Travis County Commissioners Court
August 29, 2006
Item 12
Number 12, to consider and take appropriate action to request and reconsider prohibition of metal detectors in Travis County parks. Mr. Turl, yes,thank you sir sir--
>> thank you sir. Three weeks ago we discussed the prohibition of metal detectors and you asked the item be brought back. Basically a the last session our staff recommended two items, one that the Commissioners court maintain its adopted rule prohibit is metal detectors in any county parks, and two, the other option was in you do not maintain the current rule, we would recommend that the use of metal dedeck torse by permit only-- only--detectors by permit only. This morning, mark den ton, I have asked him to come back and he would like to speak to you.
>> good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to come back and speak with you today. I said I would be back in thee weeks and here I am. I brought with me two colleagues, dan prigl, the head arc yol gift, and dr. Michael strut, director of the archeology section at parks and wildlife. We sat down immediately after our meeting three weeks ago to discuss this issue and the ramifications of possibly changing the state rules and regulations related to metal detecting on public lands in the state of textstate Texas--we came to the conclusion that this is a very difficult issue. It would be virtually im impossible for most stage agencies and political subdivisions to manage such a program cost effectively. The folks that came before you last, three weeks ago, all honest, decent, up upstanding citizens that I'm sure have no intentions whatsoever of damaging culturel resources in public parks. I presume that the vast majority of the metal detector clubs in the state are made up of the same sort of individuals. The fact of the matter is that there are some individuals who have intentions on collecting objects and destroying culture resources on public lands. One of the problems is that, obvious, the state of Texas and its political subdivisions only control about ten percent of the lands in Texas. The other 90 percent is on private q8property. If the metal detect tor clubs want to get access to metal detecting on private propertirb that's completely between them and the private citizens who own those lands lands. But the ten percent of the lands that are managed by state agencies and political subdivisions are a public trust. They are lands that we as public employees are supposed to protect and preserve for purposes of generating funds for the state school system or for whatever purposes. And the culturel resources, most of this lands is land that's not too be developed. Just like I've recently gotten an archeological report from bpijcontractors that the county hired to survey the ramer's ranch property, some 2300 acres. 28 archeological sites were recordd on that propertilve we all can agree on a government-government level that this site is in insignificant and that if you want to build a parking lot, that's fine, or if there's other resources that are significant that needs to be preserved and protected. But in public parks land, the idea is to preserve the land in perpetuity for all sorts of purposes, for management of natural resources, water resources, the edwards aquestion fer--a fer--aquifer and all resources. We don't want to build condo condos on all public lands. That's the reason we set aside rules and regulations to try to preserve and protect that land forel use of all citizens. While there are a lot of groups that would be very respectful, when you sit down and try to figure out what it would take to actually manage such a program to control such activities would be virtually impossible, and/or it would, the cost would be so extreme that I think that must public agencies would agree that it's not worth the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to manage such a program that it would cost to actually open uplands for this kind of use. But I'll let my clegs give you a perspective from their state--colleagues give you a per perspective from their stat agencies.
>> can you remind me of what the state rule is.
>> it is under the state antique uities code, archeological investigations or the recovery of historic artifacts and objects off any public lands in the state of Texas, could not be accomplished without a permit from the state, from the Texas historical commission. At this point in time, we would be unwilling to issue permits to private citizens. Permits are issued to professional archeologists. The permit is to regulate and control professional archeologists. It would be impossible for a political subdivision or the state to try to permit or control the public sector if they were allowed to just openly metal did e tic in public parks.
>> so right now is there a state rule prohibiting?
>> yes, sir.
>> metal detectors in state parks?
>> in state parks it's part of our guidelines and policy that metal detecting is only allowed under two circumstances. One is for an individual to find a loss personal item. If you lose your wedding ring or something, you're allowd to find that. Anything that is not yours that is found during that must be turned in. And we work quite closely with a number of metal detector groups to conduct scientific archeological surveys. Over the last several years we have had several .every, very successful surveys with the metal detector groups. Without their expertise and machines we would not be able to do that work. But recreational metal detecting is not allowed.
>> you mentioned earlier.
>> go ahead.
>> I don't maybe want to make sure you exhaust your presentation, but this cost to manage. I would like to maybe have have maybe some type of number out there as far as when you say costs, as far as managinging this situation where you have the metal detect tor folks and folks not authorized to be out there. Has there been any assessment of what the cost would be for all parks? Any idea of how much money are we talking about?
>> specifically related to metal detecting, new york -- --no, it's never come up. But for instance, in rhymer rhymer's park, think the county spent $40,000 or something like that to have a reconnaissance level survey done. That was not a survey done with metal detect tors sweeping an area to determine how much historic objects might be there. It's entirely possible that it would cost you upwards of $100,000 to do a survey of that scale on that piece of property. So if you were looking at a smaller piece of property, I'm sure that you would probably be looking at potentially $100 per acre on or soak like that that would be a cost to have arc arc-- arc--arcologists to go out and determine there are no objects that will be destroyed by allowing metal detectors to come into the property.
>> okay. That was one example. Okay. Thank you.
>> the metal detectors rule that you described covers state-owned and managed parks?
>> it's all state parks and our wildlife management areas, f under the control and authority of Texas parks and wildlife. As my role, I am responsible and my staff, under the permitting system with the t thc, for all cultural resources on those 1.3 million acres. So we keep an eye on where our historic sites are and do not allow recreational metal detecting on any of our property.
>> the state antique uities code also applies to agent land such as those managed by the colorado river authority. Four of your tract parks, pace bend, arkansas bend, mancefield dam, and cypress creek are properties owns by lcran and leased to the county. We at lcra, in our other parks, we have signs up in other parks with a list of things prohibited and metal detectinging is one of those things. And I would be concerned, if you all were to on these lands that you all lease from lcra, open them up to metal detecting, I would want to make sure that staff is there to provide over oversight and that, as mark said, cultural resource surveys are conduct the first in an effort to find areas where such activities would be okay.
>> you did not know that until recently, folk were free to take their metal detectors and use them? It was the case, right is this.
>> yes, it was.
>> before we put the order in place, you just got your metal detector and went out there and enjoyed yourself. You done know that?
>> I was not aware that on you all's county parks that metal detectoring was roud roudand you have been with l lcra how long?
>> seven and a half years.
>> we have been doing it at least that long, vn we?
>> I don't know if it was allowed. Especially on the lcra parks parks. Because the county is familiar with the lcra regulations regarding metal detectors.
>> okay.
>> I think if it has been going on, it's probably been going on in the eastern sector parks like moian and rememberer--weberville.
>> I wouldn't say park staff have not encountered them. But typically we are could go nizants of the lcra rules and regulations and we honor our suedrt ship of their property.
>> .
>> there are signs at the lc lcra parks that alert metal detector users that--
>> we don't have any signs up. I'm not familiar with the lc lcra, if they have any signs up. I don't think so. They may have that posted at their parks up lake.
>> what the state antique ui uities code says that you may not take, alter, damage or destroy objects from sites on public lands in the state of Texas without the express written consent or a permit from the state historical commission. So therefore, most of the signs or pamphlets that parks and wildlife department hand out just specifically state that, that you're not to take, alter, damage or destroy the cultural resources in had these parks. That meaning additionally, and the same sort of reason I think that parks and, your parks department decided they needed to clarify the issue that taking, altering, damaging and destroying was included in the concept of digging in the ground once you have detected something with your metal detector.
>> in your view the language has been sufficient to date?
>> yes. And your current internal regulation conforms with what the other state agencies have been doing and have in their rules and regulations. And they conform with the state state--state code.
>> what are the parks.
>> mancefield, hippy hollow, bob winter, cypress, sandy, arkansas bend and pace been. Pace bend the large e, about 13 -- large e, about 1300 acres.
>> I may not be remembering correctly. I don't think there are any parks that the county owns or leases or manages that don't have culture resources on them, be it prehistoric indian archeological sites or historic archeological deposits. All those portion would be a problem if any of them were opened up to metal detecting because we'd have to ensure up front that that wasn't going to cause some damage to a resource that has been previously recorded or hasn't been recorded yet.
>> gee, I wonder if that includes the cortay, a property.
>> do we think we know where they are? Do we assume that they are in the whole park?
>> I think that, well, again the problem would be, with the concept of let's clear a small area within the park, I don't think that that would be manageable for you or us or anyone else. You would probably have to confirm that the entire park is devoid of any historic artifacts or prehistoric resources that would be adversely affected because how would you manage, oh, you could do it in the vole voleball court area but not anywhere else. I think the management responsibilities for the parks people, and again we're are completely in support of the concept that if you lose a wedding ring, whether it's the city of Austin or lcra, parks and wildlife or tract, that--or Travis County, that it's legitimate to bring a metal detect tor in there under supervision to look for that object.
>> judge, can I ask a question. Our own parks staff. On a lot of our parks, we have had the archeological survey done of the entire park, have we not?
>> I can't say all of them. There are some little pockets parks that we don't have the fund. Typically we do a culture, archeological, cultural survey when one of our properties is going into development mode. East metro, southeast metro, we had a pretty significant culture resources site. Before we could do any kind of work out there we had to mitigate it. And Texas his tryingel commission had to re-- re--historical commission had to review the report and sign off before we could do any work. We haven't done this to all of our parks. I would just say that the ones that have gone through some level of development within the last 10-15 years have had cultural surveys.
>> so my point, judge, is that for some of the parks, especially the big ones, the state of knowledge of what archeological cultural resources might be out there is very high. Even historical commissions have looked at it. And where there were important resources, I'm sure they pointed those out to us.
>> the problem with that concept is that you're not talking about, when we review a proposed project, they are not talking about building condos on every square inch of the property. It's a piece of land to be managed in perpetuity as a recreational area that is not going to get intensive development. The level of documentation of the archeological investigation for that level of management would be completely different if you came to us and said, oh, we want to eradicate the land. We want to pave over every square inch, we want to have metal detectors sweep every square inch. We would be talking about a whole different level of effect. But the cultural surveys the county has done on those parks cover every inch of the park. The reason I'm asking, I have seen them.
>> for the proposed development that's being proposed.
>> for the issue of are there cultural resources on the park. Every inch of the park has been looked at.
>> not to the level of the kind of impact you're talking about. If you came to us, it would be two different things. If you're saying, rhymer's ranch, we want to develop this as a natural area and potentially as a recreation the area. The level of surveyor that's needed for that kind of identification is not nearly what would happen if you said to us, we want to pave over 23000 00 acres.
>> the example is not good. The use of metal deck tech torse in the park is.
>> the ultimate question, you are saying surveys we have conducted on county parks and gotten your approval so far have not been the kind of surveys that would pre-up the park for metal detect tor use.
>> exactly.
>> let me clarify. Can I interceed here? When we are developing a park like a metro park and get a cultural survey completed, from that point we know where the hot spots are within the property. And we try to design the facility in some cases around, try to avoid cultural sites. In some cases like at southeast metro we could not not. There was no way we could avoid it. We had to actually mitigate a toy campsite. But we do know where the sites are. They are still there after the park gets developed. And we know they were there. And we managed to, we try to manage the facility such that these sites stay intact over the duration after the public gains access to the property.
>> so we identify the sites.
>> uh-huh.
>> and to keep us from intruding I guess.
>> combination. Public, visitors, staff. Park staff sometimes will get narrowly focused on trying to fix a maintenance problem and they will inadvertently, could inadvertently destroy a site site. We want to be sure we know where the hot spots are and we educate the staff so that they can be could go fist fistants of where these cultural sites are within the parks.
>> have we marked the identified sites?
>> of course not because we don't want the general public to go out and pick them. We true to have them go, we try to let vegetation grow up through them.
>> you say of course not like it's obviousobvious. It's not. My next question was about to be, why don't we identify the sites, don't use the metal dedeck torse, and don't--detectors, don't interfere with sites we have marked off. That's not doable?
>> I think to get to that level would be so costly, for the eight or nine metal detect tors who want to use the parks--i don't know if you're going to have a permit process and charge them $50,000 a piece to metal detect in your parks or what to make up your cost cost differentials.
>> that was my point. I was going to wait until the judge finishes. I'll really concerned about some hidden costs. You haven't flushed all these things out. What would it cost for a park rainer or park person out there to have to, not only--ranger or park person to not only deal with permit or also to follow people around and monitor them. It may mean additional fte or extra duty. I don't know. I'm looking at hidden costs, something that's not blatant blatant. I don't know what it is. It's kind of an unknown.
>> from the state parks perspective, each of the last two legislative periods metal detector groups have tried to open state parks to metal detect for recreational metal detecting detecting. And this binder is my accumulation of material over the last legislative session on the pros and cons of this issue. From my perspective, I have a small staff. As I said, approximately 1.3 million acres and about ten people to be able to manage that amount of acreage. Each of our sites, the same would be true for the county we would have to train at least two people per site to be able to recognize what is historic and what is not historic. And also to be able to monitor the individuals doing the metal detecting. I don't have the staff and the staff time to go around to every park. Because we're a fairly large agency of about currently 1 1100 fte, people are constantly moving, coming in and out of the agency at any given tile. There may or may not be somebody on any given park who would have the background, knowledge and training that I would have to give them to be able to monitor this kind of activity on the parks. From that perspective, the amount of time and cost, I would have to create one or two more fte's within my program to be able to spend nothing but their entire fiscal year going around, making sure that there is somebody trained, at least two people in every park. On any given day, one of those two people is going to be off.
>> are there people who use these metal detectors as a hobby in other parts of the state?
>> on private land, yes, sir sir. As I said, we work closely--
>> they all do it on private land.
>> yes, sir. Those groups that work with us, they tell us about working on private ranches and farms, civil war sites, those kinds of things.
>> okay. Any other questions for these gentlemen from the state? We need to hear from the residents if not. Any other sort of closing comments that you would lik liker anything we haven't asked you that you would like to share with us?
>> no, thank you.
>> so the state does not allow use of metal detectors detectors. Lcra does in the either.
>> correct.
>> okay-- does not either.
>> correct.
>> and state parks prohibit the use.
>> right.
>> now, if we were to go to a county park and conduct the necessary cultural resources site survey that you mention, and find that in fact there are none there it would be okay for the metal detect tors to be used out there afterwards.
>> I would have to pass that question past my executive directorn. My division director said that no, we would not issue permits for that specific purpose.
>> okay. If the county issues a permit, your concern would be that we do not violate the state antique uities law in any way.
>> yes, sir.
>> the thing that amazes me, up until recently this was not even on the radar here.
>> you're right.
>> .
>> I didn't know people did this. Certainly, when the idea came to prohibit it, the reason I thought it made sense, I didn't know more than one person that actually did it.
>> besides the antique ities code, if I may, there's also the ethic of finding somebody's lost property of the one of the arguments that the groups make with us we just want to go out and find things. And that's in some ways find find. If you find a quarter dated 1933, nobody cares about that. But if I lose my wedding ring somewhere in the park and don't have the opportunity to find somebody with a metal detector until two weeks later, but in the interim somebody has come by and found my wedding ring, that's a piece of personal property that I want. I want to come back and find find. That may or may not be the case in every instance. The other point, and you will hear the metal detector groups say, you know, there's artifacts out there are just rotting in the ground and the archeologists aren't doing anything. But those artifacts are also information and they are a part of our cultural heritage. They are assets that belong to the county, to the citizens of Travis County or in our case the citizens of the state dm. And when those artifacts are taken out of those contexts, the information that they could provide to an archeologists, doing property excavation technique, is lost, gone. One of the arguments, those things are simply rotting in the ground, if they are not taken out, they will rot and nobody will ever see the information. Now, in some case for non nontallic artifacts, that's correct. But most metal artifacts are not decaying that quickly in the ground. And those that are, for the most part, they are for the most part you don't want to keep. But those that are interesting, that are pretty they are not rusting, the once made of copper, brass, silver, nickel. Those things are not going anywhere. Jamestown, virginia, they are digging these up from the ee elizabeth ian period, as brand new looking today coming out of the ground, made of gold or silver or brass, as the day they were dropped there in 1609. Those arguments that you make here, we don't buy those arguments at all.
>> I don't know why you all aren't out digging up everything all over the place, trying to find. I mean--
>> the cost is prohibitive.
>> I know it's the cost. But come on. I mean, we know that the overwhelming majority of people that are doing this are doing it as strictly benign recreation manner. Because you're right, has not even been on our radar screen until all of a sudden we thought we were doing the right thing by saying we don't want anybody to do this. Once it comes to our attention, I were I had the time to go and speak to the state about I think this is ridiculous. I mean from the state's standpoint. That's just me. I understand. I'm appreciatetive. With all due respect to the antique ities commission, we all know what this thing is really about and that is if we find anything that is archeologically relevant or important, by all means. I don't know of anybody that doesn't want to recognize and to do whatever it takes to protect that area. But we are talking about people that just want to go out in a law abuying way to recreate. And I will guarantee you that the state, I mean, if there's any place that you ought to be able to do it, it ought to be public lands. Because we all own. And play part of owning the state of Texas. We are taxpayers. We do all of those, the things that are notice in order to keep those things near and deer to usand dear to us. It is--dear to us. It is taking d?b,something to degree. If somebody is out there with a backhoe, I think we ought to say you can't do that. I have never seen anybody out there with anything other than a hand tool. And they didn't go very deep deep. I just think that we are making so much out of something that we ought to allow and ought to afford. Maybe we need to do it through a permit. We certainly need to if we have eke logically sensitive areas and if we are in doubt of that, I'm not even against putting a sign that says, you know, we have a scanned this area and we think there is something here and you need to stay out of this area. But not to just have one size fits all that you can't that no one can do this on public land, to me is just onerous. I think that the average every day joe, in the state, if you ask them that, they would probably say, yeah, I think that's rid deck allows that people can't-- can't--ridiculous that people can't do that. I think we need to perhaps sit down and renegotiate the contract that we have with l lcra. If you can't do something like that, let's find another way to manage the land. Just turn it back to lcraq-y that's probably not the best thing to do. I think we do have a good working relationship with lc lcra. But given the fact that no, it's not cost effective to put people out there on alert and say, boy, if anybody brings one of these things out of car we're going to lock them up, that's not the thing that we ought to be doing either. I just want believe that we can't find a way. As Travis County parks, I know we have, what, 31 parks guys. So if we have seven or eight even if we have to do something, you know, since we managed the lands for lcr lcra, and I respect their rules, fine, maybe we have a sign that says, we manage these for lcra, can't do it. But j@lfor Travis County parks, as one person of five on this court, I want to find a way to allow people to do something as benign as to go out and to use metal detectors. And that's simple. I'll make a motion on that, judge.
>> wouldn't the appropriate way to do that would be to seek a change in state law? I'll tell you can the city of Austin that is dealt with this. Lcra has dealt with it and the state. It is only because we were one of the last ones that allowed it that it's like, we don't have folks pounding the doors down over at the city of Austin /vsaying we demand to be let on those lands. No. It's a management issue. They have already done it.
>> I think you go and do it because they know that there's no one that really cares. Unless you happen to run into somebody that says hey, you're not doing that . I'm sure there are probably some parks rangers or whatever, we can probably seen them. I have never had anybody call and say, god, I got locked up by a parks ranger because I had a metal detector. I don't think that just because the city or whatever the organizes are that don't allow it, Karen, I don't think that's something that we have to, I mean, so what. I think it's an unreasonable request. If there really was an issue here, I think if there was a problem.
>> I think that's the problem. It has become a problem.
>> no, it hasn't. The only reason it has become a problem is because we voted on something that we thought was probably the right thing to do. Parks people came and said hey, this makes it more consistent. But I didn't have, I certainly would not have voted for it had I known that there really are a number of people that like to do this. And I think that it is a very benign thing that you can allow tax paying american citizens to do. Maybe eem just missing itthe antique ities code only applies to public lands. That's where metal ce tic torse can go to privately-- privately--metal detectors can go to privately owned lands.
>> we have no jurisdiction.
>> .
>> if I have 200 acres and there is some sort of finding, whatever is there is mine.
>> that's truecorrectcorrect.
>> you did below it up with dynamite.
>> that's the point, joe smith, environmental officer officer. That's the point I was trying to home. Seems as though the common sense big picture is not singing in perhaps--sinking in perhaps. First of all, I would maintain that our existing park rules that we have always had that protect natural and cultural resources were in place and were enforced in this regard regard. If they weren't or if it's spotty, shame on us. But what I wanted to do is just, I guess, impress upon everybody that at least for the eight years that I have been working here this has been on our radar screen. Not specifically the metal detector but the protection of the cultural resources that we have a legal responsibility to protect. And the flip side is, you know, the 98 percent of the land in this state is not protected that way. And there are people, Commissioner Daugherty, that are tax paying and otherwise law abiding. In fact, they can go for fee a private ranches and dig and take whatever they want. And we have on lands that are very ill protected, for example, the national wildlife refuge incidences where folks are getting in there with mechanized machinery and things like that and taking resources out of there. We have had in your precinct where we have gone to expense to protect the resources. As this gentleman just mentioned, when they come out of context, if they are not extracted scientifically and analyzed, the information is lost and of no value to us so the reason it's off the radar is because it's kept private for a reason. We, and judge I heard you kind of replying to charles there that it's not obvious. Well, there's a reason why.
>> it hadn't been mentioned in 17 years that I have been with the county.
>> right.
>> iead my parks reports.
>> I'm reading mives five or six pages and all of these cases where metal detect tor tors, we found another one out there. My gosh, another person out there . I have never seen one of those on my reports. And I read them. I mean, if this were an issue, I mean, if you came the me john and said we have somebody out here digging in an area because we were out, I know that the poll tracked is it still only by being able to be, you know, taken.
>> escorted.
>> escorted? Where people said around this home site where the h hthe--rimer's grands parents lived, whatever, it would be fine to say beyond here you jan'finding becauseand do #ofs we think there are these things. That's not what I'm convinced that these people do. If somebody lost their ring, then by all means they ought to be able to go out. Seems like could you even do that legally with the antique uities commission or laws. I don't know these people if they find a ring, looks lick this was last Tuesday's ring ring. Okay. Maybe we have a permit that I would say you have, if you find something looks that new, you need to say, you need to call the parks department and say, I have something that I think is pretty new. Somebody probably would say, hey, here it is. I mean.
>> I am not suggesting that those folks are pot hunters. I'm saying that to manage your resources that you're bound to protect, we have a couple of people on 1200 acres or whatever at rimers. Do we want to take the time to establish what they are digging for and maybe put putting in their pocket or not? That's your decision. If you would like to do that more power to you. I'm just using that as an example.
>> rimers is not the only park.
>> let's let some of the resident give a little testimony here.
>> thank you, judge.
>> thank you.
>> thank you all.
>> you all are here for today's testimony same as we we? You all heard today's testimony? Any responses?
>> yes, sir. Larry vicars, and one of the things that was brought up, by Commissioner Daugherty, for 20 plus years we have been out there hunting and have yet to run across an archeological site or product that we have found. If we had we would have definitely turned it in and talked to you immediately and notified you if we run across this. As we have mentioned before, you know, the archeological resources only pick up metal metal. Period. And you don't go back into prehistoric times and stuff. The other thing, if I understand the Texas antique uity code properly, you all are allowed to deep plow the parks even where there are culture resources. That is provided by the code as I have read it. Which means you all can go deeper with a plow than we can with a metal detector. So we're not going to be destroying anything. We're going roughly six inches deep. Max probably eight. If you try to dig in land in the summer in Austin you're not going over two inches. Anyway, so we're not asking right now or any time to go over anything that is of archeological or historical value. We're looking at the places of day use, play grounds, volleyball pit and picnic areas and stuff that people are always stomping and tearing up. We're just asking to apply our hobby the same as anybody else that would be.
>> that would be using the park as a taxpayer.
>> are some parks more popular than others.
>> the heavier use parks like precinct 4, moyer park, very popular because they get a lot of use in the playground area. We do not go on baseball, football fields that are man cured unless we have been asked to find a lost them there. We do not go out there and apply our hobby in that area area. So--
>> .
>> if we were to make playground areas in some parks that would meet your needs?
>> I think that would be a good step forward and what we are looking for.
>> okay. There are some areas, some parks don't have play grounds. I guess they have--
>> you you--you know, we would like the swim k beach beaches. But most of the Travis County only parks do not have swimming beaches. That would be something we would like.
>> okay. You think that historically you shied away from recreational fields, baseball diamonds, soccer fields, like that?
>> yes, we do. Simply because we don't want to destroy anything. It's our tax money like everybody elses that maintain the fields. We don't want to tear them up. We are law biding citizens trying to apply our hobby.
>> some of our parks don't even have the sand min playground areas. We have the squishy stuff. There are going to be some parks where you are not going to be able to do anything because there aren't any sand bray.
>> sand.
>> play grounds.
>> there are some parks, that's find. We would like to be able to hundred all the parks that have playground areas in that area if we can. If we have become good stewards and you all decide that maybe later on that you all could open up other areas to us that have been surveyed and that, that's great. Right new we're asking for basically the daily use area that people use all the time you know, and they lose coins and stuff. Children's toys, whatever. One thing I would suggest, at the park gate or place that you all make known that if anybody loses a wedding band or anything else, all they have to do is report it it. When we come in, we ask. We do this as a public service. Have I gone as far as galveston to look for a lady lady's ring. We look for stuff with no charge for people all over travis, williams and hays county. If they lost something, they can call us. We'll be glad to come out. There's always somebody available to come look for lost jewelry if they want it it. If it's in the park, all they have to do is tell, get the person at the gate. As we go through, we say has anybody reported any lost jewelry. They say yes. Where? We go find it for them. Somebody want to go with us, fine. If they don't, we look for it, we find it, we turn it in.
>> okay. Yes, sir.
>> my name is scott hegel. I guess a couple things that I'd like to speak to. They have sort of targeted metal detectors as the people that are going out there finding all these archeologically significant areas. Have they, are there any plans or how do they handle somebody walking that an area without a detector, that they are able in how indian mounds are set up and things up--they are knowledgeable in how indian mounds are set up. If somebody comes in without a medal detector, how do they handle that situation? What I'm concerned about, we are being kind of singled on as culprit on retrieving articles that are of historic significance. I don't believe we are the only targets here. Think we're just an easy one to target because we carry a metal detect tor with us I think that if there's a law or guideline that says you should not damage park area, it doesn't matter what you have in your hand. If you have a shovel and digging big holes, that ought to be enough to get you out of the park. If you can prosecute somebody for damage, then it should not matter if you have a metal detector in your hand or you just go and have, retrieve something that you should not. So we're being singled out in that area. I have here with me the tennessee valley authority, that they allow detecting in there. They go in and say, what areas you can, what you can't do. What tools you can use. Anything beyond that is not allowed there are other areas and very archeological archeologically significant areas that have work out ways to do it. We don't want necessarily open area to everything. We would like to see restraints as well. Because there are some people out there with a detector that may not have the same background as us. They haven't been trained properly. We don't want them out there doing things either. So if there's a way to work with us to accomplish some of this, we want to be part of that process. If it's permits, training people on how to do proper retrieval of the targetlve some of us are working with the arcologists now to investigate sites. There are some people that want to go out and pick up a coin or two, and we can't allow them to not have a place to go. Because that's where we all got our training. If we didn't, if we weren't, excuse me, able to detect in Austin parks, Travis County parks, lcra, if we had not had that opportunity in previous years, we would not have the an understanding of to do it now. So we could not be helping them do some of their retrievals in the areas that they need our expertise. So we have to have a place for people to learn how to play with these detectors and learn to do it in a place that they can't damage anything. Some of the parks are ideal for that.
>> thanks.
>> yes, I am brian nelson. What scott said about detectors, sometimes just the site of a detector brings up, I don't know if it's a red flag, or the vision that the detector is out to do naughty or bad things. But when in fact, metal detecting is a nationwide, well of respected and well- well-known hope. And I seriously don't believe that metal detector detectorists are out looking for artifacts or damaging anything. I've done quite a bit of research in looking at how other entities, both the other counties and other statesana, handle detecting. For the most part, detecting is allowed, number one, in most every county in the state.
>> in the state of Texas.
>> yes.
>> in the state of Texas?
>> yes.
>> but there are not rules banning in other counties. It seems to work well in most other states I have had the pleasure to visit and detect in. They have permit systems in a number of states and/or cities. And so it must be a workable arrangement for other entities. I'm still not quite sure why here in Texas we have so many barriers. I think that we can work together, that the antique I idies code and the detectors are not necessarily butting heads, that we can enjoy our hobby and not be mviolation of the code. It's not the detector or the person detecting that's the culprit. It's anybody if they choose to do or to hupt artifacts on the sly. But that's not what our intention is.
>> what's your favorite area in Travis County where you do your metal detecting that you can publicly announce?
>> where I have detected in the past?
>> right.
>> in parks?
>> yes. Your favorite place.
>> probably out at pace bend.
>> lcra land.
>> uh-huh.
>> I don't know.
>> uh-huh. What's your second?
>> second favorite.
>> I live out near manfield dam in hudson bend. So I enjoy, you know--
>> what's the third?
>> don't take the hand cuffs out now.
>> don't mean to put you on the spot.
>> I want to /fadthank you for this opportunity. My name is ray noelles and I've been metal detecting for about two years now. Didn't even know what it was about until one of my friend came to me and asked him to go with him. After I found my first quarter I was hook. It's just the anticipation of finding something. We found a lot of things, a lot of good things and a lot of bad things. We collect, I remember about six months ago our detector detector's club went out to the girl scout camp out right next to the pace bend park and collected over a truck load of just garbage and junk from the beach so that the girl scouts could go out and not cut their feet on glass or metal or anything. And we pick up a ton of stuff. That's one of the things we do do. We do collect. I showed Commissioner Sonleitner the last time I was here a coffee can full of led that I have picked up up--lead that I have picked up around our beaches and things. Legally. Where we could go. So we do the very best that we can to protect the environment and to work with anyone. I can personally tell you that being a member of the Austin metal detecting club has really been a blessing because they have taught me proper use of how to operate my detector and to extract things from the ground, place the dirt back, put the grass back on top, whatever. If you go to a beach, you think about a little child want to go play in the sand and build a little sand castle and things like that. That's basically what we do?b]. We don't go any deeper than that. We just collect things. We found many, many rings. I have a personal friend, dan yo douglty, the director of high land lakes baptivity endampment. Whenever we go there we stop and say has anybody lost anything. We have at least five different rings to individuals and they have written notes to us thanking us for our help. What I see as the big picture, the state of Texas, the city, the lcra, they are trying to prevent something from being a problem. I can understand that. And judge Biscoe, the reason this has not been on your radar is because we do obey the laws and we do not go to those places because we have not had access. And so the whole point is for you to change this pattern of, you I know, like Commissioner Daugherty said, one size fits all. That's not the case. We are law abiding. We don't want to tear anything up because we know eventually it's going to come out of our pocket. If we had a per system, when you drive to a park, you report, you say here is my permit, I'll be here, usually when I metal detect an area, it's not more than, you know, two or three hours and maybe 100 square feet total. Because have you to go one way and then back--you have to go one way and back across the otherlve typically I don't go to places that aren't disturbed disturbed. The reason I don't go there is because people have not disturbed them by sitting down and coins dropping out of of their pockets or something that might be of significance that I'm looking for. I go metal detecting to find stuff. Not to look for archeological sites. I'm not a arcologists or pale on eontolgist. I would ask that you consider that. Just because some people abuse the law doesn't mean that everybody does. We know that laws cannot regulate moral ty. We will report to you, and I can promise you any one of us in the club would do the very same thing. We would report to you any significant find that we find because we are interested in the history of our state as well. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> excluding lcra and state parks, what's your favorite place? My favorite place is high--
>> my favorite place is high land lakes encampment because I'm a baptist pastor and they allow me to go up there.
>> judge, I have some legal questions.
>> all right. Commissioner Sonleitner will have some legal questions.]S from the state perspective, if we focus on play grounds areas in county parks, does everything you have said so far by protecting resources apply?
>> you need a microphone.
>> can we get you on the mikemike--on the mic. County parks, existing playground areas.
>> I don't know how you could ree restrict it. You would have to clear the whole park to ensure that. Are you going to assign a staffer to each individual?
>> no. Assuming we can restrict the to existing playground areas areas. Is there a problem with your rule.
>> techniqually it would still and violation of state law, yes.
>> and why is that?
>> because you are potentially taking, altering or damaging the cultural resources of the state of Texas by allowing such activity.
>> what if it's a yir for which we already did a survey, submitted it to the historical commission, and the historical commission came back and said, we see no problem with your project project?
>> in theory that's possible.
>> when are the kids supposed to play in terms of having a bunch of dulge with metal detectors--dulth with metal--billion of of adults with metal detectors.
>> here is my recommendation that is that we take more time and figure out who has dealt with this area and has come up with a rule that works and try to fashion something that complies with whatever state and lcra requirements are. Try to restrict it to county parks to areas where we think it should be allowed if we can reach that point. And that we have it back on, say, in two weeks, and that we consider it. What it means is doing a bit more research. Give ourselves three weeks. But it's kind of looking around, trying to figure out if other county have dealt with the same thing or entities outside Texas. And have come up with a rule that meet these requirements and at the same time allows some detecting in restricted areas. And we have to deal with the question of implementability enforceability, before we take action on it. Based on what I heard today, that makes sense to me.
>> judge, also whenever they all come back with the answers to those particular questions that you raised, I would like to also find out from the parks department or ken, what would the dollar amount be if we have to add additional fte's or whatever is necessary to do the necessary monitoring and all these other costs. Because they are latent at this time. I think that should be brought up. Going through the budget cycle right now. The amount of money. I'd like to know at least what we're dealing with and have it on the table financially. Thank you.
>> yes, sir.
>> judge, one more comment. I would like for you to consider all areas that have been previously disturbed. That would be like camp ground areas, picnic tables, beaches, play grounds. The corps of engineers, I believe, has an allowance for metal detectorists in predisturbs areas. I believe that's what they call it. And in a predisturbs area that would tell me that those areas may have possibly already been looked at for any significance.
>> problem is most of the lake stuff is lcra. If they are already telling us it's not allowed on their land, we're the trustees for their lands.
>> I'm talking about county- county-owned land.
>> yes, sir.
>> right.
>> right.
>> this has been enlighten enlightening again, you all allthank you.
>> unless--
>> .
>> unless there is a motion. My guess is three weeks e we will figure out how to on up with this.
>> judge, I do have questions for executive session.
>> we'll have this back up in executive session this afternoon.
>> 1:30. All in favor? That passes unanimously.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, August 30, 2006 12:28 PM