ATTN: METEORITE HUNTERS - New BLM Rules!

[Tom_in_CA]

" Look at what you typed: "cultural heritage stuff." Do you really think these government agencies were created from people asking permission? "

Kentucky, no, of course the verbage they find did not necessarily come from people asking. Those things (like cultural heritage) probably started back in the 1906 version of ARPA, and so forth. Or "alterations" clauses existed before md'ing as well, so as to forbid vandalism and taking home all the tan-bark, etc... So you're right that the verbage they end up citing, was already there.

It was the asking that got the verbage applied to the question, or anyone to care about it. If you ask long enough, and hard enough, of enough bureaucrats, far enough up the chain, you can always find yourself a "no", at even the most innocuous of sandboxes. Because, gee, you might harm the earthworms, or lost & found laws, or potential disturbance of utilities (that nevermind are 5 feet down!), and so forth. But let's be honest, would those answers have ever been forthcoming, unless someone went asking? To "ask" merely presumes that something is inherently wrong, that you needed to ask, to be begin with. As if .... something is inherently evil or wrong with your hobby, (lest why would you be asking, if it was innocuos and harmless?). This subconscious effect is not lost on the person you're asking, so they'll look long and hard for something wrong (or simply give the "easy" answer), when truth be told, perhaps no one would ever have cared before, or thought to morph those things they eventually apply to your question.

For example: Did you know that *technically*, all of the state of CA owned beaches (of which most beach in CA are administered by) are off-limits? Why? because you might find something over 50 yrs. old. Yet I can tell you for a fact, that you can detect state of CA beaches till you're blue in the face, right in front of rangers, and no one ever cares. I guess it's just typically been deemed only to pertain to land parks, and not the beaches. Yet if you read closely, there's no distinction given. So you tell me: Is it a good idea to "ask" if you can hunt state of CA beaches? No, of course not. Why? Because the LAST thing you want them to do, is look it up in their books, and say "no".

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[Kentucky Kache]

" Look at what you typed: "cultural heritage stuff." Do you really think these government agencies were created from people asking permission? "

Kentucky, no, of course the verbage they find did not necessarily come from people asking. Those things (like cultural heritage) probably started back in the 1906 version of ARPA, and so forth. Or "alterations" clauses existed before md'ing as well, so as to forbid vandalism and taking home all the tan-bark, etc... So you're right that the verbage they end up citing, was already there.

It was the asking that got the verbage applied to the question, or anyone to care about it. If you ask long enough, and hard enough, of enough bureaucrats, far enough up the chain, you can always find yourself a "no", at even the most innocuous of sandboxes. Because, gee, you might harm the earthworms, or lost & found laws, or potential disturbance of utilities (that nevermind are 5 feet down!), and so forth. But let's be honest, would those answers have ever been forthcoming, unless someone went asking? To "ask" merely presumes that something is inherently wrong, that you needed to ask, to be begin with. As if .... something is inherently evil or wrong with your hobby, (lest why would you be asking, if it was innocuos and harmless?). This subconscious effect is not lost on the person you're asking, so they'll look long and hard for something wrong (or simply give the "easy" answer), when truth be told, perhaps no one would ever have cared before, or thought to morph those things they eventually apply to your question.

For example: Did you know that *technically*, all of the state of CA owned beaches (of which most beach in CA are administered by) are off-limits? Why? because you might find something over 50 yrs. old. Yet I can tell you for a fact, that you can detect state of CA beaches till you're blue in the face, right in front of rangers, and no one ever cares. I guess it's just typically been deemed only to pertain to land parks, and not the beaches. Yet if you read closely, there's no distinction given. So you tell me: Is it a good idea to "ask" if you can hunt state of CA beaches? No, of course not. Why? Because the LAST thing you want them to do, is look it up in their books, and say "no".

I get what you're saying and I don't disagree. But I think it's only fueling the fire, the root of the problem being government control. They COULD enforce those laws at anytime, and someone could get their detector taken away, or worse. All it would take is a new gov employee trying to make a name for himself. And since those laws are on the books, he could make it stick. There is too much government control.

 

[bigscoop]

I think part of the problem is also just a simple factor of growth. With more growth you encounter more issues. I can remember when "not too long ago" that it was a rare day when I saw someone else bow hunting for deer on the 3000 acres of state land near my Indiana home. Now, Good luck in even finding a place to hunt where there isn't someone else bow hunting. Sure, marketing had a lot to do with the growth, but just look at how quickly the human race is multiplying in this country. There's a huge difference in having 50 people showing active interest in something VS 1000 people showing interest in that same hobby in the same limited space.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

.... They COULD enforce those laws at anytime, and someone could get their detector taken away, or worse...

thanx for acknowledging some of the psychology that's there

As for the above quote, I would say, persons who cite potential "confiscations", "arrests", "jail", etc.... as reasons we should all be asking (because, afterall, someone *might* apply and interpret verbage to apply to your activity). My answer is this:

Cite any examples of "arrests" "confiscations" and "jail" for persons who detected locations where there was no specific rule that said "no metal detecting". My hunch is, examples are going to be hard to come by. Any arrests and such are going to always be for someone snooping around obvious historic monuments (of which we'd all agree to stay away from), or someone who couldn't take a warning, blah blah blah. No, you do not see persons getting "arrested" for detecting regular city parks, meteor hunting (before this BLM clarification came about), and other such innocuous non-addressed things. Sure, someone MIGHT morph something to apply to you, and boot you. But no, you're not going to get arrested or whatever, for being in the city sandbox without "asking permission".

If someone has an example of an arrest or ticket or confiscation, for innocuous places for which no specific rules say you can't, ..... I'd be game to hear it. My hunch is though, as I say, it's going to be someone who couldn't take a warning, someone night-sneaking around, someone going to an obvious historic monument and being a nuisance, or something odd.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

thanx for acknowledging some of the psychology that's there

As for the above quote, I would say, persons who cite potential "confiscations", "arrests", "jail", etc.... as reasons we should all be asking (because, afterall, someone *might* apply and interpret verbage to apply to your activity). My answer is this:

Cite any examples of "arrests" "confiscations" and "jail" for persons who detected locations where there was no specific rule that said "no metal detecting". My hunch is, examples are going to be hard to come by. Any arrests and such are going to always be for someone snooping around obvious historic monuments (of which we'd all agree to stay away from), or someone who couldn't take a warning, blah blah blah. No, you do not see persons getting "arrested" for detecting regular city parks, meteor hunting (before this BLM clarification came about), and other such innocuous non-addressed things. Sure, someone MIGHT morph something to apply to you, and boot you. But no, you're not going to get arrested or whatever, for being in the city sandbox without "asking permission".

If someone has an example of an arrest or ticket or confiscation, for innocuous places for which no specific rules say you can't, ..... I'd be game to hear it. My hunch is though, as I say, it's going to be someone who couldn't take a warning, someone night-sneaking around, someone going to an obvious historic monument and being a nuisance, or something odd.

You have hunches. What I'm talking about are not hunches, but laws on the books.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...... What I'm talking about are not hunches, but laws on the books.

Are you talking about actual "laws" that say "no metal detecting"? If so, I have no qualms with what you're saying. But if you're talking about things MORPHED to apply, no, I do not think we need to run around and ask for clarifications, permissions, etc.... "just because someone might not like it". To make the automatic equivalence that anything someone *might* apply a law and morph it to apply to your hobby (ie.: "altering" "cultural heritage" "lost & found laws", and so forth) is to have lost the battle already. Because trust me, NO place allows "vandalism" and so forth. Simply because someone *might* say something applies is not grounds for me to think I need to grovel ahead of time. I mean, sheesk, if we all thought about it long enough and hard enough, you can preclude yourself from any activity "lest someone not like it". I mean, why even drive your car? Afterall, someone might flip you off because they didn't like the way you changed lanes.


The fact that someone might morph something to apply to my chosen activity, does not cause me to go pre-empt it, & seek sanction. On the contrary, I avoid kill-joy lookie-lous, and steer clear of them. Might there sometimes be a day when someone says "scram"? Sure. But no, simply because someone might gripe, does not indicate to me that I should therefore grovel at city halls wherever I come to. If someone has an issue, they're welcome to tell me. No, I do not consider this "breaking the law" though, unless specifically written or policy saying specifically this applies to me and detecting.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Are you talking about actual "laws" that say "no metal detecting"? If so, I have no qualms with what you're saying. But if you're talking about things MORPHED to apply, no, I do not think we need to run around and ask for clarifications, permissions, etc.... "just because someone might not like it". To make the automatic equivalence that anything someone *might* apply a law and morph it to apply to your hobby (ie.: "altering" "cultural heritage" "lost & found laws", and so forth) is to have lost the battle already. Because trust me, NO place allows "vandalism" and so forth. Simply because someone *might* say something applies is not grounds for me to think I need to grovel ahead of time. I mean, sheesk, if we all thought about it long enough and hard enough, you can preclude yourself from any activity "lest someone not like it". I mean, why even drive your car? Afterall, someone might flip you off because they didn't like the way you changed lanes.


The fact that someone might morph something to apply to my chosen activity, does not cause me to go pre-empt it, & seek sanction. On the contrary, I avoid kill-joy lookie-lous, and steer clear of them. Might there sometimes be a day when someone says "scram"? Sure. But no, simply because someone might gripe, does not indicate to me that I should therefore grovel at city halls wherever I come to. If someone has an issue, they're welcome to tell me. No, I do not consider this "breaking the law" though, unless specifically written or policy saying specifically this applies to me and detecting.

But how will you know if it's law or not? Not every law is posted on signs.

 

[themarkd]

I suppose this means there will be a LOT more people "not finding" meteorites (nudge nudge, wink wink).

 

[mrmackin]

Since I'm no expert it would be just another "rock" to me.......till I got it home!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

But how will you know if it's law or not? Not every law is posted on signs.

Good Question. Because you're right, not every law is on the sign at the park's entrances. There's two ways to go about that:

1) Look it up for yourself. Laws, muni codes, ordinances, etc.... are available for public viewing, somewhere, somehow. This will be on the counters at any city (or county, etc...) front desk. Or at the front desk of the municipality's police dept, etc.... A big book or binder the public is welcome to flip through. The city charter, and so forth. Ask around, and the police or city manager should be able to tell you where it's available for public viewing. Go to pertinent parts that deal with the subject, and see if there's anything there specifically saying "no metal detecting". Either city wide, or at the parks subsection of rules, or whatever. There almost never is anything that says that, at city or county levels, in the entire USA.

But in this magical day and age of the internet, it seems that most cities, counties, states, and the fed, now all have their own websites So you can just go to the entity's website. There will usually be sub-sections for the different departments, etc.... From there, you should find the local codes, laws, ordinances, etc... Do a key word search on "metal detecting / detectors", etc..... If it comes up silent on the subject, the presto, it must therefore not be prohibited.

2) If you're in such a small town (or county) that doesn't have a website, or the website simply has no listings of local rules, laws, charter, etc.., and you can't locate the binder/book I speak of in #1 above, then a second option is: If you MUST go ask a live person, phrase it in the following way: "Is there any rules or laws regarding metal detectors?" You see how this is different from asking "can I metal detect?" The former is putting the burden of proof on them to produce/cite such an actual rule, that specifically says that. While the latter is a form of asking their permission (which leaves you up to their arbitrary whims, mood, etc....)

However, option #2 has drawbacks: There has been persons who worded their question carefully like this, thinking it puts the burden on the person they're talking to, to cite an actual rule. But it has sometimes backfired: The person might answer something back like "we would prefer you didn't" (as if you had just asked their permission). Or they might say "Yes but you can't dig" (even though you never mentioned digging). Or they may simply say "No you can't" (without citing anything to back them up). And if you object, and say "but where is that written?", they can roll out the things to morph to your question (when, as I say, perhaps they'd never have given it a moment's though before this). However, this doesn't always happen though. Most of the time you get a logical thinking person, who understands the vocabulary of the way you phrased it, and will specifically answer your question to answer that .... no, there's nothing addressing the subject of metal detectors, period.

 

[TerryC]

Rain water.... meteorites. Next it will be sunshine. The govn. needs money! VOTE, VOTE, VOTE! Or accept the results! TTC

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Good Question. Because you're right, not every law is on the sign at the park's entrances. There's two ways to go about that:

1) Look it up for yourself. Laws, muni codes, ordinances, etc.... are available for public viewing, somewhere, somehow. This will be on the counters at any city (or county, etc...) front desk. Or at the front desk of the municipality's police dept, etc.... A big book or binder the public is welcome to flip through. The city charter, and so forth. Ask around, and the police or city manager should be able to tell you where it's available for public viewing. Go to pertinent parts that deal with the subject, and see if there's anything there specifically saying "no metal detecting". Either city wide, or at the parks subsection of rules, or whatever. There almost never is anything that says that, at city or county levels, in the entire USA.

But in this magical day and age of the internet, it seems that most cities, counties, states, and the fed, now all have their own websites So you can just go to the entity's website. There will usually be sub-sections for the different departments, etc.... From there, you should find the local codes, laws, ordinances, etc... Do a key word search on "metal detecting / detectors", etc..... If it comes up silent on the subject, the presto, it must therefore not be prohibited.

2) If you're in such a small town (or county) that doesn't have a website, or the website simply has no listings of local rules, laws, charter, etc.., and you can't locate the binder/book I speak of in #1 above, then a second option is: If you MUST go ask a live person, phrase it in the following way: "Is there any rules or laws regarding metal detectors?" You see how this is different from asking "can I metal detect?" The former is putting the burden of proof on them to produce/cite such an actual rule, that specifically says that. While the latter is a form of asking their permission (which leaves you up to their arbitrary whims, mood, etc....)

However, option #2 has drawbacks: There has been persons who worded their question carefully like this, thinking it puts the burden on the person they're talking to, to cite an actual rule. But it has sometimes backfired: The person might answer something back like "we would prefer you didn't" (as if you had just asked their permission). Or they might say "Yes but you can't dig" (even though you never mentioned digging). Or they may simply say "No you can't" (without citing anything to back them up). And if you object, and say "but where is that written?", they can roll out the things to morph to your question (when, as I say, perhaps they'd never have given it a moment's though before this). However, this doesn't always happen though. Most of the time you get a logical thinking person, who understands the vocabulary of the way you phrased it, and will specifically answer your question to answer that .... no, there's nothing addressing the subject of metal detectors, period.

If memory serves, I've only asked one government entity (Mayor) for permission to metal detect, in an old defunct park. He said he didn't think there would be a problem.

Another experience I had a few years ago, a detecting buddy found us a place to detect. It was a lot in town where a house use to sit. It was, he said, city property, so we were automatically allowed to detect, so we did. Sometime later I'm there detecting alone when a woman pulls up wanting to know what I'm doing. It was her property, not city property. Sometimes it pays to ask.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

kache, a few comments on your text:

the first paragraph, citing a successful asking of permission, is a common reply from folks when this subject comes up. It goes something like this (not unlike your reply): "Well I asked at XX places, and each time get a yes" Or conversely, someone will post "Well I asked at such & such a location, and they told me no". And in EACH case, the md'r has the implicit deduction of: "so you see, it's a good thing I asked". Either answer (a yes or a no coming from the bureaucrat), in the minds of that md'r, is indicative to them that "it's a good thing I asked, because now I either a) "have permission", or b) it's good thing I asked, lest I could have been arrested.

So you see, in either answer (a yes or a no), the person interprets this as indicative that they .... therefore .... should have asked, and that permission was therefore necessary. In other words, the mere fact of an answer, either way, seems to imply that permission was therefore necessary. I mean, otherwise (in the mind of the md'r), the clerk would have scratched their heads and said "gee, why are you asking me? You don't need permission to do that".

But do you see? NEVER does a cop, or clerk, or ranger, etc... answer "gee, that's a silly question. You don't need permission". No. On the contrary, they will bestow on you their princely "yes" or their princely "no". Since afterall, you asked, which merely presumes it needed their say-so, to begin with (lest why would you be asking?). Thus when people come up with successful or un-succesful examples of permission asking, it does not, to me, mean that "ergo, permission is necessary".

As for the 2nd paragraph of yours, this was a case where it's private property. Not city property. Sure, find out *correctly* if a place is public or private. Sure. But this does not lend itself to the discussion of whether we md'rs need to ask to detect places that are public, where there's no prohibitions.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

kache, a few comments on your text:

the first paragraph, citing a successful asking of permission, is a common reply from folks when this subject comes up. It goes something like this (not unlike your reply): "Well I asked at XX places, and each time get a yes" Or conversely, someone will post "Well I asked at such & such a location, and they told me no". And in EACH case, the md'r has the implicit deduction of: "so you see, it's a good thing I asked". Either answer (a yes or a no coming from the bureaucrat), in the minds of that md'r, is indicative to them that "it's a good thing I asked, because now I either a) "have permission", or b) it's good thing I asked, lest I could have been arrested.

So you see, in either answer (a yes or a no), the person interprets this as indicative that they .... therefore .... should have asked, and that permission was therefore necessary. In other words, the mere fact of an answer, either way, seems to imply that permission was therefore necessary. I mean, otherwise (in the mind of the md'r), the clerk would have scratched their heads and said "gee, why are you asking me? You don't need permission to do that".

But do you see? NEVER does a cop, or clerk, or ranger, etc... answer "gee, that's a silly question. You don't need permission". No. On the contrary, they will bestow on you their princely "yes" or their princely "no". Since afterall, you asked, which merely presumes it needed their say-so, to begin with (lest why would you be asking?). Thus when people come up with successful or un-succesful examples of permission asking, it does not, to me, mean that "ergo, permission is necessary".

As for the 2nd paragraph of yours, this was a case where it's private property. Not city property. Sure, find out *correctly* if a place is public or private. Sure. But this does not lend itself to the discussion of whether we md'rs need to ask to detect places that are public, where there's no prohibitions.

I know what you're saying. I'm not saying we should have to ask permission from the government, but if I end up with a fine, It'll be a small comfort to know I've been done wrong. I'll still have a fine. The bottom line is, the government is crooked and controlling. And they're not always going to honor your thinking that you have a right to detect public property, even if if you SHOULD have the right. This is what our government has become, and I really don't think it got this way because people called in asking for permission to metal detect.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

How can someone get a "fine" for doing something which isn't illegal or prohibited? If you (the md'r) has checked, and found nothing prohibiting it, I don't understand where the "fines" talk comes from? The worst that would happen, is you would be appraised of the thing they say morphs to fit you (harming earthworms, or whatever they say is the higher public good). Can you cite for me examples of people getting "fines" for detecting non-illegal innocuous areas? As I say, any examples of "arrests" "tickets" "fines", etc.... are invariably people night sneaking historic and sensitive places they know full well (or could easily have found out) are off-limits. Or someone being a nuisance, who can't take a warning, etc.... No, you will not see "fines" for detecting innocuous parks and beaches in anytown USA. If someone has an example of that, I'd love to hear it.

I suppose, yes, someone can get a ticket or fine for flying frisbees, or skipping stones on the pond, d/t an over-zealous cop can say it falls under the "public annoyances" clauses. I mean ... sure, if you want to worry long enough and hard enough, ANYTHING can happen. Sure there's corrupt govt. Why stop there? heck, you can get a 'yes' and STILL be "fined". Afterall, you're saying the govt. is corrupt, and their own written rules can't be trusted? Then why trust a "yes"? And if you got that in writing from the bureaucrat ("yes I allow so & so to metal detect"), is the FASTEST way to get a "no" (by putting a legal document under a city official's nose to sign).

Sure you might deflect a busy-body by having a "yes" from someone in park's dept (or the mayor, etc...). But the implicit undesired effect, of comforting yourself by asking everywhere (even when there's no prohibitions), is you risk a "no", simply because you asked. I can give you many examples of this actually happening, if you like. So, yes, the addage of "sometimes no one cares TILL you ask" can be true.

In my city, for example, our Central park was simply detected since the dawn of the earliest detectors here. It never dawned on any of that you had to "ask", as ...... it was simply the place you went. Afterall, it's a public park isn't it? It would never have occurred to us, that anything was wrong, to begin with. But lo & behold, one day, in the early 1980s, a newcomer to our city was attending our md club meeting as a visitor. As the show-&-tell portion of the club meeting got underway, a person was standing there showing off an old silver coin, and said ".... found in central park". The newbie raised his hand and asked: "I thought metal detecting wasn't allowed in the parks here?". A few of us turned around, looked at him, and asked "since when?". Turns out, that upon moving to our city a few weeks earlier, he had taken it upon himself, to go down to city hall .... and ask! Doh. Apparently someone there told him "no". I have no idea how he phrased the question, etc... Well you can imagine this caused confusion in the room. Half the room of attendees was now alarmed and thinking "oh no, we can't detect the parks anymore". While the other half was saying (or thinking anyhow): "Nonsense, no one cares. Why did you even ask? That person simply must be mistaken". So the room was now divided between those who "feared arrest" (or tickets or whatever) and considered this gospel truth, while others simply went, since it was obvious no one cared. So you tell me: was it right for that person to have asked, or not, in that example?

 

[Tnmountains]

Is is all along similar lines of the Archeological protection act(ARPA) for Gov land (our land). They said you could not pick up arrowheads. Jimmy Carter changed the law saying you could surface hunt and pick up an arrow head because he liked to hunt. So the federal gov said ok yeah you can pick them up but you cant remove them. So they would get you when you went to leave. Now they will stop and search you in Alabama for artifacts. The local enforcement has taken Federal law one step further. Why? Because no one will challenge them.
It is a sad day when we have come to this but bottom line is it is all about removing anything from Federal land that is not a renewable resource. I think meteorites would actually be considered a renewable resource as they continue to fall.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

How can someone get a "fine" for doing something which isn't illegal or prohibited? If you (the md'r) has checked, and found nothing prohibiting it, I don't understand where the "fines" talk comes from? The worst that would happen, is you would be appraised of the thing they say morphs to fit you (harming earthworms, or whatever they say is the higher public good). Can you cite for me examples of people getting "fines" for detecting non-illegal innocuous areas? As I say, any examples of "arrests" "tickets" "fines", etc.... are invariably people night sneaking historic and sensitive places they know full well (or could easily have found out) are off-limits. Or someone being a nuisance, who can't take a warning, etc.... No, you will not see "fines" for detecting innocuous parks and beaches in anytown USA. If someone has an example of that, I'd love to hear it.

I suppose, yes, someone can get a ticket or fine for flying frisbees, or skipping stones on the pond, d/t an over-zealous cop can say it falls under the "public annoyances" clauses. I mean ... sure, if you want to worry long enough and hard enough, ANYTHING can happen. Sure there's corrupt govt. Why stop there? heck, you can get a 'yes' and STILL be "fined". Afterall, you're saying the govt. is corrupt, and their own written rules can't be trusted? Then why trust a "yes"? And if you got that in writing from the bureaucrat ("yes I allow so & so to metal detect"), is the FASTEST way to get a "no" (by putting a legal document under a city official's nose to sign).

Sure you might deflect a busy-body by having a "yes" from someone in park's dept (or the mayor, etc...). But the implicit undesired effect, of comforting yourself by asking everywhere (even when there's no prohibitions), is you risk a "no", simply because you asked. I can give you many examples of this actually happening, if you like. So, yes, the addage of "sometimes no one cares TILL you ask" can be true.

In my city, for example, our Central park was simply detected since the dawn of the earliest detectors here. It never dawned on any of that you had to "ask", as ...... it was simply the place you went. Afterall, it's a public park isn't it? It would never have occurred to us, that anything was wrong, to begin with. But lo & behold, one day, in the early 1980s, a newcomer to our city was attending our md club meeting as a visitor. As the show-&-tell portion of the club meeting got underway, a person was standing there showing off an old silver coin, and said ".... found in central park". The newbie raised his hand and asked: "I thought metal detecting wasn't allowed in the parks here?". A few of us turned around, looked at him, and asked "since when?". Turns out, that upon moving to our city a few weeks earlier, he had taken it upon himself, to go down to city hall .... and ask! Doh. Apparently someone there told him "no". I have no idea how he phrased the question, etc... Well you can imagine this caused confusion in the room. Half the room of attendees was now alarmed and thinking "oh no, we can't detect the parks anymore". While the other half was saying (or thinking anyhow): "Nonsense, no one cares. Why did you even ask? That person simply must be mistaken". So the room was now divided between those who "feared arrest" (or tickets or whatever) and considered this gospel truth, while others simply went, since it was obvious no one cared. So you tell me: was it right for that person to have asked, or not, in that example?

It sounds like you might be making too much of the guy asking permission. Do you know for sure that his actions ruined metal detecting at your park? Even if he did, I doubt they made a law righ there on the spot because of him. Maybe they enforced it because of him, and I could understand what you're saying there. But my point is, the Government wants to control everything. It's what they do.
Personally, like I said, I have only asked once. I much prefer to hunt private property. But you know, there's even government rules controlling that. In some states you can't keep anything you find that's over a certain age.

 

[pb-to-au]

1979 Arpa allows surface collection of arrowheads. It's in the law.This is for Forest service/ Blm areas. NPS areas are TOTALLY CLOSED to any taking, even picking flowers is against the law. It's in the BLM ranger's heads that it is not allowed and you are risking a fine because the stupid judges can't read plain english and the defendants don't have money for a proper defense, therefore it's illegal by Fiat. Same thing applies generally to MD anywhere, I agree that asking permission closes doors. DO NOT ASK ,be your own man, and even a stupid fish can't get caught if he KEEPS HIS MOUTH SHUT.

 

[racer117]

You know what? If and when I ever find a meteorite, I'm keepin it. How in the hell can the government say they own the rights to a meteorite from space ? Next time an f-16 lands on my property,Im keepin it.Your all invited for a ride in it..lmao

 

[Joe hunter]

You know what? If and when I ever find a meteorite, I'm keepin it. How in the hell can the government say they own the rights to a meteorite from space ? Next time an f-16 lands on my property,Im keepin it.Your all invited for a ride in it..lmao

Can I drive