Put away your metal detectors sheeple

[aquanut]

"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."

This is an excuse, not a reason. A Catch22.

Is Lindsay Smith related to Roger Smith?

Aquanut

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

Twisted one, you say:

"but no government entity has full listing of the entire realm of legalities on their website. "

Yes, I agree. It is simply impossible for any list of laws to list everything that is illegal, to solve every possible problem of semantics. Therefore laws are written in vague enough way, so as to apply to a myriad of circumstances as they may arise in the field. For example, there may be a law about nudity, and someone can try to rationalize that by wearing a single sock, they were not technically "nude", and so forth.

But let's cut to the chase about your comment, as it applies specifically to our hobby: You are concerned that even though there may not be an actual specific rule forbidding metal detecting, yet you might run afoul of something related, that some busy body interprets, on the spot, to apply. Right? For example "defacement and alterations" or "no collecting" vebage, or "cultural heritage" verbage or "lost and found laws" verbage, and so forth, right?

Sure, it's entirely possible that someone could come up to you and morph a TON of things to apply to you. If this is your concern, then I'm afraid you've chosen the wrong hobby (or your simply going to have to restrict yourself to private land). Because to start down that road, is to have lost the battle already. Because I gaurantee you, that if you want to fear things that cops might morph to apply to you, then give it up right now. For example, the dreaded "alteration" type clauses: I challenge you to go into any city in the USA, and walk in to city hall, and ask "Hi. Can I please alter and deface the park?" and see what they say. Of COURSE they are going to say no. But as you can see by a quick look at Tnet's various finds forums, people are detecting parks all the time, because they choose not to define themselves in that light. And so too do passerbys care less as well, apparently, as evidenced by the fact that there is no shortage of park hunters, eh? But sure: if you want to worry about the potential that someone may not love you or your hobby, then you've chosen the wrong hobby. Because let's face it: we're in an odd hobby, that has connotations, and draws the stares of the curious folk out there sometimes.

If in the isolated incidents that some authority DID morph something to apply to you, and you DID point out to them that you looked up things first, and saw no prohibitions, then they are welcome to "inform you" of something they have *now* intrepretted to apply to you. No problem. You just pay them lip service, and avoid that one person or place in the future.

As much as I'd love for parks to have signs that say "metal detecting welcome here, go ahead, come dig up things for your personal profit and enjoyment", it just aint gonna happen. And I can always find some rule to forbid me, if I do enough antics and worrying. So ..... therefore .... I will only consider myself forbidden in the case of SPECIFIC wording saying so, or a warning telling me so. Otherwise, you and I might as well give up the hobby now.

 

[hobbit]

Twisted one, you say:

"but no government entity has full listing of the entire realm of legalities on their website. "

Yes, I agree. It is simply impossible for any list of laws to list everything that is illegal, to solve every possible problem of semantics. Therefore laws are written in vague enough way, so as to apply to a myriad of circumstances as they may arise in the field. For example, there may be a law about nudity, and someone can try to rationalize that by wearing a single sock, they were not technically "nude", and so forth.

But let's cut to the chase about your comment, as it applies specifically to our hobby: You are concerned that even though there may not be an actual specific rule forbidding metal detecting, yet you might run afoul of something related, that some busy body interprets, on the spot, to apply. Right? For example "defacement and alterations" or "no collecting" vebage, or "cultural heritage" verbage or "lost and found laws" verbage, and so forth, right?

Sure, it's entirely possible that someone could come up to you and morph a TON of things to apply to you. If this is your concern, then I'm afraid you've chosen the wrong hobby (or your simply going to have to restrict yourself to private land). Because to start down that road, is to have lost the battle already. Because I gaurantee you, that if you want to fear things that cops might morph to apply to you, then give it up right now. For example, the dreaded "alteration" type clauses: I challenge you to go into any city in the USA, and walk in to city hall, and ask "Hi. Can I please alter and deface the park?" and see what they say. Of COURSE they are going to say no. But as you can see by a quick look at Tnet's various finds forums, people are detecting parks all the time, because they choose not to define themselves in that light. And so too do passerbys care less as well, apparently, as evidenced by the fact that there is no shortage of park hunters, eh? But sure: if you want to worry about the potential that someone may not love you or your hobby, then you've chosen the wrong hobby. Because let's face it: we're in an odd hobby, that has connotations, and draws the stares of the curious folk out there sometimes.

If in the isolated incidents that some authority DID morph something to apply to you, and you DID point out to them that you looked up things first, and saw no prohibitions, then they are welcome to "inform you" of something they have *now* intrepretted to apply to you. No problem. You just pay them lip service, and avoid that one person or place in the future.

As much as I'd love for parks to have signs that say "metal detecting welcome here, go ahead, come dig up things for your personal profit and enjoyment", it just aint gonna happen. And I can always find some rule to forbid me, if I do enough antics and worrying. So ..... therefore .... I will only consider myself forbidden in the case of SPECIFIC wording saying so, or a warning telling me so. Otherwise, you and I might as well give up the hobby now.

There is NO LAW in Florida that currently restricts what you can recover between the high water mark and the low water mark on Florida beaches. It is truly, "finder's keeper's".
I don't think anyone believes the new law will be applied "religiously". If it passes, though, it will apply to SOMEONE in the future. Someone will have to forfeit a treasure because the State gets wind of it. I don't believe ANYONE should have to fear being honest about what they find on the beaches of Florida. I don't think we should have to hide. I don't think we should have to worry. I think we should be free.
If you go to Sebastian Inlet State Park after the next big storm, and a park ranger asks, "have any luck?"...will you tell him the truth? I would like to tell him the truth. And I would like the truth to be: "yes".

 

[Tom_in_CA]

hobbit, you say:

"There is no law in Florida that currently restricts .... you .... It is truly, "finder's keeper's".

I disagree with that. This may be true in actual practice, of what's simply happened all these decades. But no, I bet you that if I looked hard enough, there would have already been things that you've run afoul of. You have not asked, in the past, with the right combination of buzzwords. Or didn't ask high enough up the ladder. For example: FL has lost & found laws, right? Ie.: items over a certain dollar value need to be turned in to the police, etc.... A quick look at any beach forum shows that many of us (including Floridians) have found nice rings and such on the beach. I don't think they're running down to police stations to turn them in. That's just one example.

Here's a thread related to this:

http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,249049.0.html

 

[theseeker]

Been off of the site for almost a week and came back to this! Unbelievable! (NOT REALLY!) The continued erosion of personal rights and freedoms moves ever onward. Pisses me off the way they do it in the background and spring it on ya when its about too late to respond. Well I sent my letter off to all 40 state senators this morning. Don't know if it will even be read at this late time but I sent it just the same. It was a conglomeration of statements along the lines of what signumops, aquanut and smudge put out there. Thanks for the ideas guys and the discussion!

Pete (theseeker)

 

[bigscoop]

I think this new bill/law will be applied just as every other past and existing bill/law effecting our hobby has always been applied, "whenever the need arises to apply them in force." Given the many laws that have already been in place for a long time, by their very definitions, most of the routine activities we enjoy today are in fact, already illegal, but they are not enforced because they were never intended to attack, "the small stuff". So having said this, I think our typical everyday beach detecting will go on as it has always gone on "until a bigger situation arises to bring these laws to the forefront." Rings, a scattering of insignificant old coins here and there, loose change, no big deal, nobody cares. However, turn up a concentration of rare items from a small area, or something really rare that could give clue to the existence of lost history, an extremely valuable item of historical significants, etc.,.......then these laws will be available to them to grab control of that area and the discovered items. No doubt this bill only adds to the slow chocking effect surrounding our hobby, and I don't like it at all, but I don't think it's going to have the game ending impact on Florida beaches that everyone is fearing. I mean, let's face it, if they really wanted to end this general recreational activity there's already a host of laws on the books that they could already be enforcing that would have accomplished this same thing. Just my two cents, and I admit, I could be wrong, but I just don't think this bill is an outright attack on general recreational metal detecting.

 

[fibberjibber]

I agree with Tom_in_Ca completely about laws in general. However, this one does say "Any person who... removes or attempts to remove... any archaeological site or specimen". It is vague about other issues but it does seem to me to be specifically forbidding any removal of any archaeological specimen (i.e. artifact). That is where it concerns me a lot. Add to that it is not just the confiscation of the artifacts but now you can be fined and/or charged with a misdemeanor or felony. At least that is how I read it. Am I off base?
-Eric

 

[hobbit]

hobbit, you say:

"There is no law in Florida that currently restricts .... you .... It is truly, "finder's keeper's".

I disagree with that. This may be true in actual practice, of what's simply happened all these decades. But no, I bet you that if I looked hard enough, there would have already been things that you've run afoul of. You have not asked, in the past, with the right combination of buzzwords. Or didn't ask high enough up the ladder. For example: FL has lost & found laws, right? Ie.: items over a certain dollar value need to be turned in to the police, etc.... A quick look at any beach forum shows that many of us (including Floridians) have found nice rings and such on the beach. I don't think they're running down to police stations to turn them in. That's just one example.

Here's a thread related to this:

http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,249049.0.html

Tom, you are right of course...but it is strecthing the spirit of the lost and found laws to the point of ridiculousness to suggest that they apply to items lost nearly 300 years ago. The real point in all this, of course, is that the new legislation is not going to be meaningless in practice. They are ramming this through for a reason. If the state Archies find out someone has recovered something "important" they are going to attempt to take it from them. At this point I think we can all agree that SB 868 is really bad legislation. I have not been arguing this in an attempt to be "right". In fact, I wish I was wrong. Badly.
I do not belieive SB 868 is an attempt to "outlaw metal detecting" in the state of Florida. I don't think even the State Archie's believe they can take it that far. They just don't want you to be able to keep anything REALLY GOOD or have the right to a salvage permit.

 

[ivan salis]

in applying for "offical permits" to do research of a area. for future salvage - they want to know what makes you think you need a "permit" in the first place . -- if you go well --we went and looked at such and such area and found evidence of a shipwreck , based upon some old documents we found . -- they will then "deny" you attempt to get permits --based upon the f"fact" you in their eyes were doing "unpermitted "feild" research" -- you were out there "looking for stuff" befopre you got a "permit" to even try to look for stuff -- based on their way of thinking --first you "blindly" buy permits for an area , with no clue if it has anything at all of value in that area --then you mag the entire area noting every little "blip" -- then you "proof check" every little blip (never mind that you "found" a huge heavily loaded treasure ship -- you have to finish checking out each and every blip -- once yousurvet abd record everything in the "area" --then and only then (after you have spent tons of money and time doing all this free survey work for the state --they get copies of all your data) can you apply to get a "recovery permit" --which for some reason or another will be "denied" (so no money for you)--oh by the way "chump" thanks for all that free "research and survey" you did for the state archie dept on your dime -- hahahaha

its not enought for them to be able to deny you permits anymore * a track record * or pattern of permit denial abuse has showed up over time * some folks are ready to sue of this clear violation of their right to do legal bussiness by a "planned" attack of permit denials by state archies .

in return the state archies want to not only just "deny' permits to folks for just looking about for a ship to salvage * they want to fine and maybe even jail them for even attempting to find a ship to get a permit for in the first place . ala the "you were doing "field research" clause --

uh lets see you think there was a treasure wreck just off a certain state park beach based upon an some old "historical" type documents you read , so you go to that beach to "see" if you can find any trace of things that might show if it actually wrecked there , while there you find on the beach with your metal detector a spanish 8 real coin from the vessels cargo --great you found your "proof" it is there , now to get the permits and get to it --WRONG !! UNDER THE WAY THESE LAWS ARE WRITTEN YOU JUST BROKE AT LEAST 2 OF THE LAWS -- YOU CONDUCTED A "ILLEGAL NON PERMITTED" BIT OF FIELD RESEARCH --AND YOU MADE A "ILLEGAL" RECOVERY OF AN "ARTIIFACT" ALL CHANCES OF EVER GETTING A PERMIT ARE NOW ZERO * YOU CAN BE FINDED AND MAYBE EVEN ARRESTED --SOUNDS LIKE "FUN" HUH?

 

[ivan salis]

oh lets not "forget" one of the "best parts" -- the part about "past finds" --the act has in it a "retro' type clause that effects stuff found "before" it was enacted --basically it prohibits you from trading or selling any arifact items "gathered" in the past before it was enacted -- thus making it illegal to trade or deal in what at the time was "legally gathered" items . --this in effect will kill your right to trade or buy "legally" gathered private artifacts from one another. -- only if a measum were to sell off excess artifacts could you then "legally" obtain one --thus the archie would "legally' corner the "artifact" market --since no one could "legally" buy , sell or trade "artifacts' but them and those they sell to .

 

[signumops]

This thread is disintegrating for several reasons:

Forum members who don’t regularly keep up with Florida’s Treasure Hunting history are adding comments of dis-belief, trying to assuage their own doubts concerning the issues at hand. They think we are trying to build a straw man so we can knock him down. Wrong.

Separate threads dealing with the same subject have been initiated. There is one forum here and no need to fractionalize the issue.

Contributors are commenting without reading the previous posts in the thread.

Permit me to summarize so far:

1. The law was introduced by a senator to the senate. This law was the senate version and was introduced by Senator Hays.
2. The original house bill was introduced first, by Representative Metz to the house and it was passed unanimously.
3. I have asked Representative Metz why he introduced the bill and will give you his reply.
4. The original house bill contained the words “any land”. The senate bill, which followed, struck that terminology from the bill.
5. The bill is under review by the Transportation committee in the senate.
6. Both Hays and Metz represent Lake County.
7. The bill contains previously un-used terminology, to wit: “archaeological field investigations”.

Florida is the only state in the nation where absolutely millions of dollars of treasure has been recovered by wage earning ‘John Q. Citizens’ like you and me. This has greatly aggravated the aspirations of the archaeological community, and the laws on Florida’s books have had to steer clear of exceptional issues that have been contested in State and Federal courts wherein the State lost its claims. Revenge comes to mind.

I publish books on the subject and keep up with the issues as a matter of business interest. I have worked as a diver for the treasure finding concerns of Real 8, Doubloon Salvage, New Channel Historical Survey Group, South Seas LLC, Southern Cross, and others. I watched the developments since way back in 1968 when I worked for Real 8. I have worked on the Fisher 1715 leases, and two seasons under the Queens Jewels LLC lease arrangements. Yes, this is an industry in Florida and has been such since the middle of the last century.

However, probably most important is the fact that I was in Florida law enforcement for about 20 years, employed both at the Treasure Coast, and in the Keys. Subsequently, I have statistically far more experience interpreting the law than most of the forum contributors here, as I have seen it being enforced, literally, at the prosecuting attorney level, at the street level, and at the State enforcement level. Laws are written for a reason. Where the law is vague, it WILL be abused by a certain percentage of law enforcement, including any and all administrators of every stripe in every bureau given permission to enforce it. In this case, that would include some percentage of sworn officers in every county, in every city, and the state’s own agencies, including the FWC, the FDLE and the BAR. I worked in county or city government’s enforcement wings long enough to know that government always attempts to support itself for its own sake. If you think otherwise, you must be living under a rock.

I have attached some pictures of cobs found on the beach, close to my neighborhood, by several coin shooters along with a credible photo of myself at my last post before retirement. Yes, there is treasure to be found here, and yes, officious bureaucrats apparently do not want you to have it.

 

[FISHEYE]

Pat Clyne posted this link on Facebook.

Hi everyone, the Task Force for Metal Detecting Rights Foundation spoke with Pierce Schuessler (Legislative Affairs Director from the Florida Department of State), and apparently an older version of the bill was distributed within the metal detecting community where the words "all lands" were used. This error has been corrected. Florida SB868 and HB591 are not against people who metal detect. We have a full write-up on our website here


http://detectingrights.com/florida-sb868-hb591.php

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Fisheye!! Oh no, Say it isn't so!! You will be shouted down and told you are "minimizing" this, don't know what you are talking about, and just don't realize how militant FL is!

Seriously now, thanx for posting. It was already alluded to the "all land" being taken out, and now it's good to know that this text change does allow casual hobbyist detectors.

The forum owes you a 12-pack for this breath of fresh air now.

 

[hobbit]

Pat Clyne posted this link on Facebook.

Hi everyone, the Task Force for Metal Detecting Rights Foundation spoke with Pierce Schuessler (Legislative Affairs Director from the Florida Department of State), and apparently an older version of the bill was distributed within the metal detecting community where the words "all lands" were used. This error has been corrected. Florida SB868 and HB591 are not against people who metal detect. We have a full write-up on our website here


http://detectingrights.com/florida-sb868-hb591.php

fisheye, This "Task Force for Metal Detecting Rights" is downplaying this based on a CONVERSATION WITH A STATE P.R. MAN!!! Go to the actual Senate link and read the UNDERLINED text which is the "new" part of the statute. What do "state sovereignty submerged lands" have to do with bulldozers and sifting for Native American artifacts?...NOTHING...get rid of that link because it is B.S.... The P.R.man probably has not even read the bill. The real intent of the legislation is what is WRITTEN in the legislation.

 

[signumops]

I'm going to drop the issue here and go over there.

 

[PyrateJim]

Pat Clyne posted this link on Facebook.

Hi everyone, the Task Force for Metal Detecting Rights Foundation spoke with Pierce Schuessler (Legislative Affairs Director from the Florida Department of State), and apparently an older version of the bill was distributed within the metal detecting community where the words "all lands" were used. This error has been corrected. Florida SB868 and HB591 are not against people who metal detect. We have a full write-up on our website here


http://detectingrights.com/florida-sb868-hb591.php

Pat also posted THIS on this very link ( http://www.facebook.com/#!/dalanhays?sk=wall&filter=1 ) :

Pat Clyne
In ALL due respect, if the metal detecting foundation finds this bill acceptable they are naive beyond comprehension. David is correct, there is much more to this then meets the untrained eye. This bill is a Trojan Horse which contains all the necessary legal nuances to not only (eventually) stop metal detecting in Florida, but to also prohibit under penalty of law any historical artifact (like that Spanish coin you occasional find on the beach) from being sold, bartered or transfered. This is one of the more hideous Bill's to come down the pike in years. Be prepared people, your government IS eyeballing that very coin you wear around your neck.

45 minutes ago
For more information from the Senators facebook page, see Senator Alan Hays' facebook page and read what is still there (his staff has deleted thousands of posts since this broke yesterday.)

 

[Tom_in_CA]

well if this "task force" received this information from this "Pierce Schuessler" fellow, who is an authorized spokesman, then ........ Does this "task force" have what he's saying, in writing? That link is merely them saying that Piece said those things (that it doesn't apply to casual md'ing).

If you ask me, if the task force DOES have that in writing, then I would print that out. And if any busy-bodies stop you, tell them that "Pierce Schuessler" said we could, and merely show them the printout.

Problem solved. ONLY when and if Pierce publically retracts that, would you be in some sort of trouble, in my opinion. Like, if you waived that "permission" in front of a judge, he would be obliged to agree, since Pierce is a duly appointed public official, and we were "merely acting in good faith on his word".

 

[Tom_in_CA]

singumops, when you say you are going to "go over there", where are you referring to?

 

[hobbit]

well if this "task force" received this information from this "Pierce Schuessler" fellow, who is an authorized spokesman, then ........ Does this "task force" have what he's saying, in writing? That link is merely them saying that Piece said those things (that it doesn't apply to casual md'ing).

If you ask me, if the task force DOES have that in writing, then I would print that out. And if any busy-bodies stop you, tell them that "Pierce Schuessler" said we could, and merely show them the printout.

Problem solved. ONLY when and if Pierce publically retracts that, would you be in some sort of trouble, in my opinion. Like, if you waived that "permission" in front of a judge, he would be obliged to agree, since Pierce is a duly appointed public official, and we were "merely acting in good faith on his word".

Are you serious? Do you actually believe that the statement of an appointed spokesman about the "intent" of legislation has any legal validity?

 

[mariner]

I'm going to drop the issue here and go over there.

That would be the right thing to do. Good luck and best wishes to you.

Mariner