Federal Petition-For Metal Detecting on Federal Lands

[wvmountaineer]

Hello All,

I've started a petition requesting that our Federal Government amend two acts to allow metal detecting on Federal lands. This petition needs 25,000 signatures before November 1, 2012 for the Obama Administration to provide a response to this request. Please sign the petition and forward it to everyone that loves this great hobby.

We need to take a stand for the hobby and for the people. Our tax dollars pay for the Federal lands and we should be able to metal detect for coins without "Big Brother" dictating in broad language in the use of the land.

http://wh.gov/Bez1

Thank You for your support.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[FoundInNC]

This is great. I will do my part advocating the petition; 25,000 signatures is feasible. I am crossing my fingers with this one. Everyone share this on your facebook, twitter, other forums, or any networking sites that you may have. This would open up so many possibilities with the hobby.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

National Forests and National Recreation areas I have no objection to at all and feel we should have the right, but sorry I have no desire AT ALL to see or have people metal detecting in our National Parks...


Your petition would also only allow coin hunting, it would not allow the recovery of lost jewelry in swimming areas...........

 

[LuckyThirteen08]

Seriously?

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Seriously what? That I object to people digging in our National Parks or that I think it should include detecting the swimming holes in National Forests and and National Recreational areas?

 

[LuckyThirteen08]

nvm, i thought i posted in here but i didnt,so seriously....im a Dumba*#!! lol

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

No apology need..........

 

[FoundInNC]

lucky13, I bet your post got removed when the thread was moved, I had to rewrite mine, you are not going crazy haha. I was confused too.

 

[Terry Soloman]

I wanted to start a petition banning folks without a clue from starting petitions, but then I realized I didn't have a clue..

 

[austin]

Soloman, I bet you're the richest man on this site and trust me, you have more than a clue. I don't want to be a downer for Mr. Mountaineer, but somehow I don't think our government worries too much about metal detecting and if I am correct, it would take an act of congress anyway to change things. And that probably won't happen with this or any administration anytime soon. I mean, a facebook or twitter petition? Really now...

 

[Key Rat]

I'm a new member (officially) but I have been reading & learning from many MD forums including this one, which is my favorite, for quite a while now. I read your post, made an account on whitehouse dot whatever and signed the petition. But then I got to thinking, and I agree with the other posts on this issue.
Your petition does only call for finding coins...why only coins? And after careful consideration and thought, I also wouldn't mind hunting National Forest/Recreational Parks that are Federally regulated, but I don't think that it would be appropriate to see a bunch of MD'ers out there in our National Parks. For instance, our Memorials, etc. which some would fall under the umbrella of 'Federal Parks.'
I believe that there would be a need for a bit more work on the working and clarification on the matter. And I am sure that with the help and advice of the many men & women that have been enjoying this hobby longer than us newcomers I am sure that something solid might be forthcoming in the future.
HH (8

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I don't understand. I hunt federal land all the time, and don't have any problems. I mean, seriously dude, anything you can find buried in teensy-print minutia, is usually aimed at sacred historic federal monument type stuff (Shiloh, Ghettysburg, Bodie, etc...). Of which we'd all have no problem protecting. But barring sensitive stuff like that, I hunt federal land lots of time, and don't have a problem, so ..... what's with this petition? Seems to me that all you're going to do is further entrench their "no's" (to "address your pressing issue"), and have it extended to innocuous places, where perhaps no one currently cares, or has ever given the matter thought to.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

lucky13, I bet your post got removed when the thread was moved, I had to rewrite mine, you are not going crazy haha. I was confused too.

No posts have been removed. He has 2 threads that are identical in title and content of OP, one is in "Legal Issues" forum and the other was in "Todays Finds", I moved that one to the "Every Thing Else" forum... This is why it is not good to start two identical threads on a petition...

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

I don't understand. I hunt federal land all the time, and don't have any problems. I mean, seriously dude, anything you can find buried in teensy-print minutia, is usually aimed at sacred historic federal monument type stuff (Shiloh, Ghettysburg, Bodie, etc...). Of which we'd all have no problem protecting. But barring sensitive stuff like that, I hunt federal land lots of time, and don't have a problem, so ..... what's with this petition? Seems to me that all you're going to do is further entrench their "no's" (to "address your pressing issue"), and have it extended to innocuous places, where perhaps no one currently cares, or has ever given the matter thought to.

In many states it is legal to hunt national forests and national recreation areas, Florida doesn't allow it in the national forests...... I dont want it to be allowed in our National Parks, and agree with Tom that the petition will only draw unwanted attention.....

 

[CWnut]

i agree with tom, be quiet and they won't even know we"re here

 

[VBCurt]

FMDAC Disclaimer


FMDAC present this information as a guide / service to the metal detecting community. If you are traveling or are new to the hobby then FMDAC hopes this information is beneficial to you. FMDAC will strive to keep it current however, FMDAC ask for and needs your help in this endeavor. The information was compiled from state regulations and state park department contacts. If the regulations in your state change and you do not see the change here then please notify FMDAC contact. Mark Schuessler, FMDAC ALLIANCE LIAISON *(E-mail)



FMDAC recommends that you check with the specific park service you are going to visit in order to be certain of their park regulations. Every state has limitations within parks and some state parks are off limits. Some of the information encountered and the replies from various states were a bit vague and open to interpretation so to be safe check with a state park representative before your visit.



If it is a historical park in any sense of the word then consider it off limits.


Most states require a permit. Check with the state parks department or the park where you intend to visit prior to your planned hunt. Some permits may be available at the park office while others may have to be issued by a regional or state office. A few states charge a fee for the permits.

The information below gives a basic outline. Click on the state name and you will get whatever additional information is available. It may be the actual regulations or the reply received from the State Parks office.

If you find in actual practice or from your own experience that the information here is not correct please let us know. In many cases the regulations indicate that it is up to the park manager. If none of the park managers in a specific state or area will allow metal detecting then FMDAC would like to know.



FMDAC assumes no responsibility for any person who knowingly or accidentally violates any state park regulation. Although FMDAC will try to keep this information current we cannot anticipate how each regulation will be interpreted by a specific park department, park employee or other government employee. It is the sole responsibility of each individual to know and obey the regulations of the park or area they are visiting and or metal detecting.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Metal Detecting Summary Table below Allowed, not Allowed or Permit Required



Clip on a State or go to the complete state detail below the table to see a specific states response and park regulation link.
Note: If you have a POPUP blocker on turn-off the blocker before clicking on a state it may inhibit the information from displaying. Metal Detecting
State Allowed Comment
Alabama Yes With permit from Park Manager
Alaska No Response
Arizona Yes With permission of Park Ranger
Arkansas Yes On beach areas in some parks with permit from park office.
California Yes With permission from park office.
Colorado Yes With permission from the park manager.
Connecticut Yes Allowed on beach areas. Surface collection only in other areas. Some parks are closed. No permit required
Delaware Yes On beach areas only, east of dune line.
Florida Yes Beach areas only with permission of Park Manager
Georgia No
Hawaii Yes Beach areas only
Idaho No Metal detecting is OK but you cannot remove anything from the parks.
Illinois Yes With Permit from the park office
Indiana Yes On beach areas only with permission from the Park Manager.
Iowa Yes On beach areas only
Kansas Yes With permission from the park office. Reply stated that you are not allowed to dig but check with the park office on this point.
Kentucky No
Louisiana No
Maine Yes With permit from the park office.
Maryland Yes On beach areas only except Point Lookout and Calvert Cliffs. Permit required.
Massachusetts Yes On beach and campsite areas with permission of the Park Supervisor
Michigan Yes Some parks completely open, many have designated areas and some are closed. See the link for detailed info.
Minnesota No
Mississippi No
Missouri Yes On beach areas only with permit from DNR headquarters. By mail or email.
Montana No Metal detecting is OK but you cannot remove anything from the parks.
Nebraska Yes On beach areas only below the vegetation line.
Nevada Yes With permit from the park office.
New Hampshire Yes Most areas open unless posted
New Jersey Yes With permit from the Park Superintendent
New Mexico No
New York Yes On beach areas only with permit from the Park Manager
North Carolina No
North Dakota No
Ohio Yes On beach areas. Other areas with permit from the Park Manager
Oklahoma Yes With permit from the park office
Oregon Yes With permit from the park office
Pennsylvania Yes With permission from the park office.
Rhode Island Yes
South Carolina Yes On beach areas only with permission from the Park Manager
South Dakota Yes With permit from the park office.
Tennessee No
Texas No
Utah No
Vermont Yes With permission from the park office.
Virginia Yes With a permit from the Park Manager
Washington Yes With a permit. Hunting allowed at 67 parks.
West Virginia No Response
Wisconsin No Only for locating specific lost personal items. A special permit is required.
Wyoming Yes With permit from the Park Superintendent.


Park Regulation Detail by State

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

VBcurt, thanx for posting. I believe your post here is the same info in this FMDAC link, right?:

Federation of Metal Detector & Archaeological Clubs Inc.

Not sure whether the FMDAC's attempt to do such a list pre-dates this 1992-ish book:

"Treasure Laws of the United States" by Doc. R. Grim

The book's idea (just like your list) was simple: An alphabetic listing where the user simply looks up any state he wants, to see what the rules are, regarding metal detecting, in the state parks of wherever they are intending to travel. You know, so like if you're a retired person roaming state to state in your RV, theoretically you just look up any given state, and there's your answer. And if someone harrasses you, you can simply show them the citation straight from the book, which is taken straight from the answer given by the state themselves.

The way Grim compiled the info for his book, (as is detailed on the introduction pages) was quite simple. He xeroxed off 50 form letters, and sent them to the head park's dept. personell, in each state capitol. It asked something to the effect: "What are the rules regarding the use of metal detectors in your state parks?". Sounds innocent enough. I mean, who better to ask than the states themselves afterall! And perhaps this is how the FMDAC compiled their data too? Or if they DID use previously existing comendiums, for their data, then the info they gleaned from was compiled in the way Grim did, from whatever initial source it had come from: Someone went and asked. I am assuming Grim's list pre-existed the FMDAC's list, right?

But an odd thing happened when that book started making the rounds in the early 1990s: Some of the more dire sounding states, that had out-right "no's" or "inquire at each park you come to", etc.... had often-time simply been detected, for as long as anyone could remember. Barring, of course, obvious historic monuments, there had been a lot of state parks, in the dire-sounding states, where no one had ever had a problem before. I guess it had never occured to any of the locals they needed to "ask", or that they were doing anything amiss. Since ...... the parks had just been detected as long as anyone could remember and it was apparently not an issue. Yup, right in front of rangers, or anyone. And now all of the sudden they're looking at a book which tells them they can't be there? Or that tells them they have to ask at each park kiosk they come to? So there was confusion in a few places, as you can imagine, when that came out.

Here's what I believed happened, and continues to happen to this day: Imagine that you're the desk-bound clerk who receives such an inquiry. What would be the "safe" answer? Of course they're going to pass it back and forth between different desks for input (the archie, the arborist, the lawyers, etc...) to give the proper reply. And what do you think the safe answer was going to be? OF COURSE in ANY state there's bound to be a few *obvious* historic state-park monuments, that we could *all* agree you shouldn't be snooping around. But perhaps the other 95% of parks, no one ever cared before? (so long as you weren't being a nuisance in some other way). The person answering the letter certainly can't go into super-detail, by saying "no at these 12 parks, but yes at these 95 others, and no at the historic cabin, but yes on the modern ball-park @ the other side of the park, etc...". Of course they can't launch into a detailed answer like that. So the easy answer was either "no", or "inquire at each kiosk". And if the answer was "no", it could easily be justified by citing cultural heritage stuff, or vegetation disturbance stuff, etc.... Mind you, these answers were often coming from places where it was never a problem before!

And then an odd thing started happening at those states which tell you to "inquire at each park kiosk". I guess a few people took that to heart, and did exactly as the form-letter's reply told them to. So now you had persons showing up at kiosks, asking confused clerks (who perhaps have never fielded such an inquiry before, and at parks where perhaps it had simply already always gone on). Now, again, put yourself in the shoes of the clerk at the pay-window trying to answer such a question. I mean, gee, does the persons also ..... when asking the question, start talking about "digging" and "treasure" and "arpa" and "indian bones", etc.... It became easy for desk clerks to ALSO say "no". And that too ... in effect .... becomes "policy" after awhile.

For example: this is exactly what happened in a state park near me: 20+ yrs. ago, the campgrounds (circa 1920's vintage) used to be a place you could go to, and no one ever had a problem before. Then one day, a friend of mine got booted. And when he went to object and say "why?...." the only answer he got was " ... because it's not allowed". He left, of course, d/t he didn't want to make a scene. Then a week later, he just happened to meet a newbie at the local dealer's house, where all 3 were talking. The newbie lamented how "... it's too bad detecting at such & such campground is off-limits...." He then explained how he'd gone to the kiosk to ask "can I metal detect?" (which is, afterall, what the good-list-tells you to do, for CA). The clerk looked too and fro through his books and pamphlets, and couldn't find anything about that. So he excused himself, and got on the phone (presumably calling superiors in other places, etc...). Eventually he comes back to the window, and tells the guy "no". When my friend did the math, and figured out which day this had occured, he realized he had been at the campground on the very next day after that. Thus it became apparent that this info was disemminated out to the rank and file as a perhaps a B.O.L. type thing.

Anyhow, we can't change what happened in the past (places & states were no one cared TILL you asked), But what I DO take issue with, is a part of your introduction to the FMDAC's state-by-state list:

You say: "Some of the information encountered and the replies from various states were a bit vague and open to interpretation so to be safe check with a state park representative before your visit."

I disagree with that. If some state's answer were "vague" and didn't exactly disallow it (nor exactly "allow" it either), then if you ask me, that's THEIR problem! So if they, for example, state "statutes forbid alteration of park features, or disturbing cultural heritage". Then I suppose, from your quote above, that we are to go asking "can I?" (since that's vague as to whether or not md'rs fall afoul of that verbage). On the contrary, I say just go! And if someone has an issue, they're welcome to tell you. In my opinion, I do not "alter" the landscape, since, of course, I am going to leave the area exactly as I found it (cover my spot, ruffle it up, etc...). And when was the last time anyone went riffling through your apron checking the ages of coins? I've been at this for 35+ yrs, and have NEVER had someone looking over my shoulder with a calculator to see if I exceeded 50 or 100 yr. or had an indian bone, or whatever. So if a law is vague, then therefore, in my opinion, it's up to the person making the law to be specific. I mean, so too are laws that forbid "annoyances" *vague*. So as to fit to a myriad of circumstances that may arise in the field, right? But does that mean it's my duty to go ask rangers and cops if I can wear blue tennis shoes? (afterall, someone may find they "annoying"). Or to ask a cop if I can fly a frisbee? (afterall, it might poke someone's eye out), etc.....

So, if there's not specific disallowance of md'ing, then I say, do it. Lest you merely get the self-fulfilling pyschology that is outlined above.

 

[VBCurt]

Tom_in_ca . It is glued and pasted from there website. You can learn alot about how to approach MDing from the history and research.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

Tom_in_ca . It is glued and pasted from there website. You can learn alot about how to approach MDing from the history and research.

yes, I know. Hence the link I provided, is where it came from. And as I point out, sometimes the information they pass on, you have to take in context, of how it was gleaned, in the first place. For example: If one were to take that website seriously, as it pertains to state-of-CA, you would *think* that for state-of-CA beaches that you need to inquire at each one. Afterall, the state of CA beaches are administered by the very same state-of-Ca park's dept. which administers the land-parks. However, the REALITY is, you can hunt state of CA owned beaches here, till you're blue in the face, and no one cares. They've been detected since the dawn of time. And ...... no ...... one one "asks at each beach he comes to".

Therefore it makes me wonder how seriously to take the rest of the "dire sounding states", is all I'm saying.

 

[VBCurt]

Agree