Find's Treasure Forums
Welcome to Find's Treasure Forums, Guests!
You are viewing this forums as a guest which limits you to read only status.
Only registered members may post stories, questions, classifieds, reply to other posts, contact other members using built in messaging and use many other features found on these forums.
Why not register and join us today? It's free! (We don't share your email addresses with anyone.) We keep email addresses of our users to protect them and others from bad people posting things they shouldn't.
Click here to register!
Need Support Help?
Cannot log in?, click here to have new password emailed to you
Changed email? Forgot to update your account with new email address? Need assistance with something else?, click here to go to Find's Support Form and fill out the form.
anybody have info on the preposed wi dnr change on the 11th
- Thread starter 798hand
- Start date
MNCoinhunter
Active member
Wow...I wish they would do that in Minnesota.
I'm not a big fan of the fee either, but the DNR controls a lot of land, and if this opens the land up to hunting I guess I can't squawk too much. I figure I pay similar to that to buy a fishing license.
The part that is the real bummer is that the Wardens did not even know it was illegal to hunt on DNR controlled lands. My brother knows a Warden and was talking to him about it. First off he said did not know it was not allowed. Second the Warden said he has more important things to do than chase someone around who has a metal detector. It is a Statute that is not real high on the enforcement list if they are not getting complaints, or you are not digging in an historically significant area.
The part that is the real bummer is that the Wardens did not even know it was illegal to hunt on DNR controlled lands. My brother knows a Warden and was talking to him about it. First off he said did not know it was not allowed. Second the Warden said he has more important things to do than chase someone around who has a metal detector. It is a Statute that is not real high on the enforcement list if they are not getting complaints, or you are not digging in an historically significant area.
Fire Fighter 43
Active member
The biggest thing with this proposal is it will open up all state parks to metal detecting. We have several that are 100 years old and they have never been detected. A lot of the old parks have history before they were parks. Old virgin parks/beaches and you only want $20.00, were do I sign up. One other thing is if the vote passes it will be at least a year before it will take affect. I will be camping out with detector in hand the night before it becomes legal.
Here is the question and a link to the meeting places
Spring DNR Hearings to be held April 11, 2011.
Question 74- Metal Detecting on State Lands (# 700110): It is currently not legal to use metal detectors on state owned lands unless authorized for the purpose of retrieving personal property. The current rule was enacted over concerns about people using metal detectors to locate artifacts and possibly taking the artifacts or destroying the site so that it could not be recorded and preserved properly to reconstruct historical events. Under this suggested permitting system, participants would be required to have some type of educational instruction or certification before being issued a permit. Persons would not be allowed to disturb or retrieve historical artifacts and doing so would result in the loss of the permit to use a metal detector on state owned lands.
Here is the question and a link to the meeting places
Spring DNR Hearings to be held April 11, 2011.
Question 74- Metal Detecting on State Lands (# 700110): It is currently not legal to use metal detectors on state owned lands unless authorized for the purpose of retrieving personal property. The current rule was enacted over concerns about people using metal detectors to locate artifacts and possibly taking the artifacts or destroying the site so that it could not be recorded and preserved properly to reconstruct historical events. Under this suggested permitting system, participants would be required to have some type of educational instruction or certification before being issued a permit. Persons would not be allowed to disturb or retrieve historical artifacts and doing so would result in the loss of the permit to use a metal detector on state owned lands.
Mitto, you say:
"The part that is the real bummer is that the Wardens did not even know it was illegal to hunt on DNR controlled lands."
And this is probably true of a lot of public lands, everywhere, if you were to trace back through the evolution long ago enough. The reason a lot of rank & file desk clerks, rangers, gardeners, etc... "know" about a supposed rule (or something silly that only remotely applies, like cultural heritage wording), is that md'rs asked, at one time or another. Ie.: years ago, people (who figured it doesn't hurt to ask, or better-safe-than-sorry, etc...) went and asked "can I?" Thus whomever they asked, was to look it up in their books, or call state capitol for clarification, and presto, a "no" gets passed down, where no one previously cared or noticed before.
"The part that is the real bummer is that the Wardens did not even know it was illegal to hunt on DNR controlled lands."
And this is probably true of a lot of public lands, everywhere, if you were to trace back through the evolution long ago enough. The reason a lot of rank & file desk clerks, rangers, gardeners, etc... "know" about a supposed rule (or something silly that only remotely applies, like cultural heritage wording), is that md'rs asked, at one time or another. Ie.: years ago, people (who figured it doesn't hurt to ask, or better-safe-than-sorry, etc...) went and asked "can I?" Thus whomever they asked, was to look it up in their books, or call state capitol for clarification, and presto, a "no" gets passed down, where no one previously cared or noticed before.