Military Reservations?

[Dave Rishar]

Dave Rishar, what you're saying sounds much like our Ft. Ord barracks. Which, like yours got abandoned, and sat for years. Then eventually demolished, and is now vacant land. And like your scenario, I too could probably find myself a "no", if I kept asking various bureaucrats. I mean, put yourself in their shoes. What do you THINK is the easy answer. It sounds like you acknowledge that they are just giving this out as an arbitrary "no", when .... no such rule exists that specifically says such a thing. I mean, sure: they can "morph" something ELSE to apply to the "pressing question" to back up that no they just invented.

But at Ft. Ord, we helped ourselves routinely, and found silver and wheaties. We even had some MP's come up and question us more than once. But once we assured them we weren't INSIDE the boarded up buildings, they shrugged their shoulders and moved on. Now *some* people would take that as a green light, right? But all it means, is that I didn't ask high enough up the ladder of bureaucracy.

And now, all these years later, the old barracks were torn down, and the fed. govt. gave off the land of the former Ft. Ord base to the cities that surrounded the base (Seaside, Marina, Del Rey Oaks, etc...). And we hit the spots where they were, and get a bit more coins that had been under wooden porches and so forth. The lands were given to neighboring cities for eventual development. But the housing market crash of 2008-ish hit, and developements have yet to occur. There's no fences or signs surrounding the naked land sites of the old barracks now. I suppose *technically* some people would say that a person must go "get permission" from the city's who now have this land, right? But alas, the same thing would no doubt happen there. The request would get passed back and forth through various desks, and ..... guess what ?

Indeed. I'm unfamiliar with Ft. Ord and can't comment on it, but I can comment on my own situation. A few things:

1. We have security clearances, which means that we can be thrown out fairly easily. It happens all the time. I have to watch what I do outside of work. (I also have to watch what I do inside of work, but that's another story.)
2. It was a fairly small base, around 400-500 acres. It was a small arms range. If I go and ask someone in charge, it will be a small arms range without much acreage. They won't care where the impact areas were. They likely don't know anyway. They will just say no, and this is my job.
3. This isn't an open base. It was fenced off in my day. It's fenced off today. If they wanted me in there, there would be a turnstile with a badge reader.
4. The camp wasn't completely abandoned. The upper camp is still in use and is now fenced off, which it wasn't in my day. They tore most of it down but left one building standing. I know what they're using it for but I don't know the periodocity, nor do I care outside of my own activities. But it's military, and it's post-9/11, so eff you and me, regardless of our veteran status.

I could push it, yes...and I'd like to think that I could talk my way through the process if someone showed up asking questions. The possibility remains that I might not, and whatever I might find there (based on what I found downrange) is not worth my job. So that's it. I'll keep asking. When someone important says yes, I'll go out there and dig up some artifacts. Until then, I'll dig something else. I was given the impression that this was a federal thing, but I received no hard data. I'
ll keep pushing.

To the OP: Your choice. Choose wisely.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[azprospector]

I am going to go up there today and grab a few buckets of test material and bring it home to sluice. Further up from where I am interested in is an area that has hieroglyphics (spelling), if I get up that high I will take some pictures, but the area is kind of rough for vehicles and I don't have a truck right now.

*Edit*
According to the Sierra Vista AZ page the "Rock Paintings" are thought to date back to 1200AD.
"At higher elevations there is rock art which includes black and red rock paintings possibly dating to 1200 AD as well as eye catching white eagle paintings believed to have been done by Apache artists in the 18th century"

http://www.visitsierravista.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=item_detail&uniqueID=11

"Garden Canyon is the site of ongoing archeological studies at a prehistoric village near the mouth of the canyon"

Here is a Flicker Page with some pictures.
http://yhoo.it/1hiIBx4

 

[azprospector]

So after researching and calling and snooping, the answer is (Absolutely NOT)! It is a preserved area, the entire base is, and so I am glad I looked into it before going.
In fact, even hikers are told to leave things alone. This is historical, and it's all protected.

Well now I know.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

So after researching and calling and snooping, the answer is (Absolutely NOT)! It is a preserved area, the entire base is, and so I am glad I looked into it before going.
In fact, even hikers are told to leave things alone. This is historical, and it's all protected.

Well now I know.

Azprospector, I have no doubt, that if I used that technique, for just about any speck of public land, anywhere, and at any level, across the entire USA, that I could get the same answer. I could have predicted that outcome. So too would probably have been the outcome at Ft. Ord where we used to detect ad-naseum (before it closed in the late 1990s). So too could I probably get that answer in my city for public modern sandboxes. Oh well.

 

[1more4me]

Gold Vault

I've found every installation to be a little different... Yet always worth a try. The ones that push the NO's are the Forest Service and Environmental Groups. Ten times out of ten- they will give briefs and powerpoints trying to tell everyone how important thier jobs are- and they always say, no digging, no taking, no touching, no nothing... And the MP's, Game Wardens, and Commanders will not know different. --HOWEVER--- It Nine times out of ten- comes down to the Code of Federal Regulations for both Forest and Federal land- which DOES NOT PROHIBIT detecting or prospecting UNLESS- there is a historical significance to the site.
On your particular base, Fort Huachuca- there is quite a bit of historical significance, quite possibly the whole base, and if there is- it should be marked, posted, or able to be reasonably determined in any given area.
Don't trust the first NO- because the No'er probably didn't Kno the right answer....

Besides-your cover story for prospecting into the canyons is thin. You are going after PVT Jones gold vault aren't you
Plenty of folks have searched for PVT Jones gold vault. We all know the "government" went in and collected it all the very next night after PVT Jones first reported it... But there probably is flour gold in the washes since there is quartz and patches of black sand throughout the Huachuca Range. Good luck either way...
PEACE

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.......Don't trust the first NO- because the No'er probably didn't Kno the right answer....

......

oh sure, keep asking higher and higher up the chain of command. Keep at it till someone gets it in their craw to create an actual specific rule, that truly DOES say "no metal detecting".

I sympathize with the catch-22 of all this. Because no one wants to get grief where they plan on hunting. So sure, the knee-jerk reaction will be to simply do what the OP has done (gone and asked a bureaucrat). But I still say that the correct way would be to look things up for oneself. If there is nothing there saying "no metal detectors", then presto, it's not prohibited!

And as I've also always said: to avoid obvious historic monuments. So I'm not advocating asking for trouble. But on the other hand, I think we md'rs worry WAY TOO MUCH. And run around getting ourselves no's, for places where perhaps no one ever cared before. If the specific area the OP intended to detect at is simply remove land (not snooping around standing sacred monuments of some sort), then I bet the worst he could have gotten is a scram. I mean, think of it folks: we're talking a place where the public can be (and certainly him!) for crazy things like hunting, shooting, fishing, etc....

But that's just me. I certainly don't know that particular part of the base (where it's an innocuous back-country fishing spot, or truly front & center at some sacred sensitive portion of the base).

 

[azprospector]

I also found this article from The Fort Huachuca Scout:
Metal detecting may lead to penalties, injuries

Army regulations support the prohibition on metal detecting.

AR 200-4 “Cultural Resources” (section 2-6c), which references compliance with both the Antiquities Act of 1906 and the Archaeological Resource Protection Act, or ARPA, states “The use of metal detectors to locate archaeological resources is prohibited on Army installations except when used by Army personnel, contractors or permittees in association with official cultural resource management activities or pursuant to a permit issued under ARPA.”

Fort Huachuca Regulation 385-8 “Range and Training Area Operations” (paragraph 1-7b) expands this prohibition beyond metal detectors and states, “Collecting prehistoric or historic artifacts, fossils or old objects, or digging or destroying archeological or paleontological sites, is prohibited within the confines of Fort Huachuca. As part of the installation’s Cultural Resources Management Program, archeological projects may be conducted by assigned Army staff or professionals with proper authorization.”

Those found disturbing an archaeological site can be charged with theft of government property, a Class A misdemeanor.
If the damage is extensive enough, first-time convictions under ARPA can result in fines up to $125,000 and two years in prison. ENRD personnel are currently drafting a Fort Huachuca regulation on metal detecting. Once it is finalized, Soldiers using metal detectors and disturbing historic sites will be subject to Article 92, disobeying a lawful order.

Metal detecting can also be dangerous. The potential for unexploded ordnance, or UXO, exists throughout Fort Huachuca, even where there are not current training areas. Range Control personnel regularly find artillery and mortar shells, hand grenades, land mines and small arms ammunition left from over 100 years of military training. Some of this ordnance is live and very dangerous if handled.

As a first step in combating metal detecting, ENRD personnel will post warning signs at various Fort Huachuca locations and install cameras at threatened archaeological sites. (Have not seen those signs, but have NOT really looked for them).

Besides metal detecting, collecting any archaeological remains, fossils or natural resources such as vegetation, bird nests and feathers, reptiles, minerals or other items on Fort Huachuca is prohibited and can lead to penalties and fines.

So I guess it is still without a doubt no.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

I also found this article from The Fort Huachuca Scout:
Metal detecting may lead to penalties, injuries

Army regulations support the prohibition on metal detecting.

AR 200-4 “Cultural Resources” (section 2-6c), which references compliance with both the Antiquities Act of 1906 and the Archaeological Resource Protection Act, or ARPA, states “The use of metal detectors to locate archaeological resources is prohibited on Army installations except when used by Army personnel, contractors or permittees in association with official cultural resource management activities or pursuant to a permit issued under ARPA.”

Fort Huachuca Regulation 385-8 “Range and Training Area Operations” (paragraph 1-7b) expands this prohibition beyond metal detectors and states, “Collecting prehistoric or historic artifacts, fossils or old objects, or digging or destroying archeological or paleontological sites, is prohibited within the confines of Fort Huachuca. As part of the installation’s Cultural Resources Management Program, archeological projects may be conducted by assigned Army staff or professionals with proper authorization.”

Those found disturbing an archaeological site can be charged with theft of government property, a Class A misdemeanor.
If the damage is extensive enough, first-time convictions under ARPA can result in fines up to $125,000 and two years in prison. ENRD personnel are currently drafting a Fort Huachuca regulation on metal detecting. Once it is finalized, Soldiers using metal detectors and disturbing historic sites will be subject to Article 92, disobeying a lawful order.

Metal detecting can also be dangerous. The potential for unexploded ordnance, or UXO, exists throughout Fort Huachuca, even where there are not current training areas. Range Control personnel regularly find artillery and mortar shells, hand grenades, land mines and small arms ammunition left from over 100 years of military training. Some of this ordnance is live and very dangerous if handled.

As a first step in combating metal detecting, ENRD personnel will post warning signs at various Fort Huachuca locations and install cameras at threatened archaeological sites. (Have not seen those signs, but have NOT really looked for them).

Besides metal detecting, collecting any archaeological remains, fossils or natural resources such as vegetation, bird nests and feathers, reptiles, minerals or other items on Fort Huachuca is prohibited and can lead to penalties and fines.

So I guess it is still without a doubt no.

Az-prospector, well in this case, you have an actual rule, that says such a thing. And a rule which could be found (as you did) if someone sleuthed around. Thus as I've said, no need to have gone and asked someone.

That cut-&-paste you cited, at first, seems to apply to "all military installations". But then goes on and on specifically about just that one base. So apparently someone "really cares" at that particular one. Either it's riddled with enticing mouthwatering detecting spots , and has thus attracted no shortage of people who detected there in the past (which eventualy lead to those specifics). Or it was a place where people have gone and asked "can I metal detect?" thus leading to those specifics. Who knows the origin? But it doesn't matter now, as it's already written in stone.

As far as the initial appearances to apply to "all military installations", that's odd. Because ...... some bases you can detect at, and no one cares. Well, at least prior to 9/11, before bases became like Ft. Knox. I'm assuming such texts as you cite were probably technically there prior to 9/11 too, but that ..... as long as a base wasn't a sacred historic monument, , then .... perhaps it just wasn't cared about (and presuming you weren't in some off-limits area or something).

 

[cudamark]

I also found this article from The Fort Huachuca Scout:
Metal detecting may lead to penalties, injuries

Army regulations support the prohibition on metal detecting.

AR 200-4 “Cultural Resources” (section 2-6c), which references compliance with both the Antiquities Act of 1906 and the Archaeological Resource Protection Act, or ARPA, states “The use of metal detectors to locate archaeological resources is prohibited on Army installations except when used by Army personnel, contractors or permittees in association with official cultural resource management activities or pursuant to a permit issued under ARPA.”

Fort Huachuca Regulation 385-8 “Range and Training Area Operations” (paragraph 1-7b) expands this prohibition beyond metal detectors and states, “Collecting prehistoric or historic artifacts, fossils or old objects, or digging or destroying archeological or paleontological sites, is prohibited within the confines of Fort Huachuca. As part of the installation’s Cultural Resources Management Program, archeological projects may be conducted by assigned Army staff or professionals with proper authorization.”

Those found disturbing an archaeological site can be charged with theft of government property, a Class A misdemeanor.
If the damage is extensive enough, first-time convictions under ARPA can result in fines up to $125,000 and two years in prison. ENRD personnel are currently drafting a Fort Huachuca regulation on metal detecting. Once it is finalized, Soldiers using metal detectors and disturbing historic sites will be subject to Article 92, disobeying a lawful order.

Metal detecting can also be dangerous. The potential for unexploded ordnance, or UXO, exists throughout Fort Huachuca, even where there are not current training areas. Range Control personnel regularly find artillery and mortar shells, hand grenades, land mines and small arms ammunition left from over 100 years of military training. Some of this ordnance is live and very dangerous if handled.

As a first step in combating metal detecting, ENRD personnel will post warning signs at various Fort Huachuca locations and install cameras at threatened archaeological sites. (Have not seen those signs, but have NOT really looked for them).

Besides metal detecting, collecting any archaeological remains, fossils or natural resources such as vegetation, bird nests and feathers, reptiles, minerals or other items on Fort Huachuca is prohibited and can lead to penalties and fines.

So I guess it is still without a doubt no.

Well, I still have a few doubts. In reading the quotations, there still seems to be some loopholes in the argument. The prohibition of "the use of metal detectors to locate archaeological resources" seems kinda vague. What is their definition of said resource? Certainly not rings, as they later state that they allow you to look for something you personally lost. I don't see anywhere about any time limit on that. Only something you lost yesterday? Last weeK? Last year? 60 years ago? Can you really not find your wife's ring? or your parents? I also find it kind of amusing that they state that they're trying to preserve the buried items for others to enjoy or study. How can they do that if they're buried and deteriorating? Is anyone really interested in studying a Barber dime or a uniform button? Even if the entire base was dug up by the archies and everything was cataloged, I bet less than 1% would make it to any kind of museum display and nothing of importance learned in the process. It's just not an old enough site to not already know what went on there and what items were used at that time. It's just another power grab by the archies and their hand maiden government lackies. They want to justify their jobs and feather their nests....nothing new there.....

 

[azprospector]

That cut-&-paste you cited, at first, seems to apply to "all military installations". But then goes on and on specifically about just that one base.

Interesting point, so I looked it up.
http://gpmuellerdesign.com/portfolio/multimedia/itam_cd/documents/ITAM/AR 200_4.pdf
So this AR 200-4 “Cultural Resources” (section 2-6c), does seem to apply to ALL "ARMY" bases. The later reference if specific to Huachuca. AR 200-4 is an army standard. Interesting indeed.

As far as the initial appearances to apply to "all military installations", that's odd. Because ...... some bases you can detect at, and no one cares.

In reading AR 200-4, it makes reference "Base Commanders", which leads me to think that it is dependent on who is in charge as to what is allowed?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Interesting point, so I looked it up.
http://gpmuellerdesign.com/portfolio/multimedia/itam_cd/documents/ITAM/AR 200_4.pdf
So this AR 200-4 “Cultural Resources” (section 2-6c), does seem to apply to ALL "ARMY" bases. The later reference if specific to Huachuca. AR 200-4 is an army standard. Interesting indeed.




In reading AR 200-4, it makes reference "Base Commanders", which leads me to think that it is dependent on who is in charge as to what is allowed?

Az-prospector, aside from the conversation about YOUR particular base-in-question (Ft. Hauchuca), and switching gears to "bases in general, elsewhere-as-well", then you raise interesting points (like about how it's whimsical per "base commander", etc ..) . And so too does Mark. That is that:

1) On the one hand, if a person thinks about it long and hard enough, sure, he can preclude himself from going just about anywhere. Based on dire-sounding things they may read in dusty minutia somewhere. It's not just "army bases", but the same can be said of a myriad of places. And yes, some places may truly care and enforce (typically things like obvious historic landmarks. I mean ... duh). But OTHER places, no one may care, and it's just silly. Ie.: Bases that only date to WWII with no historic theme. Or way the h*ck back in the back-country where no one's around to care, to begin with. And so forth.

2) Or as Mark says, even if a person WANTS to religiously keep such verbage (because perhaps he feels there are archies and MP's certainly lurking around every tree waiting to pounce), then a careful reading of some of that, can be made to not even apply. He makes a good point when he says that ... taken literally, it would be if you were using the metal detector to "locate archaeological resources". Well gee, then sure, you're only looking for, and finding, MODERN objects, right? (presuming even anyone even came up to you, to begin with. But no doubt you're not wearing neon orange and going out begging for attention at heavy-traffic-times, to begin with).

For example: one time I was in Stanislaus National forest, hunting some CCC era campgrounds. A ranger *just happened* to pass me by. He saw me and stopped. Rolled down his window and said "you can't do that here". But... then after some casual conversation, he changed his tune and said "well, you can do it, but if you find any coins over 50 yrs. old, you need to drop by the ranger station on your way out, and leave them at the desk". And then he drove off. Hmmm, ok, so now I guess that's up to my math skills?

Anyhow, for whatever reason, I can think of army bases where you can detect till you're blue in the face. So perhaps no one there cares, or has read deeply enough into minutia and found things like that. Now sure, if I alert them to that stuff, point it out, and then ask "so gee, can I metal detect?", I suppose they'd be obliged to say "no".

 

[azprospector]

Yea, I can see both sides here. I guess I am lucky in the sense that where I live there are many cool old places I can go besides the base.
Places like outside old Tombstone and Charleston where Wyatt Earp, The Clanton's, and the McLowery's roamed, Bisbee, the old copper mine town, Montezuma pass, where the Spanish Conquistadors once passed back in 1540, and of course there were Cochise and Geronimo the famous leaders of the Apache Indians.

I started the thread because while I was pretty sure the base was off limits, but not 100% sure and thought maybe someone here may know. Yes I did do some poking around and asking, and of course some research that turned up my answer.
Ft. Huachuca is in a location that has a LOT of history, there are a lot of archeological sites and protected areas. I am cool with that, I have a lot of other places I can go, just wanted to know about one particular location, which now I know the answer too.

Thanks you guys for participating and the feedback.

P.S. There is a place that is like literally a few minutes from my house that is an original kill site for the Woolly Mammoth's that roamed many years ago. Will try and post some pictures for the forum.

 

[jeff of pa]

I tried for a French & Indian war fort on land owned by
Fort Indiatown Gap Military Reservation a few years ago.

Got pushed though Channels then told "No"
they could not give me permission because of the possibility of unexploded ordinance, nobody would be willing to say yes.


considering the way he phrased it, I believe his actual words were something like
"Would Not feel Comfortable giving permission, because of unexploded ordinance could be anywhere on base"
I should have asked What would happen If I just help myself,
But didn't.

 

[1more4me]

Some of ya'll are reading the words and not the intent!
TOM- you just did it too! You sometimes have to ask again because -eventually you'll get the RIGHT answer.

This AR 200-4 DOES NOT RESTRICT Metal detecting. The ARPA DOES NOT RESTRICT Metal detecting <---Because the entire flat earth is not a Indian Burial ground- ONLY those areas IDENTIFIED as Archeological are covered by the ARPA!!!
The AR 200-4 is an Army Regulation- telling the ARMY (and those that support it)- Here specifically the Posts Cultural Resource bodies and the Commanders- how they will operate. And it says they will FOLLOW- the CFR, NHPA, ARPA and the AA along with a dozen lesser acts and laws-----NONE of which outlaw detecting. Many do, however, say you can't do it on a National Battle field, Indian Grave site, and all the obvious places we already know we cant....

The problem is--as I stated above--- is that some local post archie or Enviro- has pushed HIS interpretation to everyone on post and they all believe him or her to be correct- but---it will still come down to the CFR and the CFR DOES NOT mention it in allowance or disallowance- you CAN in any general, unprotected area like a parking lot, tot lot, old barracks area, etc...if it's not marked or otherwise known to be historical.

Then again all of Huacuca may be marked... My last 4 post have not been...
PEACE and Good luck.

 

[ODA 226]

1more4me is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT about this! I am a contractor in Grafenwoehr, Germany and regularly metal detect on base. Grafenwoehr has a very similar "regulation" regarding metal detecting on post. It is forbidden to MD at any "HISTORICAL" or "ARCHAEOLOGICAL" sites or Firing Ranges. HOWEVER.....your local MP station and Range Control will have both a LIST and a MAP clearly delineating ALL of the areas restricted for MDing.

I and a few of my friends bring our metal detectors to work with us and hunt during our lunch breaks. NONE OF US HAVE EVER ENCOUNTERED PROBLEMS!

It appears that the OP simply asked a government bureaucrat and the bureaucrat answered with the easiest reply...."NO"!