Myers Depot Metal Detectors

The snotty park that hates metal detectors

stewart73 said:
..... if the fine for detecting illegally was no-questions-asked $10,000 would you still be advocating people interpret the laws for themselves in the manner you suggest ....
Click to expand...

Stewart, if there were examples of persons getting $10,000 fines, for detecting places that didn't have "no md'ing" rules , ie.: a $10,000 fine for "alter" or "disturb" verbage, then yes, I would agree with you. However, the problem is, there ISN'T examples like that. So then ... what are we talking about ? :?:
 
stewart73 said:
.....including the places where it's illegal (cuz hey, it's just a slap on the wrist anyway). ....
Click to expand...

This is premised on the notion that "alter" and "remove" type verbage automatically mean "detecting = illegal". I disagree with that premise, for reasons covered in the past. Namely:

The fact that people often get the go-ahead to detect at places where such verbage exists. And since no one can "allow" you or I to break laws (steal, rape, kill, exceed speed limits, etc...), then the mere fact that permissions are often obtained, tells me that it's not so clear cut and dried "illegal" as you make it out to be. That maybe (just maybe) it IS a grey area, not so black and white as you say. Lest how else can they say "go ahead" ?

And that many places have just been detected for 40+ yrs. now, through generations of hobbyist, and no one ever had an issue. So now it's just been assumed that "such such beaches" or "such & such parks" is ok to detect. But ... oddly ... I bet that such wording for "destroy" "alter" "mutilate", "deface", "remove" "collect", etc... is very much present. [to which Stewart will now say "well .... they've just been lucky! They're all still lawless miscreants! :lol: ]
 
stewart73 said:
I figured you'd come out frothing eventually if I made an appearance. Aren't you the fellow who famously said his opinions are not up for debate or criticism and yet you've done me the favour of showing the errors of my ways? Your generosity is appreciated. ;)



This is so silly and untrue I'm not even sure how to respond. So are you saying that an entity (city, state, parks board) that creates a law is then not free to interpret it how they see fit? In my case I hunt a public park that has rules against digging yet have been giving the blessing by city hall and the parks staff to detect carefully (the kind that involves digging). Are you suggesting that we're all breaking the law here?



This was referring to the fact that you are always telling us that once in front of judge we should be able to wiggle out of our detecting transgressions so no need to listen to any lesser authority. Like how many of us really want to take things that far? :roll: As for what you might find relaxing, I shudder to imagine. And I believe there are grand juries in Japan though I'm sure you can find out these kinds of things faster using Google if you're truly interested.



Hey that's cool! You highlighted the first three letters of assumptions to make a bad word. I gotta remember that one. As said above, I was fairly certain you'd be along to tell us all how things really are. Also referring to yourself in the third person is often said to be the first step into madness. Just sayin'. :roll:
Click to expand...

stew,
yep, my opinions are my opinion...not subject to your ridiculous interpretations and misrepresentations. You seem to not be able to grasp the simplest of concepts. Frothing huh? Does that sound kinda relaxing to you stew?:hornetsnest:

Yes, I'm saying exactly "that an entity (city, state, parks board) that creates a law is then not free to interpret it how they see fit? As I've said before: Judges and courts interpret written law. Parks directors, mayors, councilmen, maintenance workers, district attorneys, and others (including citizens, clubs, and other interested parties) may have a hand in the wording of an ordinance but once a law is codified it may only be interpreted by the judicial system. Now why would that be stew...think real hard. It's not silly and it's not untrue...and it's not difficult. And I'm not suggesting that you STEW are breaking the law, I saying that if you STEW are "digging" where you know "digging is not allowed by law, you ARE VIOLATING THE LAW. I have said before, IMO you can MD where Digging is not allowed, but you can't legally dig where digging is not allowed. stew, keep trying...someday it'll all come together for you, or not.

As for your opinions I've highlighted in RED I'd offer these thoughts:

I've never suggested anyone wiggle in front of a judge.
You're the one to bring up 'grand jury' so why suggest I look it up? stew, that's just a silly thing to suggest to someone else about YOUR topic.
Madness? Well, we'll let all the others here decide who's mad and whose just insane.
 
mountain digger said:
.... As I've said before: Judges and courts interpret written law. Parks directors, mayors, councilmen, maintenance workers, district attorneys, and others (including citizens, clubs, and other interested parties) may have a hand in the wording of an ordinance but once a law is codified it may only be interpreted by the judicial system. .....
Click to expand...

Mountain digger and Stew, be nice to each other. It's all good, and you don't wanna raise the ire of the mods!

Ok mountain digger, to address what you're saying here: While it's true that perhaps judicial processes "interpret" laws, as you say. But be aware: That doesn't mean that a rank & file gardener, cop, etc... can't STILL come up and say "I say this violates defacement clauses therefore you'll have to leave". It IS within their powers-of-duty to make some on the spot judgement calls. Sure a court can "over-turn it" (if you got a ticket, for instance). But don't think for a minute that they don't have some level of authority to take grey/vague wording, and indeed morph it to apply. And the average hunter doesn't want the hassle of taking his day-in-court to be heard, get it over-turned, etc....

But I'm on your side in the other regard, that just because a gardener or cop might say that, STILL doesn't mean that you and I need to go grovelling at city hall desks ahead of time, wherever we come to.
 
Want to hear something really funny?

I have water detected where they have signs up saying NO SWIMMING Just because folks are not allowed to swim there today does not mean they never did, and I'm not swimming even though I'm in the water...:laughing:

Even signs that say no swimming no wading, would not stop me, because I'm actually detecting....

Now if the sign said "No getting in the water"... Well that would be different.. I would have to detect from my kayak somehow...

<*)))>{
 
Tom_in_CA said:
Mountain digger and Stew, be nice to each other. It's all good, and you don't wanna raise the ire of the mods!

Ok mountain digger, to address what you're saying here: While it's true that perhaps judicial processes "interpret" laws, as you say. But be aware: That doesn't mean that a rank & file gardener, cop, etc... can't STILL come up and say "I say this violates defacement clauses therefore you'll have to leave". It IS within their powers-of-duty to make some on the spot judgement calls. Sure a court can "over-turn it" (if you got a ticket, for instance). But don't think for a minute that they don't have some level of authority to take grey/vague wording, and indeed morph it to apply. And the average hunter doesn't want the hassle of taking his day-in-court to be heard, get it over-turned, etc....

But I'm on your side in the other regard, that just because a gardener or cop might say that, STILL doesn't mean that you and I need to go grovelling at city hall desks ahead of time, wherever we come to.
Click to expand...

Tom,
I have never said and I certainly don't believe a "rank & file gardener" can't call in the LEOs. And I've never said a 'cop doesn't make on the spot judgment calls'. And I've never suggested that anyone wiggle in front of the judge, or argue MDing rights with a cop in the park, or to MD naked. And no, just because someone pays taxes doesn't make someone more special than someone who doesn't. And I'm not on anyone's side as to any '"regard".

What I do suggest is that MDers research the existing laws that apply to where they want to MD and comply with those laws. The MD Code of Ethics has a basis in law... [i.e. get permission to MD private property or you may violate some applicable law]. Imagine that...some basis in LAW.

Asking permission to DIG where DIGGING is in violation of existing law can do nothing good for the MDing hobby. Can one MD where DIGGING is a clear violation of law, my opinion is YES. But for a MDer to say they know they are Digging where Digging is a violation of the law because a "rank & file gardener" gave them permission to DIG, and therefore made it legal to DIG, is just stupid IMO.:doah:

I'll repeat one thing again for your benefit. IMO, no one can give 'permission' for someone to violate existing law.

Imagine this since you and others like made up scenarios. Well, Mr. Mayor, the parks groundkeeper told me it was OK to DIG, so I'm just out digging up some old coins and trash I found with my MD and my Lesche. So you've brought the local LEO with you to issue me a citation "for DIGGING" even though I had permission? And, you're going to see about passing a new ordinance that bans MDing at all parks? But Mr. Mayor, I had permission. And what does the Mayor and LEO say? Go tell your story to the Judge. And what does the Judge say? $100 plus court cost since you didn't just pay the fine. And what does the parks groundkeeper say? I've got to hang this new MDing Not Allowed sign where?

Sorry to all for such a dumb scenario, but I have permission to dumb it down.
 
Long before laws,rules,and regulations,there was common sense.Our hobby is a positive addition to any community.We have as much right to our form of recreation as anyone else.Public lands are just that...public.I won't apologize or beg to use them.
 
as far as no one can give you permission to violate laws .. tell that to the cop who has just directed you to drive on the wrong side of the road ..
 
mountain digger said:
....I'll repeat one thing again for your benefit. IMO, no one can give 'permission' for someone to violate existing law......
Click to expand...

Couple of thoughts on this:

1) If anyone doubts what you're saying, then let them try this little experiment: Walk in to their local highway patrol office and say: "hello, can I have permission to break the speed limit on my way to work each day from now on ?" If some persons are 3 out of 4 for success at asking permission to dig/detect in parks, then I'm going to bet they'd be 0 out of 4 for this request. I can't imagine a Hwy. patrol dept anywhere saying: "Sure, go ahead. Just be careful not to have any car accidents" :roll:

2) What do we make of the fact that there is, admittedly, many people who DO in fact "get permission" to detect parks? Yet NO ONE ever gets permission to speed, shoplift, etc... ? What does that tell you ? To me it says that the parks thing isn't actually clearcut law, in the same way as speed, shoplift, etc...
 
Dragonfire said:
as far as no one can give you permission to violate laws .. tell that to the cop who has just directed you to drive on the wrong side of the road ..
Click to expand...

Since I work in road-related asphalt construction work, I can answer this:

Technically, in cases like you're talking about, where they re-route all traffic to a single lane (while the other lane is being re-paved), in traffic control "follow-the-pilot car" type situations, then this becomes a "construction zone". Aka a "cone zone", and thus now it is not considered "on-road" anymore. I know this because it's our legal angle to get certain types of license plates for our street sweepers (which are cheaper than standard truck plates), because the sweepers technically will be working "off-road". Oddly, even though they are on-the-road. It's because when construction occurs, they can in fact, legally, direct you to the wrong side, etc...

Now as to police directing you around a traffic accident , I dunno. But I'm sure that this does not constitute "allowing someone to break a law".
 
Dragonfire said:
as far as no one can give you permission to violate laws .. tell that to the cop who has just directed you to drive on the wrong side of the road ..
Click to expand...

If you're going to MD on the wrong side of a road under construction...it must be OK if you have permission from the road crew.:laughing: Clearly, I'm address MDing here, not MDing in emergency situations such as a MURDER in the Park and evidence needs to be recovered. I've always said to do as directed by the LEO. And if stew says otherwise in one of HIS posts, you need to know it's not true.:hmmm:

And I'll try to address the next question: IMO, most 'NO Digging' ordinances do not address MDing or the recovery of lost personal property. I am clearly saying MOST, I am not saying ALL because I have only read the ordinances that apply to where I MD. One must READ the applicable law and decide if the applicable 'NO Digging ordinance' pertains to MDers recovery of items below the surface or if it only addresses REAL PROPERTY that is on park grounds. Believe what you will, but the actual wording of the applicable ordinance is what will be used by the courts to interpret the law and determine guilt or innocence. The cop has an opinion, the mayor has an opinion, and the garderner or road crew worker has an opinion. All of them are experts, just ask them.:dumb:

I hate to see more public areas lost to actual legal bans on MDing but I think more and more will continue to be lost due to the legal creation of ordinances that actually ban MDing on public grounds. But hey, this is just one MDers opinion, and for all those who don't agree I'd say you gotta do what you gotta do. But what you don't gotta do is challenge my opinion with innuendo, misrepresentation, misstatement of facts, etc. The least anyone should do is to try to present facts (in other words present an impression of intelligence) that in your opinion might cause me to change my opinion if you believe I cause harm to our hobby by not asking the "rank and file gardener" for permission to MD where I believe MDing is allowed by law.
 
Last edited:
What are you guys even going on at this point about. I'm confused at the line of thought of a few people. So if I get this right basically what some are saying is.

1. If there are laws written about digging they don't apply to metal detecting?
2. As long as you have permission your alowed to break the law?
 
Tom_in_CA said:
Couple of thoughts on this:

1) If anyone doubts what you're saying, then let them try this little experiment: Walk in to their local highway patrol office and say: "hello, can I have permission to break the speed limit on my way to work each day from now on ?" If some persons are 3 out of 4 for success at asking permission to dig/detect in parks, then I'm going to bet they'd be 0 out of 4 for this request. I can't imagine a Hwy. patrol dept anywhere saying: "Sure, go ahead. Just be careful not to have any car accidents" :roll:

2) What do we make of the fact that there is, admittedly, many people who DO in fact "get permission" to detect parks? Yet NO ONE ever gets permission to speed, shoplift, etc... ? What does that tell you ? To me it says that the parks thing isn't actually clearcut law, in the same way as speed, shoplift, etc...
Click to expand...

Tom, I'd think you could get this type of response from someone at the Highway patrol office:

Sure, you can speed all you want to...but when you're caught violating the law, you'll end up in front of a Judge. They might even add: WE NEED A NEW SOURCE OF REVENUE FOR OUR DEPARTMENT SO WE CAN EMPLOY A GROUNDSKEEPER TO HANDLE PUBLIC INQUIRIES LIKE THIS.:toofunny:
 
Jarrett said:
What are you guys even going on at this point about. I'm confused at the line of thought of a few people. So if I get this right basically what some are saying is.

1. If there are laws written about digging they don't apply to metal detecting?
2. As long as you have permission your alowed to break the law?
Click to expand...

It's more like, "Why ask permission, when you can simply ignore the laws you don't like". Just play it safe, hunt in the middle of the night, when most decent folks, and park workers are sleeping. Remember, it's not a real law, unless you face possible jail time.

*Being SARCASTIC, of course, but have to point it out every time for one of our members...
 
Tom_in_CA said:
Stewart, if there were examples of persons getting $10,000 fines, for detecting places that didn't have "no md'ing" rules , ie.: a $10,000 fine for "alter" or "disturb" verbage, then yes, I would agree with you. However, the problem is, there ISN'T examples like that. So then ... what are we talking about ? :?:
Click to expand...

We are talking about a very important distinction. You hunt without asking in places where there are clear rules that could easily be applied to what you are doing. This could be happening for only one of two reasons: either you really believe the laws don't apply (the reason you tell us) or you simply don't care either way because it doesn't make much difference if you're wrong (ie. if the authority does apply them to detecting) because the 'punishment' is likely to be very small (the actual reason you do things the way you do). I'm just asking you not to sugar coat your advice...you try to justify what you do with semantic gymnastics and verb-tense arguments when in fact you just don't really care either way and are willing to take the risk each time.

Tom_in_CA said:
This is premised on the notion that "alter" and "remove" type verbage automatically mean "detecting = illegal". I disagree with that premise
Click to expand...

But Tom, how does your opinion matter one iota on how a law could be interpreted (except, as we know, in cases where even if you're wrong not much is going to happen anyway)? You make it sound as though your interpretation and the policeman's interpretation would carry equal weight if push came to shove...how can that be? Like if you're getting hauled out of the water for swimming illegally are you going to be yelling "I don't believe 'DO NOT ENTER WATER' applies to swimming!" Again, why not just be honest and say that you interpret laws in a way that allows you to do what you want simply because, if you're wrong, it really doesn't make that much difference? You've already said that if the fines were larger you would not be doing this...doesn't that in itself prove that this has nothing to do with what is actually legal or illegal? For you it's simply that the risk to reward ratio looks favourable enough to ignore rules that may or may not be interpreted against you. If the authority chooses to interpret the laws the way you do then you're all good...if they don't, well "they're welcome to come and alert me" right? It's guys like you that are eventually going to push fines and punishment up so enjoy it while you can.
 
Very difficult to have any kind of real conversation with you mountaindigger...it seems your opinions are correct and unassailable while mine are nothing more than misconstrued and ridiculous assumptions...? Here is a typical exchange between us...I'm sure people here will have no problem discerning who the squirrely one is. ;) Sometimes I wonder if you're actually a few different people sharing the same keyboard.

Direct question:

mountain digger said:
Question for you stew, do they have such a thing as a GRAND JURY in JAPAN?
Click to expand...

Direct answer:

stewart73 said:
I believe there are grand juries in Japan though I'm sure you can find out these kinds of things faster using Google if you're truly interested.
Click to expand...

Unexplained indignation:

mountain digger said:
You're the one to bring up 'grand jury' so why suggest I look it up? stew, that's just a silly thing to suggest to someone else about YOUR topic.
Madness? Well, we'll let all the others here decide who's mad and whose just insane.
Click to expand...
 
Ice Scratcher said:
Want to hear something really funny?

I have water detected where they have signs up saying NO SWIMMING Just because folks are not allowed to swim there today does not mean they never did, and I'm not swimming even though I'm in the water...:laughing:

Even signs that say no swimming no wading, would not stop me, because I'm actually detecting....

Now if the sign said "No getting in the water"... Well that would be different.. I would have to detect from my kayak somehow...

<*)))>{
Click to expand...

That's another one of those location things. All our local lakes are no swimming. Some say why. Some don't. The one at Hannah park a sailor swam out to pet what he thought was a turtle and a gator tore his arm off:shock::laughing:. Even people inadvertently feed gators fishing. I'd climb an oak tree in a lightning storm before I wade in a freshwater lake around here:lol:
 
itsaring! said:
That's another one of those location things. All our local lakes are no swimming. Some say why. Some don't. The one at Hannah park a sailor swam out to pet what he thought was a turtle and a gator tore his arm off:shock::laughing:
Click to expand...

Oopsy...

:laughing:

<°)))>{
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Treasure Trove claims on BLM land
Replies
6
Views
95
brianspegian
B
B
Does anyone keep a permission Log?
Replies
6
Views
278
scoundrel
scoundrel
wolf-n-wa
Have a permission for those interested. Webster lake, Massachusetts old barn and property.
Replies
2
Views
100
BuckHill
B
FliesOnly
Got a new permission
Replies
4
Views
132
markinmichigan
markinmichigan
maxxkatt
sharing with property owner question
Replies
5
Views
171
Rock Jock
Rock Jock
Back
Top Bottom