A New Treasure Hunting Proposal In The House?...........POLL

    Let's assume a new Recreational Treasure Hunting proposal is in the house that would open all public lands to recreational treasure hunters. Part of the bill would require an annual permit/fee, say $50. The other part of the bill would allow the treasure hunter a percentage of any found treasure's current market value, but the only thing slowing this bill down is the establishing of the treasure hunter's agreed market percentage. If this were an actual proposed change, what percentage would you be willing to accept in order to see this bill passed?

Where is 99.9999999999999% ?

           

  Even considering that they were PUBLIC LANDS in the 1st Place, I guess I'll have to bite the bullet and agree to a 50/50 split!  Something along the lines of the English system of Treasure Trove!

                           HH                                            Joe

Ditto Buscadero

Where is 99.9999999999999% ?

           

lol....it's Uncle Sam.....I twisted his arm just so he'd let me post the 20,30,40,50%!

(This should be an interesting poll?)

 Even considering that they were PUBLIC LANDS in the 1st Place, I guess I'll have to bite the bullet and agree to a 50/50 split!  Something along the lines of the English system of Treasure Trove!

                           HH                                            Joe

That's exactly what prompted me to do this poll.

For every bill the (sic) Gov. would introduce, there would be 50 more to place the original bill in their favor. It's a loose, loose situation. You would do all the work,they would take everything you found..It's not worth it.............

[I figure if I find a Chest with a Billion in it,Till they took the Taxes out,I'd consider letting them have the Chest yet.]

I figure if I find a Chest with a Billion in it,
Till they took the Taxes out,
I'd consider letting them have the Chest yet.



 All joking aside.
You know me, I just paid $100.00 for an All access Permit.
IF I would have had to share a % on top of that,
 I probably would have
agreed to it. But it would have been a Small %.

 And on what your asking, Taxes would be a Big Consideration on the Percentage, I'd agree to.

[I figure if I find a Chest with a Billion in it,Till they took the Taxes out,I'd consider letting them have the Chest yet.]

I figure if I find a Chest with a Billion in it,
Till they took the Taxes out,
I'd consider letting them have the Chest yet.



 All joking aside.
You know me, I just paid $100.00 for an All access Permit.
IF I would have had to share a % on top of that,
 I probably would have
agreed to it. But it would have been a Small %.

 And on what your asking, Taxes would be a Big Consideration on the Percentage, I'd agree to.

Jeff,

Then consider something like this perhaps?
Let's say we are given a tax option at the end of each year, for a $1000 tax donation to say, "The New Federal Lands Fund", you will retain the right to treasure hunt on all federally governed lands, annual permit and regs arriving in the mail. Now if 100,000 people opt to do this each year (I would) that's 10 million tax dollars in additional resources for our public lands, all of it up front. Now toss in the percentages we are polling here and together they could generate a great deal of revenue towards the preserving of our public lands. With such a system in place, each year the government has a surplus of Federal Land tax dollars up front that it can then use to "buy any archaeologically significant" discovery that it deems to be of public or historical value. At 20%, a 1 million dollar discovery would cost the fund $200'000.00, which if they purchased it, would be "tax free" to you because you opted to enter the program during the prior tax season. In the long run, the archies get what they want (Funding & discoveries), Uncle Sam gets what he wants (Free tax dollars), and the treasure hunter gets what he wants (legal access and the potential of legal profit.) I think something like this could work. What do you think? 

I'm not paying for a permit because that is just another tax.  I'm not paying any taxes because I did the work.  I'd be willing to declare what I find on PUBLIC LAND only if I could sell it to a buyer at fair market value and then be taxed appropriately on my additional "income."  

I am sick to death of permits, taxes, and government control of the public lands.  Those are our lands and as long as we treat them with some semblence of respect we should have access to them.   Permits are a way of asking for the government's permission to do something.  While in fact the government should be asking for our permission to do something.  

Boys and girls, things are bass ackwards.  Don't fall for a permit system and a tax system.  

Treasurejack I understand what you're saying, I just think we've too long been programmed to ask permission instead of to give it.

I'm not paying for a permit because that is just another tax.  I'm not paying any taxes because I did the work.  I'd be willing to declare what I find on PUBLIC LAND only if I could sell it to a buyer at fair market value and then be taxed appropriately on my additional "income."  

I am sick to death of permits, taxes, and government control of the public lands.  Those are our lands and as long as we treat them with some semblence of respect we should have access to them.   Permits are a way of asking for the government's permission to do something.  While in fact the government should be asking for our permission to do something.  

Boys and girls, things are bass ackwards.  Don't fall for a permit system and a tax system.  

Treasurejack I understand what you're saying, I just think we've too long been programmed to ask permission instead of to give it.

TT, I can't argue your point, but we all know the government isn't going give up anything, so why not rethink things a bit and try to forge a solution that might allow us to get some of what we've lost back? At present the general government mindset is that anything on public lands should belong to everyone because everyone pays taxes, even the guy who doesn't treasure hunt, and sadly there are more of them then there is of us. This government mindset presents a very strong argument against our hobby and our gaining access to these lands. The hobbies of hunting and fishing generate a lot of income to the various state and federal land management agencies, so they are likewise accommodated, but treasure hunting? So why not feed the system what it wants in order to gain more, "financial notice?" Permits generate dollars and that system is never going away, like it or not.   

IF it were all Federal land including
All Protected Sites Yes.

      But, it would have to be through the Federal Government
No Archeological input at all.
  IF they wish to Buy ;  or a Museum wishes to buy at fair
market Value Fine.
  but to do the work, after Paying to do the work,
I wouldn't want someone who is paid to sit back & watch
decide, the Particular piece of land I decided to work,
is producing more then I deserve & shut me down.

I hope what I said isn't tooooooooo Confusing 

Let's just say I trust the Federal Government
fruther then I would trust someone straight out of
College who has been taught that they own everything
that is cool & underground.

TJ, I disagree with your statement "....the general government mindset is that anything on public lands should belong to everyone because everyone pays taxes....."

1) Not everyone pays taxes, yet everyone is allowed on public lands with few exceptions, and providing the current laws are obeyed.   Even foreigners are permitted on our public lands, and they never pay a dime in US taxes.  

2) Not all things are prevented from being removed for the good of all, as you imply.  Rocks, minerals, fossils, game & fish, and trash can currently be removed from many federally administered public lands without paying a federal fee and often without need of a federal permit.   (Hunting and fishing permits/licenses are sold by the states.)  Why are those things legally removed and not treasure?  

I personally know two people who run small rock shops.  One lives in California and one is in Oregon.  Those people collect rocks, minerals, fossils from OUR lands and sell them for a profit in their shops.  No permits and no fees.  I'm not advocating THEY should have to buy permits, I am advocating that since they can do it, why can't we?  

If I were to have a mechanized piece of heavy equipment come into a national forest and move tons of earth with it in order to look for treasure, I can see where a set of restrictions and a permitting system would be necessary.  But for the average treasure hunter or metal detectorist or artifact collector or bottle digger, I don't see why our hobby is any different from the rockhounds - and I am a rockhound, too.  In fact, the rock shop owners that I mentioned are not your average rockhound.  They collect hundreds of pounds of material and sell it for profits - with no permits or fees necessary.  They pay taxes on the profits they make on the sales of the material.   I'm advocating equal treatment under the law.  I'm saying we are being discriminated against and it has little to do with anything except the elitist attitude of the professional archaeologists who are trying to preserve their own incomes.  We are threatening their jobs - and many of them don't care about the material they dig up.  They care about the books they can write and the new discovery they can name after themselves.  We are being brainwashed into thinking we need them.  BULL.  They need us.  

Do you realize that some of the best discoveries made in the field sciences were made by those who were not the scientists themselves?  Mary Leakey found more old skull parts than her scientist husband did in Africa.  There are many ametuer rockhounds who have minerals named after them because they first discovered them.  Why do we allow ourselves to be treated as stepchildren?  Only through standing our ground as equal citizens will be make progress.  Submission makes us less than equals.  No thanks.  I'll not settle for half a loaf.  

3) Equal justice under the law should refer to us treasure hunters as much as backpackers and rockclimbers.  If rockclimbers can pound their pitons into the face of Half Dome in Yosemite in the name of "sport," why can't I put a shovel into the desert soil and retrieve a cache of old bottles?  It is the same thing.  In fact, my shovel is less harmful to the environment.  The government at all levels has more historical material now in its possession than can be thoroughly "studied" in a thousand years.  They are not telling us the truth when they outlaw our activities.  Think about that.

My quarrel here is not with any individual.  I'm on your side because we are on the same side.  My quarrel is in the thinking that says we need to pay more or give up more or kiss more butts because of our hobby.  Never!   We need fewer hoops to jump through, not more.  It was individual discoveries that made America rich.  To dampen that discovery mentality is to dampen our own future.  

IF it were all Federal land including
All Protected Sites Yes.

      But, it would have to be through the Federal Government
No Archeological input at all.
  IF they wish to Buy ;  or a Museum wishes to buy at fair
market Value Fine.
  but to do the work, after Paying to do the work,
I wouldn't want someone who is paid to sit back & watch
decide, the Particular piece of land I decided to work,
is producing more then I deserve & shut me down.

I hope what I said isn't tooooooooo Confusing 

Jeff,
For sure there would be regs to follow, but this is mainly a "recreational bill" which takes into account that "discoveries of significance" are likely to be found, and that the finder is entitled to a portion of that discovery's market value. "No bulldozers, backhoes, or dynamite, etc." If you made the discovery, you get a portion of the market value on "everything" that may come from the site, even if the archies shut you down and take it over. Would something like this work for you?  

IF it were all Federal land including
All Protected Sites Yes.

      But, it would have to be through the Federal Government
No Archeological input at all.
  IF they wish to Buy ;  or a Museum wishes to buy at fair
market Value Fine.
  but to do the work, after Paying to do the work,
I wouldn't want someone who is paid to sit back & watch
decide, the Particular piece of land I decided to work,
is producing more then I deserve & shut me down.

I hope what I said isn't tooooooooo Confusing 

Jeff,
 If you made the discovery, you get a portion of the market value on "everything" that may come from the site, even if the archies shut you down and take it over. Would something like this work for you?  

That would definately be a different story.

    But I doubt the archies would Ever go for that.
It would be money Out their Pockets & Artifacts out of their Basements.
if they were regulated that closely.

Well i dont know,but experience tells us that if uncle sam is involved in the end it will benifit the government.
   Also,i know that in some state parks you ar not even supposed to be removing rocks fossils or anything else that you find.
    Even though im not a student of goverment i read somewhere that the government isnt even supposed to own land,they are just supposed to be caretakers.
    If you tried to propose something it would start out simple and by the time it got to vote you would stil not be able to tell what you were allowed or not allowed to do.
   In some places the local government is even trying to tell private property owners what they can and can not do with there property in regards to treasure hunting,excavating..ECT...

Anything and Everything the government touches goes to $*!%.  My position is that they (the politico's) should be grateful to be in office, not threatening us with their power.  I would say no to this bill but would support a permit, similar to the Wildlife Refuge Pass.

TJ, I disagree with your statement "....the general government mindset is that anything on public lands should belong to everyone because everyone pays taxes....."

1) Not everyone pays taxes, yet everyone is allowed on public lands with few exceptions, and providing the current laws are obeyed.   Even foreigners are permitted on our public lands, and they never pay a dime in US taxes.  

2) Not all things are prevented from being removed for the good of all, as you imply.  Rocks, minerals, fossils, game & fish, and trash can currently be removed from many federally administered public lands without paying a federal fee and often without need of a federal permit.   (Hunting and fishing permits/licenses are sold by the states.)  Why are those things legally removed and not treasure?  

I personally know two people who run small rock shops.  One lives in California and one is in Oregon.  Those people collect rocks, minerals, fossils from OUR lands and sell them for a profit in their shops.  No permits and no fees.  I'm not advocating THEY should have to buy permits, I am advocating that since they can do it, why can't we?  

If I were to have a mechanized piece of heavy equipment come into a national forest and move tons of earth with it in order to look for treasure, I can see where a set of restrictions and a permitting system would be necessary.  But for the average treasure hunter or metal detectorist or artifact collector or bottle digger, I don't see why our hobby is any different from the rockhounds - and I am a rockhound, too.  In fact, the rock shop owners that I mentioned are not your average rockhound.  They collect hundreds of pounds of material and sell it for profits - with no permits or fees necessary.  They pay taxes on the profits they make on the sales of the material.   I'm advocating equal treatment under the law.  I'm saying we are being discriminated against and it has little to do with anything except the elitist attitude of the professional archaeologists who are trying to preserve their own incomes.  We are threatening their jobs - and many of them don't care about the material they dig up.  They care about the books they can write and the new discovery they can name after themselves.  We are being brainwashed into thinking we need them.  BULL.  They need us.  

Do you realize that some of the best discoveries made in the field sciences were made by those who were not the scientists themselves?  Mary Leakey found more old skull parts than her scientist husband did in Africa.  There are many ametuer rockhounds who have minerals named after them because they first discovered them.  Why do we allow ourselves to be treated as stepchildren?  Only through standing our ground as equal citizens will be make progress.  Submission makes us less than equals.  No thanks.  I'll not settle for half a loaf.  

3) Equal justice under the law should refer to us treasure hunters as much as backpackers and rockclimbers.  If rockclimbers can pound their pitons into the face of Half Dome in Yosemite in the name of "sport," why can't I put a shovel into the desert soil and retrieve a cache of old bottles?  It is the same thing.  In fact, my shovel is less harmful to the environment.  The government at all levels has more historical material now in its possession than can be thoroughly "studied" in a thousand years.  They are not telling us the truth when they outlaw our activities.  Think about that.

My quarrel here is not with any individual.  I'm on your side because we are on the same side.  My quarrel is in the thinking that says we need to pay more or give up more or kiss more butts because of our hobby.  Never!   We need fewer hoops to jump through, not more.  It was individual discoveries that made America rich.  To dampen that discovery mentality is to dampen our own future.  

TT, I have to disagree, apples and oranges fall from different trees. We are talking lost treasures here, not fish, trash, rabbits, or rocks, but rather items that contain a value of historical and monetary significance. The stand that you are taking has been taken a thousand times over, which in part, is why many of the current laws are being imposed on our hobby today. Fishermen have size limits, hunters have bag limits, and the last time I checked it is illegal to remove rocks and fossils from federally governed ground. Can you imagine where these interest, fishing & hunting & trapping, would be today without imposed limits, or the permit revenue to help support these interest? "Gone are the buffalo!"  

I find your blaming me or my stance for the problems we currently face in treasure hunting on public lands a bit misguided to say the least. I am not the problem here.  It is the bending over and saying "go ahead" that has led to our current predicament.  There are enough laws on the books for punishing those who take things to the extreme, including those who damage or destroy the environment.  We don't need to "protect" our historical or monetary treasures from ourselves.  Who the heck do they belong to?  Maybe you'd like to remove old historical photographs from their current owners, under the guise of "historical significance?"  Or maybe you would like to remove old gold coins from someone's safe because of their historical and monetary significance?  Who defines what is historicallly or monetarily significant?  Who?   Some elitist group, that's who.  And their definition changes daily. 

It is a slippery slope, once a permit is required, that will lead to further regulations and more taxes.  You think a permit system will make things easier for us?  HAH!  It will make things harder in the long run.  Look at the laws and fees pertaining to filing claims for small operations.  The fees have increased dramatically and the paperwork is staggering - and all that for a small independent miner.  That's where the permits and fees got the small time miner - a bellyful of trouble and expense. 

The politicians never met a fee or tax they didn't love.  They will raise the fees and put more restrictions on the permit system until only the archies can do it anyway.  Look at the current treasure trove rules.  Do you think they work well? 

I do not advocate digging under the White House, nor to tearing up the Grand Canyon.  I have strong feelings for our historical treasures.  But I say a buried can of silver dimes in the desert should belong to anybody who is smart enough and good enough to find it.  I say the archies have enough aritfacts to study.  I say we are treated differently from those who fish and hunt and rockhound because we pose a threat to the elitist members of the field sciences.   

Don't dare accuse me of being a part of the problem.  I'm probably more ethical than most treasure hunters.  I will not violate the federal laws.  But to have more laws and fees is a joke and anyone who looks at history will see that advocating a permit system is advocating the end to the private treasure hunter and the beginning of international or multinational treasure hunting.  Look at the mining industry for goodness sakes.  Or the nearly non-existant lumber industry.   They followed the rules and they got the axe. 

I do agree with TT that it may start out fine,
But do have Reservations on what could Come out of it
in the long run.

Plus, Right now we have a Nice little Group.
Most of who are in it for the Exercise, Discovery
& Love of the finds.

 Add Profit Potential & everybody & their Brother
will want to be in on the Quick Buck.
Then you got Holes being dug everywhere,
by people in a hurry to dig another one.

    TT, I didn't accuse you of anything, I simply said, and I quote, "The stand that you are taking has been taken a thousand times over, which in part, is why many of the current laws are being imposed on our hobby today." Is this not what I said? I never attacked your personal hunting practices, or your personal ethics. I never said "you" are the reason or part of the problem. I simply implied that the "I will never yield" stand has only served to further hurt our access, not help it. Where did you read that other stuff? lol

This simple poll is getting too heated for me. 
I'll take 50% & be happy.
-MM-

This simple poll is getting too heated for me. 
I'll take 50% & be happy.
-MM-

It's not heated, TT is just trying to avoid the subject of the new MightyAP he's got in his hand. 
PS: Let's see the goods buddy!

I completely understand that TJ and others are trying to find a win-win solution.  I just don't agree that permits and fees for the private individual is the way to do it.  I would much prefer to have something like a Treasure Hunter's Code of Ethics used by the federal government.  Any violation would result in fine or imprisonment, depending on the degree of the violation.  The treasure hunter would not be required to get a permit anymore than you must have a permit to enter a grocery store. 

Here's what I mean.  If you go to the store you don't need a permit.  But if you steal from the store or damage it while there, you might just get caught.  And if you are convicted of theft or vandalism, you pay the price of your crime.  Same could be true for treasure hunters.   You don't need a permit, but if someone violates the Code of Ethics, you can be tracked down and punished.  This only adversely affects the criminal element, not the average honest treasure hunter.  That's how laws were meant to be, they were not meant to be punitive BEFORE the act.  Permits are punitive. 

So let's say you find a Confederate gold cache.  Why should the government automatically get a piece of the action?  You will be taxed on it anyway if you put it in the bank, open a museum, spend it in the stores, or buy a new house and car.  There are already taxes to take your new found gains, do we need more taxes?  And as for possessing something of historical significance, most of us already do.  Should we turn over everything old that we've dug up?  I think not.  If I choose to donate an item to the museum or the Smithsonian, it should be my choice or my national pride that dictates the donation.  Not some arbitrary laws that define things for me.  Who is to make the decisions about what is historically significant?   I say again, it is a slipper slope we discuss here.  And the only way is down.

I will now bow out of this discussion in order to let the meek among us feel more comfortable.

[Goldfinger]

I'd go up to 100%.  Providing, that since I found it it cost zero dollars and has zero value unless I sell it.  even 50% of zero is still zero.   

The key words in Jeffs post is LITTLE GROUP.  How can we , without millions of treasure hunters have enough clout to to get what we deserve.  I agree with most of what TT says, but we have to have enough people on our side to threaten the people that are elected to make these discisions.  That is to threaten their reelection.  I dont think we have that clout.  So what do we do to get them to vote in our favor.  I can't think of anything we can do that would make a difference.  Maybe we could get some movie stars behind us.  Washington seems to listen to what they say. Also some so clled treasure hunters are not like us.  All they want is to get into a place, do what ever it takes to get something of value & get out.  These are the ones you read alot about, not the ones like us , that abide by our own well thought out rules. The media does'nt report those of us that are careful to make it look like we were not there. Again I say , what can we do.  If we disobey the law then we become criminals.  That does'nt do us any good.  We need enough people behind us to make a difference.  Any ideas?          Sonny

I completely understand that TJ and others are trying to find a win-win solution.  I just don't agree that permits and fees for the private individual is the way to do it.  I would much prefer to have something like a Treasure Hunter's Code of Ethics used by the federal government.  Any violation would result in fine or imprisonment, depending on the degree of the violation.  The treasure hunter would not be required to get a permit anymore than you must have a permit to enter a grocery store. 

Here's what I mean.  If you go to the store you don't need a permit.  But if you steal from the store or damage it while there, you might just get caught.  And if you are convicted of theft or vandalism, you pay the price of your crime.  Same could be true for treasure hunters.   You don't need a permit, but if someone violates the Code of Ethics, you can be tracked down and punished.  This only adversely affects the criminal element, not the average honest treasure hunter.  That's how laws were meant to be, they were not meant to be punitive BEFORE the act.  Permits are punitive. 

So let's say you find a Confederate gold cache.  Why should the government automatically get a piece of the action?  You will be taxed on it anyway if you put it in the bank, open a museum, spend it in the stores, or buy a new house and car.  There are already taxes to take your new found gains, do we need more taxes?  And as for possessing something of historical significance, most of us already do.  Should we turn over everything old that we've dug up?  I think not.  If I choose to donate an item to the museum or the Smithsonian, it should be my choice or my national pride that dictates the donation.  Not some arbitrary laws that define things for me.  Who is to make the decisions about what is historically significant?   I say again, it is a slipper slope we discuss here.  And the only way is down.

I will now bow out of this discussion in order to let the meek among us feel more comfortable.

I guess this means you're escaping the debate you started without showing us your new
MightyAP?

I started the debate?  Really?  Hmmm, I posted Reply #9.  What I did was delve a little deeper into the debate, IMO.  I didn't start it by any means.  And no, I'm not French.  Just like the Americans always do, I have to clean up the messes started by others, including those who want to get a permit to use their own lands. 

You goaded me into this additional post, TJ, so don't later accuse me of going back on my earlier post, OK?  I have no hard feelings towards anyone here.  I'm merely trying to point out the potential problems with permits and sharing the spoils with the government.  Those of us who live in the West have dealt with the rules from the East long enough and often enough to be wary of any proposed new ones.   Even if they are hypothetical. 

I do agree with TT that it may start out fine,
But do have Reservations on what could Come out of it
in the long run.

Plus, Right now we have a Nice little Group.
Most of who are in it for the Exercise, Discovery
& Love of the finds.

 Add Profit Potential & everybody & their Brother
will want to be in on the Quick Buck.
Then you got Holes being dug everywhere,
by people in a hurry to dig another one.

Could happen. But there are still laws and steep fines and possible jail time in place to handle this sort of thing, just as before. And now there would even be additional funds to help fight this type of irresponsible activity. Obviously there is no perfect system and there will always be a few bad apples falling from the tree. But as it stands right now, we are losing ground with every passing day.

Just got four pages of those "most commonly asked question & answers" sheets from the BLM Office, all of it concerning metal detecting, prospecting, and treasure hunting on Federal Lands. Give me a while to read through them and then look up a few other laws that are mentioned.

TJ, I disagree with your statement "....the general government mindset is that anything on public lands should belong to everyone because everyone pays taxes....."

1) Not everyone pays taxes, yet everyone is allowed on public lands with few exceptions, and providing the current laws are obeyed.   Even foreigners are permitted on our public lands, and they never pay a dime in US taxes.  

2) Not all things are prevented from being removed for the good of all, as you imply.  Rocks, minerals, fossils, game & fish, and trash can currently be removed from many federally administered public lands without paying a federal fee and often without need of a federal permit.   (Hunting and fishing permits/licenses are sold by the states.)  Why are those things legally removed and not treasure?  

I personally know two people who run small rock shops.  One lives in California and one is in Oregon.  Those people collect rocks, minerals, fossils from OUR lands and sell them for a profit in their shops.  No permits and no fees.  I'm not advocating THEY should have to buy permits, I am advocating that since they can do it, why can't we?  

If I were to have a mechanized piece of heavy equipment come into a national forest and move tons of earth with it in order to look for treasure, I can see where a set of restrictions and a permitting system would be necessary.  But for the average treasure hunter or metal detectorist or artifact collector or bottle digger, I don't see why our hobby is any different from the rockhounds - and I am a rockhound, too.  In fact, the rock shop owners that I mentioned are not your average rockhound.  They collect hundreds of pounds of material and sell it for profits - with no permits or fees necessary.  They pay taxes on the profits they make on the sales of the material.   I'm advocating equal treatment under the law.  I'm saying we are being discriminated against and it has little to do with anything except the elitist attitude of the professional archaeologists who are trying to preserve their own incomes.  We are threatening their jobs - and many of them don't care about the material they dig up.  They care about the books they can write and the new discovery they can name after themselves.  We are being brainwashed into thinking we need them.  BULL.  They need us.  

Do you realize that some of the best discoveries made in the field sciences were made by those who were not the scientists themselves?  Mary Leakey found more old skull parts than her scientist husband did in Africa.  There are many ametuer rockhounds who have minerals named after them because they first discovered them.  Why do we allow ourselves to be treated as stepchildren?  Only through standing our ground as equal citizens will be make progress.  Submission makes us less than equals.  No thanks.  I'll not settle for half a loaf.  

3) Equal justice under the law should refer to us treasure hunters as much as backpackers and rockclimbers.  If rockclimbers can pound their pitons into the face of Half Dome in Yosemite in the name of "sport," why can't I put a shovel into the desert soil and retrieve a cache of old bottles?  It is the same thing.  In fact, my shovel is less harmful to the environment.  The government at all levels has more historical material now in its possession than can be thoroughly "studied" in a thousand years.  They are not telling us the truth when they outlaw our activities.  Think about that.

My quarrel here is not with any individual.  I'm on your side because we are on the same side.  My quarrel is in the thinking that says we need to pay more or give up more or kiss more butts because of our hobby.  Never!   We need fewer hoops to jump through, not more.  It was individual discoveries that made America rich.  To dampen that discovery mentality is to dampen our own future.  

TT, I have to disagree, apples and oranges fall from different trees. We are talking lost treasures here, not fish, trash, rabbits, or rocks, but rather items that contain a value of historical and monetary significance. The stand that you are taking has been taken a thousand times over, which in part, is why many of the current laws are being imposed on our hobby today. Fishermen have size limits, hunters have bag limits, and the last time I checked it is illegal to remove rocks and fossils from federally governed ground. Can you imagine where these interest, fishing & hunting & trapping, would be today without imposed limits, or the permit revenue to help support these interest? "Gone are the buffalo!"  

I wholeheartedly agree with TT, jack, I understand where you're coming from, but on the same note, what happened to the "land of the free"?? Federal profiteering has taxed the American dream right out of existence. Why aren't we being compesated already for the amounts of litter that is removed from these lands each year Historical socities and the "archies"(aka overglorified coin-shooting cherry pickers) are on a budget for yearly compensation for their "contributions to society". All the way down to driving violations, if I get an alternate side parking ticket, how do they have the right to ban me from roads that I pay for ?? Driving is my RIGHT, not a priveledge granted to me by an institution that is supposed to answer to me. The powers that be have spent far to long raping our freedoms already, I don't think they deserve any more of our money until they get back to "of the people, by the people".
  I understand the reason for regulation of certain activities, but they(the feds) have gone WAY too far in that regulation, we should not be punished for not contributing enough to their profiteering enterprises.

The key words in Jeffs post is LITTLE GROUP.  How can we , without millions of treasure hunters have enough clout to to get what we deserve.  I agree with most of what TT says, but we have to have enough people on our side to threaten the people that are elected to make these discisions.  That is to threaten their reelection.  I dont think we have that clout.  So what do we do to get them to vote in our favor.  I can't think of anything we can do that would make a difference.  Maybe we could get some movie stars behind us.  Washington seems to listen to what they say. Also some so clled treasure hunters are not like us.  All they want is to get into a place, do what ever it takes to get something of value & get out.  These are the ones you read alot about, not the ones like us , that abide by our own well thought out rules. The media does'nt report those of us that are careful to make it look like we were not there. Again I say , what can we do.  If we disobey the law then we become criminals.  That does'nt do us any good.  We need enough people behind us to make a difference.  Any ideas?          Sonny

We are small proud group with passion and drive. Don't fight a shark in the water you'll lose every time, but you take the same shark and put him on land and I'd whip his a$$. Collectively we are few and really cant pack a political punch. But use the financial and influential resources of Major Metal Detecting Manufacturers combined. They certainly have a voice and perhaps lobbyists and it is in their financial interest to do so. Don't write your congressman, write to all the big name manufacturers and get them to lead the way. If public lands were open they would benefit also. 

TT I couldn't agree more! Mybe these people should work for U.S.
the people that pay there pay checks!

So far, 38 have voted and roughly 73% of those who have voted would support the proposed bill, "to varying degrees."  Interesting.

What i find interesting is thta the poll titled hunting under government supervision posted on here is just the oppisite.
      50% Say they do not want the government looking over there shoulder.
  Common sense tells you that even if you reach an agreement of some kind the government will work it to there benefit.
        tHEY WILL DETERMINE WHAT IS HISTORICAL AND IMPORTANT,NOT US.....They will have the final say in what will be kept and what will not.
       Even i,as cynical as i may sound would be willing to split the money with them if the share they got went back to help keep up the "public lands" and not into a fund for old retiring politicians!!!
     But alas as we have all seen,real life and conjecter are worlds apart.
  Nice thing about these polls is they keep your mind working as well as your swinging arm!!!!
            HAPPY HUNTING AND GOOD LUCK FOR SOME GREAT FINDS EVERYONE!! ;
     

If we opened up the flood gates to treasure hunting everywhere, no matter what regulation, the end result would be less treasure for everyone, endless court cases beyond the current stream, and at the cost of the heritages we should pass along to our children. I'm all for Finding the lost treasure no matter where it may lay. But not at the cost of my children's heritage. Opening up federal public lands would be an uncontrollable fire hose of regulation trying to continuously put out the fires of greed graft and corruption.

If we opened up the flood gates to treasure hunting everywhere, no matter what regulation, the end result would be less treasure for everyone, endless court cases beyond the current stream, and at the cost of the heritages we should pass along to our children. I'm all for Finding the lost treasure no matter where it may lay. But not at the cost of my children's heritage. Opening up federal public lands would be an uncontrollable fire hose of regulation trying to continuously put out the fires of greed graft and corruption.

Since 1999, there have been roughly 161,000 locations on that have been "determined to meet" the requirements for the National Register of Historic Places.
Of those locations, since 1999 only 380 have been placed in that Register, now comes the shocker.....of all these lands only 33,036 have been evaluated to meet the eligibility criteria, meaning they might make it or they might not. And it gets worse for the Archies because another 127,848 properties have yet to even be evaluated for "eligibility" because of funding, so in essence these properties are off limits "just in case." In other words, of the 161,000 locations that are off limits since 1999, only 380 have been evaluated as to their true potential. As for the rest, funding is clearly the problem and it is also our greatest leverage against this huge problem the BLM and their 400 Archies are facing. Sooner or later, and they know this too, if the funding isn't there to support these "land holds" then their own futures, and the future of their programs, become threatened as well, and that future funding is being threatened as we speak. If/when this happens, heritage alone will not save or preserve these locations. We want access to public lands, they don't want to lose the important ones they've got placed on hold.....perhaps here is that point of leverage?  Just something to consider.

I think 50% is fair. It is much better than 0, if you can,huntit at all. I always offer 50% when I try to get permision to hunt private property.

What i find interesting is thta the poll titled hunting under government supervision posted on here is just the oppisite.
      50% Say they do not want the government looking over there shoulder.
  Common sense tells you that even if you reach an agreement of some kind the government will work it to there benefit.
        tHEY WILL DETERMINE WHAT IS HISTORICAL AND IMPORTANT,NOT US.....They will have the final say in what will be kept and what will not.
       Even i,as cynical as i may sound would be willing to split the money with them if the share they got went back to help keep up the "public lands" and not into a fund for old retiring politicians!!!
     But alas as we have all seen,real life and conjecter are worlds apart.
  Nice thing about these polls is they keep your mind working as well as your swinging arm!!!!
            HAPPY HUNTING AND GOOD LUCK FOR SOME GREAT FINDS EVERYONE!! ;
     

That's an interesting observation you brought up between the two polls, they are indeed opposite. I wonder if this is saying,
A) "Maybe, perhaps, but most certainly not if this means that they're going to be in the field with me?"

B) Or is it because "there is no potential of profit for the treasure hunter in the other poll?"

My guess is "B".......

You can put me on the list of people who "just say no" to new permits and fees. I've been dealing with it for years already with mining claims. And you know what? We got something a treasure hunter doesn't have, and entire set of laws that are FOR mining! They can't touch the laws with enough force to stop it comepletely, but they do a damn good job with their permits and fees.

 There hasn't been a plan of operation approved here in quite awhile. Even longer for patents.

 What I'm saying here is this- Even with an actual set of laws on our side, they still find ways to shut us down. Imagine what the permit you're suggesting would be worth. The first time some yahoo with a shovel gets into a battlefield, that'll be the end of it.

 Study the laws in your state and act accordingly, to the letter of the law. Don't invite the yahoos in.

 Just my take, for what its worth.