thanx for posting this article Michigan Badger. As I started to read, I just KNEW that archaeologists were going to be involved. Anytime you run out and interview an archaeologists, of COURSE they will be of the opinion that all metal detecting is wrong. Some of them will even argue that it should be off-limits on private land even! It's gotten to where I'm so jaded, that when I see an archaeologist interviewed for something like this, I do not let it affect my hunting practice, conscience, etc...
It's easy to see why: You see how the article started with federal land/parks there in Michigan, then shifts to state owned parks? The step down to county level and then city level, is an easy one to make. Think that's a far stretch? Where do you think counties and cities get their ideas to formulate their own local codes and regulations? When individual cities have been interviewed (the recent Houstan flap, for instance), notice that they reference state and federal codes. Sure, they're not subject to them, but they can certainly incoorporate them into their local level laws, since they're already written out. It's just like cities who want to know what the going rate of pay is for city employees: They study other cities, county level, state level, etc... to make sure they're competitive, etc... So too is it for drafting laws and codes: They borrow from each other's wordings, court cases, etc....
So for that reason, even though this deals with just one state or just federal, it's a CANCER! The reader can't escape the inference that somehow md'rs are bottom scrunge anywhere they are seen.
Buckleboy, you are right, the canoe stolen out of a museum has nothing to do with md'rs. I can see how they're trying to stretch the logic, but I don't buy it. A coin, unknown to anyone, in the ground, is for all practical purposes, "not existing" till someone comes along and finds it.
