This is my contribution. I sent it off to the folks at the Florida Department of State. I'm gonna send it to others that may matter too. Hope it helps.
"I am in complete disagreement with this proposed legislation concerning rights of salvage and policies governing licensing. This is not a common sense approach to prevention of destruction of our national and international maritime history. If this is enacted much if not a vast majority of all items of historical significance will be lost to time through natural destruction, deteriation and/or looting. This will be due to the inability of any "governmental" entity, ie, academic institutions, to , in a timely fashion, thoroughly search, document, recover and preserve such artifacts and other historically significant items that cover a tremendous amount of ocean floor off the coast of Florida relative to any other location in the United States. Furthermore, what is not in the process of being salvaged by the government will be subject to inevitable looting by individuals with absolutely no intentions of notifying authorities or others that may have conservator interests for the benefit of the public.
When something of such monetary value due to precious metal or mineral value or historical significance is laying on the ocean floor within reach of anyone with a means, it will be scavenged and disappear. The harshest of rules and penalties will not stop this. This "loot" will be gone, likely forever with absolutely no chance of ever being presented to a museum or other public interest.
An example in the converse, Mel Fisher Enterprises has proven how a private entity has the ability to salvage, profit, and most importantly, contribute tremendously to the importance of preservation and presentation of our most valued history. Without Mel, his team and so many others like them, these things of such historical significance and importance may never be found or shared. It is well known that a treasure hunter doesn't just wake up one day and go discover a treasure. Painstaking research must be done before a search can even begin. Consider most treasure hunters as an extension of the archaeologist’s magnifying glass. That is how they should be treated instead of as looters and thieves as this law would imply if enacted. The only difference I see between an archaeologist and a treasure hunter is an archaeologist has interest in what he studies. The treasure hunter has passion for what he searches.
In England such actions were taken to prevent the disappearance of antiquities or treasure by would-be looters called the Treasure Act, 1996. It is a piece of legislation designed to deal with finds of treasure primarily those made by metal detectorists in England and Wales. It legally obliges finders of objects which constitute a legally defined term of treasure to report their find to their local designated official within fourteen days. An inquiry led by the official then determines whether the find constitutes treasure or not. If is declared to be treasure then the owner must offer the item for sale to a museum at a price set by an independent board of antiquities experts. Only if no museum expresses an interest in the item or is unable to purchase it can the owner retain it.
England has come to understand that it can’t control everyone all the time with rules and laws that punish. That is a very ineffectual way to govern.
I stand firm in my belief that more government regulation is not beneficial in the area of preservation of the worlds’ history. A compromise must be considered in eliciting individual salvors to come forward with finds so that all may benefit instead of outlawing it and creating unnecessary and damaging laws that prevent discovery and may ultimately lead to the loss of our history forever."
GJ