National Register of Historic Places

mastereagle22

Silver Member
May 15, 2007
4,909
31
Southeast Missouri
Detector(s) used
E-trac, Explorer II, Xterra30, Whites Prizm IV
I have been trying to secure permission for a similar place here. The rules that I have found state that if you find anything of historic or monetary value it must be turned in after the hunt.

And you are supposed to be supervised during any hunt.

Good luck with your place.
 

Tom_in_CA

Gold Member
Mar 23, 2007
13,837
10,360
Salinas, CA
🥇 Banner finds
2
Detector(s) used
Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
If those plaques are anything like "state historic landmarks", they can be put on private property. Is it the same sort of thing with the fed. landmark plaques? I have hunted spots that are state historic landmarks, d/t they are still, despite the plaque, private property. There was a Bed & Breakfast in the tiny town of Ferndale, CA, that was built in 1860. It has a historical designation plaque right on the front lawn. The owner gave me permission to detect there (maybe since we'd been over-nighters there the night before ;D) I got coins back to the 1850s off that lawn. I suppose if you asked enough questions of the state or federal agency that oversees those plaques, that you might find someone to tell you "no". But as long as it's still privately owned, I don't think they can really (or realistically) do anything about it.
 

OP
OP
K

Kam in MN

Greenie
May 14, 2003
17
1
Winona, Minnesota
Detector(s) used
Whites
I received the following response to an email directed to the National Registry. Just wondering what your interpetation of the letter would be. I read it as to ALLOW the detecting on the site as long as it is not part of a Federal Park (battle site, burial ground, etc). I fully understand that National Parks are strictly of limits and enforced. The site is privately owned and is on the Register because of the Architectual design of the home itself.

Thanks again,
Kam in MN



Thank you for your recent inquiry.

The fact that the property is listed in the National Register of
Historic Places would not, in and of itself, prevent you from metal detecting.

Owners of private property listed in the National Register are free to
maintain, manage, or dispose of their property as they choose provided
that there is no Federal involvement. Owners have no obligation to open
their properties to the public, to restore them or even to maintain them, if
they choose not to do so. The decision to allow metal detecting on private
property is generally at the discretion of the property owner. (Please
be advised that if the significance of the National Register site is based
on the existence of intact archeological deposits, disturbing or removing
those items may be grounds for removing that property from the National
Register.)

The key issue with regard to metal detecting is usually the ownership
of the land. Antiquities statutes have been enacted by the Federal
government or Federal lands and many states have enacted similar legislation.
Such statutes protect archeological sites by requiring a permit to excavate
sites on public land or specially designated sites. These laws often
provide substantial penalties (fines and jail) for violations. In
addition, some local communities have also adopted ordinances to
prohibit unauthorized excavation and metal detecting on public lands. The
antiquities statutes of some states even cover private lands. As an
example, the removal of artifacts from federal land is strictly
prohibited unless you have a written professional permit issued by the agency
managing the land. (Verbal permission from local representatives is not
sufficient.)
Removal of such features can be punished by substantial fines and/or
jail time, as well as restitution for damages.

On a personal note, while many people seem to enjoy metal detecting and
hunting for relics from the past, the removal of even the most mundane
of elements from a site can deprive the broader public of the right to
knowledge about the past. Even if the thinking goes that "If I hadn't
uncovered the item, no one would even have known it was there," this
doesn't recognize the possibility that future researchers might not
uncover the feature at some later point and be able to piece together an
important aspect of our shared history. Importance not only lies in the artifact
itself, but also in its placement within the landscape and its
proximity to other features. Disturbance of these features can have unforeseen harm
to a site, even if the original artifact recovered is minor.

Thank you for your interest in the preservation programs of the
National Park Service. If you have any additional questions, please feel free
to contact my office, or your local State Historic Preservation Office.

Paul R. Lusignan
Historian
National Register of Historic Places
National Park Service
 

Tom_in_CA

Gold Member
Mar 23, 2007
13,837
10,360
Salinas, CA
🥇 Banner finds
2
Detector(s) used
Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
Kam, can you see through all this verbage? This is clearly written with all the archaeological buzz words and phrases. This "Paul Lusignan" guy is probably an archaeologist himself. No problem in that, as we all know that they, as a group, would prefer that all md'rs dry up and blow away. So if you ask enough of those type mindset folks, you will get all your answers colored with their bias, hopes, etc...

Notice a few things: First, he admits that if the plaque is on private property, the owner can do whatever he pleases with it (grant access, allow md'ing, etc...). So far so good, as this Paul guy can't deny that legal truth! But then he drones on and on with lines that are meant to discourage you (as all good archies would do ::)). But read carefully: All the "antiquity statutes" "laws" "permits" and other daunting vocabulary he throws out apply to PUBLIC land, not private land, which was the root of your question. An example of that is this quote:

"Such statutes protect archeological sites by requiring a permit to excavate sites on public land" (emphasis mine)

Doh! even though your question was about private land, he can't help but remind you the daunting fed and state land stuff, just to insinuate that "oh NO! you better watch out!" It's almost comical. And then, as if he just then realizes that none of this applies to you, he adds this "you better be scared" line:

"The antiquities statutes of some states even cover private lands " (emphasis mine)

This might harken to some states attempts to do that (Kentucky? others?), but even THOSE usually refer to "archaeologically significant sites" within private land. Not ALL private land. Or to the extent it may be private land in general, it's only as it pertains to indian things, or graveyards, etc... And heck, to the extent that someone could morph your wheat penny or IH from private land to be within some morphing of words, do you really think anyone monitors these things? I mean, think of it: If what he said in the last quote had any stretch of truth to it (in the way he means to interpret to apply to detectors), then that would mean that, supposedly, there are states, right now, that don't allow detecting on private property. And that's absolute garbage! There is NONE of the 50 states that don't allow homeowners and private property owners from detecting, or allowing detecting. Even the most archie-riddled states like Oregon (where web links spread about a bottle digger who got harrassed) still have oodles of md'rs that go un-bothered. So Paul's words in this last quote are just B.S. He hopes to deter all md'rs, as any good archie would do, to feel good about himself.

Finally, he appears to be well-versed in the md'rs come-back lines, when he refers to what you MAY be thinking (you evil person you! :tongue3:) when he says:

" Even if the thinking goes that "If I hadn't uncovered the item, no one would even have known it was there," this
doesn't recognize the possibility that future researchers might not uncover the feature at some later point and be able to piece together an important aspect of our shared history
"

Wow, I must hand it to him, he is well rehearsed in our "better on my mantle, than buried unknown for the next million years" philosphy. The problem with his "some later point" drone, is that it never happens! There is simply no government resources, time, money, interest, etc... to go after all the stuff in the ground. Even in places they try, they merely make a few 4 X 4 pits, every other year or so, at best. It would take a million years *just* to cover a few national parks, campgrounds, battle sites, yards, etc... It's simply not going to happen. His same stupid logic failed when they came after Mel Fisher, telling him his goodies belonged to the state of Florida. When the FL lawyers/archies tried to say that Mel wasn't recovering it properly, and that is should have been left to the state to do it, Mel's lawyers succesfully argued that REALISTICALLY, no state or the fed. would ever allocate tax-payer money to fund risky treasure hunts. It's the private sector that does it, risks it, finds it, preserves it, etc... So the state had to drop their "someday future archies will discover or dig this" bunk.

You can go hunt at any plaque site, to your heart's content, as long as it's on private property, and the owner says "go for it".
 

Mark S.

Sr. Member
Jan 25, 2005
331
20
I will back up what Tom has already said.

I investigated this very question a short time ago when I was presented with that question. The info is readily available on the web by going to the National Park Service web site. It clearly states that if it is private property then the owner has full say so over the property. In fact they do not even have to maintain the property and could demolish it if they so desire. Of course that could end the desigination but you get the picture.

The government has no control over it and don't let anyone tell you different. The exception would be if they have been given a grant for restoration. Then the government may have some say so over the building but not the ground.

If you are tring to obtain permission and the owner is hesitant due to thinking the government has control then copy the pages off the website and give them to him. That should solve the problem.

Mark S.
 

diggemall

Hero Member
Apr 19, 2006
887
24
northeast Wisconsin
Detector(s) used
Fisher CZ3D, BH Discovery 3300
I would swear that I stumbled across some local ordinance while researching an Historic District in my area some time back, but am unable to find it now.

One example of how the archie-types manage to exclude md-ers from private property can be found here though:

http://dockets.alexandriava.gov/icons/pz/bar/ohad/cy07/040407/di03.pdf

It appears that the citys archaeological department has their fingers in someones applying for a permit to remodel a property in an Historic district.......


Another reference:

http://gometaldetecting.com/ct-detecting-law.html


It isn't always "metal detecting" that is prohibited - it may be removal or disturbance of "historically significant" items. Vague and open to interpretation - if someone WANTS to be a pain, they can.


I'm not trying to be negative here, but the fact is that various municipalities have various ordinances that can put you in a position of having to legally defend yourself. It is best to check with whatever unit of government that may jurisdiction before you proceed. Ignorance of applicable laws just doesn't hold water in court.

Diggem'
 

Tom_in_CA

Gold Member
Mar 23, 2007
13,837
10,360
Salinas, CA
🥇 Banner finds
2
Detector(s) used
Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
Diggem, when you say: "It is best to check with whatever unit of government that may jurisdiction before you proceed" .... as it applies to this thread here, I have a question for you: What do you think Kam did?? He did JUST that! So the question is "what does that answer mean?", not "did he ask enough bureaucrats?"

Next you think you have found an example of how "archie-types manage to exclude md-ers from private property" by your first link. But what you have done is fallen prey to things that sounds scary, yet are non-applicable to this thread's question. Look carefully again at your link. Do you see what it is? It's a set of conditions for a building/construction permit. YES! If you need permits (as all municipalities require, for remodels, etc...) then YES, in that case, they can sink their tenticles into the requirements, for the period of time just as it applies to that project, in that time-frame. But that is not what we're talking about here. The government has every right to park their noses into types of construction, so people don't build unsafe houses, block views of the lake or ocean, preserve endangered salamanders, etc.... Thus, their tenticles apply when you get permits for a specific purpose, when needed on private property. But no such tenticles exist unless you are in the midst of a permit requirement. Take for example the very link you gave: Trust me, prior to that person getting those set of conditional rules, nothing would've stopped him from detecting on his property, and removing archaeologically significant seateds, reales, buckles, or whatever. Sure, once he is required to get a permit, for a specific function by which he allows the govt. to THEN come on and give conditions, yes, THEN things change, for just that term of time (during the building/construction). But to go from your one EIR link, to jump to a conclusion that someone *might* not be able to detect on their own land, is not applicable.

Next, in your second link, you infer that private land might be off-limits. But the link itself has fallen prey to the same false interpretations. Take the "banned cities" portion for example: "The city of Sharon, CT has banned metal detecting within the city limits. No detecting is allowed in Norwich, CT " I'm willing to bet that this applies to CITY lands in each of those cases, not private land within the city. The same logic has held up in various European countries too (just as an example). In those cases, you also can read daunting rules that make it sound like the entire country of France, Germany, Spain are "off-limits", because the web-links to their laws, don't make a distinction. They just say "no metal detectors without permits" blah blah. However, those countries are plum full of hobbyists, who will all tell you that those laws refer to public/state land, or "scheduled" sites, etc... It's the same logic for a host of USA laws, at whatever level they're at (Fed, state, county, or city): One ASSUMES they apply to public lands (afterall, it's assumed you're asking about land under public control, right?), and ASSUMES they don't apply to your own land, unless specifically told so. So for example, in each of those cases in your link (Sharon CT, and Norwich CT) one would assume those apply to their city lands. If you were to ask a bureaucrat in one of those cities, "how about my own front yard", you may get an answer like Kam got, that ....... although daunting sounding (purposefully to make you feel evil), yet they can not stop you. Unlike maybe England or Mexico, which owns the resources under the land (thus oil, coins, etc... "belong to the crown"), the USA has no such system. So by golly, if you discover an oil well on your land (like the Beverly Hillbillys, eh?) by golly, guess who it belongs to? YOU!

Same logic for the entry in your second link "Historical sites..." I will cut and past the text, with my own words inserted in bold italics, so you can see how this type of thing is always accurately interpretted: "All public city land sites that has been designated historical are off limits, including those places that have memorials, like on town greens". You can see by my added text, how you get the same answer Kam got: A law can be brief, and not distinguish between public and private, and .... not until pressed, does an archie or lawmaker distinguish that the rule applies to lands under the control of the very agency that makes the rule, to begin with!

Sorry to rant, but I just get riled up when I see these things get misinterpretted, and suggesting to only further the misinterpretation, by thinking we need to go grovel and the feet of archies, who, of course, will spin anything they can to make you feel evil. So what do we do? We suggest more and more groveling "just to make sure", thus only perpetuating this mindset and furthering it, ceding more and more power to this misinterprettation.
 

mastereagle22

Silver Member
May 15, 2007
4,909
31
Southeast Missouri
Detector(s) used
E-trac, Explorer II, Xterra30, Whites Prizm IV
Well I can tell you the owner of the local school that was established in 1854 told me no. He said he didn't want the property to be "damaged" from the digging of holes.

This place is falling down. The building is in very poor repair and the weeds are about 4 foot high, but heaven forbid I dig a hole or two.

Oh well on to other locations I guess.
 

Tom_in_CA

Gold Member
Mar 23, 2007
13,837
10,360
Salinas, CA
🥇 Banner finds
2
Detector(s) used
Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
Mastereagle22, you are dealing with a situation where the owner himself says "no", for his own reasons. That's a different situation than the question of if/whether or not detecting is allowed, if he wanted to grant it. Sometimes an owner of a site with a plaque may think the plaque forbids him from allowing md'ing, but he may just also be mis-informed, or is just using that line to politely tell you to "bug off". Like, a way to transfer the blame to someone else, so you don't try to dicker with him to get him to change his mind.
 

mastereagle22

Silver Member
May 15, 2007
4,909
31
Southeast Missouri
Detector(s) used
E-trac, Explorer II, Xterra30, Whites Prizm IV
Yes I agree completely. The owner has allowed hunting by a very FEW other people.

I was just saying that I couldn't get permission to hunt this site, that's all.
 

kayakpat

Hero Member
Mar 31, 2013
557
280
Detector(s) used
Bounty Hunter
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
to be designated on the historical national registry if the property isn't already, you have to apply, some home owner do it because it is a huge property tax break and you can get restoration grants and protection from encroachmen and other benifits. BUT once you do that you have restrictions of what you can do, If you remodel or try to upgrade you can only restore it to its original period condition. I am not sure of all the rules, but to some people who want to buy, it can actually lower its value because of limited use, It still would be personal property,
 

relicmeister

Bronze Member
Jul 26, 2012
2,201
2,113
Poconos, Nw.NJ & Delaware Valley
Detector(s) used
XP Orx Deus II, 9” coil
Primary Interest:
Relic Hunting
There is a mansion which is also a museum in my area which I'm sure is on the national register of historic places. We happen to know the curator there, and I
just got permission to detect the property, so long as I turn over anything "significant" to the museum. I'm looking forward to doing this property after the ground
thaws . I'm sure there will be both items I can keep and items that I should turn over to the museum. There is another such property which is privately owned yet
also on Federal land which I hope to get limited permission from the owner to detect.
 

Jason in Enid

Gold Member
Oct 10, 2009
9,593
9,229
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
There is another such property which is privately owned yet also on Federal land which I hope to get limited permission from the owner to detect.

This last statement is extremely confusing. Is it private or federal? Being listed on the "historic register" doesn't change the land status. If it's privately owned, it's still private and the owner can do anything with it they wish. Same with your local "museum". BTW, I would ask for a definition of "significant" before you start digging. I don't consider old coins significant, but the museum might.
 

Tom_in_CA

Gold Member
Mar 23, 2007
13,837
10,360
Salinas, CA
🥇 Banner finds
2
Detector(s) used
Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
Good post Jason. I too caught the contradiction there of "private" yet "federal". Huh ?
 

kayakpat

Hero Member
Mar 31, 2013
557
280
Detector(s) used
Bounty Hunter
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
I don't see confusion It spells out about being on the federal historic registry. It can be owned by federal govt, or state, county, city or private. If it is federal owned under fed laws, with others it is subject to the state county, city etc laws, private ownership can to what they, but if it is archeology changes, dug on or modified ,it may be removed from the registry . If private, state, county city etc, owns it and in the federal registry and is managed, maintained or anyway involved with federal govt, then federal laws will apply. A example could be a ancient private owned building that the federal govt has a post office and is registered in the national historic registry.
 

Jason in Enid

Gold Member
Oct 10, 2009
9,593
9,229
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
No it's not. The historic register is nothing more than a list of places. It changes absolutely nothing about the property. Nothing about being privately owned is changed by being on the historic register.
 

kayakpat

Hero Member
Mar 31, 2013
557
280
Detector(s) used
Bounty Hunter
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Yes I know but with it comes benifits like tax breaks and restrictions example as shown on pg1, and requirement to be on it

he fact that the property is listed in the National Register of
Historic Places would not, in and of itself, prevent you from metal detecting.

Owners of private property listed in the National Register are free to
maintain, manage, or dispose of their property as they choose provided
that there is no Federal involvement. Owners have no obligation to open
their properties to the public, to restore them or even to maintain them, if
they choose not to do so. The decision to allow metal detecting on private
property is generally at the discretion of the property owner. (Please
be advised that if the significance of the National Register site is based
on the existence of intact archeological deposits, disturbing or removing
those items may be grounds for removing that property from the National
Register.)

The key issue with regard to metal detecting is usually the ownership
of the land. Antiquities statutes have been enacted by the Federal
government or Federal lands and many states have enacted similar legislation.
Such statutes protect archeological sites by requiring a permit to excavate
sites on public land or specially designated sites. These laws often
provide substantial penalties (fines and jail) for violations. In
addition, some local communities have also adopted ordinances to
prohibit unauthorized excavation and metal detecting on public lands. The
antiquities statutes of some states even cover private lands. As an
example, the removal of artifacts from federal land is strictly
prohibited unless you have a written professional permit issued by the agency
managing the land. (Verbal permission from local representatives is not
sufficient.)
Removal of such features can be punished by substantial fines and/or
jail time, as well as restitution for damages.

On a personal note, while many people seem to enjoy metal detecting and
hunting for relics from the past, the removal of even the most mundane
of elements from a site can deprive the broader public of the right to
knowledge about the past. Even if the thinking goes that "If I hadn't
uncovered the item, no one would even have known it was there," this
doesn't recognize the possibility that future researchers might not
uncover the feature at some later point and be able to piece together an
important aspect of our shared history. Importance not only lies in the artifact
itself, but also in its placement within the landscape and its
proximity to other features. Disturbance of these features can have unforeseen harm
to a site, even if the original artifact recovered is minor.

Thank you for your interest in the preservation programs of the
National Park Service. If you have any additional questions, please feel free
to contact my office, or your local State Historic Preservation Office.

Paul R. Lusignan
Historian
National Register of Historic Places
National Park Service
 

Last edited:

Tom_in_CA

Gold Member
Mar 23, 2007
13,837
10,360
Salinas, CA
🥇 Banner finds
2
Detector(s) used
Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
kayak, with all due respect for the answer that that archie-minded historian @ the Natural Park Service gave (which you repeat back here as the answer to the issue) : You've got to keep in mind something, when relying on such replies : Keep in mind the source. If they're of a purist archaeological mindset, then .... what did you expect ?

Example: It would be a little like asking a P.E.T.A. (animal rights wackos) rep: "Hi, can I leave my pet bunny in the car while I run into 7-11 to get a slurpee?" What do you think they would answer? They would shriek: "noooohhhh! You can be arrested for animal cruelty. The bunny could suffer in the hot car. Your car can be confiscated. You can be fined", etc.. etc... Heck, they could maybe even back up their assertions with actual laws about animal cruelty. Right ? But seriously dude, what did you expect coming from an animal rights wacko ? Hence so too do I put little stock into what some archies say/claim.
 

kayakpat

Hero Member
Mar 31, 2013
557
280
Detector(s) used
Bounty Hunter
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
My parent owned one, the was a main fort in the french and indian war, it was my grandfathers and when he died, my dad inherited. being designated like it and a offer of money, he sold it to a fort restoration group. Today it is a big draw to the city, they tore the house down and dug, cannons, rifles all kind of stuff behind the house stone foundation. I wanted to tear into the ground myself but could not. They have reenactments every year there and is open all year. My parents had lots of pressure to sell, I also went to a auction 3 years ago for a farm listed on the historical record with 100 acres house barn blacksmith building. It went for 1/4 of what it was appraised because of the restrictions on what you could do to the buildings.
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Top