Permission to Hunt

[Jeff95531]

I was still fuming about what I was told by the local NFS....everything prohibited including metal detecting. Grrr, I HATE ultimatums

Well, well, looky what I found

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_...rdb5261774.pdf

The link within the link looks promising too.

I don't know about you, but I will print this out, throw it in a gallon ziplock and stow it with my gear. In this way, if stopped by a LEO, i will present my "signed permission from the FEDERAL government" and establish I did my homework and in return obtained permission. This MIGHT be enough to make the #@%#$&'s just leave me alone.

Truthfully, I never see LEO's, but I like to be prepared. Usually a LEO follows up on a complaint, just like any cop. I can see how people would complain seeing me do it because they were told it was all off limits.

I know better now and it feels good!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Gold Maven]

the link won't come up for me, what does it say?

 

[MT_Joe]

Here is the actual link...

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

I was still fuming about what I was told by the local NFS....everything prohibited including metal detecting. Grrr, I HATE ultimatums

Well, well, looky what I found

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_...rdb5261774.pdf

The link within the link looks promising too.

I don't know about you, but I will print this out, throw it in a gallon ziplock and stow it with my gear. In this way, if stopped by a LEO, i will present my "signed permission from the FEDERAL government" and establish I did my homework and in return obtained permission. This MIGHT be enough to make the #@%#$&'s just leave me alone.

Truthfully, I never see LEO's, but I like to be prepared. Usually a LEO follows up on a complaint, just like any cop. I can see how people would complain seeing me do it because they were told it was all off limits.

I know better now and it feels good!

Well Jeff, let this be a lesson for you and others, to look this up in the future, for anywhere you go, and NOT ask a live person "can I metal detect?". As you can see, the easy answer is often "no" from a desk-bound bureaucrat. Why didn't you just look it up for yourself to begin with?

Oh, and if you'd looked it up and found no mention at all (neither expressly "allowed" nor "prohibited"), then that too, for me, would have been grounds to "help myself". Because an activity need not be expressly "allowed" to be able to do it. On the contrary: if it's not dis-allowed, then ....... doh ..... it's not dis-allowed. Like flying frisbees for instance, you will find no allowance saying "frisbee flying is ok". Yet no one thinks for a minute that he can't fly frisbees.

But in your case, you have an explicit allowance. What more could you ask for, haha. Thus, ....... all the more proof that it's not wise to ask someone, when you can look it up for yourself.

Another outcome of your particular situation (for people who've waltzed into city or county halls asking "can I?"), is that one clerk will say "sure, help yourself!", while the next will say "absolutely not!". Thus why subject yourself to someone's whim or mood or their perception of your question? Look it up for oneself. And if nothing saying "no detectors", then presto, there you go

 

[Bum Luck]

Well, Tom, those "bureaucrats" may in fact be in charge of those sites, like a park ranger or superintendent. They have authority by various means.

That's not to say the never abuse it or are wrong.

I'd like to say that the document should be a guideline for MDing generally. Especially here in Wisconsin where we have no MDing by DNR administrative rule.

 

[Jeff95531]

Here is the actual link...

TY MT Joe! Not sure what happened there but yep, that's it.

 

[Jeff95531]

Well Jeff, let this be a lesson for you and others, to look this up in the future, for anywhere you go, and NOT ask a live person "can I metal detect?". As you can see, the easy answer is often "no" from a desk-bound bureaucrat. Why didn't you just look it up for yourself to begin with?

Oh, and if you'd looked it up and found no mention at all (neither expressly "allowed" nor "prohibited"), then that too, for me, would have been grounds to "help myself". Because an activity need not be expressly "allowed" to be able to do it. On the contrary: if it's not dis-allowed, then ....... doh ..... it's not dis-allowed. Like flying frisbees for instance, you will find no allowance saying "frisbee flying is ok". Yet no one thinks for a minute that he can't fly frisbees.

But in your case, you have an explicit allowance. What more could you ask for, haha. Thus, ....... all the more proof that it's not wise to ask someone, when you can look it up for yourself.

Another outcome of your particular situation (for people who've waltzed into city or county halls asking "can I?"), is that one clerk will say "sure, help yourself!", while the next will say "absolutely not!". Thus why subject yourself to someone's whim or mood or their perception of your question? Look it up for oneself. And if nothing saying "no detectors", then presto, there you go

I was told this in March. I used to be a LEO and knew how to research and make laws for that matter. I gave up when I discovered layer upon layer of regs from the FS, Six Rivers Recreational area, Dept of AG,BLM, Fed, State, local, and all mostly contradicted each other. I too am a big believer in beg for forgiveness rather than ask permission as long as it's NOT privately owned property. However, don't take away our lands and then tell us we can't use them in a responsible manner.

 

[Jeff95531]

DNR administrative rule.

Ah yes, those guys too!

 

[cudamark]

Well Jeff, I don't know if that is an actual permission slip or not but it's definitely an interesting document! Is this in the actual code for FS land or a letter in response to a request? Who is Mr. Doran and does he have authority to make these decisions? I'm printing it out anyway. It might help you BS your way out of trouble!

 

[Jeff95531]

After I found it, I didn't go further. Thought I would quit while I was ahead. Yes a section # would be nice but never found one. It is always nice to have something in writing to support yourself AND it definitely looks like/is an in-house document. I googled fs metal detecting and it came up as second choice

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

..... those "bureaucrats" may in fact be in charge of those sites, like a park ranger or superintendent. They have authority by various means..... That's not to say the never abuse it or are wrong.

bum-luck , sure, those 'bureaucrats" are "in charge". So too is every gardener, cop, city council-man, etc.... There are scores of people who could "pull rank", and show some sort of ID badge, saying they are "duly appointed". I have no issue or qualms with that. But how do those "scores of people" back up themselves if they DID decide to try to boot you? WITH IN-PRINT EXISTING verbage that they can say "thus saith the law". And if NO SUCH CITATION exists, then they can go pound sand as far as I'm concerned.

And no, ..... I do not accept verbage about "alterations" and "defacement" to apply. Unless you intend to leave the area with holes and not fill them in?


Thus, if, as you say, they might "abuse" it or are "wrong", then .......... why are we md'r supposed to sit and home and leave the md's in the closet? I'm not saying to "go out and pick a fight", but for pete's sake, were you planning on going out and wearing a big neon orange "X" on your back begging for attention? Can't you pick low traffic times?

 

[marh415]

Interesting read, I printed it out also. I have to agree with Tom on leaving well enough alone as far as asking permission to hunt public land goes. I posted a question here about general rules about hunting property, then asked a friend who's been into the hobby for a while in my state. She basically stated the obvious; keep away from places that are deemed National parks, Wildlife Refuges, Historical sites and of course cemeteries. That's how I plan to go ahead with hunting in the future. HH!!

 

[Bum Luck]

bum-luck , sure, those 'bureaucrats" are "in charge". So too is every gardener, cop, city council-man, etc.... There are scores of people who could "pull rank", and show some sort of ID badge, saying they are "duly appointed"

Nope, city councilmen and gardners have no authority.

But how do those "scores of people" back up themselves if they DID decide to try to boot you? WITH IN-PRINT EXISTING verbage that they can say "thus saith the law". And if NO SUCH CITATION exists, then they can go pound sand as far as I'm concerned.

And no, ..... I do not accept verbage about "alterations" and "defacement" to apply. Unless you intend to leave the area with holes and not fill them in?

Yep, I agree with that. It's either written or it doesn't exist. And MDing either has to be specifically mentioned or implied in the ordinance to prohibit it.

Thus, if, as you say, they might "abuse" it or are "wrong", then .......... why are we md'r supposed to sit and home and leave the md's in the closet? I'm not saying to "go out and pick a fight", but for pete's sake, were you planning on going out and wearing a big neon orange "X" on your back begging for attention? Can't you pick low traffic times?

Nope, I'm low-profile.

That's not to say problems will never arise, human nature being what it is. But and understanding of how the "process" works will be of value. Try to understand a difficult political landscape, not run from it.

 

[bryanleemc]

Here is Mr Doran. Mike Doran | LinkedIn

Funny the link to the pdf is not working for me any longer... Copy saved yesterday, though!

 

[Jeff95531]

Yes, yes it is funny. Let's try this one...
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5261774.pdf

 

[marh415]

I found a site with a section about hunting RI, apparently they follow the Archaeological Resources Preservation Act. This coupled with the National Historic Preservation Act could cause you some problems even though they make no mention of medal detecting. After looking at the Parks and Recreation website, they did mention certain times and areas that are open to medal detecting on state land, so I contacted DEM LE division this morning to get more information. They couldn't tell me anymore than I already knew, aside from admitting that the laws were vague! So I then contacted a local digging group on FB to see how they interpreted the laws, they basically reiterated what has been mention above. Try not to dig any known artifacts over 100 years old (yeah right), and if the property (public of course) doesn't state not to dig, then go for it!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

marh415, ARPA is for federal sites, not state (or city, or county, etc..) sites. However, I suppose, a state, or city, or county, could incorporate the wording into their own, by their own election/choice, if they wanted to. But it need not necessarily subrograte down to the lower levels. Only when specifically drafted in, by specific inclusion.

But even THEN it STILL doesn't mean "no metal detecting". Because as you can see, it doesn't make mention of "metal detectors" anyhow. Only stuff about indian bones, archaeaological items, etc... (which is often defined as 50 or 100 yr. old type interpretations). And to be honest with you, some people have even interpreted parts of ARPA to exempt "coins and bullets" anyhow. So you could just go look for "modern targets" right? I mean, seriously, does anyone follow you or I around with a calculator doing the math on age of targets anyhow? C'mon, you're "only finding new stuff" as you're looking for the boyscout ring your dad lost when he was a kid there, right? Were you planning on wearing big red neon X's on yourself when you go out anyhow?

However, I'm sure if you asked enough archies and bureaucrats, you're only going to find "no's" (the "safe" answer on their part, when perhaps they don't really care or know or would even have paid you any mind). Thus in the future, when you find ambiguous wording like this (heck, and even ALLOWANCES), then is not the time to "go seeking clarification". All you're going to do, is risk a "no", to your "pressing question", and reasons for them to dream up rules to further clamp down, and "clarify unclear rules". Thus you risk getting rules INVENTED.

 

[Old as Dirt]

I agree with your post 100%, and I plan on going to public parks, where there are no signs posted and do some MD. I find it so discouraging, having a person come up to me, demanding me to leave, or the proper authorities will be called. I'm a lover....not a fighter, and I enjoy this new, adventurous hobby. HH to everyone!

 

[davinci]

Try using these! They do the trick every time I detect a park I'm not allowed! I know someone who cleaned up in St. Augustine with these babies.




Awesome

 

[marh415]

marh415, ARPA is for federal sites, not state (or city, or county, etc..) sites. However, I suppose, a state, or city, or county, could incorporate the wording into their own, by their own election/choice, if they wanted to. But it need not necessarily subrograte down to the lower levels. Only when specifically drafted in, by specific inclusion.

But even THEN it STILL doesn't mean "no metal detecting". Because as you can see, it doesn't make mention of "metal detectors" anyhow. Only stuff about indian bones, archaeaological items, etc... (which is often defined as 50 or 100 yr. old type interpretations). And to be honest with you, some people have even interpreted parts of ARPA to exempt "coins and bullets" anyhow. So you could just go look for "modern targets" right? I mean, seriously, does anyone follow you or I around with a calculator doing the math on age of targets anyhow? C'mon, you're "only finding new stuff" as you're looking for the boyscout ring your dad lost when he was a kid there, right? Were you planning on wearing big red neon X's on yourself when you go out anyhow?

However, I'm sure if you asked enough archies and bureaucrats, you're only going to find "no's" (the "safe" answer on their part, when perhaps they don't really care or know or would even have paid you any mind). Thus in the future, when you find ambiguous wording like this (heck, and even ALLOWANCES), then is not the time to "go seeking clarification". All you're going to do, is risk a "no", to your "pressing question", and reasons for them to dream up rules to further clamp down, and "clarify unclear rules". Thus you risk getting rules INVENTED.

I see your point Tom, and I agree with you. However, when I posted the question here, I was told to do my own research as all states differ, which makes sense. Now on the other hand had I or someone else just went off and started digging somewhere where we thought it was allowed and turned out that it wasn't, then wouldn't that be giving them a reason to "clamp down" also? You can't fault people that are new to the hobby for trying to be cautious or ethical. Just think of the reaction people would get here if they attracted some sort of negative publicity to the hobby. HH!!