I am going to be direct after I provide a little bit of context. Please don't think that I am being rude or disrespectful, I just want to be clear. I also want to be clear that I don't speak for DHR anymore, and don't represent them. I'm speaking for myself and from what I've learned from my experience (which has concluded), nothing more.
I'm not and never have been adversarial with salvage folks or treasure hunters. There's no one that I worked with at BAR at the time that I moved on who was interested in fomenting disagreement or conflict with 1A-31 permit holders and it was honestly kind of perplexing to me that it seemed that way to people on the internet. Keep in mind that I've been personally accused of lying, stealing, cheating, etc. on this very board, none of which is true. I've also been accused of conspiring with French archaeologists, with a picture of me, my wife, and some very non-French colleagues shown as evidence! That sort of blew my mind.
I can say that I never went out of my way to reach out to folks that weren't directly working with my office on permits, because it didn't seem like a welcoming environment to me in the sense that people I had never met or spoken with assumed, without reliable evidence, that I was some kind of monster. Despite that, I don't have issues with treasure hunters that I've met and in fact I like and get/got along fine with several folks in Florida who have worked, and still do work, in that realm. Beyond that, I oversaw over a dozen program areas in three bureaus of state government. DHR is big and 1A-31 permits are a small part of it. BAR alone has numerous program areas that have nothing to do with salvage.
Also, I can't speak to the past. I took the job in 2015 and had it for about 7 years. Treasure hunting wasn't something that I ever focused on before that, and I don't have strong personal feelings about it now one way or the other.
Based on what I've read here, it seems that folks involved in salvage/treasure hunting frequently cite past anecdotes with regard to the relationship with "the state." There are many people who have come and gone over the years, and after perusing some of the posts on this board almost all of the comments about "the state" and "state archies" are summaries of events or statements years or decades old, written from the perspective of relative anonymity, about people who mostly go unnamed. The folks I worked with at the state had jobs to do, and 1A-31 permits were a part of that job.
So there is some background/context.
What I can say to directly respond to your question is: sure. Equitability in the context of a permit program means fair regulation on the part of a permit issuer and good-faith compliance with the permit requirements on the part of the permittee. It's a situation that doesn't involve "sides," it's the administration of a permit program. A permit program that exists in a complex state and federal legal environment that requires strict adherence to permit requirements, to be sure, but it's a permit program. While I was there, I didn't approach the matter philosophically. I saw it as a matter of administration, like BAR's other permitting responsibilities and the host of other compliance related activities DHR undertook pursuant to state and federal laws.
That being said...
...objectively, the statutory universe outside of state law has changed a lot over the last number of years. That makes it more difficult than it used to be for ANYONE to excavate scientifically or recover material from certain ships. A relationship with or permit from the state (any state) isn't enough, anymore. I think that the path ahead has as much to do with the salvage industry thinking about its business model as it does any kind of issues with the state, real or perceived.
Tim you wrote, Keep in mind that I've been personally accused of lying, stealing, cheating, etc. on this very board, none of which is true. I've also been accused of conspiring with French archaeologists, with a picture of me, my wife, and some very non-French colleagues shown as evidence! That sort of blew my mind.
I just want to point out this, not trying to be negative, You said that you were not in France to meet with the French on the Trinity, but yet GME has an email that says different, I can show this letter if you like, in fact it was presented in court,
You also made a statement in court that said cannon balls did not have markings on them. " Yes u did say that" And that ballast stones were just rocks and had no diagnostic value, and that a tool was not diagnostic.
I have found ballast stones that had gold and Silver in them that came from the mines of Santo Domingo, Ballast slag bricks from Europe that were to pave the streets of San Juan PR.
The Ballast stones that GME discovery on the Trinity were Flint rock, at that time Normandy was the only place they would have come from is that a smoking gun of what the ship is, NO, but they are diagnostic.
You said or Duggans did, that you cannot bring up anything unless you can see a date or name on it, Yes that was said in court.
Almost all artifacts are covered in mud, calcium carbonate or incrustation, and until and I will say again, until you conserve them and study them you do not know what they can tell you. This is true with cannon, anchor, coins, anything under water.
So I say this to you, and I hope in a nice way, You nor Ryan Duggans understands what a diagnostic artifacts is, nor do you have any experience in underwater archaeology, And Ryan Duggans has very little in water time
Honestly Tim you said that GME did not have permission to Use prop wash deflectors, and was in Ryan Duggans report "this was not true" GME did have permisssion in the permit.
You said GME did not have permission to remove a few ballast stones, cannon balls and a tool, and that they were not diagnostic. but yet we did have permission as it was in the permit, and I have emails from you, Kerry Post and Mary Glowacki to prove that.
So on the diagnostic issue either you and Duggans did not tell the truth or you are both incompetent as archeaologest .
Again not trying to be disrespectful, just pointing out the facts.
