The letter below was sent to Ms. Brenda Swan, Acting Bureau Chief of the Bureau of Archaeological Research in Tallahassee, Florida. Click here to see a scan image of the original letter.
Dear Ms. Swann:
Thank you for allowing us to provide perspective to your ongoing project reviewing the 'Division of Historical Resources' isolated finds policy. At the request of Ms. Della Scott-Ireton, we are responding to the following questions.
1. What is our agency mission?
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) mission is "Managing fish and wildlife resources for their long-term, well-being and the benefit of the people." The Division of Law Enforcement mission is "To Protect Florida's Natural Resources and People through Law Enforcement."
2. What is our opinion of the isolated finds policy?
It is very difficult to enforce as a policy. That policy appears to conflict with Florida Statute 267.13, which criminalizes the removal of artifacts on state-owned or -controlled lands, with no exception noted for state-submerged lands.
3. What are some of the enforcement problems with the isolated finds policy?
There are enforcement issues when only portions of a river are closed. Unless the officer observes the person collecting in a prohibited area, there is no way to tell where the artifact came from.
There is also confusion on the general public's part as to what is and is not legal, both on land and water. You can collect on private land, but not public land; you can collect artifacts that have been disturbed on some, but not all the river bottoms, and not at all from sites on public land that have been disturbed.
These issues make it difficult to successfully prosecute cases other than excavation incidents, because the issue is so clouded. Additionally, collecting is a tradition in many parts of the state, and when the state's land-management practices destroy or disturb large areas of ground, people demand to know what harm is caused by surface collecting items there. We do not have an explanation, and normally do not take enforcement action in those cases. If an artifact that has been disturbed on a river bottom has no value, why would a disturbed artifact on land be any different?
We conducted an informal poll of our law enforcement personnel around the state and received the following comments.
Extend isolated finds policy to all lands and waters of the state that are not designated as a historical site.
Decide whether artifacts from any disturbed site have value or not.
Collecting isolated finds should not be a violation of the law.
Excavation or destruction of lands should be a violation.
Do away with the reporting requirement. It is basically un-enforceable and, from what we understand, not complied with for the most part.
The FWC has incorporated archaeological violation training in our Academy for years. The officers in the field are aware and recognize this type of activity when they encounter it. We enforce excavations violations when we encounter them. We try to educate surface collectors on the law, but we seldom charge them with a violation.
Although we have been receiving requests from members of the public for dedicated patrol efforts on a year-round basis, this is just one of the many duties we perform on state lands. We do have a regular presence on public lands while performing our mission, and enforce archaeological violations when we encounter them. We believe that we are having an impact, and our presence helps deter such activities.
Overall, we recommend allowing isolated find collection on all state lands, both submerged and emergent, unless the artifacts are protected by specific area regulations. This would apply only to surface collection. We believe no good comes of making criminals out of citizens who are gathering articles of "no significant archaeological value."
Please let us know if you have any further questions on this matter.
Sincerely,
Colonel Julie Jones
Director, Division of Law Enforcement
