Treasure legends and permits

[Peerless67]

I was wondering what most people would consider viable proof of a "treasure site", I recall Scott Wood posting in the forum with the guide lines at one time, those used by the government. But what does the average "hunter" consider to be valid proof of a site?
I would imagine the vast majority would except nothing short of absolute proof, and others may accept photgraphs or video images, others may accept a paper trail, and others may just accept a mans/womans word. this thread is not to undermine the factors required by the government bodies, but rather to find out what the "average hunter" would consider sufficient evidence.

What do you think should be the minimum requirement to be granted a permit?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[gollum]

As far as what it would take for me to believe a story, that would vary greatly according to how well I knew the finder, and how trustworthy I knew them to be.

As far as what proof should be needed to get a Treasure Trove Permit, there has to be a MUCH higher standard there. As much as I would like to see everybody follow their dreams, we can't just have everybody going out and digging up our State and National Parks because of a story they heard.

While there are some people here on TNet that I would trust not to overdig, there are many more that I would not believe if they showed me pictures and ore samples (you know who you are).

That is the tightrope the Forest Service, BLM, Rangers, etc. find themselves in. While they might be interested in treasure stories, they are employed to protect those State and National Parks for everybody. Now, do many of those Federal Employees take themselves and their jobs a little too seriously? You betcha! Do some of those Federal Employees discriminate against people when they find out they are Treasure Hunters? You betcha!

Always try to work with those folks, because they can make your life a living hell if you skirt the system.

Best-Mike

 

[Springfield]

This is a good question all right. Normally, the only time a hunter would be required to obtain a 'permit' to attempt recovery of a 'treasure' is if the presumed site was located on land that had some sort of restrictions associated with it. Seemingly, this could include a broad spectrum of possibilities ranging from 'Sure, no big deal - just fill out an application,' to 'No chance, this is a military reservation (National Park, Historic Site, etc). Go away'. I'm guessing that these 'permit' requirements vary considerably from one jurisdiction to another and are issued based on political considerations depending on the circumstances of the site and the clout of the hopeful permittee. It's a sliding scale to start with before even looking at the applicant's 'proof'.

As far as the 'average hunter's' standards of sufficient evidence is concerned, I would say the requirements are minimal. Thousands upon thousands of hunters have spent untold amounts of time and money chasing rainbows based mostly on faith. Many have devoted years, decades or their whole lives searching for riches based on rumors. A 'better than average' hunter is more discriminating and realizes that information available in the public domain about the location of 'treasure' has to be looked at skeptically, but also with an open mind. A 'good' hunter won't waste his time with faulty data but will move decisively if fortunate enough to have aquired propriatory information. This doesn't happen often.

 

[Cubfan64]

Very good question Peerless, although I have to ask for clarification in how you worded it exactly - it almost sounds like two separate questions to me:

1) What does the average "hunter" consider to be valid proof of a site?

2) What do you think should be the minimum requirement to be granted a permit?

In my mind at least, I consider each of those to be a distinctly different question, so I'll give you my thoughts on each one:

1) First of all I would need to link a physical location with documented evidence of it's existence. I don't think every scrap of evidence needs to point to that spot, but the preponderance should. I should be able to show things like legal documents, diaries, maps, directions, etc... that point towards a given location, and then be able to show how MY site fits at least a large portion if not all of those things. If someone else can find another location that fits the same criteria, then I have to find more evidence.

I get really torn when it comes to Treasure Troves that have not "story" or background information to investigate. For example, what about symbols on rocks and trees that eventually point to a specific location? Does that in itself provide proof of the existence of treasure in that location? I have such a difficult time with this concept as I have pretty much no experience following such leads. Really, the only proof one could point to in that regard is past experiences finding treasures associated with those same symbols and clues - is that enough? I really don't know. The problem to me comes in identifying those symbols - most average people would look at them and see nothing but a scratch on a rock, or a random pile of stones or natural occurances - to a trained individual however, I suppose they could point to a hidden treasure. Unfortunately, it's not like there's a "manual" out there that says when you find "such and such" a symbol, this is exactly what it means and 100% of the time if you dig in this spot you will find something of significance buried there.

2) I tend to go along with Gollum in regards to answering this question. I think because of the nature of protecting our federal and state land, there has to be a very strict set of guidelines to be followed in order to get a permit to do any digging on that land.

I think the person/people granting the permit have to be given access to 100% of whatever evidence the finder has to be able to make their decision. I think it's absolutely necessary for the permit granters to be shown the location physically and in person to be able to make their own judgments. I don't really know what the actual guidelines are, but there should be at least some kind of "pre-permit" legal documents that would provide protection for the finder and give them security that their "site" will not be compromised if a permit is not granted. It seems that the biggest drawback in providing proof is the lack of trust between the TH'r and the government - the TH'r doesn't want to give out too much information because he thinks the government will take his find if they think it's really valid - leaving him with nothing. Meanwhile, the government won't issue a permit unless they are utterly convinced and see 100% of the evidence (as well as see the site). Sounds like a catch-22 to me.

I'm sure each case is different, and of course it all depends on the location of the supposed site too.

I suppose I didn't really answer either question very well - I have this sense that I'm just rambling on now so I'll stop. I do think this is a really good question though Peerless, and I hope more people respond with their thoughts.

 

[Peerless67]

your answers are fine, its not a trick question, I just got to thinking about it after reading another thread where someone was/is about to apply for a permit. I just wanted to get a rough idea of what people who do not work for the various agencies thought would constitute "proof" or at least proof that would satisfy themselves.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

your answers are fine, its not a trick question, I just got to thinking about it after reading another thread where someone was/is about to apply for a permit. I just wanted to get a rough idea of what people who do not work for the various agencies thought would constitute "proof" or at least proof that would satisfy themselves.

When I can't find "proof", I settle for strong possibilities.

 

[Cubfan64]

your answers are fine, its not a trick question, I just got to thinking about it after reading another thread where someone was/is about to apply for a permit. I just wanted to get a rough idea of what people who do not work for the various agencies thought would constitute "proof" or at least proof that would satisfy themselves.

I knew it wasn't a trick question, but I first started my response with the premise "ok, if I were a member of the government agency that issued permits, what would I require as proof?" After I started down that line briefly, I re-read your question and realized I probably wasn't interpreting it correctly so started over

I'll be curious to hear what other folks think - I imagine we'll get to hear the full gamut of opinions.

 

[gollum]

I will tell you that to get a Treasure Trove Permit, you are required to have the site archaeologically surveyed to make sure there are no ancient grave sites or habitations. It also has to be environmentally surveyed to make sure there are no endangered animals, plants, fragile natural rock formations, or anything else that would be permanently destructive to the area. All this has to be done at your expense. You will also have to get an estimate on how much the reclamation will cost, then you will have to post a Reclamation Bond (which you will most likely never get back).

If you hire all the experts to do the surveys yourself, and everything goes swimingly, you can get it all done in as little as about nine months. If you run into a pric*, then it could take a couple of years. If you have any AmerIndian Habitations or endangered animals around your site, you can write off any official okays.

Best-Mike

 

[Cubfan64]

I will tell you that to get a Treasure Trove Permit, you are required to have the site archaeologically surveyed to make sure there are no ancient grave sites or habitations. It also has to be environmentally surveyed to make sure there are no endangered animals, plants, fragile natural rock formations, or anything else that would be permanently destructive to the area. All this has to be done at your expense. You will also have to get an estimate on how much the reclamation will cost, then you will have to post a Reclamation Bond (which you will most likely never get back).

If you hire all the experts to do the surveys yourself, and everything goes swimingly, you can get it all done in as little as about nine months. If you run into a pric*, then it could take a couple of years. If you have any AmerIndian Habitations or endangered animals around your site, you can write off any official okays.

Best-Mike

That doesn't surprise me at all Gollum - a person would have to be DARN positive there was something significant to try to recover in order to go through that trouble and expense imho.

It's no surprise that not many of those permits are issued!

 

[Oroblanco]

HOLA amigos,

For the first part of the question, to convince ME is not so difficult. In the case of a lost mine, a good sample of the ore usually seals the case, and-or an assay report that verifies ore. Just finding some old hole in the ground that looks like someone was digging in it a long time ago only proves that a hole in the ground has been found. With a lost treasure, I have a different standard - I want to see actual samples of the treasure, again not some empty chest or wooden box, but actual coins, jewelry or bars etc the types of items which are supposed to be in the treasure.

For the second part I have to agree with amigo Mike (Gollum) in part, only taking exception when we are talking about what type of government/public land we are talking about. If it is Bureau of Land Management land or National Forest, State Trust lands, Bureau of Reclamation etc I think the standards should be zilch - just charge a fee and let the hopeful treasure hunter dig to heart's content. After all manual prospecting is allowed on most of these lands, which involves small-scale excavating, and most treasure hunters are not going to dig all that much. (Something about a Number 2 Shovel that just evaporates any greed! ) For parks, bombing ranges etc I think Gollum summed it up well - yes allow them to dig, BUT only when very well supported by the evidence. Then there is one last class of land that I have a very mixed opinion about such regulations - National Monuments. On some, prospecting is allowed (for certain minerals) SO it would stand to reason that small scale treasure trove permits ought to also be allowed (they are not in most cases) but some Monuments are quite small while others are huge. The National Park Service administers some 2,157,574 acres of National Monument lands alone, and that is not counting some 21 other Monuments administered by other agencies such as the BLM. I suppose for Monument lands, it would have to be on a case-by-case basis.

Oroblanco

 

[EE THr]

I think it would be interesting to reverse-engineer the question---

How many permits have been issued, and how long did it take to get them approved?

Also, what evidence was submitted?

 

[Springfield]

...If it is Bureau of Land Management land or National Forest, State Trust lands, Bureau of Reclamation etc I think the standards should be zilch - just charge a fee and let the hopeful treasure hunter dig to heart's content. ...

In New Mexico, the only expense to the searcher is the nominal filing fee for a Treasure Trove claim in the county courthouse. I might add, these are seldom filed for obvious reasons.

 

[gollum]

Let me make a little amendment to my post about the permit process.

You can wait and have the park archaeologist do your survey, and then it is free, but you are operating on their time schedule.

A friend told me that he has never had to wait longer than about two and a half months to get his done.

................oh, and don't forget the non-refundable $250 dollar fee (or is it $200).

Best-Mike

 

[Oroblanco]

Mike I have never been able to find a solid figure on how many Federal TT permits are issued annually, other than a mention of the very few ever issued for the Superstitions. Have you ever found an exact figure on how many TT permits are actually issued, nationwide? Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

 

[purchase]

Hey guys when we started to the Tesoro project we went through every objection that the government laid upon us. We got around a lot of the stuff that they they were having us go through by taking them to court. When Judge Suchanek was still alive he had the memo that was between the GSA and the BLM stating that if treasure was located then there would be a 50/50 split between the BLM and the GSA. We have done everything by the book as far as Tesoro is concerned. The big problem that you have with the BLM office in Los Cruces is that a lot of them are treasure hunters as well. Those that know the story of Tesoro also know that we have had a constant battle with the BLM office there in Los Cruces for about 15 years. We have been in court in two different states and have won on all counts. There is one thing to remember and that is if the Treasure is not there they will not fight you at all, after a few months they will allow you to dig. The BLM spent a lot of money running test on the Tesoro project only to verify that it is there.

Nick

 

[SnakeEater]

I put the spirit of the law ahead of the letter in all of life.

If you know that you are not in violation of the long list of do's and don'ts, dig at your own risk. Much like speeding on a highway where you are the only car in sight. If there is ANY ambiguity, this does not apply. I don't want to desecrate another's grave anymore than I want someone crackin' my dead bones with a spade shovel, etc.

If a portion of the cache involves some relics, rebury them in the same hole that you will be filling in anyway, leave a shovel in the ground over the spot, make sure your fingerprints aren't left behind, then notify the proper authorities with the GPS coordinates of the relics so that they can be put on display somewhere for all to enjoy.

relic

1. Something that has survived the passage of time, especially an object or custom whose original culture has disappeared.
2. Something cherished for its age or historic interest.
3. An object kept for its association with the past; a memento.
4. An object of religious veneration, especially a piece of the body or a personal item of a saint.
5. A corpse; remains.
6. Something not readily available for public viewing (personal addition - i.e. not US coinage).

Call me evil, but honest,

Glenn the Rogue

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Snake Eater:? where did you find my picture This is an embarrassingly accurate description snifff.


Don jose de La Mancha
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"relic

1. Something that has survived the passage of time, especially an object or custom whose original culture has disappeared.
2. Something cherished for its age or historic interest.
3. An object kept for its association with the past; a memento.
4. An object of religious veneration, especially a piece of the body or a personal item of a saint.
5. A corpse; remains.
6. Something not readily available for public viewing (personal addition - i.e. not US coinage).

 

[Saturna]

I think it would be interesting to reverse-engineer the question---

How many permits have been issued, and how long did it take to get them approved?

Also, what evidence was submitted?

The follow-up question to that would be how many times was an actual treasure found after a permit was issued?


Jay

 

[SnakeEater]

Snake Eater:? where did you find my picture This is an embarrassingly accurate description snifff.


Don jose de La Mancha
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"relic

1. Something that has survived the passage of time, especially an object or custom whose original culture has disappeared.
2. Something cherished for its age or historic interest.
3. An object kept for its association with the past; a memento.
4. An object of religious veneration, especially a piece of the body or a personal item of a saint.
5. A corpse; remains.
6. Something not readily available for public viewing (personal addition - i.e. not US coinage).

Let's hope all but #5, eh?

 

[Oroblanco]

Don Jose de la Mancha wrote:

Snake Eater:? where did you find my picture This is an embarrassingly accurate description snifff.


Don jose de La Mancha
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"relic

1. Something that has survived the passage of time, especially an object or custom whose original culture has disappeared.
2. Something cherished for its age or historic interest.
3. An object kept for its association with the past; a memento.
4. An object of religious veneration, especially a piece of the body or a personal item of a saint.
5. A corpse; remains.
6. Something not readily available for public viewing (personal addition - i.e. not US coinage).

Stop teasing Don Jose', we all know that SAINTS are famous for being well preserved, even long after passing! At the other end of the spectrum, well things are a wee bit different unfortunately.....

Oroblanco