US forest land

[Nugs Bunny]

I did not misunderstand your point. As I stated, you are incorrect. The management of Public Lands is by uniform published regulations (CFR) and the management of acquired lands is local to the parcel and the relevant management agency. The fact that this difference is not commonly known is the basis of much misunderstanding about land status (and the ability to metal detect any particular portion of "forest" land). You are not unique in your misunderstanding.

We could go back and forth on this forever. You won't recognize the actual laws as having authority and I know that the Forest Service publications you offer as "proof" don't change those laws. So be it.

I will present the facts when my project is finished and then you can discuss the facts with yourself and determine what you wish to believe. I can't change your beliefs, I can only give you the tools to make an honest determination of the facts. That will be done on my own time schedule and you, as well as the general public, can use those tools or not when I make them available - your choice.

Dude none of that matter when it comes to pitching a tent or swinging a detector. I don't care who you are, what you know or what project you're working on, the rules and regulations posted onsite and online are what's enforced.

"the Forest Service publications you offer as proof"

I would call them regulations and not publications, the links I posted are the official websites for the listed National Forests, as one can see there is not much difference in the permitted recreational activities. It proves what I have stated, there is no difference between East and West in regards to recreational activities.

"The management of Public Lands is by uniform published regulations (CFR) and the management of acquired lands is local to the parcel and the relevant management agency"

The National Forests are regulated by the USFS and the USDA, that's what's on the signs, that's what on the websites and that's what's in all the available information.

There is no super secret gestapo, the forests in the East are under the same authority as in the West... the USFS and the USDA. Each State has several districts that manage the forests in accordance with USDA and USFS policy. Some folks tend to call a system like that... government.

I do agree that policy and regulations vary from district to district and forest to forest slightly and that metal detecting is not permitted in ALL National Forests. That is why I advised to check the regulations specific to the location.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[Nugs Bunny]

Lands Nobody Wanted - Weeks Act - USFS History - Forest History Society

The Lands Nobody Wanted
The Weeks Act and the creation of the eastern national forests can trace its intellectual roots back more than a century before the act was signed into law in 1911. Concern about the impact of logging and clearing of land for agriculture initially emerged in the American Revolution era. In the 1830s, the Hudson River school of landscape painters and Transcendentalist writers began romanticizing the vanishing wilderness and lamenting its destruction; their words and images seeped into the American consciousness over the next half century and continue to influence our perceptions of nature to this day.

In 1864, Vermont native George Perkins Marsh published his highly influential book, Man and Nature: Or, Physical Geography as Modified by Human Action. The combination of history and science with personal observation at home and abroad found in Man and Nature provided the intellectual foundation for the forest preservation movement that soon followed. His study of ancient Mediterranean civilizations argued that the wanton destruction of forests had led to their downfall. He implied it would be the fate of America if government action was not taken to manage its vital watersheds. Though Marsh’s work inspired efforts to preserve what remained of American public lands and to protect eastern forests from further destruction, it would be a dozen years before those first steps were taken.
In 1876, Congress approved funding for a study on American forest conditions and the appointment of a federal forest agent to do the work. Franklin Hough compiled information on forest resources, the lumber industry, and relevant land laws into three reports. Hough recommended the withdrawal of public lands containing forests "from sale or grant" and the establishment of a permanent bureau to study and manage those forests. The Department of Agriculture responded by establishing the Division of Forestry in 1881 to continue studying forest conditions. A quarter-century later the division would become the U.S. Forest Service.

Hough called the destruction of young timber needed to supply future generations "the highest degree of folly" and expressed his fear that, given the rate at which timber was being cut, Americans would run out of wood within a few decades. Census bureau statistics fed the fear of a "timber famine." Between 1850 and 1900, lumber production rose from 5.4 billion board feet to 44.5 billion board feet. Hough and his successors Nathaniel Egleston and Bernhard Fernow worked with groups like the American Forestry Association, the Boone and Crockett Club, and the Appalachian Mountain Club, in pressing Congress to address the crisis.
The first step came with the Forest Reserve Act of 1891. The law gave the president the power to set aside public land as forest reserves to protect watersheds (in 1907 they would be renamed "national forests"). In the East, however, where little federal public land remained, watersheds remained unprotected. By the 1880s loggers had removed most of the valuable timber from New England and the Great Lakes region, and were buying forests in the Pacific Northwest and the South. Eastern farmers who had exhausted their lands and had moved west also left behind land prone to fire and erosion. The abandoned farms and badly cut-over forests became known, in the words of forest policy analysts William Shands and Robert Healy from their eponymous book, as "the lands nobody wanted."

Popular vacation spots in New Hampshire’s White Mountains and the Southern Appalachians happened to be near some of the areas affected by bad logging practices. Upset by what they saw, concerned citizens established regionally-focused organizations like the Appalachian National Park Association (founded 1899) in North Carolina and the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests (founded 1901). Both groups immediately started petitioning the federal government to buy land in both areas and protect it as a national park. In 1900, Congress gave $5,000 to Secretary of Agriculture James Wilson to "investigate the forest condition in the Southern Appalachian Mountain Region of western North Carolina and adjacent states."
Issued in 1901, Secretary Wilson’s report ran more than 180 pages. The U.S. Geological Survey provided the latest data on the geology, geography, and climate of the Southern Appalachian region and its river basins. The report emphasized the region’s economic importance to the entire nation. It included photos showing flood-damaged areas and burned-over lands to illustrate the damage done by indiscriminate logging and agricultural clearing. In his conclusion, the secretary did not mince words, declaring, "The regulation of the flow of these rivers can be accomplished only by the conservation of the forests. . .Federal action is obviously necessary."
Instead of creating a national park, though, he recommended the establishment of a national forest preserve. President William McKinley favored the measure and asked Congress to approve the proposal. On January 10, 1901, North Carolina Senator Jeter Pritchard introduced a bill authorizing $5 million for establishing the Southern Appalachian Forest Reserve. Ten more years, however, would go by before Congress would send a bill to the White House for signature.

Passing the Weeks Act

In the decade following Senator Pritchard’s 1901 bill, Congress rejected more than 40 bills calling for the establishment of eastern national forests. Senators and congressmen opposed these measures for a variety of reasons. Some western representatives (and conservation groups) who supported the national forests in principle resented possibly losing funding to their eastern counterparts. Many fiscal conservatives agreed with House Speaker Joe Cannon when he declared "not one cent for scenery."

Political conservatives noted that the federal government lacked the constitutional authority to purchase private land. Some wanted not only to block the legislation but dismantle the Forest Service entirely and open up the national forests for private development. Others felt that states should look after their own forests. Indeed, some states had already taken action to protect forests. Wisconsin had created a 50,000-acre forest reserve in 1878 to protect the headwaters of major rivers; Pennsylvania made a similar move in the 1890s. In 1885, the New York State legislature established the Adirondack Park from state holdings, declaring the area "forever wild" in its state constitution

Those who championed private property rights could point to what George Vanderbilt had been doing just outside of Asheville, North Carolina. During the 1890s, as interest in preserving and protecting the southern Appalachians was growing in Asheville, Vanderbilt had quietly purchased 100,000 acres of cut-over woodlands to add to his Biltmore Estate and ordered the estate forester, Carl Schenck, to begin planting trees to restore them. Though the Biltmore Forest would become known as the Cradle of Forestry, ultimately Vanderbilt couldn’t afford to operate both his forest and his mansion and would sell the forest.
After making little headway in Congress, the Appalachian National Park Association and the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests shifted tactics. To get around the issue of states’ rights, by 1901 the Appalachian National Park Association persuaded five southern states to pass legislation granting their consent to the purchase of land by the federal government. That same year, President William McKinley established the first national forest east of the Rocky Mountains in Oklahoma from land still in the public domain. In 1903, the group began campaigning for a national forest reserve instead of a national park and even changed their name to the Appalachian National Forest Reserve Association to reflect this emphasis.

The cause received a boost with the establishment of the U.S. Forest Service in 1905 and the placement of the forest reserves under professional management. President Theodore Roosevelt’s conservation crusade was in full swing, led in part by his Forest Service chief, Gifford Pinchot. Pinchot and other conservationists in the federal government were very concerned about improving and protecting rivers and waterways as well as forests. With Roosevelt’s approval, Pinchot organized several conferences and meetings to focus attention on the need to conserve natural resources.
In 1907, the American Forestry Association joined with local and regional groups and women’s garden clubs to bring national attention to eastern forests. The organization’s monthly magazine began featuring articles documenting the latest studies on flooding and forests and editorials tracing the legislative battles in Washington. Lumber manufacturing associations and magazines supported the forest movement, believing that government intervention was needed to stabilize the volatile lumber market.
Meanwhile, nature provided a case study of the important role forest cover plays in protecting watersheds. In March 1907, heavy rains brought flood waters racing down the Monongahela River in West Virginia and caused some $100 million dollars in damage. The waters surged into the city of Pittsburgh, drowning people, destroying homes, and leaving behind $8 million of damage. The flood hit the same month that congressional opponents of Roosevelt’s conservation agenda managed to overturn the Forest Reserve Act and place the power to create national forests in the hands of the legislative branch.
While conservation organizations worked the halls of Congress, the U.S. Geological Survey had permission from 9 states to determine what land should be purchased and declared national forests. In short order, those states officially granted consent for federal land purchases in the interest of creating public forest reserves. Now what was needed was a federal law authorizing the purchase of private land to protect watersheds.

Leadership on the issue came from a surprise source. Congressman John Weeks, a Republican from Massachusetts, was a former naval officer and a successful banker. Elected to the House in 1905, two years later Weeks was appointed to the House Committee on Agriculture by Speaker Cannon. At first Weeks didn’t understand why. Having few farmers in his district, he had little interest in the agricultural matters that came before Congress. He was concerned, though, about the damage logging had done to the White Mountains. It was near where he had grown up and where he now summered with his family. Speaker Cannon told him that "if you can frame a forestry bill which you, as a business man, are willing to support, I will do what I can to get an opportunity to get its consideration in the House." The man who had once declared "not one cent for scenery" had changed his mind; it was only a matter of time until the bill passed.
In 1908, Weeks introduced a bill proposing that the federal government purchase lands near the headwaters of navigable streams by using receipts from already established forest reserves. The bill went nowhere. The following July, Weeks amended the bill, adding that the purchased lands would be permanently maintained as federal forest reserves as a way to protect the headwaters of navigable waterways, a move that would pass constitutional review under the commerce clause. In December, Senator Jacob Gallinger of New Hampshire introduced an identical bill in the Senate. With Speaker Cannon’s approval (though he personally abstained from voting on the final version), the House passed the bill on June 24, 1910; after some delays, negotiations, and filibustering, the Senate did likewise on February 15, 1911. On March 1, 1911, President William Howard Taft signed the Weeks Act. With the stroke of his pen, the national forests had become truly national. And now the hard work of establishing national forests in the East and protecting and restoring watersheds could begin.

Protection and Restoration

The Weeks Act of 1911 authorized the federal government to purchase private lands for stream-flow protection and to maintain the acquired lands as national forests. Its passage made possible the creation of the eastern national forests. Section 2 of the law made provisions for fighting forest fires with the cooperation of the states. The Weeks Act set aside $200,000 in matching funds to be distributed to states with forest protection agencies. Those forestry agencies could then apply for up to $10,000 to be used for fire patrolmen salaries, provided the state would match the amount. Cooperation with the Forest Service’s State and Private Forestry branch on fire problems later evolved into efforts on insect control and forest diseases. The funding also encouraged several states to establish or expand state forests.

Though Section 2 would later prove to have been visionary, buying land and creating national forests was the act’s main purpose. The Forest Service recommended lands for purchase while the Geological Survey evaluated the acreage to be sure the reserved lands would maintain navigable waterways. The law authorized a National Forest Reservation Commission to consider and approve the land purchases. The commission was composed of the secretaries of War, the Interior, and Agriculture, and two members each from the House and Senate. (One of the first senators first appointed was Jacob Gallinger, who had sponsored the Senate’s version of the bill.)

Working on behalf of the commission, purchase agents would select an area, organize it into a purchase unit, and then submit the unit to the commission for approval. If approved, the land would be appraised and an offer issued. The government would only buy from a willing seller at a fair-market price. If purchase units were approved but not enough land could be purchased, the purchase unit would be "abandoned." Because not all the land in a purchase unit could be purchased for one reason or another, there is private land within a national forest boundary. In fact, about half the land on a typical eastern national forest is private land. Today the federal government purchases land in order to "block up" an area and create contiguous federal land, which makes it easier to manage.

In a few cases, like the Pisgah purchase unit, a single purchase unit was large enough to become a national forest. Usually, though, several purchase units were assembled into a national forest. For ease of administration, multiple national forests were sometimes later consolidated into one national forest. A good example of this was the Boone National Forest in North Carolina. Created from the Boone and Mt. Mitchell purchase units in January 1920, it was added to the Pisgah fourteen months later and ceased to exist as the Boone.

The commission held its first meeting on March 7, 1911. Twenty days later, Forest Service chief Henry Graves submitted recommendations for the "Purchase of Land under the Weeks Law in the Southern Appalachian and White Mountains," They totaled 13 areas in 9 eastern states, though only 11 of them were eventually purchased. (The Youghiogheny area in western Maryland and the Smoky Mountains in Tennessee and North Carolina were eventually "abandoned." The latter became a national park in 1939.) The first purchase made under the Weeks Act was in McDowell County, North Carolina, for 18,500 acres. The 10 tracts of land cost $100,000, or $5.41 an acre. The McDowell purchase was later incorporated into the Pisgah National Forest.

The Pisgah was the first national forest established in any eastern state from lands acquired under the Weeks Act. President Woodrow Wilson established it on October 17, 1916. Part of the Pisgah’s original lands included the forest that George Vanderbilt once owned. His widow, Edith Vanderbilt, sold 86,700 acres for $433,500, or $5 per acre, to the government to establish a national forest. To ensure her husband’s conservation legacy, she accepted $200,000 less than the government had offered.

What was the condition of the land being purchased in the East? According to the commission’s report in 1915, the condition of the 1.3 million acres approved for purchase by then was as follows: 51 percent were "culled and cut-over lands," with most of the valuable trees already cut; 28 percent were "virgin timberlands" (what is today often called "old growth"); 11 percent were reserved by the sellers for logging to be done, though cutting would be regulated by the government; 2 percent was abandoned farmland, some of which was reverting to forest; and 8 percent was considered "barren or covered by a nonmerchantable growth of timber," or timber in places that weren’t easily accessible to loggers. Those percentages would change over time; the percentage of abandoned farmland would skyrocket in the 1930s as farmers fled their worn-out agricultural lands.

During its first 21 years, the commission approved the purchase of 42 areas, totaling 4,727,680 acres. Purchasing land became easier after passage of the Clarke-McNary Act in 1924, which allowed the protection of entire watersheds. It also contained a provision "for the production of timber" as a reason for purchasing land. States used the increase in funding to further develop their own forests and parks. The funding also fostered closer cooperation between federal, state, and private landowners. The Woodruff-McNary Act of 1928 raised the annual appropriations to $8 million. These two laws made possible the purchase of national forest land in the rest of the country, eventually bringing hundreds of thousands of acres in the western United States into the National Forest System via the Weeks Act.

In the second half of the 1920s, purchases slowed and the commission focused on adding land to existing national forests rather than creating new forests. Land acquisition took off again in 1933 during President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. From 1933 to 1942, his administration purchased 14.1 million acres in 20 states, much of it exhausted farmland scattered from Texas to Wisconsin, for rehabilitation and restoration. Through programs like the Civilian Conservation Corps, Penny Pines, and the Dixie Crusaders, billions of trees were planted and the number of forest fires reduced on the eastern forests. In addition, the Corps built campgrounds and other recreational facilities and constructed hiking trails, which encouraged visits to the eastern national forests and laid the foundation for the postwar recreation "boom."

Land purchases slowed down during World War II but resumed afterward. Over the next several decades, the amount of land purchased waxed and waned, peaking in 1947 at 371,671 acres approved for purchase, dipping to under 6,000 in 1960 and then rising in 1966 to nearly 169,000 acres. From 1966 to 1970, more than 600,000 acres were approved for purchase. Additional funding came from the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, which went towards purchasing land “primarily of value for outdoor recreation purposes,” but done under authority of the Weeks Act. In 1976, the responsibilities the National Forest Reservation Commission were transferred to the secretary of Agriculture. In all, gross acreage totaled 20,782,632 acres approved for purchase, and cost $118,054,248, or $5.68 per acre.

Impact and Legacy

On January 12, 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower established the last two national forests created under the Weeks Act, the Uwharrie in North Carolina and the Delta in Mississippi. When the Forest Service celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Weeks Law later that year, more than 20 million acres of forest and watershed lands had been purchased or exchanged under the Weeks Act. The "lands nobody wanted" were now the core of national forests in the Southern and Eastern regions—with national forests having been established or expanded in 25 eastern states under the Weeks Act.

Like all national forests, the Weeks Act national forests are managed by the U.S. Forest Service as "working forests." They are perhaps best known to the general public for their diverse recreational offerings and striking beauty, as destinations for long family vacations or a just day trip. In fact, sixty percent of all Americans live within a day’s drive of an eastern national forest. Chief Dale Robertson highlighted those offerings at the 75th anniversary celebration: "Not only can people enjoy hiking along the Appalachian Trail on the White Mountain, George Washington, Jefferson, Pisgah, Cherokee, and Chattahoochee National Forests, but also enjoy canoeing the lakes and streams of the Superior National Forest in Minnesota, hunting in the loblolly pine and cypress flats of the Kisatchie National Forest in Louisiana, or camping and picnicking in any one of the 50 National Forests throughout the East."

A working forest, though, is more than just a vacation spot. A working forest means that the forest is being managed for many different uses and reasons. The Forest Service often works with nongovernment organizations, conservation and environmental groups, and private landowners to meet its varied and numerous management goals. The eastern national forests remain important sources of timber and nontimber forest products, including medicinal and floral plants like ginseng and galax. Coal, natural gas, and other mineral resources are also extracted from various national forests. The experimental forests and research stations established on these same national forests in the early part of the twentieth century continue to provide data to scientists doing research on everything from invasive species to climate change. The Forest Service is also carrying out restoration work like planting, thinning, or prescribed burns. And, of course, the national forests still provide watershed protection as originally intended.

 

[huntsman53]

I am not going to get into a back and forth argument concerning this issue but will state that Clay is right in what he states about Western National Forest Lands and the so-called Eastern National Forest Lands which were formed from Public and Private lands which were obtained under the Weeks Act or were not obtained under the Weeks Act but are under the supervision of the NFS and USDA and which the Federal Government has first dibs on purchasing if the owners ever decide to sell. In many of the Eastern National Forests, it was often left up to the discretion of the Supervising Ranger responsible for a particular NF Unit as to whether Metal Detecting was allowed or prohibited. However, in some of these Eastern National Forests, the NFS and USDA trumped that with some regulations noted at the links below. I am sure that there are many more National Forests here in the East with similar regulations but searching for these would take many, many hours to locate and post the links. In the bigger picture, much of the reasoning for the restrictions and/or prohibitions on the use of metal detectors in the National Forests in the East are due to the need to protect archaeological or historical resources (i.e. artifacts and remains from long habitations of Native American Indians & artifacts and remains from the Revolutionary War, War of 1812 and the Civil War) and also because most of these National Forests still contain Private land within their' boundaries.

Cherokee National Forest - Metal Detecting

Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest- Recreation


Frank

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Bunny-nugs & clay, thanx for all your good material. Good pro's & con's, history, etc....

huntsman53, re: what you say:

".... Eastern National Forests, it was often left up to the discretion of the Supervising Ranger responsible for a particular NF Unit as to whether Metal Detecting was allowed or prohibited ...."

And then you go on to cite a single one who has a prohibition. My comment is: Fine, then JUST those with such a prohibition, are "prohibited". Not others with no such prohibition. If a md'r finds no such prohibition like that: Presto, it's not prohibited.

Because remember: there need-not-be a specific ALLOWANCE to detect (eg.: signs or rules saying "metal detecting allowed here", or a local ranger to tell you "it's ok, I don't prohibit it"). In the absence of a prohibition (like the one in your link), then NFS is ok.

And How much you want to make a bet, that the single prohibition you found, is probably only d/t persons back then asking rangers "can I?". Then pretty soon, some pencil pusher thinks "we better clarify this, so let's see .... "....

 

[huntsman53]

Bunny-nugs & clay, thanx for all your good material. Good pro's & con's, history, etc....

huntsman53, re: what you say:

".... Eastern National Forests, it was often left up to the discretion of the Supervising Ranger responsible for a particular NF Unit as to whether Metal Detecting was allowed or prohibited ...."

And then you go on to cite a single one who has a prohibition. My comment is: Fine, then JUST those with such a prohibition, are "prohibited". Not others with no such prohibition. If a md'r finds no such prohibition like that: Presto, it's not prohibited.

Because remember: there need-not-be a specific ALLOWANCE to detect (eg.: signs or rules saying "metal detecting allowed here", or a local ranger to tell you "it's ok, I don't prohibit it"). In the absence of a prohibition (like the one in your link), then NFS is ok.

And How much you want to make a bet, that the single prohibition you found, is probably only d/t persons back then asking rangers "can I?". Then pretty soon, some pencil pusher thinks "we better clarify this, so let's see .... "....

Tom,

Just because a prohibition to the use of metal detectors is not found in a declaration from the NFS and USDA or is not found on a specific National Forest's website, does not mean that metal detecting is allowed on that National Forest's lands. As I stated, "In many of the Eastern National Forests, it was often left up to the discretion of the Supervising Ranger responsible for a particular NF Unit as to whether Metal Detecting was allowed or prohibited." and where references to prohibitions are not always found on NFS/USDA websites, this discretionary allowance is likely still in effect. These can and often will only be posted notifications of "Alerts and Notices" in letter form, issued by the Supervising Ranger for individual NF Units and only on display or available at the Supervising Ranger Station for that NF Unit and not available online.

A person might decide to metal detect in a NF here in the East to test as to whether they will get in trouble if caught. If metal detecting is prohibited whether by NFS/USDA declaration or by a Supervising Ranger, on the first occasion of getting caught and stating that you did not know that metal detecting was prohibited, you may only receive a warning. However, on the second or third occasion, the MD'er may be ticketed and will likely forfeit their' equipment and be fined as well. Persistent offenders have and can be banned by the Courts from stepping foot in National Forests for a specific time period or forever.


Frank

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... and where references to prohibitions are not always found on NFS/USDA websites, this discretionary allowance is likely still in effect. ...

Sure. I agree. The same logic could be said of ANY city our county park, NO MATTER HOW INNOCUOUS. In other words a city cop or gardener could come up and say "I think you'll harm the earthworms", etc.... Thus, yes, they "have the discretion". But no, this "discretion" does not mean that their "express allowance" is needed. Because your next sentence is very revealing to that:

.... These can and often will only be posted notifications of "Alerts and Notices" in letter form, issued by the Supervising Ranger for individual NF Units and only on display or available at the Supervising Ranger Station for that NF Unit and not available online....

Ok, fine. If someone is worried that "there might be a rule", and they're worried that the rule "might not be on the web-site", then as your own text says: it will be on an "alerts and notices" issued at the ranger station/park in question. Thus Presto: you or I walk into said ranger station and say:

"Hello. I'd like to see any "alert and notices" pertaining to rules of use in this park, that are in addition to normal NFS rules available for public viewing elsewhere."

They show you the list (in binder form, or perhaps, as you say, pinned to a bulliten board, etc...). If there isn't a rule saying "no md'ing", then by logical definition, they have not "used their discretion" to forbid it.

So there is STILL no reason to think you need to ask "can I metal detect?".

 

[Clay Diggins]

The regulations in Weeks Law forests are different for each land parcel sold to the Purchase Unit. Those regulations are negotiated and are included in the original purchase contract. The original owners still own most of the rights to that land - the U.S. rarely buys all the rights.

In almost all cases the subsurface estate rights are still owned by the original owner of the parcel. The subsurface estate consists of anything of value found in the ground.

Since you are looking for valuable things in the ground the Forest Supervisor can't let you metal detect or dig. The Forest Supervisor and the United States government are legally bound by the purchase contract they signed with the owner. They can't let you have something they don't own.

On the few parcels that the government did buy the subsurface estate the Forest Supervisor could let you metal detect. This rarely happens because most of these parcels are small and unmarked. Since the Weeks Law Forests are not subject to the requirement that regulations be uniform the Forest Supervisor usually will find it easier to just say no to metal detecting. To do otherwise would be a management nightmare and open the government to a law suit by the owner.

Once again:
By law regulations must the same on every Organic public land Forest (Western) but the Weeks Law Purchase Unit Forests (Eastern) regulations are by parcel and regulations can change every few hundred feet.

 

[Nugs Bunny]

I am not going to get into a back and forth argument concerning this issue but will state that Clay is right in what he states about Western National Forest Lands and so-called Eastern National Forest Lands which were formed from Public and Private lands which were obtained under the Weeks Act or were not obtained under the Weeks Act but are under the supervision of the NFS and USDA and which the Federal Government has first dibs on purchasing is the owners ever decide to sell. In many of the Eastern National Forests, it was often left up to the discretion of the Supervising Ranger responsible for a particular NF Unit as to whether Metal Detecting was allowed or prohibited. However, in some of these Eastern National Forests, the NFS and USDA trumped that with some regulations noted at the links below. I am sure that there are many more National Forests here in the East with similar regulations but searching for these would take many, many hours to locate and post the links. In the bigger picture, much of the reasoning for the restrictions and/or prohibitions on the use of metal detectors in the National Forests in the East are due to the need to protect archaeological or historical resources (i.e. artifacts and remains from long habitations of Native American Indians & artifacts and remains from the Revolutionary War, War of 1812 and the Civil War) and also because most of these National Forests still contain Private land within their' boundaries.

Cherokee National Forest - Metal Detecting

Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest- Recreation


Frank

Clay has missed the point and I think you have also... The rules and regulations posted onsite and online are what's in effect. It doesn't matter if it's the first forest or the last, it doesn't matter which agency governs, it doesn't matter what the history is.

It comes down to what is prohibited and what is permitted, when it comes to camping, hiking, biking, etc... there is no difference between an Eastern forest or Western one

So called Eastern Forests?

Like all national forests, the Weeks Act national forests are managed by the U.S. Forest Service as "working forests." A working forest, though, is more than just a vacation spot. A working forest means that the forest is being managed for many different uses and reasons. The Forest Service often works with nongovernment organizations, conservation and environmental groups, and private landowners to meet its varied and numerous management goals. The eastern national forests remain important sources of timber and nontimber forest products, including medicinal and floral plants like ginseng and galax. Coal, natural gas, and other mineral resources are also extracted from various national forests.

 

[Nugs Bunny]

Tom,

Just because a prohibition to the use of metal detectors is not found in a declaration from the NFS and USDA or is not found on a specific National Forest's website, does not mean that metal detecting is allowed on that National Forest's lands. As I stated, "In many of the Eastern National Forests, it was often left up to the discretion of the Supervising Ranger responsible for a particular NF Unit as to whether Metal Detecting was allowed or prohibited." and where references to prohibitions are not always found on NFS/USDA websites, this discretionary allowance is likely still in effect. These can and often will only be posted notifications of "Alerts and Notices" in letter form, issued by the Supervising Ranger for individual NF Units and only on display or available at the Supervising Ranger Station for that NF Unit and not available online.

A person might decide to metal detect in a NF here in the East to test as to whether they will get in trouble if caught. If metal detecting is prohibited whether by NFS/USDA declaration or by a Supervising Ranger, on the first occasion of getting caught and stating that you did not know that metal detecting was prohibited, you may only receive a warning. However, on the second or third occasion, the MD'er may be ticketed and will likely forfeit their' equipment and be fined as well. Persistent offenders have and can be banned by the Courts from stepping foot in National Forests for a specific time period or forever.


Frank

Actually if there is no prohibition then it is allowed.

"It is Forest Service policy that the recreational use of metal detectors and the collection of rocks and mineral samples are allowed on the National Forests. Generally, most of the National Forests are open to recreational mineral and rock collecting, gold panning and prospecting using a metal detector. This low impact, casual activity usually does not require any authorization." ~ Mike Doran, USFS Sustainable Development Issues Team, May 27, 2009

A lone ranger(no pun intended) cannot allow or disallow detecting. Even if detecting is expressly prohibited, it's still permitted as a means of prospecting if the land is open to mineral entry.

It's USFS policy that all regulations and prohibitions be posted onsite, you may not find them online but they will be posted onsite.

Mark Twain National Forest prohibits digging and alteration at any level, they have expressly prohibited digging, but detecting is allowed and collection from the surface is permitted. Go to the next one and it may be prohibited from a specific area or altogether, or there could be no restrictions or prohibitions.

There are several reasons they prohibit detecting, active mining leases, protection of plants and wildlife, protection of historical artifacts, etc...

Private Property within a National Forest in the East is generally posted, here in Ohio they warn people to stay off PP as our forests are dotted with privately owned land.

Private Property leased by the State is no different than public property when it comes to use by the public... most Post Offices are privately owned and leased to the Gov.

I run a website, I do a lot of research, I'm also an outdoorsman and have been in forests all over the East. Practical application beats theorizing hands down.

The forests in the East came about in several different ways, some were existing wildlife sanctuaries, some were State created reserves some were lands nobody wanted and some were purchased.

But the bottom line is... the Weeks Act has nothing to do with metal detecting... the posted regulations do.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Hunting of National Forest in Florida are not allowed...

It seems is always the same few members arguing the same argument over and over in the permission threads...

 

[huntsman53]

All that I will say and I will say no more on this subject or Thread is: If you feel you are correct in what you wrote, then please feel free to test what you believe and see what happens. Long before ATV's were prohibited here in the Eastern National Forest by NFS/USDA regulations, they were prohibited by notifications posted at individual Ranger Stations, District Offices and even in specific locations within many of the National Forests here. Well, hundreds if not thousands of ATV's were confiscated from and forfeited by their' owners because they did not heed the notifications.

I am also an avid outdoorsman and I Gold prospect and also hunt Deer, Turkey and Wild Boar in the North and South sections of the Cherokee National Forest here. I never theorize when it comes to the possible loss of my' Gold prospecting or hunting equipment!


Frank

 

[Clay Diggins]

Clay has missed the point and I think you have also... The rules and regulations posted onsite and online are what's in effect.

Nonsense.

Regulations are made by first publishing in the Federal Register, allowing a public comment period and then publishing a final rule with responses to the public comments - once again in the Federal Register. That's the law on how a regulation is made.

Regulations are published in the Code of Federal Regulations not on Forest Service or Greenie websites. Whats published online and onsite has the same legal effect as the other piffle and advertising found on Facebook or your favorite porn site - none.

Learn the form and function of our government before you make inaccurate comments like the one above.

Read the law. From the Weeks Act:

Such rights of way, easements, and reservations
retained by the owner from whom the United
States receives title, shall be subject to the rules
and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of
Agriculture for their occupation, use, operation,
protection, and administration, and such rules
and regulations shall be expressed in and made
part of the written instrument conveying title to
the lands to the United States; and the use,
occupation, and operation of such rights of way,
easements, and reservations shall be under,
subject to, and in obedience with the rules and
regulations so expressed.

The part in bold was also put in bold by the Third Circuit Court in September of 2013 when they, like the 4th Circuit and the 9th Circuit before them, instructed the Forest Service that their ideas about regulation were full of nonsense and unsupported by any law.

After quoting the Weeks Act to show the Forest Service that Weeks Act Purchase Units are not subject to the same regulations as the Organic western Forests they explain further, just so there won't be any misunderstanding:

The better reading of the Weeks Act is that it
“require that any rules or regulations that the Secretary
wishes to apply to easements reserved by the grantor must be
‘expressed in and made part of the instrument of
conveyance.

The Forest Service’s construction of the Weeks Act and the
Organic Act as conferring regulatory authority over
outstanding rights is not entitled to deference.

That decision was supported by the Supreme Court and has since been marked as precedent and consequently the law of the land. Neither you or the Forest Service have any excuse for believing otherwise. The regulation of Weeks Act Purchase Unit "forests" is not the same as the Organic Public Land Forests.

 

[Nugs Bunny]

All that I will say and I will say no more on this subject or Thread is: If you feel you are correct in what you wrote, then please feel free to test what you believe and see what happens. Long before ATV's were prohibited here in the Eastern National Forest by NFS/USDA regulations, they were prohibited by notifications posted at individual Ranger Stations, District Offices and even in specific locations within many of the National Forests here. Well, hundreds if not thousands of ATV's were confiscated from and forfeited by their' owners because they did not heed the notifications.

Test what theory? The theory that the regulations posted onsite and online are accurate? I guess I will just keep being the fool that believes what is written at the Ranger Station.

How did you determine ATV's were prohibited? Because they are permitted here, OH and WV are very ATV friendly. Sorry but I need more than your word for it, please provide the NFS/USDA regulation prohibiting ATV's from all Eastern Forests.

This is one of many National Forests in the East that permit ATV use, Wayne National Forest, Nelsonville Ohio.

Wayne National Forest - OHV Riding & Camping



The Wayne is known for its premier Off-Highway Vehicle trail systems. Although the Forest does not have any specific campgrounds associated with the trail systems, camping is allowed at trailheads. For information on the rules and recommendations for riding Wayne National Forest OHV trail systems click here. Learn more about our trails in the Ride the Wayne brochure. or from this video themed “Don’t Ruin the Ride” aimed at off-highway vehicle riders who use public lands for riding on designated trails. As the largest off-highway vehicle trail system in Ohio, land managers on the Wayne National Forest are optimistic the video will encourage riders to ride responsibly, while being mindful of natural resources. The video was produced in partnership with the U.S. Forest Service’s Wayne National Forest and the American Motorcyclist Association/All-Terrain Vehicle Association to promote safe and legal use.

[video=youtube;OjcXivy3b8c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OjcXivy3b8c[/video]

List of current OHV Rules and Regulations. The Wayne National Forest has the following restriction and requirements for OHV use. Please direct specific questions to the District Ranger's office or see the order by clicking here.

1. Possession of an alchoholic beverage is prohibited within 100 feet of the centerline of the designated OHV trails, Company Road (FR 1985), Coe Road (FR 1980), FR 3602, Hanging Rock Road (FR 105), and Hanging Rock Spur Roads (FR 105-A, B, and C), as defined on the closure order map(s).
2. All OHV riders must wear eye protection and an approved D.O.T. helmet.

Fee Waiver

Trail use fees are waived in 2015 on National Get Outdoors Day on Saturday, June 13th; National Public Lands Day on Saturday September 26, and Veterans Day weekend November 7-8.

 

[Nugs Bunny]

Nonsense and BS. If you had any interest in learning the truth of the matter you would read the Weeks Act instead of cutting and pasting from greenie websites.

I stopped reading where the above quote ends...

The "greenie" sites were actually just one website... The USDA Forest Service.

The history they provided is accurate, and so are the regulations. I copied and pasted the information from the Government Agency that governs ALL US National Forests.

I don't care what you have to prove, to me there is only one thing of concern... The POSTED regulations... Whether I read them online, onsite or both, the best source is from the source.

The Ranger enforces those regulations... not the opinion of ANYBODY here including myself, they will interpret them and determine if one is in violation... end of story.

Crawl all the websites you want to uncover some super secret mystery that has eluded us all but you, I will be out detecting...

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Gentlemen, stop sniping at each other....

 

[Clay Diggins]

The history they provided is accurate, and so are the regulations. I copied and pasted the information from the Government Agency that governs ALL US National Forests.

From your link: http://www.foresthistory.org/ASPNET/Policy/WeeksAct/LandsNobody.aspx

The Forest History Society (FHS) is a 501(c)3 nonprofit educational institution located in Durham, North Carolina, that links the past to the future by identifying, collecting, preserving, interpreting, and disseminating information on the history of interactions between people, forests, and their related resources -- timber, water, soil, forage, fish and wildlife, recreation, and scenic or spiritual values. Through programs in research, publication, and education, the Society promotes and rewards scholarship in the fields of forest, conservation, and environmental history while reminding all of us about our important forest heritage.

Definitely not the USDA or the Forest Service "that governs ALL US National Forests". A private non profit organization.

I don't have anything against greenies except the fact that they often present false or misleading information. The Forest History Society is not bad but they certainly have an agenda. They clearly state that above.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Gentlemen, stop sniping at each other....

Hey TH'r, you gotta admit one thing here: Clay, huntsman, and nugs-bunny are bringing out deeeep intricate un-ravelling on this location. Unlike other "permission" threads, where it's admittedly the same concept-points tried out for size over and over again. THIS discussion is all new. Going very deep into a particulars of nuances, never-before discussed at this depth. Material I don't ever recall be brought out.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

Hunting of National Forest in Florida are not allowed.......

Perhaps so. If so, can that info be found at a source that an md'r can avail himself of it ? Like in the same way that Huntsman53 did in post # 23. That gives 2 examples where restrictions at specific NFS locations are spelled out. Is that the case for what you speak of in Florida? Or perhaps a memo on their kiosk bulliten board ?

PS: And a closer look at huntsman's 2 links, I see that they actually don't forbid it border to border. It actually allowed various places there (certain beaches, etc...)

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.....In almost all cases the subsurface estate rights are still owned by the original owner of the parcel. The subsurface estate consists of anything of value found in the ground. ....

Since you are looking for valuable things in the ground the Forest Supervisor can't let you metal detect or dig. The Forest Supervisor and the United States government are legally bound by the purchase contract they signed with the owner. They can't let you have something they don't own....

Hold on: Isn't what you are saying here, essentially true of EVERY speck of public land, across the entire USA ? Eg.: all city, county, state, and federal lands parks of any sort ?

For example: If I walk into city hall park's dept. office in my own city and ask: "Hi. Can I take various park features home for my own personal pleasure & profit ? " What do you think they will say? Of COURSE they will say that I can not "remove", (or "harvest" or "collect" or "take" etc....)

So while I sympathize with what you're saying and quoting it can be a slippery slope if we start to think those things automatically precluded md'ing. Because in one fell swoop, we would be begin to preclude all public land, everywhere.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...... On the few parcels that the government did buy the subsurface estate the Forest Supervisor could let you metal detect. ..... ....

...... Since the Weeks Law Forests are not subject to the requirement that regulations be uniform the Forest Supervisor usually will find it easier to just say no to metal detecting. To do otherwise would be a management nightmare and open the government to a law suit by the owner....

"Let you" ? You mean as in.... if they fail to give an express allowance, (and it's merely silent on the subject), that's it's therefore forbidden without that express allowance ?

And I love how you acknowledge that the process of "letting" you or I detect is a bit.... uh ... arbitrary & whimsical. Therefore FAR from being cut & dried, it's often left up to on-the-spot mood-driven whim. No thanks, I'll read the rules for myself