Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Committee hears initial testimony on H.4398 to legalize regulated magnet fishing; no vote
Loading...
Summary
Representative Edgerton and a presenter described H.4398 to allow regulated magnet fishing in South Carolina with museum reporting requirements for historical artifacts and a prohibition on excavation; committee asked staff to refine language and no final vote was taken before adjournment.
Representative Edgerton introduced H.4398, a bill that would permit regulated magnet fishing in South Carolina waters. He told the committee that, as presented, the bill would protect historically significant finds by requiring reporting to museums and would prohibit underwater excavation.
A presenter described magnet fishing as a recreational activity that recovers discarded metal (shopping carts, safes, bicycles) and occasional historical artifacts. He said the activity can have environmental benefits by removing debris from waterways and suggested including magnet fishing in existing state fishing licenses (three‑day, 14‑day or lifetime licenses) to enable revenue collection and management.
Committee members asked how magnet fishing differs from metal detecting, whether it would apply in saltwater, and how archaeological resources would be safeguarded. The presenter said magnet fishing often involves a ‘‘drop and drag’’ from bridges, banks or small boats and that the vast majority of finds are modern debris; if a historically significant object is retrieved, the finder must consult a museum for evaluation. He and Representative Edgerton emphasized that the draft prohibits excavation and will be refined to protect in‑situ archaeological contexts.
Members raised concerns about artifact integrity and the mechanics of museum reporting; the chair noted the committee’s limited time and asked sponsors and staff to refine statutory language to balance hobbyist access with archaeological protections. The meeting adjourned before the committee took any vote on the measure.
No final action was taken; staff and sponsors were asked to continue drafting to address artifact protection, licensing language and the definition of prohibited excavation.
