An old schoolhouse

Status
Not open for further replies.

JackDetect97

Junior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Messages
33
Location
Mansfield, PA
Hey all! I just recently joined the hobby and the forums. As of now I have found 2 IHP, 2 wheats, and an 1897 Barber Quarter in perfect condition.
The past few days, I have been researching a map that shows a location of an old school. Today, I finally found what remains to be the foundation. The property seems to be owned by a hunting club (with no knowledge of who the sole proprietor is). Any advice for proceeding with this spot and how to detect it?
 
Wow, sounds like a hell of a start. Welcome aboard. I think I was one year in before I found a silver coin which was a rosie, and probably 3 years, before I got a IHP. I'm thinking my first coin was a copper memorial.

Where are you fro and what do you hunt with.
 
... I have been researching a map that shows a location of an old school. Today, I finally found what remains to be the foundation. ....

Curious how you see what appears to be the "remains of foundations" ?

Eg.: From satellite view on the computer ? Binoculars from the nearest roadway ? Or ... standing there looking down at them ?
 
If the property is owned by a hunting club you would be advised to seek out the owner and get their permission to hunt it otherwise run the risk of being guilty of trespassing on private property if caught. There's a similar club a mile up the road from where I live and the building dates back to the 1940's. I would love to detect it but the club denied my request.
 
Curious how you see what appears to be the "remains of foundations" ?

Eg.: From satellite view on the computer ? Binoculars from the nearest roadway ? Or ... standing there looking down at them ?


I was standing right in front of it, I tried uploading a photo up here, but it was failing to load. Square stone foundation about the size of what woule have been a small cabin, with some specific stone cuttings for corners.
 
If the property is owned by a hunting club you would be advised to seek out the owner and get their permission to hunt it otherwise run the risk of being guilty of trespassing on private property if caught. There's a similar club a mile up the road from where I live and the building dates back to the 1940's. I would love to detect it but the club denied my request.

That was my guess as well, guess I will have to hunt to see who the owner of the club is!
 
I was standing right in front of it, I tried uploading a photo up here, but it was failing to load. Square stone foundation about the size of what woule have been a small cabin, with some specific stone cuttings for corners.

Huh ? Wait .... If : You were 'standing right there' looking at it, then ..... was that, or was-that-not trespassing ? Why not simply metal detect then ? Which is, in my book, as innocuous and benign and someone taking photographs.

Bear in mind, I'm not saying this to *advocate* it. But .... it just always strikes me as odd when someone (as has happened before on posts) : Someone posts pix of a spot (cellar hole, etc...) . That they walked 360* around, taking pix (hence obviously standing/walking right there). Yet then fret themselves silly about how to metal detect it. :?:
 
Huh ? Wait .... If : You were 'standing right there' looking at it, then ..... was that, or was-that-not trespassing ? Why not simply metal detect then ? Which is, in my book, as innocuous and benign and someone taking photographs.

Bear in mind, I'm not saying this to *advocate* it. But .... it just always strikes me as odd when someone (as has happened before on posts) : Someone posts pix of a spot (cellar hole, etc...) . That they walked 360* around, taking pix (hence obviously standing/walking right there). Yet then fret themselves silly about how to metal detect it. :?:

Yes it does sound silly to be honest, but I could only access it because its close to the main road I drive on to work. On tree near the foundation is the sign stating that its on a hunting clubs property. So honestly, I dont think they would mind since its on the very corner of the property (shown by using LandGlide).
 
Wow, sounds like a hell of a start. Welcome aboard. I think I was one year in before I found a silver coin which was a rosie, and probably 3 years, before I got a IHP. I'm thinking my first coin was a copper memorial.

Where are you fro and what do you hunt with.

Thank you for the greeting! I live right above White Mills PA. I have a Bounty Hunter Tracker IV and a Garrett Ace 300 in my posession now!
 
,,,,. So honestly, I dont think they would mind since its on the very corner of the property (shown by using LandGlide)...

And I would agree. Ok, So if that is ignored, benign, innocuous, etc..., then ... what would happen if you likewise simply metal detected ? I do not consider md'ing any-more-evil (damaging, harmful, etc...) that standing their taking pix, etc.... Which as you yourself say, was/is a non-issue.
 
Huh ? Wait .... If : You were 'standing right there' looking at it, then ..... was that, or was-that-not trespassing ? Why not simply metal detect then ? Which is, in my book, as innocuous and benign and someone taking photographs.
Digging a hole is the same as taking a picture? What would you do if you found something of value? I’m hoping you would not keep it…but then, if you were not going to keep it, why detect in the first place, prior to obtaining permission?
Bear in mind, I'm not saying this to *advocate* it.
How can you say you’re not an “advocate” for it, when you are, in fact, advocating for it?
…Yet then fret themselves silly about how to metal detect it. [/I] :?:
I find it odd that you see no difference between taking a picture of an "object"...and physically taking an "object". Or are you saying that you would knowingly trespass on private property and detect [because it is, to you, no different than taking a picture]...yet if you actually found something of value, you'd leave it behind? And if that's the case, then why bother to detect at all? Why not first ask for permission and set the ground rules, as it were, for what you may or may not keep?
 
Hey all! I just recently joined the hobby and the forums. As of now I have found 2 IHP, 2 wheats, and an 1897 Barber Quarter in perfect condition.
The past few days, I have been researching a map that shows a location of an old school. Today, I finally found what remains to be the foundation. The property seems to be owned by a hunting club (with no knowledge of who the sole proprietor is). Any advice for proceeding with this spot and how to detect it?
Nice finds! I'd try to find the owners of the property and ask permission. As someone else suggested...maybe even consider joining he club.
 
Digging a hole is the same as taking a picture? What would you do if you found something of value?...


Very good questions flies-only. So for starters, I'm glad we agree he was trespassing to take those pictures. Right ? But that trespassing is ok , right ? Only md'ing is when trespassing "becomes bad", right ? :?: Just want to make sure I understand you correctly.

Ok: Let's go with your definition of md'ing: Which is: "digging holes" and "taking things". Correct me if I'm wrong, but your post clearly defines md'ing in those terms. Right ? Which, by the way, I don't disagree that's what our hobby does (although we cover the holes , so "digging" is a "loaded language"). Nonetheless, let's just go with your definition. Since yes: That makes md'ing sound NOT benign and NOT innocuous.

Thus, since that's your definition of md'ing (your words, not mine), then here's what you need to do: Next time you approach a park, you are not merely md'ing. You are "digging holes" and "taking things". So try this: With that definition, go to the city hall and ask: "Hi. Can I dig holes and take things ?" (your definition, not mine). And see what they say . After all, you wouldn't want to mince words, eh ?

I hope you can agree that that's a SILLY WAY to look at how we define md'ing. For starters, as I say, we will leave no trace. So what's with the "dig " thing ? And for "taking things" : Every single md'r subconsciously sees-the-difference between things that have lain the ground for years, versus the same coin or ring on someone's night stand. That's why none of us runs to the police dept. L&F each time we find coins and rings. We implicitly know the difference. Does that change the definition to "not taking things" ? No. But ... just saying .... I hope you can see the difference between the coin-in-the-ground (that's been there for years, and no one even knows it's there) versus helping yourself to the picnic benches, fence posts, etc.....
 
And BTW : I would not be saying any of this, if it were not for the irony I saw, that someone can go onto land, walk around, take pix, etc.... Then wonder about md'ing there.

Why isn't the proper response to reprimand the individual, for even being there in the first place ? No one seems to point that out. (BTW, I think photography is also innocuous).

I guess what's bugging me, is this notion that md'ing is somehow inherently evil, dangerous, stealing/taking, harmful, etc..... If we start with that notion, then yes: Everything you're saying DOES INDEED logically follow.

But if that is our notion, then I have to wonder why anyone would get into a hobby, that is supposedly so reviled, etc... ? I don't see that level of hate and disdain, when I'm out and about doing my hobby. On the contrary : People come up and say "what's the best thing you've ever found", and "where can I buy one of those?" and "how deep does it go?", etc....

I'm just saying that I find md'ing to be equally as innocuous as photography. Which, I notice, no one here chided the fellow for walking around on that land and taking pictures. If md'ing is NOT just as benign and innocuous, then sure: All that you're saying does logically follow.

It's just in how we're defining innocuous.
 
And BTW : I would not be saying any of this, if it were not for the irony I saw, that someone can go onto land, walk around, take pix, etc.... Then wonder about md'ing there.

Why isn't the proper response to reprimand the individual, for even being there in the first place ? No one seems to point that out. (BTW, I think photography is also innocuous).


Because he likely wasn't trespassing. Walking onto somebody's property is not necessarily trespassing, and walking onto somebody's property is also not the same as metal detecting and retrieving objects from it.
 
Because he likely wasn't trespassing. Walking onto somebody's property is not necessarily trespassing, and walking onto somebody's property is also not the same as metal detecting and retrieving objects from it.

Couple of things here :

1) This is the first I've ever heard that "walking onto someone's property is not necessarily trespassing" . By that do you mean, as akin to a shopping center, for instance ? Which, yes, is private property. But no ... you're not trespassing. There will be signs that say "private property. Right to pass revokable by owner". Right ? Is that the kind of "not necessarily trespassing that you are talking about ? If so, then what if it is that type of private property, and the owner doesn't revoke you ? Is it ok then ?

2) This returns to the discussion of what's benign and innocuous, vs what's not. So to use the private shopping center parking lot as an example: Your walking across the mall parking lot. You see a $10 bill lying on the ground. Can you pick it up or not ? Mind you that , you're on private property. So can you "take" (aka "retrieve") it ??

Again, if we all agree that the guy was ok to be walking about, taking pix, etc...., then it all boils down to how harmful, damaging, bad, etc... that you define md'ing as. If you see it as harmful, damaging, bad, etc... then yes: You are totally correct.
 
Last edited:
Couple of things here :

1) This is the first I've ever heard that "walking onto someone's property is not necessarily trespassing" . By that do you mean, as akin to a shopping center, for instance ?............

Here's a criminal defense attorney writing about your state's laws:

https://www.losangelescriminallawyer.pro/california-penal-code-section-602-pc-trespassing.html

In order to prove that a defendant is guilty of trespassing, a prosecutor must be able to establish the following:
1.The defendant willfully entered or remained on the property of another
2.The defendant did this with the specific intent of interfering with the other person’s property rights
3.AND the defendant actually interfered with these rights


if the defendant did not “occupy” the property per the trespassing statute, there would no criminally liability. This would occur where a person briefly enters property or otherwise does not interfere with the property owner’s rights or interferes with his business. This could also apply where a person is asked to leave, and is in the process of leaving the property as requested at the time he is arrested. In these circumstances, the defendant would have a strong argument that he or she did not commit trespassing.


In other words, at its core, trespassing is really about denying a landowner their use or enjoyment of their land. It's hard to prove or know whether a person has done that unless they've been told to leave previously, or jumped a fence, or ignored posted signs where those have legal standing, etc....

In Kentucky, all three levels of criminal trespass require the person to KNOWINGLY enter or remain unlawfully. In other words, they entered knowing that the property owner didn't want them there and/or with a purpose that was not lawful.

In addition, in Kentucky, one can enter and remain on private unimproved/unused land as long as it's not posted or personally communicated.

"A person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed does not commit criminal trespass unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to him by the owner of the land or some other authorized person or unless notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner."

So, yes, you can walk onto somebody else's property and it not be trespassing. At least, not criminally.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom