Have you ever gotten busted?

[ScubaDetective]

Three citations. All three dismissed

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Interesting. But confusing. Concerning contracts you recently mentioned that...

the consensus is right: showing a contract to a total stranger to sign, is the FASTEST way to get a no.

Concerning words like "dig, remove, disturb" applying to metal detecting you had this to say:

I take such verbage to inherently mean the end result. Ie.: their intention is to address damage. Trust me: verbage like that exists at every single park across the entire USA. Even parks where you can detect [and retrieve] till you're blue in the face. Thus I do not interpret such things to ... of necessity ... equate to "no metal detecting".

You have also several times told people that they should NOT mention things like "dig, disturb, remove" when trying to get a yes.

Forgive me for my confusion but you seem to contradict yourself.

 

[bodkin]

An interesting debate!

Not really relevant to you regarding U.S. or state law but adds another angle to the topic. Here in the U.K. every square inch of land is owned by someone - even our beaches. Permission is always required before we even set foot on it. Failure to obtain the required permission can land us in a lot of trouble and possibly lead to a criminal conviction. Charges such as trespass, theft by finding, going equipped to steal and criminal damage (to name just a few) potentially await those who do not gain permission before going detecting. Another complication is that tenants of land can not give us the permission we need therefore the landowner must be approached. It has been known that tenants pretend to be the owner! This becomes a problem when recordable finds are submitted to our museums.

Some reading regarding convictions with detectors....

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sour...ie=UTF-8#q=going+equipped+with+metal+detector

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sour...2&ie=UTF-8#q=theft+by+finding+metal+detecting

For us it is easy - If in any doubt, ask.

So, to answer the thread author's questions.... No I've never been busted because the consequences are too damaging to me and brings the hobby into disrepute.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

bodkin, thanx for your input. And for some odd reason, some Americans seem to think the British system (where everything under the soil belongs to the queen) is a great system. But as your post shows, it's fraught with "gotchas".

 

[bodkin]

If we (in the U.K.) stick to the law, do not detect on protected land, always get permission from the landowner (recovered finds don't belong to the Queen but the landowner in the first instance - in most cases) and declare all historically important finds to our museums, we can't go wrong really. It rules out the can I or can't I? and should I or shouldn't I? question. Looking for signs to confirm that detecting is or isn't allowed, with ambiguity in the text which is open to interpretation sounds like a nightmare to me - I'd get it wrong for sure! Those who are convicted with regards to detecting are the bad boys of the hobby - raiding historical sites, going out at night onto land without the owner's knowledge or permission so no one can see them, or not declaring important finds. They get what they deserve, but spoil it for the rest of us with the bad publicity incurred their actions. It's getting harder to get permissions here because of them.

 

[METALMANIAC-NY]

Ive had two encounters with police so far...both positive.....whew. In both instances they were curious about the hobby "how deep does that go" and "what do you find?" Offered them my extra detector any time.....

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Bodkin, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you British hunters doing 99% of your hunting on private land, IN THE FIRST PLACE ? (barring the beach, I suppose). So like 99% = farmer's fields with permission, right ? Because since there is so much age and history there, you guys can practically hit any plowed field, that's seen continuous cultivation for 2000+ yrs, and .... find stuff. Thus the average UK hunter is NOT wasting his time at turfed parks or ball-diamonds.

So it's understandable that you guys aren't dealing with ambiguities like this, since most of your hunting is on farmer's fields with permission. When we do farmer's fields with permission here, we too have no such issues or concerns as well.

 

[metaladdict]

So far no problems...
I did get warned to leave Sonoma square by a sheriff 4 or 5 years ago which I didn't want any trouble and promptly left! He said he could cite me but for what who knows,I suppose it is historical square.
I got asked nicely to leave a historical beach by a state ranger,which I happily left.
I asked for permission at a California beach in Lake Tahoe and they gave me the go ahead.(It was on forest land or something).

 

[bodkin]

Bodkin, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you British hunters doing 99% of your hunting on private land, IN THE FIRST PLACE ? (barring the beach, I suppose). So like 99% = farmer's fields with permission, right ? Because since there is so much age and history there, you guys can practically hit any plowed field, that's seen continuous cultivation for 2000+ yrs, and .... find stuff. Thus the average UK hunter is NOT wasting his time at turfed parks or ball-diamonds.

So it's understandable that you guys aren't dealing with ambiguities like this, since most of your hunting is on farmer's fields with permission. When we do farmer's fields with permission here, we too have no such issues or concerns as well.

That's about right buddy. We generally are not allowed to detect schools, sports fields, parks, roadside verges..... Where you lucky lot find all the silver dimes and rings! (And we would too) So our only option is to ask landowners. However, there are plenty of fields that have nothing in them but mud, grass, foil and modern stuff - especially where I am, so I waste a lot of time searching and finding nothing. Still. what a way to waste time! With regards to the ambiguous signs, could you not contact the park/sports field manager and ask for confirmation? I was merely saying that although I have never been busted for detecting, there are more and more rouges who completely disregard the law over here that are, and this is killing the hobby for us good boys. It looks/reads like I've riled you with my input buddy - this was not my intention, sorry.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... We generally are not allowed to detect schools, sports fields, parks, roadside verges..... .....

ah, so an apples to oranges comparison then, of England vs the USA, in regards to such sites

.... could you not contact the park/sports field manager and ask for confirmation?....

You could. Then hence the entire discussion at hand! What does that "manager" base his answer on ? His personal whim and mood ? Or the actual law/rules? Would he have ever given it a moment's thought (ie.: paid a 2nd glance at you), if you'd just gone ? Do you risk a "no" where no one's ever cared before? Hence the dilemma.

 

[bodkin]

ah, so an apples to oranges comparison then, of England vs the USA, in regards to such sites

Yes, but I said that at first. Just another angle.



You could. Then hence the entire discussion at hand! What does that "manager" base his answer on ? His personal whim and mood ? Or the actual law/rules? Would he have ever given it a moment's thought (ie.: paid a 2nd glance at you), if you'd just gone ? Do you risk a "no" where no one's ever cared before? Hence the dilemma.

Personally, I'd willingly accept a "No" over lying on the ground with a gun pointing at me or a criminal conviction.

 

[Bill_Ace_350]

Personally, I'd willingly accept a "No" over lying on the ground with a gun pointing at me or a criminal conviction.

Ha ha! Quite dramatic! I think it would be the extremely rare case if a gun were to be pointed at someone.

 

[schill13]

Worst thing eve ever seen metal detecting was some idiot with a ace 350 and a full sized shovel in the park digging holes i told him that he shouldnt do that and showed him what he should be using.

I see it all the time.....

 

[HarveyH48]

We, the taxpayers, pay the salary of that manager, attendant, ranger, who has AUTHORITY over the park. It's really his call, on activities not clearly defined by law, or rules. It's even his call, on how strictly those park rules are enforced. It's not a black/white world. It's not what is, or isn't on paper, it's what's allowed. Of course, you can be tolerated, to a point, if you just, 'Go for it'. Most people aren't confrontational, and will let you be, if you aren't doing any harm, or bother people (headphones are a good idea). You will run into a few rare individuals, who thrive on confrontation, even when they've got to know they are in the wrong, they still got to step up, and spoil someone's day...

 

[Cherry Picker]

The only time I can remember that I was asked to leave was at a grade school. The Principal came out and ask me and my buddies to stop and leave. This was on the weekend as we never hunt a school when in session. Her reason was "they were trying to grow new grass" which was bogus. She just didn't like us hunting there and was pushing her need to feel empowered. I was polite and said no problem and then asked if we could hunt out back in the sand lot. She again said no so we left.

My buddies felt we should have stayed and pushed our Rights to hunt on public property but I told them that was a bad idea because she was the type to go to the board and get it passed to make all metal detecting at the schools illegal. Instead I went to the Superintendent of Schools and got permission. She never has approached us since but now I had higher authorization.

I guess there was the case of the absentminded farmer. I had talked to the farmer working the ground at an old motor cycle track and got permission. He came by while we were hunting a few years later and went off on us about hunting on his property. He didn't remember giving me permission.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Personally, I'd willingly accept a "No" over lying on the ground with a gun pointing at me or a criminal conviction.

Here-in lies the added data to the question: Is this "imminent fear"? A risk to truly be fearful of ? Ie.: Do people really have "guns pointed at them and criminal convictions" for detecting in innocuous places that have no rules specifically forbidding this given-activity ? I mean, sure "anything can happen", sure. (a bear can attack you when you walk out your front door tomorrow). But ... at what point does it border on the ridiculous ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Ha ha! Quite dramatic! I think it would be the extremely rare case if a gun were to be pointed at someone.

So you might think. However, it seems to be "imminent and certain" to the thinking of some folks.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.....manager, attendant, ranger, who has AUTHORITY over the park. It's really his call, on activities not clearly defined by law, or rules. ....

Correct. So he's more than welcome to come alert me, if he has an issue.

......... Most people aren't confrontational, and will let you be, if you aren't doing any harm, or bother people .....

EXACTLY

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... She never has approached us since but now I had higher authorization.

Interesting story: So even though you now had a higher authority over-riding this particular kill-joy, you've never had to use that. So another way to look at it: Is that you simply have successfully avoided the "1 person in 100,000 who cares less" .

 

[stewart73]

But ... at what point does it border on the ridiculous ?

Probably at about the point when you're about to make your 2250th post on telling people to never ask for permission.