Indiana National Forest

[kcw12]

Hello,

I just had a good long discussion with the forest office out of Tell City, Indiana. Very nice folks.

Anyway, I asked them about their metal detecting policy as is stated here: https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/hoosier/learning/history-culture/?cid=stelprdb5406465

We concluded that metal detecting is allowed in the developed areas (campgrounds, Beaches(you are allowed to sift through sand here), Trailheads, and Picnic Areas) for surface detection only. You are NOT allowed to dig anywhere there.

They are going to verify this with everyone and give me some sort of verification on this. When I get it I will post it here, as I have looked, and nothing has been 100% clear on this matter, that I can find.

Happy Detecting Friends!

 

[stetam]

Same rules in PA

Steve

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.....

I just had a good long discussion with the forest office out of Tell City, Indiana. Very nice folks.

......................

They are going to verify this with everyone and give me some sort of verification on this. .........

Yes. This evolution ^^ Is exactly why any such verbiage, you can find (like you did) EXISTS IN THE FIRST PLACE. Ie.: MD'rs, decades ago, went in asking the same type "can I " questions. Thus wonderful restrictive rules (and/or out-right "no's" ), like in your link, were born. Prior to that, odds are, no one gave a hoot. Prior to that, no one ever gave it a moment's thought. Until this "pressing question" keeps coming across their desk. Hence presto : Rules (or out right "no") to address our pressing issue.


And it brought a chuckle to me that , after your most recent round of "seeking clarification", they will be sure to "alert everyone" to "get it verified". So that, shucks, now with this new round of cage-rattling perhaps this will land on the desk of a purist archie. And then, shucks, let's change it to an out right "no" this time, eh ?


Or perhaps that the "everyone" you were referring to there is rank & file workers. Who perhaps never gave the matter a moments thought before. But now if they see an md'r (that previously they never paid a moment's mind to), they see an md'r, recall the earlier inquiry and office-memos, and now think "AHA ! There's one of THEM ". And start booting others . I've seen this exact phenomenon happen. Leaving the old-timers scratching their heads saying "since when ?"


It's nothing but a self-fulfilling vicious loop of swatting hornets' nests

 

[kcw12]

Yes. This evolution ^^ Is exactly why any such verbiage, you can find (like you did) EXISTS IN THE FIRST PLACE. Ie.: MD'rs, decades ago, went in asking the same type "can I " questions. Thus wonderful restrictive rules (and/or out-right "no's" ), like in your link, were born. Prior to that, odds are, no one gave a hoot. Prior to that, no one ever gave it a moment's thought. Until this "pressing question" keeps coming across their desk. Hence presto : Rules (or out right "no") to address our pressing issue.


And it brought a chuckle to me that , after your most recent round of "seeking clarification", they will be sure to "alert everyone" to "get it verified". So that, shucks, now with this new round of cage-rattling perhaps this will land on the desk of a purist archie. And then, shucks, let's change it to an out right "no" this time, eh ?


Or perhaps that the "everyone" you were referring to there is rank & file workers. Who perhaps never gave the matter a moments thought before. But now if they see an md'r (that previously they never paid a moment's mind to), they see an md'r, recall the earlier inquiry and office-memos, and now think "AHA ! There's one of THEM ". And start booting others . I've seen this exact phenomenon happen. Leaving the old-timers scratching their heads saying "since when ?"


It's nothing but a self-fulfilling vicious loop of swatting hornets' nests

My reading of the page was it was okay to dig in the developed areas. Which it's not. If I did as I read I'd been screwed. It'd been a good way to cause more issues.

Ever think maybe it was a bunch of people who thought they owned the place did as they pleased and a 'purist archie' seen it and caused it?

It's not swatting a hornets nest, it's going hey what's the best way to deal with one without stirring it up.

I may not have the best wording, so don't read into it.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

My reading of the page was it was okay to dig in the developed areas. ......

Regarding the dreaded word : "dig" : If language like that automatically means we can't detect (since yes, we "dig"), then I got news for you : Then there's not a single speck of public land, in the entire USA, where we can detect. Not simply the place in your post, but : EVERYWHERE.

Because here's the deal : Language to that effect exists ON EVERY SPECK OF PUBLIC LAND EVERYWHERE. Every park, every beach, every forest, every desert, etc.... In some form or fashion. Eg.: Alter, Deface, Molest, Dig, Disturb, Mutilate, destroy, harm, etc... So if these type words automatically disqualify us (till given a princely blessing to the contrary), is the day we all might as well give up this hobby.

No, I do not construe those words to automatically apply to us. And here's why: Because when you and I leave no trace of our presence (cover, stomp, and fluff up), THEN PRESTO : You have not alterED, defacED, molestED, mutilatED or disturbED anything. Now have you ? And I apply the same logic for dIg vs dUg. The only difference is that we don't spell it digGED. Might some nosy parker disagree with those semantics ? SURE ! Then avoid that singular lookie lous and go when they're not around.


The problem is not solved by going in ahead of time and getting red carpets rolled out for us. This tends to only make the problem worse, not better. Because the mere fact we're standing there asking them "can I ? " and "does this apply", simply implies that something is harmful, damaging, wrong, etc.... Lest why else would we be asking , if it were benign and harmless ? This subconscious implication is not lost on the person you're asking. And merely "drives their answer". It merely becomes self-fulfilling.


The only thing that decades of md'rs have accomplished, by going in (with good intentions) "seeking clarifications", is to have the wheels of the desk-jockies' brains start turning. We became victims of the "No one cared UNTIL you asked" phenomenon. Visions of geeks with shovels cross their mind. Or the "pressing question" gets passed up-the-chain until it lands on the desk of a purist archie. And presto : A new law, or rule, or policy, or restriction or "no" is born.

You say "you'd have been screwed". How do you figure ? You found the laws/rules, didn't you ? You had the link, didn't you ? So how would you have been "screwed" by simply following it ? What could be more law-abiding than that ? No need to get any more permissions. If the law said only certain zones were restricted, and others weren't, then .... why rock that boat ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...........Ever think maybe it was a bunch of people who thought they owned the place did as they pleased and a 'purist archie' seen it and caused it? ........

Re.: Your above ^ ^ quote : Here's what's going on : Whenever a rule is put forth (like your link) that came about by past md'rs (decades ago) asking "Can I ?". Then you and I CAN BE CERTAIN that it will be riddled with cultural heritage reasons. Right ? So we md'rs do exactly as you're doing now, with the above quotation of yours. We will say :


DARNED THOSE ARCHIES ! or DARNED THOSE MD'RS WHO DUG OLD COINS LIKE THEY OWNED THE PLACE" As if a purist archie JUST HAPPEN CHANCE to be walking by, and thought : "Oh me oh my, we need to make a law". And you think this is how the rules originated, eh ? I mean, after all, their "no" was accompanied by archie language as the justification. Hence we say "darned them archies", right ?


But this ^ ^ fails to ask ourselves : WHY WAS IT EVER ON THAT ARCHIE'S PLATE TO CONSIDER IN THE FIRST PLACE ? And no, it wasn't because they "happen chance walked by and saw an md'r". It was because generations of md'rs have gone in swatting hornets' nests. So the pressing question gets passed desk to desk, until it lands on the desk of an archie.


I started this hobby in the mid 1970s as a teen . Before the 1979 version of ARPA. So I've seen the evolution first hand. I can give you links and proof of this evolution/cause if you doubt me.


Same for the pat answer that accompanies "no's" where they say "because of holes". So the md'r mutters under this breath: "Durned that md'r who must have left holes". But I'm not convinced that there was ever a case of any md'r leaving holes. IT IS SIMPLY THE CONNOTATION OF A MAN WITH A DETECTOR, EVEN IF HE NEVER STOOPS DOWN TO DIG ! They can just assume it will be the case EVEN IF YOU LEFT NO TRACE, BUT SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY SAW YOU STOOP TO DIG !


Thus no, it's still traced back to hornet's nests swatting. That's why it's on their plate for their princely yes or no . That's why it's a "pressing question" and will get the "safe answer". It doesn't mean any archie saw you, or that you left a hole.

 

[kcw12]

Frankly, I don't care what you think.

I have lost more hunting/metal detecting ground for the reason of, I caught someone here who didn't have permission so no one is allowed anymore. I am doing what I see fit to ensure that I can keep detecting the area and not get my equipment confiscated.

As to keeping this post somewhat on topic.

They got back to me, The park keepers were under the impression that no one could detect besides the beach. You are allowed to detect anywhere in the developed areas of the Hoosier National Forest, but are not able to dig or anything like that. They also said they had more than a few people lately going in and digging up the place and not following the rules so they were glad that I asked.

 

[stetam]

Bravo kcw12, bravo

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....... who didn't have permission .......

....... so they were glad that I asked......

If this ^ ^ is public land we're talking about (not private property, right ?), then : What does ^ ^ "permission" have to do with it ? We don't "need permission" to hunt public property, right ? We can (like you did) look up any potential laws or rules, and simply follow them. So what's with "permission" ^ ^ (Or were you talking about private property ? In which case I agree with you)

And as far as them saying "thank you for asking", here's the psychology behind that :

Whenever an md'r is told "yes you can" or "no you can't " or "thank you for asking", then the recipient of those statements can translate that, in their mind, as meaning : "See ? It was a good and necessary thing for me to have asked". Because otherwise, why could/would that desk-jockey be saying "yes" or "no" or "thank you" ? "


Here's the problem with drawing this conclusion : It assumes there's a 3rd horn option answer that they might have said something like the following : "Gee that's a funny question. Why are you asking my permission ? If it's not disallowed, then no permission is needed"

But notice that authority WILL NEVER ANSWER LIKE THAT ^ ^ Instead they will bestow on you their princely yes or no and thank you and so forth. I mean, after all, you asked. Which subconsciously implies to them that their say so was needed (lest why else would you be asking ).

So I do not construe a "yes" or a "no" or a "thank you" to imply that : Therefore I needed their permission. Instead : Codified laws & rules (that we can look up for ourselves) will tell us what we need to know. What could be more law-abiding than that ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... but are not able to dig or anything like that.....

Then we have just single-handedly put every single park, school, forest, desert, beach, etc.... , in the entire USA, off-limits. Because I guarantee you that similar verbiage exists. Eg.: Alter, deface, destroy, molest, damage, harm, remove, harvest, etc....


Just keep asking long enough and hard enough (be sure to show up with a shovel in your hand, lest they not understand the full implications). And .... we can always find someone to tell us "no" on those grounds.


Now the million dollar question is : Did they really give 2 hoots, or give the matter a moment's thought, before this "pressing issue" crossed their desk ?

 

[Pyriteboy]

Hi kcw12,

Apologies if I am asking for information you included in your posts. What were you planning on searching for, and where were you planning on searching? (developed campgrounds, old historical sites, open raw land, etc.)

Thanks, Jerry

 

[kcw12]

Hi kcw12,

Apologies if I am asking for information you included in your posts. What were you planning on searching for, and where were you planning on searching? (developed campgrounds, old historical sites, open raw land, etc.)

Thanks, Jerry

I was planning on searching the campgrounds, beach area, trailheads, picnic areas, Basically, any area that is developed and maintained by them, that isn't a historic site.

 

[sube]

As far as the Archies are concerned the whole planet is a historic site lol . sube

 

[Tom_in_CA]

As far as the Archies are concerned the whole planet is a historic site lol . sube

Sure. So let's all just keep asking long enough and hard enough. Don't stop. Keep rattling cages because, shucks, ya can't be too safe, eh ? And be sure to pepper our pressing question with words like "holes" and "dig" and "take/remove" and "Indian bone", lest they not understand the full implications of our pressing question Because shucks, you don't want to "mince words", right ?

And then sure enough, our "pressing question" will make its way to the desk of a purist archie. And thus presto : Another rule, or law or policy or "no" is born. Then we can all sit around and pat ourselves on the back , eh ?


Quite frankly, do you think that "purist archie" ever gave us a moment's thought before this "pressing question" kept coming across his desk for princely approval ? Do you think that purist archie was ever outside his ivory tower office ?

In a town of 500,000 residents, I bet there'd scarcely ever be a single "purist archie". So what are the odds that his type is ever going to "happen chance bump into you in the field" ? Not likely, right ? Just avoid obvious historic sensitive monuments, and YOU WON'T RUN INTO HIM ! And thus what he doesn't see won't bother him, right ?

 

[kcw12]

Sure. So let's all just keep asking long enough and hard enough. Don't stop. Keep rattling cages because, shucks, ya can't be too safe, eh ? And be sure to pepper our pressing question with words like "holes" and "dig" and "take/remove" and "Indian bone", lest they not understand the full implications of our pressing question Because shucks, you don't want to "mince words", right ?

And then sure enough, our "pressing question" will make its way to the desk of a purist archie. And thus presto : Another rule, or law or policy or "no" is born. Then we can all sit around and pat ourselves on the back , eh ?


Quite frankly, do you think that "purist archie" ever gave us a moment's thought before this "pressing question" kept coming across his desk for princely approval ? Do you think that purist archie was ever outside his ivory tower office ?

In a town of 500,000 residents, I bet there'd scarcely ever be a single "purist archie". So what are the odds that his type is ever going to "happen chance bump into you in the field" ? Not likely, right ? Just avoid obvious historic sensitive monuments, and YOU WON'T RUN INTO HIM ! And thus what he doesn't see won't bother him, right ?

Are you serious or just trolling?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Are you serious or just trolling?

I am "not serious" when I say for us to keep "pounding on their doors" . As if we are trying to become the latest victims of "no one cared UNTIL you asked" routine.

I am THE LAST person to advocate swatting hornet's nests. It is how the laws and rules got & get started against us .... TO BEGIN WITH. So my post was in jest.