reply
VBcurt, thanx for posting. I believe your post here is the same info in this FMDAC link, right?:
Federation of Metal Detector & Archaeological Clubs Inc.
Not sure whether the FMDAC's attempt to do such a list pre-dates this 1992-ish book:
"Treasure Laws of the United States" by Doc. R. Grim
The book's idea (just like your list) was simple: An alphabetic listing where the user simply looks up any state he wants, to see what the rules are, regarding metal detecting, in the state parks of wherever they are intending to travel. You know, so like if you're a retired person roaming state to state in your RV, theoretically you just look up any given state, and there's your answer.
And if someone harrasses you, you can simply show them the citation straight from the book, which is taken straight from the answer given by the state themselves.
The way Grim compiled the info for his book, (as is detailed on the introduction pages) was quite simple. He xeroxed off 50 form letters, and sent them to the head park's dept. personell, in each state capitol. It asked something to the effect: "What are the rules regarding the use of metal detectors in your state parks?". Sounds innocent enough. I mean, who better to ask than the states themselves afterall!
And perhaps this is how the FMDAC compiled their data too? Or if they
DID use previously existing comendiums, for their data, then the info they gleaned from was compiled in the way Grim did, from whatever initial source it had come from: Someone went and asked. I am assuming Grim's list pre-existed the FMDAC's list, right?
But an odd thing happened when that book started making the rounds in the early 1990s: Some of the more dire sounding states, that had out-right "
no's" or "
inquire at each park you come to", etc.... had often-time simply been detected, for as long as anyone could remember. Barring, of course, obvious historic monuments, there had been a lot of state parks, in the dire-sounding states, where no one had ever had a problem before. I guess it had never occured to any of the locals they needed to "ask", or that they were doing anything amiss. Since ...... the parks had just been detected as long as anyone could remember and it was apparently not an issue. Yup, right in front of rangers, or anyone. And now all of the sudden they're looking at a book which tells them they can't be there?
Or that tells them they have to ask at each park kiosk they come to? So there was confusion in a few places, as you can imagine, when that came out.
Here's what I believed happened, and continues to happen to this day: Imagine that you're the desk-bound clerk who receives such an inquiry. What would be the "safe" answer? Of course they're going to pass it back and forth between different desks for input (the archie, the arborist, the lawyers, etc...) to give the proper reply. And what do you think the safe answer was going to be? OF COURSE in ANY state there's bound to be a few *obvious* historic state-park monuments, that we could *all* agree you shouldn't be snooping around. But perhaps the other 95% of parks, no one ever cared before? (so long as you weren't being a nuisance in some other way). The person answering the letter certainly can't go into super-detail, by saying "
no at these 12 parks, but yes at these 95 others, and no at the historic cabin, but yes on the modern ball-park @ the other side of the park, etc...". Of course they can't launch into a detailed answer like that. So the easy answer was either "no", or "inquire at each kiosk". And if the answer was "no", it could easily be justified by citing cultural heritage stuff, or vegetation disturbance stuff, etc.... Mind you, these answers were often coming from places where it was never a problem before!
And then an odd thing started happening at those states which tell you to "inquire at each park kiosk". I guess a few people took that to heart, and did exactly as the form-letter's reply told them to. So now you had persons showing up at kiosks, asking confused clerks (who perhaps have never fielded such an inquiry before, and at parks where perhaps it had simply already always gone on). Now, again, put yourself in the shoes of the clerk at the pay-window trying to answer such a question. I mean, gee, does the persons also ..... when asking the question, start talking about "digging" and "treasure" and "arpa" and "indian bones", etc.... It became easy for desk clerks to ALSO say "no". And that too ... in effect .... becomes "policy" after awhile.
For example: this is exactly what happened in a state park near me: 20+ yrs. ago, the campgrounds (circa 1920's vintage) used to be a place you could go to, and no one ever had a problem before. Then one day, a friend of mine got booted. And when he went to object and say "why?...." the only answer he got was "
... because it's not allowed". He left, of course, d/t he didn't want to make a scene. Then a week later, he just happened to meet a newbie at the local dealer's house, where all 3 were talking. The newbie lamented how ".
.. it's too bad detecting at such & such campground is off-limits...." He then explained how he'd gone to the kiosk to ask
"can I metal detect?" (which is, afterall, what the good-list-tells you to do, for CA). The clerk looked too and fro through his books and pamphlets, and couldn't find anything about that. So he excused himself, and got on the phone (presumably calling superiors in other places, etc...). Eventually he comes back to the window, and tells the guy "no". When my friend did the math, and figured out which day this had occured, he realized he had been at the campground on the very next day after that. Thus it became apparent that this info was disemminated out to the rank and file as a perhaps a B.O.L. type thing.
Anyhow, we can't change what happened in the past (places & states were no one cared TILL you asked), But what I DO take issue with, is a part of your introduction to the FMDAC's state-by-state list:
You say:
"Some of the information encountered and the replies from various states were a bit vague and open to interpretation so to be safe check with a state park representative before your visit."
I disagree with that. If some state's answer were "vague" and didn't exactly disallow it (nor exactly "allow" it either), then if you ask me, that's THEIR problem! So if they, for example, state "statutes forbid alteration of park features, or disturbing cultural heritage". Then I suppose, from your quote above, that we are to go asking "can I?" (since that's vague as to whether or not md'rs fall afoul of that verbage). On the contrary, I say just go! And if someone has an issue, they're welcome to tell you. In my opinion, I do not "alter" the landscape, since, of course, I am going to leave the area exactly as I found it (cover my spot, ruffle it up, etc...). And when was the last time anyone went riffling through your apron checking the ages of coins? I've been at this for 35+ yrs, and have NEVER had someone looking over my shoulder with a calculator to see if I exceeded 50 or 100 yr. or had an indian bone, or whatever. So if a law is vague, then therefore, in my opinion, it's up to the person making the law to be specific. I mean, so too are laws that forbid "annoyances" *vague*. So as to fit to a myriad of circumstances that may arise in the field, right? But does that mean it's my duty to go ask rangers and cops if I can wear blue tennis shoes? (afterall, someone may find they "annoying"). Or to ask a cop if I can fly a frisbee? (afterall, it might poke someone's eye out), etc.....
So, if there's not specific disallowance of md'ing, then I say, do it. Lest you merely get the self-fulfilling pyschology that is outlined above.
