Virginia people, question

[FarmerChick]

On my metal detecting for the states, it says Virginia State Parks you can detect with a permit.
going next summer to a state park in Cape Charles on the beach.

Then I read a review of the campground on the net checking into it, and someone posted no metal detecting allowed.

huh?

I will probably call the state park later....but wondering, is anyone detecting in the viriginia state parks with a permit like my list of states says is allowed?

thanks

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[OBN]

S THEIR RESPONSE. oh yes---I am going to be detecting in the water HAHAHA

Here is your problem and this holds true in Maryland. And I could be wrong......I don't think you can cross there dry beach, get in the water from state land with a metal detector.
You either have to come in by boat,
Find a non-state own, or non-private property thur way.
Or walk the water line from a safe point. Which I have done to reach a few beach's...
Some thing you may want to check out a little more......

Lots of History in the Bay..Some of My future hunting grounds for Fall/early winter/spring 2013
check out my Album "retired"...Got about 30 more to research...
http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/members/12993-albums2752.html

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[FarmerChick]

OBN
you crushed me big time. oh man oh man. that just isn't cool at all. So I have to walk a VERY long way down the beach, detector in hand, get in the water and walk back up? Or is it illegal to possess a metal detector in the state park?

oh man. I can't say oh man enough

 

[FarmerChick]

OBN
you crushed me big time. oh man oh man. that just isn't cool at all. So I have to walk a VERY long way down the beach, detector in hand, get in the water and walk back up? Or is it illegal to possess a metal detector in the state park?

oh man. I can't say oh man enough

 

[FarmerChick]

OK--thought for a second.

I am giong to email the copy of the letter directly to the state park and ask Is it ok to enter the water from the state park beach and detect as long as I do not detect state park dry land? should be interesting again to say what their response is? hmmm.....this is getting tougher and tougher.

I am thinking a day at the virginia public beach and hit their sand. bit of a drive but if we go and spend the whole day I could some 'easy and legal' detecting done

 

[bigscoop]

The Park managers can still challenge your access. This isn't to say they will once you present them with your information, but they can. You have to remember that the park managers can, in some states, set their own individual park rules. Here's how i have approached it in the past;
Take the information to the park office and speak with them there, be nice and polite. If they still say "no" simply ask then to be so kind as to site the appropriate rule prohibiting you. At this point one of two things will happen, they will either show you the rule, or they won't be able to show/site you the rule. They may get annoyed by you, but don't get annoyed by them as you have just possibly put them in an uncertain, uncomfortable spot. Sometimes they will become understanding of the situation and tell you to ahead, other times they will still say no. But most often they will be willing to work with you to get it all figured out. Remember, you are challenging a long standing policy/regulation that may have never actually officially existed at all, to everyone's surprise.

 

[OBN]

I am giong to email the copy of the letter directly to the state park and ask Is it ok to enter the water from the state park beach and detect as long as I do not detect state park dry land? should be interesting again to say what their response is? hmmm.....this is getting tougher and tougher.

I am thinking a day at the virginia public beach and hit their sand. bit of a drive but if we go and spend the whole day I could some 'easy and legal' detecting done

Sorry to shake you, Just want you to be aware, And you are doing the correct thing by asking......

VB is a great beach also, I'm sure Max would have no problem giving you the tour....

Good Luck, And I hope I'm wrong ...

A interesting problem a friend of mine had several years ago when he though he knew better.......
Md. charges 3 in excavation of South River treasures - Baltimore Sun

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Farmer chick, are you referring to the state-by-state FMDAC list? If so, go figure how those type lists came about, in the first place: Someone sends out 50 inquires, to all states park's dept. headquarters, and asked "is metal detecting allowed?" Sounds innocent enough, right? I mean: who better to ask .... than the states themselves, right? But put yourself in the shoes of desk-bound bureaucrat receiving such an inquiry decades ago. What do YOU think the safe answer is going to be?? NATURALLY whomever fields such a "pressing issue" inquiry, answers by morphing something else to apply. Like cultural heritage verbage, or disturbing sandcrabs, etc..

So when lists like that began to surface in the mid 1980s (example: Doc R. Grim's book "Treausure Laws of the United States"), a lot of people, in states with dire-sounding wording (or outright "no's") would say to themselves: "Since when??" Because quite frankly, detecting had never been a problem in a lot of those "dire sounding" state's state parks. And now all of the sudden they're reading that they're not supposed to?? huh? Do you see the self-fulfilling pyschology? And then given enough people "asking" (at those states that say "inquire at each kiosk you come to", for example), it did nothing more than let rank-&-file know to do more of the same, put it on their radar as something that "needs their sanction", etc.... See the vicious circle?

Using CA as an example, it's one of those states that has " ... with the permission of each particular park...". Yet I can tell you FOR A FACT, that detecting goes on .... all the time .... at state park's beaches here, and no one ever cares. And no ... no one goes asking at each beach he comes to, etc..... They have simply been detected since the dawn of detectors, and it's never been an issue.

Now you tell me: If someone takes the FMDAC list literally, and starts asking rangers at each state beach he comes to here, what do you think the result will be? Obviously it could create a situation of no one caring .... UNTIL you asked, right?

Which is what I think has happened in your Virginia situation: Given enough people asking over the years (as the great and wonderful link tells them to do), you've got some rangers who ... thereafter .... see another md'r (whom perhaps they'd have previously never paid mind to), and think "aha! there's one of THEM", and start booting others. See the moral of the story here?

If it were me, and as long as it's not an obvious historic monument, and not specifically posted, I'd JUST GO. If someone has an issue, they're welcome to tell you. Then just give lip service and move on. Afterall, you're just looking for that boyscout ring your dad lost there when he was a kid, right?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

obn, no "asking" would not be the correct thing to do. The "correct thing" to do, would be to look it up for oneself, and ....... if not specifically forbidden, then presto, there's your answer. If someone's found a loophole, to detect, by virtue of wording they read about, then why oh why would someone feel the need to go ask if it's ok? If I were to be so worried that I can not detect on dry land, but CAN detect in ankle-deep water, then I would never go seeking "clarification" of whether I can enter across dry land, with my detector in the turned-off position. You will only create a situation of "no one cared till you asked" pyschology. Sheesk, if someone has an issue with them, just appraise them you are detecting in an ok area. Why oh why do people feel the need to question a "yes" all the time?

 

[bigscoop]

Tom, you're wrong, dead wrong. Drop all the physiology stuff as people who live in the area and who have personally dealt with the issue at this Virgina beach first hand, "know the situation". The Park policy is "no"..."not allowed"....and "it is and has been enforced" to the point of restricting it. OBN is correct and Chick is doing the right thing by doing her due diligence. This, "go ahead and play ignorant and nobody will care" is the same as saying "go ahead and break the rules and regulations until someone stops you" and that is bad for everyone, also bad for the hobby. Chick is making progress in discovering the answers she needs, answers that could ultimately lead to her being able to hunt the area as she hopes without running the risk of getting into trouble. It is the responsible and correct thing to do. Chick is gaining knowledge and knowledge in these matters rule. "There is no excuse for ignorance of the laws, policies, and regulations." And in this case, that may end up working both ways and in everyone's favor. "Go Chick!"

 

[Jason in Enid]

Make sure you carry the email stating that the park has no jurisdiction in the water!

Good luck and happy hunting!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

bigscoop, yes perhaps there are areas NOW where certain interpretations (or even specific mention of "no metal detectors") is actually enforced. But what your post fails to ask itself is: WHY did it get that way, in the first place? Answer: the very pscyhology that I speak of.

I mean, everything you're saying, afterall, could be said to apply the situation I describe at state of CA administered beaches, afterall. The very same parks dept. that over-sees land parks, also over sees state beaches (same exact agency). And a literal reading of the FMDAC state-by-state website, might also lead to a conclusion such as the one here: that someone should go ask. And you might say that by doing so, they would be doing their "due diligence", and "not asking" is "bad for the hobby" and you "could get in trouble". Yet if you come to CA, and ..... after a literal reading of that website, you would perhaps leave your detector at home. Imagine your surprise when you see those other md'rs on the beach, and no one cares, eh?

But you're right: perhaps there are areas NOW where some bored ranger does indeed "care" and will indeed "appraise you otherwise". Granted. But just ask yourself: How did that type thing start, IN THE FIRST PLACE.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Make sure you carry the email stating that the park has no jurisdiction in the water!

Good luck and happy hunting!

Jason, apparently this printed effective "yes", isn't good enough. Apparently the "right thing to do" is keep asking higher and higher till you find some deskbound bureaucrat or archie to tell you no ? And to be sure to give the right mental image, you should be sure to pepper your question with key buzzwords like "treasure" and "ARPA" and "dig" and "holes", etc... (lest they not understand the full implications). eh?

 

[bigscoop]

Tom, "Park Rangers/Managers/DNR/etc. can still challenge!"

My son and I were in the right, still cost use $500 each and a court appearance to prove that. The two effected documents concerning our situation have since been corrected to read the same to everyone’s satisfaction. The charges were eventually dropped, so was $500 each.

If you go to midwestprospectors.com Chuck can explain to you how a few Indiana prospectors got a citation even though they were in the right, again, a long drawn out process and money spent to prove it. In the end, everything was worked out to everyone’s satisfaction, but it was costly. And there are many such cases.

Just because you are eventually found innocent of breaking the rules doesn’t mean that you will avoid court and expenses proving it. Without question, Chick is doing the correct thing and following the right path. The situation needs resolved before she goes and she is pursuing the correct course just as she should be. Even when you are in the right those citations can still be written, and unless it is obviously in blatant error, after that the time and $$$ meter starts running. Been there, done that, and know others who have as well. You are innocent until found guilty, but that doesn’t mean it is free or without some suffering. End of debate.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

big-scoop, I don't doubt that over-zealous rangers or cops have "roughed up" an innocent person, who was not technically afoul of a law or rule. And I don't doubt that after "much anguish" (like your story) it wasn't eventually corrected, and you were, in fact, innocent. But those exception stories are just that: exceptions. As your case and the other you allude to show, the barney-fife was in error, etc...

But no, it does not mean that because oddities like that have occured, that therefore everyone else needs to "go asking", just to "make sure", and so forth. Because if we all think that is the automatic correct pre-emptive measure to take, THEN we merely end up with places with no's, where no real rule exists saying such a thing, and places where detecting had always gone on, and no one cared ... UNTIL someone asked.

Or let me put it to you with this analogy: We've ALL heard stories of hapless motorists who got "roughed up" for nothing but a tail-light out, right? They get read the riot act, their car searched, a stiff ticket, got yelled at, etc.... Right? Yes, it happens now and then. But we all look at those situations as cops run amock. We all look at them as the "anomolies", right? Those type horror stories do NOT stop anyone else from driving, right? After reading such horror stories, I do not think I should go to the police station to "ask" if I can drive, right? On the contrary, we shrug our shoulders, and know that the cop was simply wrong, and over-zealous, etc...

 

[Jason in Enid]

Tom, normaly I agree with you 100% but not here. WE have not lost our ability to detect in some places because of people asking permission (although a slew of requests wouldn't help). We have been shut out of these places because every single federal, state, county and city has paid archeologists on the payroll. These archies would rather leave EVEYTHING in the ground than risk losing one single artifact. These very agencies defer all decisions regarding any digging or recovery to their archies who simply make a blanket "no" policy.

 

[OBN]

Th

is agency has no prohibition against underwater metal detecting, per se, and I know of no other state agency that would have jurisdiction in this matter.

That said, you cannot significantly impact the water bottoms and you cannot use any mechanical equipment. You would need a permit to do so from this agency.

I hope this answers your question. If you have additional questions, please contact our habitat management division at 757-247-2250.
John M.R. Bull
Director of Public Relations
Virginia Marine Resources Commission
(757) 247-2269

She asked and got the correct Legal answer, And has a name and number for future referance, how easy is that. There are so many places to detect in the Bay, why worry about having issues when your in the middle of a dig...like my friend John, though he knew the Law and just went and did it.....

Md. charges 3 in excavation of South River treasures - Baltimore Sun

 

[bigscoop]

The usual type scenario these days in these situations, the officer appears on the scene and he is uncertain of the rules and regs so he calls in a request for clarification. Problem, this is not a private communication and many people are listening. After a short wait, a conclusive answer cannot be verified. As was explained to me by the officer that wrote our citations, "If I would have known it was going to come to this I would have let you guys go, but since it has been called in I have to write the citation so the court can straighten it out." And it only got better from here, the prosecutor even admitted that she understood our position and could see the same the problem, but her reply, "But I'm not going to drop the case because it needs to be run through the court so it can be straightened out." Again, once that citation is issued it is more then a citation, it also a piece of paper that represents the image and personal standing of those involved. Nobody wants to be proven wrong for their actions in the end and by letting the court straighten it all out everyone involved can be seen as having done the correct thing. And it happens way more then some here realize, especially with all the laws and regulations and amendments that have been put on the books lately. Once that citation is written nobody really cares if it should have been written. Having that conclusive answer beforehand is what prevents all of this non-sense.

PS: And if you have to stir a few people to get those answers, by all means stir them. It is their job to know those answers and to provide them to you, or at the very least, to direct you to them.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Jason, Thanx for agreeing with me "normally" you are absolutely right. Anytime such a "decision" goes to pass in front of an archie (who as you say, is on the payrolls of various govt. agencies), then sure, they say "no". Because as you say, they are innately at odds with the idea of our hobby. And then we md'rs say "durned those archies anyhow", right? But I bet you 99% of the time, the reason it ever reached that archie's desk, for his in-put TO BEGIN WITH, was the "pressing issue" that makes the rounds to them, to begin with. Ie.: Someone asks (maybe not NOW, but perhaps 10, or 20 yrs. ago, etc...). Thus the question needs to go to various channels of approval, and then yes, the archies say "no". I can give you MANY examples of this, where ...... sure ......an archie said "no". But when you look deeper, to see why it was even on the archie's desk for his say-so, it is just as I've said. If you doubt me, I'll give you case examples of this happening time and again, at various govt. levels, where the chain reaction was/is documented.

OBN, you say: " ..... you cannot significantly impact the water bottoms and you cannot use any mechanical equipment. You would need a permit to do so from this agency. " Well gee, I don't think digging with a sandscoop "significantly impacts" anything. And ... no .... I'm not using "mechanical equipment" to dig either. So why, therefore, would we need a "permit" from that agency?

Big-scoop, you say: "Having that conclusive answer beforehand is what prevents all of this non-sense" Why can't the "conclusive answer" be from a person looking it up for themselves? And if the law is silent on the issue (nothing specifically saying "no metal detectors"), then presto, it must not be dis-allowed then? Why can't that be "conclusive"? For example, if I see no rules on the books forbidding the flying of frisbees, I'm going to assume that ... therefore ... flying frisbees is not disallowed. Can that stop a cop from coming up and saying that "frisbee flying is a dangerous nuisance" (might poke someone's eye out), and writing me a ticket? SURE! But does that therefore mean I stop in at all parks before arriving and asking if I can fly frisbees? NO!

And to say that asking ahead of time prevents the nonsense, be aware that it can also CAUSE nonsense to START, where no one ever had a problem before. There are multiple real-life examples of this, from city and up to state scale, that I can give, where no one ever had a problem, till people went "seeking clarification".

 

[OBN]

OBN, you say: " ..... you cannot significantly impact the water bottoms and you cannot use any mechanical equipment. You would need a permit to do so from this agency. " Well gee, I don't think digging with a sandscoop "significantly impacts" anything. And ... no .... I'm not using "mechanical equipment" to dig either. So why, therefore, would we need a "permit" from that agency?

Sorry thom I think you missed something?

HERE IS THEIR RESPONSE. oh yes---I am going to be detecting in the water HAHAHA

This agency has no prohibition against underwater metal detecting, per se, and I know of no other state agency that would have jurisdiction in this matter.

That said, you cannot significantly impact the water bottoms and you cannot use any mechanical equipment. You would need a permit to do so from this agency.

I hope this answers your question. If you have additional questions, please contact our habitat management division at 757-247-2250.
John M.R. Bull
Director of Public Relations
Virginia Marine Resources Commission
(757) 247-2269

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Huh? No, I haven't missed anything. You ask them "can I metal detect" and they answer: "Sure, but no significantly disturbing the bottom".

You never asked them "Can I disturb the ocean bottom" did you? You asked them: "Can I detect?". So their answer was not to be implied to mean that .... therefore ... "all metal detecting retrievals disturb the bottom". I do not interpret their answer to mean that at all. To me, their answer was outside your question, since, of course, you are not going to significantly disturb the bottom.

I mean, it would be like asking a cop: "Can I drive on this street?", and he replies: "there's nothing saying you can't drive on this street, but just don't break the speed-limit". Well, you don't interpret that to mean that he's saying you can't drive on that street, do you? No. He's only saying not to exceed the speed limit (which you had no intention of doing anyhow).