Re: fla state archies types finally going to talk with me--about my "find" at long
Ivan,
You seem determined to ignore the 1902 Treaty between the US and Spain that was the main element in determining the outcome of the SeaHunt case. The US and Spain both agreed that this Treaty requires a standard of specific abandonment for Spanish ships in US waters. When this treaty was signed, Florida was part of the USA and Florida waters were part of US waters, so the Treaty applies to them. If the wrecks were not abandoned, then they do not comeunder the 1987 ASA and title to them does not devolve to Florida. The wrecks remain the property of the Kingdom of Spain, in the case of State-owned ships.
Diverlynn's view does open a possibility: If she is correct, and I personally do not see how the Fishers can have rights to a wreck located well north of their permit areas, then perhaps Ivan could piggy-back on their permits, and share the benefits with the Fishers. Spain obviously decided not to pursue water that had already passed under the bridge, after the SeaHunt ruling, and try to retrospectively claim any wrecks for which Florida had already issued permits.
I would be interested to know exactly what the Fishers' permit says in respect to the as-yet-undiscovered 1715 wrecks. Can anybody tell us?
Mariner