Friendly Metal Detecting Forums   Metal Detectors
List all sponsors

Go Back   Friendly Metal Detecting Forums > Metal Detecting > Research and Getting Permission

Reply
  
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-03-2017, 01:09 PM
kking kking is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Northern Colorado, USA
Posts: 16
Default Tips for newcomer

Hello everyone. So Ive got a few places Im interested in detecting around town and have researched the property ownership and collected contact information. (Addresses only at this time)

A couple properties are owned by the City, and a couple others that are owned by property management/development companies with offices in other cities.

Knowing that my local City has a policy on metal detecting that states you can detect their city parks but not dig, what would a good tactic be on trying to get permission to detect the grounds at a city owned property?

Also, any suggestions for contacting the property management companies about detecting on their vacant, unused, properties?

Info about the properties:

One city owned property used to be an early library from the early 1900s where people used to gather. The building is still there but not used as a library anymore. I figure the grounds around this building and trees may be interesting. Another city owned property is a barren corner outside the city limits that has a very old dilapidated house and small barn structure that is about fallen to the ground. A 1/4 mile away on this property is a city treatment facility but this corner with the old house is abandoned, ignored and has my interest.

One of the properties owned by out of town interests are two corner lots that have been vacant since Ive moved here in 2000. They keep them mowed but dont show any signs of survey or plans to develop. In looking at old maps, there used to be a clay pit and brick yard across the street and some houses on these lots that are long gone. There are signs of what appear to be a silo footprint still showing in the ground.

The other property is a long stretch of vacant dirt fields for my housing development. It seems to be where they dumped a lot of the dirt removed to cut in our housing tracts. The same developer still owns these plots of land but they are barren and vacant. My kids call them the "dirt hills" and they dont show any signs of future development. Dont know what I could find there but it is close to my home and if I could get permission, it would give me a place to tinker around that was close by.

Thoughts?
Reply With Quote


  #2  
Old 01-07-2017, 08:43 PM
MrNovice's Avatar
MrNovice MrNovice is offline
Supporter
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Just outside Dallas, TX, 'Murica
Posts: 2,330
Default

Can't believe no one has chimed in yet, but I would just assume the same "rules" for city parks would apply...or COULD easily BE applied, at this point (considering it's already been done to some specific city properties)...to all city properties, especially if "the city" was approached and asked.

So, for now, definitely DO NOT ask the city and entertain them the thought of blanketing all city property. Next, research! Look up (internet) ordinances pertaining to these parks that are detecting limited, and see if they apply to other city properties. It'll probably be almost the exact same wording if it does. If these "only surface detecting ordinances" only apply to certain places, then I think (legally) you're fine normally detecting "other" city property not listed or not blanketed with these specific ordinances.

This is a touchy topic, especially since there are already ordinances there in place opposed (if you will) to normal metal detecting. The city has probably already been approached with this, thought about it, and while not specifically anti-metal detecting...has reached this type ordinance idea to appease themselves.

So to cut through the junk and give my honest opinion, I would hit the city properties till the cows come home! Or the cops show up... Stay off the privately owned properties unless you do have permission! That is trespassing.
Reply With Quote


  #3  
Old 01-07-2017, 10:46 PM
GroundSweeper's Avatar
GroundSweeper GroundSweeper is online now
Supporter
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Placer Co., CA
Posts: 11,000
Default

Sounds good to me! Welcome aboard and good luck out there!

__________________
Compadre : 2017 (Total (4/4/13 to date)) - Clad: $11.91 ($451.61), Silver coins: 0 (4), Wheats: 0 (23), Gold: 2 (14), .925 0 (28), Rings: 4 (101), Oldest Coin: 1940 CAN cent, 1940 Jefferson, 1940d Wheat

Reply With Quote


  #4  
Old 01-08-2017, 02:02 PM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,594
Default

Originally Posted by MrNovice View post
Can't believe no one has chimed in yet, but I would just assume the same "rules" for city parks would apply...or COULD easily BE applied, at this point (considering it's already been done to some specific city properties)...to all city properties, especially if "the city" was approached and asked.....
Yup. There's not a city on earth that doesn't have something in the minutia about alter, deface, take, remove, or perhaps even the specific word "dig". Yet as we've all seen, md'ing goes on at parks everywhere (so long as you're not being an utter eyesore nuisance).

However, if kking's city has specific "no dig" verbiage IN CONTEXT with a specific mention of md'ing, then .... it becomes a little harder to wriggle out of.

kking, in listing the various spots you have in mind, I see repeated references to "abandoned", "vacant", "barren" and even "dirt hills" (by your kids). Are you referring dirt-hills where they do their BMX bike stunts ? (as kids so often do in vacant lots and fields). If all these different places you list are just vacant lot type mentality, and if it were me, I'd just go. If it's buttoned up, fenced, signed, etc.... sure that's different. I know others will say that no matter how innocuous, abandoned, and riddled with short-cut trails .... that it's still our duty to hunt some out of state corporation down for 'permission'. But .... oh well. Each of us has his tolerance and caution assessment level.
Reply With Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
  #5  
Old 01-08-2017, 02:22 PM
Reef Runner's Avatar
Reef Runner Reef Runner is offline
Supporter
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: John H Kerr Reservoir, NC
Posts: 1,119
Default

Hard to understand that they specifically say, "metal detecting is allowed, but digging is not allowed".

Does this mean you can just stroll around in the parks and look for fresh surface drops, and if you are so inclined, you can haul your metal detector along

That's really strange

__________________
nick, from North Carolina (a.k.a. Reef Runner)

Fisher F75, Garrett AT Pro, Pro-Pointer, Whites TRX, Jolly Roger Phones, Lesche Digger, 31" Sampson, 31" Relic Hunter, RTG Scoop
Oldest Coin (1910 Barber Dime), Best Find (3-ringer), Strangest Find (Brass Urn Lid)
Clad Count (1933 coins)/($190.01)

Reply With Quote


  #6  
Old 01-08-2017, 06:52 PM
choppadude's Avatar
choppadude choppadude is online now
Supporter
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Twin Tiers N.Y.
Posts: 3,447
Default

My thought are, city property belongs to the city which in turn is actually owned by the taxpayer of that city. If you pay local taxes and it is not gated off then I would say you have the right to be on that property. If people play ball, walk their dogs, fly drones etc. there then no reason you cannot also enjoy your hobby there. That is as long as you are leaving the property in the same condition as you left it.

I was approached by a guy a couple years ago that asked me if I had permission to detect in this small park, I told him yes, I have written permission to use this property, it's called a TAX BILL! So unless he was willing to push the issue and also have all the neighborhood kids banned form using the property then I am going to go about my business. I left him standing there with a dumb look on his face.
Also I know the head of the Sept. of Public Works and had his blessing but saw no need to drop names.

I try not to overthink things.

__________________
XP Deus, CTX 3030, F75 LTD2, AT Pro, Teknetics T2 Classic, AKA Sorex Pro, Racer2

Reply With Quote


  #7  
Old 01-09-2017, 04:48 AM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,594
Default

Originally Posted by choppadude View post
.... That is as long as you are leaving the property in the same condition as you left it.....
That's the $20 question. And the answer to that is subjective. You may know you'll leave no trace. But the busy-body may believe you won't, or they "can still see a faint trace", etc....

So do you really think you're going to win that debate? Hence better to just avoid said-lookie lous and go at low traffic times. What they don't see doesn't hurt them.
Reply With Quote


  #8  
Old 01-09-2017, 11:42 AM
kking kking is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Northern Colorado, USA
Posts: 16
Default

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Yup. There's not a city on earth that doesn't have something in the minutia about alter, deface, take, remove, or perhaps even the specific word "dig". Yet as we've all seen, md'ing goes on at parks everywhere (so long as you're not being an utter eyesore nuisance).

However, if kking's city has specific "no dig" verbiage IN CONTEXT with a specific mention of md'ing, then .... it becomes a little harder to wriggle out of.

kking, in listing the various spots you have in mind, I see repeated references to "abandoned", "vacant", "barren" and even "dirt hills" (by your kids). Are you referring dirt-hills where they do their BMX bike stunts ? (as kids so often do in vacant lots and fields). If all these different places you list are just vacant lot type mentality, and if it were me, I'd just go. If it's buttoned up, fenced, signed, etc.... sure that's different. I know others will say that no matter how innocuous, abandoned, and riddled with short-cut trails .... that it's still our duty to hunt some out of state corporation down for 'permission'. But .... oh well. Each of us has his tolerance and caution assessment level.
Tom, the dirt hills I spoke about are at the edge of our housing development and in researching and looking at old sat images, they used the lots as the staging area for the construction project when the houses were first being built. Looks like they had to remove some ground to level the development and dumped the dirt in these vacant lots, then never developed the area. Further research since my original post shows that the development company has plans on the books to build more homes here later in 2017. When I looked at old maps of this plot of land, I dont see any previous building or structures as far back as the maps go so dont know if I would find anything or not but its close by. Not fenced, not signed...
Reply With Quote


  #9  
Old 01-09-2017, 12:22 PM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,594
Default

Originally Posted by kking View post
.... Not fenced, not signed...
Ok. Then do you want the technical answer ? Or the realistic one ?
Reply With Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
  #10  
Old 01-09-2017, 12:33 PM
kking kking is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Northern Colorado, USA
Posts: 16
Default

Originally Posted by Reef Runner View post
Hard to understand that they specifically say, "metal detecting is allowed, but digging is not allowed".

Does this mean you can just stroll around in the parks and look for fresh surface drops, and if you are so inclined, you can haul your metal detector along

That's really strange
You know Reef I thought that also. I read thru the City ordinance that talks about protection of property on its public lands and they have the following ... "Mar, mutilate, deface, disfigure, destroy, injure, remove, or vandalize any living or inanimate features of the natural environment, including but not limited to, trees, shrubs, flowers, wildflowers, vegetation and rocks." The City has a list of FAQ on their webpage and that is where I saw the answer of metal detector usage is allowed in public city parks but no digging is allowed". It could be the interpretation of the person who put together the webpage for the City.

I would think as long as I dont "Mar, mutilate, or destroy the vegetation (grass)"... with Mar defined as "Impair the appearance of or disfigure" then it should be at least arguable.
Reply With Quote


  #11  
Old 01-10-2017, 01:52 AM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,594
Default

Originally Posted by kking View post
.... I read thru the City ordinance that talks about protection of property on its public lands and they have the following ... "Mar, mutilate, deface, disfigure, destroy, injure, remove, or vandalize any living or inanimate features of the natural environment,.....
Skittish md'r can be put off by such wording, understandably. However, if you leave no trace of your presence (ie.: cover your holes, stomp them, fluff them up, etc...), then logically you haven't: marED, mutilatED, defacED, disfigurED, destroyED, injurED, removED (shrubs and plants), or vandalizED anything . Now have you ?

Of course a passerby busybody might not know you're going to leave no trace. Or they may disbelieve you're capable of being neat. Ok, fine then: Avoid such busybodies and pick lower traffic times. Night-time if need be.

Originally Posted by kking View post
.... The City has a list of FAQ on their webpage and that is where I saw the answer of metal detector usage is allowed in public city parks but no digging is allowed". It could be the interpretation of the person who put together the webpage for the City....
Aaah, so the troublesome part you found where detecting is specifically mentioned, is in a FAQ sort of section ? If that list of "FAQ's" was assembled from past submitted questions they fielded, well then bless the little heart of the guy who submitted that Q, right ? And you're right: Whoever put together the answer probably had images of geeks with shovels.
Reply With Quote


  #12  
Old 01-10-2017, 08:35 PM
kking kking is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Northern Colorado, USA
Posts: 16
Default

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Skittish md'r can be put off by such wording, understandably. However, if you leave no trace of your presence (ie.: cover your holes, stomp them, fluff them up, etc...), then logically you haven't: marED, mutilatED, defacED, disfigurED, destroyED, injurED, removED (shrubs and plants), or vandalizED anything . Now have you ?

Of course a passerby busybody might not know you're going to leave no trace. Or they may disbelieve you're capable of being neat. Ok, fine then: Avoid such busybodies and pick lower traffic times. Night-time if need be.



Aaah, so the troublesome part you found where detecting is specifically mentioned, is in a FAQ sort of section ? If that list of "FAQ's" was assembled from past submitted questions they fielded, well then bless the little heart of the guy who submitted that Q, right ? And you're right: Whoever put together the answer probably had images of geeks with shovels.
But I am a geek with a shovel ....

Thanks for the backup Tom and advice. Guess I'll just get out there and see what happens ... perform with confidence, be respectful, leave no trace, adjust as needed, and let the coins fall where they may...
Reply With Quote


Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.