Friendly Metal Detecting Forums   Quality Metal Detectors
List all sponsors

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

Reply
  
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #181  
Old 09-10-2019, 08:32 AM
FliesOnly FliesOnly is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Middle of Michigan
Posts: 91
Default

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Technically, yes, everything you're saying is technically true.

And since you brought up "court of law", then I'm sure you'll agree, that your actions would likewise be considered theft in a "court of law" when done on public land as well.
Why would I agree to that, when we both know the laws are different?


Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Oh sure, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who cares less about the buffalo nickel you got (ahem "stole") from the park. I agree. AND THAT'S JUST THE POINT. There's a gut instinct knowledge of the difference.
"Gut instinct knowledge of the difference" means nothing. I’m honestly confused about what exactly it is you are trying to tell me every time you try to make this comparison between detecting on private property without permission, to detecting on public property where detecting is allowed. You keep saying that “technically” it’s illegal because all public lands have regulations against the removal, harvesting and taking of property from the “park”. OK, fine. So what? I guess if I detect there and the State or County want to press charges, then so be it…there’s nothing I can do about that. Or, I can detect there and the State or County can decide to do nothing. Either way, it’s completely out of my hands…so what’s you point?


Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Is there any difference if lawyers wanted to hash it out ? No. The fact that "no one cares" would not be a defense if lawyers wanted to hash it out.
I agree. So what can we do about it? Nothing…that’s what we can do about it. We either decide to detect or not detect. Whether or not the City, State or Feds want to suddenly enforce the “no harvesting” regulation is something beyond our control.


Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
So I invite you to take this "technically correct" definition, and merely be consistent with all your hunting, everywhere. Ok ?
I am consistent. I always ask for permission on private property. And on public property where detecting is not forbidden, or if it is specifically listed as being allowed, then I detect. So what other “consistency” are you looking for?
Reply With Quote


  #182  
Old 09-10-2019, 01:52 PM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 9,710
Default

flies-only, I have already conceded that md'ing is "theft" , and thus not comparable to photography. Which you'll notice that photography got a "pass" (no one shamed them). Because, sure, md'ing is "theft".

So what are we talking about ? You've gotten your concession.

The only thing I can say (as I said before) is that I think our difference lies in the type of "private property" that each of us is envisioning. In the entire conversation, I've had in mind the "weed strewn corner lot with the short-cut path across it, owned by some nameless faceless corporation in another state" type of thing. Or the field at the end of the suburbs where kids right their BMX bike, people walk their dog or take a photograph, etc...

I'm NOT envisioning people's front yards, or fenced/posted sites, etc....

Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
...I am consistent. I always ask for permission on private property. And on public property where detecting is not forbidden, or if it is specifically listed as being allowed, then I detect. So what other “consistency” are you looking for?
Here's what "consistency" I'm looking for, from you : Since we've established that md'ing = theft (right ?), then be consistent (since it appears that super technical law-abidance is your goal). Apply that definition to detecting on public property.

That fact that detecting is not forbidden, or even expressly allowed, does NOT change the fact that those places ALSO forbid "theft". And since you define md'ing as theft, fine then: Stop detecting those places.

If you doubt this inherent connection of dots, then I challenge you to list any public parks or beaches or forests or deserts that you detect at. Give me 20 minutes to "make some phone calls", and I will indeed find some administrator, in the agency that oversees them, to tell me you can't take things ("theft", in your words) out of them.

In other words: the "theft" definition does not magically change when you cross the sidewalk over to the public side. It's still "theft". If you doubt me, then just tell me where you detect, and I'll be happy to make the phone calls for you.
Reply With Quote


  #183  
Old 09-12-2019, 08:59 AM
FliesOnly FliesOnly is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Middle of Michigan
Posts: 91
Default

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
flies-only, I have already conceded that md'ing is "theft" , and thus not comparable to photography. Which you'll notice that photography got a "pass" (no one shamed them).
He did not get a “pass”. It was pointed out by you (numerous times) and by others, including myself, that it’s still [potentially] trespassing, even if it’s only for a photo. But of course, the primary discussion was not actually about the trespass. Rather, it was about the big difference between taking photo of the property, and taking a ring (or coin, or whatever) from the property.



Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Because, sure, md'ing is "theft".
Yep...if it's on private property where you do not have permission to be.



Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
So what are we talking about ? You've gotten your concession.
Not really.





Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Here's what "consistency" I'm looking for, from you : Since we've established that md'ing = theft (right ?), then be consistent (since it appears that super technical law-abidance is your goal). Apply that definition to detecting on public property.
What definition? I have yet to ever even attempt to define metal detecting.



Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
… And since you define md'ing as theft, fine then: Stop detecting those places.
I have never, not once, ever defined metal detecting as theft. Never.




Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
If you doubt this inherent connection of dots,…
I do doubt this “inherent” connection.



Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
…to tell me you can't take things ("theft", in your words) out of them.
Those are NOT my words, they are your words. I have never said removing objects from public property [where detecting is allowed] can or should be considered theft. Those are your words, not mine, so quit attributing them to me. What I have said repeatedly is that removing objects you have found from PRIVATE PROPERTY, when you do not have permission to be there, would be theft.

Seriously, how many times do I need to explain this to you?




Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
In other words: the "theft" definition does not magically change when you cross the sidewalk over to the public side.
Actually, it very well might. We have some County Parks in the area. They specifically mention metal detecting as being allowed, provided I first apply for a free permit. The permits talks about not doing permanent damage to the area.
So I spoke with a lawyer yesterday and explained your argument that metal detecting is technically stealing if I remove objects from a public park or beach (or any other public location open to detecting). He said that your argument makes no sense. If the regulations specifically mention metal detecting as being allowed, since it is inherently understood that, as a result of that detecting, found objects will be removed, they cannot then say that what I have done is illegal, provided, of course, that I do not remove any objects specifically mentioned as not being allowed to be removed (benches, markers, BBQ grill, etc).




Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
It's still "theft". If you doubt me, then just tell me where you detect, and I'll be happy to make the phone calls for you.
So you’re saying it’s theft. Fine. I disagree with you. My lawyer disagrees with you. The Country Park disagrees with you (I asked…they said it was OK to remove the objects I find as long as they are things not listed by the park as not being allowed to be removed). What more can I say?
Reply With Quote


  #184  
Old 09-12-2019, 12:06 PM
marcomo marcomo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 267
Default

Oh great, now we have a lawyer in the discussion.

I have HUGE respect for Tom and all the time he puts in on the forums discouraging detectorists out of seeking those "princely permissions" for public property. That makes him a major asset for our hobby IMO. He is also an accomplished detectorist and highly literate person whose writing style I enjoy immensely.

Where Tom and I differ is in our outlook on private property. My personal opinion is that private property should be detected with permission.

Others that I respect on the forums have different opinions. That's fine. For sure, there are grey areas in our hobby. But I still think if you are going to do something that is technically illegal, even if seemingly nobody cares, KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT ABOUT IT!!!

Do you guys who advertise that you detect private property without permission understand that people who are anti-detecting (archies and bureaucrats considering detecting bans) research metal detecting forums? Nothing good can come from posting on a public forum that you are breaking the law.

Last edited by marcomo; 09-12-2019 at 12:36 PM.
Reply With Quote


  #185  
Old 09-12-2019, 01:59 PM
FliesOnly FliesOnly is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Middle of Michigan
Posts: 91
Default

Originally Posted by marcomo View post
Oh great, now we have a lawyer in the discussion.
Not really, he's just a friend of mine. We were at a gathering yesterday and I asked him his opinion on the discussion Tom and I have been having.

Originally Posted by marcomo View post
I have HUGE respect for Tom and all the time he puts in on the forums discouraging detectorists out of seeking those "princely permissions" for public property. That makes him a major asset for our hobby IMO. He is also an accomplished detectorist and highly literate person whose writing style I enjoy immensely.
I respect Toms knowledge and advice as well. I actually agree with him about not needing to ask permission on public lands. I didn't really think about it (I'm somewhat new to the hobby) and when I first read his opinion, I disagreed. However, I have come around and now have a different opinion. Tom is correct...he convinced me.

Originally Posted by marcomo View post
Where Tom and I differ is in our outlook on private property. My personal opinion is that private property should be detected with permission.
As do I. That's why I don't understand why he continues to treat them the same? We all know that removing a found quarter from a public beach is not stealing, and is in no way the same as removing a quarter from private property without permission.

Originally Posted by marcomo View post
Others that I respect on the forums have different opinions. That's fine. For sure, there are grey areas in our hobby. But I still think if you are going to do something that is technically illegal, even if seemingly nobody cares, KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT ABOUT IT!!!
People like to showoff their finds, what can I say.

Originally Posted by marcomo View post
Do you guys who advertise that you detect private property without permission understand that people who are anti-detecting (archies and bureaucrats considering detecting bans) research metal detecting forums? Nothing good can come from posting on a public forum that you are breaking the law.
Good point about those who may not like our hobby actually going on Forums to gain evidence to later be used against us. I hadn't thought of that either, so now I've learned two things on this Forum that previously I had never considered.
Reply With Quote


  #186  
Old 09-12-2019, 02:59 PM
Scooterjim's Avatar
Scooterjim Scooterjim is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Springfield, Mo.
Posts: 871
Default

Most states have deemed that fish and wildlife belong to the state, to all of us. I think buried finds on public property could be comparative, It is illegal to harvest fish and game on public property unless you follow the rules. I have never had any problems finding detecting rules. The Corp of Engineers makes it very clear where you can and cant detect. The National Park Service makes it very clear where you cant even have a detector.Missouri State Parks are nice enough to give you a map of where you can detect with your free permit. The only places a detectorist can get in any real trouble are places where they should have known better. My last scram was a golf course at the picnic tables next to the snack shack at the driving range. I know better than to detect the greens even though there is no specific law and I will go back and hit that snack area as soon as we get a new golf pro. Hopefully this one won't show up to work at the crack of dawn.
Reply With Quote


  #187  
Old 09-12-2019, 09:41 PM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 9,710
Default

Originally Posted by marcomo View post
...outlook on private property....
Maracomo, thanx for the positive feedback. So too do I enjoy your perspectives and opinions . And also those of flies-only .

As for the immediate subject: I agree : At first blush, it's silly. I mean ... duh ... who is going to "advocate" for this apparent subject of "trespassing" (especially for "theft") ?

But bear in mind that it started (as I recall) via an observation that someone taking photos of some place. Who was seemingly given a "pass" (ie.: not questioned, not shamed, etc...) But the md'r , on the other hand, was coached on "how to get permissoin" . No one seemed to stop and think "gee, how was he there to get the pix?". That's the irony that struck me.

Then it devolved into a p*ssing match on trespassing and the activity thereon. I never meant to appear to advocating trespassing, but I realize that's what it became . Thus yes, I look pretty silly. Agreed.

But I was just wondering why the "average person" will not blink an eye at taking a shortcut through a vacant lot, yet frets himself silly about whether he can m'd there. And yes, that's where it boils down to a definition of what actions are-in-focus. NOT the "trespassing" aspect of. Yet I realize the 2 components are inextricably linked. No matter how much I try to return to the "image" of whether "no one cares" type vacant lot, the inescapable evil word "trespassing" continues to come up ! Ok, so I concede. UNCLE !
Reply With Quote


  #188  
Old 09-12-2019, 10:04 PM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 9,710
Default

Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
But of course, the primary discussion was not actually about the trespass. Rather, it was about the big difference between taking photo of the property, and taking a ring (or coin, or whatever) from the property.
Correct. Glad you agree that this is not about trespass. It's about the activities done . So for example: Photos (or walking your dog, or flying a kite) = Harmless. MD'ing = "theft". Right ?

Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
Yep...if it's on private property where you do not have permission to be.
correct. And that would be "breaking laws". And yes, we can't have that. Right ? (I agree). Thus you too would be willing to keep and abide by all laws. Right ? Just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.

Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
I have yet to ever even attempt to define metal detecting.
Huh ? I thought we mutually agreed that md'ing = "theft" ? And don't think for a moment that this definition only applies to the corner lot in your suburb (ie.: private land, no matter how innocuous) . It also equally applies to everywhere you hunt. Even on public land. If you doubt me, then as I say: Just provide me with the names of the public land locations you hunt. Give me 20 minutes to make some phone calls, and I will be glad to clarify this for you.

Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
I have never said removing objects from public property [where detecting is allowed] can or should be considered theft.
Aaaahhh, here's the clarification: You HAVE INDEED said that "md'ing = theft". But you apply this only to private land (where , yes, I agree). But you deny that the definition applies equally to public land (where "detecting is allowed") , right ? Ok, then as I've repeatedly said: Provide me with a list of places you detect, and I'll make some phone calls on your behalf. Agreed ?

Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
So I spoke with a lawyer yesterday and explained your argument that metal detecting is technically stealing if I remove objects from a public park or beach (or any other public location open to detecting). He said that your argument makes no sense. If the regulations specifically mention metal detecting as being allowed, since it is inherently understood that, as a result of that detecting, found objects will be removed, they cannot then say that what I have done is illegal, provided, of course, that I do not remove any objects specifically mentioned as not being allowed to be removed (benches, markers, BBQ grill, etc).
I like your style flies-only !! I too have done such a thing: Upon being booted from a park years ago (where there was no express/explicit rule) I contacted a lawyer friend of mine and tossed out some questions. Very interesting as it relates to our hobby !

Ok , as to what your lawyer experience here was, here's my inputs: As you know, it's entirely possible to subconsciously "steer" the answer you or I get from a lawyer, right ? For example, I could talk to that exact same lawyer, and , depending on how I word the questions, I could come away with an entirely different answer/perspective. Right ?

For example: The assumption (as intuitive as it may seem) that md'ing implicitly involves the "removing of objects" (that you take home), is not *exactly* true. As evidence of this, I can point you to many examples where md'ing is legal and allowed (heck, even "permits"). Yet fine print tells you to drop off all the objects at the park office before you leave. Why ? Because they are park features that you are not allowed to remove. Yes, as crazy as that sounds, there HAS been many places where they do NOT see the two activities as one-&-the-same. Ie.: you can "detect", you just can't "take". Thus showing that they are not *necessarily* equivalent.

But let's just focus for a moment on locations with no express allowance or permit. And instead focus on places where it's silent on the subject. Ie.: MD'ing not mentioned either way. Not expressly allowed nor prohibited. Then in that case, would you say that prohibitions on harvest and remove then do, of necessity, disallow md'ing (ie.: theft) ? Right ?

Last edited by Tom_in_CA; 09-12-2019 at 10:33 PM.
Reply With Quote


  #189  
Old 09-12-2019, 10:20 PM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 9,710
Default

Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
.... We all know that removing a found quarter from a public beach is not stealing, and is in no way the same as removing a quarter from private property without permission....
Gentlemen gentlemen: This has gotten out of hand. It all started with an ironic observation about how EVERY COMMON MAN see no issue with *certain* types of "no one cares" situations (eg.: the man who stepped off the sidewalk to take a pix of a ruin or cellar hole).

Which made me think that md'ing is therefore lumped into a category of "wrong" . Which something like taking a picture wasn't guilty of. And therefore we can all agree that trespassing is NOT the issue here. We're not talking about locations where, admittedly, trespassing WOULD be an issue (eg.: not hopping fences, or walking into someone's front yard).

I always ever had in mind the weed-choked corner lot with the short-cut path across it. Or the place where you might be hiking (where it's no issue) and stumble on to an old foundation. Etc...

Thus I continue to think that we're having a mental melt-down fart of the *type* of private property in question.

But I am on the loosing end of this. Because, sure, *technically* there is utterly no distinction. So when we begin to go try to dissect the issue, then of course, I will be on the loosing end of the discussion. The moment the word "private" enters the sentence, then sure ........ it begins to sound like a pretty silly discussion.

Same for the definition of md'ing: That too devolved into a discussion that I tried to steer it to: "why aren't be being consistent with that definition ?". And that too has steered into an endless debate.

So let's all just drop this. It was a good conversation. I can see how my efforts began to look might silly.
Reply With Quote


  #190  
Old 09-13-2019, 02:14 AM
marcomo marcomo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 267
Default

I get the feeling Tom and Flies both had debate club captain somewhere on their scholastic resume
Reply With Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
  #191  
Old 09-13-2019, 12:05 PM
FliesOnly FliesOnly is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Middle of Michigan
Posts: 91
Default

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Photos (or walking your dog, or flying a kite) = Harmless. MD'ing = "theft". Right ?
NO.
No, no, no, no. What do you insist on continually saying this. I have never said this. Never.



Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
And that would be "breaking laws". And yes, we can't have that. Right ? (I agree). Thus you too would be willing to keep and abide by all laws. Right ? Just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.
I do my best.



Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Huh ? I thought we mutually agreed that md'ing = "theft" ?
I have agreed that it is theft if done on private property without permission. You’re the one insisting that all metal detecting is theft.



Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
And don't think for a moment that this definition only applies to the corner lot in your suburb (ie.: private land, no matter how innocuous) . It also equally applies to everywhere you hunt. Even on public land.
I do not agree with this statement. Nor does my friend (the now infamous Lawyer!!). Nor does the Country Park Supervisor.



Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
If you doubt me, then as I say: Just provide me with the names of the public land locations you hunt. Give me 20 minutes to make some phone calls, and I will be glad to clarify this for you.
I have provided you with those.



Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Aaaahhh, here's the clarification: You HAVE INDEED said that "md'ing = theft". But you apply this only to private land (where , yes, I agree).
For the most part, yes, I only apply it to private property. My application of “theft” could, however, include public lands, but doesn’t implicitly state as much.



Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
But you deny that the definition applies equally to public land (where "detecting is allowed") , right ?
Correct. Which means your oversimplified characterization of me saying the “md’ing is theft” is just that…an oversimplification, and something I have actually never said.




Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Ok, then as I've repeatedly said: Provide me with a list of places you detect, and I'll make some phone calls on your behalf. Agreed ?
I did. Not exact addresses and locations, but I provided you with the general location(s) in which I detect. You can call which ever locations you feel like, I’m not doing all the work for you.



Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
I like your style flies-only !!
I like yours too Tom_in_Ca. Can you imagine the two of us around a Thanksgiving Dinner table!! What a hoot…we’d probably end up having the whole table and all the food to ourselves!!


Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
I too have done such a thing: Upon being booted from a park years ago (where there was no express/explicit rule) I contacted a lawyer friend of mine and tossed out some questions. Very interesting as it relates to our hobby !
Awesome.



Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Ok , as to what your lawyer experience here was, here's my inputs: As you know, it's entirely possible to subconsciously "steer" the answer you or I get from a lawyer, right ?
Perhaps. Of course, it’s also equally possible that “you” have done no such thing, agreed?



Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
For example, I could talk to that exact same lawyer, and , depending on how I word the questions, I could come away with an entirely different answer/perspective. Right ?
That’s pretty much how Lawyers operate, so I will agree with this statement.



Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
For example: The assumption (as intuitive as it may seem) that md'ing implicitly involves the "removing of objects" (that you take home), is not *exactly* true. As evidence of this, I can point you to many examples where md'ing is legal and allowed (heck, even "permits"). Yet fine print tells you to drop off all the objects at the park office before you leave.
Well, all I can say is that apparently it WAS intuitive that md’ing involves removing objects…because…well…because they stipulated that you had to drop off all the objects you found before you left. Seems pretty obvious to me that they knew you’d be digging stuff up, so they added the caveat that you couldn’t take them home. So in this case, it’s not the digging up of stuff that’s prohibited, it’s taking the objects home that’s prohibited. I’m OK with that, by the way, as long as it’s spelled out in the Rules and Regulations of the park in question.


Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Why ? Because they are park features that you are not allowed to remove.
My park has no such broadly written regulation. They list the items that cannot be removed. But I can see your point.


Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Yes, as crazy as that sounds, there HAS been many places where they do NOT see the two activities as one-&-the-same. Ie.: you can "detect", you just can't "take". Thus showing that they are not *necessarily* equivalent.
But they do see them as inherently linked, which is why they specifically stipulate that you cannot remove the objects that you find. I’m not saying whether or not that’s a good policy or a bad policy. I’m simply pointing out that they (the park) know that md’ing involves the removal of the objects that you find, so they feel the need to specifically state in their rules and regulations that while you can dig them up, you cannot take them from the park.
That’s why I’m of the opinion that if the park does not specifically prohibit removal from the park of objects found while metal detecting, then I feel that is completely legal to do so.



Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
But let's just focus for a moment on locations with no express allowance or permit. And instead focus on places where it's silent on the subject. Ie.: MD'ing not mentioned either way. Not expressly allowed nor prohibited. Then in that case, would you say that prohibitions on harvest and remove then do, of necessity, disallow md'ing (ie.: theft) ? Right ?
Wow…that’s a lot of double negatives…let me see if I can sort this out in my brain. The way I understand what your asking is that you are stating that if metal detecting is not mentioned (i.e. neither pro nor con), I cannot remove objects from the park because the park Rules a Regulations contains wording to the effect that prohibits the harvest or removal of Park Property…correct?
If that is indeed your question, then my answer would be “It depends on the exact wording of those Rules and Regulations”. I’m not trying to avoid the question, but the question, as I understand it, is just too broad. For example, my park rules pretty much define what they mean by “Park Property”. Even if there was not specific section allowing for metal detecting, based on the wording in the sections dealing with removing Park Property, I would still be of the mindset that not only can I detect, but I could also take home what I have found.
Reply With Quote


  #192  
Old 09-13-2019, 12:16 PM
FliesOnly FliesOnly is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Middle of Michigan
Posts: 91
Default

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
So let's all just drop this. It was a good conversation. I can see how my efforts began to look might silly.
I WIN!!!! Debate is always a war of attrition.

Ha...just kidding.

I think we've uncovered a lot of previously unknown information (mostly for us newer detectorists) and have had a meaningful discussion. My position has evolved on some issues (asking permission on some Public Lands, for example) and I'm coming around to a better understanding regarding your notion of the "no one cares" side of detecting on some private property. I just don't think that those types of places really exist anymore, at least not in significant numbers. It's hard to find private property nowadays that is not posted and/or fenced, so I feel the distinction your are trying to make is pretty much moot. That's not to say that it's something we should never discuss, however.
Reply With Quote


  #193  
Old 09-13-2019, 01:00 PM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 9,710
Default

Yes flies-only, it was a good conversation. Thanx for being a good sport.

Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
Well, all I can say is that apparently it WAS intuitive that md’ing involves removing objects…because…well…because they stipulated that you had to drop off all the objects you found before you left.
Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
as long as it’s spelled out in the Rules and Regulations of the park in question.
Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
pointing out that they (the park) know that md’ing involves the removal of the objects that you find, so they feel the need to specifically state in their rules and regulations that while you can dig them up, you cannot take them from the park.
That’s why I’m of the opinion that if the park does not specifically prohibit removal from the park of objects found while metal detecting, then I feel that is completely legal to do so.
I am of the opinion that there doesn't need to be the express/specific stipulation of dropping-your-finds off at the office, in order to be a rule. There is other language that amounts to the same thing. The mere existence of a rule or law forbidding harvest, remove, and theft (which exist on every speck of public lands) is sufficient to amount to the same thing. Ie.: you can detect, but you just can't remove (harvest, take, steal, etc...) .

Obviously, it's not enforced @ 99% of public land (unless someone went in swatting hornet's nests asking silly questions). And obviously .... no one cares. BUT THAT'S JUST MY POINT ! Was trying to use that as an example of how md'ing is not considered theft, in the average-Joe's eyes. Ie.: "technical" versus "reality"



Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
My park has no such broadly written regulation.
I would wager to say that every single park in the USA, has *some* language that effectively forbids: harvest, remove, collect, take, steal, theft. Yes, we can debate that it doesn't apply to items that md'rs find. But just saying: If we're going to be totally technical, there is no reason at all that the verbiage doesn't apply to our finds. And depending on how you word the question to a bureaucrat, they would conclude that ... yes ... it applies. But if you got someone to tell you that it doesn't apply, that merely means you didn't word the question correctly , haha
Reply With Quote


  #194  
Old 09-13-2019, 02:42 PM
CarsonChris CarsonChris is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Carson City, NV
Posts: 715
Default

Originally Posted by marcomo View post
Oh great, now we have a lawyer in the discussion.

I have HUGE respect for Tom and all the time he puts in on the forums discouraging detectorists out of seeking those "princely permissions" for public property. That makes him a major asset for our hobby IMO. He is also an accomplished detectorist and highly literate person whose writing style I enjoy immensely.

Where Tom and I differ is in our outlook on private property. My personal opinion is that private property should be detected with permission.

Others that I respect on the forums have different opinions. That's fine. For sure, there are grey areas in our hobby. But I still think if you are going to do something that is technically illegal, even if seemingly nobody cares, KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT ABOUT IT!!!

Do you guys who advertise that you detect private property without permission understand that people who are anti-detecting (archies and bureaucrats considering detecting bans) research metal detecting forums? Nothing good can come from posting on a public forum that you are breaking the law.
A detectorist I know had the police called on her for detecting “private property”. The police talked to her and told her she did nothing wrong. The property wasn’t properly marked, appeared abandoned, and didn’t have a proper barrier/gate. I have no qualms with detecting similar property. If the property is gated, kept up, I look for an owner.
Reply With Quote


  #195  
Old 09-13-2019, 04:09 PM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 9,710
Default

Originally Posted by CarsonChris View post
.... The property wasn’t properly marked, appeared abandoned, and didn’t have a proper barrier/gate. I have no qualms with detecting similar property. ...

Say it isn't so !! How could you be so cruel and evil ? That is worse than clubbing baby seals or spitting on sidewalks ! How do you even sleep at night ?

Reply With Quote


Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.