BLM Land in CA

[BootyBros]

Hey all,

I’ve been trying to get a good answer and my results have been mixed enough for me to post a question on here for you experts...

Can we metal detect on BLM land in California?

Thank you!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[sjvalleyhunter]

Yes, BLM land is open for detecting.

 

[dsrtdwg1]

Who owns it ?. If you ask me I say YES...permission granted!

 

[sprailroad]

Never had a problem on BLM land, although, California IS a foreign country.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Yes. BLM land is fair game. Not just in CA, but all BLM land in other states too. I have the link on my other 'puter at work, that gives the express allowance for it. Thus, not just "silent on the subject" (hence, not forbidden), but with an ACTUAL EXPRESS ALLOWANCE, mentioning it by name.

However, here's the dirty little secret bugaboo : It's only in-so-far as it's within the scope of ARPA. Which could define "artifacts" as items 50 yrs. old, or older. So in other words, you can't find old coins. New coins, nuggets, jewelry, meteorites, etc.... = Fine. Have at it. Express allowance.

And I'll have to tell you: In my 40+ yrs of this, I have NEVER had anyone, armed with a calculator, come up and start doing the math on the ages of coins that I'd found. Nor is my math very good.

This express allowance , of course, would NOT work for an obvious historic sensitive monument on BLM . If/when nosy-parkers were around. Thus, sure: Use common sense on when to apply this express allowance. But for "middle of nowhere" type locations: I have never had any problem, never been asked what I'm finding, etc.. (heck, never see another soul).

 

[BootyBros]

Yes. BLM land is fair game. Not just in CA, but all BLM land in other states too. I have the link on my other 'puter at work, that gives the express allowance for it. Thus, not just "silent on the subject" (hence, not forbidden), but with an ACTUAL EXPRESS ALLOWANCE, mentioning it by name.

However, here's the dirty little secret bugaboo : It's only in-so-far as it's within the scope of ARPA. Which could define "artifacts" as items 50 yrs. old, or older. So in other words, you can't find old coins. New coins, nuggets, jewelry, meteorites, etc.... = Fine. Have at it. Express allowance.

And I'll have to tell you: In my 40+ yrs of this, I have NEVER had anyone, armed with a calculator, come up and start doing the math on the ages of coins that I'd found. Nor is my math very good.

This express allowance , of course, would NOT work for an obvious historic sensitive monument on BLM . If/when nosy-parkers were around. Thus, sure: Use common sense on when to apply this express allowance. But for "middle of nowhere" type locations: I have never had any problem, never been asked what I'm finding, etc.. (heck, never see another soul).

Thank you Tom! I live in Galt and have found several BLM sites on a map, only to drive there and see a sign “Area closed beyond this sign”.

I have a few others mapped and ready to try but the real trick is how to access these lands!

Thank you all for your replies!

 

[aa battery]

Yes, BLM land is open for detecting.

strange but i got kicked out of Squaws Leap years ago cause it was BLM .

 

[sjvalleyhunter]

strange but i got kicked out of Squaws Leap years ago cause it was BLM .

Probably by an uneducated law enforcement officer. Just my guess. Were you given a reason?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

strange but i got kicked out of Squaws Leap years ago cause it was BLM .

Are you referring to this encounter ? :

http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/general-discussion/482748-squaws-leap-ca.html

If so, that was not a case of "kicked out", was it ? That was a case of "asked ahead, and got the safe answer" routine.

I realize some folks might say: " What's the difference ? A 'no' and a 'scram' amount to the same thing after all" Eh ? Thus the source of the lady's "no" might be a moot point. So let me say this :

ANY time an md'r fetches a "no" or a "scram" on public land, does not necessarily constitute gospel law. I mean, sure, give "lip service" at the time. But going forward, I do not necessarily construe any stink eye or bad-hair-day "no", to constitute law. NOT unless I found something that truly said "no md'ing" in actual rules/laws.

Hence someone might ask: "Why not argue with the lady, show her the chapter and verse, etc... ?" Here's why: Because they can use various ancillary verbiage to say it violates something else. Eg.: Harvest and remove. Or alter and deface. Or cultural heritage, etc... You can certainly try to debate them on that (especially in the case of BLM, which has an express allowance). But if you ask me, I'd just give lip service, and come back later when the singular busy-body isn't around. Some people might call that "sneaking around". Ok, fine then: sneak around

 

[BootyBros]

Are you referring to this encounter ? :

http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/general-discussion/482748-squaws-leap-ca.html

If so, that was not a case of "kicked out", was it ? That was a case of "asked ahead, and got the safe answer" routine.

I realize some folks might say: " What's the difference ? A 'no' and a 'scram' amount to the same thing after all" Eh ? Thus the source of the lady's "no" might be a moot point. So let me say this :

ANY time an md'r fetches a "no" or a "scram" on public land, does not necessarily constitute gospel law. I mean, sure, give "lip service" at the time. But going forward, I do not necessarily construe any stink eye or bad-hair-day "no", to constitute law. NOT unless I found something that truly said "no md'ing" in actual rules/laws.

Hence someone might ask: "Why not argue with the lady, show her the chapter and verse, etc... ?" Here's why: Because they can use various ancillary verbiage to say it violates something else. Eg.: Harvest and remove. Or alter and deface. Or cultural heritage, etc... You can certainly try to debate them on that (especially in the case of BLM, which has an express allowance). But if you ask me, I'd just give lip service, and come back later when the singular busy-body isn't around. Some people might call that "sneaking around". Ok, fine then: sneak around

I agree. If you are right, you are right. That doesn’t mean it’s best to argue and prove it right then and there. She most likely left and Googled it or asked someone and realized she was wrong. But if you leave someone with a good impression about metal detectorists, it will only improve our public perception, even in the slightest. And like Tom said, if she loses that pissing contest, she will more likely look at another way to stop MD.

 

[aa battery]

Probably by an uneducated law enforcement officer. Just my guess. Were you given a reason?

women dont give reasons.

 

[BootyBros]

women dont give reasons.

You have met my wife? [emoji23]

 

[Back-of-the-boat]

strange but i got kicked out of Squaws Leap years ago cause it was BLM .

My brother and I have detected there for gold with no issues.We were carrying pans and a small shovel also besides just the detector so maybe it was considered part of our looking for gold tools.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... She most likely left and Googled it or asked someone and realized she was wrong.....

Or how about this scenario: When the "pressing question" crossed her desk, she picked up the phone, called the purist archie in state capitol over her division. And .... you know what purist archies think of detectors, right. Nevermind that probably only 1 person in 5 million persons is a "purist archie (so what are the odds that you'd ever bump into them ?) . But this is EXACTLY the type person's desks, that these "pressing questions" land on.

And sure, like you say, we can enter into a pissing match with this type of mindset, if you want. And try to show them (in this case) the express allowance. But do you *really* think you will win that pissing match ? OF COURSE NOT. And EVEN IF YOU DID, guess what will happen next ? : The "pressing matter" will be proposed as a suggested new rule to implement.

Thus: Why wear a giant bullseye on yourself ? Why swat hornet's nests ? If only 1 person in 5 million cares less, then: Simply avoid that singular person. You will NEVER get red carpets rolled out for you, from every last person on the planet.

 

[haxor]

Just make sure it is not an assault detector. Doesn't hold more then 10 batteries, is registered, and CARB certified.

 

[A2coins]

Thats good news

 

[A2coins]

Welcome to tnet. Tommy

 

[BootyBros]

Just make sure it is not an assault detector. Doesn't hold more then 10 batteries, is registered, and CARB certified.

Hahaha haha! Everyone is switching to carbon fiber shafts and I just figured out the illegal straw shaft.

 

[BootyBros]

Or how about this scenario: When the "pressing question" crossed her desk, she picked up the phone, called the purist archie in state capitol over her division. And .... you know what purist archies think of detectors, right. Nevermind that probably only 1 person in 5 million persons is a "purist archie (so what are the odds that you'd ever bump into them ?) . But this is EXACTLY the type person's desks, that these "pressing questions" land on.

And sure, like you say, we can enter into a pissing match with this type of mindset, if you want. And try to show them (in this case) the express allowance. But do you *really* think you will win that pissing match ? OF COURSE NOT. And EVEN IF YOU DID, guess what will happen next ? : The "pressing matter" will be proposed as a suggested new rule to implement.

Thus: Why wear a giant bullseye on yourself ? Why swat hornet's nests ? If only 1 person in 5 million cares less, then: Simply avoid that singular person. You will NEVER get red carpets rolled out for you, from every last person on the planet.

Precisely!