nothing deep enough to require mix or a ROV...but outside the 3 mile...
 

its belived the fitz hit bottom as she cut close to the shoals while trying to outrun the storm trying to get into whitefish bay -- as she drew in more water into her hull full of ore her hatches gave way -- sinking her in a matter of min -- she was a SIU crewed vessel ( the union I belonged to ) --the "poet" was supposed to be my first vessel in 1980 * but at the last min the job went to a differant fellow , she left philly and was lost "all hands' and has never been found to this day ---- the "marine electric" was another one that went down -- that i could have been on

the sea at times can be very cruel indeed.--as the song says --where does the love of god go , when the waves turns the minutes to hours?
 

A U.S. Navy aircraft equipped to detect magnetic anomalies usually associated with submarines found the wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald on November 14, 1975. The Fitzgerald lay about 17 miles (15 nmi; 27 km) from the entrance of Whitefish Bay, in Canadian waters close to the international boundary at a depth of 530 feet (160 m).[48] A further November 14–16 survey by the USCG using a side scan sonar revealed two large objects lying close together on the lake floor. The U.S. Navy also contracted Seaward, Inc., to conduct a second survey between November 22–25.[66]
[edit] Underwater surveys

From May 20 to 28, 1976, the U.S. Navy dived the wreck using its unmanned submersible, CURV-III, and found the Fitzgerald lying in two large pieces in 530 feet (160 m) of water. Navy estimates put the length of the bow section at 276 feet (84 m) and that of the stern section at 253 feet (77 m). The bow section stood upright in the mud, some 170 feet (52 m) from the stern section that lay face down at a 50-degree angle from the bow. The ship's mid-section had been reduced to heaps of metal and taconite.[67]

In 1980, during a Lake Superior research dive expedition, marine explorer Jean-Michel Cousteau, son of Jacques Cousteau, sent two divers from the RV Calypso in the first manned submersible dive to the Fitzgerald.[68] The dive was brief, and although the dive team drew no final conclusions, they speculated that the Fitzgerald had broken up on the surface.[69]

The Michigan Sea Grant Program organized a three-day dive to survey the Fitzgerald in 1989. The primary objective was to record 3-D videotape for use in museum educational programs and production of documentaries. The expedition used a towed survey system (TSS Mk1) and a self-propelled, tethered, free swimming remotely operated underwater vehicle (ROV). The Mini Rover ROV was equipped with miniature stereoscopic cameras and wide angle lenses in order to produce 3-D images. The towed survey system and the Mini Rover ROV were designed, built and operated by Chris Nicholson of Deep Sea Systems International, Inc.[70] Participants included the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Geographic Society, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the Great Lakes Shipwreck Historical Society (GLSHS), and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the latter providing the RV Grayling as the support vessel for the ROV.[71] The GLSHS used part of the five hours of video footage produced during the dives in a documentary and the National Geographic Society used a segment in a broadcast. Frederick Stonehouse, who wrote one of the first books on the Fitzgerald wreck, moderated a 1990 panel review of the video that drew no conclusions about the cause of the Fitzgerald's sinking.[72]

Canadian explorer Joseph B. MacInnis organized and led six publicly funded dives to the Fitzgerald over a three-day period in 1994.[73] Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution provided the Edwin A. Link as the support vessel, and their manned submersible, the Celia.[71] The GLSHS paid $10,000 for three of its members to each join a dive and take still pictures.[74] MacInnis concluded that the notes and video obtained during the dives did not provide an explanation why the Fitzgerald sank.[75] The same year, longtime sport diver Fred Shannon formed Deepquest Ltd., and organized a privately funded dive to the wreck of the Fitzgerald, using Delta Oceanographic's submersible Delta.[76] Deepquest Ltd. conducted seven dives and took more than 42 hours of underwater video[77] while Shannon set the record for the longest submersible dive to the Fitzgerald at 211 minutes.[78] Prior to conducting the dives, Shannon studied NOAA navigational charts and found that the international boundary had changed three times before its publication by NOAA in 1976.[79] Shannon determined that based on GPS coordinates from the 1994 Deepquest expedition, "at least one-third of the two acres of immediate wreckage containing the two major portions of the vessel is in U.S. waters because of an error in the position of the U.S.–Canada boundary line shown on official lake charts."[80]

Shannon's group discovered the remains of a crew member wearing a life jacket lying alongside the bow of the ship, indicating that at least one of the crew was aware of the possibility of sinking.[81] The life jacket had deteriorated canvas and "what is thought to be six rectangular cork blocks ... clearly visible."[82] Shannon concluded that "massive and advancing structural failure" caused the Fitzgerald to break apart on the surface and sink.[33]

MacInnis led another series of dives in 1995 to salvage the bell from the Fitzgerald.[83] Canadian engineer Phil Nuytten's atmospheric diving suit, known as the "Newtsuit", was used to retrieve the bell from the ship, replace it with a replica, and put a beer can in the Fitzgerald's pilothouse.[84] That same year, Terrence Tysall and Mike Zee set multiple records when they used trimix gas to scuba dive to the Fitzgerald. The pair are the only people known to have touched the Fitzgerald wreck. They also set records for the deepest scuba dive on the Great Lakes and the deepest shipwreck dive, and were the first divers to reach the Fitzgerald without the aid of a submersible. It took six minutes to reach the wreck, six minutes to survey it, and three hours to resurface to avoid decompression sickness, also known as "the bends".[85]
[edit] Restrictions on surveys

Under the Ontario Heritage Act, activities on registered archeological sites require a license.[86] In March 2005, the Whitefish Point Preservation Society accused the Great Lakes Shipwreck Historical Society (GLSHS) of conducting an unauthorized dive to the Fitzgerald. Although he admitted to conducting a sonar scan of the wreck in 2002, the director of the GLHS denied such a survey required a license at the time it was carried out.[87]

An April 2005 amendment to the Ontario Heritage Act allowed the Ontario government to impose a license requirement on dives, the operation of submersibles, side scan sonars or underwater cameras within a designated radius around protected sites.[88][89] Conducting any of those activities without a license would result in fine of up to $1 million in Canadian dollars.[90] On the basis of the amended law, to protect wreck sites considered "watery graves", the Ontario government issued updated regulations in January 2006, including an area with a 500-meter (1,640 ft) radius around the Fitzgerald and other specifically designated marine archeological sites.[91][92] In 2009, a further amendment to the Ontario Heritage Act imposed licensing requirements on any type of surveying device.
 

lots of folks in the shipping world think she "bounced" on the bottom when she cut close to the shoals while running for whitefish bay --thus "stress cracking" her hull -- its their veiw point that she then limped on the surface for awhile before finally breaking in two a bit later on -- the stress crack weak spot from "bottom bouncing" combined with the stress's caused upon the hull by the storm waves cracked her like a giant egg shell - taking all hands down with her as she broke in two.
 

Not trying to hijack this post, but has anyone noticed alexander (however his name is spelled) has not responded at all? That should say something about his connection to this - since he his one of them.
Just crossed my mind.
 

Interesting observation, tarpon.

I think his silence is strategic. The less he says, the less we are upset, and the easier the detectors go away.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

The Next Game

⬅️ Previous Thread

Diving and Archaeology

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
We Dig Metal Detectors

Latest Discussions

Back
Top