Hunting TVA shorelines

[OBION]

I wanted to expound upon not being able to hunt the shorelines near my house without detracting from edhepp3's post "little fella". If I should have placed this thread somewhere else please move it. If anyone has any insights or additional information on hunting the Tennessee/ Mississippi river please let me know.
In the link below the sentence that reads:
"Although there are no penalties under this act for removing arrowheads that you find on the ground, these artifacts are still considered federal property and you can be charged with Theft of Government Property if found to be in possession of artifacts taken from TVA property. "
really confounds me. :huh: So there are NO penalties, but I can be charged???
http://www.tva.gov/river/landandshor...ources/faq.htm
The penalties:
FEDERAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION LAWS 145
16 U.S.C. 470ee(d),
Penalities
(d) Any person who knowingly violates, or counsels, procures,
solicits, or employs any other person to violate, any
prohibition contained in subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this
section shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than
$10,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both:
Provided, however, That if the commercial or archaeological
value of the archaeological resources involved and the
cost of restoration and repair of such resources exceeds
the sum of $500, such person shall be fined not more than
$20,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. In
the case of a second or subsequent such violation upon conviction
such person shall be fined not more than $100,000,
or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

[Hoss]

That is odd wording. It maybe a loophole designed to allow the person who makes an accidental discovery to keep his point.The law seems designed toward someone who may have more that one on them.
I really cannot answer the question I am just guessing that it is designed to help the person who makes an occasional accidental find.

[gregszybala]

Being the gov't, guess which way you would think they would handle it!
They can flood the sites, but you can't pick them up!

[edhepp3]

Interesting. here are sections a, b and c referenced in the section d penalties. Bolding is by me.

Section 6
(a) No person may excavate, remove, damage, or otherwise
alter or deface or attempt to excavate, remove, damage,
or otherwise alter or deface any archaeological resource
located on public lands or Indian lands unless such activity
is pursuant to a permit issued under section 4 of this Act,
a permit referred to in section 4(h)(2) of this Act, or the
exemption contained in section 4(g)(1) of this Act.
(b) No person may sell, purchase, exchange, transport,
receive, or offer to sell, purchase, or exchange any archaeological
resource if such resource was excavated or removed
from public lands or Indian lands in violation of—
(1) the prohibition contained in subsection (a) of this section,
or
(2) any provision, rule, regulation, ordinance, or permit
in effect under any other provision of Federal law.
16 U.S.C. 470ee(c),
Trafficking in illegal
interstate or foreign
commerce in archaeological
resources:
State or local law
(c) No person may sell, purchase, exchange, transport,
receive, or offer to sell, purchase, or exchange, in interstate
of foreign commerce, any archaeological resource excavated,
removed, sold, purchased, exchanged, transported,
or received in violation of any provision, rule, regulation,
ordinance, or permit in effect under State or local law.

  Looks to me like you could pick one up, but once you attempted to remove it from its location, you would be in violation of the law.
Section 4 says anyone can apply for a permit, but even if permitted, all finds remain property of the United States.

[clovisoid]

All of that language about theft of government property is a way to get around what is commonly known as the Carter Clause of the 1979 Archaeological Resources Protection Act, which is still the law of the land governing artifacts and public lands.  Basically it's a way to threaten and punish you for something that is perfect legal that they don't agree with...  I've heard Archaeologists in Florida also try to dance around the definition of arrowhead, suggesting that microscopic use-wear analysis would be needed to determine if something had been used as a knife (and thus not inline with the definition.)
President Jimmy Carter, an arrowhead collector himself, had this section included because he understood that any reasonable person would pick up an arrowhead laying on the surface of the ground.  He reportedly joked to one of the sponsors of the bill that they'd have to impeach him for collecting at Camp David, and he couldn't sign off admitting to a felony.
For reference:
Section 6, (g) Nothing in subsection (d) of this section shell be deemed applicable to any person with respect to the removal of arrowheads located on the surface of the ground.
Section 6, (d) just spells up the fines, punishment, etc. for violating the law.

[OBION]

Thank you for the responses.  I'm new to this forum and know this topic has been hashed out before (see bottom link). 
I also included a link to a blog page from Tennessee Archeology.  I'm not saying I agree with their interpretation but I'm afraid it is the interpretation the TVA uses.
I personally feel like the "Carter Clause" gives me the right to surface hunt the Tennessee River shoreline; but I hunt for enjoyment and know that I would be nothing but paranoid the entire time which equals miserable for me. 
I do have a lot of lawyers in my family so maybe I'll change my mind; print out section 6 (g), and take my chances.  But right now I will not  "do the crime because I CANT pay the fine"  (or lawyers, expensive even when family)

http://contextintn.wordpress.com/2014/08/14/the-jimmy-carter-clause/

http://arrowheads.com/index.php/forums/indian-artifacts-and-arrowheads/37304-title-16-archaeological-resources-protection

[Bill]

"I personally feel like the "Carter Clause" gives me the right to surface hunt the Tennessee River shoreline; but I hunt for enjoyment and know that I would be nothing but paranoid the entire time which equals miserable for me.
I do have a lot of lawyers in my family so maybe I'll change my mind; print out section 6 (g), and take my chances. But right now I will not "do the crime because I CANT pay the fine" (or lawyers, expensive even when family)"
Hi Obion, the Carter Clause was never intended to allow deliberate collecting of any kind on Federal property. It was only intended to protect against an accidental find and it does just that. A lot of the Tennessee River is also protected by ARPA. If anyone is caught deliberately looking for Indian artifacts or with a pocket full (or boat full!) of artifacts that person(s) will be prosecuted.
"Section 6
(a) No person may excavate, remove, damage, or otherwise
alter or deface or attempt to excavate, remove, damage" You posted this part of the law and it clearly spells it out. Riverbank and sandbar Indian artifact hunting really isn't worth the risk and the fine(s)!
If you really want to collect along the Tennessee River, try and get permission from landowners to surface collect their fields instead.

[OBION]

Okay, I see what you mean.  I started this thread thinking I couldn't hunt (and I never have) TVA shorelines but then I read the "Carter Clause":
Section 6, (g) Nothing in subsection (d) of this section shell be deemed applicable to any person with respect to the removal of arrowheads located on the surface of the ground.

and it sounded like arrowheads on the surface were okay; I neglected to just apply Section 6 (g) to sudsection (d) (the fines).   So... I'm back to where I started; I cant hunt any shorelines near me.
I wonder if President Carter quit hunting at Camp David?
All of this is very confusing and I just do it for fun/exercise/and learning so I'm not going to stress my little brain about rivers here anymore.

[Nate B]

Here's what seems to be a pretty good summary of the Carter Clause and an apparent trap that the lack of an exemption clause creates. 
You'll want to ignore the first few paragraphs about farmers around a stove or something tho... ;-) 

http://contextintn.wordpress.com/2014/08/14/the-jimmy-carter-clause/