American Indian

[Walleyeman]

maybe i fond the correct forum for this question.

Friends,

need solid advice!

1: if an Indian with proper paper finds or attempts to find relics on public(county,federal,city) or private land, but has legal rights to hunt and gather there. its it legal?
if yes please answer question 2

2: if an Indian has a a handicap can he be helped in retrieving these relics

Thanks for any info,

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

maybe i fond the correct forum for this question.

Friends,

need solid advice!

1: if an Indian with proper paper finds or attempts to find relics on public(county,federal,city) or private land, but has legal rights to hunt and gather there. its it legal?
if yes please answer question 2

2: if an Indian has a a handicap can he be helped in retrieving these relics

Thanks for any info,

Re.: question #1: Your wording is somewhat confusing. You say "has the legal rights to hunt and gather there", but then turn around and ask "... is it legal?". Seems to me you answered your own question.

But there's a whole host of things that lead in a host of directions. You say "county, federal, city". But this fails to realize that there's perhaps different rules for each, and then fails to realize that there's even different sub-categories of land within each one. For example: National parks (federal) might have stricter rules than BLM or NFS land (even though both are federal). State's land is not all state PARK'S land. There's state land that's not in park form, like road right-of-way, for instance (hence outside the scope of laws/rules applying to state parks).

And when you say "relics", what are you meaning ? pre-contact type indian stuff ? (arrow heads, beads, etc...) ? If so, that is different than metal contact-period items. Ie.: a coin or bullet or something (refined metals) is the post-european contact period. The true indian artifact stuff has forums where this question would be better answered. Because there's no shortage of indian artifact collectors. And ..... how could they be assembling their collections and hunting for the stuff, if it weren't "legal" ?

But if you meant coins, bullets, etc.... then that would fall under a metal detecting question. And yes: as you can see from ANY md'ing website's "finds" (show & tell) section, there's no shortage of md'rs finding coins, bullets, buttons, etc... And yes, on public land of various types and entities.

 

[eyemustdigtreasure]

Re.: question #1: Your wording is somewhat confusing. You say "has the legal rights to hunt and gather there", but then turn around and ask "... is it legal?". Seems to me you answered your own question.

But there's a whole host of things that lead in a host of directions. You say "county, federal, city". But this fails to realize that there's perhaps different rules for each, and then fails to realize that there's even different sub-categories of land within each one. For example: National parks (federal) might have stricter rules than BLM or NFS land (even though both are federal). State's land is not all state PARK'S land. There's state land that's not in park form, like road right-of-way, for instance (hence outside the scope of laws/rules applying to state parks).

And when you say "relics", what are you meaning ? pre-contact type indian stuff ? (arrow heads, beads, etc...) ? If so, that is different than metal contact-period items. Ie.: a coin or bullet or something (refined metals) is the post-european contact period. The true indian artifact stuff has forums where this question would be better answered. Because there's no shortage of indian artifact collectors. And ..... how could they be assembling their collections and hunting for the stuff, if it weren't "legal" ?

But if you meant coins, bullets, etc.... then that would fall under a metal detecting question. And yes: as you can see from ANY md'ing website's "finds" (show & tell) section, there's no shortage of md'rs finding coins, bullets, buttons, etc... And yes, on public land of various types and entities.

....Appreciate everything you said, Tom - right on.
I can add that the National Park part of the Federal equation, is VERY restrictive with no detecting/digging at all!!

State level can be more lenient, however, and allow detecting on a park by park basis, where each individual park manager can allow that activity, and usually only in specific areas.

Forest Service Lands, there is a section in their own law books that gives guidelines for detecting - don't have it on me right now, but ask any Recreation specialist at some District or Forest office, for a copy of the rules..., or just ask what they know.
Basically, you have to stay out of any historic SITE (but most aren't posted as such, because of looting), and/or report finding such a place to the office.

So, a mixed bag of answers, saying mostly "Stay out"!

....yeah, I know, its depressing. Its our Public Lands, right...??
and, are they actively DIGGING and RE-RECORDING (each) "Site"!....
NO! No, they are not!!
They simply don't have the money to do real science!!!

I aught to know, I spent a career in the outfit, on four National Forests....!

 

[Walleyeman]

Yes, very confusing......
Indians have privileges and access to land that most do not have.
land where he can hunt, fish and gather, where and when most can not.
just wondering if any info on finding relics(all kinds)may or maynot be legal to keep while he is on this land?
Thanks so much for your respondes.

 

[eyemustdigtreasure]

Yes, very confusing......
Indians have privileges and access to land that most do not have.
land where he can hunt, fish and gather, where and when most can not.
just wondering if any info on finding relics(all kinds)may or maynot be legal to keep while he is on this land?
Thanks so much for your respondes.

Do some research on the area or region you like to hunt in.
Tribal Lands? Get the word there.
Elsewhere? Get land owner's name of property that might have a corresponding spot on an old county map, showing early occupation there.
Rock-lined roads, cellar holes, chimney heaps and other man-made features are sometimes easily seen on GoogleEarth images.
Visit historical societies websites archival collections - might be photos, maps, etc - all clues to help you find ...STUFF! ....OLD stuff!!
Try private land owners, and be sure to get (written) permission, respect the land and the owner..., but enjoy yourself!
Good Luck and Happy Hunting

 

[Tom_in_CA]

......Indians have privileges and access to land that most do not have.
land where he can hunt, fish and gather, where and when most can not. ...

Ah, I think I'm understanding your question now. You were not asking about where can just "any joe blow" metal detect. Or "any joe blow" pick up arrow heads. Your question was specifically about a person of indian descent. Right ?

I'll take a stab at this and say that any special rights they have, would only apply to indian reservations. Where, yes, I as a white guy can go go snooping around and hunting for artifacts there. But no, just because a person is of Indian descent does NOT mean you can go to , let's say, national parks, Ghettysburg, Shiloh, Bodie, etc... and start relic hunting. If you told the ranger "But I'm indian, and I'm looking for indian contact era artifacts", how far do you think that would get you ? If that worked, then heck, all persons of indian descent should get into the hobby, so they can go pillage cool sacred historical monuments and parks. Doh!

There are some islands on the Columbia river, that are rich in contact period relics (buttons, etc....) from the fur-trade era. And also pre-contact artifacts. This is known because in the 1920s to '50s, when it was vogue up there to sift for artifacts at old indian sites, these island were known hot spots. Fast forward to today, and you would THINK that metal detectors would make fast action of finding more stuff, that yester-year hand sifters didn't find. Right ? But a historian fellow there told me that only indians now, were allowed to step foot on the island. And from the sound of it, sounded like they also had rights (if they felt so inclined) to look/dig around if they wanted. So perhaps this type scenario is what you had in mind ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... State level can be more lenient, however, and allow detecting on a park by park basis, where each individual park manager can allow that activity, and usually only in specific areas....

Curious where you're getting this information. That on state level (eg.: state parks) it's each individual park manager that decides or allows ? Aren't those park managers held to some sort of standard, such that it's not "whimsical arbitrary mood" that decides ? So that if you did ask him, he's referencing something that's actual law/rules, and not just personal whim ?

The rules of each state's state park system can be looked up.

The FMDAC's list has a lot of them which do seem to say what you are saying: "Ask at each kiosk" or "with the permission of head ranger at each location", or things to this effect. HOWEVER, that's just text reply to the questionnaire that was sent out at the time of compiling that list. Then the answerer would go on to cite actual law (if one existed, versus silent on the subject). And if you click further to read the actual law they are citing, often it will NOT truly say "with permission" or "inquire at each one", etc..... That's just whomever's penning the answer back for the person compiling the list. Ie.: the "safe answer". But nowhere is it actually written in all those state's "with permission".

CA is an example of that. A technical reading of our state on that list might lead you to conclude that you need to "check in at the office" first. But I can gaurantee you that you can hunt state of CA beaches here till you're blue in the face. And no, nobody asks "can I?". Hence I began to wonder if the same "scary dire wording" of other states on that list, might also be the same psychology of "safe answers" to "pressing questions" type things.

 

[Back-of-the-boat]

I think in my opinion you would have to get the complete definition of hunt and gather because I don't think relics would fall under hunting and gathering criteria.IMO hunting and gathering does not include man made relics?

 

[KeyaPaha]

More and more recent Federal court decisions are recognizing that when treaties in the 1800s were signed with the stipulated rights to hunt, fish and gather in all normal and accustomed lands, the signators were entering into the treaty with the understanding that they could hunt, fish and gather forever in the lands ceded in the treaty. So said, if the land this person wants to hunt for whatever on, was part of ceded territory, there might be inherent rights to do so. No true Native American would damage or destroy most historical sites by "treasure hunting", as they hold these places and the items located there as sacred.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... .IMO hunting and gathering does not include man made relics?

Why not ? You're "gathering" afterall ?? And do you really think that someone's going to split hairs when a true native american blood person cites this as their authority ? If I were a native american, and saw that this allowed me to md some places (uh... excuse me ... "gather"), then I'd certainly rely on it. Let the burden of proof fall on the OTHER person to prove it doesn't apply.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....stipulated rights to hunt, fish and gather in all normal and accustomed lands, the signators were entering into the treaty with the understanding that they could hunt, fish and gather forever in the lands ceded in the treaty......

thanx for the clarification KeyaPaha !

.... No true Native American would damage or destroy most historical sites by "treasure hunting", as they hold these places and the items located there as sacred. ....

KeyaPaha, why is your implied premise here, that md'ing = "damage and destroy" ? If that is how you define md'ing, then that would apply to anywhere else too, by anyone. Ie.: "damaging and destroying" the beach or park, etc... by any of us.

Why do you see (or think Indians necessarily see) md'ing in that definition ? On the contrary, it's preserving history for all to see. If the mere act of removing objects from the ground by any means (archie digs too, for example) were "damaging and destroying", then our museums would have zero dug artifacts in them .

I think md'ing is holding lands as very sacred and respected. I respect and hold sacred those items very much, and do not consider md'ing to be a violation of that, anymore-so than any other place to md at.