National Forest, in Utah, is it legal to metal detect?

[prospexican]

well excuse my English, i know that it is not legal to prospect/ metal detect in a National Park, but i don't Know The difference between a national Forest and a national Park, I was Invited To Utah this coming weekend, feb/13/2015 ibeen getting lost of experience with different metal detectors, but specially with 2 box detectors, and others, a few days ago was my lucky day, i won a tesoro tejon on a raffle and bought a fisher CZ-20 for $ 250 locally, a sand scoop for $20 from the same guy lol. well we just got a TDI whit my partner and i love it, haven't take it to the field yet buy some testing we did we like the way it performs, any way please let me know if there is any legal problems to prospect with metal detectors in Utah National Forest, thanks in advance folks.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

Yes, I AM "just reading the law". Here it is, straight from your quote:

".....any rock, coin, bullet, or mineral which is not an archaeological resource"

What does that imply Clay? That *SOME* "rocks/coins/bullets" CAN be an "archaeological resource". Yes not all, but , on the other hand, others ARE. Trust me Clay: if you went into an archie pit, and pulled out a seated half ........ do you think FOR A MINUTE that they would consider that exempt, "because it's a coin" ? No. Of course, not. Because that's clearly in an archaeological pit, thus in the context of an archaeological site, thus YES, an "archaeological resource".

I know you want so hard to think that "all coins and bullets" are exempt. But to do that with the text, means you need to ignore the punctation and context.

But notice I'm also agreeing with you that as long as the locations we hunt are not deemed/labeled "archaeological" (a trinomial # assigned), then presto: what you're saying is true.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[bigscoop]

The catch phrase is, "archeological resource."

Pursuant to 16 USCS § 470bb (1), [Title 16. Conservation; Chapter 1B. Archaeological Resources Protection] the term archaeological resource means “any material remains of past human life or activities which are of archaeological interest, as determined under uniform regulations promulgated pursuant to this Act [16 USCS §§ 470aa et seq.]. Such regulations containing such determination shall include, but not be limited to: pottery, basketry, bottles, weapons, weapon projectiles, tools, structures or portions of structures, pit houses, rock paintings, rock carvings, intaglios, graves, human skeletal materials, or any portion or piece of any of the foregoing items. Nonfossilized and fossilized paleontological specimens, or any portion or piece thereof, shall not be considered archaeological resources, under the regulations under this paragraph, unless found in an archaeological context. No item shall be treated as an archaeological resource under regulations under this paragraph unless such item is at least 100 years of age.”

One also has to consider that Property managers can installed, with certain limitations, their own policies.

 

[huntsman53]

The answer depends on the Forest Ranger in Charge when it comes to metal detecting for Gold or Silver as the Policy of the NFS is and has been to leave it up to him or her unless they have specifically prohibited in certain National Forests! Some allow it and some don't. Check the policies and Regs noted on the website of the Headquarters Office which may be over several National Forests and their' local Ranger Stations as it should be clearly stated in ne of those documents. If you find it and it says you can metal detect for Gold and Silver, print a copy out and keep it with you at all times when metal detecting in that National Forest. For here, the answer is no due to the significant amount of Civil War and Native American Indian artifacts that could be found and taken or disturbed.

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nepa/oged/includes/leasing_regs_36cfr228.pdf

I have a .pdf file of the actual reg if someone want me to PM it to them!


Frank

 

[Tom_in_CA]

The answer depends on the Forest Ranger in Charge when it comes to metal detecting ....

Perhaps. No doubt there is "discretionary" interpretation, that local LEO's/Rangers are given latitude to interpret, to fit a myriad of circumstances, that may exist or come up. That's why there are vague laws written to prohibit "annoyances", for example. Because it's impossible to make a law to address every last conceivable thing that "might happen" in the field.

But even though it's up to some local yocal's "interpretation", I still do not think that means that you and I need to go asking ahead of time "can I?". Because oftentime, the ONLY REASON he/they might end up saying no, is ONLY "because you asked". Ie.: the "safe" answer to the "pressing question". I've seen too many cases of "no one cared ... TILL you asked".

So in cases of lack of specific prohibition, I would just go. If someone on-site wants to take issue with it, they're MORE THAN WELCOME to come alert me.

 

[Clay Diggins]

It does not depend on the previous definition under 470bb or what the local forest ranger thinks. It does depend on the uniform regulations. That's what it says and that's what it means.

You should understand what a "savings clause" is and what "uniform regulations" mean.

saving clause
: a clause in a statute exempting something from the statute's operation.

Uniform Regulation
:If the subject is national in character and importance, thereby requiring uniform regulation, the power of Congress to regulate it is plenary, or exclusive.

Two basic principles of American law.

1. Some stuff is exempted under almost any law. In the Antiquities Act bullets, rocks, arrowheads on the surface, fossils, mining, private land, previous collections, multiple uses and coins are among those things exempted. These exempt things are included in a savings clause. Savings clauses are specific and under uniform regulations are not subject to local interpretation.

2. A Republican form of Government relies on uniform application of the laws and regulations. Equal access and equal treatment under the law is one of the core principles of Congressional Acts.

Any Act of Congress that calls for a regulation must specify if the regulation is uniform (applies equally to everyone everywhere) or non-uniform (is not a law of national importance).

Congress made it clear in the Antiquities Act that:
1) It was of national importance (Sections 407aa(a), 407aa(b),).
and
2) The regulations must be uniform. (Sections 407bb(1), 470cc(a), 470cc(b), 470cc(d), 470ii(a), 470ii(b), 470kk(b) ).

Congress was clear in this Act about what was covered and how the regulations would apply. No single agency or district administrator can make their own regulations.

Heavy Pans

 

[bigscoop]

There are many rules & regs that can come into play, even the simple disturbing of natural resources can be left to selective interpretation. And yes, property managers can restrict certain types of activities if they deem it necessary (This I have first hand experience with in the same state under the same state laws on two different state forest properties.) It shouldn't be this way but it is sometimes.

 

[Clay Diggins]

There are many rules & regs that can come into play, even the simple disturbing of natural resources can be left to selective interpretation. And yes, property managers can restrict certain types of activities if they deem it necessary (This I have first hand experience with in the same state under the same state laws on two different state forest properties.) It shouldn't be this way but it is sometimes.

You make a good point bigscoop. None of this applies to State Forests. The states are free to regulate their lands any way they please.

We are discussing the Public Lands open to mineral entry in the United States. On those lands the regulations are the same everywhere you go. That's the law on those federally managed lands. The states have got their own laws - and regulations.

Heavy Pans

 

[Hard Prospector]

These posts make good points and are great examples of how so many rules and regs. are subjective and lack clarity. I do a lot of detecting around old mine workings, mill reduction sites, home stead ruins etc. on national forest and BLM land. Every so often a ranger will approach(or sneak up) on me, ask what I'm doing and have I found anything to which my answer is always the same. "I am prospecting for mineral samples and so far have found nothing" Realizing I wasn't the easy pigeon they'd hoped to make an example of, they usually split in frustration.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

It does not depend on the previous definition under 470bb or what the local forest ranger thinks. It does depend on the uniform regulations.......

Clay-diggins, I sympathize with what you're saying. Trust me: I am BRAZEN as they come. And yes: For an over-arching entity to have their published rules having a SPECIFIC ALLOWANCE for md'ing, doesn't seem to leave much room for naysayers, eh ? Ie.: a specific allowance is much better than mere silence on the issue, ha! And you would *THINK* that since this is a federal entity, that it would be the same uniformly across all their said-properties, right ? Especially since in the afore-mentioned citation, it no where says that it "doesn't apply at these 4 locations", or "check at each kiosk you come to", blah blah blah .

So at first glance, this seems like a no-brainer. And it seems like you'd be un-wise to go asking silly questions of bored rangers, when you have it in black and white right in front you. Right?

Ok, but what do you do with a case like what TH'er can cite, which is a case (albeit perhaps the only one in the entire NFS properties?) that has a "no md'ing" rule ? Does that somehow constitute a basis to "throw out" the previous "yes" for NFS locations, and cause us all to think we need to go asking permission (or inquiring/reading their rules) at each and every NFS location ?

 

[DiggerGal]

Yes, I AM "just reading the law". Here it is, straight from your quote:

".....any rock, coin, bullet, or mineral which is not an archaeological resource"

What does that imply Clay? That *SOME* "rocks/coins/bullets" CAN be an "archaeological resource". Yes not all, but , on the other hand, others ARE. Trust me Clay: if you went into an archie pit, and pulled out a seated half ........ do you think FOR A MINUTE that they would consider that exempt, "because it's a coin" ? No. Of course, not. Because that's clearly in an archaeological pit, thus in the context of an archaeological site, thus YES, an "archaeological resource".

I know you want so hard to think that "all coins and bullets" are exempt. But to do that with the text, means you need to ignore the punctation and context.

But notice I'm also agreeing with you that as long as the locations we hunt are not deemed/labeled "archaeological" (a trinomial # assigned), then presto: what you're saying is true.

Tom,
I follow your posts and enjoy reading them along with the passion your write them with. I am newer to the MD world and I'm just going to through this out there....
I respect the laws, the ethics of the hobby and am respectful of the public land I research and hunt on.
If I am hunting in the National Forest on or around an old campsite, or fumble upon and old area that I am lucky enough to find let's say hypothetically a gold coin from the 19th century, I will continue to try and find more. I will not go up and ask a park ranger if I can keep it. Is that wrong? I don't think so.
On the contrary, if I were detecting and found a bullet lodged in someone's skeleton remains, I would most certainly mark the GPS coordinates and report that to a Ranger along with the proper authorities.
It seems common sense to me, but, I may be wrong.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Clay-diggins, I sympathize with what you're saying. Trust me: I am BRAZEN as they come. And yes: For an over-arching entity to have their published rules having a SPECIFIC ALLOWANCE for md'ing, doesn't seem to leave much room for naysayers, eh ? Ie.: a specific allowance is much better than mere silence on the issue, ha! And you would *THINK* that since this is a federal entity, that it would be the same uniformly across all their said-properties, right ? Especially since in the afore-mentioned citation, it no where says that it "doesn't apply at these 4 locations", or "check at each kiosk you come to", blah blah blah .

So at first glance, this seems like a no-brainer. And it seems like you'd be un-wise to go asking silly questions of bored rangers, when you have it in black and white right in front you. Right?

Ok, but what do you do with a case like what TH'er can cite, which is a case (albeit perhaps the only one in the entire NFS properties?) that has a "no md'ing" rule ? Does that somehow constitute a basis to "throw out" the previous "yes" for NFS locations, and cause us all to think we need to go asking permission (or inquiring/reading their rules) at each and every NFS location ?

I was correcting your misunderstanding about regulatory enforcement of the Antiquities Act Tom. I'm glad to see you've finally come back to the subject the original post started but you are still off by about 1500 miles.

The original poster prospexian wanted to know about metal detecting National Forest in Utah. As I've explained, on another thread you participated in, the western National Forests were created under the Organic Act. Those are the "real" national forests affected by the Mining Acts and Public Land laws. The Eastern Forests are Weeks Act Purchase Units that are managed by the Forest Service, they are not Public Land.

The western forest is a National Forest. The eastern forests are Purchase Units and only managed by the Forest Service. There is a big difference between the National Forests and the Forest Service.

As I have explained before the eastern Weeks Acts Purchase Units are surface estate only - the stuff under the surface does not usually belong to the federal government. No Forest Service manager of a Weeks Act forest can give you permission to dig (metal detect) something they don't have a right to manage.

The western Organic National Forests are public lands that have been designated for National Forest status. The land, including the subsurface, is owned by the public - not by the government like the Weeks Act Purchase Units are.

Comparing an eastern Weeks Act Purchase Unit to a western Public Land Organic Act National Forest is like comparing apples to oranges.

Lucky for this discussion the original poster was asking about the National Forest in Utah. That keeps it simple - Utah is an Organic Act National Forest on Public Lands, so yes he can metal detect.

I don't doubt TreasureHunters response about the eastern forest he's familiar with was absolutely true. It still doesn't have any bearing on the law and regulation of the western National Forests.

Here's a map to help explain the difference. The black areas are Weeks Law Purchase Units (eastern forests) and the hatched areas are the Organic National Forests.



See? Apples and Oranges.

Heavy Pans

 

[Jim in Idaho]

Anybody that thinks I am going to wade through pages of legalese, just to go detecting, has another think coming. I just go. I plan on living my life as a free man. The rest can do what they think is best. When I get cited, I'll let you all know. In the meantime, I'm LIVING my life, and pursuing happiness. I ain't livin' my life to the satisfaction of some chair-warmer in Washington DC.
Jim

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Mus1k4u, what part of CA are you in ? As for:

.... If I am hunting in the National Forest on or around an old campsite, or fumble upon and old area that I am lucky enough to find let's say hypothetically a gold coin from the 19th century, I will continue to try and find more. I will not go up and ask a park ranger if I can keep it. Is that wrong?...

When ask "is that wrong", do you mean "illegal" ? As I understand NFS allowance, it's in-so-far as you're abiding by ARPA. This is where it gets sticky, because there's no doubt the interpretation that this Arpa is border-to-border of the entire NFS lands. But as you can see from this thread, there's also good evidence that your coin is only at risk if it's in an "archaeological context". So I'd say you're good to keep the coin, unless you had pulled it from some known archie site (the trinomial system, or a obvious monument, etc...).

As for:

.....On the contrary, if I were detecting and found a bullet lodged in someone's skeleton remains, I would most certainly mark the GPS coordinates and report that to a Ranger along with the proper authorities.....

I'm not sure the law requires that. Aren't bullets equally as exempt as the coins are ? And I don't see where the Arpa verbage says "except when found lodged in a human bone". eh? From a realistic standpoint, I can only imagine a series of events that could follow, if you did as you suggested: If an anthropologist and an archie were dispatched to investigate (and police if it's a recent possible homicide ). And then ........ perhaps as word leaked out "found by an amateur md'r", that someone could get their panties in a wad, and say "gee do we really want all these yahoos running around digging up relics and bones ?". Notice that you might have been totally legally within bounds. Yet the publicity would cause archie's to bristle, with the implications it brings. Eg.: heaven help us all if you touch an old coin, bone, etc...

I personally would not alert authorities in that case (unless a recent homicide type thing). I once found a ring with a finger bone still through it. Didn't alert anyone.

 

[DiggerGal]

Mus1k4u, what part of CA are you in ? As for:



When ask "is that wrong", do you mean "illegal" ? As I understand NFS allowance, it's in-so-far as you're abiding by ARPA. This is where it gets sticky, because there's no doubt the interpretation that this Arpa is border-to-border of the entire NFS lands. But as you can see from this thread, there's also good evidence that your coin is only at risk if it's in an "archaeological context". So I'd say you're good to keep the coin, unless you had pulled it from some known archie site (the trinomial system, or a obvious monument, etc...).

As for:



I'm not sure the law requires that. Aren't bullets equally as exempt as the coins are ? And I don't see where the Arpa verbage says "except when found lodged in a human bone". eh? From a realistic standpoint, I can only imagine a series of events that could follow, if you did as you suggested: If an anthropologist and an archie were dispatched to investigate (and police if it's a recent possible homicide ). And then ........ perhaps as word leaked out "found by an amateur md'r", that someone could get their panties in a wad, and say "gee do we really want all these yahoos running around digging up relics and bones ?". Notice that you might have been totally legally within bounds. Yet the publicity would cause archie's to bristle, with the implications it brings. Eg.: heaven help us all if you touch an old coin, bone, etc...

I personally would not alert authorities in that case (unless a recent homicide type thing). I once found a ring with a finger bone still through it. Didn't alert anyone.

I'm in Southern California. As for the bullet example, honestly it would spook me more than anything else [emoji15]!
I have found many of artifacts that are really cool to me but doubtful to any museum.
The absolute last thing I would ever do is want even more convoluted restrictions put forth by political ideology of what is or isn't good for our earth. We have plenty of that already here in California.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Clay diggins, excellent post ! Mind if I bookmark that ? Although it's not as appealing as saying "help yourself to all NFS land", yet one thing I like about it: It shows that someone could look up such things (if it really came down to it), and avail themselves of written information. W/o needing to ask live persons, who may not give the right answer.

 

[huntsman53]

It does not depend on the previous definition under 470bb or what the local forest ranger thinks. It does depend on the uniform regulations. That's what it says and that's what it means.

You should understand what a "savings clause" is and what "uniform regulations" mean.

Two basic principles of American law.

1. Some stuff is exempted under almost any law. In the Antiquities Act bullets, rocks, arrowheads on the surface, fossils, mining, private land, previous collections, multiple uses and coins are among those things exempted. These exempt things are included in a savings clause. Savings clauses are specific and under uniform regulations are not subject to local interpretation.

2. A Republican form of Government relies on uniform application of the laws and regulations. Equal access and equal treatment under the law is one of the core principles of Congressional Acts.

Any Act of Congress that calls for a regulation must specify if the regulation is uniform (applies equally to everyone everywhere) or non-uniform (is not a law of national importance).

Congress made it clear in the Antiquities Act that:
1) It was of national importance (Sections 407aa(a), 407aa(b),).
and
2) The regulations must be uniform. (Sections 407bb(1), 470cc(a), 470cc(b), 470cc(d), 470ii(a), 470ii(b), 470kk(b) ).

Congress was clear in this Act about what was covered and how the regulations would apply. No single agency or district administrator can make their own regulations.

Heavy Pans

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5261774.pdf

Excerpt:
Metal detectors may be used on public land in areas that do not contain or would not
reasonably be expected to contain archaeological or historical resources. Normally,
developed campgrounds, swimming beaches, and other developed recreation sites are
open to recreational metal detecting unless there are archaeological or historical resources
present. In such cases, forest supervisors are authorized to close the area to metal
detecting and the closure would be posted at the site. Such closure notices are not always
practical in undeveloped areas, and federal agencies have not identified every
archaeological site on public lands. It is possible; therefore, that you may encounter such
archaeological remains that have not yet been documented or an area that is not closed
even though it does indeed contain such remains. Archaeological remains on public land
are protected under law. If you were to discover such remains, you should leave them
undisturbed and notify a FS office.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3791310.pdf

Excerpt:
Metal detectors are allowed only at Indian Boundary Recreation Area Beach (Supervisor’s Order 344).


Frank

 

[Clay Diggins]

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5261774.pdf

Excerpt:
Metal detectors may be used on public land in areas that do not contain or would not
reasonably be expected to contain archaeological or historical resources. Normally,
developed campgrounds, swimming beaches, and other developed recreation sites are
open to recreational metal detecting unless there are archaeological or historical resources
present. In such cases, forest supervisors are authorized to close the area to metal
detecting and the closure would be posted at the site. Such closure notices are not always
practical in undeveloped areas, and federal agencies have not identified every
archaeological site on public lands. It is possible; therefore, that you may encounter such
archaeological remains that have not yet been documented or an area that is not closed
even though it does indeed contain such remains. Archaeological remains on public land
are protected under law. If you were to discover such remains, you should leave them
undisturbed and notify a FS office.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3791310.pdf

Excerpt:
Metal detectors are allowed only at Indian Boundary Recreation Area Beach (Supervisor’s Order 344).


Frank

That's my old stomping grounds Frank! Beautiful country. I processed manganese dioxide ore there for a couple of years in the 1969/70s time frame.

That's the Cherokee Purchase Unit. One of the original from 1912. Weeks Law purchased lands - not Organic National Forest. A perfect example of why the eastern forests don't have anything in common with the public land forests in the west. Different laws, different rules different regulations. Managed by the Forest Service but not public lands or Organic Act Forests.

This is why the Purchase Units under the Weeks law don't follow National Forest laws.

On September 20, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit determined that the Forest Service was misinterpreting
its authority over development of private mineral rights beneath
the surface of lands acquired by purchase under the Weeks Act.

The Forest Service had argued that the Organic Act of 1897 gave
the Forest Service the authority to require mineral owners to get
approval prior to development. The court disagreed and confirmed
earlier decisions that the Organic Act applied to lands reserved
from the public domain (mainly western national forests) and not
to lands acquired by purchase pursuant to the Weeks Act.

That's the Minard Run Oil case and it reaffirmed the miner's rights to the minerals to be superior to purchased surface rights to "forests". Really important and interesting case for the miner. It was the case that broke the "Sue and Settle" tactics of the greenie groups. It was one of their greatest losses and one of the greatest wins for miners.

It's also explains why the eastern forests aren't managed under the National Forest laws or regulations. Most of those "forests" are still private property or the mineral rights weren't sold along with the over logged surface. These are not public lands that can be legally prospected or claimed. Recreation by regulation is the only form of public "prospecting" and even that is severely limited because the government often doesn't own the ground the "forest" stands on.

93% of the Allegheny "National Forest" is still owned by oil companies. 0% of the western Organic National Forests are owned by anybody but the American people. Think about that.

Having never been public lands these Purchase Units have their own laws based on use of government property rather than National Forest laws. Forests in name only.

I'm working on a series of maps that will show these differences. I think everyone will be surprised at what they reveal about these Weeks Act Purchase Units.

Of course none of this has anything to do with the real Public Land National Forests found in Utah.

Apples and Oranges

Heavy Pans

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... Archaeological remains on public land
are protected under law. If you were to discover such remains, you should leave them
undisturbed and notify a FS office....

thanx for the post huntsman. Ok, the solution is simple: Don't find anything. Presto. Problem solved. Me? I never find anything old.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

You all have put great input into this post. Especially Clay diggins. To dissect rules, laws, regulations, etc..... But Jim in Idaho puts another slant on all the legalese minutia debate. I truly think that a LOT of our answers/issues/questions about these questions, would be solved with the following question: "Does anyone care?". Rather than "What does a lawyer and legal beavers conclude to this 'pressing question'?"

Because I can think of a lot of places where, just like NFS land (whether east or west coast NFS, of whatever sub-type you want to disect it to), can, in fact, net you a "no", if you asked long enough, hard enough, of enough bureaucrats, lawyers, etc... Just throw in a few key words like "dig", "cultural", "treasure", and "deface" and "indian bone", And SURE, you can find yourself a "no" ANYWHERE on earth.

So to me, I'm like Jim: I do not overly concern myself with such minutia that other's have gone before us to find, and print here in wonderful links, etc... I go by the "does anyone care?" rule-of-thumb. If it's a place where no one cares, then presto, no one cares. Why argue with that?

And with that said: Let's be dreadfully honest: Is anyone really out in the middle of nowhere, in the forests, deserts, etc... who give a hoot? Probably not. So to me, such verbage was meant to protect obvious historic sensitive monuments.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Do what you want but do not use TN as podium to advocate breaking any laws..