Wisconsin DNR spring Meetings

[Bum Luck]

Wis has a State Archy. Why do we need a DNR archy too?

Time to lay him off and save some money.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Steve0]

I agree we do not need to duplicate jobs just to keep them working. Ship him out just like they did in minnisota.
Someone asked if you could vote if from out of state. The Answer I got was no but you can voice your opinion.
One thing to remeber we have been working on this through the wisconsin wildlife federation for about 2 years. This is the first step getting the question out and voted if it passes then it goes to the second step of re writting the whole thing. then it gets voted on again next year and if it passes then it will get done.
If it doesnt get voted through and there is enough support they can start again. But will take more time. Everyone know that it needs to be rewrote.
But atleast we need to show and state our opinion either way. Remeber its the last question and alot of people will be gone by then or will not want to hear anything as they want to go. So we have to get some numbers.
Bring friends.
Thanks

 

[Bum Luck]

A reminder:

Spring DNR Hearings to be held April 11, 2011.

Question 74- Metal Detecting on State Lands (# 700110): It is currently not legal to use metal detectors on state owned lands unless authorized for the purpose of retrieving personal property. The current rule was enacted over concerns about people using metal detectors to locate artifacts and possibly taking the artifacts or destroying the site so that it could not be recorded and preserved properly to reconstruct historical events. Under this suggested permitting system, participants would be required to have some type of educational instruction or certification before being issued a permit. Persons would not be allowed to disturb or retrieve historical artifacts and doing so would result in the loss of the permit to use a metal detector on state owned lands.

Do you support the DNR establishing a permit system whereby participants may purchase an annual metal detecting permit for the sum of $20 and be allowed to operate metal detectors on all state owned or managed property and properties purchased with Stewardship money?

locations here:

http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congress/spring_hearings/2011/2011Locations.pdf

I'm torn by this. I don't like that DNR can arbitrarily make up a rule without legislative approval. Not only that, but the permit would require $20. I don't find that much in a year, barely enough to cover batteries as it is.

Further, what are "historical artifacts"? Pre-clad coins? Half-rusted jar lids? I'm not sure I want to spend a half day digging up crap only to be at the mercy of some park ranger with a grudge.

I DO think that we should be able to use state parks, and more, other holdings of public lands - which include by DNR administrative rule ALL STREAMS AND LAKES - even when privately owned. We pay taxes and are citizens like any others.

What do you guys think?

 

[ewcoinhunter]

I am not from WI, but travel around there a lot. I would be open for the $20.00 if it was a yearly deal, and covered ALL WI.

 

[Bum Luck]

I am not from WI, but travel around there a lot. I would be open for the $20.00 if it was a yearly deal, and covered ALL WI.

It may cover all DNR lands, but can't cover county parks, city parks, etc.

Can't really cover private lands either.

 

[fibberjibber]

Ok, my two cents. I think it this should be attended by all and passed. It is a nice, feel-good measure and it keeps the issue relevant and on the table. However, if this is the result of two years work, then it is largely time wasted on political hogwash. Where will my 20 dollar revenue go? Will the class cost me money too? Who will run the class? Who pays their salary? Who dictates what is in the class? Why do we need one- cant we just sign an ethics clause to the permit? The rule prohibits even disturbing historical artifacts. What do I do with the artifacts when inadvertently dig them up? How do I know how old a pocketwatch, spoon, or whatsit is? Do we all now need to be dating experts on all pre-1960 material goods? For that matter, how will the warden know either? Will the DNR issue all the wardens and officers a digital library of billions of material goods and how to date them to keep us in line?

No, I think this is a mess. Take a handgun law. Costs us money to carry one. Costs the taxpayers to have the government regulate them. And only the good guys bother to get the damn permit. This rule wont stop anyone from taking what they want. What will happen tho is that a few park wardens or administrators will get a bug up their backside about someone digging up good stuff that they feel belongs to the people and start arresting diggers. Those parks will be found out the hard way and we will avoid them at all cost. More bad blood between the DNR and the diggers.

What we need is an adaptation of the British law. I would be good with having to fill out one short sheet of paper every time I spend a day on public land describing my name, address, phone, where I was digging, what I found by best description, and so on. I would be required to fill it out before leaving the site (so that if law enforcement checks me out, it keeps me in the right). Then, I would be required to mail it out or drop it off at a DNR station within a week. The DNR would have, say, 30 calendar days to reply if they see something of interest. From there, we can figure out what we want to do as a state if they want to see something. This keeps everyone honest, the law is clear and concise for us to follow and the law enforcement folks to implement. And the archaeologists can keep track of what is pulled in case something truly significant comes out that could indicate an important site. Everyone is happy. If they still want us to be yearly licensed that is cool. Just dont charge me and make it a clear, short rule of ethics to abide by rather than a class that is trying to instruct me on something I already know a lot about.

You all just got a good value for two cents worth! lol
See you at the meetings.
-Eric

 

[Steve0]

Just so you all know the questiopn passed in the state. It did not win in every county. But it was good enough. I guess most people didnt even know anything about detecting and like us couldnt fiqure out why the DNR want to get involved. Some counties did let some talking on the subject.
So now it goes for the next step which I think involves getting things set up. Like rewritng the question better and fiqureing out how they are going to implement this.
So next year in april there will be the nxt question and then maybe put into action.
All I know for now.

 

[Bum Luck]

Just so you all know the questiopn passed in the state. It did not win in every county. But it was good enough. I guess most people didnt even know anything about detecting and like us couldnt fiqure out why the DNR want to get involved. Some counties did let some talking on the subject.
So now it goes for the next step which I think involves getting things set up. Like rewritng the question better and fiqureing out how they are going to implement this.
So next year in april there will be the nxt question and then maybe put into action.
All I know for now.

The DNR is involved because Mark Dudzik, the new DNR archie, instituted his rule without any legislative involvement. He just made it up, and the DNR can enforce it, although it's not clear to what extent.

fibberjibber is right.

Sounds like more bureaucracy to me, and no effectiveness at all. Typical.

 

[fibberjibber]

I am tempted to test the current rule. Judging by the response I received from Mr. Dudzik, I dont think there is any direction to law enforcement on how to proceed with an offender. I am not saying I would detect without permission, I am just saying I think I will try to get permission from some of the obscure locations to detect and see what they say. If there are thousands of acres, I doubt someone would think automatically that it would be wrong. A much different outcome if I tried it at, say, the Historic Wade House. Just my curiosity. I mean, if they give me permission at a state park, I should be able to do it, right?
Also, does anyone know if the DNR controls Lake Michigan for sure? Or just the public beaches? If the beaches, how far does it extend into the surf? Still trying to find those loopholes....
-e

 

[Bum Luck]

I wonder if the DNR has the authority to initiate the rule on their own.

Maybe a test of that.

 

[fibberjibber]

Bum,
As I understand the laws, the DNR does have that ability. HOWEVER, I think an easy case can be made that they have overstepped their bounds a bit on this one. Thats for a judge and expensive lawyers to decide but for my money, I think denying a previously embraced activity on public grounds with no precedence nor with any reasonable reason is not within their right. Add to that they did so without public input and you have good grounds for a class action lawsuit.
I believe that while others go around with the current negotiations, the only realistic end to this calamity, and in a timely manner, would be all of us in the state lobbying their representatives and the governor to review this law and all other arbitrary rules instituted by state agencies. This can be done with email, mailed letters, phone calls AND talking directly to the representatives in either their office or at a public forum. If a flurry is brought to the governor's attention from many different avenues and from different representatives- both Republican and Democrat, I have been assured that the folks in Madison will be compelled to bring it up for discussion. Remember, its not just us and this rule that are affected. Thousands of hunters, fishermen, outdoorsmen, ATVers, etc are affected by similar rules by various agencies. If voices are beginning to be heard, others will join in to the chorus. It starts with us. It starts with a simple letter.

 

[Bum Luck]

That sounds like a winning strategy to me!

The Governor's office is the place to go, cc to the DNR Secretary.

Let's do it!

 

[fibberjibber]

I've already done mine. Now its up to the rest of the folks here. One or two letters make no difference and, quite frankly, if others dont call, email and write then they cant complain!! Key is to engage your representative in a conversation. Understand that most do not know what we do. They just think they do, or know just a little. So you have to engage them in a conversation, invite questions, even ask them out on a hunt! Talking and showing are the best way to peak someone's interest. Be creative and inventive, but dont be ingenuine or deceiving. A seeded hunt would actually be harmful to our cause. A real hunt with potential shows just how much junk and clad we find for every good hit. It would all be exciting to a congressman but educational as well.
Or, I could just be talking to the wind...