Metal Detecting Law ?

[coin finder]

Hi,, all you Hunter, I an Moving to some were in FL, I had with New York ! Question Do you need a Lic/permit , To go metal Detecting in Fl. Thanks AKA Joe

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Coinstriking Michigan]

I don't think any state issues licenses for detecting, I imagine it's on a city level.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

No state permits required, only a couple cities require one, can't tell you which, and some county parks require one, ask at the entrance. Best advice is if there isn't a sign telling you no detecting, then hunt it with proper digging etiquette..... Once you start asking permission when there are no signs telling you not to detect, you open it up to someone's interpretation of what is legal and they may not even have the right to tell you....

State Parks are off limits, some state parks on the beach do allow it on the beach, with the ranger's permission, ask before yoyu hunt there...All National parks are off limits..

 

[Jon Phillips]

You do know that we already answered this for you in your other post right?

 

[Terry Soloman]

I don't think any state issues licenses for detecting, I imagine it's on a city level.

New York State Beach/Park Metal Detecting Permit $40 annually

 

[dogpound]

i like rule number 5..........NOT

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

i like rule number 5..........NOT

Easy to fix, I never find anything worth anything.....

 

[grover868]

I found this on the U.S. Forest Service website. I have this laminated and keep it with me. The one time I was stopped, the forest ranger told me after reading it, that he was unaware of these rules. And off detecting I went. Chris

http://www.fs.fed.us/geology/For We...d Rock Collecting on the National Forests.pdf

 

[Twisted One]

I found this on the U.S. Forest Service website. I have this laminated and keep it with me. The one time I was stopped, the forest ranger told me after reading it, that he was unaware of these rules. And off detecting I went. Chris

http://www.fs.fed.us/geology/For We...d Rock Collecting on the National Forests.pdf

Thanks for the link, that could be a very good thing to carry with you, glad it stated the codes by number. Makes it easier to verify.

But the link at the bottom www.passportintime.com really got my attention. Have you, or anyone else followed up on this and went on one of these runs? I see several in my area for this summer all looking for experience with a metal detector. Sounds like a lot of fun. And benifical to the history of the area.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

I found this on the U.S. Forest Service website. I have this laminated and keep it with me. The one time I was stopped, the forest ranger told me after reading it, that he was unaware of these rules. And off detecting I went. Chris

http://www.fs.fed.us/geology/For We...d Rock Collecting on the National Forests.pdf

Thanks for posting the link, I also plan to print a copy and laminate it for my use....

 

[Tom_in_CA]

grover, thanx for the link. The CA BLM land (which is federal) also has similar wording, which effectively oks detecting, so long as you're not snooping in obvious historic monuments.

Too many times, we read on forums that all federal land is off-limits, but as you can see, this is not the case. And heck, we never find anything over 50 yrs. old anyhow, RIGHT? (my math never was too good, shucks )

 

[grover868]

I never find anything over 50 years old. Do you Tom? Heck, I only have an SE Pro, and as we all know, it does not find anything of value. Chris

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Absolutely right Chris. I'm only finding modern clad. How about you? Or heck, I'm just looking for the boyscout ring my dad lost here when he was a kid. But archaeological artifacts? Nah

 

[Hogman]

I found this on the U.S. Forest Service website. I have this laminated and keep it with me. The one time I was stopped, the forest ranger told me after reading it, that he was unaware of these rules. And off detecting I went. Chris

http://www.fs.fed.us/geology/For We...d Rock Collecting on the National Forests.pdf

I called our US Forestry service in Texas this morning and they told me it is illegal to metal detect. I asked if I could e-mail this to them three times before they would give me an e-mail address. I did not want to get in an argument so I will contact some higher ups later about it.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Hogman, I'm a little confused: If you already knew it was ok to detect national forest service land (per the link which you already had), then why did you call to ask if you could? Why not just print this out, and go? If someone had a question, you merely show it to them (I highly doubt anyone would even pay second mind to you though). Your situation is just one more case of "no one cares, till you ask". Heck, if I had a "yes", I wouldn't keep pushing the issue, and looking for even more sanctions. So I'm not sure why you would ask more?

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

I found this on the U.S. Forest Service website. I have this laminated and keep it with me. The one time I was stopped, the forest ranger told me after reading it, that he was unaware of these rules. And off detecting I went. Chris

http://www.fs.fed.us/geology/For We...d Rock Collecting on the National Forests.pdf

I called our US Forestry service in Texas this morning and they told me it is illegal to metal detect. I asked if I could e-mail this to them three times before they would give me an e-mail address. I did not want to get in an argument so I will contact some higher ups later about it.

According to my research the last change to this was June 6, 2005.......

http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/operationsnotice-intentrequirements-19769937

According to Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations we have a right to metal detect the national forests if we follow their guidelines set forth in the regulations...


TITLE 36 - PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC PROPERTY, CHAPTER II - FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PART 228 - MINERALS, subpart a - LOCATABLE MINERALS 228.4 - Plan of operationsnotice of intentrequirements. We have a right to detect the the forests....


Read more: http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/operationsnotice-intentrequirements-19769937#ixzz1KYduK9J8

Here is a link to search and or read the entire code....

http://cfr.vlex.com/source/code-federal-regulations-parks-forests-public-property-1085/page/32


I would print out and keep a copy of the above and of this it is a copy of the actual regulations.....I will NOT call ahead, just carry a copy..

TITLE 36 - PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC PROPERTY

CHAPTER II - FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

PART 228 - MINERALS

subpart a - LOCATABLE MINERALS

228.4 - Plan of operationsnotice of intentrequirements.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a notice of intent to operate is required from any person proposing to conduct operations which might cause significant disturbance of surface resources. Such notice of intent to operate shall be submitted to the District Ranger having jurisdiction over the area in which the operations will be conducted. Each notice of intent to operate shall provide information sufficient to identify the area involved, the nature of the proposed operations, the route of access to the area of operations, and the method of transport.

(1) A notice of intent to operate is not required for: (i) Operations which will be limited to the use of vehicles on existing public roads or roads used and maintained for National Forest System purposes; (ii) Prospecting and sampling which will not cause significant surface resource disturbance and will not involve removal of more than a reasonable amount of mineral deposit for analysis and study which generally might include searching for and occasionally removing small mineral samples or specimens, gold panning, metal detecting, non-motorized hand sluicing, using battery operated dry washers, and collecting of mineral specimens using hand tools; (iii) Marking and monumenting a mining claim; (iv) Underground operations which will not cause significant surface resource disturbance; (v) Operations, which in their totality, will not cause surface resource disturbance which is substantially different than that caused by other users of the National Forest System who are not required to obtain a Forest Service special use authorization, contract, or other written authorization; (vi) Operations which will not involve the use of mechanized earthmoving equipment, such as bulldozers or backhoes, or the cutting of trees, unless those operations otherwise might cause a significant disturbance of surface resources; or (vii) Operations for which a proposed plan of operations is submitted for approval; (2) The District Ranger will, within 15 days of receipt of a notice of intent to operate, notify the operator if approval of a plan of operations is required before the operations may begin.

(3) An operator shall submit a proposed plan of operations to the District Ranger having jurisdiction over the area in which operations will be conducted in lieu of a notice of intent to operate if the proposed operations will likely cause a significant disturbance of surface resources. An operator also shall submit a proposed plan of operations, or a proposed supplemental plan of operations consistent with 228.4(d), to the District Ranger having jurisdiction over the area in which operations are being conducted if those operations are causing a significant disturbance of surface resources but are not covered by a current approved plan of operations. The requirement to submit a plan of operations shall not apply to the operations listed in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (v). The requirement to submit a plan of operations also shall not apply to operations which will not involve the use of mechanized earthmoving equipment, such as bulldozers or backhoes, or the cutting of trees, unless those operations otherwise will likely cause a significant disturbance of surface resources.

(4) If the District Ranger determines that any operation is causing or will likely cause significant disturbance of surface resources, the District Ranger shall notify the operator that the operator must submit a proposed plan of operations for approval and that the operations can not be conducted until a plan of operations is approved.

(b) Any person conducting operations on the effective date of these regulations, who would have been required to submit a plan of operations under 228.4(a), may continue operations but shall within 120 days thereafter submit a plan of operations to the District Ranger having jurisdiction over the area within which operations are being conducted: Provided, however, That upon a showing of good cause the authorized officer will grant an extension of time for submission of a plan of operations, not to exceed an additional 6 months. Operations may continue according to the submitted plan during its review, unless the authorized officer determines that the operations are unnecessarily or unreasonably causing irreparable damage to surface resources and advises the operator of those measures needed to avoid such damage. Upon approval of a plan of operations, operations shall be conducted in accordance with the approved plan. The requirement to submit a plan of operations shall not apply: (1) To operations excepted in 228.4(a) or (2) to operations concluded prior to the effective date of the regulations in this part.

(c) The plan of operations shall include: (1) The name and legal mailing address of the operators (and claimants if they are not the operators) and their lessees, assigns, or designees.

(2) A map or sketch showing information sufficient to locate the proposed area of operations on the ground, existing and/or proposed roads or access routes to be used in connection with the operations as set forth in 228.12 and the approximate location and size of areas where surface resources will be disturbed.

(3) Information sufficient to describe or identify the type of operations proposed and how they would be conducted, the type and standard of existing and proposed roads or access routes, the means of transportation used or to be used as set forth in 228.12, the period during which the proposed activity will take place, and measures to be taken to meet the requirements for environmental protection in 228.8.

(d) The plan of operations shall cover the requirements set forth in paragraph (c) of this section, as foreseen for the entire operation for the full estimated period of activity: Provided, however, That if the development of a plan for an entire operation is not possible at the time of preparation of a plan, the operator shall file an initial plan setting forth his proposed operation to the degree reasonably foreseeable at that time, and shall thereafter file a supplemental plan or plans whenever it is proposed to undertake any significant surface disturbance not covered by the initial plan.

(e) At any time during operations under an approved plan of operations, the authorized officer may ask the operator to furnish a proposed modification of the plan detailing the means of minimizing unforeseen significant disturbance of surface resources. If the operator does not furnish a proposed modification within a time deemed reasonable by the authorized officer, the authorized officer may recommend to his immediate superior that the operator be required to submit a proposed modification of the plan. The recommendation of the authorized officer shall be accompanied by a statement setting forth in detail the supporting facts and reasons for his recommendations. In acting upon such recommendation, the immediate superior of the authorized officer shall determine: (1) Whether all reasonable measures were taken by the authorized officer to predict the environmental impacts of the proposed operations prior to approving the operating plan, (2) Whether the disturbance is or probably will become of such significance as to require modification of the operating plan in order to meet the requirements for environmental protection specified in 228.8 and (3) Whether the disturbance can be minimized using reasonable means.

Lacking such determination that unforeseen significant disturbance of surface resources is occurring or probable and that the disturbance can be minimized using reasonable means, no operator shall be required to submit a proposed modification of an approved plan of operations.

Operations may continue in accordance with the approved plan until a modified plan is approved, unless the immediate superior of the authorized officer determines that the operations are unnecessarily or unreasonably causing irreparable injury, loss or damage to surface resources and advises the operator of those measures needed to avoid such damage.

(f) Upon completion of an environmental analysis in connection with each proposed operating plan, the authorized officer will determine whether an environmental statement is required. Not every plan of operations, supplemental plan or modification will involve the preparation of an environmental statement. Environmental impacts will vary substantially depending on whether the nature of operations is prospecting, exploration, development, or processing, and on the scope of operations (such as size of operations, construction required, length of operations and equipment required), resulting in varying degrees of disturbance to vegetative resources, soil, water, air, or wildlife. The Forest Service will prepare any environmental statements that may be required.

(g) The information required to be included in a notice of intent or a plan of operations, or supplement or modification thereto, has been assigned Office of Management and Budget Control #05960022. The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to vary from a few minutes for an activity involving little or no surface disturbance to several months for activities involving heavy capital investments and significant surface disturbance, with an average of 2 hours per individual response. This includes time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Chief (2800), Forest Service, USDA, P.O. Box 96090, Washington, DC 200906090 and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

[39 FR 31317, Aug. 28, 1974. Redesignated at 46 FR 36142, July 14, 1981, and amended at 54 FR 6893, Feb. 15, 1989; 69 FR 41430, July 9, 2004; 70 FR 32731, June 6, 2005]

 

[Hogman]

Mr Doran returned my call and explained that the Forest Ranger over the area can make restrictions against metal detecting. I am still waiting for a reply from MRS Brett. She is over the Davy Crockett National Forest.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

hogman, why didn't you just go, if you had proof-in-hand of no prohibitions? As far as their saying:

" the Forest Ranger over the area can make restrictions ":

I believe this has to do with a legal in-field governance, of any/all public land, for any issue that comes up (ie.: not just detecting, but just generally, "for the public good", blah blah). It works like this: A publically appointed rep. (gardener, cop, ranger, etc..) is given latitude, by his superiors to "interpret as he sees fit", so as to apply laws and rules, to apply to a myriad of situations, as they may develop, in the field. For example: A law may say: "No nudity in the park". And let's say you show up wearing a single sock. If you try to tell the officer: "but officer, I wasn't tecnically nude, I was wearing one sock, and I find no prohibition telling me I can't", that cop is still going to tell you that you were nude. Right? And when/if you appeal to higher authorities above him, they're going to side with him.

You see, I too had such a debate, when I got booted from somewhere, where there was no particular prohibition. And I too thought "there has to be an actual rule, not just an arbitary and capricious opinion of a cop having a bad day". But the more I looked into it, I learned that ... legally ... they are allowed to interpret and make things location specific, if an in-field or on-site authority, thinks they've got something inparticular exception, in their locale, etc....

But getting back to your particular case: I still would have just gone. If someone had an issue, they'd have been welcome to tell you. And then you would be "apprised", so no harm done. But here's the rub: odds are NO ONE would have cared less. You merely precluded yourself from a hunting site! (by making yourself a target for them to need to "address this pressing issue") I mean, unless you were being a nuisance in some other way, like waltzing over people's beach blankets, or crashing an archaeologist's convention, I bet no one would have cared less, or even noticed you. I mean, what were you planning on doing, wearing neon red and yellow, and going in front of every kiosk there you could find, begging for attention? A clear cut case of "sometimes no one cares till you ask" here.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

I called our US Forestry service in Texas this morning and they told me it is illegal to metal detect. I asked if I could e-mail this to them three times before they would give me an e-mail address. I did not want to get in an argument so I will contact some higher ups later about it.

When you ask permission, your actually giving them permission to say no..... I would just have kept a copy of the regulations and gone detecting if it was me, if they tried to give me a ticket, I would have shown them the copy of the regulations, saying your research showed you it was legal so you never thought to ask, it would have protected you and got you out of a ticket.....

Camping is legal but do we actually ask permission to go camping?..... Fishing is legal, but do we ask permission to go fishing? Swimming is legal but do we ask permission to go swimming? If the answers are no, then why ask permission to detect since it says it is legal............

 

[Hogman]

I know one of the enforcement guys and he had told me I would be arrested and my equipment seized. He said there were restrictions where I wanted to go. I thought about just doing it also and keep the letter on me, but I also remember someone being arrested in the same area before for metal detecting a few years ago.