ARPA-Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979

[firefighter281]

From the ARPA:
(4) The following material remains shall not be considered of
archaeological interest, and shall not be considered to be
archaeological resources for purposes of the Act and this part, unless
found in a direct physical relationship with archaeological resources as
defined in this section:
(i) Paleontological remains;
(ii) Coins, bullets, and unworked minerals and rocks.

(2) No permit shall be required under this part for any person
collecting for private purposes any rock, coin, bullet, or mineral which
is not an archaeological resource as defined in this part, provided that
such collecting does not result in disturbance of any archaeological site

Protection of Archeological Resources (43 CFR 7)

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

From the ARPA:
(4) The following material remains shall not be considered of
archaeological interest, and shall not be considered to be
archaeological resources for purposes of the Act and this part, unless
found in a direct physical relationship with archaeological resources as
defined in this section:
(i) Paleontological remains;
(ii) Coins, bullets, and unworked minerals and rocks.

(2) No permit shall be required under this part for any person
collecting for private purposes any rock, coin, bullet, or mineral which
is not an archaeological resource as defined in this part, provided that
such collecting does not result in disturbance of any archaeological site

Protection of Archeological Resources (43 CFR 7)

firefighter, I addressed this earlier in the thread. A lot of md'rs have seen that exemption of "coins and bullets" and believed it gives a green light to us. However, the "catch" is going to be that some archaeologist, and state parks, will deem ALL state land, and/or ALL federal land, to be an "archaeological site". I believe that can be legally overcome though: Because the mere fact that sites have to be declared/deemed "sites" (and therefore get their archaeological numerical system designation #), simply means that, by logical defninition, the location was NOT an "archaeological site" BEFORE THAT, ... now was it?

Anyhow, other problems exist with trying to apply that to us: namely that you (gasp), might find something else besides "bullets and coins" . I suppose the solution to that is, that if you found something metal other than that, that it goes in your "other pocket" ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

ah, firefighter, I see from your post on another t'net forum, that you gained this information by walking into a BLM office, .... and asking. While I agree with the outcome (because I help myself at all times to BLM land, and will OF COURSE go by what they told you there), yet , let me tell you something:

You got a positive answer (providing you don't disturb "archaeological" sites). Ok, great. But are you aware that others have gone asking various rangers, archies, and fed. lawyer bureucrat types, and gotten an exact opposite answer? In other words, it's great that you got a "yes", but trust me: If you go back in there next month, to find another different person sitting at the front desk there, you can get an entirely different answer. All they have to do is morph something to apply to your "pressing question". I have seen this psychology happen at city, county, state, and ... yes ... federal levels. Depending on who you ask, their mindset, how you phrase the questions, you can get entirely different answers.

For example: If you had walked in there citing the correct "buzz-words" to those exact same persons, you would indeed have gotten a "no". Did you be sure to mention "treasure" ? "holes"? "cultural artifacts"? "indian bones" ? "dig", "disturb", etc....? No. Of course not. But as you can see, the next person could walk in there and get an entirely different answer.

So while it's commendable that you got a "yes", it's always better for us md'rs to look up these type things yourself. You could have availed yourself of that exact same text afterall, rather than risk an arbitrary "no", because some bored archie morphed something silly to "address your pressing question". And often times, persons who get a "no' when asking a desk-bound person will object and say "but where is that written??" You would *THINK* that puts the burden of proof on them, to CITE an actual rule that truly said "no metal detecting", right? But nnneeeooohhh, all they have to do is morph something else to apply, and do you really think you'll win that debate? Of course not. Or worse yet, they'll simply go out and MAKE a rule, to close any perceived loopholes. Or make a "policy" and "official interpretation", that does indeed get passed down to the rank-&-file in the field, to BOL for md'rs. This has actually happened before, to well-meaning md'rs going and asking. And trust me, they wish they'd left good enough alone, when they realized that .... in effect .... no one cared TILL they asked.