National Wildlife Refuge Oklahoma

I would assume if it's tied into a national park status is off limits. Wildlife protection areas are usually even more restrictive to limit humans impacting things. Local police might be worth asking or if there's a ranger group there who polices it.

fleahillokie said:

Any regs 'in print', on detecting. Local head guy is never in. Office lady has no clue what I'm asking. She thinks I need a mining permit!

Click to expand...

Are you talking about Deep Fork Wildlfe Refuge?

If so, I found things that are not allowed...

• Searching for or removing any object of antiquity

fleahillokie said:

.....Office lady has no clue what I'm asking. She thinks I need a mining permit!

Click to expand...

^ ^ Which is an excellent example of the "No one cared ... UNTIL you asked " routine. Swatting hornets nests and getting silly answers.

And I notice that you're asking if there's rules in print. But then ... gee ... why can't you just look up any potential said print rules, for yourself then ? I mean : In this digital day & age we live in, aren't the rules/codes available on -line ? Eg.: Dogs on leash, no fireworks, permit for bounce houses, etc... And if nothing there says "no md'ing", then presto : Not disallowed. Why is there a need to talk to a live person, and end up with arbitrary whimsical opinion answers, to this "pressing question" ? You can just look it up yourself, right ?

Cfmct said:

Are you talking about Deep Fork Wildlfe Refuge?

If so, I found things that are not allowed...

• Searching for or removing any object of antiquity

Deep Fork National Wildlife Refuge

The Deep Fork National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1993 to protect one of the last remaining remnants of bottomland hardwood forest in Oklahoma. Remnants of pecan orchards and the old coal mine railroad bed tell the story of the past, while the trees tell the story of today.

www.fws.gov

Click to expand...

What if we're just looking for, and/or finding , only new stuff ?

And: I have no doubt that if someone wanted to "split hairs", they could say this applies and forbids us. SO TOO can ancillary verbiage about "alter", "deface", "remove", & "harvest" likewise be said to apply. If we start down this road, then : There's not a single speck of public land (yes, even beaches) where you can detect. Because you can ALWAYS find some boiler plate fine-print that applies (if you stood on one foot and squinted real hard).

And all ya gotta do to find out, is ask desk-bound pencil pushers, and presto: You/we will be the latest victims of : "No one cared UNTIL you asked" routine

I PM'd you

I found something on the US Fish and Wildlife website. It covers special use permits which is what you would probably need.

General Activity Special Use Permit Application (FWS Form 3-1383-G)​

• Woodcutting
• Miscellaneous events (fishing tournaments, one-time events, other special events)
• Cabins/subsistence cabins (depending on the information use requirement, you may need the commercial form)
• Education activity
• Other (any activity not mentioned above)

The key note being "Other". Since recreational metal detecting is not a commercial operation, I wouldn't think it would be too difficult in getting a permit. There's probably some areas of the refuge you wouldn't be able to go due to how they manage wildlife or other reasons.

Anyway, here's a link: click

R_Ruff said:

I found something on the US Fish and Wildlife website. It covers special use permits which is what you would probably need.

General Activity Special Use Permit Application (FWS Form 3-1383-G)​

• Woodcutting
• Miscellaneous events (fishing tournaments, one-time events, other special events)
• Cabins/subsistence cabins (depending on the information use requirement, you may need the commercial form)
• Education activity
• Other (any activity not mentioned above)

The key note being "Other". Since recreational metal detecting is not a commercial operation, I wouldn't think it would be too difficult in getting a permit. There's probably some areas of the refuge you wouldn't be able to go due to how they manage wildlife or other reasons.

Anyway, here's a link: click

Click to expand...

Why is "md'ing" assumed to be needing an "other" classification ? For example : If the discussion at hand were : flying frisbees, or skipping stones on the ponds, then : Do we assume those activities fall under "other", and go seek permits for them ? No. Of course not. Because we recognize that frisbees are benign and harmless (despite that you "might poke someone's eye out" ). Ok, so too is md'ing benign, harmless, wise, healthy, etc.... Needs no "permit" . Unless you show me something that expressly says so.

Why do md'rs seem to think their activity is evil, and in need of "express sanctions" and red carpets ? I don't get it. And the fastest way to "bring this to fruition", is to go swat hornet's nests asking "Can I ?" questions.

We have become our own worst enemies. Presto : Another law is born, another rule invented, and another bored LEO made aware of "some supposed danger". Sssheeesshh

R_Ruff said:

I found something on the US Fish and Wildlife website. It covers special use permits which is what you would probably need.

General Activity Special Use Permit Application (FWS Form 3-1383-G)​

• Woodcutting
• Miscellaneous events (fishing tournaments, one-time events, other special events)
• Cabins/subsistence cabins (depending on the information use requirement, you may need the commercial form)
• Education activity
• Other (any activity not mentioned above)

The key note being "Other". Since recreational metal detecting is not a commercial operation, I wouldn't think it would be too difficult in getting a permit. There's probably some areas of the refuge you wouldn't be able to go due to how they manage wildlife or other reasons.

Anyway, here's a link: click

Click to expand...

Went to that link. Nothing specific. )The head guy is a little Hitler wannabe from the west coast. Unless I want to risk a federal citation and maybe loosing my gear Il'l just leave it alone.

fleahillokie said:

..... Unless I want to risk a federal citation and maybe loosing my gear Il'l just leave it alone.

Click to expand...

I am curious : If there is no rule or law that says "no md'ing" (as seems to be the consensus of this thread), then : Why would anyone think you could get a "federal citation" and "loose your gear" ?

And BTW : There is a common misconception that : "All federal land is off limits to md'ing". But this is not the case. BLM and NFS are examples where there is no such specific prohibition. At *best* it would fall under cultural heritage (ARPA). Ok, fine, then avoid obvious historic sensitive monument zones within said lands, and presto, you're complying. You're only looking for new stuff (or gold nuggets or meteorites, etc....) I never find old coins, do you ?

The reason why this common misconception floats is because NPS (a singular form of fed. land) does have specific language. But : do not assume this means that all federal land is off-limits. And the solution to "finding out" (for your particular area in question) is NOT to pick up the phone and grovel. Instead, if you are skittish, you look up laws/rules for yourself. If it doesn't say "no md'ing", then presto. Not prohibited. Then ....... SO BE IT !

Why do people think they need express allowances to do something ? I mean, do you see any law or rule that says "frisbee flying is allowed here" ? No. Instead, when you see no prohibition, then presto : You assume you can fly frisbees, and.... not prohibited. Why is md'ing so evil , that it falls into a different class , that needs someone's princely sanction ??

Tom_in_CA said:

Why is "md'ing" assumed to be needing an "other" classification ? For example : If the discussion at hand were : flying frisbees, or skipping stones on the ponds, then : Do we assume those activities fall under "other", and go seek permits for them ? No. Of course not. Because we recognize that frisbees are benign and harmless (despite that you "might poke someone's eye out" ). Ok, so too is md'ing benign, harmless, wise, healthy, etc.... Needs no "permit" . Unless you show me something that expressly says so.

Why do md'rs seem to think their activity is evil, and in need of "express sanctions" and red carpets ? I don't get it. And the fastest way to "bring this to fruition", is to go swat hornet's nests asking "Can I ?" questions.

We have become our own worst enemies. Presto : Another law is born, another rule invented, and another bored LEO made aware of "some supposed danger". Sssheeesshh

Click to expand...

I know right? The uninitiated think the electronics penetrate many feet into the ground and it suddenly conjures up images of grave digging proportions. I personally wouldn't want some USFWS park weenie saying it's not allowed, it's on Fed land, then get ticketed and have my stuff confiscated like another member who recently had that happen to him.

R_Ruff said:

I know right? The uninitiated think the electronics penetrate many feet into the ground and it suddenly conjures up images of grave digging proportions. I personally wouldn't want some USFWS park weenie saying it's not allowed, it's on Fed land, then get ticketed and have my stuff confiscated like another member who recently had that happen to him.

Click to expand...

Don't worry about that... anyone who takes Tom's opinions as fact and gets their equipment taken will be reimbursed for the value of the equipment by Tom... he will be your hero

R_Ruff said:

.... I personally wouldn't want some USFWS park weenie saying it's not allowed, it's on Fed land, then get ticketed and have my stuff confiscated like another member who recently had that happen to him.

Click to expand...

R-Ruff : Re.: the recent post : I don't think that applies here. If you read that evolution closely, it appears that :

1) That OP acknowledges there was some fine print (that WAS specific) that he could have availed himself of. Ie.: a True rule or code. But in this current thread and current location : Who has shown that there is any such thing ??

2) There was a lot of speculation on that thread, of corrupt and arbitrary and easily-disputed. Remember ?

3) EVEN WHEN/IF we can grant that "sh*t happens" now and then (flukes), then : Do you let those rule your life ? For example : So too can I show you a newspaper clipping of a dude who got a ticket for eating a hamburger while driving (cop called it "distracted driving"). Yet no one, for even a moment, is going to read this clipping and think "Oh no, I can't eat a burger while driving". Instead, we chalk things like this up to random occasional flukes, by over-zealous LEO's. Right ?

I'm not saying to "throw caution to the wind". But just gonna say that if someone thinks they're going to SOLVE this supposed problem, by going in ahead of time and asking "Can I ?" questions, that : This only makes it worse. This only makes it "self-fulfilling" in a vicious circle. It's the very reason the problem exists, IN THE FIRST PLACE !

If this is still too problematic for skittish folk, that's fine. Then they need to stick to sandboxes or tame beaches. I get it. Some people can not grow a thick skin. Some people are afraid to cross the street. That's fine. But the solution is not to swat hornets' nests, is all I'm saying.

Cfmct said:

Don't worry about that... anyone who takes Tom's opinions as fact and gets their equipment taken will be reimbursed for the value of the equipment by Tom... he will be your hero

Click to expand...

Oh c'mon Craig ! Add some more smilies. I know you are only joking, but .... skittish read that, and the ONLY thing they focus on, is : "Oh no, the world hates us, and my equipment will be confiscated as Craig most certainly says". So : While I know you're only joking, yet I cringe when I read such jokes.

The moment a joke is made, it simply prompts the skittish to run around and start poking hornet's nests. GGGRRRrrrrr

Tom_in_CA said:

Oh c'mon Craig ! Add some more smilies. I know you are only joking, but .... skittish read that, and the ONLY thing they focus on, is : "Oh no, the world hates us, and my equipment will be confiscated as Craig most certainly says". So : While I know you're only joking, yet I cringe when I read such jokes.

The moment a joke is made, it simply prompts the skittish to run around and start poking hornet's nests. GGGRRRrrrrr

Click to expand...

Sheesh Tom.. of course its a joke....

Tom... even though a story may not get national news there are those in our hobby that give us a bad name and that is fact... a town near me banned the detecting of public property because one scumbag hunted a historic property and refused to fill his holes in... he said he was a tax payer and he didn't have to... when he was fined he fought it in court and lost but the rest of us paid for his stubbornness... He didn't need permission he just needed to dig neatly...

I went to historic park and asked the ranger who saw me with a detector if I could hunt in woods he said sure just don't hunt the manicured grass... I has no plans to I knew where there was a old homestead in the woods and that is what I was going for... I always want to know whether its legal or not before I detect an area... I am not going to be like your friend who had to pay a fine.... and I don't care whether some like my beliefs or not... I will ask, I will not walk onto a property not knowing what is and what isn't allowed.

Tom_in_CA said:

R-Ruff : Re.: the recent post : I don't think that applies here. If you read that evolution closely, it appears that :

1) That OP acknowledges there was some fine print (that WAS specific) that he could have availed himself of. Ie.: a True rule or code. But in this current thread and current location : Who has shown that there is any such thing ??

2) There was a lot of speculation on that thread, of corrupt and arbitrary and easily-disputed. Remember ?

3) EVEN WHEN/IF we can grant that "sh*t happens" now and then (flukes), then : Do you let those rule your life ? For example : So too can I show you a newspaper clipping of a dude who got a ticket for eating a hamburger while driving (cop called it "distracted driving"). Yet no one, for even a moment, is going to read this clipping and think "Oh no, I can't eat a burger while driving". Instead, we chalk things like this up to random occasional flukes, by over-zealous LEO's. Right ?

I'm not saying to "throw caution to the wind". But just gonna say that if someone thinks they're going to SOLVE this supposed problem, by going in ahead of time and asking "Can I ?" questions, that : This only makes it worse. This only makes it "self-fulfilling" in a vicious circle. It's the very reason the problem exists, IN THE FIRST PLACE !

If this is still too problematic for skittish folk, that's fine. Then they need to stick to sandboxes or tame beaches. I get it. Some people can not grow a thick skin. Some people are afraid to cross the street. That's fine. But the solution is not to swat hornets' nests, is all I'm saying.

Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying. Myself personally, I'll stick to places I know I can go without being hassled because I enjoy this hobby in the sense that I don't have to interact with anyone. There is a wildlife refuge north of me about 45 minutes where I've been, for hiking and fishing, but there is no reason for me to look for things by using a detector. I'm not a relic hunter. I like shiny things like coins and jewelry. But, for someone that hunts for relics, I can see it being an issue for them if that's something they wanted to do.

.....

Cfmct said:

......

Click to expand...

You say : " ....because one scumbag hunted a historic property and refused to fill his holes in... "

Craig, I hope you can see that this ^ ^ has nothing in common with the thread/discussion at hand. Right ? OF COURSE we should avoid "obvious historic sensitive monuments". We stand in solidarity there. And OF COURSE we should fill in our holes, and not be obnoxious. But this is not at all what the thread is about, no one's being obnoxious. No one's snooping around obvious sensitive monuments. No one's leaving holes. So : Why do you think this has any bearing on the topic at hand ?

Re.: Your spot in the woods, you say : "....I always want to know whether its legal or not before I detect an area..."

2 responses :

A) Ok, then : Can't that be looked up @ wherever the rules/codes/laws, of those rules, exist ? Surely any laws/rules governing usage, are listed. Right ? Eg.: dogs on leash, no fireworks, etc... Right ? Ok, then : What could be more-law-abiding than that ?

B) As for the ranger who said "yes, go ahead", I think I know what this is meant to convey, in the current discussion : That, the mere fact that someone tells you "yes", would obviously mean : "See, it's a good thing I asked". Right ? Because notice the implication involved : The mere fact that someone tells you "yes", seems to imply that their say-so was needed. Right ? Because otherwise they would have said : "Shucks, that's a funny question. Why are you asking me ? You don't need my say-so. If it's not listed as prohibited, then ... shucks, why are you asking me ?" Eh ?

As you know : Authority never answers in that fashion. Instead they will bestow on you their princely "yes" or "no". After all, you're standing there asking them. Which merely infers that their say-so was needed (lest ... why else are you asking them ?)

So you see, whether someone tells me "yes" or "no", to me does not mean : "Therefore their say-so was necessary". So when any one enters these discussions, and points to a "yes" or "no" they got from some place, it does nothing to prove their point.

And ask yourself: Where is that person getting their "yes" or "no" from ? Are they just arbitrarily making it up ? Just their whimsical mood that day ? Or is it based on actual rule ? I think you would agree that they'd need to be basing their answer on actual law or rule. Right ? OK, great! Then : Why can't we look up said law or rule ?

You say : ".... I will not walk onto a property not knowing what is and what isn't allowed.... "

And : I totally agree with you ^ ^ Great ! And guess how you can allow yourself to know what "is and isn't allowed" ? Easy : You look it up. Then you do not risk becoming the latest victim of the: "No one cared UNTIL you asked" phenomenon.

Cfmct said:

Sheesh Tom.. of course its a joke....

Tom... even though a story may not get national news there are those in our hobby that give us a bad name and that is fact... a town near me banned the detecting of public property because one scumbag hunted a historic property and refused to fill his holes in... he said he was a tax payer and he didn't have to... when he was fined he fought it in court and lost but the rest of us paid for his stubbornness... He didn't need permission he just needed to dig neatly...

I went to historic park and asked the ranger who saw me with a detector if I could hunt in woods he said sure just don't hunt the manicured grass... I has no plans to I knew where there was a old homestead in the woods and that is what I was going for... I always want to know whether its legal or not before I detect an area... I am not going to be like your friend who had to pay a fine.... and I don't care whether some like my beliefs or not... I will ask, I will not walk onto a property not knowing what is and what isn't allowed.

Click to expand...

I did something very similar because I just wanted to know beforehand even after reading all of Tom's advice. Our town goes back 150 years or so an there are a few parks I've been checking out. So I walked into the police station , went to the front desk and asked. The 1 younger officer turned to an older one who then came to the front and we talked. They said they were not aware of any laws against metal detecting their public parks. They mentioned don't go leaving big holes. Common sense stuff. I was professional to them and so were they. But after that I felt there was no pressure to hunt as long as I was cool about it. I didn't have to worry about any tickets , etc. Didn't really find much during my few hunts and have seen others hunting about. It was an easy comfortable experience going into the local police station and asking a few simple questions.

KOB said:

.....They said they were not aware of any laws against metal detecting their public parks. ........

Click to expand...

Ok, right. Then: Wouldn't that ^ ^ have been available info by looking it up ? It is apparent from the context, that they were referencing "laws" (or the lack thereof, to be precise). Ok, then : Isn't that city's muni-codes, park rules, etc... available on-line at their website ? Or in binder form behind the desk at city hall ?

You say you "didn't have to worry about tickets". But this is not a function of having asked "can I ?". This is only a function of the fact that there were no laws or rules forbidding you. Which, as said, you could also have looked up to know that exact same thing. Right ?

And there are ample stories like yours, where ... instead of getting a "yes", there are persons who got a "no". And when the md'r says : "But where is that written ?", the desk-clerk finds something about alter & deface, or a mining permit, or harvest & remove, etc..... And then you realize you've just been the latest victim of "No one cared till you asked". Why play Russian Roulette ?