Detecting Coins & Relics On Mining Claims

[Steve Herschbach]

Common sense folks. If you are going to metal detect on somebody elses mining claim having permission from the claim owner only makes sense. Explaining in advance your intent and getting agreement that all parties are clear on what is going on can help prevent conflict from occurring.

If on public land open to mineral entry you are working under the mining laws and metal detecting for gold is specifically allowed as an activity under current regulations. Mineral entry means land open for claim staking. If the land is closed to mineral entry you are not covered under the mining laws.

Rest assured that land managers have broad discretion under the law to protect archaeological resources on public lands. What constitutes an archaeological resource is also open to broad interpretation. The 1906 Antiquities Act has long since been bolstered by newer laws like ARPA (Archaeological Resources Protection Act) and others.

100 years is an old guideline. Many states are now using 50 year. Do a Google on "archaeological resource 50 years"

In general coins have been regarded as exempt because they are legal tender, but arguments can be made about coins "found in context" and their importance for dating a site. The problem as has been pointed out is that while you may ultimately be legally correct the costs involved with even a wrongful run in with the law in these matters can be extreme. Relic hunting is the one type of metal detecting I do not participate in on public land. By definition if it is old enough for it to be of interest it is probably illegal to remove it from public land. Even on private property you need express written permission from the property owner. http://openjurist.org/999/f2d/1112/united-states-v-j-gerber

[Clay Diggins]

Your assumption about "What constitutes an archaeological resource is also open to broad interpretation" is incorrect Steve. The Antiquities Act clearly states that only "uniform regulation" can be relied on as a standard for interpretation and enforcement. Congress was very clear about that - they repeated that restriction 7 times in the Act.

 

From the Act itself:

 

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 chapter.

 

 

Each proposed regulation has to be submitted to both houses of Congress on the same day. From the Antiquities Act:

 

Each uniform rule or regulation promulgated under this chapter shall be submitted on the same calendar day to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the United States Senate and to the Committee on Natural Resources of the United States House of Representatives, and no such uniform rule or regulation may take effect before the expiration of a period of ninety calendar days following the date of its submission to such Committees.

 

 

When I refer to the "Antiquities Act" I do include all the amendments including the "Archaelogical Resources Protection Act" as well as the "Galisteo Basin Archaeological Sites Protection Act".

 

The reason why all the regulations are the same everywhere is because the original 1906 Act was declared unenforceable by the Supreme Court the only time a prosecution was attempted (which was in 1974 - 68 years after the law was passed). The reason it was shot down by the Supreme Court was because it was "void for vagueness". Congress fixed that error in the "Archaelogical Resources Protection Act of 1979"  by insisting on "uniform regulations" that were not vague nor variable in their application.

 

Same regulations and enforcement everywhere is the law no matter what your local land manager may think.

 

Barry

[Steve Herschbach]

You are talking laws Barry. I am talking what gets people in trouble with law enforcement in the field. They interpret and you pay the price right or wrong. Anyway, no doubt you are correct on the legalities. I will stick with my assumptions, and I assume this is one area where people can get in serious trouble. This is one of those areas where discretion is the better part of valor - in my opinion.

[vanursepaul]

I agree that you are right Barry, and i agree with Steve that it is not worth the trouble to push it...stay clear..

 

i wish i had enough cash to take on these guys with test cases,,,,,but i wouldnt have time to be mining then.

 

Appreciate both of you for your help.

[NuggetBob]

Yeppers, sheriffs, enforcement agents and all the others mixed in the middle don't quite see things the way a judge might or even those who made the rules/laws/whathaveyas. Just don't go here, you'll save time money and have better tales to tell about other adventures. I gotdang guarantee it 

[klunker]

                                                                  A REDUNDANT POST

 

 Regulation, Law, Policy--- The attorneys charge the same hourly rate.  And I can't afford it. 

[deathray]

Well,its funny how this morphed into the antiquitys law. My philosophy is just because they make something a law...regulation...policy...doesnt mean its right. The dredging moratorium is an example. So basically I follow what I believe to be right...but just a disclaimer,I am always looking for gold on public lands....unless its claimed,then Im looking for pull tabs. Anyway ,some real good info guys, special thanks to Barry for the actual law info.

[Clay Diggins]

Gosh guys, I give you the benefit of the little book learning I have and you're thinking I'm not talking about real life too? I reread my post and I can see how you might take it that way so I'll be a little more clear.

 

I read books and I study law but that's not all I do - check out the reality I know of and tell me if you have any first hand experience that contradicts mine.

 

The big example that's bantered around every time someone asks about "relics" and the antiquities laws is Greaterville right? Everybody knows the Forest Service in Greaterville has ticketed detectorists for digging nails and trash - heck hardly anyone is foolish enough to detect Greaterville any more. Well... everybody but Paul and Border Boy.

 

Here's my first hand experience with Greaterville. I know Chris, the Forest Archaeologist, and the enforcement down there pretty well. We lived on the grounds as a caretakers for the FS.

 

A few months after the relic hunting tickets started flying in Greaterville Ruby and I hosted a meeting between the FS and BLM. I asked about the detecting tickets at that meeting. At first no one could figure out what I was talking about so I told them what was being said on the forums. Laughter all around once the story was told. When everybody calmed down I was told that they weren't about to waste their time with writing tickets for detectorists collecting the junk from the last century. Chris stated that if any of the enforcement guys ever tried that he would refuse to testify that any of it was over 100 years old - any prosecution would require his cooperation.

 

The joke is that in Greaterville  one of the biggest problems is "history saving" visitors hauling mining trash from the last 130 years up to Kentucky Camp. Almost every day some do-gooder drags in a chunk of pipe, sheet metal or a few bolts. Every year this rusted metal pile of old junk has to be gathered and hauled off to the dump or it would overwhelm the site. Nobody at Greaterville would ever complain about someone collecting a pocket full of metal trash from detecting, they might thank you but they sure aren't going to ticket you.

 

I did follow up with the fellow that claimed he was ticketed at Greaterville. I checked with the FS headquarters and the court. Long story short the whole "I got a ticket for detecting junk in Greaterville" story was made up. It never happened.

 

Now here's the deal, I do study land law and I do make a habit of sharing my understanding of what I've read. I also follow up on the various stories I hear. I'm not afraid to make a few phone calls, pull a few strings and ask straight up questions. Been doing that for a lot of years.

 

I never want to be the guy who believes book learning is the basis of any reality. I have a certain passion for finding where and how our land managers are walking outside the lines we have laid down for them. I not only learn where those lines are but how well they are being observed in "real life".

 

Remember how I wrote that it took 68 years before the government tried anyone for a violation of the Antiquities Act? Things haven't changed much in the 40 years since then. Prosecutions under the Antiquities Act are rare. I haven't been able to find one single ticket written for detecting old settler items over 100  years old anywhere. There may be some but the three I've been told about were all tall stories with no basis in fact.

 

If you know of any tickets or arrests of detectorists hunting non native American objects on the public lands I would love to hear the details. I don't have any interest in those about hunting designated Historical Sites, National Parks or NRAs. I would like to hear first or second hand information that will lead to a copy of a ticket, fine or arrest record. So far no one has been able to produce one. It appears that Forest Service and BLM employees are following the letter of the law. I haven't found a single verifiable circumstance where any district manager has tried to make their own rules or regulations.  Real life.

 

I'm not suggesting anyone push any limits or any buttons. Detect within your comfort zone whatever that amounts to for you. I just hate to see folks scared of stuff that isn't real. If you are within your rights and no one is ticketing people for detecting within their rights... the choice is yours.

 

Barry

[gambler]

thank you barry