Permits & Leases

[itmaiden]

A number of you have stated that Florida has not been issuing the rights to explore and salvage for quite some time, and seem quite puzzled by it.

It is quite simple actually. We know the state "ideally" would like to put a state archaeologist on board every salvage vessel if possible. The state does not trust salvors and fears that they will be overwhelmed with salvors pillaging and plundering wreck sites and that "they"...the state, won't get their cut. The state's view is they can't watch you every minute, and can only deal with keeping up with a certain number of companies at a time.

Bottom line: The state wants their share of the plunder.
That's all Florida ever really wants...is money.
But as you know they have to "disguise" that fact under "archaeological and historical preservation".

These artifacts are so precious to Florida, they were willing to "sell them" last year, and they keep many things they have acquired out of public knowledge.

However, they acquired the "rights" to "make the rules" to the game, and unless you come up with a win win situation that works for both, those ships are going to continue to sit on the bottom.

Yes, currently they receive 20-25% of the artifacts/treasure, but again they aren't so sure they are getting their full 20-25% and that salvors are not being honest with them.

Could the state actually afford to hire a couple of more archies ? In reality, Florida could. If the bribes and pocketing would stop and they eliminate some of the unnecessary or overly bureaucratic positions they could.

Face it, the state can't stop pillaging completely, so either they give permits/leases and get a good chunck or they can sit there and not share in the booty. They have plenty of booty in their vaults now (and probably in their private homes), but you know how it is, with greed, one can never have enough.

So how do you appease Florida, that you are not doing reef damage, disturbing sunken land artifacts/archaeological sites, and guarantee you are cataloging everything and giving them their fair share ?

Your word you say ? Well they know that your word is "as good as theirs", and they already know what they are, so that isn't going anywhere.

With all of these things in mind, can a new state/salvor working structure be developed that would be workable and affordable to both ?

What are the options ?

Raising Fees ? That would be unfair to lower income salvors who cannot afford high fees, and create inequality in salvaging.

More archies ? The state doesn't seem to trust independent archies only "their archies".

A permit/lease lottery perhaps ?

For any one group to dominate the salvaging history to the point other groups are being excluded is unfair.
So should the number of years any particular company can hold permits and leases be limited, and then that rotated to another group to be fair to all. Every "x" number of years, someone else is given permits/leases with the the rights to certain sites held in "suspension" until the rotation allows for an original lease holder to re-apply to continue work on an old site ?

Let's come up with a realistic solution that works for both sides.

itmaiden

[Salvor6]

Itmaiden the state doesn't have to hire more archies to monitor salvors. They can hire a dozen "Field Agents" for the price of one archaeologist. They have done this in the past. Tommy Gore was a state field agent.

[aquanut]

itmaiden,
You make a lot of good points, but I can tell you this, if I spend years of research and exploring, I'm never going to put my wreck in the hands of someone who may give it to someone else in the future! Also, pulling my permits in the future would jeopardize my ability to work with investors. This and or a lottery would NEVER work.
Aquanut

[comfortably numb]

This does bring up some interesting points. I am fairly new to this and don't know everything that has been done or tried in the past, But has a group of the more knowledgeable and experienced salvors ever sat down and talked with the state to try to come up with a plan that works for both parties? Do you think the salvors and especially the state would be willing to do this?

[mariner]

ITM,

I think that the reason the State has stopped issuing permits is simple.

The vast majority of the wrecks around Florida are Spanish, and the Appeals Court decision on the SeaHunt case in 2000 established that Spanish wrecks in US waters are not abandoned, except by specific act or statement. These wrecks are therefore not subject to the 1987 Abandoned Shipwrecks Act, and so the State has no authority to issue permits to recover them.

The 1902 Treaty iwth Spain was the basis of the SeaHunt decision, and this does cover both State-owned and privately-owned Spanish ships. If a privately-owned wreck was found and the current owner's permission obtained to salvage it, then I don't think that the State could object, though there would still be issues about disturbing the seabed etc. These, however, could probably be overcome. If a modern ship sinks, I am sure that permission for the owner to recover it can be obtained relatively easily.

I wonder if anybody has been refused a permit for a wreck that was not Spanish, though I think that it is entirely possible that if a wreck belonging to another Sovereign nation was found, the Federal Court might again rule that a specific act of abandonment was required.

Mariner

[aquanut]

Mariner,
Most of the ships wrecked here hundreds of years ago are unidentified. We can't even look them over to find out their country of origin, much less their identity. So the Spanish claim is moot. There is a large concentration of English, French, Dutch, and privately owned Spanish ships, not to mention the pirates wrecked in Florida waters. In most cases the state won't let us look for them and God forbid, salvage them. Believe me, it is their bias, greed and desire for total control that motivates their refusal to work with the private sector. There isn't anything that the salvor can do that a hurricane can't undo, or that the oil companies haven't already outdone! We blow holes... the ocean covers them back up... I've been on reefs where the only sea life is where the sand was blown off by guys like us... the rest of the reef is dead simply because beach renourishment has washed back out and covered the reefs to the extent that they can't support simple seagrass!.
Ah, Hell, the more I type the angrier I get. I better stop now and let you or someone else have their say.
Aquanut

[mariner]

Aquanut,

I'm offering an explanation, not condoning the policy. I believe that since the SeaHunt decision, the State of California has believed that the vast majority of the wrecks in their waters are not abandoned, and therefore that they have no right to issue any kind of permit to inspect or recover them. It probably suits their purpose, and that of the State Department and Federal Parks to have the Catch 22 situation where they need identification in order to know if they have any jurisdiction, but can't (won't) issue a permit for a wreck over which they have no jurisdiction.

Hope your leg is getting better, and congratulations on another successful cookout.

Mariner

[aquanut]

Mariner,
I know you don't condone the actions or lack thereof by the state. What you are saying as an explanation is possibly another excuse used by the state to do nothing.
Thanks on your well wishes for the knee. The cookout was great! I just wish more could have shown up, I had enough food left over to feed twice as many. I'm going to get awful tired of eating ribs and chicken for the rest of the year!
Aquanut

[FISHEYE]

Anyone can get a exploratory permit for any area in florida waters providing you follow the new rules.You can get a salvage permit too after you jump thru all the hoops and pay the state more money,you are better off if you have a non-profit org or are a university or school.

[mariner]

Fisheye,

Thanks for the correction. So has Florida been issuing salvage permits on newly discovered wrecks, after all ?

Mariner

[aquanut]

Fisheye,
Would you care to expound on your statement. The only permit I am aware of is the one granted to John Brandon, while 114 other leases were granted to non-profit academic institutions and the like.
By the way, for-profit enterprises are what drive the economy. Non-profit organizations and charities are a luxury our country can afford because there is someone out there paying the way.
Also, how much would I have to spend for exploratory leases (drag a mag/sidescan/ROV etc. over an area of say 200 square miles. Once I determine a specific area to salvage, how much for that lease? Is there an application fee for the lease? We're really getting into buying a pig in a poke when it comes to exploration. I think exploration leases should cost no more that a filing fee.
Aquanut

[ivan salis]

remember this be careful what you ask for *

a "white elephant" is a gift that will bankrupt you .

recently the state awarded a rather large "lease" exploration permit -- after a good bit of seareching said lease person found the "object" of his hunt and then wanted to apply for the "next stage" permits --not so fast says the state * we issued you a exploration permit --you need to finish "exploring" the rest of the area we have issued you and "proof" out all the hits in it first BEFORE going onward to "other permits" --

with a sizible area under permit --that would most likely BANKRUPT the outfit before it would ever be able to move to step #2

so it kills the lease holder fiscally --and since the areas "under permit "--it now ties it up so others can not apply for it as well.

ah the old "give em a "white elephant" ploy .

its understandible that the state wants to monitor who is exploring what and where --thus "exploration" permits but --these "permits" should be next to no cost ( filing fee only) -- since you are only looking and not "making" any money at this point .

now its is also understandible that a "treasure hunter" is not interested in "all" the wrecks he runs across -only the fiscal valuible ones are of interest to him --so once he finds what hes "looking" for via a exploration permit --he should be allowed to apply for a local area "take a closer look type permit" to see if the wreck is indeed a "fiscal viable" salvage job or not ( a feild agent could be aboard ay this time to insure no funny bussiness is going on) --if so then a "salvage permit" could be issued and a fully cert state archie could be placed onboard to oversee the harvest and cataloging of items .

[comfortably numb]

I really don't see why we should have to have an "exploration permit" as long as you do not disturb the sea bed. What I gather here so far, and correct me if I'm wrong, Is you have to have an "exploration permit" to use a sidescan to look for a wreck?
But yet I can use the same technology to look for rockpiles and bottom structure to go spear fishing on, and not need a permit!

[mad4wrecks]

Aquanut wrote:

The only permit I am aware of is the one granted to John Brandon, while 114 other leases were granted to non-profit academic institutions and the like.

John, possibly only one salvage lease has been awarded to a commercial enterprise but do you know how many people actually applied for a salvage lease and were turned down? That is the question to ask. I don't know the answer but I suspect the number of applicants isn't very high. In fact, it may surprise you how few people have applied for a salvage permit. And of the few who may have been denied-do we know why they were denied? There may be legitimate reasons.

People often cite Historical Research and Development, Inc. as an example of a company that has been denied a salvage permit. They have held an exploration lease since 1993! However, the fact is, to my knowledge, they have never applied for a salvage permit. I won't speculate on the reasons why.

I am certainly not taking sides with the state of Florida here or their permitting process, but these questions need answered first.

Tom

[aquanut]

Good points Tom,
I'll see if I can find out that information.
John

[Salvor6]

Ivan, Rex Stocker and Heartland Treasure Quest applied for a search permit on a site N. of Sebastian Inlet. I think it costs $1,200 but I'm not sure. They magged the area and pinpointed the "hits" to an area of 1/2 square mile. The following year they applied for an excavation permit (thats what they call it) and paid ANOTHER $1,200 but the state told them to mag the rest of the area. Even though there is nothing there! Is this the example you are talking about? To mag the other 20 square miles would bankrupt the company.

[ivan salis]

yep that be the "white elephant" I speak of. --they gave them a "huge" 20 mile exploration lease area * they wentand found what they needed to find -- then the "other shoe" drops -- uh you got that 20 mile huge lease area --now you got to mag it all and "proof" all the hits in it -- before the "other permits ( read "harvest" permits) can be done" ---

[aquanut]

Ivan,
I would think that this sort of Shenanigans just begs for a lawsuit.

[ivan salis]

just the sort of tricks and traps they put into their "agreements" in the "fine print ".

dirty dirty dirty

[Salvor6]

Well its clear that if they filed a lawsuit that they (Heartland Treasure Quest) would win but HTQ doesn't have the money for a lawsuit and it would just pi$$ off the Dept. of Historical Resources
Then they would never get a recovery permit and the DHR would steal HTQ's site. I see how it works now. Who is the real pirate here?