FEDERATION OF METAL DETECTOR AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL CLUBS INC ...Good Info...

[Treasure_Hunter]

Here is a link for new hunters who may not know of it, is very informative for each state and metal detecting.

http://www.fmdac.org/parks/parks.htm

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tank69]

thanks TH thats an awsome an very useful link every hunter needs book marked thank you for the link.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Glad to do it Tank, I have had it for a long time, I thought there may be some new hunterswho did not know of it.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

You know how the FMDAC got that list, don't you? They merely sent letters out, to each of the 50 states park's dept's headquarters, with a question like: "what rules, if any, are there, for metal detecting at your state's parks?" It was the same method for a book called "Treasure Laws of the United States", written decades ago by a fellow named "Grimm". In his book, each of the 50 state's replies are re-printed, on their own letterhead.

While that sounds like a noble thing to do (I mean, who better to ask than the states themselves, right? DOH! ). But the problem is: put yourself in the desk-bound bureaucrat's shoes, who fields an inquiry like that, in some stuffy state capitol office: Admittedly, within your state, there will be some parks that are certainly historically sensitive. But then there are also probably many many other parks in your state that are not historic monuments. Ie.: simple beaches, turf, or other innocuous places where no one cares. So if you are tasked to answer a letter like this, what is the easy answer? You certainly could not go into volumes of detail, like: "yes at this park, but no at that one, and yes on this side of the lawn, but no - not at the historic cabin at the corner of that one, etc... etc...." So notice that most of them, in their 1-sentence answers, say "inquire at each kiosk" or "with permit", or simply "no" etc... It was the same with Grimm's book when it came out decades ago. It had many people, in the various state's scratching their heads saying "Since when? that's funny, I've/we've detected the state parks here and never had a problem. Now all of the sudden I'm supposed to ask at the kiosk?" And when they'd ask at the kiosk, you can imagine the downward spiral, where .... rangers who probably never even gave the matter thought before, or would have ever even noticed, now get asked "mother may I?" And now they can just morph anything like "don't disturb the vegetation" or other such nonsense, and tell you "no".

I can't comment on all the other states, but just looking at CA on that list ("need permit"), I can tell you that there are a lot of state parks here that get routinely hunted (as long as you're not a nuisance or snooping around obvious historic sites), and no one is bothered.

 

[Mark S.]

No they did not simply send out letters to the states. About 8 emails and/or letters were sent to states and only half replied with the regulations. Most were found on the internet. Some easily and some with a lot of digging. It took a considerable amount of time to assemble it.

It was done after being ask repeatedly over time about the regulations in various states. Like it or not, what is on the website are the regulations. Wether or not they are enforced is another subject. If the regulations say a permit is required and they let you hunt freely then fine. Don't complain.

Mark S.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

No they did not simply send out letters to the states. About 8 emails and/or letters were sent to states and only half replied with the regulations. Most were found on the internet. Some easily and some with a lot of digging. It took a considerable amount of time to assemble it.

It was done after being ask repeatedly over time about the regulations in various states. Like it or not, what is on the website are the regulations. Wether or not they are enforced is another subject. If the regulations say a permit is required and they let you hunt freely then fine. Don't complain.

Mark S.

Mark were you part of putting it together? If so you and the others did some excellent work and thanks. It is a great site and can tell it was a lot of work...........

 

[Mark S.]

Yes it was I.

And thanks for the compliments.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Mark, when some (the majority) of the states were "found on the internet", as you say, can you shed light on what type sites qualified as authoritative? Ie.: like, would you only accept the state's material itself, as authoritative? Or would merely finding a quote from some club, or some hunter's experience (like on a forum or something), be authoritative enough?

And if you found a state's park's dept. website to not have anything specifically addressing metal detecting, but DID have something about cultural heritage or disturbing vegetation, how did you interpret those situations? Were those the cases where you put (as most states seem to have) "inquire at each location"?

Please shed more light on the process, as I am curious.

 

[Saturna]

I tend to suspect that Tom_in_CA's first post is an accurate assessment of the real world situation.
Asking the bureaucrats "repeatedly over time" still can result with the same result as mentioned by Tom, namely default to just say 'No' or 'Ask At Kiosk'.

I wonder how many states that specifically require a permit did so because something that was under the radar was brought to the attention of someone in an office.


Jay

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Jay, as they say, the "squeeky wheel gets the grease".

This was actually shown, in the case of Utah: Awhile back, Utah .... uh .... "clarified" their stance regarding metal detectors in their state parks. As I recall, it was said to not be allowed, or at least severely restricted or whatever. What struck me as odd (and might have been missed in a casual reading of the text), was the forward to the text about these rules. It said something to the effect, that these policies (or clarifications or whatever), were: "Due to numerous inquiries the State of Utah Parks Dept. receives each year, regarding the use of metal detectors in state parks..." blah blah. Do you get it?? Apparently, before this addendum, there was no specific mention of metal detecting. There was probably some "cultural heritage" stuff, but nothing specific. So you can guess what happens: someone sees nothing specific, goes and asks for clarification, and PRESTO, you get an answer (where no one probably would've ever cared, unless you were being a nuisance, in an obvious historical monument). That Utah case, by their own admission in their preface, was proof positive of this psychology.

 

[Mark S.]

If, as the instructions state, you click on the state, you will get the actual regulations as pertaining to metal detecting and a link to the actual site if available. Unless it was received via email or snail mail. I did not quote any second hand info. It is all verbatim from each states regulations.

 

[lostcauses]

"author=Tom_in_CA I can't comment on all the other states, but just looking at CA on that list ("need permit"), I can tell you that there are a lot of state parks here that get routinely hunted (as long as you're not a nuisance or snooping around obvious historic sites), and no one is bothered."

Did you click on the state to see what laws they say exist in CA

 

[Tom_in_CA]

lost-causes, yes I've read it before. It says we can't disturb any archaeological or historical item, deface wildlife, must turn in >$100 items to lost & found, etc... blah blah. It admits that the law says nothing specifically about metal detecting, per se. So it therefore tells the reader to inquire at each park he comes to. Apparently in case any of these peripheral things can be morphed to apply to md'ing, at an individual park ranger's mood, I guess?

I don't interpret that addendum ("inquire of each park") as a law though. But rather an opinion, that the writer was adding to answer to the inquirer. Like a "check to be sure", but not a part of the law or code itself. Ie.: there doesn't appear to be a law that tells you to inquire of each ranger, but rather the advice given, "since you asked" type-of-thing.

 

[lostcauses]

crazy rules they got. If one decides to they could harass you for a lot of things in them state parks.

lost-causes, yes I've read it before. It says we can't disturb any archaeological or historical item, deface wildlife, must turn in >$100 items to lost & found, etc... blah blah. It admits that the law says nothing specifically about metal detecting, per se. So it therefore tells the reader to inquire at each park he comes to. Apparently in case any of these peripheral things can be morphed to apply to md'ing, at an individual park ranger's mood, I guess?

I don't interpret that addendum ("inquire of each park") as a law though. But rather an opinion, that the writer was adding to answer to the inquirer. Like a "check to be sure", but not a part of the law or code itself. Ie.: there doesn't appear to be a law that tells you to inquire of each ranger, but rather the advice given, "since you asked" type-of-thing.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Lost-causes, you have given me something to gnaw on. Using CA as an example, in this FMDAC list: When you click on "California", to the left of the one-sentence summary, it brings up the box with, what is supposed to be the actual, longer-text, law, right? But when you read it, it is clearly someone in the park's dept., who has answered someone else's question "Is metal detecting allowed?" type of thing. Right?

Reading closely, the answerer cites 5 laws: 1) don't disturb animals, 2) don't disturb plants, 3) don't disturb geologic features, 4) don't disturb archaeological features, and 5) to do any of the above, you need a permit.

Only THEN does the answerer, as a form of interpretation, suggest that persons inquire at each kiosk they come to. Notice that this "inquiring" is not a part of the law itself (not a code, not a law, not a requirement, etc...). They only suggest that you "inquire at each kiosk", IN CASE any of these 4 or 5 vague statues can be morphed to apply to you, apparently at the whim or mood of whatever ranger you happen to be talking to, eh?

So metal detecting, clearly here, is not specifically disallowed in state parks. The "ask at each kiosk" is a suggestion, in case you think you might run afoul of those 4 or 5 items. Yet notice that the FMDAC, in their 1 -sentence summary, and the way the popup box system works, might make persons think this "ask" thing is the law?

I do see other states on there where it specifically disallows metal detecting. But for those states that don't have anything, but merely suggest "if in doubt, ask" (which tends to be most of the states), that alone can be construed as to be a "law", when it's actually not.