Learning so far that

[Melissa Archibald]

I am learning so far no matter what if you are in a national park or national forest find the rangers office or someone of the right authority figure and get written permission.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Rodbuster209]

This is a huge subject, I know you are specifically asking about national parks and forest but generally speaking if where you want to detect is a public place just go for it, most of the time if you ask you will be denied and could end up getting the place specifically posted against detecting! Look up member" Tom in CA" and read some of his threads about asking permission, He explains in way more detail, Good Luck!

 

[NHBandit]

Whenever the government is involved the rules are as clear as mud. One of my favorite places to detect when I lived in NH was the remains of a ghost town that was moved when a dam was built. It was under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. There was a large sign beside the road leading in that listed all the rules and specifically said that metal detecting was allowed but that anything of historical importance had to be turned in to the rangers office. Had been going there for years and even had one of the rangers show me one time where the old dump had been and wish me luck. The last time I was there a new ranger pulled up beside me while I was walking and told me to put the detector in my car or lose it.. When I mentioned the sign he got all "official" and told me that HE is the one who makes the rules and if he decides a pull tab is "historical" then so be it. I pointed out that the sign says I'm allowed to dig historical objects but they need to be turned in and he got all red faced and asked me if I'd like to lose my equipment AND be arrested...

 

[Melissa Archibald]

It sounds like it might just be up to the ranger on duty at the time that you might get a different answer from each one?

 

[Melissa Archibald]

I'd rather ask first though than risk a huge fine and possibly my equipment taken.

 

[Davers]

I do Believe the law on NP's is already in place. NO....
Except for Swimming areas or maybe looking for a lost item & only with a permit of some type?

Davers

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Melissa, I've been reading your various posts on the subject of where you can, and can't, hunt. And I think you are making this WAY to complicated. Anyone can find "dire-sounding" boiler-plate verbage ANYWHERE they intend to go, if they want. Eg.: if you looked long enough and hard enough, you can probably find some rule or some official that would tell you that you can't even hunt modern sandboxes. At a certain point, you have to grow a set, and go. You are NOT going to get every last archie and gardener to "roll out the red carpets" for you.

You say:

I am learning so far no matter what if you are in a national park or national forest find the rangers office or someone of the right authority figure and get written permission.

Well, forget national "parks" for the moment. Instead, for NFS, you have been told here before already, that they are md'ing is NOT forbidden there. In fact, it has an express allowance:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5261774.pdf

Heck, what more could you ask for ? Why why, oh why then, would you think you need to go get a ranger to give you "written permission" then ?? And think about it Melissa: asking any desk-bound bureaucrat to put their signature on some contract or paper you put in front of them, is the FASTEST way to get a "no" to anything. All that's going to do is conjure up some sort of legal hassles, risks, dangers, blah blah.

Next you say:

I'd rather ask first though than risk a huge fine and possibly my equipment taken.

If you can find us an example of someone who got a "huge fine" and "equipment taken" for md'ing on NFS land, I would LOVE to hear it. If you can find any such thing, it will no doubt be for someone night-sneaking obvious historic sensitive monuments, or someone who was being an obnoxious nuisance, etc...

So please, in order to stop the self-fulfilling cycle from continuing: Do NOT ask permission where it is not forbidden. Or start "scary threads" which lead other newbies to assume the same stuff. Which merely prompts them too, to run around asking permissions where it's not needed. Thus simply leading to more scrutiny of our hobby, more attention, more "scary stories" leading to more "no's", etc.... See how it just feeds on itself ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Whenever the government is involved the rules are as clear as mud. .....

NH-bandit, I have read your story. Good read, thanx. There you had an express allowance (versus simple silence on the subject, which ALONE would be good enough to detect). And still though, you had someone give you grief. So your conclusion is that sometimes govt. rules can be "clear as mud".

Perhaps so. But the fact of waffling interpretations should NOT cause us md'rs, therefore, to think we all need to run around "getting written permission" or "seeking clarifications", etc.... On the contrary, if a rule or law is ambiguous like that (open to interpretation), then ... in my mind, you can not be held to something that was not clear (in a judicial sense). I can not think of ANY sensical judge or cop who is going to "throw the book at you" for something which was not clearly dis-allowed (or in your case, had an express allowance for pete's sake!).

So the mere fact that .... once in awhile you or I get some "barney-fife" who wants to interpret differently, is NOT cause for us to think the sky is falling, and thus we need princely blessings of officials wherever we go. To me it means: a) Give lip service to that one moody lookie-lou busy-body, and b) avoid that one individual in the future. Presto, problem solved.

I certainly WISH it wasn't that way. I certainly WISH every last ranger, archie, and gardener loved me. I certainly WISH the red carpets were rolled out for me, and that our hobby didn't have certain connotations. But alas, it's not going to happen. If this is "too much" for persons to handle, then they either need to get another hobby, or stick to private property.

 

[Melissa Archibald]

Some so far a lot of people seem to think that the states can interpret federal rules for the national forests and parks as the state sees fit when in fact it says in the law that the state cannot change it in anyway.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Some so far a lot of people seem to think that the states can interpret federal rules for the national forests and parks as the state sees fit when in fact it says in the law that the state cannot change it in anyway.

Perhaps so. The solution is simple for these "mis-guided individuals". Avoid them. Heck, it's gotten to where I do most of my hunting at night. Or ... at least ... off-traffic low usage times. Why swat a hornet's nest? This is especially true of turfed parks, where....... let's be honest .... connotations exist. So ... just like nose-picking: be discreet in your timing so as not to offend others. Presto, problem solved.

 

[BC1969]

Most of the 35 years I've been detecting have been at night. For reasons tom states, because I'm paranoid and hate being watched, but mostly because my detectors have always worked better when the sun is down.
Just make sure one of your ears is Not covered by an earphone, don't want somebody sneaking up on you that you probably can't see anyway.

BC

 

[pong12211]

Asking for permission instead of forgiveness makes us all look better as a whole. I agree it's easier to just get permission than hurt detectorists images. Just my opinion.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Asking for permission instead of forgiveness makes us all look better as a whole. I agree it's easier to just get permission than hurt detectorists images. Just my opinion.

1) well, "asking for permission" WHERE IT'S NECESSARY to ask for permission. But if it's not necessary (no rules or laws forbidding it), then no, that doesn't "make us all look better". Asking for permission where it's not prohibited, implies to the person you are asking, that it is somehow in need of their say-so. Ie.: that it's harmful, or questionable, such-that-you are asking their permission, in the first place. I mean, if it were innocuous, why would you be asking them? This is not subconsciously lost on the person you're asking, and often dictates their answer (ie.: the "safe" answer)

2) hence if you fetch a "no", where it's a) not prohibited, and b) never been an issue prior to that, for any other md'rs, then: Which is "hurting detectorist images" ? Which is putting more places "off-limits" ?

As you can see, sometimes it's the assumption we need to grovel around at bureaucrat's desks, that "hurts detectorists" (ie.: closes places), more so than if you just go.

Of course you avoid "obvious historic sensitive monuments", etc... But for run-of-the-mill parks, forests, beaches, school yards, ..... nah.