Tom_in_CA
Gold Member
- Mar 23, 2007
- 13,804
- 10,336
- 🥇 Banner finds
- 2
- Detector(s) used
- Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
homestead hunter, thanx for chiming in with all the analysis of ARPA.
Where are you getting this expanded versinon of ARPA? Do you have a link? This is the one I have read and always referred to:
http://www.cr.nps.gov/local-law/fhpl_archrsrcsprot.pdf
I'm not seeing the exact text and points that your cut-&-paste is showing. If you compare the section 7, you will see the differences. In the ARPA link I'm giving here, notice this text from section 12:
"Section 12
(b) Nothing in this Act applies to, or requires a permit for,
the collection for private purposes of any rock, coin, bullet,
or mineral which is not an archaeological resource, as
determined under uniform regulations promulgated under
section 3(1) of this Act. "
So this link does not specify that it has to be in physical relationship with a "archaeological site". It just seems to blanketly apply to federal land. But yes, if your version and interpretation is correct, then it would only apply to certain sites, not "all federal land". Ie.: the spots which have been given the specific designation of an archaeological historic monument type thing. In England, for example, they call those "registered sites". And no, not all federal land (entire parks, from border to border), are "archaeological sites" (unless so designated). There's a numbering system, etc... where indian middens, caves, battle-sites, historic houses, etc... are so-designated.
I'm not sure of the mechanical works of where someone finds the boundries of such areas. To simply say "where a historic plaque" is, of course, is vague, since that just begs the question: How many yards in every direction from there? And I suppose some ranger from a federal site could *try* to say that the entire federal land is an archaeological site. But that is illogical. Because if there is a process by which a site is deemed "archaeologically significant" (and gets a catalog # and so forth), then by LOGICAL DEDUCTION, it WASN'T and "archaeologically significant" site BEFORE THAT designation as such. Doh!
As far as your questioning the 50 year (vs 100 yr.) thing: The way I heard that come about, was that this the 50 yr. thing was more of a subsequent interpretation thing, where some places had the latitude to be more strict, if-so-stated. For example: A city can make a strict law about parking vehicles over 5 tons on certain streets (to prevent 18-wheelers from over-night-parking there). Even though, on the larger county or state level, there may be no-such street restrictions. Same for certain types federal parks/forest lands, that "went a step further" and made it 50 yrs. Perhaps someone else can chime in on that though.
Where are you getting this expanded versinon of ARPA? Do you have a link? This is the one I have read and always referred to:
http://www.cr.nps.gov/local-law/fhpl_archrsrcsprot.pdf
I'm not seeing the exact text and points that your cut-&-paste is showing. If you compare the section 7, you will see the differences. In the ARPA link I'm giving here, notice this text from section 12:
"Section 12
(b) Nothing in this Act applies to, or requires a permit for,
the collection for private purposes of any rock, coin, bullet,
or mineral which is not an archaeological resource, as
determined under uniform regulations promulgated under
section 3(1) of this Act. "
So this link does not specify that it has to be in physical relationship with a "archaeological site". It just seems to blanketly apply to federal land. But yes, if your version and interpretation is correct, then it would only apply to certain sites, not "all federal land". Ie.: the spots which have been given the specific designation of an archaeological historic monument type thing. In England, for example, they call those "registered sites". And no, not all federal land (entire parks, from border to border), are "archaeological sites" (unless so designated). There's a numbering system, etc... where indian middens, caves, battle-sites, historic houses, etc... are so-designated.
I'm not sure of the mechanical works of where someone finds the boundries of such areas. To simply say "where a historic plaque" is, of course, is vague, since that just begs the question: How many yards in every direction from there? And I suppose some ranger from a federal site could *try* to say that the entire federal land is an archaeological site. But that is illogical. Because if there is a process by which a site is deemed "archaeologically significant" (and gets a catalog # and so forth), then by LOGICAL DEDUCTION, it WASN'T and "archaeologically significant" site BEFORE THAT designation as such. Doh!
As far as your questioning the 50 year (vs 100 yr.) thing: The way I heard that come about, was that this the 50 yr. thing was more of a subsequent interpretation thing, where some places had the latitude to be more strict, if-so-stated. For example: A city can make a strict law about parking vehicles over 5 tons on certain streets (to prevent 18-wheelers from over-night-parking there). Even though, on the larger county or state level, there may be no-such street restrictions. Same for certain types federal parks/forest lands, that "went a step further" and made it 50 yrs. Perhaps someone else can chime in on that though.