Taking a trip to Maryland what are the laws like?

[bragg765]

Hey, just looking for a little heads up if anyone would know. I am heading to Prince Frederick Maryland this weekend for a rugby tournament and thought that maybe I would take along my MD just in case I had a little bit of extra time. I was just wondering if anyone on here was from around that area or had MD'd out that way before and could shed some light on what the laws were like?

 

[liftloop]

look for signs. check the paper for a club you can ceck the state on here..

 

[kevin hoffman]

I know my reply is late ,but go sharks tooth hunting at calvert beach rd, or at breezy point beach

 

[WVPapaw]

Hey, just looking for a little heads up if anyone would know. I am heading to Prince Frederick Maryland this weekend for a rugby tournament and thought that maybe I would take along my MD just in case I had a little bit of extra time. I was just wondering if anyone on here was from around that area or had MD'd out that way before and could shed some light on what the laws were like?

I was there over the weekend and checked Internet for gaithersburg, MD. Lots of places made protected historic sites by state, or county. Reportedly Montgomery county requires a permit. Not sure about others. I live in WV so I don't know much about Maryland requirements. Seems to be historical boards who are making decisions on what gets protected. Looks like big hassle to me, but you should check with someone who lives there and knows.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... but you should check with someone who lives there and knows.

Papaw, this is a generally accepted answer, that most people wouldn't blink twice about: "Check with locales who've detected there a long time" or "check with a dealer or club there". As *certainly* those people who live and hunt in a certain geographic locale .... would ... doh ... know where they can hunt w/o problems, right?

But let me ask you this: if you did such a thing as you suggest (inquire ahead to long-time local hunters), and they told you "such & such parks are fair game" or "such & such beaches are fair game", then you (and even the most skittish of hunters) would interpret that exactly as it says. RIGHT? But you will find, if you go a step above them, and start looking this up "for yourself", that some of those places they tell is "ok", might, in fact, have verbage about "collecting" or "digging" (gasp, say it isn't so). Then how do those long-time locals simply "do it"? Easy, it's ... essentially .... "grandfathered in", and no one cares.

I'm the first to agree that .... if no one's having a problem, and if "everyone just detects there", then .... how can anyone argue with that? But what's interesting, is that this really does mean that "Actual Practice" is what dictates. NOT "actual law", in that case right? (or ...at least .... things that could be morphed to apply if enough people went asking for clarifications).

We have places here in CA that have simply been detected since the 1960s (early days of detecting), and it's not a problem (unless you're being a nuisance or something). Yet, oddly, if you looked long enough and hard enough, you might find things you think preclude you. Like if you were an outsider getting ready to move here, or vacation here, so you "looked up the rules" and found things about "removing" or "digging").

Thus, I don't put a lot of stock in actual rules (unless it truly said "no metal detectors"), and instead will go by what others "just do".

 

[WVPapaw]

Papaw, this is a generally accepted answer, that most people wouldn't blink twice about: "Check with locales who've detected there a long time" or "check with a dealer or club there". As *certainly* those people who live and hunt in a certain geographic locale .... would ... doh ... know where they can hunt w/o problems, right?

But let me ask you this: if you did such a thing as you suggest (inquire ahead to long-time local hunters), and they told you "such & such parks are fair game" or "such & such beaches are fair game", then you (and even the most skittish of hunters) would interpret that exactly as it says. RIGHT? But you will find, if you go a step above them, and start looking this up "for yourself", that some of those places they tell is "ok", might, in fact, have verbage about "collecting" or "digging" (gasp, say it isn't so). Then how do those long-time locals simply "do it"? Easy, it's ... essentially .... "grandfathered in", and no one cares.

I'm the first to agree that .... if no one's having a problem, and if "everyone just detects there", then .... how can anyone argue with that? But what's interesting, is that this really does mean that "Actual Practice" is what dictates. NOT "actual law", in that case right? (or ...at least .... things that could be morphed to apply if enough people went asking for clarifications).

We have places here in CA that have simply been detected since the 1960s (early days of detecting), and it's not a problem (unless you're being a nuisance or something). Yet, oddly, if you looked long enough and hard enough, you might find things you think preclude you. Like if you were an outsider getting ready to move here, or vacation here, so you "looked up the rules" and found things about "removing" or "digging").

Thus, I don't put a lot of stock in actual rules (unless it truly said "no metal detectors"), and instead will go by what others "just do".

I can see that I am going to have to adopt that attitude if I am going to get any good finds in places where lots of people have frequently dropped coins and jewelry. My concern is mostly that all these great places I frequented as a kid and have lived near most of my life are now listed as part of national historic districts. Do you agree that those kinds of listed sites are protected from metal detecting?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... Do you agree that those kinds of listed sites are protected from metal detecting?

It depends on what you mean by "protected from metal detecting". Do you mean "specifically" (something that litterally says "no metal detecting"?) or do you mean ancillary verbage about "cultural heritage" and "disturbing" and/or "defacement" , etc.... You'll need to be specific on what you mean by "protected from metal detecting".

 

[WVPapaw]

It depends on what you mean by "protected from metal detecting". Do you mean "specifically" (something that litterally says "no metal detecting"?) or do you mean ancillary verbage about "cultural heritage" and "disturbing" and/or "defacement" , etc.... You'll need to be specific on what you mean by "protected from metal detecting".

Ok, what I mean is this. Can a person go to an old school with an athletic field when the facility is located on a street that is designated as a historic district and the building and grounds are designated a historic place when entry is made for the purpose of using a metal detector to locate old coins on the property as well as jewelry or relics and to remove them from the soil with hand digging tools, screw driver or probe or other tools and replace the soil and sod in such a manner that it is not evident that the turf has been disturbed?

 

[WVPapaw]

It depends on what you mean by "protected from metal detecting". Do you mean "specifically" (something that litterally says "no metal detecting"?) or do you mean ancillary verbage about "cultural heritage" and "disturbing" and/or "defacement" , etc.... You'll need to be specific on what you mean by "protected from metal detecting".

By the way, I would not be very happy to find that I am allowed to use a metal detector yet be prohibited from recovering any objects that I find.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Well, who designates a "district" as being "historic" ? Is this a federal thing? A state thing? A city thing? And let's say for example that it's a federal or state thing. Yet yards, schools parks, curb strips, etc... in that vicinity might be CITY park, or PRIVATE yard, or CITY school, etc... Then you have to ask yourself: Gee, if there's an over-lap, does the federal or state take away the "rights" of the homeowner to weed his own garden? Or if a city park falls within a federal or state historic marker zone, then is "ARPA" the governing verbage? Or does the city park rules that apply to all their parks (not just that one) preside?

But let's cut to the chase: Let me save you some time. I bet that given the data you've given so far (that it's a district given a special status as "historic"), that if you asked enough people at city hall (or state or federal), that you would indeed be told that .... no, you can't detect. And even if the verbage didn't specifically say "no metal detecting", they would merely rely on other verbage ("artifacts" or "digging" or "collecting", etc...) to tell you "no". But in that case, SO TOO can you ALSO find yourself a "no" at even the most innocuous of modern sandboxes, if you merely ask enough bureaucrats, with the right combination of buzzwords. You can ALWAYS find yourself a "no", if you keep working your way up the ladder of personell. So forget "historic district", just go ahead and preclude yourself from everywhere.

Personally, unless it says "no metal detectors" as a specific rule, then I'm going. Sure, I go at ... uh .... discreet times. But sheesk, that's like picking your nose: We ALL use a little discretion, and don't do it in front of people who might be offended.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

By the way, I would not be very happy to find that I am allowed to use a metal detector yet be prohibited from recovering any objects that I find.

That's like going on a date with a beautiful girl, and being allowed heavy petting, but no nookie? What's the point of detecting if you can't retrieve? Do you just want to hear random sounds in your headphones?

 

[WVPapaw]

That's like going on a date with a beautiful girl, and being allowed heavy petting, but no nookie? What's the point of detecting if you can't retrieve? Do you just want to hear random sounds in your headphones?

I agree. There would be no point.

 

[WVPapaw]

Well, who designates a "district" as being "historic" ? Is this a federal thing? A state thing? A city thing? And let's say for example that it's a federal or state thing. Yet yards, schools parks, curb strips, etc... in that vicinity might be CITY park, or PRIVATE yard, or CITY school, etc... Then you have to ask yourself: Gee, if there's an over-lap, does the federal or state take away the "rights" of the homeowner to weed his own garden? Or if a city park falls within a federal or state historic marker zone, then is "ARPA" the governing verbage? Or does the city park rules that apply to all their parks (not just that one) preside?

But let's cut to the chase: Let me save you some time. I bet that given the data you've given so far (that it's a district given a special status as "historic"), that if you asked enough people at city hall (or state or federal), that you would indeed be told that .... no, you can't detect. And even if the verbage didn't specifically say "no metal detecting", they would merely rely on other verbage ("artifacts" or "digging" or "collecting", etc...) to tell you "no". But in that case, SO TOO can you ALSO find yourself a "no" at even the most innocuous of modern sandboxes, if you merely ask enough bureaucrats, with the right combination of buzzwords. You can ALWAYS find yourself a "no", if you keep working your way up the ladder of personell. So forget "historic district", just go ahead and preclude yourself from everywhere.

Personally, unless it says "no metal detectors" as a specific rule, then I'm going. Sure, I go at ... uh .... discreet times. But sheesk, that's like picking your nose: We ALL use a little discretion, and don't do it in front of people who might be offended.

In this particular instance, it was designated by the Feds, but local officials filed the paperwork. I think there may have been some state approvals as well. This all happened 10 years ago when I was living out of state. I found the completed application on the Internet. I also saw where individual homeowners can object to their property being included in a national historic district. It takes a certain percentage of property owners to rule out designation of a district, however, but I do believe individuals properties can be excluded. The paperwork shows all the properties that are included. I am certain the designation was sought to prevent older commercial buildings and homes from being torn down, although some have still been destroyed so it was not totally successful.

I don't believe any of the regs specifically say "no metal detecting",