Florida shipwreck

[low tide]

Read here

 

[Tom_in_CA]

thanx for the link. Good read.

But of course, the archies had to chime in with stuff like this part of article explains :

".... But several professional archaeologists who spoke to ABC News balked at that explanation. They’re worried the company’s methods of digging through the sand are too aggressive and said the very act of taking an artifact out of the water, without first meticulously studying the area it came from, ruins its historical value....."

Every single thing said there, can and has been said of md'ing on public beaches, parks, deserts, forests, right ? So I immediately stopped reading, and began to cry a river. How could I, and those salvors, be SO CARELESS !!?? Will you guys ever forgive me and them ? BOOH HOO Sob wimper


And if those salvors hadn't been there to be doing this work, do you think any of those "several professional archaeologists" who spoke to ABC would EVER be out there looking and lifting a finger to do any preservation IN THE FIRST PLACE ?? OF COURSE NOT !

 

[hoser]

Cool story that still depicts detectorists as clumsy pirates. What, IMHO. it boils down to is jealousy. There have been so many stories out there where a detectorist does some research on an area, hunts it and makes some extraordinary finds and when archies catch wind of it they swoop in and take over without giving any credit to who really found it. My opinion is if they would only work with us instead of against us, Whether they like it or not, I hope those companies do make the find. But that's just me, right or wrong.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.....without giving any credit to who really found it. My opinion is if they would only work with us instead of against us, .....

Here's a thought : When the archies find a coin, or a button, or a bottle etc.... in their 5 ft. x 5 ft. pit excavation, guess whose written works they turn to, to identify the items ? Easy : The evil private collector digger's books, guides, and studies. Right ? Showing that the private sector is doing THE MOST to "preserve" and document and study and show-case history. RIGHT ?

But no, they will never work with us. Because their method of digging and retrieving will never get anywhere. They spend all summer long, working with 2 dozen university archie students, to dig a couple of 5 ft. x 5 ft. pits. Digging with tweezers and paint brushes. And stopping to write 2 pages on each square nail they find. Nothing would ever get done.

In fact, to EVEN SUGGEST any sort of cooperation and hand-holding with them is only going to end up working against us. Because the moment any such suggestion is ever on their plate for consideration, is the moment they start thinking of RESTRICTIONS, not ALLOWANCES. There is an inherent disconnect divide that, as much as we'd love to cooperate, it will never happen. So I am convinced that the LESS they think of us, the better. Not the more they think of us.

 

[hoser]

So I am convinced that the LESS they think of us, the better. Not the more they think of us.

Amen to that me brother, you are absolutely correct. I guess the old adage still goes, Out of Sight, Out of Mind.

 

[LongJohnSilver1]

I laughed at the archies statement that treasure hunters are "destroying shipwrecks", as if the ship being sunk in a hurricane and rotting in the ocean for 400 years didn't hurt it.
Then i gagged when they started quoting the UN, like anyone needs to give a sh*t about that stateless bunch of parasites.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I laughed at the archies statement that treasure hunters are "destroying shipwrecks", as if the ship being sunk in a hurricane and rotting in the ocean for 400 years didn't hurt it....

Correct. The article/media writer goes to ask archies : "What do you think of these wreck salvors or md'rs ?" And the archies unleash an earful of this drivel. And then some of us md'rs read their commentary, and think we need to shiver in our boots. Eh ?

Here's a good analogy : If you were to ask a P.E.T.A. rep (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) : "Hi: Can I leave my pet bunny in the car while I run into 7-11 to get a soda ? " Guess what the animal rights wacko personnel is going to answer ? They will screach : "NNNnnnneeoooo. The bunny will suffer in the hot sun. You can be arrested for animal cruelty. Your car can be confiscated", blah blah blah.

But seriously now : What did you expect to come from an animal right waco advocate like P.E.T.A. ? And does anyone else in society give 2-hoots if you left your bunny in the car ? OF COURSE NOT. So too do I put little stock into what most archies say, when it comes to their opinions of us. Fortunately, those "purist" types are few & far between.

 

[hoser]

Yes and the ONLY time a detectorist has notoriety from making a fabulous find is when they contact a news agency instead of the archies who would take 100% of the credit. And as it was stated to be 100% correct that when it comes to a shipwreck, the treasure has already been subject to harsh conditions.

 

[TheFrood]

Cool story that still depicts detectorists as clumsy pirates. What, IMHO. it boils down to is jealousy. There have been so many stories out there where a detectorist does some research on an area, hunts it and makes some extraordinary finds and when archies catch wind of it they swoop in and take over without giving any credit to who really found it. My opinion is if they would only work with us instead of against us, Whether they like it or not, I hope those companies do make the find. But that's just me, right or wrong.

USA has kind of random treasure-finding laws too. In UK isn't the gov. obligated to compensate 100% of the find's value if the the gov. keeps it? Museums, etc, bid on the rights for digs as well I think. Read a few stories about things like that... and it goes to the finder, not the landowner (unless the finder was there without permission). I remember reading about a hired plowman that got the reward for a huge roman silver find when his plow blade struck a plate and found the hoard when he was plowing someone else's land...

 

[AlpoRanch]

So what is confusing to me is Mel Fisher already found the Nuestra Señora de Atocha yet the article is saying they are looking for a ship with the same name.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

USA has kind of random treasure-finding laws too. In UK isn't the gov. obligated to compensate 100% of the find's value if the the gov. keeps it? Museums, etc, bid on the rights for digs as well I think. .....

The USA has the same "fair market value" system, for deciding how to split finds between you and farmer Bob . It works like this :

1) Ebay decides the "fair market value", and

2) You and farmer Bob decide how you want to split it up, with ZERO INTERFERENCE from the govt.

3) Or you can elect to keep, and *not sell at all*, if you wanted (versus forced sale to Govt. or a museum or whatever)


Presto, problem solved.


Trust me : You do NOT want archies and the govt. interfering with the way you and farmer Bob split or value things. The only reason the UK has such a system, is that their private property laws are different than ours. In their system, the wealth (natural resources, caches, etc...) under the ground belong to the crown. So for example if you discover oil on your land, it's not going to be the Beverly Hillbillies riches story. Instead, that belongs to the crown, not you. But here in the USA, if you discover a cache on your land, it's yours to decide what to do with it, and whether or not you want to sell or keep, or proportion it, etc...

You do NOT want to suggest that the USA ever think of such a system as the UK has. Because the moment that starts, is the moment that there will be RESTRICTIONS, not allowances. The less they know and interfere, the better. The last thing you want is for archies to start thinking of you and I here.

 

[Rock Jock]

The USA has the same "fair market value" system, for deciding how to split finds between you and farmer Bob . It works like this :

1) Ebay decides the "fair market value", and

2) You and farmer Bob decide how you want to split it up, with ZERO INTERFERENCE from the govt.

3) Or you can elect to keep, and *not sell at all*, if you wanted (versus forced sale to Govt. or a museum or whatever)


Presto, problem solved.


Trust me : You do NOT want archies and the govt. interfering with the way you and farmer Bob split or value things. The only reason the UK has such a system, is that their private property laws are different than ours. In their system, the wealth (natural resources, caches, etc...) under the ground belong to the crown. So for example if you discover oil on your land, it's not going to be the Beverly Hillbillies riches story. Instead, that belongs to the crown, not you. But here in the USA, if you discover a cache on your land, it's yours to decide what to do with it, and whether or not you want to sell or keep, or proportion it, etc...

You do NOT want to suggest that the USA ever think of such a system as the UK has. Because the moment that starts, is the moment that there will be RESTRICTIONS, not allowances. The less they know and interfere, the better. The last thing you want is for archies to start thinking of you and I here.

You own the subsurface natural resources IF you own the mineral rights (don't know how that squares with buried treasure troves cuz I'm not a lawyer), but I do know that much private land has the mineral estate severed from the surface estate so Farmer Bob may not own the minerals. Look at your deeds! Unless the land is patented (such as for a patented mining claim) the feds like to retain the mineral rights even if they see fit to sell off the surface.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

You own the subsurface natural resources IF you own the mineral rights (don't know how that squares with buried treasure troves cuz I'm not a lawyer), but I do know that much private land has the mineral estate severed from the surface estate so Farmer Bob may not own the minerals. Look at your deeds! Unless the land is patented (such as for a patented mining claim) the feds like to retain the mineral rights even if they see fit to sell off the surface.

Rock-Jock : Point duly noted. So what you're saying is that , here in the USA, if you find a vast diamond mine or oil reserves or gold ledge on your property, it *might not* belong to you. Or that Uncle Sam steps in and interferes with how you'll profit off of the natural-resource . Or if you can or can't profit, or whatever.

Let's just say, for sake of argument, that I grant that ^ ^ to you. Ok ? Then for PURPOSES OF THIS forum (an md'ing forum), we're talking about treasures. Right ? Eg.: Caches, etc...., right ? Then I propose that everything I've said (when comparing the UK to the USA) still stands, ok ?

Because I'll tell ya what : If I discovered a fabulous cache in my backyard, from some ancient person who buried it, then : I bet it's mine to do whatever-the-heck I wanted with it.

 

[TheFrood]

Rock-Jock : Point duly noted. So what you're saying is that , here in the USA, if you find a vast diamond mine or oil reserves or gold ledge on your property, it *might not* belong to you. Or that Uncle Sam steps in and interferes with how you'll profit off of the natural-resource . Or if you can or can't profit, or whatever.

Let's just say, for sake of argument, that I grant that ^ ^ to you. Ok ? Then for PURPOSES OF THIS forum (an md'ing forum), we're talking about treasures. Right ? Eg.: Caches, etc...., right ? Then I propose that everything I've said (when comparing the UK to the USA) still stands, ok ?

Because I'll tell ya what : If I discovered a fabulous cache in my backyard, from some ancient person who buried it, then : I bet it's mine to do whatever-the-heck I wanted with it.

That's 100% correct actually... Well, less about the Uncle Sam aspect but about possibly not owning things on your own land. If you are going to do any prospecting make sure you own the mineral rights to any land you are looking at.

On a different note, you can sell the mineral rights on your property without selling the actual property if that's your cup of tea as well. Or, you can sell the land without relinquishing the mineral rights... I've seen land for sale near Bakersfield as well as up in SF bay area (I think it was near Livermore) that had specific exclusions in the deed of sale prohibiting drilling for petroleum resources.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

That's 100% correct actually... Well, less about the Uncle Sam aspect but about possibly not owning things on your own land. If you are going to do any prospecting make sure you own the mineral rights to any land you are looking at.

On a different note, you can sell the mineral rights on your property without selling the actual property if that's your cup of tea as well. Or, you can sell the land without relinquishing the mineral rights... I've seen land for sale near Bakersfield as well as up in SF bay area (I think it was near Livermore) that had specific exclusions in the deed of sale prohibiting drilling for petroleum resources.

Ok, but again : This is a metal detecting forum. So : Putting aside diamond mines, oil discovery, & minerals .... and limiting the discussion to caches or some sort of stupendous jewel encrusted sword : I'm betting that if farmer Bob (or the md'r he granted permission to here) finds a cache or jewel encrusted sword, that : It's utterly between Farmer Bob & the md'r as to how they want to split it. And what proportions. Or if they even want to sell in the first place.


And as far as "fair market value" : We have that here too. It's known as "ebay", eh ? So again : I do not know why some people think the UK system is to-be-desired.


Also, some USA md'rs think it's some sort of "carte-blanche" that "opens up sites". Nothing could be further from the truth. They have SCORES of off-limits public land sites. Probably worse than the USA. Why do you think that 99% of their hunting is done on private farmers lands with permission ?

 

[Rock Jock]

Rock-Jock : Point duly noted. So what you're saying is that , here in the USA, if you find a vast diamond mine or oil reserves or gold ledge on your property, it *might not* belong to you. Or that Uncle Sam steps in and interferes with how you'll profit off of the natural-resource . Or if you can or can't profit, or whatever.

Let's just say, for sake of argument, that I grant that ^ ^ to you. Ok ? Then for PURPOSES OF THIS forum (an md'ing forum), we're talking about treasures. Right ? Eg.: Caches, etc...., right ? Then I propose that everything I've said (when comparing the UK to the USA) still stands, ok ?

Because I'll tell ya what : If I discovered a fabulous cache in my backyard, from some ancient person who buried it, then : I bet it's mine to do whatever-the-heck I wanted with it.

I'd like to think you are right and I hope you're right, but, like I said, I'm not a lawyer and I never cease to be amazed at the new legal concepts that crawl out into the light of day in courts of law. There is a difference between caches/treasure troves and natural resources. I believe antiquities located on your own land are your property. I believe that minerals located on your own land with a complete estate are also your property. However, minerals located on your property with a split estate can be owned by others, corporations, companies, individuals and governments (the People TM) and frequently are. In a split estate, those who control the mineral estate have the right to develop the resources and the surface owner can't obstruct their entry onto the land to develop the resources or to explore, for that matter. Even so, they must post bonds generally, make agreements for restoration of the surface and/or leave some developed infrastructure intact if the surface owner prefers. It doesn't have to be an adversarial relationship. Private enterprise developers can and do lease the mineral rights from the owners and, when they acquire a critical percentage in certain areas, states will permit them to proceed with their projects. These projects frequently have a life cycle according to mineral economics/usefulness, political attitudes and remnant resource still in the ground, among other factors.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

........ I believe antiquities located on your own land are your property. ......

Ok. And that's all I'm saying ^ ^ . And that the same thing can not be said of the UK.

I probably shouldn't have jokingly brought up the "Beverly hillbillies" (oil) as an example of the comparison of the UK vs the USA. Because it led down a rabbit trail. But it sounds like we agree when it comes to caches.

 

[KOB]

Friendly Fool's & Lawyer's Land Forum