National Forest, in Utah, is it legal to metal detect?

[prospexican]

well excuse my English, i know that it is not legal to prospect/ metal detect in a National Park, but i don't Know The difference between a national Forest and a national Park, I was Invited To Utah this coming weekend, feb/13/2015 ibeen getting lost of experience with different metal detectors, but specially with 2 box detectors, and others, a few days ago was my lucky day, i won a tesoro tejon on a raffle and bought a fisher CZ-20 for $ 250 locally, a sand scoop for $20 from the same guy lol. well we just got a TDI whit my partner and i love it, haven't take it to the field yet buy some testing we did we like the way it performs, any way please let me know if there is any legal problems to prospect with metal detectors in Utah National Forest, thanks in advance folks.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[prospexican]

well i think that i found my answer online, and here is.
Metal Detecting Policy
The restrictions to metal detecting on public lands are to protect historical remains.
The Code of Federal Regulations, (36 CFR 261.9) states, "The following are prohibited: (g) Digging in, excavating, disturbing, injuring, destroying, or in any way damaging any prehistoric, historic, or archaeological resources, structure, site, artifact, or property. (h) Removing any prehistoric, historic, or archaeological resources, structure, site, artifact, property."
The Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA, 16 U.S.C. 470cc also prohibits these activities, stating, "No person may excavate, remove, damage, or otherwise alter or deface or attempt to excavate, remove, damage or otherwise alter or deface any archaeological resources located on public lands or Indian lands unless such activity is pursuant to a permit...” ARPA exempts the collection of coins for personal use if the coins are not in an archaeological context. In some cases, coins may be part of an historical-period archaeological site, in which case they would be considered archaeological resources and are protected under law. These laws apply to all National Forest System land and do not vary from state to state.
Four forms of metal detector use are recognized.
Searching for treasure trove: Treasure trove is defined as money, uncounted gems, or precious metals in the form of coin, plate, or bullion that has been deliberately hidden with the intention of recovering it later. This use requires a special use permit.
Prospecting: Using a metal detector to locate gold or other mineral deposits is permitted subject to the General Mining Law of 1872. A Notice of Intent (36 CFR 228 A) is required for prospecting, and metal detectors may be used in this activity. Prospecting that involves land disturbance also requires the filing of a mining plan of operations. People who use metal detectors for this activity should bear in mind that many of the mineralized lands within the NFS have been “claimed” by others who have sole right to prospect and develop the mineral resourced found on the claim. A search of County and Bureau of Land Management records should be made prior to prospecting to determine if an area has been claimed.
Searching for historic or prehistoric artifacts: Using a metal detector to locate archaeological or historical remains is subject to the Antiquities Act of 1906 and the Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 as amended and requires a special use permit. Such permits are granted for scientific research only.
Recreational pursuits: The most common form of metal detector use is searching for lost coins, jewelry, and incidental metal items having no historical value. Such use is common in developed campgrounds, swimming areas, and picnic areas and requires no permit. However, one must assume personal responsibility to notice if the area may indeed contain archaeological or historical resources and if it does, cease metal detecting and notify a Forest Service office. Not doing so may result in prosecution under the Code of Federal Regulations or ARPA.
The metal detecting policy on public lands is fairly restrictive to protect our valuable, non-renewable historical resources. However, recognizing the universal interest in archaeology and history and the vast public knowledge of such resources, the USDA Forest Service sponsors a public archaeology program through which metal detector enthusiasts and others can help. Passport In Time is a national program inviting the public to work with agency archaeologists on historic preservation projects. We have done numerous projects through PIT in cooperation with metal detecting clubs and individuals. The cooperation has been beneficial for both the detectorists and agency’s archaeologists. Locating archaeological sites becomes a joint endeavor and we learn a great deal. If you would like more information on this program, call 1-800-281-9176 or visit Welcome to Passport in Time.

 

[Hard Prospector]

National parks no, national forests in western states usually yes while prospecting for gold, silver etc so long as you do not create a "significant disturbance" By asking permission to prospect you are waving your rights granted to you under the 1872 Mining Law and entering into a binding agreement/terms with the government. If anyone asks, you are not looking for antiques or relics but prospecting for "possible mineral deposits"....Get it

 

[prospexican]

thank you very much Hard Prospector, seems to be like i was still kind a confused, but after your answer i understand that i will be able go to Utah just one more question, my partner think that he has locate a ghost town, dating from the 18 century, is it legal to hunt for possible lost coins out there? meaning old coins.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

You need to research the actual national forest your going to, rules are different for different national forests..... Same rules on detecting do not apply to all forests.

 

[Hard Prospector]

thank you very much Hard Prospector, seems to be like i was still kind a confused, but after your answer i understand that i will be able go to Utah just one more question, my partner think that he has locate a ghost town, dating from the 18 century, is it legal to hunt for possible lost coins out there? meaning old coins.

If the ghost town is on private property, you should be able to detect with permission. On public land without written permission from the government, certainly no unless your looking for a heap of trouble.

 

[Jim in Idaho]

If the land (ghost town) is under private ownership, you should be able to detect with permission. On public land without written permission from the government, certainly no unless your looking for a heap of trouble.

Where do you get this stuff? The national forests are open to prospecting with a detector. There may be a few that have restrictions, but I, for one, will not be poking around worrying about being cited. Nor will I be asking anyone for permission. Just go, and don't worry about it.
Jim

 

[Hard Prospector]

Where do you get this stuff? The national forests are open to prospecting with a detector. There may be a few that have restrictions, but I, for one, will not be poking around worrying about being cited. Nor will I be asking anyone for permission. Just go, and don't worry about it.
Jim

If you read all of my posts concerning this thread, prospecting with a detector in most western state national forests for precious metals is covered under 1872 Mining Law. Plundering and sacking antiques or artifacts (including coins) on public land in these same national forests will surely result in steep fines and may be jail time. Some may see this as too conservative, but this guy is asking advice and I don't want to see him get "rolled up" by government regulators.

 

[Jim in Idaho]

Your post made it sound, to me, like using a detector on public land is illegal, without written permission. And, I have to say this, I detect old mining camps, and small towns, whenever I find them. Most are nothing more than lines of rocks in the dirt, and few people, including the BLM, Forest Service, et al, even know they are there.
Of course a person would be a fool to detect a "touristy" ghost town, like Bodie, for instance. Or any other well-known, and often-visited place. You have to use a little judgment.
Another thing to consider is the attitude of the local Federal officials. I've found that they tend to be in line with the attitude of the local populace...they want to "get along with" the locals, so tend to be like them. In states like Kalifornia, the Feds tend to be overbearing, and stretch the limits of their authority. In the more conservative states, like Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah, they re more laid back, and cooperative. Also, in the Rockies, there are so many millions of acres to cover, the manpower just doesn't exist to do it.
Jim

 

[Hard Prospector]

Your post made it sound, to me, like using a detector on public land is illegal, without written permission. And, I have to say this, I detect old mining camps, and small towns, whenever I find them. Most are nothing more than lines of rocks in the dirt, and few people, including the BLM, Forest Service, et al, even know they are there.
Of course a person would be a fool to detect a "touristy" ghost town, like Bodie, for instance. Or any other well-known, and often-visited place. You have to use a little judgment.
Another thing to consider is the attitude of the local Federal officials. I've found that they tend to be in line with the attitude of the local populace...they want to "get along with" the locals, so tend to be like them. In states like Kalifornia, the Feds tend to be overbearing, and stretch the limits of their authority. In the more conservative states, like Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah, they re more laid back, and cooperative. Also, in the Rockies, there are so many millions of acres to cover, the manpower just doesn't exist to do it.
Jim

Agreed

 

[RockRaven]

In the areas of the local National Forest which are suitable for prospecting, original settlement during the time of placer are extensive and cover pretty much any and all areas in which prospecting would have any chance of success. Although the local rules state that any digging of any type at all is not allowed, extensive research of legal decisions in relation to prospecting activities leads me to conclude that such rules apply to recreational panning and metal detecting, not prospecting. Actual legal decisions require a notice of intent only in cases of cutting timber and using motorized digging equipment, and it is very much up to the individual who intends to prospect to know their rights and represent the activity that they are involved in to any "authority" encountered. Thus, the manner in which a person represents the activity in which they are involved determines the legal standing under actual case law on National Forest Land. Certainly the safest way in which to proceed with any serious activity is to post the corners and claim the site legally, under the law the site can be abandoned if it does not "pan out". There is no legal obligation in my area to file with the county until 30 days have passed, and 60 days with the BLM. Although the Forest Service desires to have a "Notice of Intent" filed by every prospector before they place boots on the ground, case law and the protections of the 1872 mining law do not support this concept in any way whatsoever. The earlier post that states that you are willingly giving up your rights by asking for permission is very much a correct statement, and the proper way to proceed is searching with LR2000 and at the county to make sure that you are not trespassing on a claim, then proceed with detecting as a mode of discovery.

 

[Clay Diggins]

There is no legal obligation in my area to file with the county until 30 days have passed, and 60 days with the BLM.

You have a good grasp of the laws Rock Raven. Thanks for that explanation!

There is one small correction to your statement above. South Dakota law gives you 60 days to record your location notice and the time to file an informational notice with the BLM is 90 days.

For the original poster - if you are not a U.S. Citizen, or in the process of becoming one, you have no right to the valuable minerals found on the public lands in the United States.

Heavy Pans

 

[RockRaven]

Thanks for the correction to my timeline for filing, Clay Diggins. Might have mixed up Colorado timeline with SD for some reason. One thing I thought that I should add to the discussion after some thought is that areas of the National Forest have been "withdrawn" for various reasons. The most common reason is that the lands are recent additions to the National Forest, most often these areas become public when large property owners trade land with the Forest Service. Another reason for withdrawal seems to simply be to thwart anyone from actually mining in areas that are "wilderness" or sensitive. Quite often, the actual end result of this type of withdrawal is to deny any small or medium operator the right to mine, while allowing very large companies like Rio Tinto to operate after their lawyers and owned politicians work back room deals.

 

[bigscoop]

In the areas of the local National Forest which are suitable for prospecting, original settlement during the time of placer are extensive and cover pretty much any and all areas in which prospecting would have any chance of success. Although the local rules state that any digging of any type at all is not allowed, extensive research of legal decisions in relation to prospecting activities leads me to conclude that such rules apply to recreational panning and metal detecting, not prospecting. Actual legal decisions require a notice of intent only in cases of cutting timber and using motorized digging equipment, and it is very much up to the individual who intends to prospect to know their rights and represent the activity that they are involved in to any "authority" encountered. Thus, the manner in which a person represents the activity in which they are involved determines the legal standing under actual case law on National Forest Land. Certainly the safest way in which to proceed with any serious activity is to post the corners and claim the site legally, under the law the site can be abandoned if it does not "pan out". There is no legal obligation in my area to file with the county until 30 days have passed, and 60 days with the BLM. Although the Forest Service desires to have a "Notice of Intent" filed by every prospector before they place boots on the ground, case law and the protections of the 1872 mining law do not support this concept in any way whatsoever. The earlier post that states that you are willingly giving up your rights by asking for permission is very much a correct statement, and the proper way to proceed is searching with LR2000 and at the county to make sure that you are not trespassing on a claim, then proceed with detecting as a mode of discovery.

How accurate/up to date is the LR2000? I've heard various statements on this.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

You need to research the actual national forest your going to, rules are different for different national forests..... Same rules on detecting do not apply to all forests.

I could have picked any of the posts here, to use as the start to chime in. But I chose this one, because I already know where TH'r is going with his answer. Because it came up before . Basically he has a citation of one particular NFS location, which does-in-fact have some dire sounding wording (or an outright prohibition? I can't remember). So the take-away lesson, I guess that is inferred, is to ask at each different NFS location you come to, right ? To which I would reply: Ok, granted, there's one (or more?) that appear to be the exception. But can't each individual NFS location be looked by for oneself, w/o having to ask someone in-person "can I?"

The OP found for himself (and I have several more similar confirming "yes" links), as have others here: NFS land is not off-limits to detecting. For the life-of-me I can't understand why one particular stretch or park under their domain has a "no". I'm not disputing that it's true he's found a single location that says that.

However, I have to wonder: With the over-whelming "yes" that NFS has (as is quoted here), then .... if an md'r had such citations in hand if accosted, then ......... I can't imagine trouble. If he's worried that it doesn't apply to the particular NFS location he has in mind, he can certainly probe deeper into written materials specific to the exact spot he has in mind. But I confess, I wouldn't probably bother. I wouldn't argue with the type "yes" that I see brought up here, that doesn't have the slightest notation that this "yes" is limited. But that's just me, and I'm not trying to get anyone in trouble. Just saying I don't think there would even BE "trouble", in the first place.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

......excavating, disturbing, injuring, destroying, or in any way damaging any prehistoric, historic, or archaeological resources, structure, site, artifact, or property. (h) Removing any prehistoric, historic, or archaeological resources, structure, site, artifact, property.".........

Prospexian, on the one hand, you've found the oft-cited "yes". Good going. However, on the other hand, you've found the "gotcha" condition of that. Namely: that technically it's good for things like nuggets, or new losses (clad, modern jewelry at beaches, etc...). So that technically an item over 50 (or 100?) years old is outside that "yes".

In my 35+ yrs. of this, I have to say, that I have NEVER had anyone follow me around with a calculator in-hand, doing the the math on the age of each coin I find. And quite frankly, I'm so far back in the woods or desert, there's no one around to begin with. I am sure those things are meant for obvious historic sacred monuments, etc... (that we can all agree should be protected). But seriously, if you find a 1958 wheatie at the swimming beach ?? Sure, you can wave it around enough archies, and I'm sure you'd find one to object.

If someone is *really* worried about this antiquities arpa stuff, the solution is simple: If you find an old coin, re-insert it back into the ground. Presto, problem solved.

 

[Clay Diggins]

How accurate/up to date is the LR2000? I've heard various statements on this.

It's neither. It shouldn't be relied on exclusively to determine claims status but it is part of the process.

As RockRaven wrote the best way to approach your research is to start with the LR2000 and then study the County Location recordings for your area of interest.

It's not an either/or choice you need to do both as well as check for new locations on the ground.

Heavy Pans

 

[Clay Diggins]

Prospexian, on the one hand, you've found the oft-cited "yes". Good going. However, on the other hand, you've found the "gotcha" condition of that. Namely: that technically it's good for things like nuggets, or new losses (clad, modern jewelry at beaches, etc...). So that technically an item over 50 (or 100?) years old is outside that "yes".

In my 35+ yrs. of this, I have to say, that I have NEVER had anyone follow me around with a calculator in-hand, doing the the math on the age of each coin I find. And quite frankly, I'm so far back in the woods or desert, there's no one around to begin with. I am sure those things are meant for obvious historic sacred monuments, etc... (that we can all agree should be protected). But seriously, if you find a 1958 wheatie at the swimming beach ?? Sure, you can wave it around enough archies, and I'm sure you'd find one to object.

If someone is *really* worried about this antiquities arpa stuff, the solution is simple: If you find an old coin, re-insert it back into the ground. Presto, problem solved.

If someone is *really* worried about this antiquities arpa stuff, the solution is simple: READ THE LAW.

Your "just fly under the radar" theory might apply elsewhere Tom but it's kind of silly to do the duck and weave when the law is very clear on your rights on Federal lands.

Antiquities Act:

Sec. 470bb. Definitions

As used in this chapter -
(1) ... No item shall be treated as an
archaeological resource under regulations under this paragraph
unless such item is at least 100 years of age.

Sec. 470kk. Savings provisions

(a) Mining, mineral leasing, reclamation, and other multiple uses
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to repeal, modify, or
impose additional restrictions on the activities permitted under
existing laws and authorities relating to mining, mineral leasing,
reclamation, and other multiple uses of the public lands.
(b) Private collections
Nothing in this chapter applies to, or requires a permit for, the
collection for private purposes of any rock, coin, bullet, or mineral
which is not an archaeological resource, as determined under
uniform regulations promulgated under section 470bb(1) of this title.
(c) Lands within chapter
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to affect any land other
than public land or Indian land or to affect the lawful recovery,
collection, or sale of archaeological resources from land other
than public land or Indian land.

See? - right there in black and white. The limit is 100 years and it doesn't include coins or bullets and mining is exempt.

Heavy Pans

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Nothing in this chapter applies to, or requires a permit for, the
collection for private purposes of any rock, coin, bullet, or mineral
which is not an archaeological resource, as determined under
uniform regulations promulgated under section 470bb(1) of this title.

......See? - right there in black and white. The limit is 100 years and it doesn't include coins or bullets and mining is exempt. ......

Clay-diggins, your observations here are an oft-cited much-miss-applied conclusion. People read what you're citing, and come away with the same mis-conception you are getting: That "coins and bullets are exempted".

But read carefully again Clay! It says that the coins and bullets that are exempted, are those that "are not an archaeological resource" ! Thus ANY archie can come along and say that: Since you found it on NFS land, that ... therefore, it IS an "archaeological resource". So you see, they can turn that around and interpret a different way.

I would NOT go "seek clarification" though. Because here's the MD'rs come back to their line of reasoning: there is what's known as the "Smithsonian trinomial system". The purpose is to designate archaeological sites. Right? Hence historic landmarks, indian midden sites, etc.... all get a # applied to them, a folder for research on it at selected university depositories (that supposedly only archies can access, etc...).

Ok, ask yourself: If a site gets a designation #/status deeming it "archaeological", WHAT DOES THAT IMPLY ? Quite clearly it implies that PRIOR to the receiving of that number/status, it WASN'T an "archaeological" site. Right ? It required the designation process to BECOME such a site.

Therefore I would agree with you. That as long as you're not finding that coin in their research pits, or obvious spots like Bodie, shiloh, or other such obvious historic sensitive landmarks, then yes: the coins and bullets are exempt. But no, not ALL coins and bullets, just those in designated archaeological context. And no, not all federal land is an "archaeological context" (as some archies would have you believe).

Thus a coin out in the desert, or at a cellar hole in the middle of nowhere on NFS land, .... well ....... so be it.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Nothing in this chapter applies to, or requires a permit for, the
collection for private purposes of any rock, coin, bullet, or mineral
which is not an archaeological resource, as determined under
uniform regulations promulgated under section 470bb(1) of this title.



Clay-diggins, your observations here are an oft-cited much-miss-applied conclusion. People read what you're citing, and come away with the same mis-conception you are getting: That "coins and bullets are exempted".

But read carefully again Clay! It says that the coins and bullets that are exempted, are those that "are not an archaeological resource" ! Thus ANY archie can come along and say that: Since you found it on NFS land, that ... therefore, it IS an "archaeological resource".

Read carefully.

Nonsense. You just now made that up. The law is clear. It's not up to some "archie" to decide. It's determined by "uniform regulations promulgated under section 470bb(1) of this title."

As I wrote. You don't need to guess - just READ THE LAW.