Got kicked out by the Feds

[sjvalleyhunter]

Today EU4IA and I decided to take a trip to one of the local lakes to try our luck at one of the popular swimming areas. Due to the drought here in California, the lake is lower than it has been in probably over a decade. We were hoping to find some lost rings or jewelry in the newly exposed shoreline.

Well, we were hunting for less than ten minutes before being approached by two Park Rangers. We were politely informed that we were detecting on federal land and that it was unlawful to have our detectors at the lake. Needless to say we were a bit confused as to the "federal land" designation, considering we were over 50 miles from the nearest national park or forrest. It ends up that because the lake is maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, that it's considered a piece of federal property.

I consider myself a responsible detectorist and make every effort to adhere to the metal detecting code of ethics, so I won't hunt where I'm not supposed to. That being said, there is a difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. We weren't digging massive holes in a poppy meadow while standing near a giant redwood and gazing up at Half Dome while in Yosemite. No, we were walking around barren land in 100+ degree heat, getting stickers in our clothes while avoiding tripping in the ground squirrel holes and hoping not to get stuck by an old rusty fishhook. I would think that the rangers could have taken into consideration the totality of where we were and what we were doing before giving us the boot. But, I guess the law is the law, regardless.

I looked at the USACE website and virtually every state has lakes and property maintained by them. There are 23 lakes in California alone. I suppose today's lesson learned is that federal land isn't always in a national park or forrest. So be careful if you head to a USACE lake because the Feds have firmly planted their flag on that land.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

So there is no law stating that people are forbidden from metal detecting on federal lands/property?

Depends on WHAT or WHICH "federal property". But not all federal property is a no-no. Read the following posts on this thread: #8, #12, and #13.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[CladGrabber]

To the original poster here is a good link pertaining to regulations in California hope it helps...
http://www.mdhtalk.org/cf/city-regulation.cfm?st=CA

 

[Tom_in_CA]

clad-grabber, I see my article "Tom Tanner" is on that link !

 

[CladGrabber]

Tom you are a Legend bro

 

[shepcal]

Appreciate your input Tommy!

Shep

 

[sjvalleyhunter]

Quick update on this....After getting kicked out I went home and did some brief internet searches on the laws regarding detecting on ACOE land. There's one thing I think we can all agree on, and that is the metal detecting laws pertaining to federal lands are quite varied and seemingly inconsistent. Metal detecting in national forests and on BLM land is allowed in most areas, as long as it's not an area protected under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, or the American Antiquities Act. It's not allowed at all in national parks. And of course, there are exceptions to exceptions. Throw local and state laws in the mix and it's quite confusing. (Thank you CladGrabber for the link, it had a lot of good info.)

That being said and with the minimal research I did, I believe that in this instance the park rangers were incorrect in telling us that we could not detect at the lake. If I'm reading it correctly, according to 36 Code of Regulations section 327.14 which pertains specifically to ACOE property, "The use of metal detectors is permitted on designated beaches or other previously disturbed areas unless prohibited by the District Commander for reason of protection of archaeological, historic or paleontological resources."

So why did the rangers tell us that we couldn't detect there? I think it's simply because they too are confused regarding the specific laws for the specific lands. I don't believe that they saw us, took it personal that we were there, and then conspired to lie to us just to get us to leave. For this reason (among others) I didn't argue with them. First off, my knowledge of the federal laws was not in depth enough to competently discuss the issue with them. Secondly, if I were to go toe to toe and challenge them I think the outcome would be clear. I'd be arrested or cited for whatever statute they came up with and my detector would be taken as evidence. Two or three months later I go to federal court, and sure the charges may be dropped. But now I've incurred attorney's fees and have been without my detector for months. And who knows what condition it would be in after being bounced around an evidence storage room for months.

Instead, I think the best way to approach it is by educating the rangers. This can be accomplished by contacting the local office and discussing the issue with a supervisor. Then, assuming my interpretation of the law is correct, the fact that detecting is allowed can be disseminated down to those rangers who patrol the lake.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... So why did the rangers tell us that we couldn't detect there?.....

Good question. Especially now since you've found out they were mistaken. And since it's seems that detecting is normally ignored as innocuous. Here's my stab at this question:

Because I'll bet you that some well-intentioned md'r(s) before you, went and ask those guys (or their superiors) the question: "Can I metal detect at such & such lake please ?". Or "is it legal to metal detect here?" , etc... And lo & behold, the "pressing question" gets passed back and forth to multiple desks. Sure enough, someone's going to mis-apply ARPA, or think that something that is for national parks, is therefore for ALL federal land. Or ... will just take the "safe" answer. So guess what ? The next time that ranger sees ANOTHER md'r out in the field (who perhaps he'd have never paid notice to), he'll subconsciously remember the earlier inquiry. And think: "aha! there's one of THEM!" and start booting others.

 

[DDancer]

Huh ? Sure, if there's a law, then by all means you and I are welcome to obey it. But in the context of THIS particular post, what are you getting at ? Seems to me the OP's rangers were the ones mistaken, thus my statement stands, to NOT just take any such "scram" as gospel truth.

I've no problem with the statement other than the visual your portraying. In context to this post my follow on statement is simply an overall thought about difficulty with simple laws and the agencies that enforce them. The rangers may be mistaken however until one can straiten them out its better to be observed "obeying" the law rather than getting into an unsupported argument. I agree with you~ I do not take any Scram as a gospel truth however I don't carry a pocket full of reg's every time I'm out detecting.
From the follow on in this thread a copy of the rule might win the argument if presented next time the rangers come to shoo people off. At worst it can be addressed with the district manager and clarified. Be interesting to know.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Before I leave I just tell them “ I have been kicked out of places that were a lot better than this lousy place”...Art

 

[eu4ia]

Interesting!

 

[DavidGC]

The law is what it is -- we can't use detectors on fed land.

Good points here. I'll never use that blanket statement again.
Still, even though it turns out he was in the right, arguing with the rangers would have ended badly.

sjvalleyhunter, great follow-up. I'd stick a copy of that reg. in my pocket and return to the lake.