A New Treasure Hunting Proposal In The House?...........POLL

[treasurejack]

TT, I didn't accuse you of anything, I simply said, and I quote, "The stand that you are taking has been taken a thousand times over, which in part, is why many of the current laws are being imposed on our hobby today." Is this not what I said? I never attacked your personal hunting practices, or your personal ethics. I never said "you" are the reason or part of the problem. I simply implied that the "I will never yield" stand has only served to further hurt our access, not help it. Where did you read that other stuff? lol

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[ModernMiner]

This simple poll is getting too heated for me.
I'll take 50% & be happy.
-MM-

 

[treasurejack]

This simple poll is getting too heated for me.
I'll take 50% & be happy.
-MM-

It's not heated, TT is just trying to avoid the subject of the new MightyAP he's got in his hand.
PS: Let's see the goods buddy!

 

[TreasureTales]

I completely understand that TJ and others are trying to find a win-win solution. I just don't agree that permits and fees for the private individual is the way to do it. I would much prefer to have something like a Treasure Hunter's Code of Ethics used by the federal government. Any violation would result in fine or imprisonment, depending on the degree of the violation. The treasure hunter would not be required to get a permit anymore than you must have a permit to enter a grocery store.

Here's what I mean. If you go to the store you don't need a permit. But if you steal from the store or damage it while there, you might just get caught. And if you are convicted of theft or vandalism, you pay the price of your crime. Same could be true for treasure hunters. You don't need a permit, but if someone violates the Code of Ethics, you can be tracked down and punished. This only adversely affects the criminal element, not the average honest treasure hunter. That's how laws were meant to be, they were not meant to be punitive BEFORE the act. Permits are punitive.

So let's say you find a Confederate gold cache. Why should the government automatically get a piece of the action? You will be taxed on it anyway if you put it in the bank, open a museum, spend it in the stores, or buy a new house and car. There are already taxes to take your new found gains, do we need more taxes? And as for possessing something of historical significance, most of us already do. Should we turn over everything old that we've dug up? I think not. If I choose to donate an item to the museum or the Smithsonian, it should be my choice or my national pride that dictates the donation. Not some arbitrary laws that define things for me. Who is to make the decisions about what is historically significant? I say again, it is a slipper slope we discuss here. And the only way is down.

I will now bow out of this discussion in order to let the meek among us feel more comfortable.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

I'd go up to 100%. Providing, that since I found it it cost zero dollars and has zero value unless I sell it. even 50% of zero is still zero.

 

[sonny0065]

The key words in Jeffs post is LITTLE GROUP. How can we , without millions of treasure hunters have enough clout to to get what we deserve. I agree with most of what TT says, but we have to have enough people on our side to threaten the people that are elected to make these discisions. That is to threaten their reelection. I dont think we have that clout. So what do we do to get them to vote in our favor. I can't think of anything we can do that would make a difference. Maybe we could get some movie stars behind us. Washington seems to listen to what they say. Also some so clled treasure hunters are not like us. All they want is to get into a place, do what ever it takes to get something of value & get out. These are the ones you read alot about, not the ones like us , that abide by our own well thought out rules. The media does'nt report those of us that are careful to make it look like we were not there. Again I say , what can we do. If we disobey the law then we become criminals. That does'nt do us any good. We need enough people behind us to make a difference. Any ideas? Sonny

 

[treasurejack]

I completely understand that TJ and others are trying to find a win-win solution. I just don't agree that permits and fees for the private individual is the way to do it. I would much prefer to have something like a Treasure Hunter's Code of Ethics used by the federal government. Any violation would result in fine or imprisonment, depending on the degree of the violation. The treasure hunter would not be required to get a permit anymore than you must have a permit to enter a grocery store.

Here's what I mean. If you go to the store you don't need a permit. But if you steal from the store or damage it while there, you might just get caught. And if you are convicted of theft or vandalism, you pay the price of your crime. Same could be true for treasure hunters. You don't need a permit, but if someone violates the Code of Ethics, you can be tracked down and punished. This only adversely affects the criminal element, not the average honest treasure hunter. That's how laws were meant to be, they were not meant to be punitive BEFORE the act. Permits are punitive.

So let's say you find a Confederate gold cache. Why should the government automatically get a piece of the action? You will be taxed on it anyway if you put it in the bank, open a museum, spend it in the stores, or buy a new house and car. There are already taxes to take your new found gains, do we need more taxes? And as for possessing something of historical significance, most of us already do. Should we turn over everything old that we've dug up? I think not. If I choose to donate an item to the museum or the Smithsonian, it should be my choice or my national pride that dictates the donation. Not some arbitrary laws that define things for me. Who is to make the decisions about what is historically significant? I say again, it is a slipper slope we discuss here. And the only way is down.

I will now bow out of this discussion in order to let the meek among us feel more comfortable.

I guess this means you're escaping the debate you started without showing us your new
MightyAP?

 

[TreasureTales]

I started the debate? Really? Hmmm, I posted Reply #9. What I did was delve a little deeper into the debate, IMO. I didn't start it by any means. And no, I'm not French. Just like the Americans always do, I have to clean up the messes started by others, including those who want to get a permit to use their own lands.

You goaded me into this additional post, TJ, so don't later accuse me of going back on my earlier post, OK? I have no hard feelings towards anyone here. I'm merely trying to point out the potential problems with permits and sharing the spoils with the government. Those of us who live in the West have dealt with the rules from the East long enough and often enough to be wary of any proposed new ones. Even if they are hypothetical.

 

[treasurejack]

I do agree with TT that it may start out fine,
But do have Reservations on what could Come out of it
in the long run.

Plus, Right now we have a Nice little Group.
Most of who are in it for the Exercise, Discovery
& Love of the finds.

Add Profit Potential & everybody & their Brother
will want to be in on the Quick Buck.
Then you got Holes being dug everywhere,
by people in a hurry to dig another one.

Could happen. But there are still laws and steep fines and possible jail time in place to handle this sort of thing, just as before. And now there would even be additional funds to help fight this type of irresponsible activity. Obviously there is no perfect system and there will always be a few bad apples falling from the tree. But as it stands right now, we are losing ground with every passing day.

 

[treasurejack]

Just got four pages of those "most commonly asked question & answers" sheets from the BLM Office, all of it concerning metal detecting, prospecting, and treasure hunting on Federal Lands. Give me a while to read through them and then look up a few other laws that are mentioned.

 

[gold fish]

TJ, I disagree with your statement "....the general government mindset is that anything on public lands should belong to everyone because everyone pays taxes....."

1) Not everyone pays taxes, yet everyone is allowed on public lands with few exceptions, and providing the current laws are obeyed. Even foreigners are permitted on our public lands, and they never pay a dime in US taxes.

2) Not all things are prevented from being removed for the good of all, as you imply. Rocks, minerals, fossils, game & fish, and trash can currently be removed from many federally administered public lands without paying a federal fee and often without need of a federal permit. (Hunting and fishing permits/licenses are sold by the states.) Why are those things legally removed and not treasure?

I personally know two people who run small rock shops. One lives in California and one is in Oregon. Those people collect rocks, minerals, fossils from OUR lands and sell them for a profit in their shops. No permits and no fees. I'm not advocating THEY should have to buy permits, I am advocating that since they can do it, why can't we?

If I were to have a mechanized piece of heavy equipment come into a national forest and move tons of earth with it in order to look for treasure, I can see where a set of restrictions and a permitting system would be necessary. But for the average treasure hunter or metal detectorist or artifact collector or bottle digger, I don't see why our hobby is any different from the rockhounds - and I am a rockhound, too. In fact, the rock shop owners that I mentioned are not your average rockhound. They collect hundreds of pounds of material and sell it for profits - with no permits or fees necessary. They pay taxes on the profits they make on the sales of the material. I'm advocating equal treatment under the law. I'm saying we are being discriminated against and it has little to do with anything except the elitist attitude of the professional archaeologists who are trying to preserve their own incomes. We are threatening their jobs - and many of them don't care about the material they dig up. They care about the books they can write and the new discovery they can name after themselves. We are being brainwashed into thinking we need them. BULL. They need us.

Do you realize that some of the best discoveries made in the field sciences were made by those who were not the scientists themselves? Mary Leakey found more old skull parts than her scientist husband did in Africa. There are many ametuer rockhounds who have minerals named after them because they first discovered them. Why do we allow ourselves to be treated as stepchildren? Only through standing our ground as equal citizens will be make progress. Submission makes us less than equals. No thanks. I'll not settle for half a loaf.

3) Equal justice under the law should refer to us treasure hunters as much as backpackers and rockclimbers. If rockclimbers can pound their pitons into the face of Half Dome in Yosemite in the name of "sport," why can't I put a shovel into the desert soil and retrieve a cache of old bottles? It is the same thing. In fact, my shovel is less harmful to the environment. The government at all levels has more historical material now in its possession than can be thoroughly "studied" in a thousand years. They are not telling us the truth when they outlaw our activities. Think about that.

My quarrel here is not with any individual. I'm on your side because we are on the same side. My quarrel is in the thinking that says we need to pay more or give up more or kiss more butts because of our hobby. Never! We need fewer hoops to jump through, not more. It was individual discoveries that made America rich. To dampen that discovery mentality is to dampen our own future.

TT, I have to disagree, apples and oranges fall from different trees. We are talking lost treasures here, not fish, trash, rabbits, or rocks, but rather items that contain a value of historical and monetary significance. The stand that you are taking has been taken a thousand times over, which in part, is why many of the current laws are being imposed on our hobby today. Fishermen have size limits, hunters have bag limits, and the last time I checked it is illegal to remove rocks and fossils from federally governed ground. Can you imagine where these interest, fishing & hunting & trapping, would be today without imposed limits, or the permit revenue to help support these interest? "Gone are the buffalo!"

I wholeheartedly agree with TT, jack, I understand where you're coming from, but on the same note, what happened to the "land of the free"?? Federal profiteering has taxed the American dream right out of existence. Why aren't we being compesated already for the amounts of litter that is removed from these lands each year Historical socities and the "archies"(aka overglorified coin-shooting cherry pickers) are on a budget for yearly compensation for their "contributions to society". All the way down to driving violations, if I get an alternate side parking ticket, how do they have the right to ban me from roads that I pay for ?? Driving is my RIGHT, not a priveledge granted to me by an institution that is supposed to answer to me. The powers that be have spent far to long raping our freedoms already, I don't think they deserve any more of our money until they get back to "of the people, by the people".
I understand the reason for regulation of certain activities, but they(the feds) have gone WAY too far in that regulation, we should not be punished for not contributing enough to their profiteering enterprises.

 

[Youngladd]

The key words in Jeffs post is LITTLE GROUP. How can we , without millions of treasure hunters have enough clout to to get what we deserve. I agree with most of what TT says, but we have to have enough people on our side to threaten the people that are elected to make these discisions. That is to threaten their reelection. I dont think we have that clout. So what do we do to get them to vote in our favor. I can't think of anything we can do that would make a difference. Maybe we could get some movie stars behind us. Washington seems to listen to what they say. Also some so clled treasure hunters are not like us. All they want is to get into a place, do what ever it takes to get something of value & get out. These are the ones you read alot about, not the ones like us , that abide by our own well thought out rules. The media does'nt report those of us that are careful to make it look like we were not there. Again I say , what can we do. If we disobey the law then we become criminals. That does'nt do us any good. We need enough people behind us to make a difference. Any ideas? Sonny

We are small proud group with passion and drive. Don't fight a shark in the water you'll lose every time, but you take the same shark and put him on land and I'd whip his a$$. Collectively we are few and really cant pack a political punch. But use the financial and influential resources of Major Metal Detecting Manufacturers combined. They certainly have a voice and perhaps lobbyists and it is in their financial interest to do so. Don't write your congressman, write to all the big name manufacturers and get them to lead the way. If public lands were open they would benefit also.

 

[konnon6]

TT I couldn't agree more! Mybe these people should work for U.S.
the people that pay there pay checks!

 

[treasurejack]

So far, 38 have voted and roughly 73% of those who have voted would support the proposed bill, "to varying degrees." Interesting.

 

[teverly]

What i find interesting is thta the poll titled hunting under government supervision posted on here is just the oppisite.
50% Say they do not want the government looking over there shoulder.
Common sense tells you that even if you reach an agreement of some kind the government will work it to there benefit.
tHEY WILL DETERMINE WHAT IS HISTORICAL AND IMPORTANT,NOT US.....They will have the final say in what will be kept and what will not.
Even i,as cynical as i may sound would be willing to split the money with them if the share they got went back to help keep up the "public lands" and not into a fund for old retiring politicians!!!
But alas as we have all seen,real life and conjecter are worlds apart.
Nice thing about these polls is they keep your mind working as well as your swinging arm!!!!
HAPPY HUNTING AND GOOD LUCK FOR SOME GREAT FINDS EVERYONE!! ;

 

[MD Dog]

If we opened up the flood gates to treasure hunting everywhere, no matter what regulation, the end result would be less treasure for everyone, endless court cases beyond the current stream, and at the cost of the heritages we should pass along to our children. I'm all for Finding the lost treasure no matter where it may lay. But not at the cost of my children's heritage. Opening up federal public lands would be an uncontrollable fire hose of regulation trying to continuously put out the fires of greed graft and corruption.

 

[treasurejack]

If we opened up the flood gates to treasure hunting everywhere, no matter what regulation, the end result would be less treasure for everyone, endless court cases beyond the current stream, and at the cost of the heritages we should pass along to our children. I'm all for Finding the lost treasure no matter where it may lay. But not at the cost of my children's heritage. Opening up federal public lands would be an uncontrollable fire hose of regulation trying to continuously put out the fires of greed graft and corruption.

Since 1999, there have been roughly 161,000 locations on that have been "determined to meet" the requirements for the National Register of Historic Places.
Of those locations, since 1999 only 380 have been placed in that Register, now comes the shocker.....of all these lands only 33,036 have been evaluated to meet the eligibility criteria, meaning they might make it or they might not. And it gets worse for the Archies because another 127,848 properties have yet to even be evaluated for "eligibility" because of funding, so in essence these properties are off limits "just in case." In other words, of the 161,000 locations that are off limits since 1999, only 380 have been evaluated as to their true potential. As for the rest, funding is clearly the problem and it is also our greatest leverage against this huge problem the BLM and their 400 Archies are facing. Sooner or later, and they know this too, if the funding isn't there to support these "land holds" then their own futures, and the future of their programs, become threatened as well, and that future funding is being threatened as we speak. If/when this happens, heritage alone will not save or preserve these locations. We want access to public lands, they don't want to lose the important ones they've got placed on hold.....perhaps here is that point of leverage? Just something to consider.

 

[Mike Silver -gold]

I think 50% is fair. It is much better than 0, if you can,huntit at all. I always offer 50% when I try to get permision to hunt private property.

 

[treasurejack]

What i find interesting is thta the poll titled hunting under government supervision posted on here is just the oppisite.
50% Say they do not want the government looking over there shoulder.
Common sense tells you that even if you reach an agreement of some kind the government will work it to there benefit.
tHEY WILL DETERMINE WHAT IS HISTORICAL AND IMPORTANT,NOT US.....They will have the final say in what will be kept and what will not.
Even i,as cynical as i may sound would be willing to split the money with them if the share they got went back to help keep up the "public lands" and not into a fund for old retiring politicians!!!
But alas as we have all seen,real life and conjecter are worlds apart.
Nice thing about these polls is they keep your mind working as well as your swinging arm!!!!
HAPPY HUNTING AND GOOD LUCK FOR SOME GREAT FINDS EVERYONE!! ;

That's an interesting observation you brought up between the two polls, they are indeed opposite. I wonder if this is saying,
A) "Maybe, perhaps, but most certainly not if this means that they're going to be in the field with me?"

B) Or is it because "there is no potential of profit for the treasure hunter in the other poll?"

My guess is "B".......

 

[Jeffro]

You can put me on the list of people who "just say no" to new permits and fees. I've been dealing with it for years already with mining claims. And you know what? We got something a treasure hunter doesn't have, and entire set of laws that are FOR mining! They can't touch the laws with enough force to stop it comepletely, but they do a damn good job with their permits and fees.

There hasn't been a plan of operation approved here in quite awhile. Even longer for patents.

What I'm saying here is this- Even with an actual set of laws on our side, they still find ways to shut us down. Imagine what the permit you're suggesting would be worth. The first time some yahoo with a shovel gets into a battlefield, that'll be the end of it.

Study the laws in your state and act accordingly, to the letter of the law. Don't invite the yahoos in.

Just my take, for what its worth.