ivan salis
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2007
- 16,794
- 3,810
- 🏆 Honorable Mentions:
- 1
- Detector(s) used
- delta 4000 / ace 250 - used BH and many others too
sorry was unaware of that oregon repealed their treasure trove law * it was rather strict you must admit.
Put away your metal detectors sheeple
- Thread starter signumops
- Start date
wildman4910
Sr. Member
signumops said:
Yup he basically told you politely to stuff it as He does not care, after all He voted for it but doesn't want to be called on his yes vote.
The below is his "don't waste my valuable time with your petty concerns" reply, time to vote the Bum out.
Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to SB 868. As your State Representative, I appreciate learning of your views on this issue. &
Again, thank you for your email. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any other questions or concerns you may have in the future.
Tom_in_CA
Gold Member
- Mar 23, 2007
- 13,804
- 10,336
- 🥇 Banner finds
- 2
- Detector(s) used
- Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
signumops, I have had time now to thoroughly read this link you provide:
http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2012/0868/BillText/c1/HTML
I tried very hard to apply my interpretation that this meant "archaeological sites", not "all land". The reason I initially thought (and read it in this light) is because this is the mistake that was made by some in KY. And now, if you followed that, you would see that even skittish KY hunters universally agree now that they are not in any danger. And that any city (like Louiseville) who interprets it in that light, are the ones making the mistake.
However, as I tried hard to read your link, trying to come away with the same "archaeological sites" interpretation, I must admit I can not make the loophole stick. It does indeed appear to apply to all public land, for all archaeological specimens (which could be defined to apply to our 1960 memorial pennies, as we all agree).
So I apparently stand corrected, on the semantics. Thanx for the link. However, then you go on to say this, later on:
"The 'any land', has been stricken from the amended statute. For now."
You mean stricken from this link's text? http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2012/0868/BillText/c1/HTML ?
If so, when reading it with "any land" taken out ...... would it therefore NOW confine itself to "archaeological sites" then? Is there a link to this revised version with those additional lined-out revisions in it?
http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2012/0868/BillText/c1/HTML
I tried very hard to apply my interpretation that this meant "archaeological sites", not "all land". The reason I initially thought (and read it in this light) is because this is the mistake that was made by some in KY. And now, if you followed that, you would see that even skittish KY hunters universally agree now that they are not in any danger. And that any city (like Louiseville) who interprets it in that light, are the ones making the mistake.
However, as I tried hard to read your link, trying to come away with the same "archaeological sites" interpretation, I must admit I can not make the loophole stick. It does indeed appear to apply to all public land, for all archaeological specimens (which could be defined to apply to our 1960 memorial pennies, as we all agree).
So I apparently stand corrected, on the semantics. Thanx for the link. However, then you go on to say this, later on:
"The 'any land', has been stricken from the amended statute. For now."
You mean stricken from this link's text? http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2012/0868/BillText/c1/HTML ?
If so, when reading it with "any land" taken out ...... would it therefore NOW confine itself to "archaeological sites" then? Is there a link to this revised version with those additional lined-out revisions in it?
Tom_in_CA
Gold Member
- Mar 23, 2007
- 13,804
- 10,336
- 🥇 Banner finds
- 2
- Detector(s) used
- Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
Ivan, you should get an award or medal or something for your post #67. That was superb! Thanx.
Mariner, we have situations like your OR situation, here in CA too. Namely, that there are already rules for various public locations, that ......... if you asked enough archies or bureaucrats, they would say no md'ing. But just like your OR situation, where it is readily apparent no one cares (till you ask), so too is it like that down here in CA. Ie.: lots of places you can detect, and no one cares. But sure: if you waltzed into enough offices, asking enough clerks, using enough key buzzwords and key-phrases, sure, you can find a "no" at the most innocuous sand boxes! Moral of that story?
But the FL guys are telling us here, that FL is different. That the laws DO get enforced there. I certainly will not argue with that, except to say that I have heard the same fears for OR and CA (just using them as examples, so don't get "lost in the example"). Ie.: there are persons who will tell you: "you can be arrested, face confiscations, fines, etc..." for detecting in such & such's city parks, or on state of CA parks, etc.... And they will invariably point to some wording that *could* indeed be morphed to apply. In their mind's eyes, the fear is very real (because perhaps they're very skittish, or can, in fact, point to some isolated incident or flap like the bottle incident in OR). Yet when you look around, people are detecting and no one is bothering them (unless you're being a nuisance snooping around obvious historic monuments).
So I don't know. If FL guys say this will lead to actual enforcements on their 1960 pennies, and that rangers will actually be riffling through their aprons, I dunno. I just can't imagine it, because it just isn't happening like that anywhere else, EVEN when there are supposed cultural heritage things already in place (so long as you're not being a nuisance, as I say). I dunno.
Mariner, we have situations like your OR situation, here in CA too. Namely, that there are already rules for various public locations, that ......... if you asked enough archies or bureaucrats, they would say no md'ing. But just like your OR situation, where it is readily apparent no one cares (till you ask), so too is it like that down here in CA. Ie.: lots of places you can detect, and no one cares. But sure: if you waltzed into enough offices, asking enough clerks, using enough key buzzwords and key-phrases, sure, you can find a "no" at the most innocuous sand boxes! Moral of that story?
But the FL guys are telling us here, that FL is different. That the laws DO get enforced there. I certainly will not argue with that, except to say that I have heard the same fears for OR and CA (just using them as examples, so don't get "lost in the example"). Ie.: there are persons who will tell you: "you can be arrested, face confiscations, fines, etc..." for detecting in such & such's city parks, or on state of CA parks, etc.... And they will invariably point to some wording that *could* indeed be morphed to apply. In their mind's eyes, the fear is very real (because perhaps they're very skittish, or can, in fact, point to some isolated incident or flap like the bottle incident in OR). Yet when you look around, people are detecting and no one is bothering them (unless you're being a nuisance snooping around obvious historic monuments).
So I don't know. If FL guys say this will lead to actual enforcements on their 1960 pennies, and that rangers will actually be riffling through their aprons, I dunno. I just can't imagine it, because it just isn't happening like that anywhere else, EVEN when there are supposed cultural heritage things already in place (so long as you're not being a nuisance, as I say). I dunno.
scaupus
Hero Member
Tom_in_CA said:
Tom, I appreciate your efforts to be the voice of reason. The part of the bill that you reference is meant to designate archeological sites on both public and private land. Once the private land is so designated it is protected by the state from "looters." But the bill also protects all state land, and local government lands from any looting of any archeological item - no further designation required, simply being owned by a govt unit will suffice. That would affect anyone on any public land in Florida who picks up an old bottle (as I did a few weeks ago) or any artifact older than 50 years. Why is this happening? Because people like saving their history, they respect the "sciences" and archeologists in particular are sort of heroic. Which is fine. But, we need to represent our interests, too. We need an organization with dues paying members to lobby on our behalf, show how much money the state takes in from metal detecting and other collectors, and represent our interests in govt. All other outdoor sports groups who are impacted by govt. have done this, and have been very successful in getting their interests respected in the florida legislature. Who wants to join me in starting such an organization?
OP
OP
signumops
Hero Member
- Feb 28, 2007
- 756
- 230
- Detector(s) used
- Garrett, Minelab, Aqua-Pulse
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
- Thread starter
- #106
I made a written inquiry to Representative Metz as to why he introduced this bill into the house. I will report his response to you if I get one.
Meanwhile, we can examine the law as it now stands and take some notes which may indicate its true intent, albeit hidden from immediate view.
In particular is the repeated element “conducts archaeological field investigations”. You could read much into that odd reference. We already have laws on the books regarding desecration, destruction of, removal of archaeological materials, and even a law making it possible for the University of Florida to sell off artifacts (yes, its true). But this is the first time this particular terminology has been used.
Who else would be “conducting archaeological field investigations” ? Let’s say you were a previously permitted commercial enterprise who had permit(s) to salvage and recover near-shore historic wrecks and your permit only applied to submerged wrecks. If you then began digging above the highwater mark onshore, you would be “conducting archaeological field investigations” beyond the limit of your permit.
Or, perhaps you are a land developer and pursuant to development you are required to perform an “archaeological field investigation” vis a vis one of the many hundreds of firms providing archaeologists for that exact purpose, but, the firm or the field archaeologists you selected for that contractual purpose were not suitable in the eyes of the BAR administration. The BAR would swoop down, take all your notes, and run you out of town.
Then again, maybe this is strictly political correctness in its elitist form. Instead of calling you a looter, thief or some other variety of miscreant, you are now officially “conducting archaeological field investigations” (without a permit).
Strange. However, you can rest assured that this new statute is written with that exact terminology for an exact reason, known only to Representative Metz and Senator Hays, both of whom, incidentally, are attached to Lake County.
This is sounding more and more like a turf war. But who are the combatants supposed to be?
Meanwhile, we can examine the law as it now stands and take some notes which may indicate its true intent, albeit hidden from immediate view.
In particular is the repeated element “conducts archaeological field investigations”. You could read much into that odd reference. We already have laws on the books regarding desecration, destruction of, removal of archaeological materials, and even a law making it possible for the University of Florida to sell off artifacts (yes, its true). But this is the first time this particular terminology has been used.
Who else would be “conducting archaeological field investigations” ? Let’s say you were a previously permitted commercial enterprise who had permit(s) to salvage and recover near-shore historic wrecks and your permit only applied to submerged wrecks. If you then began digging above the highwater mark onshore, you would be “conducting archaeological field investigations” beyond the limit of your permit.
Or, perhaps you are a land developer and pursuant to development you are required to perform an “archaeological field investigation” vis a vis one of the many hundreds of firms providing archaeologists for that exact purpose, but, the firm or the field archaeologists you selected for that contractual purpose were not suitable in the eyes of the BAR administration. The BAR would swoop down, take all your notes, and run you out of town.
Then again, maybe this is strictly political correctness in its elitist form. Instead of calling you a looter, thief or some other variety of miscreant, you are now officially “conducting archaeological field investigations” (without a permit).
Strange. However, you can rest assured that this new statute is written with that exact terminology for an exact reason, known only to Representative Metz and Senator Hays, both of whom, incidentally, are attached to Lake County.
This is sounding more and more like a turf war. But who are the combatants supposed to be?
FISHEYE
Bronze Member
- Feb 27, 2004
- 2,334
- 404
- Detector(s) used
- Chasing Dory ROV,Swellpro Splash 2 pro waterproof drone,Swellpro Spry+ wa,Wesmar SHD700SS Side Scan Sonar,U/W Mac 1 Turbo Aquasound by American Electronics,Fisher 1280x,Aquasound UW md,Aqua pulse AQ1B
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Just start up a union.The gov respects unions.Unions can shut down this country in 1 day.Theres enough Md's in every state to join.Pay some dues,retain some lawyers.Much better than a club.Dam near all of my Italian side of my family are heads of unions.Mostly teamsters.1 relative even worked under jimmy hoffa.Unions get things done.An im not talking about cement shoes.
Or better yet.Start up a non-profit organization.Then we could get grants from the fed or states.Get donations of money,cars,trucks,boats,trains and planes.
Or better yet.Start up a non-profit organization.Then we could get grants from the fed or states.Get donations of money,cars,trucks,boats,trains and planes.
drewan29
Sr. Member
Tom I can see where they are coming from. I have never been to Fl I have wanted to but now I don't think I will.
Fl is heading in the same direction as WI. My nephew got married last june and I figured while I was down there I would hit some of my old stomping grounds I started looking into the laws and made a few phone calls no detecting on public or state land or county land why because they the archeis don't want you digging up any artifacts even if your looking for coins and Jewlery they would rather keep it in the ground out of site out of mind they are worried about people finding and selling and them loseing money and history. I feel for ya Fl folks just thinking of the whole Treasure coast and other great places that I hear of and read about on here being off limits sickens me. I've said many times here and on other sites The U.S. Should take note from the U.K. for me Half would be better then nothing.
Fl is heading in the same direction as WI. My nephew got married last june and I figured while I was down there I would hit some of my old stomping grounds I started looking into the laws and made a few phone calls no detecting on public or state land or county land why because they the archeis don't want you digging up any artifacts even if your looking for coins and Jewlery they would rather keep it in the ground out of site out of mind they are worried about people finding and selling and them loseing money and history. I feel for ya Fl folks just thinking of the whole Treasure coast and other great places that I hear of and read about on here being off limits sickens me. I've said many times here and on other sites The U.S. Should take note from the U.K. for me Half would be better then nothing.
Tom_in_CA
Gold Member
- Mar 23, 2007
- 13,804
- 10,336
- 🥇 Banner finds
- 2
- Detector(s) used
- Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
"I figured while I was down there I would hit some of my old stomping grounds I started looking into the laws and made a few phone calls no detecting on public or state land or county land "
drewan29, how did you phrase the question, when you made the phone calls? Eg.: "Hi, can I metal detect?" If so, then that can be skewed as a form of asking their permission (as if .... you're putting it up to a whim of opinion of whomever answers the phone). So it's best to ask this way: "Is there anything that prohibits metal detecting?". See? The latter puts the burden of proof, on them, to produce such an actual written rule. And not just a "no, because we said so" type thing.
Or better yet, don't ask at all! Look it up for yourself. Seems that all cities and counties nowadays have their websites. Rules, codes, etc... for the city, and sub-sections for the park's dept. rules are usually all on there nowadays. Just read the rules for yourself. If you see no prohibitions for metal detectors (ie.: silent on the issue), then no need to ask further!
So just curious: did they cite some rule saying specifically "no metal detecting"? If not, then you probably just triggered the "no one cares till you ask" psychology. Next time, look it up for yourself.
drewan29, how did you phrase the question, when you made the phone calls? Eg.: "Hi, can I metal detect?" If so, then that can be skewed as a form of asking their permission (as if .... you're putting it up to a whim of opinion of whomever answers the phone). So it's best to ask this way: "Is there anything that prohibits metal detecting?". See? The latter puts the burden of proof, on them, to produce such an actual written rule. And not just a "no, because we said so" type thing.
Or better yet, don't ask at all! Look it up for yourself. Seems that all cities and counties nowadays have their websites. Rules, codes, etc... for the city, and sub-sections for the park's dept. rules are usually all on there nowadays. Just read the rules for yourself. If you see no prohibitions for metal detectors (ie.: silent on the issue), then no need to ask further!
So just curious: did they cite some rule saying specifically "no metal detecting"? If not, then you probably just triggered the "no one cares till you ask" psychology. Next time, look it up for yourself.
aquanut
Bronze Member
Hey Sheeples,
This law states very clearly "any land! public or private including submerged lands. Just because your interest is beach hunting and you don't feel threatened, remember how Hitler did it. SLLLOOWWLLYY...
This is a direct result of 3 archaeologists in Tallahassee lobbying their brand of reasoning to well intentioned legislators. One Arky had the balls to say he'd rather the artifacts rot at the bottom of the sea rather than have them brought to the surface by a treasure hunter. Chew on that for a while.
By the way, metal detecting is only one form of hunting for treasure. Don't be so narrow minded.
This law states very clearly "any land! public or private including submerged lands. Just because your interest is beach hunting and you don't feel threatened, remember how Hitler did it. SLLLOOWWLLYY...
This is a direct result of 3 archaeologists in Tallahassee lobbying their brand of reasoning to well intentioned legislators. One Arky had the balls to say he'd rather the artifacts rot at the bottom of the sea rather than have them brought to the surface by a treasure hunter. Chew on that for a while.
By the way, metal detecting is only one form of hunting for treasure. Don't be so narrow minded.
FISHEYE
Bronze Member
- Feb 27, 2004
- 2,334
- 404
- Detector(s) used
- Chasing Dory ROV,Swellpro Splash 2 pro waterproof drone,Swellpro Spry+ wa,Wesmar SHD700SS Side Scan Sonar,U/W Mac 1 Turbo Aquasound by American Electronics,Fisher 1280x,Aquasound UW md,Aqua pulse AQ1B
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
When a ranger caught me MD'ing at the cape Canaveral sea shore several years ago he told me that the md wasnt allowed here.So i put it back in my truck.He said i could sift the sand all i wanted to find my lost watch.
drewan29
Sr. Member
No it wasn't Hi can I metal detect .... They did site rules after I was transferred to another women who also checked into the laws they were worried about preserving the historyTom_in_CA said:
"Don't ask at all" thats sounds good in thinking but the reallity is when the DNR is writting a ticket these words will leave his mouth Ignorance of the law is no excuse. what it all boiled down to is NO DETECTING IN PERIOD only private land.
Metal detectors may be used on DNR land or waters only for locating specific lost personal items. A special permit is required from the DNR website no loop holes.
OP
OP
signumops
Hero Member
- Feb 28, 2007
- 756
- 230
- Detector(s) used
- Garrett, Minelab, Aqua-Pulse
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
- Thread starter
- #113
The senate must have got their fingers burned as they decided it best to leave well enough alone with private land. The "any land" clause was stricken from the senate version of the bill a few days back. There's a lot of large ranch landowners in Florida, some of the largest in the country, who have had to put up with the arch-e-o-busy-bodies trying to push them around in Osceola, Brevard and elsewhere. The old "lake water dropped during the drought and lookee at all them old canoe boats" fist fight around Alachua and Osceola counties comes to mind. Some of them crackers got more money than Florida cares to spend in court.
Tom_in_CA
Gold Member
- Mar 23, 2007
- 13,804
- 10,336
- 🥇 Banner finds
- 2
- Detector(s) used
- Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
drewan29, so the laws they cited you were for "preserving history" but did not specifically say "no metal detecting?"
If so, and if they had to "check into the laws" (as if to imply, they didn't really know how to answer your question, till they went and looked hard enough to morph something to apply to your "pressing question"), do you think this might not have been a case of "no one cared till you asked"?
For example: we had a true case here, in a city park where I live, where someone new to town took it upon themselves to go down to city hall to ask if they could metal detect in the park. Someone there (after being shunted from desk to desk) told them "no" (perhaps even citing "historical preservation", for all I know
)The person promptly came and told the rest of the club members, at the next meeting. But oddly, this park had been detected since the dawn of time, and no one had ever cared. 
If so, and if they had to "check into the laws" (as if to imply, they didn't really know how to answer your question, till they went and looked hard enough to morph something to apply to your "pressing question"), do you think this might not have been a case of "no one cared till you asked"?
For example: we had a true case here, in a city park where I live, where someone new to town took it upon themselves to go down to city hall to ask if they could metal detect in the park. Someone there (after being shunted from desk to desk) told them "no" (perhaps even citing "historical preservation", for all I know
)The person promptly came and told the rest of the club members, at the next meeting. But oddly, this park had been detected since the dawn of time, and no one had ever cared. 
fibberjibber
Jr. Member
- Mar 7, 2008
- 91
- 0
I want to apologize in advance if I am repeating anything already stated. I did not read all the posts, but a vast majority of them as I just now stumbled on this thread.
As I read it, with a humble background in philosophy and logic (one of the foundations of legal speak), it sounds like everyone is pretty screwed. Here is probably the most important exerpt:
"any person who by means other than excavation either conducts archaeological field investigations on, or removes or attempts to remove, or defaces, destroys, or otherwise alters any archaeological site or specimen located upon, any land, including state sovereignty submerged land, owned or controlled by the state, a political subdivision, or a special district created by the Legislature, or within the boundaries of a designated state archaeological landmark or landmark zone... commits a misdemeanor"
First of all, "other than excavation" means just picking it up off the ground if you see it lying there. If you are removing any soil, you are excavating which means part "b" applies to you in which case you are committing a felony.
The second key point is "any archaeological site or specimen". Reworded, this means "any known, identified archeological site OR any singular artifact". It does NOT have to be an archaeological site.
Third, it defines the boundaries as "any land... owned or controlled by the state". Littering and loitering laws often carry similar language and it is there to act as a blanket clause to literally prevent you from doing something in any state park, beach, roadway, right of way, property and possibly any easements that is controlled by any government agency.
I dont know how it works in Florida but is sounds like you guys are getting exactly what we have up here in Wisconsin- an absolute shutdown of any artifact collecting on any public lands and state controlled lands, including waterways. I would not disregard as some have here so easily the enforcement. Speed traps and parking tickets are great revenue generators for every municipality. And in this cash-strapped economy every county and burg are looking for ways to increase revenue. Just a thought.
As I read it, with a humble background in philosophy and logic (one of the foundations of legal speak), it sounds like everyone is pretty screwed. Here is probably the most important exerpt:
"any person who by means other than excavation either conducts archaeological field investigations on, or removes or attempts to remove, or defaces, destroys, or otherwise alters any archaeological site or specimen located upon, any land, including state sovereignty submerged land, owned or controlled by the state, a political subdivision, or a special district created by the Legislature, or within the boundaries of a designated state archaeological landmark or landmark zone... commits a misdemeanor"
First of all, "other than excavation" means just picking it up off the ground if you see it lying there. If you are removing any soil, you are excavating which means part "b" applies to you in which case you are committing a felony.
The second key point is "any archaeological site or specimen". Reworded, this means "any known, identified archeological site OR any singular artifact". It does NOT have to be an archaeological site.
Third, it defines the boundaries as "any land... owned or controlled by the state". Littering and loitering laws often carry similar language and it is there to act as a blanket clause to literally prevent you from doing something in any state park, beach, roadway, right of way, property and possibly any easements that is controlled by any government agency.
I dont know how it works in Florida but is sounds like you guys are getting exactly what we have up here in Wisconsin- an absolute shutdown of any artifact collecting on any public lands and state controlled lands, including waterways. I would not disregard as some have here so easily the enforcement. Speed traps and parking tickets are great revenue generators for every municipality. And in this cash-strapped economy every county and burg are looking for ways to increase revenue. Just a thought.
FISHEYE
Bronze Member
- Feb 27, 2004
- 2,334
- 404
- Detector(s) used
- Chasing Dory ROV,Swellpro Splash 2 pro waterproof drone,Swellpro Spry+ wa,Wesmar SHD700SS Side Scan Sonar,U/W Mac 1 Turbo Aquasound by American Electronics,Fisher 1280x,Aquasound UW md,Aqua pulse AQ1B
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
If you are removing any soil, you are excavating which means part "b" applies to you in which case you are committing a felony.
Well i guess construction in the state of florida will be at a standstill after july 1st as this would apply to anyone digging with a shovel,backhoe or bulldozer on state lands,public or private.
Well i guess construction in the state of florida will be at a standstill after july 1st as this would apply to anyone digging with a shovel,backhoe or bulldozer on state lands,public or private.
Twisted One
Sr. Member
Tom_in_CA said:
Tom as always I agree with the majority of your argument, but no government entity has full listing of the entire realm of legalities on their website.
Such as looking over my cities website, I can not find anything stating that it is illegal to get drunk in a city park and pee on the picnic tables. I know it is illegal <don't ask me how> and if I went to city hall they could probably show me the laws prohibiting it.
Bum Luck
Silver Member
- May 24, 2008
- 3,482
- 1,282
- Detector(s) used
- Teknetics T2SE, GARRETT GTI 2500, Garrett Infinium
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
I'd say from the momentum that this thing has been in the pipeline for some time, and it's just now blowing up in our faces.
Not to give up on the fight at hand, but you guys in Florida should take a look at just who started this and where it came from.
Not to give up on the fight at hand, but you guys in Florida should take a look at just who started this and where it came from.
Au_Dreamers
Hero Member
"In particular is the repeated element “conducts archaeological field investigations”. "
Terry I think this is probably the main reason the bill was introduced.
Copied from another post of mine... http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,427934.msg3054041.html#msg3054041
"had not applied for or received an archaeological research permit prior to conducting archaeological field investigations on State-owned lands. "
"2. On February 1, 2005, the Division received the Petitioner's letter dated January 28, 2005, which, among other things, discusses field investigations conducted by the Petitioners within the area requested in the application for an exploration contract.
3. On February 2, 2005, the Division responded to the Petitioner's January 28, 2005 letter which included advising Petitioner that archaeological field investigations on state-owned and state controlled lands are prohibited by Florida Statute s. 267.13(1)(a) without a permit from the Division."
On February 21, 2005, the Division mailed a Notice of Denial of Application (Notice of Denial) via US Mail, certified, to Petitioners explaining the reasons for denial as follows:
"had undertaken actions in violation of Rule 1A-31.0035, Florida Administrative Code, in that they began exploration in state-controlled lands without the benefit of a permit or agreement with the Division of Historical Resources of the Department of State."
We all know that it has to chafe the DHR when someone does this. If there was no law for a financial penalty and/or jail time you can bet that they have been wanting to get one on the books.
Here's a definition of the permits available.
"The 1A-31 Exploration Permits are available to anyone (but namely commercial salvors) who want to undertake archaeological survey on state-owned sovereignty submerged lands with the understood purpose of adding to the general store of knowledge concerning history, archaeology, and anthropology. This permit can be modified to include limited excavation and recovery of artifacts are allowed under a strict set of guidelines for the sole purpose of identification of the type of site. Again, and all artifacts belong to the state of Florida unless a Recovery permit is issued, then they are included in the pool of artifacts of which a portion is kept by the state and the remaining portion is transferred to the permittee.
The 1A-31 Recovery Permit is only available to people/companies who have successfully satisfied the contractual obligations of a 1A-31 Exploration Permit and can provide documentation and justification for the excavation of a historic shipwreck site. Artifacts recovered are divided between the state and permittee as outlined in the rule. "
Lindsay S. Smith, M.A., RPA
Underwater Archaeologist III
Bureau of Archaeological Research
Division of Historical Resources
1001 DeSoto Park Drive
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Fax (850) 245-6452
[email protected]
www.flheritage.com
The emphasis in the exploration permits is mine; you can interpret it how you want...
So maybe this is how it was sold to the politicians but some very veiled wording was slipped in, otherwise why not just amend Florida Statute s. 267.13(1)(a) ?
Terry I think this is probably the main reason the bill was introduced.
Copied from another post of mine... http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,427934.msg3054041.html#msg3054041
"had not applied for or received an archaeological research permit prior to conducting archaeological field investigations on State-owned lands. "
"2. On February 1, 2005, the Division received the Petitioner's letter dated January 28, 2005, which, among other things, discusses field investigations conducted by the Petitioners within the area requested in the application for an exploration contract.
3. On February 2, 2005, the Division responded to the Petitioner's January 28, 2005 letter which included advising Petitioner that archaeological field investigations on state-owned and state controlled lands are prohibited by Florida Statute s. 267.13(1)(a) without a permit from the Division."
On February 21, 2005, the Division mailed a Notice of Denial of Application (Notice of Denial) via US Mail, certified, to Petitioners explaining the reasons for denial as follows:
"had undertaken actions in violation of Rule 1A-31.0035, Florida Administrative Code, in that they began exploration in state-controlled lands without the benefit of a permit or agreement with the Division of Historical Resources of the Department of State."
We all know that it has to chafe the DHR when someone does this. If there was no law for a financial penalty and/or jail time you can bet that they have been wanting to get one on the books.
Here's a definition of the permits available.
"The 1A-31 Exploration Permits are available to anyone (but namely commercial salvors) who want to undertake archaeological survey on state-owned sovereignty submerged lands with the understood purpose of adding to the general store of knowledge concerning history, archaeology, and anthropology. This permit can be modified to include limited excavation and recovery of artifacts are allowed under a strict set of guidelines for the sole purpose of identification of the type of site. Again, and all artifacts belong to the state of Florida unless a Recovery permit is issued, then they are included in the pool of artifacts of which a portion is kept by the state and the remaining portion is transferred to the permittee.
The 1A-31 Recovery Permit is only available to people/companies who have successfully satisfied the contractual obligations of a 1A-31 Exploration Permit and can provide documentation and justification for the excavation of a historic shipwreck site. Artifacts recovered are divided between the state and permittee as outlined in the rule. "
Lindsay S. Smith, M.A., RPA
Underwater Archaeologist III
Bureau of Archaeological Research
Division of Historical Resources
1001 DeSoto Park Drive
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Fax (850) 245-6452
[email protected]
www.flheritage.com
The emphasis in the exploration permits is mine; you can interpret it how you want...
So maybe this is how it was sold to the politicians but some very veiled wording was slipped in, otherwise why not just amend Florida Statute s. 267.13(1)(a) ?
Top Member Reactions
-
3345 -
1923 -
1921 -
1187 -
1093 -
865 -
821 -
818 -
815 -
786 -
779 -
531 -
505 -
478 -
426 -
419 -
E
418
-
417 -
396 -
384
