The irony of metal detecting laws

[The Bushwhacker Detectorist]

I find metal detecting laws super ironic. They were put in place to preserve historical artifacts from people destroying them or “looting”, but a company that wants to build a giant warehouse? Go ahead and bulldoze the area and pour 10 tons of concrete over it. Who cares if it was native land or a past civil war battle ground. But god forbid a detectorist save the artifacts before it’s destroyed by human civilization. What are your thoughts. Should historical laws be rewritten so even major companies have to hire a detectorist to survey there land before they destroy it? Because I think they should.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... Should historical laws be rewritten so even major companies have to hire a detectorist to survey there land before they destroy it? Because I think they should.

Uh, the laws already *DO* require that ^ ^ It's a part of the "environmental surveys" required to get building permits. And if a site is deemed to have historical significance, then .... as part of the prerequisites, the developer can be required to have "archaeological monitoring". Where an archie "stands by watching", in case they see something culturally sensitive coming into view. And then they have the authority / power to stop-the-project, investigate (a bone or a potsherd, etc....).

Thus yes, what you're talking about is already in-place, presumably.

And the developer (go figure) does NOT want to be bothered with any delays. So they tend to hire "customer friendly" archaeological monitoring firms. Where : If you ... uh .... "pay them a little extra", they will ... uh .... NOT see or find anything interesting. Because the LAST thing that contractor/developer wants , is for the archie to do his job too well (and begin to "find things" that "shut the job down"). So it's no secret , in the industry, that there are what's known as "customer friendly " consulting firms. Doh !

 

[Jim in Idaho]

The detecting laws are not about preserving anything. Like all things leftist, they're about control. For the 50% of humanity that can't leave the other 50% alone, it gives them a "power" rush to stop people from doing what they want, or forcing them to do what they don't want to. Preservation is nothing more than an excuse for their lousy behavior.
Jim

 

[The Bushwhacker Detectorist]

Uh, the laws already *DO* require that ^ ^ It's a part of the "environmental surveys" required to get building permits. And if a site is deemed to have historical significance, then .... as part of the prerequisites, the developer can be required to have "archaeological monitoring". Where an archie "stands by watching", in case they see something culturally sensitive coming into view. And then they have the authority / power to stop-the-project, investigate (a bone or a potsherd, etc....).

Thus yes, what you're talking about is already in-place, presumably.

And the developer (go figure) does NOT want to be bothered with any delays. So they tend to hire "customer friendly" archaeological monitoring firms. Where : If you ... uh .... "pay them a little extra", they will ... uh .... NOT see or find anything interesting. Because the LAST thing that contractor/developer wants , is for the archie to do his job too well (and begin to "find things" that "shut the job down"). So it's no secret , in the industry, that there are what's known as "customer friendly " consulting firms. Doh !

Depends though. Most environmental surveys only determine if it’s ok or not by the environmental impact, aka destroying wetlands etc. Yes there is section 106 of the NEPA but that only is in effect if it’s a federally funded project. Once a developer buy private land, there is zero laws on surveying land for historical artifacts, which is why they can just bulldoze it.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Depends though. Most environmental surveys only determine if it’s ok or not by the environmental impact, aka destroying wetlands etc. Yes there is section 106 of the NEPA but that only is in effect if it’s a federally funded project. Once a developer buy private land, there is zero laws on surveying land for historical artifacts, which is why they can just bulldoze it.

well, a few things to comment on here ^ ^ :

1) "Environment" is not *JUST* "naturally occurring things" (wildlife, etc...), but it also includes "cultural". Thus : "Cultural" is simply a subset of/in "environmental". Ok ?

2) Even private land has (understandably so) obligations /hoops that private entities must jump through. That's why, for example, you need permits for doing remodels on your house . Eg.: Fiddling with the electrical, adding a granny rental unit to your home, etc..... And for good reasons. Lest people "do something dangerous" blah blah blah Thus I'm afraid that when a developer (YES, EVEN ON PRIVATE LAND) goes to apply for permits to build a new subdivision, there WILL be "hoops" to jump through .


And while I'm sure we can "bemoan" those ^ ^ types of bureaucracy and hoops, yet : If you've ever gone to a 3rd world country, where no-such rules/hoops exist, you can see the devastating effects. Dangerous construction, pollution, etc.... And in those countries NO HISTORY IS SAVED.

So : While you and I enjoy our historical monuments (preserved forts , etc....) and bemoan that "history is left in the ground to rot", yet we don't realize that it's the VERY LAWS WE BEMOAN that have made these great preserved locations to be enjoyed. So we're all basically hypocrites, eh ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... Preservation is nothing more than an excuse for their lousy behavior......

No. Not so fast. Same answer I gave to AceS :

".... while I'm sure we can "bemoan" those ^ ^ types of bureaucracy and hoops, yet : If you've ever gone to a 3rd world country, where no-such rules/hoops exist, you can see the devastating effects. Dangerous construction, pollution, etc.... And in those countries NO HISTORY IS SAVED.

So : While you and I enjoy our historical monuments (preserved forts , etc....) and bemoan that "history is left in the ground to rot", yet we don't realize that it's the VERY LAWS WE BEMOAN that have made these great preserved locations to be enjoyed. So we're all basically hypocrites, eh ? ..... "

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....... which is why they can just bulldoze it.

Also, regarding this ^ ^ comment : You speak of that ^ ^ as a "pejorative", right ?? But the devil is "in the details". Because, to the purist archie mindset point-of-view, it is US (yes, we md'rs) who are guilty of that pejorative.

In other words, if you think (yes, rightfully so) that bulldozers "destroy", then figure that : SO TOO does the purist archie think that md'rs (who , gasp ... "rip items from context"), ARE LIKEWISE : "Destroying" history.

So the very pejorative you draw on, can be a finger that equally points at us.

I know you're feeling very guilty for your evil hobby now. Right ? But not to worry : I will absolve your conscience of all guilt. Simply box up all your ill-gotten gains and mail them to me. I will make sure they go through the proper repatriation channels, to the right authorities.

No .... don't thank me. It's the least I can do for a fine fellow hobbyist such as yourself .

 

[Vito]

Welcome to the world of grey tones. Every one gets what he pays for...
It is everywhere the same.

 

[Jim in Idaho]

Say what you want, Tom, but behind every "no detecting" law is a liberal government agency of some sort. And, I'm not discussing bulldozers and all that....I'm talking about the recreation of ordinary working people. I'll leave all the theorizing to others.
Jim

 

[VirginiaBikeGirl]

The detecting laws are not about preserving anything. Like all things leftist, they're about control. For the 50% of humanity that can't leave the other 50% alone, it gives them a "power" rush to stop people from doing what they want, or forcing them to do what they don't want to. Preservation is nothing more than an excuse for their lousy behavior.
Jim

I guess that explains the laws throughout the south then. It's not about ideology. You think "leftists" wrote your laws in Idaho?

 

[hoser]

Looking at where we absolutely want to hunt, compared to where we CAN hunt are two very different entities. I see the posts of so many places that there are so many restrictions, why would you want to expend that much time trying to obtain an obscure or non-existent permission to a place that you can't hunt. Hunt where you can, without having to look over your shoulder every two minutes. Keep in mind, just because it is declared a historical site really doesn't mean you will make life altering finds. It only states you have the rights to say you were able to hunt this area. Truth be known, the best finds have come from areas that were not on the historical targeted platforms.

 

[Jim in Idaho]

I guess that explains the laws throughout the south then. It's not about ideology. You think "leftists" wrote your laws in Idaho?

Other than protecting the environment, we have few laws in this state, compared to most. We've also had some great Democrat governors, too. People like Cecil Andrus, and John Evans, and Frank Church was one of our best senators. it isn't about left or right, though leftists seem to cherish power, for selfish reasons, more than people on the right.
Jim

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...... is a liberal government agency of some sort. .....

Jim : I am on your side about that "left vs right". I am on-your-side about conservative vs liberal. When it comes to culture, economics, and politics, I too lean right / conservative / republican, etc... OK ??

But back to the topic of this thread : Conservatives & right-leaning archies CAN VERY MUCH be "aghast" at md'ing. Ie.: Against bulldozing and md'ing. Either side of the cultural spectrum can invent and vote on laws against our hobby.

Yes you and I agree against their rational . I *TOO* think that buffalo nickel "ripped from the landscape" looks better in my collection than "rotting in the ground". Heck, I might have even donated it to a museum, or volunteered my time to precede that bulldozer.

 

[CountyWorker]

Many of the restrictions that end up affecting detectorists are born from liability. Access and hole digging - yes, there are ‘tards out there who dig giant plugs and make feeble or no attempts at filling them -, as examples, increase exposure to our litigious society. Without serious tort reform you’ll continue to see more and more proactive actions taken to mitigate the possibility of litigation.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....... ‘tards out there who dig giant plugs and make feeble or no attempts at filling them -, .....

No, I do not think it's : "Darned those md'rs who must have left holes'.

 

[KOB]

For some odd reason I've never learned the difference between Private and Pirate. Maybe it has something to do with Gold.

 

[Cherry Picker]

Years ago, when the Dodge House was being built, they halted the excavation because human bones were found. The bones were sent off to Hays to be analyzed. They found them to be 300 year old Indian bones, and assumed it was a burial ground. I never heard that any of the graves were moved or documented. They built the Dodge House anyway.

 

[Cfmct]

Uh, the laws already *DO* require that ^ ^ It's a part of the "environmental surveys" required to get building permits. And if a site is deemed to have historical significance, then .... as part of the prerequisites, the developer can be required to have "archaeological monitoring". Where an archie "stands by watching", in case they see something culturally sensitive coming into view. And then they have the authority / power to stop-the-project, investigate (a bone or a potsherd, etc....).

Thus yes, what you're talking about is already in-place, presumably.

And the developer (go figure) does NOT want to be bothered with any delays. So they tend to hire "customer friendly" archaeological monitoring firms. Where : If you ... uh .... "pay them a little extra", they will ... uh .... NOT see or find anything interesting. Because the LAST thing that contractor/developer wants , is for the archie to do his job too well (and begin to "find things" that "shut the job down"). So it's no secret , in the industry, that there are what's known as "customer friendly " consulting firms. Doh !

I hate these threads with a passion, as soon as Attorney Tom gets on them it makes me cringe just knowing how its going to turn out, I can see it now page after page if twists and turns by Tom

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... I can see it now page after page if twists and turns by Tom

It's a tough job but : Someone's gotta do it !

 

[The Bushwhacker Detectorist]

Tom is mixing up California with the whole US. Californias land survey does include archeology surveys. It’s bundled into a law called CEQA. Obviously I’m not talking about only California. For example. Virginia, where I’m at, does not have a law specifically talking about archeological surveys. Only land surveys for wetlands etc. My whole thread is about the US as a whole, having no national law requiring private land owners to do an archeological survey before development.