Myers Depot Metal Detectors

Public Property Permission?

Tom_in_CA said:
So long as that's not construed to mean: "Go ask can I?" A person can become "aware of the law" by looking it up for themselves .



.
Click to expand...



Exactly ! :yes:


But the lack of a posted sign or the omission of a specific rule on one of possibly more than one official website does not necessarily mean you are in the legal clear. It is the responsibility of the individual to be sure they have checked all the information available , not just check for a sign. My point with all of this is that advice is given to " just do it " , without knowing personally just what it is that they are saying to do. In an extreme and slightly sarcastic case :) , you may be telling a newbie to just go detect in a minefield for all you know :lol: Funny to put it that way but it illustrates the real point I am trying to make. The issue isn't whether you should detect or not , the issue is telling people to go for it when you don't have firsthand knowledge of the site. Admittedly problems might be rare , but you don't really know for sure what you are telling them to do. And if they are inexperienced , they may not know what they are doing either.
 
The responsibility is "always" yours. Only you go to jail, not the internet feller. And why quote, "just do it", over and over? With all due respect, you are the only one who used those words. If someone MDs a minefield, they deserve what they get, and it'll clear the way for me to swing. Dangerous places have signs, so do Parks where one cannot MD. No paranoia allowed.

Please learn the laws, before you attack me for their content. Feel free to start a thread with all the closed doors the hobby faces but I'd like newbies to see all the open ones. 99% of public land is MD'able and we're bickering about the 1%. In my book, the 1% needs to conform to the rest, not the other way around. Before you know it, we'll have 3 bathrooms.

HOS
 
HiOldSilver said:
OhioChris

We are so close to agreement! Except that, Federal law will never be more stringent than Local or County law. There is no Federal ban in any one State for any reason. If a township allows MDing at a local park, surely a Fedearl law wouldn't exist for that local park! Hence my stating, Historical Sites and National Parks. The Feds don't care about MDIng in your town, just Historical areas and National Parks where their jurisdiction lies. Don't dig here! Now we move to State and County regs, States will control State Parks and beaches and the vast majority allow MDing. State does not control County or city public land. Of all jurisdictions, County allows the most public land to MD, some DNR land is not MD friendly. Frankly, County doesn't care. Lastly, your local jurisdiction, look-up your Municipal Code and if MDing is allowed, then there are no signs. If there are signs, don't dig. State Police cannot enforce State Law off State property. State Police will not enforce anything if your local jurisdiction allows it, aka MDing. Nor do they want to.

I'm not feeding newbies falsehoods and buffalo chips, I just understand the Law a bit better than you. No offense intended. I have stated "Public Land" all along this thread, not Federal or State. If someone digs at Lincoln's tomb, the WW2 memorial, a National Park, historical Site, Indian burial ground, or a cemetery, no amount of laws can help stupid. I'm sure you'll agree that commence sense cannot be taught. But the odds of stopping at a city park that MDing isn't allowed is very rare! The rare ones charge an annual fee $5-$10 for the permit. Violating this city law is an ordinance violation, a $25-$50 non-criminal citation. And you can dispute this citation, and win the trial, if no signs are posted. Did you ever get a parking ticket on a non-posted street? But, yes, you are a free American to MD in public places. Don't be their buzzkill, it's wholesome and legal in 99% of American public land. This is the fun train, get on board ;)

Be courteous, don't dig your neighbor's yard or the front strip of grass. Although it's legal, it's not neighborly. But can you dig it, of course!

HOS
Click to expand...


:lol: There is a misunderstanding here somewhere. Im really not talking about park land. There are many crazy messed up locations , throughout the country....considered " public " but shared in some way between multiple entities. Areas near military installations where federal law supercedes the state and local laws of nearby towns in control of it........that's just one example where you can get in trouble quick for not having all the information. The boundaries between authorities in many places and the laws pertaining to the sites in question can be really murky if you don't know what you are doing. Many historic sites are off limits , but not everybody knows which ones not only ban detecting IN the site but also in surrounding areas , or just how far outside the site is considered " surrounding " ....and your county website may not have the information. There are too many examples to list , where not doing a thorough search for the legal information can get you into trouble , but my point was never about the legality....should or shouldn't detect ,.......its about telling someone to " just do it " when you don't know the site they are interested in.
 
Either way , I didn't mean to attack you or your thread. All Ive said is that more discretion might be called for when advising people , especially newbies , to go detect a place if you don't see a sign or the county website don't mention it. And I have given multiple examples of how that could be steering them in the wrong direction without further research , which apparently were taken to mean something completely different :lol:

So I apologize if it came across wrong. And I will stop since the point keeps getting missed somehow. :?:


I get into discussions when I am bored at work and passing time :lol:
 
Theres also the issue of 'enforcement'...like speeding...some get caught and some do not...like Henny Youngman said, "Its all about Timing!"

Tom has a good story about a noob who found a local beach to hunt...He just went on in there and commenced to scoop up all sorts of gold and coins and whatnot, thinking "Wow! This is easy!" He had a merry old time, waving to the Rangers, talking to them, just enjoying this honey hole all to himself whenever he pleased.....

After a few years he joined a local group of detectorists who were all lamenting their poor season, he showed off all his gold and mentioned the place, and they all said "What?! That beach is off limits!" "No detecting allowed!" :laughing::laughing: I thought that was really funny for some reason...
Mud
 
ohiochris said:
Most of the time , no , federal/state .....land/law does not necessarily subrogate down state park land or city level , but I do know of some cases where they do.....
Click to expand...

Ohio-Chris: Perhaps you are speaking of situations where the lower sub-entity incorporates by-mention, the higher authorities wording ? If so, yes: Some states, for example, when it comes time to allude to cultural heritage wording, will simply incorporate the federal ARPA verbiage. And I suppose cities and counties could do the same thing, and simply specify that all such language is to be applied herein, etc...

HOWEVER, in such case, that is spelled out as such. In other words, if the above were true, then the reader can simply read that. And hence know that state law has subrogated down. Or Fed. law has subrogated down, etc... If it's not spelled out that that's being invoked, then no, we need not wonder or fear if "higher entity laws are applicable here ".
 
Ohio Chris, another way what you allude to might seem to be at play, is the following:

There's been cases I've read about, where .... when it comes time for some city to decide "no", is they point to ARPA. Ie.: to justify a "no" they just passed out (for whatever reason the matter got on-their-table as an issue), they seem to say that their hands are tied, and they are merely abiding by ARPA (or a state parks law, etc...).

In those cases, I am convinced that the person being quoted saying those things, is mistaken. They may *think* that because state or federal laws say such & such, that it is automatically subrogating down to them . Hey, afterall, they'll a smaller sub-part of the larger entity, so some people (md'rs and bureaucrats alike) can make the assumption that the sub-entity is therefore bound by the same wording.

Now it would be different if they actually brought it into their own parks code BY SPECIFIC INCLUSION. But in some accounts I've read, that's not the case. The city person is merely assuming they're bound by the higher level laws. If that's the case, then they could be challenged on that. However, you know where that might go: If the challenger made too much of a stink, and the city saw their "proof" evaporating, they could merely make a rule. Doh!

Hence the reason why: The less bureaucrats think of us, THE BETTER.
 
ohiochris said:
.... I know of public places maintained by the city , owned by the state , and overseen on some level by the federal government. ....
Click to expand...

Correct. I can think of one park in my part of the state, where the land is federal. Yet it is "leased" for $1 per year to the city it's next to. And the city is the one who maintains and operates the park. And you're right: the federal law would prevail (it's their land afterall) EVEN though someone could try to say it's a city [operated] park.

However, such scenarios can be sluethed out with ease. If someone is skittish of that strange arrangement , they can figure it out, all from the comfort of their computer I bet. But I think this is way over-thinking things. I mean, sure, don't throw caution to the wind, but on the other hand, the average city park is a "city park". The average county park is a "county park", etc....
 
ohiochris said:
... telling someone to " just do it " without knowing the site in question personally may in some cases be bad advice , especially if the advice is given to the inexperienced.....
Click to expand...

Yes: This is where the "devil is in the details". There are going to be endless shades of grey where ..... as *technically* true as something might be, yet can be a "bad idea" in a certain place. Ie.: as *technically* true as something may be, someone can find themselves at the loosing end of a semantics battle. I agree.

So anytime I post on the subject, I am painfully aware of those scenarios. But to go to the other end of the spectrum and conclude that "therefore it's wiser to just waltz in and ask can I ? " can be equally fraught with problems.

It's sort of like trying to advise someone on "how to pick up women": You can give all sorts of great advice that undeniably *technically* true, but once "in the field", there's a million shades of grey that arise, and endless adjustments to the "lines" based on body language, etc.... But does that mean "don't pick up on women" ? Or that there's no wise advice on the do's and don'ts ? Of course not :)
 
Good counter data:

ohiochris said:
....But the lack of a posted sign or the omission of a specific rule on one of possibly more than one official website does not necessarily mean you are in the legal clear.....
Click to expand...

I understand where you're going with this: There is the valid concern someone might have, that the list of rules they found on-line "isn't complete". You know: Someone does their homework, finds something on the park dept. website (or gets the flyer of 'park rules' from the kiosk, etc...). The poor md'r glances through the material and finds it to be very brief. Just a few does and don't like "dogs on leash" , "no fireworks", etc.... And it's painfully obvious that the material they've found is very limited. So the md'r worries that "maybe there's a more complete listing elsewhere?"

It's also possible that while the PARK'S DEPT might not have a specific rule on their park land, yet the CITY overall has a muni. code forbidding md'ing on any city land (because not all city land is necessarily "park" land, afterall). So the skittish md'r then ratches up his research and can go to city websites, checking the general muni ordinances, codes, charter, etc... Right ?

I happen to think that a person who has worried this deeply (for innocuous city parks that are not obvious historic monuments), then they are way over-thinking things. I would go with the found material (that is silent on the subject, hence not prohibited). But I grant you that, yes someone can continue to worry that "lists might exist elsewhere that are more comprehensive than this". If someone is THAT skittish and worried, this has been my advice for them:

Go ahead and go to city hall and talk to a live person: You ask

"Hi, where can I avail myself to read all the laws and rules of use for the parks here ? Eg.: park hours, permits that might exist for various activities, regulations that may apply, like dogs on or off leash, and so forth. I have found an abbreviated source, but am concerned that it's only highlights, yet deeper material may exist elsewhere. Can you point me in the right direction of where the most complete listing of city codes and laws regarding park usage exist ?"

If the clerk tries to say : "What particularly do you want to know ? Is there a specific question ?", you stick to your guns and say : "To find the comprehensive complete listing(s) of any rule that applies to park usage". Do not succumb to temptation and say "... To find out if I can detect". Lest you fall afoul of someone's personal whim, as if you'd just asked their permission.

The city person should be able to direct you to where such information can be viewed. Afterall, no law is "secret" afterall. And later on, if someone harrasses you, your butt is covered that you clearly and distinctly asked to be pointed to any/all laws governing park usage.
 
HiOldSilver said:
... And why quote, "just do it", over and over? ...
Click to expand...

There is an implicit inference in that saying of "just do it". It seems to imply that something "being done" is questionable, illegal, risky, etc..... If all those implicit statements are true, then by all means, persons shouldn't be telling others to "just do it".

But I question the premise behind the statement. I happen to find md'ing harmless, innocent, safe, nutritious, etc... Does that mean everyone else will agree with that ? No, of course not. But to START with the assumption that md'ing is somehow inherently in a different camp of dangerous, likely illegal till-told-otherwise, risky, etc..... is also a devil-in-the-details starting point as well.

So the truth is somewhere inbetween. Sort of like common sense that can't be taught, or picking up on women which can't be taught, etc.....
 
Mud-puppy said:
.... Tom has a good story about a noob who found a local beach to hunt ...
Click to expand...


Good memory mud :p That was a funny "telling" story that put a face on some of this subject (even if not exactly fitting for the current topic). Glad you remembered that.

A guy got his first detector, and headed to the beach closest to him. And started going quite well (even just plying the dry sand and obvious volleyball courts, concession stands, etc...). He often had 100 to 200 coins in a single days outing eventually, with an occasional gold ring.

Eventually he began to wonder "why aren't the locals all over this?" (because by that time, he'd become aware that other hobbyists were in the area, and a club in a nearby city, etc...).

As time went on, he began to meet other md'rs, and eventually could attend the club meetings. And after awhile, confided in a few about his "secret spot". Imagine his surprise when some of them said "isn't that off limits?" (it was a federal stretch of beach here in Ca). Initially, he just assumed they were mistaken (afterall, what harm can you do to a beach ? Doh!). And he distinctly recalled in the past year or so openly waltzing in front of manned lifeguard towers, and passing rangers who never paid him a moment's mind. Hence obviously those telling him it was "illegal" were mistaken.

But as time went on, and he looked into it further, he began to see what they were saying . By this time though, he'd gone for over a year, and never heard so much as "boo". Can you blame the guy if he merely continued ? He was half tempted to !

And it was at this point that he realized where there was a plethora of targets never-harvested from a heavily used beach: Because all the locals were avoiding it. Assuming you'd be "arrested on the spot" and so forth.
 
Last edited:
Tom_in_CA said:
Good counter data:



I understand where you're going with this: There is the valid concern someone might have, that the list of rules they found on-line "isn't complete". You know: Someone does their homework, finds something on the park dept. website (or gets the flyer of 'park rules' from the kiosk, etc...). The poor md'r glances through the material and finds it to be very brief. Just a few does and don't like "dogs on leash" , "no fireworks", etc.... And it's painfully obvious that the material they've found is very limited. So the md'r worries that "maybe there's a more complete listing elsewhere?"

It's also possible that while the PARK'S DEPT might not have a specific rule on their park land, yet the CITY overall has a muni. code forbidding md'ing on any city land (because not all city land is necessarily "park" land, afterall). So the skittish md'r then ratches up his research and can go to city websites, checking the general muni ordinances, codes, charter, etc... Right ?

I happen to think that a person who has worried this deeply (for innocuous city parks that are not obvious historic monuments), then they are way over-thinking things. I would go with the found material (that is silent on the subject, hence not prohibited). But I grant you that, yes someone can continue to worry that "lists might exist elsewhere that are more comprehensive than this". If someone is THAT skittish and worried, this has been my advice for them:

Go ahead and go to city hall and talk to a live person: You ask

"Hi, where can I avail myself to read all the laws and rules of use for the parks here ? Eg.: park hours, permits that might exist for various activities, regulations that may apply, like dogs on or off leash, and so forth. I have found an abbreviated source, but am concerned that it's only highlights, yet deeper material may exist elsewhere. Can you point me in the right direction of where the most complete listing of city codes and laws regarding park usage exist ?"

If the clerk tries to say : "What particularly do you want to know ? Is there a specific question ?", you stick to your guns and say : "To find the comprehensive complete listing(s) of any rule that applies to park usage". Do not succumb to temptation and say "... To find out if I can detect". Lest you fall afoul of someone's personal whim, as if you'd just asked their permission.

The city person should be able to direct you to where such information can be viewed. Afterall, no law is "secret" afterall. And later on, if someone harrasses you, your butt is covered that you clearly and distinctly asked to be pointed to any/all laws governing park usage.
Click to expand...




There seems to be this persistent assumption throughout all your replies that I am trying to address the topic of legality and permissions :lol: .....that is not at all what I am talking about.

Completely independent from anything legal or permission of any kind ,....my point in all of this is the advice that if there is no sign , or mention on the county website , then you are absolutely legal ,.......is not necessarily correct or good advice. Lacking personal knowledge of the site or sites in question ,.....YOU personally don't know if someone is in the clear or not , or that THEY actually have done the research on their end to be sure there is now law against.....and advice to grab the detector and hit may be irresponsible and a very negative thing for a newbie.

Just how you guys get something completely different out of this ,.....and insert a question on legality or permission ?????? :?: I have no idea :lol:

That's why I have replied so many times........complete disbelief that you can get something so different from a post that only says you should be careful with the " no signs , go ahead and hunt it " advice.....not that you are wrong , but that there are certain people out there that will run with that advice having not looked into the law as much as they should.....they are newbies afterall , and many times unaware of certain things. How you get a permissions argument out of that is beyond me Tom :laughing:
 
ohiochris said:
... there are certain people out there that will run with that advice having not looked into the law as much as they should.....they are newbies afterall , and many times unaware of certain things....
Click to expand...

Yes, and I addressed this possibility (and various remedies for them) in my previous replies.

But curious: Re.: the admitted possibility that a newbie "didn't look deep enough" Or the possibility that "a more-complete list of rules exists somewhere else, that shows that it's illegal...." that the newbie didn't know of (because he failed to look deep enough). Ok, let's grant that possibility.

But why isn't the same level of "what if's" scrutiny applied to other things of life ? Like frisbee flying in the park. Legal or not ? Should a person considering flying frisbees put his intended activity through the same level of "what if's" ? (Afterall, you might poke someone's eye out ? :?:)
 
OhioChris

No harm, no foul. I don't take your posts as personal attacks, far from it. It couldn't be personal, we don't know each other. I'd gladly MD with you anytime. I'll show ya how liberating it is to go to a strange town, any public land, and swing away without a care in the world. I'm quite conservative, so this is very liberating to me. I recommend it endlessly to anyone who happens upon this thread. Life is too short to get caught-up in all of the technicalities out there. I refuse to do it.

You may have a point regarding multi-jurisdictional land but if I ACCIDENTALLY found myself MDing there somehow, I'd simply apologize and leave. I'm sure it's happened, but I have yet to hear of anyone being arrested for MDing in a public place. Unless someone was given warning and refused to comply, I can't see anyone being pinched for MDing such a place. This is not playing dumb or ignorant, it's legal in every State! Check your County Laws and you're good unless it's marked locally.

And I'm just too old to be concerned with being worried about MDing in Parks, beaches, school lots, or other public use areas that aren't marked. Cities are burning and my pension getting fleeced, lawmakers and judges should focus on this not my legal actions.

You have your views on it, I have mine. I won't try to change your mind and you can't change mine. It boils down to that. Happy hunting and God bless.

HOS


Thank you all for your replies! It's a free country but I think we flogged this horse.
 
Tom_in_CA said:
.

But why isn't the same level of "what if's" scrutiny applied to other things of life ? Like frisbee flying in the park. Legal or not ? Should a person considering flying frisbees put his intended activity through the same level of "what if's" ? (Afterall, you might poke someone's eye out ? :?:)
Click to expand...



Rarely is Frisbee ever a target :lol: While certain things just naturally come under scrutiny because they rely on resources or under the right conditions certain people could ruin things for others. Hunting , fishing , mushroom harvest , use of ATV's , camping , metal detecting, etc. Many things of this nature are banned , or regulated somehow depending on the site and location. Some of these things may require a license or permit , some of these things are fine without a permit as long as you are aware of restrictions.

As I have said , my point is not about whether something is legal , or whether it can be done......and not even permissions related , only that knowledge of a particular site and thorough research of the legalities should be stressed and considered important along with the advice that its probably fine to hunt there. To use another example , even though the others seemed to fall flat :lol: ,......take ice fishing , its alright to tell a newbie that as long as they " see " no ban against ice fishing a certain body of water then they should be ok to fish there but without them knowing about ice safety they could wind up very wet or very dead because a wise old veteran of the sport told them it should be ok. As bad as that would be for an adult just imagine if it was a child ? .... OR they " thought " they checked the regulations by reading a story on the internet and being the newbie that they are assumed that meant they were legal ,......only to be fined by a warden later because they didn't get the FULL story. Yep , its ultimately their own fault but that wise old veteran of the sport neglected a certain amount of responsibility that comes with giving the advice , and that person put a lot of trust in what he said.
 
Yes Ohio Chris, everything you're saying is technically true. But I'm still of the opinion that if someone's done their durndest (following my prescription in post #30 for instance), than they'd done their due diligence. How much more law-abiding can a person be ?

And personally I think the person who goes to those measures is probably worrying a bit too much. But none-the-less, there is remedies that a person of that skittishness level can take. And still not have to go in "seeking permission" or asking live persons "can I ?"
 
When you're standing there talking to the law dogs, go ahead and tell them, but TOM said it's legal... Holler back on how that works for you...
 
NectarDetector said:
When you're standing there talking to the law dogs, go ahead and tell them, but TOM said it's legal... Holler back on how that works for you...
Click to expand...

Yeah! well, its always fun! At least we got 'Regulatort Conditioning' and 'subrogate' added here to the Community lexicon! Ohio Chris has a valid point, its probably best not to advise a Noob to 'just go on in until somebody tells you to stop'. Being invisible and immune to the repercussions of laws takes years of practice...Some are just plain good at it, and some are not...

As invisible as I have become, I offer my recent submission of my 'Parking Ticket' as evidence...yep, signs all over the place, yet I have parked and hunted here 50 times in the past with no issues...on that particular morning, my Spidey Sense, finely honed from years of being invisible, told me it was a bad idea, but in my glee to try out my new coil in a familiar area, I pushed the envelope and gave it a go...so yeah..$15 dollar ticket awaited me...

The last speeding ticket I got was in 1987..have I broken the law and driven over the posted limit since? Of course!...Would I advise a new driver to attempt what I do? Probably not...we have no baseline to offer any guidance regarding THEIR personal skill and sense.....So yeah, in the future, I will advise all Noobs to go down to City Hall and ask for permission to hunt a public park...Just makes it easier on everyone! :laughing:
Mud
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Treasure Trove claims on BLM land
Replies
8
Views
262
FliesOnly
FliesOnly
B
Does anyone keep a permission Log?
Replies
6
Views
305
scoundrel
scoundrel
wolf-n-wa
Have a permission for those interested. Webster lake, Massachusetts old barn and property.
Replies
2
Views
122
BuckHill
B
FliesOnly
Got a new permission
Replies
4
Views
154
markinmichigan
markinmichigan
maxxkatt
sharing with property owner question
Replies
5
Views
202
Rock Jock
Rock Jock
Back
Top Bottom