Mmmmm temptation

Tom_in_CA said:

Ok. Then why couldn't that 'best interest" have been satisfied by looking up rules for yourself ? I mean, what ...... in your opinion ..... do they base their answer on : A) actual law/rule, or B) mere whimsical mood ? If you answer "A", then ..... why can't your interests be fulfulled in looking up those rules ?



like what ? I see that you answered:



Fair enough. Ok, Then let's try this on for size: What do you think the answer would be, if you went into ANY city hall, in ANY city across the USA, and asked "hi, can I collect artifacts from your park ?" What do you think their answer would be ? Thus no: It's not "unique" in the slightest.



Same thing: I challenge you to go into ANY city anywhere, and ask "Hi can I dig in your park ?" and see what they say. Thus: Not unique.



And barring someone snooping around an obvious historic sensitive monument, or leaving craters (not filling holes , and being an obnxious eyesore of some sort), I'll bet you have no examples of such "fines", right ?



Why can't problems be avoided by looking up for oneself ?

Click to expand...

I kind of understand where Mike is going with this.

For the most part Tom I 100% agree with you, if its public and I don't see either a sign or listed ordinance hunt it! If you ask I believe its probable you will get an answer of opinion vs answer of fact. Secondly if a digger is in the wrong on city or county property, local law enforcement officers I believe would simply come up and inform you of wrong doing and ask you to leave. However in NC is anything like WI, it seems the state officials don't tend to fire a shot across the bow so to speak. My experience both first hand and second hand is they choose to inform with a citation.

I can understand that based on what property a person may be more reluctant. It's somewhat close to curbstrip hunting for me. Not worth the argument unless I ask.

Big Treble said:

... My experience both first hand and second hand is they choose to inform with a citation....

Click to expand...

A "citation" implies that someone broke a law. Lest how else can someone get a "citation", unless there were a law that they broke ?

And since there is no "secret laws", then presto: You can look up said laws, and find out for oneself, if there was any md'ing law.

So I'm still mystified as to what "citation" you could be talking about, in the absence of a law ??

Or perhaps you were speaking of ANCILLARY language, that MIGHT be construed to fit the subject of md'ing ? Eg.: "alter/deface", "harvest/remove", etc... ? If so, I would be happy to address that.

Big Treble said:

This stinks.

Through research, just found a site one of the earliest settlers in the tri county area I live in. This was developed into a small settlement. It was a pretty prosperous place in the early 1800's. The gentleman that settled it was a socialite so to speak, and had guest. One being Jefferson Davis and another Zach Taylor. So their were most likely coins lost at various functions. Here is where the treasure hunters mind starts to spin....tragedy strikes.....over 50 people lost their lives, and in a nutshell the settlement was never the same.

Treasure hunters dream right?

Yep I can walk on the place like I own it.

The bad news is I do own it, along with other Wisconsinites, its managed by the WI DNR. So they don't take kindly to detecting.

Click to expand...

I have better luck hunting at night anyway ..seems i always find more productive sites when its dark too.....

relichead said:

I have better luck hunting at night anyway ....

Click to expand...

So peaceful. So serene. Instead of worrying if I've "pleased every last person on earth", I need-not worry about hurting someone's feelings. Kind of like nose-picking: Rather than get someone's blessings, you ... uh ... just choose more discreet times to pick your nose.

Tom_in_CA said:

A "citation" implies that someone broke a law. Lest how else can someone get a "citation", unless there were a law that they broke ?

And since there is no "secret laws", then presto: You can look up said laws, and find out for oneself, if there was any md'ing law.

So I'm still mystified as to what "citation" you could be talking about, in the absence of a law ??

Or perhaps you were speaking of ANCILLARY language, that MIGHT be construed to fit the subject of md'ing ? Eg.: "alter/deface", "harvest/remove", etc... ? If so, I would be happy to address that.

Click to expand...

When I said the word citation I was referring to this quote, about the unique laws, rules Mike spoke of and the hefty fines he was talking about. I certainly don't know the rules and laws in Mike's area, and have to trust his judgment, especially since 8 have no desire to research his laws.

This was the post I was referring to"

I felt it was in my best interest to ask. This place has some unique rules. First off you are not allowed to collect artifacts. That rule came about due to people collecting native artifacts. I needed to know their definition of "artifact".
Secondly they have a rule that you cant dig. This came about due to due to a popular mineral collecting site getting hammered. it looked like the moon with all the craters.
Both rules have hefty fines. Not to mention I had had an chat with an intense game warden over a small pail of nothing rocks a few years earlier. My cousin collected them to take back to FL.
I didn't want any problems so I asked. This was national forest( similar to DNR land I suppose) not a state park. State parks are out.

Big Treble said:

When I said the word citation I was referring to this quote, about the unique laws, rules Mike spoke of and the hefty fines he was talking about. I certainly don't know the rules and laws in Mike's area, and have to trust his judgment, especially since 8 have no desire to research his laws.

This was the post I was referring to"

I felt it was in my best interest to ask. This place has some unique rules. First off you are not allowed to collect artifacts. That rule came about due to people collecting native artifacts. I needed to know their definition of "artifact".
Secondly they have a rule that you cant dig. This came about due to due to a popular mineral collecting site getting hammered. it looked like the moon with all the craters.
Both rules have hefty fines. Not to mention I had had an chat with an intense game warden over a small pail of nothing rocks a few years earlier. My cousin collected them to take back to FL.
I didn't want any problems so I asked. This was national forest( similar to DNR land I suppose) not a state park. State parks are out.

Click to expand...

Ok, fair enough. Then you are referring to "ancillary" rules (ie.: catch-all verbiage). About "dig" or "artifacts" and "collecting" (aka take, remove, harvest, etc...). Right ?

Which, yes: I agree can be construed to apply to us md'rs. After all, we "take" things. We "dig", and (gasp) an old coin could be construed to be an "artifact".

Here's the giant problem we're going to run into those: If the presence of such ancillary language means that all of us md'rs should go ask "can I?", then I got news for you: Such language exists on every speck of public land, of any entity, across the entire USA. Yup, there's not a single park anywhere, that doesn't have some boiler plate verbiage that forbids "alter" and "deface" (aka "dig") for example. And I totally agree that a busy-body could indeed say we fall afoul of such language.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, we should therefore go ask "can I metal detect?" or "does this apply to me?". Right ?

If so, then the problem you're going to run into is the old "No one cared till you asked" phenomenon. I've seen this happen over and over, where places that no one ever had a problem before, can all of the sudden fetch "no's". From a bored pencil pusher who has images of geeks with shovels. Or that you'll bother the nesting sea turtles. Or that you'll "take" something, etc... Persons who, perhaps, never gave the matter a moment's thought, before someone came in with the "pressing question".

Therefore No: I will not assume or construe those things to apply to us. If you cover your spot and leave no trace, then you haven't alterED or defacED anything.

Will this be gauranteed to deflect every busy-body ? Will you make every last person on earth roll out red carpets for you ? No, of course not. You HAVE to grow a thick skin to that 1 in 10,000 persons (purist archie) who might gripe. And no, there's not "citations". If you can point to any such incident, it will no doubt be for someone sneaking around obvious sensitive historic monuments. Or someone who's being obnoxious or can't take a warning.

Tom_in_CA said:

So peaceful. So serene. Instead of worrying if I've "pleased every last person on earth", I need-not worry about hurting someone's feelings. Kind of like nose-picking: Rather than get someone's blessings, you ... uh ... just choose more discreet times to pick your nose.

Click to expand...

Wow...since you went into that much detail i have to ask..,do you eat em ?

I try not to do anything that will give the metal detecting hobby a bad name. I've never hunted on sate or federal land. However, If I have the opportunity to swing at a early 1800 site deep in the woods when no one is around then I may put on my camo and do a quick recon. Is the risk worth the possible reward? Are you willing to take that risk? If not then scratch it off your list and focus on another site, if yes then hit it hard and show us what you find.
You never know what you'll find back in the woods. Buttons, buckles and spanish reales ..... oh yeah!

Found this colonial shoe buckle and sword back in the woods on city property last October. The property is not posted. People walk their dogs there, the kids play there and I detect there.

Estima8tor said:

I try not to do anything that will give the metal detecting hobby a bad name. I've never hunted on sate or federal land....

Click to expand...

You do realize that not all state and federal land is off-limits to md'ing. Right ?

And by "giving metal detecting a bad name", do you mean: The mere act, itself, of metal detecting ? Or do you mean something like leaving holes ?

Tom_in_CA said:

You do realize that not all state and federal land is off-limits to md'ing. Right ?

I didn't say it was. I don't hunt it because I don't need to. I would find out what's legal and what's not before hand if I did if I was interested in doing so. Do you hunt state or federal land?

And by "giving metal detecting a bad name", do you mean: The mere act, itself, of metal detecting ? Or do you mean something like leaving holes ?

Click to expand...

I mean digging sloppy holes and leaving a mess or not taking away the trash you dig or detecting on posted private property with out permission. Common sense respect for public and private property and people in general. Clear enough for you?

Estima8tor said:

... Clear enough for you?

Click to expand...

Yes. And everyone would agree with those things.

Tom_in_CA said:

Ok, fair enough. Then you are referring to "ancillary" rules (ie.: catch-all verbiage). About "dig" or "artifacts" and "collecting" (aka take, remove, harvest, etc...). Right ?

Which, yes: I agree can be construed to apply to us md'rs. After all, we "take" things. We "dig", and (gasp) an old coin could be construed to be an "artifact".

Here's the giant problem we're going to run into those: If the presence of such ancillary language means that all of us md'rs should go ask "can I?", then I got news for you: Such language exists on every speck of public land, of any entity, across the entire USA. Yup, there's not a single park anywhere, that doesn't have some boiler plate verbiage that forbids "alter" and "deface" (aka "dig") for example. And I totally agree that a busy-body could indeed say we fall afoul of such language.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, we should therefore go ask "can I metal detect?" or "does this apply to me?". Right ?

Click to expand...

No, please don't put words into my mouth, twist what I'm saying. Or assume I'm saying something I'm not, or trying to start an argument.

I apologize if I wasn't clear. If you read my post prior to this I stated that I agree with you on the don't ask permission and i clearly stated that.

It's as simple as a third person makes a point, and my point was I can see their sides and concerns. The third person indicated he was aware of rules. If a person wants to make their own judgment based on their knowledge then let them.

That's It-- it's that simple. Quit twisting to start an argument or impress the youngsters

Tom_in_CA said:

Yes. And everyone would agree with those things.

Click to expand...

There are a lot of people here in Virginia detecting who aren't so respectful. They trespass on private property and dig and take what they want. Some get caught and are run off by the land owners.

People like that make it really hard for people like us to get permission to hunt private property.