empty_pockets
New member
I read the story, what a shame...A chain, nail and jail time for hunting public land...
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.
Jail Time And Loss Of Detectors.
- Thread starter empty_pockets
- Start date
Happy_Hour
New member
I will try to find it. I have hundreds and hundreds of junk bookmarked and I remember the sad story...I will look for you...
There HAS to be more to that story and pix. For starters, the term "public land" in the pix dossier next to the "priceless historic chain and nail junk" is no doubt referring to some form of federal land covered by ARPA. Ie.: something probably taken from a sensitive historic monument on a federal park. So the term "public land" in the context of where this quote on that dossier was pulled from, is specifically for something @ a federal level. NOT state, or county, or city level lands. Unless those lands too had something about cultural heritage.
Whatever it is that is hinted at (whatever miscreant, gasp, dug that chain fragment), has to be a fluke, and not the norm. I mean, this had to have been some dude sneaking a historic monument, being a nuisance, couldn't take a warning, or in SOME WAY "could have known better".
For example: the state of CA also has minutia in their state park's verbage, about cultural heritage (boiler plate stuff that every state's state park has I suppose). And yet, you can hunt our state park's administered beaches till you're blue in the face. And (gasp) might even find a buffalo nickel, etc....
So random pictures like that do not mean much. If you got enough purist archies in one room, to assemble a display in a museum, you would CERTAINLY come up with something scary like that. But what did you expect to come from a purist archie ?
It would be sort of like asking an animal rights wacko advocate from P.E.T.A.: "Can I leave my pet bunny in the car while I run into 7-11 to get a slurpee?" What do you the think they would say ? They screeech: "NNooooo! You can be arrested for animal cruelty! The bunny could suffer in the heat in the car! Your car can be confiscated and you can be arrested !!". But seriously now, what did you expect to come from a PETA animal rights wacko ? SO TOO do I put little stock into what some purist archies say.
As for some isolated example someone can find of a horrible penalty (jail time, etc...) for detecting, I would say that flukes exist in every arena of life. But none of us tends to let our lives be driven by "fluke stories". Example: I'm sure that if I looked long enough, I could find a "horrible story" of a motorist being pulled over and roughed up by an over-zealous cop, for nothing but a tail-light out. Yup, jailed, car confiscated, ticket, arrest, etc... for nothing but a tail-light out, or radio too loud, etc.... But does that stop you from driving ? Are you afraid to drive now ? Or do you write that off as a "fluke isolated story?" See what I mean?
I'm not saying to "throw caution to the wind". Of COURSE avoid a) obvious historic sensitive landmarks and b) purist archies [and their wonderful museum displays].
Whatever it is that is hinted at (whatever miscreant, gasp, dug that chain fragment), has to be a fluke, and not the norm. I mean, this had to have been some dude sneaking a historic monument, being a nuisance, couldn't take a warning, or in SOME WAY "could have known better".
For example: the state of CA also has minutia in their state park's verbage, about cultural heritage (boiler plate stuff that every state's state park has I suppose). And yet, you can hunt our state park's administered beaches till you're blue in the face. And (gasp) might even find a buffalo nickel, etc....
So random pictures like that do not mean much. If you got enough purist archies in one room, to assemble a display in a museum, you would CERTAINLY come up with something scary like that. But what did you expect to come from a purist archie ?
It would be sort of like asking an animal rights wacko advocate from P.E.T.A.: "Can I leave my pet bunny in the car while I run into 7-11 to get a slurpee?" What do you the think they would say ? They screeech: "NNooooo! You can be arrested for animal cruelty! The bunny could suffer in the heat in the car! Your car can be confiscated and you can be arrested !!". But seriously now, what did you expect to come from a PETA animal rights wacko ? SO TOO do I put little stock into what some purist archies say.
As for some isolated example someone can find of a horrible penalty (jail time, etc...) for detecting, I would say that flukes exist in every arena of life. But none of us tends to let our lives be driven by "fluke stories". Example: I'm sure that if I looked long enough, I could find a "horrible story" of a motorist being pulled over and roughed up by an over-zealous cop, for nothing but a tail-light out. Yup, jailed, car confiscated, ticket, arrest, etc... for nothing but a tail-light out, or radio too loud, etc.... But does that stop you from driving ? Are you afraid to drive now ? Or do you write that off as a "fluke isolated story?" See what I mean?
I'm not saying to "throw caution to the wind". Of COURSE avoid a) obvious historic sensitive landmarks and b) purist archies [and their wonderful museum displays].
Hey Tom, the only thing i can add is that Archies consider any corroded iron as if it was gold so to speak. They use what we consider useless junk in most cases to pinpoint historic homesite locations, historic activities, historic habitations and such. In 'government protected' historic off limit sites they have a point.....stay the heck away from them.
Case in point, a few years ago i watched a video of a local official Archie dig utilizing about a dozen local detectorists to find the exact location of an old late 1800s hunting lodge now long gone. One of those detectorists dug up a severely corroded nail. The on-site Archie's went nuts over that nail, something we all find and throw in the junk pouch. Turned out is was the first big clue to locate the site of the hunting lodge.
Having said that, just what is a historic site to an Archie? Is it 50 yrs. old? 100yrs old? 200 yrs old? We have dozens of old long gone homestead sites that go back to the early to mid 1900's around here that are off limits to detecting. Problem is they're either on State Game Preserves or other nature preserves all covering hundreds of square miles.
Most of those old homesteads including a couple small settlements are located on the State Game Preserve property. I read the official rules on-line which mentioned no digging, excavating, ruining plant life or NO Metal Detecting unless under the direct supervision of an Archie and his official State permit. Now i ask, no digging? no ruining plant life?
That Game preserve is constantly digging new roads, trampling over and killing plant life, brush burns, cutting down trees galore, etc. etc. Spent shell cases all over the place most of which destroyed plant life when they were fired.
And yet no metal detecting! Makes absolutely no feak'n sense or Do as i say not as i do.
Case in point, a few years ago i watched a video of a local official Archie dig utilizing about a dozen local detectorists to find the exact location of an old late 1800s hunting lodge now long gone. One of those detectorists dug up a severely corroded nail. The on-site Archie's went nuts over that nail, something we all find and throw in the junk pouch. Turned out is was the first big clue to locate the site of the hunting lodge.
Having said that, just what is a historic site to an Archie? Is it 50 yrs. old? 100yrs old? 200 yrs old? We have dozens of old long gone homestead sites that go back to the early to mid 1900's around here that are off limits to detecting. Problem is they're either on State Game Preserves or other nature preserves all covering hundreds of square miles.
Most of those old homesteads including a couple small settlements are located on the State Game Preserve property. I read the official rules on-line which mentioned no digging, excavating, ruining plant life or NO Metal Detecting unless under the direct supervision of an Archie and his official State permit. Now i ask, no digging? no ruining plant life?
That Game preserve is constantly digging new roads, trampling over and killing plant life, brush burns, cutting down trees galore, etc. etc. Spent shell cases all over the place most of which destroyed plant life when they were fired.
And yet no metal detecting! Makes absolutely no feak'n sense or Do as i say not as i do.
If a rule in that nature preserve / game preserve truly said "no metal detecting", then .... well .... you can't argue with that. But if it was ONLY a matter of finding some boiler plate verbage that said things about "alter", and "deface" and "ruin plant life" and (yes) even "dig", then no: I do not construe any of those "catch-all" things to necessarily apply to md'ing. Because IMHO they all inherently implicitly refer to the end result . Eg.: alter versus alterED. Ruin versus RuinED. And I'd even go so far as to say dig versus dUg. I know that sounds strange, but think of it: What's the past tense of the word "alter". It's alterED, right? Ok then, what the past tense of the word dig ? It's dUg.
So it seems to me that the end result is the implicit notion of all such rules. Sure you can find someone who doesn't agree with those semantics. You can ALWAYS find someone on this planet who won't like things you do in life. But to think that type verbage automatically precludes detecting, is to automatically preclude you from md'ing on any speck of public land in the entire USA. Because I can gaurantee you that some form of that language exists everywhere. Ie.: vandalize, annoy, molest, take, remove, alter, deface, etc..... Yet at all such places that stuff is present, detecting is common-place. Hence I do not construe it to always necessarily equate to "no md'ing".
So it seems to me that the end result is the implicit notion of all such rules. Sure you can find someone who doesn't agree with those semantics. You can ALWAYS find someone on this planet who won't like things you do in life. But to think that type verbage automatically precludes detecting, is to automatically preclude you from md'ing on any speck of public land in the entire USA. Because I can gaurantee you that some form of that language exists everywhere. Ie.: vandalize, annoy, molest, take, remove, alter, deface, etc..... Yet at all such places that stuff is present, detecting is common-place. Hence I do not construe it to always necessarily equate to "no md'ing".
I would agree with most of that Tom if it were'nt for the fact those on-line rules and regulations (and there are tons of them to the point reading all of them would be a cure for insomnia) explicitly say the words 'NO METAL DETECTING'.
However there aren't any NO METAL DETECTING signs anywhere on that State property that i could find.
Further, the rules and regulations posted at the main office also do not mention anything about metal detecting. I forgot to mention, that Game Preserve also leases large tracts of land to local farmers who plow and plant un-indiginous crops. So much for digging and disturbing plant life.
Whats also interesting is there are numerous pages explaining the procedure, purpose, environmental impact, qualifications, etc. etc. for an 'official' Archie dig permit.
Because of all that i suppose if caught red handed one could plead ignorance and get a warning or slap on the wrist or maybe even a "Hello...find anything" from one of the rangers.
I'm not willing to take the paranoidal sneak risk as i live only a couple miles from that State Game Preserve. What i might do is contact the manager something i seldom do and ask permission or see if i can get some kind of a permit. They do issue permits for collecting firewood, berry picking, hunting, fishing, trapping, etc.
Being a member of the County Historical Society might also help if i turn over any relics found to them.
If i hadn't read those dang on-line rules and regulations, i would of just detected that property fat, dumb and happly as i would of done years ago.
However there aren't any NO METAL DETECTING signs anywhere on that State property that i could find.
Further, the rules and regulations posted at the main office also do not mention anything about metal detecting. I forgot to mention, that Game Preserve also leases large tracts of land to local farmers who plow and plant un-indiginous crops. So much for digging and disturbing plant life.
Whats also interesting is there are numerous pages explaining the procedure, purpose, environmental impact, qualifications, etc. etc. for an 'official' Archie dig permit.
Because of all that i suppose if caught red handed one could plead ignorance and get a warning or slap on the wrist or maybe even a "Hello...find anything" from one of the rangers.
I'm not willing to take the paranoidal sneak risk as i live only a couple miles from that State Game Preserve. What i might do is contact the manager something i seldom do and ask permission or see if i can get some kind of a permit. They do issue permits for collecting firewood, berry picking, hunting, fishing, trapping, etc.
Being a member of the County Historical Society might also help if i turn over any relics found to them.
If i hadn't read those dang on-line rules and regulations, i would of just detected that property fat, dumb and happly as i would of done years ago.
permits for BERRY PICKING ?? Sheesk that's crazy. I can just see it now: Someone's walking down a trail in the game/nature preserve. They see a ripe berry on the bush. They pick it and eat it. And the OUT POPS THE WARDEN and throw the cuffs on! Tickets, fines, jail, etc..... The charge? "Picking a berry without a license permit". This is a very imminent certain thing to happen mind you! 
Phillip_in_NM
Member
ironsight said:
[size=x-large]WHAT???[/size]
Tom_in_CA said:
Tell that to a judge..
vlad said:
The notion that metal detecting is any more harmful to public property than fishing is a joke ( not that anyone was making that comparison, just a point ). Yet fishing is a billion dollar industry with enough money behind it to change laws. If I had a dime for all the garbage I've seen that's fishing related, I would literally be a millionaire. Obviously the garbage isn't legal, but in very public parks with wardens ever present, you still see tons of trash. You see park workers out cleaning it up with tax payer dollars. But, tramping down a hole and or writing someone a ticket for not covering a hole is out of the question! Get caught on special trout waters here in TN with a treble hook or in spawning season and see what happens. We should be made to follow order like everyone else.. .. the fact that there is nothing in place like a license should tell you MD'ing is on the way out. Here in TN the TVA has officially banned all detecting on their lands.. They used to offer permits only a couple years ago. Whats easier? Having to dole out a couple hundred license a year or just ban it?
TN Mike said:
What is the implicit pre-requisite in this statement ? That a person who metal detects in a certain area will be STANDING IN FRONT OF A JUDGE explaining himself. Well gee, if that's a true "given", then sure: sit and home and don't detect. But since when is that a given? Why is that your starting point in a conversation ? It simply presumes the end of the discussion, at the start of the discussion (ie.: assumes one's own point of view). If that were true, then everything else you're saying would logically follow. Because afterall: which of us wants to stand in front of a judge, fighting tickets ?
If I believe that this were an essential outcome of detecting in a certain place, then OF COURSE no one would recommend detecting in such places.
I am as blatant and boisterous as they come. And sure, I've been booted from parks by irate gardeners, scolded by a few rangers, etc... But NEVER "stood before a judge" like you seem to imply is so imminent and certain.
Elton, you too are doing the exact same thing: Assuming one's own point of view in the discussion, from the start. Ie.: that there will, of necessity, be "fines and confiscations". If that is a given premise, then yes, everything else you're saying logically follows. Sure then, sit and home and take up needlepoint. None of us should ever detect public land, "lest we face fines and confiscations".
Go back and look at the initial start by the OP: empty-pockets. Detecting public land and some archies dire hatred of that (as shown in the museum dossier). So forget for the moment game preserves versus city parks versus NFS, BLM, state parks, etc.... Just going back to the initial point of this post: I'd venture to say that you detect public land quite often, right? Ok, then how is that you haven't faced "fines and confiscations" ? Because you're using due diligence (I presume) to not hunt obvious historic sacred monuments, or places where you "could have known" better (Ie: real true rules that truly said "no md'ing").
That's all I'm saying
Go back and look at the initial start by the OP: empty-pockets. Detecting public land and some archies dire hatred of that (as shown in the museum dossier). So forget for the moment game preserves versus city parks versus NFS, BLM, state parks, etc.... Just going back to the initial point of this post: I'd venture to say that you detect public land quite often, right? Ok, then how is that you haven't faced "fines and confiscations" ? Because you're using due diligence (I presume) to not hunt obvious historic sacred monuments, or places where you "could have known" better (Ie: real true rules that truly said "no md'ing").
That's all I'm saying
I do hunt public lands as you state. I have been removed with the threat of arrest if I return on some public parks I chose to detect..
I don't plan on going back to those particular parks to prove a point either ..LOL For a few cents, and maybe a silver coin... Get arrested, have my equipment confiscated, and have a record of arrest to boot ..NO THANKS !!
Tom my friend. We just have to accept changes are happening. And there will be places we can no longer detect.. Right or wrong..it doesn't change the outcome.. We can not detect some areas we used to be able too..
Maybe some of this No detecting areas will die down in time.....
I don't plan on going back to those particular parks to prove a point either ..LOL For a few cents, and maybe a silver coin... Get arrested, have my equipment confiscated, and have a record of arrest to boot ..NO THANKS !!
Tom my friend. We just have to accept changes are happening. And there will be places we can no longer detect.. Right or wrong..it doesn't change the outcome.. We can not detect some areas we used to be able too..
Maybe some of this No detecting areas will die down in time.....
maybe if we just let our rights as human beings be taken away one at time detecting and otherwise we become complicit and controllable and do what we are told we lose our humanity in the process??
anyway there are laws and there is stupidity and as citizens of a country do we just stand by and let this happen ? or do we just do what we are told.
fear is what they use to control us and so far it seems to be working.
I vote and then they change laws no one consulted me what does that say about what and who we voted for.
maybe sooner than latter we will need a new civil war they had some balls back then now we just do what were told.
AJ
anyway there are laws and there is stupidity and as citizens of a country do we just stand by and let this happen ? or do we just do what we are told.
fear is what they use to control us and so far it seems to be working.
I vote and then they change laws no one consulted me what does that say about what and who we voted for.
maybe sooner than latter we will need a new civil war they had some balls back then now we just do what were told.
AJ
SA is off my Metal Detecting Tourism List!I wonder what the origin is of San Antonio's brilliant notion to come up with a permit, in the first place ? I betcha someone went in, ages ago, and asked "can I?".
And your rule #6 is JUST SO TYPICAL of the nonsense of anytime there was/is ever a city that implemented any type of "permits". They are always somehow riddled with sillyness. Eg.: not within 20 ft. of any tree. And "yes but you can't dig". Or ".... turn in all valuables to the city", blah blah blah. And then many times the "permits" just get revoked altogether one year, and cease to be issued. This is because since it's something that is "permitted", then that means it's perpetually always on their radar for consideration at each year's meetings. And sure enough, one year someone says "gee, do we really want all these yahoos in our parks digging and taking away our past?".
Yet for some reason, many md'rs eyes "wax romantic" at the thought of permits. It conjurs up the image of being able to detect nilly willy anywhere. But as your picture shows, it's rarely ever that way. Much better that the law simply be silent on the issue. Neither expressly allowing, nor expressly forbidding. And then .... out of site is out of mind.
And your rule #6 is JUST SO TYPICAL of the nonsense of anytime there was/is ever a city that implemented any type of "permits". They are always somehow riddled with sillyness. Eg.: not within 20 ft. of any tree. And "yes but you can't dig". Or ".... turn in all valuables to the city", blah blah blah. And then many times the "permits" just get revoked altogether one year, and cease to be issued. This is because since it's something that is "permitted", then that means it's perpetually always on their radar for consideration at each year's meetings. And sure enough, one year someone says "gee, do we really want all these yahoos in our parks digging and taking away our past?".
Yet for some reason, many md'rs eyes "wax romantic" at the thought of permits. It conjurs up the image of being able to detect nilly willy anywhere. But as your picture shows, it's rarely ever that way. Much better that the law simply be silent on the issue. Neither expressly allowing, nor expressly forbidding. And then .... out of site is out of mind.