The snotty park that hates metal detectors

[Ice Scratcher]

or other property found therein ,

I would still consider that a "catch all" that was put there to cover things that are not park property like other's lawn chairs, bicycles, cars and babies...

As an American, that coin you found is yours, so you'll have to put back any Canadian coins you find... Also there is that saying "possession is 9/10ths of the law...

Just my thoughts...

<*)))>{

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I would still consider that a "catch all" that was put there to cover things that are not park property like other's lawn chairs, bicycles, cars and babies...

As an American, that coin you found is yours, so you'll have to put back any Canadian coins you find... Also there is that saying "possession is 9/10ths of the law...

Just my thoughts...

<*)))>{

Sure. We can all agree that such laws were never meant to cover individual coins , or a ring lost 20+ yrs. earlier that's long since-been-forgotten and given up on, by the prior owners. I mean, common sense dictates that afterall. Common sense dictates it's so that you don't think you can help yourself to the park benches, or harvest the sod and roses for commercial sale, or "find" the mountain bike someone parked there, etc...

*However*, that doesn't stop some legal beaver pencil pusher from saying that those very same laws CAN apply to individual coins (or the seashell your grade school daughter picked up yesterday). All you have to do is keep asking long enough and hard enough, and you will eventually find someone on the rung-of-the-ladder that draws those interpretations. And then ... hey ... you'll be glad you asked. Because how else were you supposed to have known ?

 

[mountain digger]

I would still consider that a "catch all" that was put there to cover things that are not park property like other's lawn chairs, bicycles, cars and babies...

As an American, that coin you found is yours, so you'll have to put back any Canadian coins you find... Also there is that saying "possession is 9/10ths of the law...

Just my thoughts...

<*)))>{

Ice,

I agree with you. Just someones best shot at a "catch all" phrase.

lawn chairs are personal property.
bicycles are personal property.
cars are personal property.
babies ... huh? are very personal.
rings lost for 20 years are personal property.
park benches permanently installed on park grounds are REAL property.
planted bushes are REAL property.

If existing law doesn't address specifically 'abandoned personal property', then the law doesn't address 'abandoned personal property' [IMO]. BTW, just what is 'abandoned' personal property anyway? And I'll add, only the courts can interpret what the law addresses or doesn't address which is why the courts keep changing the definition of words.

But hey, I'm confused...just ask Ohio.

 

[ohiochris]

Ice,

I agree with you. Just someones best shot at a "catch all" phrase.

lawn chairs are personal property.
bicycles are personal property.
cars are personal property.
babies ... huh? are very personal.
rings lost for 20 years are personal property.
park benches permanently installed on park grounds are REAL property.
planted bushes are REAL property.

If existing law doesn't address specifically 'abandoned personal property', then the law doesn't address 'abandoned personal property' [IMO]. BTW, just what is 'abandoned' personal property anyway? And I'll add, only the courts can interpret what the law addresses or doesn't address which is why the courts keep changing the definition of words.

But hey, I'm confused...just ask Ohio.

Yep , you are confused


I play the devils advocate more than people realize , you included but only to a point. Just what does a catch all phrase imply anyway ? YUP!!!!..........that THEY reserve the right to pass judgement however they see fit. And since in the case I brought up in this thread , they informed me of their interpretation ,.... two seperate times !!!! at different parks within the system ............there is no doubt what their intentions were.

 

[khouse]

Yep , you are confused


I play the devils advocate more than people realize , you included but only to a point. Just what does a catch all phrase imply anyway ? YUP!!!!..........that THEY reserve the right to pass judgement however they see fit. And since in the case I brought up in this thread , they informed me of their interpretation ,.... two seperate times !!!! at different parks within the system ............there is no doubt what their intentions were.

Are "they" park workers or board members?

 

[Toyranosaur]

AW JUST DO IT AND RUN LIKE HELL!! I'm no help.....Chris

 

[ohiochris]

Are "they" park workers or board members?

A grounds maintenance person AS WELL AS the head of the parks dept. consequently.

I know what you are thinking. Dont try it , been there done that.

 

[khouse]

A grounds maintenance person AS WELL AS the head of the parks dept. consequently.

I know what you are thinking. Dont try it , been there done that.

Just trying to get all the facts before I rule. LOL

 

[mountain digger]

Yep , you are confused


I play the devils advocate more than people realize , you included but only to a point. Just what does a catch all phrase imply anyway ? YUP!!!!..........that THEY reserve the right to pass judgement however they see fit. And since in the case I brought up in this thread , they informed me of their interpretation ,.... two seperate times !!!! at different parks within the system ............there is no doubt what their intentions were.

BUT Ohio,
They [the ones who have your number] are not the ones that have the authority to interpret the law as written ("pass judgement" to use your term). I know you have difficulty with this concept. And for most of us, we don't have any difficulty understanding the term "catch all", so perhaps it's just a local Ohio problem. Devils advocate... So you made up your "case" to be devils advocate?

Was it Mark Twain who said 'best to disclose devil's advocacy before you play your hand? To do otherwise is to prove one is unwise'. Probably not, oh well...

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...They [the ones who have your number] are not the ones that have the authority to interpret the law as written ...

Mountain -digger, If I understand where you're trying to go with this (correct me if I'm wrong), then I disagree. "They" DO "have the authority" to interpret. Sure, maybe not in a judicial sense (ie.: it can be "over-turned" upon review by a judge). But none-the-less, the rank-&-file cops, and all other "duly appointed government employees" do in fact have some latitude to apply the laws in the course of their jobs.

I ran into this once, where a city public works guy (not even a cop, not even a gardener) booted me from some city park long ago. When I studied the matter further, I confirmed to myself that there was nothing that specifically said "no metal detectors" in that location.

Later, after talking to a lawyer friend of mine about this, he told me that the city person CAN INDEED boot me on ancillary things he morphs to apply. Ie.: alter, deface, remove, annoy, etc... And that it didn't need to be specific. So I asked my lawyer friend: "Then how is that anything less than arbitrary, whimsical, and ripe for abuse?? I mean, what's to stop that same person from booting people that wear blue T-shirts, simply because he 'thinks they'll bother the spotted owls' ?"

The lawyer told me that this level of in-the-field interpretation HAS to rest with cops, and city personnel. They HAVE to be able interpret to a myriad of circumstances that might arise. That's why laws are often-time written vaguely in the first place. Eg.: laws that "forbid annoyances", for instance. Because it's simply impossible to write a law for every last conceivable thing that someone might do. And without the power to apply, everyone would forever more be debating semantics with cops in the field. No cop could ever get his job done, without people debating them over word definitions, etc...

Hence a cop or a gardener or councilman, etc... can indeed come up and boot you. Sure you can defy him, and ask for a ticket, to "have your day in court". But obviously, most of us don't have that time or energy.

By the way: none of this legal premise, in my mind, equates to: "therefore I will go ask permission, and seek clarifications ahead of time". On the contrary: I will still help myself, till-told-otherwise. But just saying, don't think that various city persons can't boot you and I.

I will just do my best to not run into said city persons. Even if that means detecting at night

 

[mountain digger]

Mountain -digger, If I understand where you're trying to go with this (correct me if I'm wrong), then I disagree. "They" DO "have the authority" to interpret. Sure, maybe not in a judicial sense (ie.: it can be "over-turned" upon review by a judge). But none-the-less, the rank-&-file cops, and all other "duly appointed government employees" do in fact have some latitude to apply the laws in the course of their jobs.

I ran into this once, where a city public works guy (not even a cop, not even a gardener) booted me from some city park long ago. When I studied the matter further, I confirmed to myself that there was nothing that specifically said "no metal detectors" in that location.

Later, after talking to a lawyer friend of mine about this, he told me that the city person CAN INDEED boot me on ancillary things he morphs to apply. Ie.: alter, deface, remove, annoy, etc... And that it didn't need to be specific. So I asked my lawyer friend: "Then how is that anything less than arbitrary, whimsical, and ripe for abuse?? I mean, what's to stop that same person from booting people that wear blue T-shirts, simply because he 'thinks they'll bother the spotted owls' ?"

The lawyer told me that this level of in-the-field interpretation HAS to rest with cops, and city personnel. They HAVE to be able interpret to a myriad of circumstances that might arise. That's why laws are often-time written vaguely in the first place. Eg.: laws that "forbid annoyances", for instance. Because it's simply impossible to write a law for every last conceivable thing that someone might do. And without the power to apply, everyone would forever more be debating semantics with cops in the field. No cop could ever get his job done, without people debating them over word definitions, etc...

Hence a cop or a gardener or councilman, etc... can indeed come up and boot you. Sure you can defy him, and ask for a ticket, to "have your day in court". But obviously, most of us don't have that time or energy.

By the way: none of this legal premise, in my mind, equates to: "therefore I will go ask permission, and seek clarifications ahead of time". On the contrary: I will still help myself, till-told-otherwise. But just saying, don't think that various city persons can't boot you and I.

I will just do my best to not run into said city persons. Even if that means detecting at night

Tom,
I'll ask you a question: Have you ever known a lawyer to be wrong?

BTW...there is a difference in 'applying' law [LEO's give it their best shot in the field with the info they have] and in 'interpreting' law [courts decide]. Prior case law is used to help courts interpret the law which is why lawyers use actual prior case decisions to argue their opposing positions and why JUDGES research prior case law to help them INTERPRET the applicable law.

Judges who wish to go against prior case decisions [possibly due to a bias]often redefine the meanings of words to fit their personal desired outcome. A good example is the case now being considered by the SCOTUS...the definition of the word 'marriage'.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Tom,
I'll ask you a question: Have you ever known a lawyer to be wrong? ...

Mountain digger, that's a loaded question, with implicit inferences to reach your desired outcome Because anyone answering that WILL OF COURSE say "lawyers can be wrong". Hence your desired conclusion of that is: "Therefore what your lawyer told you is wrong".

But that doesn't logically follow. Because it fails to take into account that "lawyers can be right" at times. Doh!

Let me give you an example: if a cop tries to boot you from the park for violating public nudity laws, you could argue with him and say that you're wearing a single sock. Hence not "nude". Or let's say you have a dog with 3 legs. You walk the dog in a park that has a sign "no dog walking". You argue with the cop that since your dog has only 3 legs, he technically "hops", not "walks". Yet I hope you can see that, in each of these cases, "vague" laws CAN in fact be "interpretted" by a duly appointed official, to mean "scram".

And most of the time, a cops or gardener's superiors are going to side with their rank & file workers. Lest if upper management never supported their workers who-try-to-get their jobs done, then NO ONE would ever want to be a cop.

Yes it opens it up for nilly willy whimsical opinion. Yes it seems unfair. Because, sure: you and I don't consider what we do to be "defacing" anything, right ? (we leave no trace). But just saying, that the lawyer I spoke to was not mistaken. There is, in fact, a degree of authority given to rank and file duly appointed, with which to apply as needed, to fit a myriad of circumstances that might arise.

 

[mountain digger]

Mountain digger, that's a loaded question, with implicit inferences to reach your desired outcome Because anyone answering that WILL OF COURSE say "lawyers can be wrong". Hence your desired conclusion of that is: "Therefore what your lawyer told you is wrong".

But that doesn't logically follow. Because it fails to take into account that "lawyers can be right" at times. Doh!

Let me give you an example: if a cop tries to boot you from the park for violating public nudity laws, you could argue with him and say that you're wearing a single sock. Hence not "nude". Or let's say you have a dog with 3 legs. You walk the dog in a park that has a sign "no dog walking". You argue with the cop that since your dog has only 3 legs, he technically "hops", not "walks". Yet I hope you can see that, in each of these cases, "vague" laws CAN in fact be "interpretted" by a duly appointed official, to mean "scram".

And most of the time, a cops or gardener's superiors are going to side with their rank & file workers. Lest if upper management never supported their workers who-try-to-get their jobs done, then NO ONE would ever want to be a cop.

Yes it opens it up for nilly willy whimsical opinion. Yes it seems unfair. Because, sure: you and I don't consider what we do to be "defacing" anything, right ? (we leave no trace). But just saying, that the lawyer I spoke to was not mistaken. There is, in fact, a degree of authority given to rank and file duly appointed, with which to apply as needed, to fit a myriad of circumstances that might arise.

Tom,
Would be my suggestion to you to quit MDing the park wearing only one sock...or you might find yourself in front of a JUDGE that interprets law.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Tom,
Would be my suggestion to you to quit MDing the park wearing only one sock...or you might find yourself in front of a JUDGE that interprets law.

Ah rats, you mean I can't detect the public park wearing only 1 sock ?? Sheesk you're no fun !

 

[robby4570]

http://m.harborfreight.com/12-inch-locking-clamp-94952.htm


l use these sometimes in Parks where I really don't want to dig a plug...

 

[tinsmith]

I've only run into 4 other mders this year at the few parks I hunt. I've talked to each one. Not one are even aware of detecting forums and usually give a blank stare as I try to sell them on getting on here so they learn. Reason is , I keep finding sloppy dug plugs that you can see from 50' away. I'm afraid at the rate the hobby is spreading into the casual average joe hunters, we're going to see detecting bans in the future.

 

[HuntNH]

Mountain -digger, If I understand where you're trying to go with this (correct me if I'm wrong), then I disagree. "They" DO "have the authority" to interpret. Sure, maybe not in a judicial sense (ie.: it can be "over-turned" upon review by a judge). But none-the-less, the rank-&-file cops, and all other "duly appointed government employees" do in fact have some latitude to apply the laws in the course of their jobs.

I ran into this once, where a city public works guy (not even a cop, not even a gardener) booted me from some city park long ago. When I studied the matter further, I confirmed to myself that there was nothing that specifically said "no metal detectors" in that location.

Later, after talking to a lawyer friend of mine about this, he told me that the city person CAN INDEED boot me on ancillary things he morphs to apply. Ie.: alter, deface, remove, annoy, etc... And that it didn't need to be specific. So I asked my lawyer friend: "Then how is that anything less than arbitrary, whimsical, and ripe for abuse?? I mean, what's to stop that same person from booting people that wear blue T-shirts, simply because he 'thinks they'll bother the spotted owls' ?"

The lawyer told me that this level of in-the-field interpretation HAS to rest with cops, and city personnel. They HAVE to be able interpret to a myriad of circumstances that might arise. That's why laws are often-time written vaguely in the first place. Eg.: laws that "forbid annoyances", for instance. Because it's simply impossible to write a law for every last conceivable thing that someone might do. And without the power to apply, everyone would forever more be debating semantics with cops in the field. No cop could ever get his job done, without people debating them over word definitions, etc...

Hence a cop or a gardener or councilman, etc... can indeed come up and boot you. Sure you can defy him, and ask for a ticket, to "have your day in court". But obviously, most of us don't have that time or energy.

By the way: none of this legal premise, in my mind, equates to: "therefore I will go ask permission, and seek clarifications ahead of time". On the contrary: I will still help myself, till-told-otherwise. But just saying, don't think that various city persons can't boot you and I.

I will just do my best to not run into said city persons. Even if that means detecting at night

So what you're saying is regardless of the fact that a particular township/city has made a law pertaining to a situation, that clearly you understand what it means, but choose to believe it doesn't pertain to you unless told other wise?

In other words, you're trying to call their bluff? You will hunt clearly where you know you're not wanted?

I mean lets spell this out once and for all, and quit with dog walkers and Frisbees, looky lous, pencil pushers, gardeners with a bad day are actually all in the right for giving you a hard time since there are stipulations you choose to ignore, and just haven't been prosecuted for yet at this point.

You've made a lot of effort over the last two years, when you could have just said. "I don't care what any of the laws say, I'll hunt where I want until they throw me out, then I'm off to the next place." Call it what it is Tom.... That's all I'm asking.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

So what you're saying is regardless of the fact that a particular township/city has made a law pertaining to a situation, that clearly you understand what it means, but choose to believe it doesn't pertain to you unless told other wise?

In other words, you're trying to call their bluff? You will hunt clearly where you know you're not wanted?
.... .

Hunt, your statement above is premised on one vital issue that isn't present: That any location with the dreaded "alter" or "deface" verbage (which is every speck of public land) will, of necessity, be booting md'rs. And will, of necessity, be deeming those things to apply to md'ing. But such is not always the case, is it? MD'rs hit those spots all the time with mostly no problems, right ? And hence, such is the failure of your intended outcome here to apply.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

HuntNH, or to look at it another way: I do admit it's pretty hard to wriggle out of "remove" and "alter" and "dig". Because, sure: we *do* dig our targets, and remove them. Ok, I'll grant you that. And, ok, I'll grant you that that's a technical violation of the law. Ok, sure.

And I suppose the rejoinder is, that the way to overcome this, is to go get someone's permission, right ? But then begins the downward spiral. So at some point, it's better to choose the "does anyone really care?" test.

And I base that on the fact that there are scores of places where, in fact, for whatever evolutionary reason, people have md'd since the dawn of time with no issues or problems (as long as they're not being a nuisance in some way). And these are places with the dreaded verbage (that, BTW, exists on every speck of public land). And it's just therefore been accepted in md'ing circles that "detecting at such & such parks is ok". Why can't THAT be our standard of test ?

But sure: if you want to get technical, then yes: we dig and remove. If that's really bothersome to someone, then I would suggest they've chosen the wrong hobby. Either that, or they're going to need to stick to private property.

 

[khouse]

Hunt, your statement above is premised on one vital issue that isn't present: That any location with the dreaded "alter" or "deface" verbage (which is every speck of public land) will, of necessity, be booting md'rs. And will, of necessity, be deeming those things to apply to md'ing. But such is not always the case, is it? MD'rs hit those spots all the time with mostly no problems, right ? And hence, such is the failure of your intended outcome here to apply.

The other day on that now closed thread HuntNH told us we could hunt public parks. Quote "In all seriousness.... hunting parks? O.K I get it, it seems logical" What gives HuntNH? I know you'll probably say to hunt private property only. But maybe a lot of people don't want to? Maybe they enjoy parks or Baseball fields? Should we just stay in own back yard?