Tom_in_CA

Gary, I'm willing to bet that every single one of the seemingly burdensome hurdles you list, was ONLY a function of past md'rs who went and swatted hornet's nests. And I'm willing to bet that if I went asking enough questions here in CA, that I too could likewise come up with all sorts of silly supposed restrictions as well. Well durned that Tom_in_CA (and the rest of us here) for "not asking enough questions". Doh !

Steve, we've been detecting about the same amount of time : Since our teenage years. I too started in the mid to late 1970s, as a pimple faced teenager. And since then, have become about AS BRAZEN as they come. Balls of steel and no scruples. And like yourself, have never had any legal consquences. Oh sure, some scrams or stink -eyes now and then. Ok, so what. As far as "permits" (for the very very rare times that any city has ever dreamed up such a thing) : Yes I know that sounds romantic and inviting. It conjurs up images of being able to detect nilly willy and deflect busy-bodies, eh ? Hence who could ever argue with "permits", eh ? But notice that any time any city ever dreamed up such a thing, they tend to be fraught with sillyness. Eg.: Digger tool shall not exceed 3" in length. Or "not within 10 ft. of any tree". Or "turn in all valuables to the city hall office". Or "yes but you can't dig". Or "on sandy beaches only". blah blah blah. And worse yet, you'll notice that some cities that ever dreamed up such a thing, simply revoke them, and disallow it entirely a few years or decades later . WHY ? Because the mere fact that it's a "permit", means it's just ONE MORE THING on their radar to monitor. Eg.: each year, when reviewing their list of administered functions, then sure as sh*t, one year, someone's gonna look at this and say "Gee, do we really want all these yahoos out there digging up the park ?". And then simply revoke it. Hence it's MUCH more preferable to be "silent on the subject" (not addressed either way). Ie.: the LESS they think of us, the better. Not the "more " they think of us.

ketchneddy, read what I posted to D-dancer about sites/links like this.

Mike, this brings up an interesting twist on the subject : The issue of "Commentary" vs "law". Let me explain : There's been a lot of those nifty compendiums , where someone from up-top tosses out: "with permission" , or "inquire at each kiosk you come to", etc.... Ie.: not unlike what you're saying here. And this pithy saying may in fact be coming from some authority in the given agency. Thus: Pretty hard to argue with that, eh ? BUT WAIT : Notice that it's not in the rules or laws. Ie.: there's not a codified chapter and verse you can turn to. So what it REALLY is, is nothing-more-than some sort of answer, that someone passed out in the past to an md'r who was asking "Can I?" type questions. Eg.: like on an FAQ or whatever. And I don't disagree that the powers-that-be can indeed say "scram" or "no". I mean, sure, they are given the discretion to decide that something you or I are doing isn't safe or whatever. So for example, they can ask you to turn down your boom box if the music is too loud. Ie.: they have latitude to interpret the grey-area verbiage to keep law and order. Therefore, if you ever asked them something like : "Can I throw rocks" or "Can I collect sticks", they can say "As long as the park ranger at that location says it's ok", or "with permission from the ranger on duty", etc.... And then every md'r, from then on out, thinks "I must get the personal thumbs up ". For example, this knee-jerk answer was very common in R.W. Doc Grim's book. Many of the states said "with permission" or "inquire at each park", etc.... Yet when you went to look up to see where this was written, IT WAS NO WHERE TO BE FOUND. All it was , was commentary, not law. And notice that the commentary DIDN'T EVEN EXIST till R.W. Doc (bless his little heart) sent in his inquiries. All it was/is , is a tacit admission that, sure, they have the say-so to administer as they see fit. But that DOESN'T mean you need their approval ahead of time (if not specifically forbidden). It only means they can tell you "stop", if someone thought it was harmful etc... So for example, I don't need to inquire ahead of time if it's ok to fly frisbees (might poke someone's eye out). But sure: They can approach me and say "stop flying frisbees " if they wanted. Anyhow, this is the difference between commentary and laws.

I have a feeling that there's not a single city in the entire USA, that if you were to walk into city hall and say : "Hello, can I take historically significant items from the park please ?" that you'd get a "Sure, go ahead" answer. So while I agree that there's certain cities and certain parts of the USA that are , yes, more historically significant, yet : There's not a single city anywhere that would answer "yes" to the above question. It would fall under prohibitions of "harvest and collect and remove" wording. Or cultural heritage wording. So to whatever extent what you are saying could be true for certain cities of higher-historic-significance, yet I'll bet that the only reason it ever came on the radar of pencil-pushing lawmakers, is we md'rs, of the past, who went in swatting hornet's nests. Or were doing something stupid like showing up at high traffic times during archie conventions, and waltzing over beach blankets with their detectors.

And this is the inherent ingredient that always occurs in these type news items : If ever a supposed law, or something negative legally about us is tossed out there for consumption, then it's just human nature to fear it. And human nature to "pass it on". And human nature to believe it ("lest you get arrested" blah blah) Here's an example of the psychology at work: Consider shark attacks. Very very rare. Perhaps only a single person got chomped in all of the USA in a given year. Yet thousands of people swim daily. Ok, you tell me: If 1000 people swam in a day, and none got chomped, then there'd be no headline. But if a SINGLE person got chomped on a SINGLE day of a year, then it makes the front page news. And then guess what you'll fear and warn others about, the next time you go to the beach ? And you'll subconsciously disregard the million to one odds that you're totally safe to swim. Actually, that's probably not even a good illustration. Since in the case of the TN archie, he wasn't even correct in the first place (ie.: there was no shark attack to fit this analogy ). But I'm just trying to point out how people subconsciously latch on to bad news, and remember only that. And do nothing to see if it's true, lest they be "throwing caution to the wind" and "better safe than sorry", blah blah. So we tend to never question this stuff.

And I have a sneaking suspicion of how those came-to-be . Care to take a guess ? And no, it wasn't "because someone must've left holes".

You are not mistaken. But this is a mistake that is made over and over and over again, especially by newbies. They pick up on a list like that, or the FMDAC list, etc.... And find something dire about their state's park. And make the mistaken jump to think that means "all parks in their state". IT DOESN'T. It only means state parks, not other entity parks. Also, I have my doubts about some of the info spelled out about state parks too. On some of them, that appear to be a "no", if you delve deeper , you see no such *specific* rule that truly says such a thing. Instead it might point to cultural heritage, for example. Ok fine, you're only looking for new coins and/or the ring your wife lost last week. RIGHT ? Or nuggets or meteors, etc... Or it might point to harvest/collect or alter/deface. Which tells you what ? That someone went swatting hornet's nests years ago and got this 'pressing answer'. In CA, for example, some of the listings I've read do sound dire. Yet , for example, you can hunt state beaches here (which are administered by the EXACT SAME STATE PARK'S Dept.) till you're blue in the face. Moral of the story ? : We leave "good enough alone". And I hope to h*ll that no one ever goes "seeking clarification".

my opinion of compendiums such as that, was spelled out in my reply to D-dancer. Sometimes you can take them with a grain of salt, and must read between the lines. A little knowledge about how they were assembled in the first place, sheds light on how worried you need to be about some of that info.

I've only hunted the east coast states a single time. But I have a couple of friends here, who annually fly into the east coast, and get a rental car. And then proceed to randomly drive around scores of east coast colonial age cities. Eg. Rhode Island, NY, Vermont, MA, CT, MH, etc..... And hit any and all old parks and courthouse lawns , in all the small towns that they come to. And unless there's a glaring sign that said "no md'ing", they do not hesitate to hit any and all parks they come to. Oh sure, they have the 'presence of mind' not to go at high traffic times, begging for attention. But in all their years of doing this, can recall only a time or two being told "scram" (yeah yeah, that can happen anywhere). So based on their accounts, I don't think it's any more difficult to hunt east coast parks as it is to hunt west coast parks. If I'm wrong, and it's more clamped down there, then I have a sneaking suspicion of how that came to be. Care to take a guess ?

GB-amateur, I got news for you : ALL parks disallow "digging". It might use the word "dig." Or might use alter and deface. Or destroy or mutilate, etc... Yet guess what ? : MD'ing, as you know, is common place in parks all across the USA. Do you think all those md'rs are lawless miscreants ? So my suspicion of how any such "yes but you can't dig" type rule came to be, was someone in the past that went swatting hornet's nests with "Can I ?" questions. As for the Tennessee thing: That has long since been debunked. But , as shown by your repeating it, just goes to show how bad news never dies, but good news never gets off the ground. Here's what happened , and how it spread, and how it was debunked years ago : a) Some purist university archie in Tennessee (who hates md'rs) was interviewed or wrote an article or something, and claimed that md'ing was illegal in all of Tennessee b) Some sincere well-meaning skittish md'rs , from Tennessee, picked up on that news piece, & got all up in arms worried about this. And went to 1) spread the news on a lot of md'ing forums, to likewise get all sorts of other TN md'rs panties in wads as well. And 2) who all went "seeking clarifications" (after all, you "don't want to get arrested, eh ?). And 3) forming solidarities to fight this, blah blah. Which made this info spread like wild-fire. The more people chimed in, then the more people saw it, then the more forums it showed up on , etc... c) BUT GUESS WHAT ? That originating kernel of supposed info. was flawed IN THE FIRST PLACE. Here's why : That purist archie, had made his comment based on ARPA. And tennets of the trinomial archie system (eg.: historic monuments that get an archie # assigned to them) . He just assumed that since ARPA is federal, that it therefore subrogates down to lower level states, counties, and cities. BUT THIS ISN'T TRUE. And same for the trinomial archie # system of locations: THAT ONLY APPLIES TO JUST THOSE SPOTS. Not the "entire state". In other words, the "entire state of TN" is not an "archaeological spot", as this guy would have you believe. I mean, go figure, he's a purist archie. So OF COURSE they couch anything they say in the most dire terms. So the guy was plain wrong. But here's the rub: Guess what happens when enough md'rs "get their panties in a wad" and worry and seek clarification on this ? Then sure as heck, this "pressing question" keeps appearing on bureaucrat's desks to answer. And then guess what ? See the vicious self-fulfilling circle ? It's as if we md'rs can be our own worst enemies 😞

D-Dancer, Re.: your link and post : There is a lot of info. to un-pack and clarify. For starters, me thinks you're confusing county level info, to mean "all land within a county". Or state info to mean "all land within the state", etc..... But it doesn't work like that. Instead, an answer coming from the county would only apply to county land (like county parks). And have nothing to do with state, fed, or city lands. And same for something that the state says. That would only apply to state parks, and not other governmental entity forms of land. Also, those nifty compendium sites, like in your link, have a BIG "devil in the details". Any time anyone has ever tried to make a one-stop-shopping compendium like that, they are always fraught with "gotchas". In a few cases, sure, they might point you to a specific rule. Ok. But if you read closely, a lot of the supposed "no's" you read, are merely someone's having asked "can I ?" in the past. They get told "no", and then it makes its way onto these nifty lists. Yet is no where codified as such. This psychology/phenomenon was made very clear when an author "R.W. Doc Grim" wrote a book in the mid 1980s (before the internet) called "Treasure Laws of the United States". He attempted to make a compendium book, where all the states would be listed in alphabetic order, where users could simply turn to any given state, and see what the laws were for their state parks (hence it didn't deal with county or city level parks). And guess how the author went about getting his info to put in his book ? SIMPLE: He xeroxed off 50 copies of a letter , sent it to each state capital heads of parks dept, asking : "What are the rules regarding the use of metal detectors in your state parks ?". And letting them know he was writing a book. Then he merely sat back and waited for 50 replies to fill his mail box. Genius idea, right ? I mean, who better to ask, than the top-dog of each state park's parks after all, eh ? And when he got all his reply letters back, he printed them in his book, with their actual letterhead shown, etc.... So that if you were ever accosted by a busy-body, you could just show them right out of the book that it's ok , blah blah . And conversely, if the answer was "no", then you'd save yourself embarrassment, right ? Genius idea, right ? But a strange thing happened : A lot of the states sent back confusing replies. Eg.: "No because of cultural heritage issues" (even though nothing specifically said 'no md'ing' ). Or No because of alter and deface verbiage. Or no because of disturbing the wild-life. Or no because of rules that forbid harvest and collect. Blah blah. And oddly, a lot of these answers were coming from states that, quite frankly, had never been an issue before. So you had old-timers sitting around scratching their heads saying "since when ?" See how that works ? It's the old "No one cared till you asked" routine. And trust me: The same phenomenon can be the originating kernals of info found on those nifty links, like the one you give. So sometimes you need to take them with a grain of salt, or read between the lines.

Couple of things to say to this 2-valen : Is that an actual law/rule on the books (that truly says "no md'ing" ?). Or was this a "no" answer you fetched when asking someone "Can I ? If it IS true that there is laws/rules on the books, for their parks , that actually says "no md'ing", then I have a sneaking suspicion of how those came to be. Care to take a guess ? In a lot of those cases, if/when you are able to trace back to origins, guess what the usual originating kernel is ? Yup, you guessed it: Someone going in and asking "Can I?" questions. Thus someone in-power must "invent a rule to address the pressing issue." In the entire state of CA, I can't think of a single city that has any specific rules. And can think of only 3 or 4 (in the entire state) that ever dreamed up a "permit". And even in those locations, you NEVER get "carded".

Do not confuse state-level laws, with anything to do with county or city level laws. State rules would only apply to state parks. Not other entity level's parks. And it is extremely rare for any cities to have ever dreamed up a "no md'ing " law. Personally, when I'm traveling around, and pull into a new city, I do not hesitate to hit any park I come to. As long as it's not an obvious historic monument, or unless there is a sign saying "no md'ing ".

I would digress from this view. It may in fact "hurt" to go asking-when-not-necessary. If it were true , that there is "restrictions" (eg.: a law or rule that said "no md'ing"), then you would be able to look that up for yourself, if you are skittish. Ie.: park rules and muni-codes are no secret in this digital age that we live in. If you see nothing that says : "No md'ing", then presto: It's not prohibited. The problem with going and asking desk-jockeys is: You run the risk of bumping into the "No one cared UNTIL you asked" psychology . Eg.: Someone envisions geeks with shovels, so they just give you the "safe" answer. I've seen this happen countless times at places that, quite frankly, had never been a problem prior to that. And to be honest with you, it's actually very rare , on the city and county levels, to ever have a true "no md'ing" rule. Instead what you might get the stink-eye for is that md'ing has ... uh .... "connotations". That you might be about to alter or deface the turf. Fine : Go at lower traffic times and avoid such kill-joy lookie-lous. We're simply not going to please every last person on earth, and we don't need princely sanctions red-carpets rolled out for us.

you are on the right side of the USA : The western states. Study the "southern emigrant trail (aka Gila trail) that came through AZ. Find the stop spots where they would have tended to "rally the wagons" and bedded down for the night. Eg.: water holes, etc.... Then isolate that that have no modern influence (eg.: a town or modern ranch houses didn't sprout up on the spot, etc.... ) These would be spots where those persons who had packed up their life to head west, might have been packing some gold coins with them. For that matter, simply stage stops. Also military camp locations that cover mid 1850s years of usage.

Ahem ahem, yes I've found many more than him, haha. (can you please repeat that for cal cobra ?) 🤣 No I've never found 2 in a day. But I did find 2 in one week once. And yes, one of my 16 is as rare as his 1865 s $5 gold : My 1862 s $10 gold . In both cases, there's "less than 100 known", or something like that. It's a crap shoot as to whose is more numismatically valuable. Depends on grading. But as I recall, the values were in the same ball park.

You are now officially a studmuffin. Congrats on the holy-grail hole-in-one of md'ing. Will you autograph my metal detector please ?

Nah, I'm too stubborn. Besides, if I made the switch, then Brian ("cal cobra") wouldn't have anything to rib me about. And then he'd be saying "I told you so". I can't let him do that. Haha But seriously now : I hunted recently a few times , at an iron-ridden gold rush site here in the sierra foothills of CA. They had Nox 800s, and I was using the Exp. II "tank". Their target counts were higher. So on a few occasions, I had them flag signals , of iffies, so I could compare. And I HAD to admit that on some of them, I would not have heard them or dug them. And they would turn out, sometimes, to be deep camp lead, or some little doohickey that I *SHOULD* have heard. Other times it would be iron that fooled them . But, that was to be expected, since we were all "grasping for straws" and chasing any hints. Thus yes, for a ghost-townsy iron-ridden spot, the Nox is superior to the exp. II. It's never been a secret (long been admitted) that there are better machines for iron-see-through. That's why I've always packed a Silver Sabre or Bandido for when I encounter such locations. But I'm still of the opinion that for other venues, the Exp. II would win various duels, for various types hunting and locations.

good play-by-play and pix !

I have heard of several CA private mint coins being found . But I don't recall any fractionals off the top of my head.

great post !

Cool story Bashin. Thanx for sharing. If it turns out to put a bad guy behind bars, or has some info. on it to solve a crime, then : Good on you for your part !

Bingo, I was having nightmares even reading about using these various PI's for relic sites. When I was the Virginia relic shootout at Dec. 2018, I saw several guys with high powered machines like the 4500. And granted, they can cut "any soil". And granted, they can get a coin to nearly 2 ft. deep, blah blah. But let me tell ya something: We didn't see those guys ANYWHERE near the sites where structures had been. Ie.: there were a half dozen sites where old homes had been, that are nothing now but a giant swath of iron, with crockery and glass bits all over, etc..... Those hunters with standard machines, which had disc., were able to pull some keepers from these areas (coins, buttons, etc.....). But the pulse nugget machine guys were no where to be found. So sometimes you have to be "careful what you wish for". The devil can be in the details.

Congratz on the semi-key date barber dime. Looks like that after some spit and tin-foil, that could turn out to be worth some $$