Rule1A-31 comments "Good, Bad & Ugly"

[Jimi D Pirate]

Rule1A-31 comments "Good, Bad & Ugly"

http://www.flheritage.com/archaeology/rule/Comments1A-31_6262008.pdf

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[signumops]

Re: Rule1A-31 comments "Good, Bad & Ugly"

YES!! Great Thanks to Jimi for this document link. It may turn out to be one of the most important ones ever posted here! Look it over very carefully.

Say, did anybody ask Sonny Cockrell why he and Morrell no longer work for the State of Florida?

 

[Shiverme]

Re: Rule1A-31 comments "Good, Bad & Ugly"

Not looking good for the home team. Looks like the Archies have spread their poison through the grapevine. What's with all the hate from Australia? Tis a shame. It will just drive salvaging underground. Out of curiosity, were Florida State Archeologists responsible for finding the Atocha, 1715 or 1733 sites? I think not.

 

[fllawboy]

Re: Rule1A-31 comments "Good, Bad & Ugly"

Thanks for the link, now I have a little light reading over the next few days!

 

[mad4wrecks]

Re: Rule1A-31 comments "Good, Bad & Ugly"

Funnily enough, Jennifer Mckinnon, a former archaeologist with the state, was/is working with Flinders University in Australia the last few years. So those emails from Australia were not a coincidence.

Oh, and she recently requested that I take down a photo from my webpage of us smiling together, after a subcontractors meeting in Sebastian.

Tom

 

[sherpa t]

Re: Rule1A-31 comments "Good, Bad & Ugly"

Interesting... I see the " I'm pacific coast treasure hunter " took the time to slam Florida and T'net. Then signed off as Gary Edwards. Would I be correct in guessing that persons previous T net ID , I'm going to check the name against an article I have at home which I know was written by the Ex member, and if they match, I believe I shall write a letter to Whites Metal Detectors.
To stab any fellow hunters land or sea, in a us verses the government battle is about as low as you can get.

It also bothers me that again the actual residents of Florida attending the meeting are disrespected, as the day is spent with E-mails from other states and countrys that are not tax payers in the state of Florida. But it seems they have full representation in our affairs.

 

[Trez]

Re: Rule1A-31 comments "Good, Bad & Ugly"

"The 2 greatest threats to this Country are Liberalism and Terrorism" and in that order.

Wow, after reading the comments sent in to the State I noticed something, based on some past experiences in a unrelated field but I do strongly believe it does have merit. Have you all read all the comments sent in? did you notice how many were from women (the largest % were) and the vast majority of those were not positive to your cause. (In fact, very few positive comments were said... from either sex)
In my past work experience in management I had to deal with public and private issues on a daily basis, I had to sit on various committees and listen to concerns on daily conditions, or upcoming events and found out through time and experience that the women voiced the majority of comments and concerns but most importantly "held the ears of the decision makers". I'm just writing this as just one issue that I read about the comments in RuleA-31.
You must get more women involved in this cause and their comments positive towards it, if not at least to balance out the all the negative comments that are and were sent, those negative comments that were sent will hold more weight than one may think. (Women do have a influence on the men who make decisions on some matters and I will leave it at that as to how they influence, lol)

This is just one small area that I see in this enormous lopsided issue, its really looking bad for the salvage community as a whole I see.
I will end with this...

What started out back in the days of the Reale Eight and of Tommy Gore era are no longer, those days made for great discoveries and of countless stories of how "this" all began and will stand the test of time and most importantly remembered in such a more favorable light than what is transpiring now with our State.
The work of Tommy Gore and his relationship with the salvage community will be viewed by future generations to come as the pioneering days of Salvage off the Florida coasts and when the salvage community and the State could work together and benefit from each others work.

This has turned into such a complicated issue and a negative one now...I ask why? What really has changed since the Tommy Gore days? Find what has changed since then and then you will see the problem.

It's simple to see...we have allowed a clear vision about the salvage community to be clouded by "liberal views" and have failed to put these liberal views in the proper order...a order that should never come before your or my "Rights"

Trez

 

[ivan salis]

Re: Rule1A-31 comments "Good, Bad & Ugly"

its a "numbers" game--- plain and simple--- the female archies "network" thus you get a batch of "freinds" attempting to "push" their veiws --thus the large numbers of anti treasure hunter rants from females (mostly from professional archie types) from all over and also some from a batch of their male "archie" freinds also -- we on the other hand went "in person" to the meeting --now the gist of the meeting is that their "e mail" statements carried as much weight as our in person comments did -- so by flooding in a batch of e mails from "supporters" -(-pre arranged and notified to send in the e mails via their networking with one another)--- and by using a short notice of the meeting (3 weeks during the middle of the treasure hunting season )--the state archies hoped to pull a fast one --see 50 against but 93 e mails for the new rules or banning treasure outright---so the "people" support these "new rules" we are suggesting putting into place.----a good old fashioned "rubber stamp" job with some simple good old fashioned ballot box stuffing to make it appear that the "public" approves of their "new rules" which are deeply flawed and unworkible if not out right illegal. --- tis a sad day indeed if we let such tricks help them to pass such a bit of garbage that their suggesting against the will of the "people" ----

I think its whacked that people not from our country (aussie archie) have a say so in matters that are occuing in my country equal to mine. --- this matter is about the state of floridas (american) salvage laws and the process for permits and weither the rules suggested are fair and proper and legal --if they had been there in person, I would have requested they be deemed "out of order" because their comments where not about "the subject at hand" ie the suggusted "rules " and thus moot and of no importance. --the question at hand was not are you for or against treasure hunting in general but rather what is the permitting process and the rules of it , and are they fair and correct and legal?

the entire purpose of the meeting was to talk about the suggested "new rules" and any flaws or weakness's in them -- the "public comment" phaze is just one part part of the rule making process that the state of florida HAS to have before making rules -- a very small group of folks hoped to "hijack" the public comment meeting and ram their own views via a E mails as the "will of the people"at the cost of the salvors and public rights --- Ivan

 

[signumops]

Re: Rule1A-31 comments "Good, Bad & Ugly"

Trez pointed out that things are different now as opposed to the time when Chapter 267 was first designed. I've been hunting for stuff underwater and on land since the 60's, with whatever equipment I could get my hands on. Usually, this meant underwater detectors, and terrestrial detectors. When I worked for Real 8 we didn't even use detectors, just our eyeballs. Imagine!

I used to go to Blue Springs before it was a State Park and coin shoot in the run. Loaded! Then Florida took over the property and cleaned it up considerably, which was good. But they also started sticking their big ugly bureaucratic nose in my business by attemtpting to regulate my diving practices and finally throwing me out of the park for, shall I actually let the words pass my lips... "metal detecting underwater"!! My god, what a horrific thing to do on public property! Think of all those huge craters
I left behind in that fast moving water, unlike the ten thousand feet that pass the same spot day in and day out, trudging along from the gangway to the headspring.

The same thing happened at Playalinda Beach, but this time under Federal "stewardship". Then the same thing happened in the Keys with the advent of the FKNMS.

Then I noticed that the same thing was happening in and along the Suwannee River where I have spent many happy hours coin shooting along the bottom and in the many springs there without once finding a single metal arrowhead... The State infers
that all metal detectors are used by treasure hunters, ergo, if you are in navigable waters, you are on State property and can not use a metal detector... they have NOT quite said that yet, but, it will be on the law books shortly through the use of bureaucratic lawyering like that we have been discussing here. Consider that there are actual rulings about the use of side scan gear and magentometers while motoring over any wreck (whether the "officials" in Tallahassee know its there or not). So it won't be long before you will not be able to possess a metal detector on public property within Florida. And that would
include ALL the beaches, regardless of whether they are in a park or not.

For those of you who may still think that this salvage vs. archaeological dig treatment is not an issue of pure dollars and cents, I bid you visit:

http://www.archaeologyfieldwork.com/CRMfirms.htm

My, how proper! Did I mention there is a profit margin here?

Obviously we are now at a point where government can no longer support itself, and is, in fact, getting in its own way. There is a balance wherein there is government (the Fl. B.A.R., marine patrol, Wheeler and any and all archaeological contractors who feed off of the fruits of Chapter 267), the customers (that would be us, the people toting the load to feed the government)
and management (supposedly our representatives, elected to oversee the "government"). In that type of relationship, for the "government" to survive, it must satisfy its "customers", otherwise, "management" has a problem. I don't think management
has a clue.

Here I quote from "The Sovereign Individual" by Davidson and Rees-Moog:

"Yet when you think about it, when customers really are in the driver's seat
it would be considered outrageous that they should not get what they want
If you went into a store to buy furniture, and the salespeople took your
money but then proceeded to ignore your requests and consult others about
how to spend your money, you would quite rightly be upset. You would definitely not
think it normal or justifiable if the employees of the store argued that you
really did not deserve the furniture, and that it should be shipped instead to
someone whom they found more worthy. The fact that something very
like this happens in dealings with government shows how little control it's
"customers" actually have."

It would seem that managment has lost control of government, leaving us customers to our own designs. Others in our camp have realized this long ago and now take a different approach to over-reaching archaeo-politics. I cite the fellow who
originally located the Rooswijk (spelling?) and helped himself as long as he could, and Odyssey Marine, who did the smart thing and made a recovery before-the-fact. When we do it, its called "looting". When the government does it, its called "doing what I like with the protection of Big Brother", or maybe perhaps "monopolization while ignoring the laws of free trade"

So now, is "talking" about this issue to be considered "collusion for criminal enterprise", or, must we now use secret signs and resolve ourselves to the catacombs?

 

[FISHEYE]

Re: Rule1A-31 comments "Good, Bad & Ugly"

monopolization

The term "monopolization" refers to an offense under Section 2 of the American Sherman Antitrust Act, passed in 1890. Section 2 states that any person "who shall monopolize . . . any part of the trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations shall be deemed guilty of a felony." Section 2 also forbids "attempts to monopolize" and "conspiracies to monopolize."

Under long-established precedent, the offense of monopolization under Section 2 has two elements. First, that the defendant possesses monopoly power in a properly-defined market and second that the defendant obtained or maintained that power through conduct deemed unlawfully exclusionary. The mere fact that conduct disadvantages rivals does not, without more, constitute the sort of exclusionary conduct that satisfies this second element. Instead, such conduct must exclude rivals on some basis other than efficiency.

For several decades courts drew the line between efficient and inefficient exclusion by asking whether the conduct under scrutiny was "competition on the merits." Courts equated such competition on the merits with unilateral conduct such as product improvement, the realization of economies of scale, innovation, and the like. Such conduct was lawful per se, since it constituted the normal operation of economic forces that a free economy should encourage. At the same time, courts condemned as "unlawful exclusion" tying contracts, exclusive dealing, and other agreements that disadvantaged rivals. See, e.g., United States v. United Shoe Machinery Co., 110 F. 295 (D. Mass. 1953). This distinction reflected the economic theory of the time, which saw no beneficial purposes for what Professor Oliver Williamson has called non-standard contracts.

More recently, courts have retained the safe harbor for "competition on the merits." Moreover, the Supreme Court has clarified the standards governing claims of predatory pricing. At the same time, they have relaxed the standards governing other conduct by monopolists. For instance, non-standard contracts that exclude rivals are now lawful if supported by a "valid business reason," unless the plaintiff can establish that the defendant could achieve the same benefits by means of a less
restrictive alternative.