A scary link

[Tom_in_CA]

Hey gang, a fellow on another forum thread had a thread that he feared detecting in his state (PA) d/t legal implications, laws, restrictions, etc.. A few people, including myself, answered him that there are places to detect, and it's not as dire as he was thinking. In my post on his thread, I went a step further, and asked him what he wass he reading, that he's coming away with the conclusion that things are scary, illegal, and so forth. Because the way I read his particular state (PA in the fmdac listing of state-by-state laws), there was actually specific ALLOWANCE of detecting (albeit on sandy beaches or for new stuff, etc...). I mean, gee, you can't argue with specific allowance. That's even better than a simple silence on the subject (no rules for or against either way). So I asked him "what is that you're reading, that's making you think you can't detect, to begin with? He answered me by PM'ing me the following link:

Metal Detecting Laws, What You Should Know.

And he asked me for any insight I could give him, about that. I went ahead and got into full-bore typing mode, and gave it my full perspective. When I was done, I decided I wanted to put my thoughts on that, here on a thread for all of T'net. I will delete his name so that it's anonymous. (Unless he wants to come on to this thread and reveal himself )

Here goes, cut & pasted here:


thanx for the pm. Let me address that link. Please notice that anything you read there is almost entirely on FEDERAL level. Here's the quote:

"It’s important that you understand that these issues I am talking about are the issues that deal with the State Lands, US Forest Lands, and parks."

As such, therefore, it has NOTHING to do with state, city, county, and private lands. Yes they do draw in "state" to the discussion, throughout the page too, because a lot of states have, by specific incorporation, drawn the some wordings into their own state parks wordings. But again, even then, it would NOT have anything to do with city and county and private lands, even if your state had "dire" sounding wording in their verbage.

And as for those scary stories (the little girl picking up pretty pebbles, and so forth....), I mean, c'mon #####, give me a break! I bet I can also find "scary stories" of a motorist being "roughed up" by an over-zealous cop, FOR NOTHING BUT A TAIL-LIGHT OUT on his car, or for going 56 in a 55 zone, etc.... Can it happen? Sure! Your car impounded, you are arrested, you are read the riot-act, etc... all for a tail light infraction. I'm sure such stories exist somewhere, of over-zealous cops doing that. But seriously now ####, does that stop you from driving? No, of course not. Because you realize they are rogue exceptions & authority run amok.

All those scary stories in that link (the little girl with the pebbles, the guy with the arrowhead, etc...) are all, as you can see, written from the perspective of archaeoligsts. Even to the point that, as you can see, the archies are the one(s) who "...happened to be driving by" and thus, the story unfolds. Well duh, go figure, if you ask an archie, what did you THINK their stories were going to be?

Here's an analogy: You've heard of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), right? They're an animal rights activist group. If you were to ask the president of PETA the following question:

"Hi. Is it ok if I leave my pet bunny in the car, while I run into the 7-11 to get a slurpee?"

Now what do you think her answer would be? She would shriek: "Noooo! That's animal-bunny cruelty! The bunny could suffocate in the hot car! You can be arrested for animal cruelty, pay fines, and have your car confiscated!!" And, heck, she could probably even cite laws to back up her claims. And even a scary story or two to further prove her point. But what did you expect to come from an animal rights extremist wacko?? So too then, do I put LITTLE stock into what some archies say (and an md'r picks up and subsequently puts into a link like this). Can something happen? Sure! If "what if" fears such as this are going to bother you, then don't even walk down the street, because statistics show, you *might* get hit by a car, and so forth. Of COURSE use a little common sense in where you detect. Of course avoid obvious historic monuments. Avoid high-traffic times and archie conventions, etc....

And also, notice that even after he's found and elaborated on the laws (which, as I say, are almost exclusively federal), he goes on to admit that they don't specify "metal detecting". And they would, by logical conclusion, not affect "new" objects (eg.: less than 50 or 100 yrs. old or whatever). So therefore he does say that as long as you don't "dig" or "find anything old", then technically, there might be nothing forbidding the mere act of using a detector. So long as you didn't violate those other things. Ie.: you're looking for modern coins, or that ring your wife just lost, on top of the ground, etc.... So with that said, let's look at both those items:

a) Age of item: Now, forget for the moment snooping around obvious historic sacred monuments (shiloh, bodie, ghettysburg, indian graveyards, etc....). Just, for the moment, random forests, CCC campgrounds, a lake beach, etc.... You tell me: First off, if someone were EVEN THERE that cared, do you think they really riffle through your apron, and has a calculator, doing the math on ages of coins? I've been at this for 35+ yrs., and have YET to have someone go through my apron seeing if I had found "something old". I mean, seriously now, if you were really worried, put that pre 1962 penny in your "other pocket". Sorry, I have to blunt and frank. Or, heck, put old coins of that age back in the ground if you like!

b) the "digging" thing is not much different than rules of city, county, state, and fed, or ANY public land ANYWHERE. It's also usually put in these terms: altering, defacing, vandalizing, etc... But think about it #### : What do ALL of these terms have in common? They all INHERENTLY and IMPLICITLY refer to the END result, do they not? So if you leave the area w/no trace of your presence, then technically, you have not "altered" "defaced" or "vandalized" anything, now have you? Might someone object to the temporary evil process of extraction, and debate those semantics? SURE! Avoid such lookie-lou busy bodies. I mean, did you plan on wearing neon orange and be waltzing over people's beach blankets?

Detecting is a little like nose-picking: Not illegal, but ....sometimes.... uh .... you just have to be a little discreet. But if this still bothers you, then perhaps you've chosen the wrong hobby. Because such things (if you asked long enough and hard enough, of enough bureaucrats) can be morphed to apply to ALL public land, ANYWHERE. I mean, did you really expect a city or county person to tell you "sure, go ahead, 'dig' in the park". No of course they'll be obliged to say "no". But the *reality* is, that as long as you're not leaving a trace, and not being an eye-sore or a nuisance, ..... you get the picture. I hunt in parks all the time, and have even had gardeners, rangers, cops, etc.... pass me by. Perhaps they didn't even care, (had the common sense to realize I wasn't leaving any mess/holes). But is that to say that if I asked enough lawyers or desk-bound bureaucrats "can I?" that I might not find a "no"? Or COURSE you can always find someone to tell you "no", if you ask long enough and hard enough with the right combination of buzz-words.

But if you really want to play it safe, simply don't hunt federal or state land (unless yours is one of the states with explicit state allowances like PA has ). Simply hunt city and county land, and then I don't see the problem. If you're skittish that your city our county has some "no detectors" rule, you can look up the city and county codes in your area. If you see nothing that says "no metal detectors", then presto, it's not prohibited. Look it up yourself, rather than go asking clerks. Lest you get the "no one cared, TILL you asked" psychology to kick in.

It is links such as those are merely perpetuating and exasperating the very thing that author is against: Restrictions. By posting such a website, he un-intentionally brings about the following effect: Skittish people read such things (maybe not unlike your reaction reading it), and they think "on no, I can be arrested, the sky is falling, I have to go ask permission and grovel at city hall wherever I come to lest I be arrested". And then what happens next, is merely a self-fulfilling vicious loop: City and county persons who are fielding such a question, must pass it back and forth to various city depts (the arborist, the mayor, the city attorney, etc...). And pretty soon, your pressing question is answered with the "safe" answer: "no". But oddly, before that, perhaps the parks or schools there had merely been detected (so long as you weren't a nuisance in some other way), and no one had ever cared before. DO YOU SEE? Then this scary story of "I got a no" gets put in a thread, thus causing more people to do the same thing: go ask wherever they're at, "just to be sure"! These type "run and ask" reactions to links such as this, merely perpetuate and further the very thing the author was/is against. It's a vicious circle. Thus if you have any worries, look it up for yourself. And no, I do not consider verbage about defacing and alterations to apply, unless you intend to leave open scars and holes. And no I will not bend over back-wards to wonder if verbage about harvesting, collecting, taking, and so forth apply. Or lost-&-found laws, etc.... Otherwise, there comes a point, that I've chosen the wrong hobby, if all-such-things bother me.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[dirtscratcher]

Everyone seems to think Forest Service land is off limits. A couple weeks ago I walked into our largest Ranger Station and asked just for giggles and was told stay away from administration building and have at it. I continually read that you can not detect Forest Service land, but I do all the time with their blessing.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

There is a common mis-conception that "all federal land is off-limits". This is simply not true. There are forms of federal land, like NFS as you have pointed out, that have express ALLOWANCES for it. Which even beats silence on the subject Another example is BLM where it is not dis-allowed.

In each case though, whether NFS or BLM, I bet it you asked enough bored archies if this means you can keep old coins found there, that they'd tell you "no". So technically: Yes it's allowed, in-so-far as you're only finding new stuff.

So dirt-scratcher: If you find a 1965 or older penny, dime, quarter, etc.... Simply send it to me, and I will absolve you of all guilt.

 

[dirtscratcher]

There is a common mis-conception that "all federal land is off-limits". This is simply not true. There are forms of federal land, like NFS as you have pointed out, that have express ALLOWANCES for it. Which even beats silence on the subject Another example is BLM where it is not dis-allowed.

In each case though, whether NFS or BLM, I bet it you asked enough bored archies if this means you can keep old coins found there, that they'd tell you "no". So technically: Yes it's allowed, in-so-far as you're only finding new stuff.

So dirt-scratcher: If you find a 1965 or older penny, dime, quarter, etc.... Simply send it to me, and I will absolve you of all guilt.

Your crazy if you think I have guilt over an old coin. I have had numerous run ins with forest service and all were positive. The only reason I asked was an old fellow told me you weren't allowed to detect a small group of houses around the administration grounds. He was right. It would be tough to go at an off time as Forest Service Law Enforcement is in an out 7 days a week. I know you don't like asking but sometimes you have too. Or should I say I have too. I don't take people getting on my case very well.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Your crazy if you think I have guilt over an old coin. I have had numerous run ins with forest service and all were positive. .. I don't take people getting on my case very well....

Ok, point well taken.

Since you are an advocate of asking, then ask again in this fashion: Instead of just asking "Can I metal detect?", instead ask in this way: "Can I metal detect and keep coins over 50 or 100 yrs. old? ". And as you ask: Have printed out in your hand a copy of ARPA. Underline the 100 yr stuff (or various other subsequent versions with 50 yr stuff underlined). Then sit back and listen to their revised answer. Hurry ! Go do the right thing. Afterall, you don't want people getting on your case.

In other words, you minced words, weren't forthcoming, and got permission under false pretenses. Eh ?

 

[cudamark]

My understanding is that coins are not included in the ARPA laws. Isn't that still true?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

My understanding is that coins are not included in the ARPA laws. Isn't that still true?

Great question! And some people have interpretted it that way. But if you read closely, that's only coins that aren't "an archaeological resource". This is where it gets sticky: Because MOST CERTAINLY coins CAN BE an "archaeological resource". RIGHT ? I mean, duh, they find them in archie pits all the time. And take great relish in the info they provide, put them in museums, and so forth.

Thus I'm afraid the exemption is only for new coins. Since "artifact" and "relic" are determined to be 50 or 100 yr. old items, to be a "resource".

It's certainly worth a try, if a ranger tried to bust you, to cite that verbage. But taken in context, it's not technically exempting all coins. Read the portion of the 1979 wording, for the full paragraph, and you will see that it's only non-archaeological resource coins that are exempt. And unfortunately, if you got into a debate of semantics, that will be defined by the 50 or 100 yr. bologna.

 

[dirtscratcher]

Ok, point well taken.

Since you are an advocate of asking, then ask again in this fashion: Instead of just asking "Can I metal detect?", instead ask in this way: "Can I metal detect and keep coins over 50 or 100 yrs. old? ". And as you ask: Have printed out in your hand a copy of ARPA. Underline the 100 yr stuff (or various other subsequent versions with 50 yr stuff underlined). Then sit back and listen to their revised answer. Hurry ! Go do the right thing. Afterall, you don't want people getting on your case.

In other words, you minced words, weren't forthcoming, and got permission under false pretenses. Eh ?

No I'm not advocating asking. I guess you are not getting the picture. I detect Forest Service often with no worries they have a large office with a bunch of old houses around it and I've already been told you can't detect. I found out for myself. Whether you want to admit it or not there are times when you have to ask. I agree with most of what you are always saying.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... I detect Forest Service often with no worries ....

Right. You have "no worries" because you asked and got a yes. That's the way I interpreted this:

.... A couple weeks ago I walked into our largest Ranger Station and asked just for giggles and was told stay away from administration building and have at it. I continually read that you can not detect Forest Service land, but I do all the time with their blessing.

And just saying that whomever said "yes" to you, wasn't fully aware of all the things that could apply. The very same question, phrased with various clarifications (all of which would be 100% true) would have netted you a "no".

 

[Tom_in_CA]

This is a true story sort of related: A fellow walks in to a parks dept. office and asks: Can I metal detect in the park here? They told him "sure, help yourself". Just like in your NFS case.

However, on one trip to the park, he was accosted by a city personnel park-person. The md'r cited his permission. But the city person gets on his cell-phone, calls to the person who's name the md'r was citing. The md'r listens in as the griper tells the other person that this md'r is "digging in the park". To which the person who had granted permission assures the griper that the md'rs had not mentioned digging. When the call was finished, the md'r was tossed out on his ear. And firmly berated for not having been forthcoming, getting permission under false pretenses, blah blah.

The md'r who told this story of what had happened to him, asked forumites if, in the future, he should be sure to include that he'd be "digging" in his future requests, so as to avoid this embarrassment.

So too does your situation have a bit of that flavor. A permission granter who didn't take into account all the implications. Which is a good thing, mind you. But it still makes the entire thing sort of stink of arbitrariness , luck, and whims. Rather than being a black and white "detecting is allowed (or dis-allowed) here" type of thing.

 

[dirtscratcher]

This is a true story sort of related: A fellow walks in to a parks dept. office and asks: Can I metal detect in the park here? They told him "sure, help yourself". Just like in your NFS case.

However, on one trip to the park, he was accosted by a city personnel park-person. The md'r cited his permission. But the city person gets on his cell-phone, calls to the person who's name the md'r was citing. The md'r listens in as the griper tells the other person that this md'r is "digging in the park". To which the person who had granted permission assures the griper that the md'rs had not mentioned digging. When the call was finished, the md'r was tossed out on his ear. And firmly berated for not having been forthcoming, getting permission under false pretenses, blah blah.

The md'r who told this story of what had happened to him, asked forumites if, in the future, he should be sure to include that he'd be "digging" in his future requests, so as to avoid this embarrassment.

So too does your situation have a bit of that flavor. A permission granter who didn't take into account all the implications. Which is a good thing, mind you. But it still makes the entire thing sort of stink of arbitrariness , luck, and whims. Rather than being a black and white "detecting is allowed (or dis-allowed) here" type of thing.

I think your missing the point. I wasn't asking if you can detect Forest Service land. I asked if I could detect around the old buildings at the administration offices. A friend told me he asked and was told no. I was hoping to catch someone in a good mood that would say go ahead. The response was NO but go for it anywhere except around administration buildings. So they reaffirmed what I've been doing for years. Your making more out of it than there is.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... I wasn't asking if you can detect Forest Service land. I asked if I could detect around the old buildings at the administration offices.....

Oh, I got it now. You're right, I misunderstood your original post.

 

[dirtscratcher]

Oh, I got it now. You're right, I misunderstood your original post.

The problem I have is my mouth waters everytime I drive by.

 

[cudamark]

Great question! And some people have interpretted it that way. But if you read closely, that's only coins that aren't "an archaeological resource". This is where it gets sticky: Because MOST CERTAINLY coins CAN BE an "archaeological resource". RIGHT ? I mean, duh, they find them in archie pits all the time. And take great relish in the info they provide, put them in museums, and so forth.

Thus I'm afraid the exemption is only for new coins. Since "artifact" and "relic" are determined to be 50 or 100 yr. old items, to be a "resource".

It's certainly worth a try, if a ranger tried to bust you, to cite that verbage. But taken in context, it's not technically exempting all coins. Read the portion of the 1979 wording, for the full paragraph, and you will see that it's only non-archaeological resource coins that are exempt. And unfortunately, if you got into a debate of semantics, that will be defined by the 50 or 100 yr. bologna.

I agree that they would TRY to include any coins they wanted, regardless of year. IMO, the only resource a coin would have is an economic one. Even if they found a Roman, Greek, or Celtic coin, what would they glean from that? The coin could have been dropped recently from someone careless with their coin collection. A good lawyer would have that lame argument thrown out in a minute. Naturally, we wouldn't want it to get that far as they would just come up with some other excuse to ban all detecting. If they ask to see your coins, (which I seriously doubt they will) hand them over. Chances are, you'll never have a soul ask.

 

[ChampFerguson/TN]

If you are determined to ask, always ask 'are there any laws against it'. If they say yes, make them cite the law. That puts the onus on them to show you where it is prohibited. If they cant, then have at it.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

If you are determined to ask, always ask 'are there any laws against it'. If they say yes, make them cite the law. That puts the onus on them to show you where it is prohibited. If they cant, then have at it.

Champ, while what you are saying is an improvement over asking "can I metal detect?", yet .... even your better way of phrasing it can falter. Yes I know that .... on the surface, it appears to put the burden of proof on them to CITE such a law, if one existed. Right ? But here's how even this has been known to fail:

1) They can say "yes we have laws against it". And they can proceed to show you rules about alter, deface, dig, remove, harvest, lost & found laws, etc... Ok, then what do you do ? Do you *really* think you're going to win a debate of semantics with them on those things ?

2) There was a true story of a guy who showed up a city hall with this stance in his wording. And the desk-clerk was fully aware of the implication of "... be prepared to show chapter and verse if you're going to tell me no". So .... the clerk did admit that there was nothing on the books that specifically said anything about metal detecting. The md'r left with a thankyou and a big grin (no doubt ready to head to the park). So the clerk goes to talk to her supervisors about the matter than had just un-folded. Guess what appeared on the next city council meeting as a proposed ordinance ?? Yup, a ban on detectors in city parks.

So I'd be careful with even your improved way of wording. I'd still look it up for myself, if I were skittish. If nothing specifically says "no md'ing", then presto, it's not prohibited.