Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation Fort Belknap Metal Detecting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Young County court OKs permit-based metal-detecting at Fort Belknap under caretaker oversight
Summary
Commissioners voted to require permits and place metal-detecting at Fort Belknap under the discretion of the site caretaker, allowing supervised hobbyists and youth groups to search while holding pre-1900 artifacts for the county.
The Young County Commissioners Court voted to revise rules on metal detectors at Fort Belknap, adopting a permit requirement and delegating discretion over use to the Fort Belknap caretaker.
The change came after Jim Hammond, identified in the meeting as Fort Belknap caretaker, asked the court to allow supervised metal-detecting for youth groups and community hobbyists while protecting archaeological material. "I would like to be able to offer metal detecting with oversight," Hammond said. He recommended the county retain artifacts dated before 1900, saying, "Just to be safe, anything 1900 or before, we would keep it." Hammond added that most detectorists typically turn over finds voluntarily.
Court members discussed signage, written rules and limits on access. A court member proposed requiring a metal-detector permit “issued at the discretion of the Fort Belknap caretaker with written rules to follow.” The court approved that change; a commissioner identified in the transcript as Stacy Shook was recorded as the second on the motion. The court recorded the motion as approved by voice vote.
Court staff were directed to draft proposed permit language and written rules the caretaker would use when issuing permits, and to return the wording to a future Commissioners Court meeting for inclusion in Fort Belknap use policies.
The action does not remove the county’s authority to retain or inventory historical material; the court directed that pre‑1900 items be retained for county records and historical review. Specific permit fees, enforcement procedures and record-keeping details were not specified and will be set when the court reviews the proposed rule language.
