Detecting/hunting buddy in Sullivan County, NY... and good towns that are ok with it?

[luciobar1980]

Hi there! Recently moved to the area and also getting into detecting. I emailed some towns around me but haven't heard back yet. Does anyone in this area now of any towns/parks that are ok with detecting? I'm near Monticello, Liberty, South Fallsburg. Any help appreciated, or even a hunting buddy!

 

[LovestheShiny!]

Not in your area, but I would not be emailing towns asking if it ok to detect parks there. Go online to each city website and look up the park rules and city ordinances, if not prohibited then you are ok. Checking with the city and some low level clerk answering your email can easily say "no" when really it is ok. Good luck in your detecting!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....... I emailed some towns around me but haven't heard back yet..........

What, pray-tell, did your email ask ?

Loves-the-shiny is right : Do not become the latest victim of : "no one cared TILL you asked" routine. Do not swat hornets nests merely getting a law or code or policy to "address your pressing question".

Why can't you just look up on said-city's websites, where invariably their muni codes, park rules, etc.... Can be found. Eg.: Dogs on leash, closes at sunset, etc.... Eg.: keyword search under "metal" and/or "detecting", or whatever. If there's nothing that says "no md'ing", then presto : Not prohibited.

 

[Don]

Hi there! Recently moved to the area and also getting into detecting. I emailed some towns around me but haven't heard back yet. Does anyone in this area now of any towns/parks that are ok with detecting? I'm near Monticello, Liberty, South Fallsburg. Any help appreciated, or even a hunting buddy!

I would not worry too much about detecting towns, unless there is an ordinance against it. If it is a state park, I would ask first. Generally federal parks are off limits. Happy Hunting!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... If it is a state park, I would ask first. Generally federal parks are off limits. Happy Hunting!

Why must a person need to ask "Can I ?" at a state park ? They can simply look up on the park's website, where , in this wonderful digital day & age that we live in, the rules are invariably listed. Eg.: Dogs on leash, closes at sunset, no fireworks, etc.... If it didn't say "no md'ing", THEN PRESTO : Not prohibited. Naturally use common sense and don't be tromping on obvious historic sensitive monuments.

And as for "federal", it is a common misconception that federal is a "no no". But actually, as an example : There's no prohibition on NFS (national forest service) and BLM (Bureau of Land Management). In fact, there's EVEN EXPRESS ALLOWANCES there (beats the heck out of merely silent-on-the-subject, eh ?). Naturally there's "boiler-plate" ancillary wording about "cultural heritage". Ok, fine, then don't tromp on obvious historic monuments during an archaeological convention. And besides, I never find old coins, DO YOU ?

 

[Don]

Why must a person need to ask "Can I ?" at a state park ? They can simply look up on the park's website, where , in this wonderful digital day & age that we live in, the rules are invariably listed. Eg.: Dogs on leash, closes at sunset, no fireworks, etc.... If it didn't say "no md'ing", THEN PRESTO : Not prohibited. Naturally use common sense and don't be tromping on obvious historic sensitive monuments.

And as for "federal", it is a common misconception that federal is a "no no". But actually, as an example : There's no prohibition on NFS (national forest service) and BLM (Bureau of Land Management). In fact, there's EVEN EXPRESS ALLOWANCES there (beats the heck out of merely silent-on-the-subject, eh ?). Naturally there's "boiler-plate" ancillary wording about "cultural heritage". Ok, fine, then don't tromp on obvious historic monuments during an archaeological convention. And besides, I never find old coins, DO YOU ?

I have come across a couple parks in Washington state that does not state anything relating to metal detecting. But yet, they require you fill a form out for the day, so they know who has been been there. That's why I mentioned state parks.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I have come across a couple parks in Washington state that does not state anything relating to metal detecting. But yet, they require you fill a form out for the day, so they know who has been been there. That's why I mentioned state parks.

If, as you are saying, that some certain park(s) have a "required form to fill out", then that information/requirement HAS TO BE THERE somewhere. In writing (codified), as a requirement. Because There is simply no laws or rules that are "secret". Otherwise that's "ex post facto" (in legal jargon), eh ?

Are you referring to something involving "alter & deface" (that someone needs a permit form to "dig" ?), or "harvest & remove" (since you and I "take" things). Or lost & found laws (since we "find" things after all). Yet in all those cases doesn't specifically mention md'ing ? But such that someone has allegedly decided that our activity falls under some *ancillary* language ?


In other words, can you please clarify.


Because whatever "form" you are speaking of to-fill-out ^^ HAS to be listed SOMEWHERE. Because you and I can not get in trouble for doing something for-which-there was no where to look up. Ie.: There are no "secret laws". So: Can you please clarify ? Got a link ? Got a pix of this "form" that you're referring to ?

 

[Don]

If, as you are saying, that some certain park(s) have a "required form to fill out", then that information/requirement HAS TO BE THERE somewhere. In writing (codified), as a requirement. Because There is simply no laws or rules that are "secret". Otherwise that's "ex post facto" (in legal jargon), eh ?

Are you referring to something involving "alter & deface" (that someone needs a permit form to "dig" ?), or "harvest & remove" (since you and I "take" things). Or lost & found laws (since we "find" things after all). Yet in all those cases doesn't specifically mention md'ing ? But such that someone has allegedly decided that our activity falls under some *ancillary* language ?


In other words, can you please clarify.


Because whatever "form" you are speaking of to-fill-out ^^ HAS to be listed SOMEWHERE. Because you and I can not get in trouble for doing something for-which-there was no where to look up. So: Can you please clarify ? Got a link ? Got a pix of this "form" that you're referring to ?

I do not have a form. One park was Battle Ground state park. If there was anything on the parks website, I did not see it. I was metal detecting one day and a park ranger approached me and let me know I needed to fill out a form to metal detect for the day. This way if they find some holes, they know who to contact.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I have come across a couple parks....

Or perhaps this is something that someone-in-authority told you, after you'd asked "can I ?". Ie.: they handed you a "form". So that, to your way of thinking, this means that the "form was therefore required" then, eh ?

But no, this need not necessarily logically follow. That's sort of like this , that has sometimes been the push-back : Someone asks the kiosk or desk jockey "Can I ?". They receive the princely "yes". Or "sign your name here", or whatever. So to the md'rs' way-of-thinking, the mere fact that they got a "yes" or a "form" or whatever MUST THEREFORE MEAN that their princely say-so was needed. Eh ? So we construe the "yes" answer as therefore meaning that : It was necessary to have asked. Eh ?


Because shucks, if it HADN'T been needed, then the desk jockey would have said something like this :

"Gee that's a funny question. Why are you asking me ? If there's no prohibition, then no permission is needed". But since they do NOT answer in that way, then this must mean that it was good and necessary for us to have asked . Notice that this is ALSO the insinuation if they told you "no" as well. Because you LIKEWISE would be thinking "gee it's a good thing I asked. Now I know that I can't do it". So notice that EITHER WAY (whether a "yes" or "no" or supposed "form", etc...) that ANY ANSWER is construed as somehow meaning that their princely say-so was necessary.

But I say that this logic train does not necessarily follow. Because think of it : THE MERE FACT that someone is standing there asking "Can I ?", merely presumes that their say-so was necessary. LEST WHY ELSE WOULD YOU BE ASKING ? So they bestow on your their whimsical capricious answer to "our pressing question" (after all, you asked, which implies they have the power to decide whatever they want).

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I do not have a form. One park was Battle Ground state park. If there was anything on the parks website, I did not see it. I was metal detecting one day and a park ranger approached me and let me know I needed to fill out a form to metal detect for the day. This way if they find some holes, they know who to contact.

Then whatever this fellow was telling you, must exist somewhere in writing.

Also be aware : If/when someone ever says "scram" or "fill out such & such form", etc..., does not necessarily constitute gospel law from then-on-out. OH SURE : give lip service and do whatever they say at-the-time. Sure. But often time encounters like this turn out to be flukes. Someone having a bad hair day. Or someone morphing something ancillary they think applies (yet you'll never run into them again).

 

[Don]

Or perhaps this is something that someone-in-authority told you, after you'd asked "can I ?". Ie.: they handed you a "form". So that, to your way of thinking, this means that the "form was therefore required" then, eh ?

But no, this need not necessarily logically follow. That's sort of like this , that has sometimes been the push-back : Someone asks the kiosk or desk jockey "Can I ?". They receive the princely "yes". Or "sign your name here", or whatever. So to the md'rs' way-of-thinking, the mere fact that they got a "yes" or a "form" or whatever MUST THEREFORE MEAN that their princely say-so was needed. Eh ? So we construe the "yes" answer as therefore meaning that : It was necessary to have asked. Eh ?


Because shucks, if it HADN'T been needed, then the desk jockey would have said something like this :

"Gee that's a funny question. Why are you asking me ? If there's no prohibition, then no permission is needed". But since they do NOT answer in that way, then this must mean that it was good and necessary for us to have asked . Notice that this is ALSO the insinuation if they told you "no" as well. Because you LIKEWISE would be thinking "gee it's a good thing I asked. Now I know that I can't do it". So notice that EITHER WAY (whether a "yes" or "no" or supposed "form", etc...) that ANY ANSWER is construed as somehow meaning that their princely say-so was necessary.

But I say that this logic train does not necessarily follow. Because think of it : THE MERE FACT that someone is standing there asking "Can I ?", merely presumes that their say-so was necessary. LEST WHY ELSE WOULD YOU BE ASKING ? So they bestow on your their whimsical capricious answer to "our pressing question" (after all, you asked, which implies they have the power to decide whatever they want).

I didn't ask permission!

Or perhaps this is something that someone-in-authority told you, after you'd asked "can I ?". Ie.: they handed you a "form". So that, to your way of thinking, this means that the "form was therefore required" then, eh ?

But no, this need not necessarily logically follow. That's sort of like this , that has sometimes been the push-back : Someone asks the kiosk or desk jockey "Can I ?". They receive the princely "yes". Or "sign your name here", or whatever. So to the md'rs' way-of-thinking, the mere fact that they got a "yes" or a "form" or whatever MUST THEREFORE MEAN that their princely say-so was needed. Eh ? So we construe the "yes" answer as therefore meaning that : It was necessary to have asked. Eh ?


Because shucks, if it HADN'T been needed, then the desk jockey would have said something like this :

"Gee that's a funny question. Why are you asking me ? If there's no prohibition, then no permission is needed". But since they do NOT answer in that way, then this must mean that it was good and necessary for us to have asked . Notice that this is ALSO the insinuation if they told you "no" as well. Because you LIKEWISE would be thinking "gee it's a good thing I asked. Now I know that I can't do it". So notice that EITHER WAY (whether a "yes" or "no" or supposed "form", etc...) that ANY ANSWER is construed as somehow meaning that their princely say-so was necessary.

But I say that this logic train does not necessarily follow. Because think of it : THE MERE FACT that someone is standing there asking "Can I ?", merely presumes that their say-so was necessary. LEST WHY ELSE WOULD YOU BE ASKING ? So they bestow on your their whimsical capricious answer to "our pressing question" (after all, you asked, which implies they have the power to decide whatever they want).

I did not ask permission! He drove up to me! Man, you sure like beating a dead horse! Maybe you have to much free time! Go out and metal detect or something!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... He drove up to me! ....

And we "jinxed" each other before I saw you add that. See from the time-stamps. And : This new revelation was addressed in post #10

 

[luciobar1980]

Hey guys, thanks for the replies! Yeah, i looked pretty thoroughly through some town website and couldn't find a single mention of metal detecting. I went to a few parks the last few days and haven't been arrested yet! Just found some modern coins, nothing amazing.

 

[Don]

Hey guys, thanks for the replies! Yeah, i looked pretty thoroughly through some town website and couldn't find a single mention of metal detecting. I went to a few parks the last few days and haven't been arrested yet! Just found some modern coins, nothing amazing.

At least you didn't get skunked!