Hen House Oregon Treasure Law

[BosnMate]

This law has been effect since 1983, and I knew about it back then. But it only related to public land, federal and state. The state does require a permit to detect at the beach, but that's a different story, unless you are diving on an old wreck or recovering artifacts over 75 years old. But I just found out the law also applies to private property. On your own land in Oregon, it is illegal to knowingly dig an outhouse that is over 75 years old, unless you hire an achieologist to over see what you are doing. Yes sir, what ever happened to freedom in the good old US of A. I reckon the state cops best put a tail on me 24 - 7, on account of this is a law I won't obey. What part of private property don't they understand.
No wonder Portland is called Moscow on the Willamette. The news paper article is from the Medford news paper.

Treasure hunt: Digging for trouble | MailTribune.com

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[bevo]

Bush sr. nicknamed it little beruit.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

BosnMate, that story from 2007, made the rounds on various md'ing forums, years ago. Very interesting, eh? But why stop there? Sure, that's pretty durned "specific". But I bet that even in other states, if you sleuthed long enough and hard enough, and asked enough of the right people with the correct combination of buzz-words ("treasure", "artifact", "dig", "indian bone", "arpa", etc...) that you can find a "no" for the most innocuous of sand-boxes.

And how much do you want to bet that detecting routinely goes on in Oregon still? And (.... gasp...) I bet guys find coins older than 75 yrs. old (gasp). Does anyone up there really follow md'rs around in parks and on the beaches, with calculators in hand, doing the math on the age of coins? I mean, c'mon, sheesk. You're *only* finding modern coins, right?

I mean, look at the story in the link: The ONLY reason this guy got "flack" was that he proudly went on some local TV news segment, showing off his dug bottle collection. And some archie was up late at night watching TV, and just happened to see that segment. Do you think anyone else, besides that one or two archies, really cared less about dug bottles? Fine then, just avoid that "one or two archies". I highly doubt this has stopped anyone from md'ing in Oregon (and even for old coins).

 

[BosnMate]

BosnMate, that story from 2007, made the rounds on various md'ing forums, years ago. Very interesting, eh? But why stop there? Sure, that's pretty durned "specific". But I bet that even in other states, if you sleuthed long enough and hard enough, and asked enough of the right people with the correct combination of buzz-words ("treasure", "artifact", "dig", "indian bone", "arpa", etc...) that you can find a "no" for the most innocuous of sand-boxes.

And how much do you want to bet that detecting routinely goes on in Oregon still? And (.... gasp...) I bet guys find coins older than 75 yrs. old (gasp). Does anyone up there really follow md'rs around in parks and on the beaches, with calculators in hand, doing the math on the age of coins? I mean, c'mon, sheesk. You're *only* finding modern coins, right?

I mean, look at the story in the lin: The ONLY reason this guy got "flack" was that he proudly went on some local TV news segment, showing off his dug bottle collection. And some archie was up late at night watching TV, and just happened to see that segment. Do you think anyone else, besides that one or two archies, really cared less about dug bottles? Fine then, just avoid that "one or two archies". I highly doubt this has stopped anyone from md'ing in Oregon (and even for old coins).

That includes me, I still detect and will continue to. I had no idea about this law on private property, and I have a bunch of illegal square nails and a couple of other "relics" from a donation land claim on private property. The ranch I owned began as a donation land claim back in the 1850's. I dug the heck out of it with a back hoe and dug post holes, and actually found an arrow head in one, took old car parts and dumped them in the out house hole and filled it. As far as I'm concerned my secretary is Helen Wait, and if they want something from me they can start by going to Helen Wait. We all know they don't care a lick about the random out house, it's a shot gun law, and they can use it as they see fit. You find a cache of gold coins, you better believe they will be there in full force greed. It's the same as the lion law, out in the country, if we see a lion, the saying is "shoot, shovel, and shut up." Well, now I'm glad to know that applies to anything over 75 on private land also. A few years ago a friend was putting a circle irrigation system and uncovered artifacts. I was upset that they bulldozed it as fast as possible, now I know the reason why, and don't blame him at all. He would have had to hire an archie out of his own pocket, to do a dig on his place before he could finish his alfalfa field. When people know about the law, it just encourages people to destroy or cover up things just to keep the state off their backs. And that's my rant on the subject.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

bosnmate, anytime a news blurb quotes an archie, being asked to comment on laws as they relate to md'ing (or bottles or whatever), you can almost bet that archies will find a way to interpret in the most dire-light possible, for anything having to do with metal detecting. So too was the case in Kentucky, where some university archies tried to make the claim that state cultural heritage laws subrograted down to even city and county levels. But a closer reading of the law they were citing CLEARLY showed it was only for sites specifically DEEMED "archaeological sites", not the "entire state". Ie.: the entire state and "all public land" is not a "archaeological site". They have to be designated as such, and THEN perhaps.... sure ... don't tromp on sensitive monuments. And it was even questionable as to whether it really subrograted down below state lands anyhow, to city and county. But that didn't stop some purist archie from making the claim!

An equivalent situation would be this: If you asked a PETA rep: "can I leave my pet bunny in the car while I run into 7-11 to get a soda?" What would their answer be? They would screeecchhh: "NOOO". And accuse you of animal cruelty (the bunny could get too hot in the car afterall). Heck, they'd probably even cite animal cruelty laws you are violating, complete with fears of having your car confiscated, fines, jail, etc... BUT SERIOUSLY NOW: does anyone except an animal rights wacko from PETA really care if you leave a bunny in the car for a minute? No. Of course not. SO TOO DO I PUT LITTLE STOCK IN THE WAY SOME ARCHIES INTERPRET laws, or what they say, when it comes to md'ing. To me it simply means: Avoid that one archie.

 

[ivan salis]

ARCHIES DO NOT LIKE US PLAYING IN "THEIR DIRT' PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

 

[hvacker]

Lots of States have laws that makes one ponder the intelligence of elected officials. At one time, maybe still, Minnesota had a law making it illegal to hang women's and men's clothes on the same clothes line. It must be that co-mingling thing. Unsegregated clothes can lead to......well you know.
I wouldn't doubt these laws conflict with laws concerning land ownership but have just not had a legal challenge mounted. As the interests of people behind these laws have no legal ownership of these lands and it's a real stretch to see the Antiquities Act applying as I doubt an outhouse would become an archeology site.
Challenge the law before someone decides to embellish it.