NH changing MD rules were you can hunt

[Luckychucky163]

Well new it was inevitable, NH state law allows you to hunt on school grounds athletic fields beaches dirt roads within 25 feet of tables but on April 24 a new law will be passed making it illeagle to hunt on school grounds and athletic fields due to kids getting injured due to unfilled holes. Great job to the lazy people getting some of my favorite places to hunt banned.

 

[KOB]

Yeah right. There are so many of them not filling their holes. Got to blame someone. Yet not 1 hunter spoke up on behalf of metal detecting in the senate hearing. Not 1 local club or representative. Still has to go through the House before it passes. This is the wrong forum to complain. Take it the folks who want to ban it.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

If that's a "NH state law" (as you say), then : That would only apply to STATE land. Not other forms of land . Eg.: City, county, fed, private, etc.....

And no, I bet it didn't come about because of "un-filled holes". That's just the go-to-answer to justify a rule they already decided. I have a suspicion of what the real reason is. Care to take a guess ?

 

[AirmetTango]

That would only apply to STATE land. Not other forms of land . Eg.: City, county, fed, private, etc.....

Exactly as Tom says. It would only apply to State of NH land, assuming it would even pass. It would have absolutely zero impact on local school districts, city or county parks, etc. Here's the full language of the regulation (colored text is added by me for emphasis):

TITLE XIX​

PUBLIC RECREATION​

CHAPTER 227-C​

HISTORIC PRESERVATION​

Preservation of State Historic Resources​

Section 227-C:12​

227-C:12 Exemptions and Limitations. –
I. Notwithstanding any provision of this subdivision to the contrary, any person who, prior to the effective date of this subdivision, has acquired historic resources from state lands or waters, which include items commonly known as antiques, may continue to possess or market such items as antiques.
II. Treasure hunting with metal detectors and dowsing rods is exempted from the restrictions of this subdivision on the following lands owned or controlled by the state, its agencies, departments, commissions, and institutions, unless an historic resource on such land has been recorded and restrictions are posted:
(a) Beaches;
(b) Athletic fields;
(c) School grounds;
(d) Perimeters of cemeteries;
(e) Unpaved roads;
(f) Within 25 feet of picnic tables and park pavilions; and
(g) Currently used dumps.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Exactly as Tom says. It would only apply to State of NH land, assuming it would even pass. It would have absolutely zero impact on local school districts, city or county parks, etc. Here's the full language of the regulation (colored text is added by me for emphasis):

TITLE XIX​

PUBLIC RECREATION​

CHAPTER 227-C​

HISTORIC PRESERVATION​

Preservation of State Historic Resources​

Section 227-C:12​

227-C:12 Exemptions and Limitations. –
I. Notwithstanding any provision of this subdivision to the contrary, any person who, prior to the effective date of this subdivision, has acquired historic resources from state lands or waters, which include items commonly known as antiques, may continue to possess or market such items as antiques.
II. Treasure hunting with metal detectors and dowsing rods is exempted from the restrictions of this subdivision on the following lands owned or controlled by the state, its agencies, departments, commissions, and institutions, unless an historic resource on such land has been recorded and restrictions are posted:
(a) Beaches;
(b) Athletic fields;
(c) School grounds;
(d) Perimeters of cemeteries;
(e) Unpaved roads;
(f) Within 25 feet of picnic tables and park pavilions; and
(g) Currently used dumps.

Well golly airmet-tango : Your information seems to give express ALLOWANCE. Not a "prohibition" at all.

The places listed are EXEMPTED from the dire language. So how do these "sky is falling" notions get started then ??

 

[AirmetTango]

Well golly airmet-tango : Your information seems to give express ALLOWANCE. Not a "prohibition" at all.

The places listed are EXEMPTED from the dire language. So how do these "sky is falling" notions get started then ??

What I posted is the currently existing law. The proposed bill seeks to remove (b) and (c) from the exemptions list. The proposed bill (SB474) has passed the State Senate, and is now languishing in committee in the House. It appears to have received no resistance in a public hearing that apparently happened on April 10. Executive session is on April 24, and the bill is due out of committee on May 16.

Full details on the bill status can be found here:

https://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billinfo.aspx?id=2090&inflect=2

 

[Rock Jock]

Gee, now you have to protest the bill and have the State of NH establish a Certified Ethical Metal Detectorist and Dowser Training program with a dedicated State agency to supervise and process the licensure with only a $50 license fee because it is a privilege ya know.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

What I posted is the currently existing law. The proposed bill seeks to remove (b) and (c) from the exemptions list. .......

Thanx for clarifying that. Ok, my thoughts then are :

1) I have a sneaking suspicion why this is even up for discussion. Care to take a guess ? And no, it's not "un-filled holes"

2) This would STILL only apply to state administered "athletic fields" and "school grounds". Not other levels (city, county, private, fed, etc....) . Yet for some reason people see the word "state", and mistakenly assume that it means "everything in the state, border to border"

3) I have a sneaking suspicion that even if this passed, that you would be hard pressed to find anyone to care-less. Ie.: As long as it's not an obvious historic sensitive monument. And as long as you're not being a glaring nuisance.

 

[sube]

It will get to the point where you can metal detect own as many as you want but can't open carry a DIGGING TOOL eyeball finds are legal but anything with a blade of grass over it must be left . Then it will be door to door confiscation of all digging tools when the heck are americans going to stand up for their rights . sube

 

[Tom_in_CA]

It will get to the point where you can metal detect own as many as you want but can't open carry a DIGGING TOOL eyeball finds are legal but anything with a blade of grass over it must be left . Then it will be door to door confiscation of all digging tools when the heck are americans going to stand up for their rights . sube

And if/when that ^ ^ day comes, in our particular hobby, it will be we ourselves who brought it upon ourselves. By swatting hornets nests all the time. Groveling and thinking we need express allowances and red carpets. And hence getting our "pressing question" answered. We became our own worst enemy.

 

[AirmetTango]

1) I have a sneaking suspicion why this is even up for discussion. Care to take a guess ? And no, it's not "un-filled holes"

I think we could speculate until the universe goes dark about the true motivation behind this proposed regulation. I’ll let my cynical side come out for a moment and tell you what I think. Politicians need to pad their stats a bit during the election cycle…it doesn’t look good when election time comes around, and you can’t point to any legislation that you’ve sponsored or introduced. So this particular bill is a political and legislative “softball” - it’s a change that’s easily passed, especially since nobody really cares about the specific issue. And if a politician spins it as “this bill prohibits treasure hunting with a metal detector in areas that expose students to the risk of injury” (that’s a direct quote from the bill proposal, by the way), how can anyone not see the importance of this critical issue or oppose it? After all…think of the poor children getting injured and maimed!! Of course, no one will remember or bother to look up just how inconsequential and silly this bill change actually is, but at the next election cycle, the sponsoring representative can legitimately tout how “she introduced and ensured the passage of legislation designed to improve school safety, and protect the health and safety of young athletes participating in sporting events”.

2) This would STILL only apply to state administered "athletic fields" and "school grounds". Not other levels (city, county, private, fed, etc....) . Yet for some reason people see the word "state", and mistakenly assume that it means "everything in the state, border to border"

Yes, I think some people mistakenly think the word “state” somehow means everything border to border, but in my opinion, I think far more people don’t take the time to read the actual regulation…they just hear “it’s gonna be illegal to metal detect at schools” and think it means everywhere without understanding the real situation. Even this New Hampshire “citizen watch” website, which is attempting to make the general public aware of obscure legislation, has oversimplified the scope of the bill and makes it sound as though it covers all schools and sports fields:

https://www.citizenscount.org/news/should-nh-remove-right-treasure-hunt-metal-detector-school-grounds#:~:text=Metal detecting in New Hampshire,, and currently-used dumps.

Too many folks rely on second hand information from sources that might distort the facts…occasionally the distortions are intentional, but much more often than not, things get get misrepresented out of shear ignorance or in a misguided attempt to dumb the material down for mass consumption. Always read the regulations directly from the source first.

3) I have a sneaking suspicion that even if this passed, that you would be hard pressed to find anyone to care-less. Ie.: As long as it's not an obvious historic sensitive monument. And as long as you're not being a glaring nuisance.

Yes, agreed. Not much will change, and not many will care. That said, I personally never hunt any location that has a specific, published rule that prohibits metal detecting by name. Do I think I’ll get arrested or have my gear confiscated? Of course not. I’m a nice, polite, personable guy, and I’m confident that the worst case scenario would be that I’d be asked to leave. I won’t do it because, for me, it just isn’t worth putting myself in a situation that I know, in my mind, isn’t allowed by the “property owner”, in this case, the state. Not when there are a thousand other places to go that don’t have those specific regulations. To me, it’s the same as a private permission where the owner might say “you can detect anywhere but the side yard”. If he leaves, I’m not going to detect the side yard just because I can get away with it. I know there are probably others that would, and we can go back and forth all day about why people choose to follow some rules and not others. I’m known to drive 70 in a 65 zone while driving in certain situations without giving it a second thought and “get away with it”. Everybody has their own rule-breaking limits.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... we could speculate until ....

You say : "..... I think we could speculate until the universe goes dark about the true motivation...."


Sure. We are "speculating". But there's point blank case examples of the phenomenon I am referring to (where the evolution was immistakable), I can provide it. And from those we can extrapolate and see it's not a baseless "speculation". It does indeed happen.


You say : "... and you can’t point to any legislation that you’ve sponsored or introduced...."


I don't doubt for a moment that politicians are eager with their "rubber stamp", to render their bleeding heart signature to stuff that is put-in-front-of-them. In order to be popular . Ok ? I'm not denying this psychology at play. But what I AM REFERRING TO is : Why was it even ON THEIR PLATE, as something to consider, IN THE FIRST PLACE ?


And about this "injured and maimed" d/t holes : We md'rs will be quick to mutter under our breaths : "Durned those md'rs who must have left holes". Or if the go-to-reason for a proposed bill is cultural heritage issues, then we mdr's will utter under our breath : "Durned those archies". Eh ? But I am convinced that it is NOT about holes or archie concerns. Those are not the reasons that it's on-their-plate.


The bigger question is : What PUT IT THERE , on their plate, as a "pressing issue" in the first place. Because I do NOT think that anyone happen chanced on a hole. Or that an archie happen chanced passed an md'r in the park and said to himself : "Oh me oh my, we must make a law"


You say : " ... and think it means everywhere ...."


Bingo. Like shark attack psychology. And this is the problem with many of the wonderful compendium resource links that persons have tried to assemble. Like the couple that tried to list all the European countries in alphabetic order. The same issue happened : The list compiler finds something dire, and assumes it means all land, border to border, in the country. Without realizing it is only FEDERAL land. Or PUBLIC land with no bearing whatsoever on farmer Bob's private land with permission.


And sadly, if you ever try to debate the skittish folk, guess what they will do, to "clarify" this and "get to the bottom of this" ? Yup : Go ask bored archie pencil pushers. Are you beginning to see the vicious circle ?