There is a bill in committee in the Florida Senate, SB868, that will make it illegal to remove any "archaeological specimen" from any City, County or State park AND all tidelands...AKA the PUBLIC BEACH. Please go the Treasurenet shipwrecks forum...there are links there to contact the involved state senators who will vote on this thing and to give you more information on the bill...go to the END of the thread... This is NOT just about shipwrecks!!!. It doesn't matter what state you live in...if you are ever even THINKING about going to Florida on vacation, this concerns YOU...As a matter of fact it will help even more, because you are tourist dollars to the State of Florida...This thing is no joke...Spread the word...the vote is tomorrow...this thing has been snuck through the legislature...If it sounds like I am panicking, I am. A wheat penny can be construed to be an "archaeological specimen"...
Find's Treasure Forums
Welcome to Find's Treasure Forums, Guests!
You are viewing this forums as a guest which limits you to read only status.
Only registered members may post stories, questions, classifieds, reply to other posts, contact other members using built in messaging and use many other features found on these forums.
Why not register and join us today? It's free! (We don't share your email addresses with anyone.) We keep email addresses of our users to protect them and others from bad people posting things they shouldn't.
Click here to register!
Need Support Help?
Cannot log in?, click here to have new password emailed to you
Changed email? Forgot to update your account with new email address? Need assistance with something else?, click here to go to Find's Support Form and fill out the form.
Florida outlawing all treasure hunting HELP NOW
- Thread starter hobbit
- Start date
dewcon4414
Well-known member
Ive read this on several of the sites now...... im just curious where's the FMDAC in all of this? For those in Fl. who pays dues are they actively involved in this?
Dew
Dew
dewcon4414
Well-known member
Well now i have the answer to my above question. Its from the FMDAC: Jerry Hitson (FMDAC):
Update from Alan Hayes:
The effects of SB 868 have been misunderstood. This bill simply extends current law to areas in which the State currently does not have jurisdiction. The extension is very small in scope in order to cover areas such as those depict. These are pictures of land owned by Lake County Water Authority, a political subdivision/special taxing district created by the legislature within my district. As current law is written, when this type of damage is done to the property, law enforcement
Update from Alan Hayes:
The effects of SB 868 have been misunderstood. This bill simply extends current law to areas in which the State currently does not have jurisdiction. The extension is very small in scope in order to cover areas such as those depict. These are pictures of land owned by Lake County Water Authority, a political subdivision/special taxing district created by the legislature within my district. As current law is written, when this type of damage is done to the property, law enforcement
flyin-lowe
New member
Good to know that there must have been a bunch of MD'ers from Florida who took the time to call or write and get a clarification.
"This bill does not impact ...... the ability of individuals to use a metal detector on our beaches, or any of the activities these hobby enthusiasts legally enjoy now."
Dew, there is an element of the md'ing crowd (that you can go check out on the shipwreck section of T'net) who would respond that that bureaucrat's statement like this: They would say that even though Mr. Hayes is *saying* it has no impact, yet the ACTUAL wording of the law, contradicts this politician, when morphed in a very literal way. And assuming you find something that can be lableled an "archaeological specimen" or were "looking" for archaeological specimens, etc... and so forth. In other words, they would say that the politician is just plain wrong in his interpretation.
My comment on that is this: Even if this were TRUE, ..... if it were me ... I'd print out that statement from this Mr. Hayes fellow, and just carry his statement with me as I continue to detect. If anyone were to stop you and say something, you merely show them the interpretation from this elected official. If his interpretation is wrong, then that's HIS problem. Ie.: they'll have to take that up with HIM, and you would be in no trouble, since you acted in good faith, on the word of a duly appointed authority.
When, and only when, this Mr. Hayes retracts his statement, and THEN if you continued to go despite that, only THEN would you be in any sort of legal trouble.
For example: If you arrive in a city with an ambiguously worded law (at least in the opinion of some people debating its meaning) that *might* outlaw detecting in the city park. So as you contemplate whether the law allows or disallows you, you see a cop or a councilman sitting on the park bench. You walk over to them and ask: "Is it ok if metal detect in the park?". They say "go ahead". Seems to me you shouldn't argue with authority, eh? If it were me, I'd go, off of that authority, and thus detect. If someone ELSE in the city comes up and takes issue with me, I merely cite the authority just granted to me. If they have an issue, they are welcome to appraise me of it, and the are welcome to over-rule that cop or councilman, if they want. But in the meantime, it would be the cop or councilman in hot water, NOT ME.
Getting back to this Mr. Hayes quote from you, I find it interesting that he says we can continue to do what we legally enjoy "now". Do they mean in actual historic practice, or if current wording were also held up to a microscope? Because even though, in actual practice you could probably detect a lot of places, and no one cared, yet I bet that just like every sandbox in the USA, that if you asked enough bureaucrats "can I keep this spanish reale I found on your beach [or sandbox, or park, etc...] ? ", that they could morph something that is already currently there, and tell you "no".
Dew, there is an element of the md'ing crowd (that you can go check out on the shipwreck section of T'net) who would respond that that bureaucrat's statement like this: They would say that even though Mr. Hayes is *saying* it has no impact, yet the ACTUAL wording of the law, contradicts this politician, when morphed in a very literal way. And assuming you find something that can be lableled an "archaeological specimen" or were "looking" for archaeological specimens, etc... and so forth. In other words, they would say that the politician is just plain wrong in his interpretation.
My comment on that is this: Even if this were TRUE, ..... if it were me ... I'd print out that statement from this Mr. Hayes fellow, and just carry his statement with me as I continue to detect. If anyone were to stop you and say something, you merely show them the interpretation from this elected official. If his interpretation is wrong, then that's HIS problem. Ie.: they'll have to take that up with HIM, and you would be in no trouble, since you acted in good faith, on the word of a duly appointed authority.
When, and only when, this Mr. Hayes retracts his statement, and THEN if you continued to go despite that, only THEN would you be in any sort of legal trouble.
For example: If you arrive in a city with an ambiguously worded law (at least in the opinion of some people debating its meaning) that *might* outlaw detecting in the city park. So as you contemplate whether the law allows or disallows you, you see a cop or a councilman sitting on the park bench. You walk over to them and ask: "Is it ok if metal detect in the park?". They say "go ahead". Seems to me you shouldn't argue with authority, eh? If it were me, I'd go, off of that authority, and thus detect. If someone ELSE in the city comes up and takes issue with me, I merely cite the authority just granted to me. If they have an issue, they are welcome to appraise me of it, and the are welcome to over-rule that cop or councilman, if they want. But in the meantime, it would be the cop or councilman in hot water, NOT ME.
Getting back to this Mr. Hayes quote from you, I find it interesting that he says we can continue to do what we legally enjoy "now". Do they mean in actual historic practice, or if current wording were also held up to a microscope? Because even though, in actual practice you could probably detect a lot of places, and no one cared, yet I bet that just like every sandbox in the USA, that if you asked enough bureaucrats "can I keep this spanish reale I found on your beach [or sandbox, or park, etc...] ? ", that they could morph something that is already currently there, and tell you "no".
dewcon4414
Well-known member
Tom it just amazes me how much trouble digging a small hole can get you into...... sometimes its just plain stupid. I do understand many countries have strick laws on ark., but they also have thousands of years worth of history thats being ILLEGALLY dug after they are being unearthed and shipped out of country. In our case lets take spanish items or old coins..... just how many are being destroyed.... id dare say more are saved and perserved than anyone wants to admit. Its shameful to constantly close public land that we pay for as well to protect it from US. They would rather see the items rot in the ground..... where is the common sense in that? Any finds that are saved, cleaned properly or not, are better off than what they offer. We arent out for a big pay day here.... we love the history of the items dug.
Dew
Dew
"They would rather see the items rot in the ground..... where is the common sense in that? "
Their answer to that would be that: "Perhaps there isn't likely to be an archaeological study done in this or that spot NOW, or even in the remotely near future ...... but perhaps 10,000 yrs. from now, FUTURE GENERATIONS might be studying their past, by digging an archaeological pit right here, and you will have robbed THAT GENERATION of correctly interpretting their past".
I kid you not! That is their answer. Although I took liberty to create the phrasing, yet the logic is basically that.
And another answer they would give you (which is actually sort of defensible) is this: Well sure, it's not likely that your particular coin, in that remote section of forest or beach, would ever have been found, nor does it add anything unknown to history and museums, etc... HOWEVER, if they "start down that path" of allowing "little bits and pieces" to "flit away", then it's like the camel's nose in the door. I mean, at some point, they HAVE to "pick a limit" or "draw a line", we'd all agree (lest at some point, someone's going to try to do full-scale salvage, etc...). And to make things simple, it's easier for them to say "all state land", rather than to continually debate semantics like "well..... ok, on this beach, but not that one" or "well... ok.... it's alright on the turf at this park, but not at the historically themed cabin on the west end of that park", and so forth. They simply don't have the time to sort out what are admittedly big fish ticket items, verses small potatoes junk. In the same way that they set a speed limit of 55 mph: someone could argue " what's the big deal about 56? afterall, the weather was nice, the road was safe, etc..." Yet they still have to "draw the line somewhere", so 55 is chosen, even though we all know that no one is hurt by going 56.
Their answer to that would be that: "Perhaps there isn't likely to be an archaeological study done in this or that spot NOW, or even in the remotely near future ...... but perhaps 10,000 yrs. from now, FUTURE GENERATIONS might be studying their past, by digging an archaeological pit right here, and you will have robbed THAT GENERATION of correctly interpretting their past".
I kid you not! That is their answer. Although I took liberty to create the phrasing, yet the logic is basically that.
And another answer they would give you (which is actually sort of defensible) is this: Well sure, it's not likely that your particular coin, in that remote section of forest or beach, would ever have been found, nor does it add anything unknown to history and museums, etc... HOWEVER, if they "start down that path" of allowing "little bits and pieces" to "flit away", then it's like the camel's nose in the door. I mean, at some point, they HAVE to "pick a limit" or "draw a line", we'd all agree (lest at some point, someone's going to try to do full-scale salvage, etc...). And to make things simple, it's easier for them to say "all state land", rather than to continually debate semantics like "well..... ok, on this beach, but not that one" or "well... ok.... it's alright on the turf at this park, but not at the historically themed cabin on the west end of that park", and so forth. They simply don't have the time to sort out what are admittedly big fish ticket items, verses small potatoes junk. In the same way that they set a speed limit of 55 mph: someone could argue " what's the big deal about 56? afterall, the weather was nice, the road was safe, etc..." Yet they still have to "draw the line somewhere", so 55 is chosen, even though we all know that no one is hurt by going 56.