This is just bad

[pepperj]

Now this is just bad, it really puts shines a bad light on the hobby when this crap happens.

Looters dig holes, take artifacts from Oregon Trail in Idaho | KTVB.COM Boise

 

[hvacker]

Not unusual though. In 1980 I was hiking in Utah at a remote canyon. Before going in I checked with the BLM to sign in and was warned that people hunting for Indian pots and artifacts were known to locate cashes and return with small helicopters to do the pickup. They said they were armed and not to approach them if seen. The large fines and prison makes for desperadoes. Even with all the intrigue there is still a huge market especially in Germany.
I have been in places where pottery shards literally cover the ground.

On the other hand the relics would literally rot in the ground if it was up to the BLM. I'm not saying I like what thieves do but maybe a way to license collectors and track their finds or pay for the finds that could be placed in a museum might be better than allowing nature to destroy them and never know they existed.
Government agencies are historically myopic and seem to always utter the NO word w/o any foresight.
As it is now artifacts will not be allowed to be found at all and then we all loose.
The agencies also monitor selling sites so a artifact theft is a risky occupation. I now see meteorite sites going off line with the knowledge that many meteorites are found on Fed land.

 

[pippinwhitepaws]

an example of why I haven't dug the campsite I found along the beal wagon road....

out west, the feds get rather upset at people digging up history.

 

[NOLA_Ken]

Well it does suck that someone's doing that, and it's definitely a poor reflection on relic hunters, but really what are they likely to find there? I know that there are stories of people dumping everything because the wagon broke down, or from some other catastrophe, but from what I have heard most of the trail was hunted pretty hard years ago.

 

[roadrunner]

It is bad that people do this to some areas that might be of importance,but,im sure there was nothing valuable there.
Should have filled there holes.The only history that is there are ruts.
If there is so much history,why aren't the feds,or archies digging it up.
How do they know there was anything of value.
Maybe they found nothing. If anyone else went out there,all they saw was ruts.Well,the ruts are still there,there is no loss.
And no one knew of anything being in the ground, or it would be a national monument.
Just make them look like natural again.
But as stated,let us find the places for them,then they can make all there history facts,ect. Then we can keep what they don't need.
And now ruts fall under the act? Are not all or most of our highways old wagon trails/But the govt can destroy them,but we can't even hunt them.
Fence it off and charge an admission.

 

[Joe hunter]

I was in an area last weekend I thought was ravaged by careless detecters then after closer examination I

Realized it was someone taking mertal (a plant used as ground cover in landscaping) I know if someone had seen me I'm sure they would have thought it was
Treasure hunters trashing the the area to steal artifacts but really stealing mertal from park property is fine?

 

[Diggin-N-Dumps]

So detecting a historic area is considered "looting"? I totally understand about not leaving holes..its a habit for me to make it look like there was never a hole where I dig. I dont agree with all they did. But I would think calling them Looters is a bit much

 

[Joe hunter]

So detecting a historic area is considered "looting"? I totally understand about not leaving holes..its a habit for me to make it look like there was never a hole where I dig. I dont agree with all they did. But I would think calling them Looters is a bit much

Being called a looter is the least of there worries huge fine equipment confiscated possible jail time.
It could effect there jobs family's all for a horseshoe and some rusty nails talk about the punishment not fitting the crime.
I know someone's gonna say don't do the crime if you can't do the time but get real if there was anything that important there perhaps
The pansies in the polo shirts and Aussie hats should have been out there digging long ago instead of crawling there lazy a'!.$
Out of there holes whenever they think someone is getting something they wanted glory for.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

So detecting a historic area is considered "looting"? I totally understand about not leaving holes..its a habit for me to make it look like there was never a hole where I dig. I dont agree with all they did. But I would think calling them Looters is a bit much

diggin-n-dumps, read the article again. Look closely at who they quote, for their news-story: The "officials" they quote from are "archaeologists". So to answer your question, yes, most all archaeologist would concur that "detecting a historic area is considered looting". Heck! there are purist archies who would say merely digging in a sandbox is harming future generations ability to know their past.

Because they hate md'rs from the git-go. So OF COURSE all their opinions will be colored in dire-sounding things. But that's a little like asking a PETA wacko animal advocate (people for the ethical treatment of animals) if you can leave your pet bunny in the car while you dash into 7-11 to get a slurpee. They would screach "no", and tell you about animal cruelty laws, about how your car can be confiscated, etc... But what did you expect to come from an animal rights wacko? So too do I put little stock into what some archies say (or their interpetation of the laws).

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

So detecting a historic area is considered "looting"? I totally understand about not leaving holes..its a habit for me to make it look like there was never a hole where I dig. I dont agree with all they did. But I would think calling them Looters is a bit much

It was a historical site, no detecting allowed at all. The entire trail is not off limits, but by law the area they were digging was...

If your hunting historical sites that are declared a "historical site" then they call it looting.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[Diggin-N-Dumps]

diggin-n-dumps, read the article again. Look closely at who they quote, for their news-story: The "officials" they quote from are "archaeologists". So to answer your question, yes, most all archaeologist would concur that "detecting a historic area is considered looting". Heck! there are purist archies who would say merely digging in a sandbox is harming future generations ability to know their past.

Because they hate md'rs from the git-go. So OF COURSE all their opinions will be colored in dire-sounding things. But that's a little like asking a PETA wacko animal advocate (people for the ethical treatment of animals) if you can leave your pet bunny in the car while you dash into 7-11 to get a slurpee. They would screach "no", and tell you about animal cruelty laws, about how your car can be confiscated, etc... But what did you expect to come from an animal rights wacko? So too do I put little stock into what some archies say (or their interpetation of the laws).

Oh Ok...I totally didnt catch that...I never thought about they way "They" Look at things....Well Eff them

 

[Joe hunter]

It was a historical site, no detecting allowed at all. The entire trail is not off limits, but by law the area they were digging was...

If your hunting historical sites that are declared a "historical site" then they call it looting.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

I don't hunt historic sights or condone it I just feel the punishment should fit the crime.
That and if it were a Walmart being built there no one would care

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.....That and if it were a Walmart being built there no one would care

Hey, wow, that's a great way of looking at it. The actual "net outcome" type of thing. That if it had been a walmart proposed for that site, no one would have cared. They'd have hired the right, uh ... "customer friendly" archie to decide there's nothing of archaeological significance there. Presto, you can go ahead and build, eh? Conversely a "purist" archie (on someone else's payroll) will declare (and be cited in the news media info-babe blurbs) to say any other such scary stuff, and declare every seashell to be "culturally significant".

Gee, so let's all just go ask long enough, and hard enough, up the chain of command, and sure: you'll eventually find someone to tell you you can even hunt a modern city sandbox (and you'll be satisfied knowing it was a good thing you asked). Heck, even put that archie's quotes on md'ing forums, so everyone else will then now know that they too can't hunt that modern sandbox (afterall, you can't be too safe, eh?)

 

[Joe hunter]

Hey, wow, that's a great way of looking at it. The actual "net outcome" type of thing. That if it had been a walmart proposed for that site, no one would have cared. They'd have hired the right, uh ... "customer friendly" archie to decide there's nothing of archaeological significance there. Presto, you can go ahead and build, eh? Conversely a "purist" archie (on someone else's payroll) will declare (and be cited in the news media info-babe blurbs) to say any other such scary stuff, and declare every seashell to be "culturally significant".

Gee, so let's all just go ask long enough, and hard enough, up the chain of command, and sure: you'll eventually find someone to tell you you can even hunt a modern city sandbox (and you'll be satisfied knowing it was a good thing you asked). Heck, even put that archie's quotes on md'ing forums, so everyone else will then now know that they too can't hunt that modern sandbox (afterall, you can't be too safe, eh?)

Only if you can afford said sandbox

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Only if you can afford said sandbox

Right. A very real and legitimate fear. You wouldn't want to be arrested and go to jail, now would you. Hence I suggest for those who are at this "caution level" and "risk assessment", that they not detect at all. Heck, don't even leave your front door in the morning "lest a lion attack you".

 

[pippinwhitepaws]

well... I suspect someone lives in an urban area.

 

[ANTIQUARIAN]

I think this is truly disgusting! There are so many other sites that can legally be detected, so why 'steal' history from a federally protected site! Don't get me wrong, we're all detectorists who are continually looking for the next 'big find', but to stoop so low as to detect a national historic site like this is reprehensible! Why don't you just go detect at the 'Little Big Horn', or at the 'Alamo', I'm sure you'd find lots of relics there! Make better choices on where you hunt, don't just go for the easiest and the most obvious!

Most importantly, don't be like this guy!

 

[MT_Joe]

If there is so much history,why aren't the feds,or archies digging it up.

That was my first thought. But then again there is that government shutdown.....

 

[Joe hunter]

The archeologist don't dig them because they already have dozens of anything your going to find only in pristine condition.

 

[TheRingFinder]

I guess a lot of you just don't realize, it only takes 1 swipe of the pen and we are all criminals. Every find from the early 1900 and earlier are historical -