Put away your metal detectors sheeple

"Any specimen on any land .........Does that not say enough ? Cornelius"

Cornelius, yes, on any land ... THAT HAS BEEN DECLARED AN ARCHAEOLGICAL SITE. Not simply "all land".

signumops, don't you get it?? Read closely the full bill: it even gives the steps/protocols for a place to receive such a designation, within the state (ie.: be declared as such, because perhaps there is some shipwreck there, or a battle site, or an indian mound or whatever). Now THINK hard signumops: If a place has to receive such a designation/label, to be such a site, then by logical inference, it was NOT such a site, PRIOR to that!! And no, the entire state has not been declared such a historical site. Just places so declared this title at some point in time.

This is no different than any state, right now! I mean, sheesk, do you think we can tromp around on Shiloh? Ghettysburg? Bodie? dig up indian bones? None of us would argue with staying away from those places, so relax!!
 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!
Tom_in_CA:

Read this amended version excerpt, PASSED yesterday unanimously by an oversight committee:

55 (1)(a) Any person who by means other than excavation either
56 conducts archaeological field investigations on, or removes or
57 attempts to remove, or defaces, destroys, or otherwise alters
58 any archaeological site or specimen located upon, any land owned
59 or controlled by the state, including state sovereignty
60 submerged land, land owned by a political subdivision as defined
61 by s. 1.01(8), >>>>OR<<<< land within the boundaries of a designated
62 state archaeological landmark or landmark zone, except in the
63 course of activities pursued under the authority of a permit or
64 under procedures relating to accredited institutions granted by
65 the division, commits a misdemeanor of the first degree,
66 punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, and, in
67 addition, shall forfeit to the state all specimens, objects, and
68 materials collected, together with all photographs and records
69 relating to such material.

Which part of the word "OR" does not seem to apply, according to Webster's Dictionary, in your understanding of it?
 

Whats going to happen if this bill passes.Other states will follow with a similar bill.So it needs to be stopped here.
 

This is how losing rights always start. Little by little.

"A person may not knowingly and intentionally excavate, injure, destroy or alter an archaeological site or object on public or private lands without first obtaining an archaeological permit, according to a series of state laws. The one pertaining to private lands is Oregon Administrative Rule 736-051-0090. On private or public non-federal lands, an official archaeological site is defined when it has 10 or more artifacts that are 75 years or older located in a concentrated geographic area, said Susan Lynn White, Oregon assistant state archaeologist. Violation of these laws is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail, White said."

"Backyard treasure hunters beware. A little-known Oregon statute makes it illegal for anyone to intentionally unearth artifacts more than 75 years old without a permit from the state — even on private property."

"After local bottle hunter Dale Mlasko was featured in the Mail Tribune and on the Travel Channel show "Cash and Treasures," he received a letter from the state saying he may have run afoul of the law.

The Oregon State Preservation Office informed him that digging up items on private property that are 75 years or older — even with the property owner's permission — must be witnessed by an archaeologist and signed off by the state."
 

signumops, there are several uses of the word "or" in the text you cite. Which "or" are you referring to?? This one?

"61 by s. 1.01(Cool, >>>>OR<<<< land within the boundaries of a designated
62 state archaeological landmark or landmark zone, except in the
63 course "

If so, then WITHIN THE CONTEXT of what I'm saying, yes you can not detect land with the boundries of "designated state archaeological landmarks". But what you're failing to see, is that not ALL land in FL has been declared an "archaeological landmark"!! To get such a title/designation, it has to be declared as such. And there are protocols for when/if that happens. You know, like if there's an indian mound or shipwreck or something there, to merit such a designation. And before such a designation is given, then by logical deduction, it is not YET an "archaeological site". Read it again!!
 

au dreamers: And I assure you, that ever since the information you allude to (which is many years old now, and circulated for many years already), TRUST ME, there are scores of hunters in OR who ROUTINELY find coins older than 75 yrs old, and no one cares.

That whole flap about the bottle digger who got some archie's panties in a wad, after the archie saw them show off bottles on a TV show, is silly. Do you really think that anyone besides that archie, in the entire state, cares less? I mean, this would be a little like the following: asking a PETA rep ("people for the ethical treatment of animals", an animal rights extremist group), the following question: "can I leave my pet bunny in the car while I run into 7-11 to get slurpee?". What do you think the peta wacko rep. would say? They'd scream: "nneeooohh!! you are guilty of animal cruelty! your car and bunny can be confiscated!! you can be arrested and face fines!!" etc... right? So in the same way I do not put much stock in that OR flap armchair archie letter to the editor they wrote, that trickled its way on to the internet.
 

Tom_in_CA said:
signumops, there are several uses of the word "or" in the text you cite. Which "or" are you referring to?? This one?

"61 by s. 1.01(Cool, >>>>OR<<<< land within the boundaries of a designated
62 state archaeological landmark or landmark zone, except in the
63 course "

If so, then WITHIN THE CONTEXT of what I'm saying, yes you can not detect land with the boundries of "designated state archaeological landmarks". But what you're failing to see, is that not ALL land in FL has been declared an "archaeological landmark"!! To get such a title/designation, it has to be declared as such. And there are protocols for when/if that happens. You know, like if there's an indian mound or shipwreck or something there, to merit such a designation. And before such a designation is given, then by logical deduction, it is not YET an "archaeological site". Read it again!!
Click to expand...

"The division may apply to a court of competent
105 jurisdiction for injunctive relief against any person or
106 business organization that explores for, salvages, or excavates
107 treasure trove, artifacts, sunken or abandoned ships, or other
108 objects having historical or archaeological value located upon
109 any on state-owned or state-controlled land, including state
110 sovereignty submerged land, owned or controlled by the state, a
111 political subdivision, or a special district created by the
112 Legislature without the written permission of the division."

The above states nothing about an archeological site, it references exploration, salvaging or excavation of treasure trove, artifacts, sunken or abandoned ships, or "other objects" having historical or archeological value ----- pretty much located on anything that isn't privately owned land or Federal land.

So if they see you on the beach looking for 1715 treasure trove they can apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for injunctive relief?
 

Tom_in_CA:

This is Florida, not California. You've obviously had no experience dealing with Florida's Bureau of Archaeological Resources, nor do you have any appreciation of our history here in these venues. I am certainly curious as to why you believe that we should put this issue to sleep. What's your point?
 

Tom_in_CA said:
au dreamers: And I assure you, that ever since the information you allude to (which is many years old now, and circulated for many years already), TRUST ME, there are scores of hunters in OR who ROUTINELY find coins older than 75 yrs old, and no one cares.

That whole flap about the bottle digger who got some archie's panties in a wad, after the archie saw them show off bottles on a TV show, is silly. Do you really think that anyone besides that archie, in the entire state, cares less? I mean, this would be a little like the following: asking a PETA rep ("people for the ethical treatment of animals", an animal rights extremist group), the following question: "can I leave my pet bunny in the car while I run into 7-11 to get slurpee?". What do you think the peta wacko rep. would say? They'd scream: "nneeooohh!! you are guilty of animal cruelty! your car and bunny can be confiscated!! you can be arrested and face fines!!" etc... right? So in the same way I do not put much stock in that OR flap armchair archie letter to the editor they wrote, that trickled its way on to the internet.
Click to expand...

Well I'd rather not have the law on the books to be misinterpreted or abused by an over zealous govrenment archeologist that has the opinion that.....

"the state has established in conjunction with their proposed new 1A-31 regulations for treasure hunting. These rules mandate an unprecedented new level of archaeological oversight for treasure salvage operations. While these rules are a step in the right direction, in our opinion they do not go far enough. We'd like to send the message to Tallahassee loud and clear that treasure hunting is detrimental to our state's great archaeological heritage and that it should be banned outright."

"Many of us in the archaeological community feel that this rule change may be the first step in outlawing commercial treasure hunting in Florida, especially if we can show them that our communities appreciate archaeology and history and are united against treasure hunting." -Chuck Meide

What's next people like him in the DHR wearing red armbands acting as police over the citizens?
 

Terry, I guoted your reply and added my 2 cents.Ref:
CS/SB 868: Archaeological Sites and Specimens

My fellow citizens and representatives,

First off, I see that this legislation, like all coming out of the Bureau of Archaeological Resources, is pushed through without letting the citizens that will be adversely affected even know what's going on. This matter was just brought to my attention today! Your best bet would be to vote NO, your next best choice would be to postpone it. This bill is put to you by a single, self serving office that has managed to spit in the face of our constitutional rights in the past and continues to whittle away at them. Those of us in the tourist industry, metal detecting and equipment industry, salvers and all the related industries which generate dollars for the state as well as ourselves are tired of being pushed around by this particular Bureau. They don't have the resources to follow up on their pompous ideology and I, amongst many others, don't want to see my tax dollars funding them any further. This kind of legislation has no place here. You'll have every citizen that has an old coin collection or fossil in their possession a criminal!
If I had been given more notice, believe me, you would be swamped with letters, phone calls and emails expressing the same as you're reading here, with a lot more in-depth detail.
In closing, just in the past hour, I received word from 2 friends who were planning on coming to Florida this spring, cancel their plans while letting me know that they will spend their budgets of $2,000 and $3000, respectively in a friendlier place, possibly out west. Rest assured, there will be many more to follow!
I too urge you not to pass this bill.

John Redman
4319 Tony St.
Orlando, FL 32808
386-801-9242
[email protected]
 

Florida, as a police state is already on us.

I have resided on a 5,500 acre lake in Central Florida, for 23 years. It was a beautiful , flat calm day February 15, 2012, and I was taking an 87 year old lady for a boat ride in a little 13 foot whaler. I could only see 2 other boats on the lake. Both were fishing. We were idling along slow in shallow water looking to see an alligator, or other wildlife, when I heard a voice behind telling me to stop the boat and turn off the engine. I looked around and there was a wildlife officer in his boat behind me. I don't know where he came from and you can easily see for a half mile or more.

He asked if I was lieing to him about my registration. He radioed in, to verify the registration, then checked for safety violations, life preservers, lights, horn, flares, paddle, etc. Among the questions he asked, two aroused my suspicions.
"Did I do a lot of traveling"? and when asked about hobbies, I said Treasure Hunting, and his ears perked up with interest, and he asked, "did I have Treasure in my house?" I felt like saying it is none of your damn business, but I held my tongue.

We were detained for about 15 minutes, and after I turned back to pull start the out board and turned forward again, he was gone, and nowhere to be seen within my entire view of the lake.

I would consider this all a figment of my imagination, but the lady was there as a witness, and I have the warning ticket for having the registration decal on the wrong side of the boat.

So, why the question about, Treasure in my house, unless the State has already informed law enforcement agency's to be on the alert for Treasure Hunters, who are now being legally declared criminals, by the stroke of a bureaucratic pen?

When I got home, I set up a big Pirate flag flying by the water at a high vantage point for everyone to see what my State is doing to honest, law abiding residents, who enjoy metal detecting and searching for lost & buried Treasure. Dell
 

just e-mailed the senators and hope it is not a waste of my time.

********************* we need a lawer to read the legal mumbo-jumbo and then contact the news media and raise a big stink about this!!!!!!!!! i think thats the only way anything will get done.*****************
chuck
 

au dreamers, you are quoting out of context. Start at the top, and all that follows below, is in the context of state "archaeolgocal sites".

For example, here's a quote from the bill, thanx to fisheye:

"The Division of Historical Resources (Division) may designate an archaeological site of significance to the scientific study or public representation of the state’s historical, prehistoric, or aboriginal past as a “state archaeological landmark.”3 In addition, the Division may designate an interrelated grouping of significant archaeological sites as a “state archaeological landmark zone.”4 No site or grouping of sites can be designated without the express written consent of a private owner.5 Upon designation of an archaeological site, the owners and occupants are given written notification by the Division.6 Once so designated, no person may conduct field investigation activities on the site without first securing a permit from the Division.7"

See? archaeological sites! And no, the entire state is not an "archaeological site". THINK HARD: if according to the above, it had to receive such a designation, then by logical inference, it was not an "archaeological site" prior to that.

" I am certainly curious as to why you believe that we should put this issue to sleep. What's your point?"

Because I believe you have mis-interpretted this. And the result of such posts, cause skittish persons to run and seek attention, thus becoming the "big red x" they .... in reality .... don't want to be, to begin with.
 

signumops, it shouldn't be too hard for someone on here, who is a lawyer by profession, to take the links (which contain all the verbage), to see if I'm on the right track or not (because I admit I am not a lawyer). But the reason I focussed so quickly on the "...archaeolgical site" wording, and so quickly came to my conclusion, is because this WAS the mistake made by persons in KY, who got all alarmed that the entire state was off-limits, when in fact, it wasn't. And the vocabulary was similar to this. If I haven't read this deep enough, I will stand corrected.

If anyone here can ask (or is a lawyer themselves) to see if it can be interpretted in the light of which I'm saying, let's find out.
 

"together with all photographs and records relating to such material."


So if you have copies they want them too?

Would this include research material such as books, archival documents, GPS, computer/hardware?

It sounds like soon in the state of Florida your life can be ruined if someone alleges you're a child molester or a treasure hunter! Will the adage be the same? "We better lock em up just in case"

In a conversation with my brother about civil rights being violated by a police officer he concluded. Your civil rights don't really mean crap. The police officer can violate them every way to Sunday. You will be the one in jail or detained having to prove your innocents and the alleged violation(s). While in the mean time you could be losing income, your job, family, your life's savings just to get out of the mess that you created by mouthing off to the police officer about him/her violating your civil rights.

So how many treasure hunters could get in trouble for treasure trove or "other objects" having historical or archeological value that they (currently) legally posess? If this group of non-law officers is the judge and jury who set the penalties themselves what stops such potential abuse. I believe I have posted a couple research permit applications that have been denied by the state. What if we get someone thinking like Chuck Meide and they just decide to start raiding treasure hunter's homes?

Not going to happen? Just ask someone in Key West about the armed men that took Atocha and Margarita treasure away and then how about this little thing from one of our own judicial members.

"The finding of a great treasure from the days of the Spanish Main is not the cherished dream of only the United States and Florida citizens; countless peoples from other lands have shared such thoughts. It would amaze and surprise most citizens of this country, when their dream, at the greatest of costs, was realized, the agents of respective governments would, on the most flimsy grounds, lay claim to the treasure."
---Judge William O.Mehrtens
U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Florida
August 21, 1978 Ruling Against the State of Florida

History repeats itself....
 

And let me ask everyone a question: even if this does mean "all public land" (even public FL land that has not been deemed an archaeological site), then ...... will things really change, in practice? Or is this just to keep us (understandibly so) from obvious historically sensitive sites (which none of us would argue with). For example: in CA, one time, a buddy of mine was detecting on a state owned beach. There just "happened" to be a state archie who had come from Sacramento that day, to give a speech in the little museum that just happened to be at that one particular beach. The archie saw my friend down on the beach, and went down to give him the riot act!

Well the md'r posted of his experience on a local forum, which caused several other of us locals to become "up in arms". We were going to "set this archie straight", because ....... afterall, it was just assumed that state of CA beaches were open game. They had simply been detected since the dawn of time, and no one's ever cared. Thus it has just never been questioned, or occured to anyone that you even NEEDED to question it, since .... they've just always been detected.

So we went hither and fro through the state park's dept. code, so as to "show this guy a thing or two" and "set him straight". Well imagine our surprise, when we discovered that, in fact, there *might* be something that could be morphed to apply to us (if you tried hard enough, and paraded enough IH's or barber dimes in front of archie's noses)? Well you can guess what happened next! We left "good enough alone". Odds are, this archie went back to Sacramento after that day. And if no one else cares, why rock any boats?

So to apply that to your situation, then what's to simply stop you from simply not finding coins over 50 yrs. old, and making yourself spectacles? I mean, is anyone really looking for your shoulders at dates? Your just looking for clad and modern jewelry, right? I mean, I bet EVEN NOW if you looked through FL laws, EVEN AS THEY STAND NOW, and if you asked enough questions, with enough buzz words (like "arpa" and "dig" and "treasure" and "profiting off ebay at the public's expense" and so forth) that I bet you could get a "no" even at the most innocuous sandboxes even now. (when in fact, as you can see, no one cares).

So can we please have a lawyer look at this wording, and see if the law can be understood to apply to archaeological SITES, and if a site must be deemed such, for this to even apply.
 

I see it referring to state land, county land (political subdivision) or archaeoligical sites.
archaeological site or specimen located upon, any land owned
or controlled by the state, including state sovereignty
submerged land, land owned by a political subdivision as defined
by s. 1.01 or land within the boundaries of a designated
state archaeological landmark or landmark zone
Personally I could care less anymore. I'm over this place, I used to love this state and all of it's natural beauty, but it has become utterly disgusting and unwanted by me, thanks to the political, machine that controls it, and the population that resides here. There is such a thing as TOO MANY LAWS! Screw Florida, my time here is temporary. Unfortunately, the rest of the nation is slowly creeping downward too. If I won the lottery today, i'd relocate to another country tommorrow, that's how disgusted I am with the country that has the spilled blood of my ancestors in it's soil. Hock Pugh!
 

Tom in CA,
I do not believe I am taking it out of context. I am taking it for its wording in a subsection of a different section from the very precisely worded previous sections of historical/archeological sites."

That wording is not there on purpose.

Now it's the Internet so don't take this harsh as it might read.

California and Florida's history with particularly underwater commercial private sector salvage is completely different.

Imho the Abandoned Shipwreck Act was written because of Florida underwater private sector salvage. The State of Florida convened special sessions to extend the state nautical boundaries to encompass "treasure wrecks."

Many certain persons within the State of FL have been trying to stop private sector salvage for a very long time.

The state of Florida has/had it’s own “policing” division to deal with private sector salvage.
It is not as simple as your story about metal detecting on the beach in CA.

First we are (currently) legally allowed to metal detect our beaches and many people care on both sides of the fence. We have state archeologists who have publicly stated they want treasure hunting banned from way back in the 60’s.

The “anti” side posts their contempt on blogs and write letters to national organizations and institutions.

My above quote of Chuck Meide shows just what fervor and rallying of the troops they will use against private sector salvage.

Also a lawyer reading it only clarifies it for the lawyer’s opinion. Why just look at the recent Odyssey marine exploits. That’s why lawyers exist, because they have differing opinions about how the law reads….

And just like with Odyssey you can have the govt come in with their interpretation of the law and take everything you have.

But hey it’s not like rule 1A-31 changed anything….. ::)

**Added**
Tom while I can see that you might read replies as "the sky is falling" it is a mix of that and also not wanting to be on the edge of that slippery slope.

I for one enjoy my freedom and freedoms. I mostly don't do illegal things so I don't lose either. I do not want to have to pretend to be looking for modern coins or jewelry. Come to think of it could they define that as treasure trove? So see that is why we don't even want to stand on the slope.

But hey who cares anyways, it's not like the common folk will be able to afford the gas to drive to MD'in spots. :laughing9: :'(
 

While Tom is mostly likely right in the idea that it just makes Archaeological sites off limits, there are a few things to consider. One, would be, what makes a site deemed archaeological? And second, what sites does this make off limits to begin with? Here is an idea...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Archaeological_sites_in_Florida This list 133 sites that would be off limits, if you read them, you will see that it includes, entire parks, cities, and beaches. Just using the terms in the bill they could out law metal detecting on a large portion of Florida, which is pretty much a given based on the history of Florida. And one one of the main reasons Metal detecting is a large hobby in Florida compared to many other states.

The fact is, there are things to find, and the Government doesn't want a hobbyist to be the ones to find them, they want control of what there is to be found.
 

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: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
High Plains Prospectors

Latest Discussions

Back
Top