To All Treasure Hunters - Our Legal Rights are at Risk! WE NEED YOUR HELP!

[Truetone30]

To LuckyLarry and all others that are or have talked about the Gov.

It should not matter who you vote for to get rights. Bottom line is we are a free people! Its just like a club guys/gals. Sometimes the top dog gets bored and thinks of ways to better the club "in this case the US" so he holds a meeting tells the "club" his ideas < hints he trys to pass something> It dose not matter. If the people want it in they will vote it in if they do not want it in then they will vote it out. God bless~ and happy hunting

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[matt092079]

Gene in AL: I'll be the "devil's advocate" and give you the archaeologist's answer to your question. While it may seem silly to prohibit the recovery of an item that's buried in the ground, and no one knows is there, they have their logic. Even though it's doing no one any good there, and won't be missed, since it basically (in your mind) "didn't exist" since it was un-known, and (in your mind) never to be seen unless dug, yet here is their logic: Someday, even if it's hundreds, or thousands of years from now, some FUTURE archaeologist *might* do an archaeological pit right there. And if Gene in AL, back in the year 2010 dug up that mercury dime, then you have "robbed" it from future generation's abilities to have it to interpret their past.

Yup. I kid you not. This is what they would say. And if you do the math at the size of the average archaeological pit (a few feet square around) and the time it takes them to do a few pits (all summer long for a few test pits in a single spot), you can see that it would take MILLIONS of years for them to do even a single square mile, much less even a single national park. You simply can't dig up every square inch of land. Even the most aggressive well-funded university archaeology dept's scarcely do a few pits, here and there, at just a few sacred spots. Why would they even begin to do boring campgrounds, or just remote back-country, etc....? They won't. But in their way of thinking, 10000 years from now, someone in the future might want to, somewhere on public land.

And while this still seems silly, to them (a lawmaker on ANY subject) it's like the old camel with his nose in the tent story: If they agree "well gee, shucks, it certainly can't hurt if you do it over there, but just don't tromp around this one little historical part of our park", you can guess what will happen: They will spend all their time negotiating over exactly where, and where you can't, detect. So guess what the easier solution is? To just say "no detecting at all".

But this is all so silly. Although you can find dry dusty rules to tell you such things, my experience is that most of the time, as long as you're not nosing around archaeologically sensitive historical monuments, no one cares. For example: If you were to read the state of CA's state park's rules, or ask enough Q's of enough archie's here, I'm sure you could find some "no's". But oddly, I know of state parks here that are routinely detected, and no one cares. But I bet if you asked around enough, you'd be told "no" (some ranger who previously never gave the matter thought, would be forced to look up your "pressing question" I suppose). I've also hunted at old abandoned military bases (federal property) right in front of MP's and BLM people, and they never seemed to care. And this reality makes me wonder if this isn't the same in other states. Ie.: sometimes no one cares till you ask (barring if you were being a nuisance, or snooping around obvious historical monuments.)

You are exactly right. No one cares until you ask...especially with parks. I've called and asked to detect a city park and was told no. But one day, I said "who will care if I detect this little playground" the answer was no one cared. Not the civilians passing me by or the grounds people working there. No one cared. As long as you're not on sacred land then it's not gonna matter or be offensive to anyone.

 

[G.A.P.metal]

Vote those FOOLS out of office and lets keep our hobby safe!!!
Thanks Gary G.A.P.metal

 

[Buff4]

PLEASE read this post in the General discussion forum !!
"Please send me all your pulltabs and nails that are 50 years or older - New Idea"

 

[Connecticut Sam]

In Connecticut we are not allow to search state parks except beaches, and the law is we are suppose to turn in rings and watches. I do not know anybody who does.

 

[Tnmountains]

TVA or Tennessee Valley Authority flooded all our farms and towns damed up the rivers to make electricity. They used to hire out security now they have Federal police that patrol the water ways and arrest you for picking up an arrowhead or metal detecting. You would think they would have better things to do but then they have an endless supply of money to enforce and justify the stupidest laws.

 

[Connecticut Sam]

To #3. Trust me, if you live in Connecticut, they sent somebody right over.

 

[HoneyBadger]

TVA or Tennessee Valley Authority flooded all our farms and towns damed up the rivers to make electricity. They used to hire out security now they have Federal police that patrol the water ways and arrest you for picking up an arrowhead or metal detecting. You would think they would have better things to do but then they have an endless supply of money to enforce and justify the stupidest laws.

I am finding this out right now. I have been looking to buy a Garrett Pro as a starter detector, spent the morning doing research on state laws, and it is quite disheartening. The local towns do not seem to have any restrictions, but there are lots of TVA areas that are now off limits. Not sure at this point if it will be worth my while. I could detect farms and we have alot here in southern middle TN, but its a shame they recently placed the TVA lands off limits unless your get an archaeological permit. Almost makes a fellow want to join a archaeological amateur club to get to do the parks, if possible.

 

[tlowery04]

given how old this is and how seemingly off-topic the conversation has gotten, i'm surprised the thread hasn't been locked or removed from the sticky board...

 

[cherokeescot]

NOT GOING TO GAIN ME MUCH FAVOR
As an elder hunter, I have never desecrated a site. Pictures usually do it for me. I do agree with the Maritime Laws but disagree totally with Florida's insane legislation. Ten years to get a permit? It is just a game they play. Universities can get a permit within days.
As in 'the letter of the law' technically 90% of all the spoils of the sea around Florida coasts belong to the Peruvians. So, why doesnt the State of Florida insist the treasures be returned to their rightful owners. Because they are scum, money grubbers that's why.
I also would like to bring up the digging of any antiquities relating to a human burial including the deceased. Especially when we look at all the Egyptian digs and 'archeological research'. I heard it said best by a Native American who was asked by a farmer if he would like to come out to his farm and dig on a Native burial ground. The Native American said sure, and then we can go and dig up your grandmother!
I probably shouldnt mention this on a public website, but there are so many flaws in the existing and proposed Florida laws that it looks like a sieve. Only one I will publicly mention.
I was given a treasure map by a 82 year old Native American who grew up on the Rez in southern Florida. It is located in the water where no one has ever thought to search. He spent his life as a pilot. His map is triangulated with lat and lon. So, the flaw in the law that Im referring to in this instance is there is no regulation to prohibit searching in the water using a satellite. Funny, eh? Im not going to mention which satellite but there is one which is so clear you can see the Galleon sitting on the bottom.
Ok, my two cents worth. Happy hunting all!

 

[pitbully]

robert my support from holland stupid rules

 

[hudsonc]

@rgecy
where do i click to send the comment i went to the site it didnt show anyplace to send the comment

 

[Dave P]

Help is coming your way on this rgecy

I made a few calls and sent a few emails out to the right people and now a Senator on the case. I sent them the info and links you provided at their request and we will see where it goes. Good luck man. Happy hunting. Dave P

Dear Fellow Treasure Hunters,

Even if you do not have any interest in Shipwreck Salvage or the Shipwreck forum, WE NEED YOUR HELP!

I know this is The General Discussion forum, but Our legal rights for Shipwreck Salvage within State waters are at risk!

We need your help to show our opposition to the proposed changes to the State of Florida's Rule 1A-31. We are asking everyone, even if you do not live in Florida, to please take a few minutes of your time and send a comment to the State of Florida showing you are against the proposed changes in rule 1A-31 and that you support responsible commercial salvage of historic shipwrecks within Florida's State waters.

We only have until October 17th so please act soon and get everyone you know to send a comment!

Please go the to the following link : https://www.flrules.org/Gateway/View_notice.asp?id=6172515

Scroll down and check Send One Time Comment to the Agency and then click the Make Comment button. Post your own commnets or copy and paste comments from below.

There are over 20,000 members here at TNet. If we all come together we can stop this legislation. I am not asking for money, just 1 minute of your time. Please copy the comments below (or create your own) and follow the link above. It takes only a few clicks to show your support.

Thank You!

Robert Gecy


1. We are against any rules or regulations that would hinder Florida's responsible historical shipwreck salvors from their continued recovery of treasures and artifacts, such as the current proposed rules.
2. Under the Revised and Published Rule 1A-31.0092 (3) c, d, e it declares that permit areas shall have a "Buffer Zone" of 500 yards width from: navigation channels, exempted areas as defined in this chapter and excluded areas as defined in this chapter. These areas are defined in 1A-31.0042 and 1A-31.0045. This means no one will get a permit within 500 yards of a public recreation area (i.e. public beach) which translates to about one fourth of a mile from any Florida shoreline. The entire coastline of Florida is off limits for 1500 feet. This is not fair because history shows us that the majority of shipwrecks were blown toward or onto shore by hurricanes. The vast majority of shipwrecks on Florida's submerged lands are probably included within this area. It also means no one (without a grandfathered in Admiralty Claim) will get a permit within 500 yards of any inland waters, inlets, National Park systems, National Marine Sanctuaries such as the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary), State Parks, Local public recreation areas, resource conservation areas and resource management areas, areas conveyed to public or private entities............. etc.

3. We believe the Division of Historical Resources should do more to work with the private sector salvors of Florida and encourage salvors to come into a fair, even handed and just permit process. Rule 1A-31 does not seek to do this.

4. We believe Florida's private sector salvors have done an excellent job of recovering and preserving our maritime heritage, to the direct benefit of the public and at little cost to the taxpayers and should be allowed to continue with as little interference as possible. Rule 1A-31 does not do this.

5. We do not want our tax dollars used by state archaeologists to dive on shipwrecks. The private sector salvors have done a great job, using their own money, with Florida getting the benefits by receiving 20% of the conserved artifacts and treasures recovered. We do not support any changes to rule 1A-31 that would make it harder for the salvors to continue.

6. We feel the new rule is unfair because it treats commercial salvors as second class citizens due to the fact that it does not give the same standards to commercial salvors as Rule 1A-32 gives to universities and nonprofit organizations. For example, the turnover or response time to get permits for 1A-32 is two weeks while commercial groups have waited months and in some cases, years. Also 1A-32 uses students as excavators while commercial enterprises must use experts.

7. We think Rule 1A-31 is unfair because university and nonprofit 1A‐32 permit holders get a search & survey, recovery & salvage permit ALL in their first permit while 1A-31 requires commercial salvors to obtain only search & survey permits with rules that vary from salvor to salvor. NO recovery & salvage permits (unless already grandfathered in by Federal Admiralty Claims) have been issued to commercial groups in Florida for over 15 years.

8. We are opposed to the rule because individuals who have current contracts for exploration have not all been individually notified of the workshops and hearings. It is also unfair that when they are notified, the locations of such meetings repeatedly take place at locations remote to the majority of the private and commercial entities that it will affect. Therefore, if a few dozen commercial groups from the Keys want to attend, they need to drive either 9 hours to St. Augustine area or 12 hours to the Tallahassee area (and back.) This means they have to miss THREE days work to attend. Two days driving and one day at the meetings. Future meetings should be held in a central location of the state such as the Orlando area to accommodate the majority of thestakeholders. Additionally, these meetings should not be held between June 1 and Sept 30th of any year, as that is the 120 day window for good weather conditions on the majority of the archaeological sites worked by commercial salvors in Florida.

9. We are opposed to the rule because it insists that an archaeologist be on board each salvage vessel during each and every survey and excavation. This is unnecessary because most electronic surveys are non‐intrusive and the majority of actual excavation areas are empty or turn out to be modern intrusions such as lawn chairs, discarded shrimp or lobster traps, beer cans and in some cases, U.S. military bombs in old target practice areas. Of course when major conglomerates of shipwreck material or structure are found, it would then be appropriate for the archaeologist to be on board to supervise the proper mapping and recording of these areas The reality is that the majority of the archaeologist's time is spent working with a cartographer, mapping and analyzing data collected during remote sensing surveys and identifying patterns from other known sites in an effort to decide which anomalies to excavate first, and writing reports after poring through the reams of data provide by the artifact recovery process. His presence on the site is not necessary until significant cultural deposits or structures are encountered.

10. The new rule should address some sort of Annual Adjudication of Title from the State to the permit holder rather than "Transfer of objects" in exchange for recovery services. This way, the state can receive donations of artifacts, because it is usually impossible to put an actual dollar value on each and every artifact found and this would create much confusion in tax law since the transfer of object has an indeterminable value.

11. This rule creates more work and overhead for DHR to manage their resources. Permits should be issued for a minimum of three years, much like the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, thereby alleviating costs to the DHR by reducing paperwork.

12. We feel this rule is unfair because commercial salvors are constantly in the research and development stages of using new technology for survey, excavation and conservation much of which is proprietary information. This rule eliminates many future possibilities and opportunities for research, development and testing of these new technologies.

13. We feel this rule is unfair because it requires the permit holder to turn over thousands of dollars worth of proprietary surveyresults without any guarantee that they will be allowed to salvage a site once it is found. There is no incentive for the permit holder to obtain a survey & exploration permit. An alternative would be to use wording similar to that in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, which does not even require a "Survey & Exploration" permit at all and yet it seems to have been beneficial.

 

[Dave P]

I guess I was wrong for not viewing the date on your post here. I thought it was a fight for this October. I went and told a few people about this then to find out it was a Law fight in 2008. Maybe you should revise your post as to the outcome of this proposal in 2008 and post it on this site.

Dear Fellow Treasure Hunters,

Even if you do not have any interest in Shipwreck Salvage or the Shipwreck forum, WE NEED YOUR HELP!

I know this is The General Discussion forum, but Our legal rights for Shipwreck Salvage within State waters are at risk!

We need your help to show our opposition to the proposed changes to the State of Florida's Rule 1A-31. We are asking everyone, even if you do not live in Florida, to please take a few minutes of your time and send a comment to the State of Florida showing you are against the proposed changes in rule 1A-31 and that you support responsible commercial salvage of historic shipwrecks within Florida's State waters.

We only have until October 17th so please act soon and get everyone you know to send a comment!

Please go the to the following link : https://www.flrules.org/Gateway/View_notice.asp?id=6172515

Scroll down and check Send One Time Comment to the Agency and then click the Make Comment button. Post your own commnets or copy and paste comments from below.

There are over 20,000 members here at TNet. If we all come together we can stop this legislation. I am not asking for money, just 1 minute of your time. Please copy the comments below (or create your own) and follow the link above. It takes only a few clicks to show your support.

Thank You!

Robert Gecy


1. We are against any rules or regulations that would hinder Florida's responsible historical shipwreck salvors from their continued recovery of treasures and artifacts, such as the current proposed rules.
2. Under the Revised and Published Rule 1A-31.0092 (3) c, d, e it declares that permit areas shall have a "Buffer Zone" of 500 yards width from: navigation channels, exempted areas as defined in this chapter and excluded areas as defined in this chapter. These areas are defined in 1A-31.0042 and 1A-31.0045. This means no one will get a permit within 500 yards of a public recreation area (i.e. public beach) which translates to about one fourth of a mile from any Florida shoreline. The entire coastline of Florida is off limits for 1500 feet. This is not fair because history shows us that the majority of shipwrecks were blown toward or onto shore by hurricanes. The vast majority of shipwrecks on Florida's submerged lands are probably included within this area. It also means no one (without a grandfathered in Admiralty Claim) will get a permit within 500 yards of any inland waters, inlets, National Park systems, National Marine Sanctuaries such as the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary), State Parks, Local public recreation areas, resource conservation areas and resource management areas, areas conveyed to public or private entities............. etc.

3. We believe the Division of Historical Resources should do more to work with the private sector salvors of Florida and encourage salvors to come into a fair, even handed and just permit process. Rule 1A-31 does not seek to do this.

4. We believe Florida's private sector salvors have done an excellent job of recovering and preserving our maritime heritage, to the direct benefit of the public and at little cost to the taxpayers and should be allowed to continue with as little interference as possible. Rule 1A-31 does not do this.

5. We do not want our tax dollars used by state archaeologists to dive on shipwrecks. The private sector salvors have done a great job, using their own money, with Florida getting the benefits by receiving 20% of the conserved artifacts and treasures recovered. We do not support any changes to rule 1A-31 that would make it harder for the salvors to continue.

6. We feel the new rule is unfair because it treats commercial salvors as second class citizens due to the fact that it does not give the same standards to commercial salvors as Rule 1A-32 gives to universities and nonprofit organizations. For example, the turnover or response time to get permits for 1A-32 is two weeks while commercial groups have waited months and in some cases, years. Also 1A-32 uses students as excavators while commercial enterprises must use experts.

7. We think Rule 1A-31 is unfair because university and nonprofit 1A‐32 permit holders get a search & survey, recovery & salvage permit ALL in their first permit while 1A-31 requires commercial salvors to obtain only search & survey permits with rules that vary from salvor to salvor. NO recovery & salvage permits (unless already grandfathered in by Federal Admiralty Claims) have been issued to commercial groups in Florida for over 15 years.

8. We are opposed to the rule because individuals who have current contracts for exploration have not all been individually notified of the workshops and hearings. It is also unfair that when they are notified, the locations of such meetings repeatedly take place at locations remote to the majority of the private and commercial entities that it will affect. Therefore, if a few dozen commercial groups from the Keys want to attend, they need to drive either 9 hours to St. Augustine area or 12 hours to the Tallahassee area (and back.) This means they have to miss THREE days work to attend. Two days driving and one day at the meetings. Future meetings should be held in a central location of the state such as the Orlando area to accommodate the majority of thestakeholders. Additionally, these meetings should not be held between June 1 and Sept 30th of any year, as that is the 120 day window for good weather conditions on the majority of the archaeological sites worked by commercial salvors in Florida.

9. We are opposed to the rule because it insists that an archaeologist be on board each salvage vessel during each and every survey and excavation. This is unnecessary because most electronic surveys are non‐intrusive and the majority of actual excavation areas are empty or turn out to be modern intrusions such as lawn chairs, discarded shrimp or lobster traps, beer cans and in some cases, U.S. military bombs in old target practice areas. Of course when major conglomerates of shipwreck material or structure are found, it would then be appropriate for the archaeologist to be on board to supervise the proper mapping and recording of these areas The reality is that the majority of the archaeologist's time is spent working with a cartographer, mapping and analyzing data collected during remote sensing surveys and identifying patterns from other known sites in an effort to decide which anomalies to excavate first, and writing reports after poring through the reams of data provide by the artifact recovery process. His presence on the site is not necessary until significant cultural deposits or structures are encountered.

10. The new rule should address some sort of Annual Adjudication of Title from the State to the permit holder rather than "Transfer of objects" in exchange for recovery services. This way, the state can receive donations of artifacts, because it is usually impossible to put an actual dollar value on each and every artifact found and this would create much confusion in tax law since the transfer of object has an indeterminable value.

11. This rule creates more work and overhead for DHR to manage their resources. Permits should be issued for a minimum of three years, much like the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, thereby alleviating costs to the DHR by reducing paperwork.

12. We feel this rule is unfair because commercial salvors are constantly in the research and development stages of using new technology for survey, excavation and conservation much of which is proprietary information. This rule eliminates many future possibilities and opportunities for research, development and testing of these new technologies.

13. We feel this rule is unfair because it requires the permit holder to turn over thousands of dollars worth of proprietary surveyresults without any guarantee that they will be allowed to salvage a site once it is found. There is no incentive for the permit holder to obtain a survey & exploration permit. An alternative would be to use wording similar to that in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, which does not even require a "Survey & Exploration" permit at all and yet it seems to have been beneficial.

 

[Salvor6]

The chief archaeologists at the Division of Historic Resources in Florida are against all commercial excavations of historic shipwrecks. They have not issued a salvage permit in 20 years and they never will. This has turned treasure hunters to become pirates and shipwrecks are being looted right now. If that's what the state wants then so be it!

 

[reddirtwillie]

Went to two parks last week, parks I've hunted many times before but not since last fall. When I left you could not tell I was there (except for the lack of trash which I picked up). When I returned to hunt again I was greeted at BOTH parks with this sign. Metal detectors are NOT allowed. As far as I can tell only one thing has changed - televised and glorified (everything dug is silver /gold or a priceless artifact) metal detecting. I didn't see any "divits" or signs of a digger not filling holes, of course no one from the parks department is ever around to answer why. I guess they're afraid if allowed it would look like a mine field since popularity has soared since KG and Ringy and that annoying BOOM BABY s.o.b. If you get a chance watch this on You Tube - Hitler hates metal detecting shows - pretty much says it all.