Detecting Idaho BLM land

[Tom_in_CA]

..........Like the jack ass's in southern Idaho last year that dug up the Oregon Trail AND left the holes open. They sure didn't help our cause.....

Billium, I read about that account too . And the purist archies foaming at the mouth and being asked to comment for the media. The link appeared on several md'ing forums back when that was news. And do you know what my reaction was when I read that ?

Durned those guys that didn't have the sense to fill in their holes!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Mud-puppy, another take on what you're saying is this:

NONE of us would ever think twice about the wrong-ness of taking a dollar bill, or a quarter, off someone's night-stand, right? If you're over at your friend's house (or even a total stranger) and he looks the other way, you STILL would not take something of his personal belongings off his table, etc... Right? We all instinctively KNOW that this is stealing. And NONE of us would go into a museum and take a coin or relic out of a display cabinet. Right? That belongs to the public for all to enjoy, and we all know you'd be horrible for taking such things.

But then why is it then, that all of us don't have a problem with helping ourselves to rings or old coins found at a beach? A park? A furroughed field or orchard or cow pasture, etc....?

Here's why I believe we subconsciously know there's a difference. Maybe not *technically*, but *realistically*. Here's why: the coin or button or whatever that's under the ground is un-seen and un-known. So unlike the coin on your friend's night-stand, or the relic or button in the museum cabinet, you can almost ask yourself "who's been harmed?" "what has anyone lost?" It's almost as if the object never even existed UNTIL you brought it to the surface. Yes i know this is not technically sustainable. But the mere fact us md'rs do it all the time without thinking twice shows that we all implicitlly know the difference. Lest why else would we be in the hobby, if we didn't intend to take things home?

 

[Billium]

..........Like the jack ass's in southern Idaho last year that dug up the Oregon Trail AND left the holes open. They sure didn't help our cause.....

Billium, I read about that account too . And the purist archies foaming at the mouth and being asked to comment for the media. The link appeared on several md'ing forums back when that was news. And do you know what my reaction was when I read that ?

Durned those guys that didn't have the sense to fill in their holes!

Absolutey!!!!! I'll leave it at that....

 

[ironsight]

I found my first silver coin with my then new eTRAC a couple years ago at a long gone homesite in the middle of State DNR property. I didn't know any better not to hunt there considering that large tracts of acreage on that DNR property is leased to farmers for crops, the DNR is always busy there clearing trees and digging up new access and fire roads. They even control burn large sections of that land.

Later i went to the office to ask about carrying a handgun on DNR property for protection. Lots of coyotes.
While there, i saw an abbreviated rules and regulations posted.
From what i remember, one rule read: No digging or disturbing the ground or plants or something like that. Oh Oh
Haven't detected there since that day.

Later i looked up the official DNR rules and regulations on line. What a 'massive' witch's brew of legalize and seemingly conflicting legalize rules.
Seems it could be Ok to detect with a permit, and then it seems its unconditionally not Ok.
Its no wonder gov. park Rangers don't ticket or arrest many detectorists (away from known historical sites). It'd take a lawyer to figure out if or just what to charge them with.

Next Spring i'm gonna once and for all go ask if i can legally detect there even if it means a permit. There's many old long gone homesites, couple of one room school houses, RR depot and a town on that property. All either woods or corn fields now.

Reading the entire official DNR rules and regulations would be a good cure for insomnia!
Here's just some of those DNR rules that caught my attention:

Sec. 10. Except as authorized by a license, a person must not do any of the following within a DNR property:
(7) Use a metal detector, except on a sand, swimming beach as approved by an authorized representative.
(10) Dig or excavate any material from the ground.

Sec. 3. (a) No person may disturb the ground, or continue the disturbance following an accidental discovery, for the purpose of discovering or removing artifacts, burial objects, grave markers, or human remains without a prior permit issued by the department under IC 14-22-1-26 [sic., IC 14-21-1-26], IC 14-22-1-28 [sic., IC 14-21-1-28], and this article. (Is a 1800s 'seated considered an artifact?)

Sec. 21. "Site" means any aboriginal mound, fort, earthwork, village location, burial ground, ruin, mine, cave, battleground, shipwreck, or other similar location on land or under water or any location that contains or once contained a structure.

Sec. 3. "Artifact" means an object made or shaped by human workmanship before December 11, 1816. ( So later coins ok?)

Sec. 12. "Human remains" means any part of the body of a human being in any stage of decomposition or state of preservation. However, this article does not apply to the human remains of individuals dying after December 31, 1939.( What!)

Sec. 18. "Religious" means a system of beliefs, symbols, rituals, or ideology practiced in whole or in part by a corporate group of society that:
(1) serves to define human, sacred, or supernatural relations and the rationale for human existence; and
(2) is verifiable by archaeological, historical, or anthropological study. (Religious medal are a nogo?)

 

[Billium]

I found my first silver coin with my then new eTRAC a couple years ago at a long gone homesite in the middle of State DNR property. I didn't know any better not to hunt there considering that large tracts of acreage on that DNR property is leased to farmers for crops, the DNR is always busy there clearing trees and digging up new access and fire roads. They even control burn large sections of that land.

Later i went to the office to ask about carrying a handgun on DNR property for protection. Lots of coyotes.
While there, i saw an abbreviated rules and regulations posted.
From what i remember, one rule read: No digging or disturbing the ground or plants or something like that. Oh Oh
Haven't detected there since that day.

Later i looked up the official DNR rules and regulations on line. What a 'massive' witch's brew of legalize and seemingly conflicting legalize rules.
Seems it could be Ok to detect with a permit, and then it seems its unconditionally not Ok.
Its no wonder gov. park Rangers don't ticket or arrest many detectorists (away from known historical sites). It'd take a lawyer to figure out if or just what to charge them with.

Next Spring i'm gonna once and for all go ask if i can legally detect there even if it means a permit. There's many old long gone homesites, couple of one room school houses, RR depot and a town on that property. All either woods or corn fields now.

Reading the entire official DNR rules and regulations would be a good cure for insomnia!
Here's just some of those DNR rules that caught my attention:

Sec. 10. Except as authorized by a license, a person must not do any of the following within a DNR property:
(7) Use a metal detector, except on a sand, swimming beach as approved by an authorized representative.
(10) Dig or excavate any material from the ground.

Sec. 3. (a) No person may disturb the ground, or continue the disturbance following an accidental discovery, for the purpose of discovering or removing artifacts, burial objects, grave markers, or human remains without a prior permit issued by the department under IC 14-22-1-26 [sic., IC 14-21-1-26], IC 14-22-1-28 [sic., IC 14-21-1-28], and this article. (Is a 1800s 'seated considered an artifact?)

Sec. 21. "Site" means any aboriginal mound, fort, earthwork, village location, burial ground, ruin, mine, cave, battleground, shipwreck, or other similar location on land or under water or any location that contains or once contained a structure.

Sec. 3. "Artifact" means an object made or shaped by human workmanship before December 11, 1816. ( So later coins ok?)

Sec. 12. "Human remains" means any part of the body of a human being in any stage of decomposition or state of preservation. However, this article does not apply to the human remains of individuals dying after December 31, 1939.( What!)

Sec. 18. "Religious" means a system of beliefs, symbols, rituals, or ideology practiced in whole or in part by a corporate group of society that:
(1) serves to define human, sacred, or supernatural relations and the rationale for human existence; and
(2) is verifiable by archaeological, historical, or anthropological study. (Religious medal are a nogo?)

That's exactly what sparks these discussions. Nice list of CYA, "you can't have it because I want it....even though I didn't know it was there" set of rules. What I read into that is; they don't know what they don't want you taking so they try to cover everything with vague language that is "left up to interpretation".

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... That's exactly what sparks these discussions. Nice list of CYA, "you can't have it because I want it....even though I didn't know it was there" set of rules. What I read into that is; they don't know what they don't want you taking so they try to cover everything with vague language that is "left up to interpretation".

And what's sadder still, is that probably the only reason such specifics exist (when they start to *specifically* say "metal detectors"), is that someone, way-back-when, went and asked for clarification on whether or not other things applied to them. Given enough questions, then presto, they must address that "pressing issue" and add it in to their rules.

Despite all that dire sounding stuff, I bet that *realistically*, it's meant to keep people from tromping around obvious historic sensitive monuments. Now *could* it be said to apply to something way back in the middle of frickin' nowhere? SURE! Just keep asking long enough and hard enough, and you'll eventually find someone to say "yes it applies". And sure as heck, that person was waiting behind every rock (navy seal commando archies) waiting to pounce in the middle of the desert, forest, etc... right?

 

[ironsight]

.... That's exactly what sparks these discussions. Nice list of CYA, "you can't have it because I want it....even though I didn't know it was there" set of rules. What I read into that is; they don't know what they don't want you taking so they try to cover everything with vague language that is "left up to interpretation".

And what's sadder still, is that probably the only reason such specifics exist (when they start to *specifically* say "metal detectors"), is that someone, way-back-when, went and asked for clarification on whether or not other things applied to them. Given enough questions, then presto, they must address that "pressing issue" and add it in to their rules.

Despite all that dire sounding stuff, I bet that *realistically*, it's meant to keep people from tromping around obvious historic sensitive monuments. Now *could* it be said to apply to something way back in the middle of frickin' nowhere? SURE! Just keep asking long enough and hard enough, and you'll eventually find someone to say "yes it applies". And sure as heck, that person was waiting behind every rock (navy seal commando archies) waiting to pounce in the middle of the desert, forest, etc... right?

Tom, you sort of summed up my thinking also. Maybe some of this all boils down to a couple of things, follow the money or if one is unlucky enough to ask a Barney Fife type park ranger.
To not ask though, one risks a fine, arrest, confiscation of detecting gear or even confiscation of their vehicle... dependant on the ranger of course.
Yeah its a gamble not to ask and if one does ask, it could be a catch 22 type a thing.

Take this DNR park for example.
No digging allowed? Farmers plow and plant crops on large sections of that park. But they most probably pay to do so.
No disturbing plants? This park also serves as a game preserve during hunting season. Don't tell me hunters are gonna tip toe around plants not to mention relieving themselves on that rare plant.

Just what are these archy/park rangers trying to preserve? Most old artifacts are iron, copper, brass, etc. corroding away and in time they'll wither away to nothing.
Having said that, i can see trying to preserve ancient Indian sites, battle fields, etc. and then there's the 2 foot holes left by A-hole detectorists who were too stupid to fill them in. All it takes is one A-hole to ruin it for all.
I'll bet a large percentage of historical archy finds are found by amateur detectorists. But some in the archy community still consider us the enemy.

 

[garrybk]

Let me clarify a point. In my original message I only used the 1913 penny as an example. The Archaeological Resource Protection Act just uses the 100 year mark as a cutoff. If I find a 1913 penny I'm sure ill take it home for its own protection. Even Blm so-called don't understand their own rules. I recently went to the boise Blm office to pickup some maps. While there I got into a discussion about what I wanted the maps for. I said I planned on doing some metal detecting. The young man informed me that I couldn't metal detect on Blm land. I told him, yes you can. Then he told me anything over 50 years old had to be left. Again I corrected him and told him it is 100 years. Next thing I know he's on the phone. He asked me if I could wait because someone wanted to talk to me. I got curious and waited. Pretty soon this heavy set bearded guy comes out carrying a black binder over flowing with paper. I guess this guy was the local expert. He starts telling me its 50 years, not 100. So every regulation he pulled I showed where somewhere in the first few paragraphs it defines an antiquity as being over 100 years old. The more regulations he pulled the more frustrated he got. Finally he gave in to the 100 years. But then he said it didn't matter because you cannot use a metal detector on BLM land. So I asked if he had a copy of the Blm rockhounding brochure. He walked over to the display and got one for me. I opened it up and showed him where in about the 3rd or 4th paragraph is that metal detectors are okay to use on blm land. He was speechless and said he would have to rethink what he told people.
Garry

 

[Tom_in_CA]

........To not ask though, one risks a fine, arrest, confiscation of detecting gear or even confiscation of their vehicle... dependant on the ranger of course......

iron-sight, can you please cite any example of someone getting arrested, confiscated, fined, etc... for metal detecting ?? If you can, I'll be it's for someone who was night-sneaking obvious historic monuments, or someone who can't take a warning. But no, not for run-of-the-mill parks, beaches, and middles-of-nowheres. If I'm wrong, and you have some example, I'd love to hear it.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Great story !!

 

[ironsight]

iron-sight, can you please cite any example of someone getting arrested, confiscated, fined, etc... for metal detecting ?? If you can, I'll be it's for someone who was night-sneaking obvious historic monuments, or someone who can't take a warning. But no, not for run-of-the-mill parks, beaches, and middles-of-nowheres. If I'm wrong, and you have some example, I'd love to hear it.

Offhand without doing any research, no, i cannot remember one example of someone getting arrested for MDing in a public non-historic protected area.
But in a round about way, that was kind of my point. The odds are detecting and getting caught in a State or BLM area without permission will likely get only a cease 'n leave warning unless one happens to run into a park ranger named Barny Fife who studies the rules and regulations ad nauseum.
BUT, those very rules and regulations as i and garybk indicated are a maize of can's, if's, do's, don'ts, possibly's and maybe's. Very very confusing from what i've seen.

 

[Billium]

Let me clarify a point. In my original message I only used the 1913 penny as an example. The Archaeological Resource Protection Act just uses the 100 year mark as a cutoff. If I find a 1913 penny I'm sure ill take it home for its own protection. Even Blm so-called don't understand their own rules. I recently went to the boise Blm office to pickup some maps. While there I got into a discussion about what I wanted the maps for. I said I planned on doing some metal detecting. The young man informed me that I couldn't metal detect on Blm land. I told him, yes you can. Then he told me anything over 50 years old had to be left. Again I corrected him and told him it is 100 years. Next thing I know he's on the phone. He asked me if I could wait because someone wanted to talk to me. I got curious and waited. Pretty soon this heavy set bearded guy comes out carrying a black binder over flowing with paper. I guess this guy was the local expert. He starts telling me its 50 years, not 100. So every regulation he pulled I showed where somewhere in the first few paragraphs it defines an antiquity as being over 100 years old. The more regulations he pulled the more frustrated he got. Finally he gave in to the 100 years. But then he said it didn't matter because you cannot use a metal detector on BLM land. So I asked if he had a copy of the Blm rockhounding brochure. He walked over to the display and got one for me. I opened it up and showed him where in about the 3rd or 4th paragraph is that metal detectors are okay to use on blm land. He was speechless and said he would have to rethink what he told people.
Garry

Now that's good stuff. Way to go garrybk!!