Whats the enforcement provision here? WI State lands forbidden

Smooth23

Elite Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
618
Location
WI
At some point the 'law' changed in Wisconsin. I know I know, don't ask don't tell, most people wouldn't give two !!!!!, I at least like to know where I stand.

Anyhow, it used to be you could detect specific places in wisconsin state parks, like beaches, now its just:

"(i) Metal detectors. The use of metal detectors is prohibited except by written permit issued by the property superintendent." per NR 45.04(3)(i). "

I'm just trying to find out what the enforcement mechanism is? They kick you out? A ticket? what? Here's the entire statute:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/001/45/

Edit: found my answer buried in that regulation. They can kick you out for 48 hrs. Good to know
 
Last edited:
.... it used to be you could detect specific places in wisconsin state parks, like beaches, now its just:....

A couple of things :

1) Do you still have the old link or the old print-out ? If so, print that out and carry it with you. Seems to me that if you showed any nosey-parkers that, they can just "appraise you" of any subsequent change. And as you yourself say : Odds are, the average passerby cares less (as long as you're not snooping on obvious historic sensitive monuments).

2)
And you're looking for your wife's ring, right ?

3) If the evolution is as you say, then this just goes to show that it would have been better, early on, if it were silent on the subject entirely. Because whenever there's express allowances (things like "beach only", blah blah), or whenever someone dreams up "permit", is when ......... sure as sh*t, someone later on comes along and tightens it up with an express "no" later on.

The reason for this is that whenever any place has express allowances or permits (even though md'rs seem to want to LOVE those), is the moment that , forevermore .... it's on their radar as something to "permit" or "allow". And then sure as heck, at some point in the future, someone there is going to see this verbiage and say "Gee, do we really want all these yahoos out there digging up the park ?". :roll:

Hence much better that it is simply silent on the subject. On no one's radar to have to give any princely blessing to. And yes, I have a sneaking suspicion of why the initial language and current language there exists, in the first place :mad:
 
A couple of things :

1) Do you still have the old link or the old print-out ? If so, print that out and carry it with you. Seems to me that if you showed any nosey-parkers that, they can just "appraise you" of any subsequent change. And as you yourself say : Odds are, the average passerby cares less (as long as you're not snooping on obvious historic sensitive monuments).

2)
And you're looking for your wife's ring, right ?

3) If the evolution is as you say, then this just goes to show that it would have been better, early on, if it were silent on the subject entirely. Because whenever there's express allowances (things like "beach only", blah blah), or whenever someone dreams up "permit", is when ......... sure as sh*t, someone later on comes along and tightens it up with an express "no" later on.

The reason for this is that whenever any place has express allowances or permits (even though md'rs seem to want to LOVE those), is the moment that , forevermore .... it's on their radar as something to "permit" or "allow". And then sure as heck, at some point in the future, someone there is going to see this verbiage and say "Gee, do we really want all these yahoos out there digging up the park ?". :roll:

Hence much better that it is simply silent on the subject. On no one's radar to have to give any princely blessing to. And yes, I have a sneaking suspicion of why the initial language and current language there exists, in the first place :mad:

No I don't have a copy of the old regulations, and I've certainly not been.....lets just say 'following them.' Obviously I'm always out looking for a ring a buddy's wife lost, and he knew I had a metal detector. No that guy you saw the other day must have been someone else. This state seems to have a hardon for hating on metal detectors. I'm sure there's some commie archie type writing more bs every day.
 
Power is addictive..
Micromanagers..
Always think they know best..
All of society is heading in this direction..
 
It might be helpful to make a call to them to find out more, the reasoning, make our case for the right to dig/refill a small hole. If we don't find it - it only stays in the ground and rots to dust for no one to enjoy it. Bassackward. Tell them you won't even charge them for cleaning up all the junk we dig.
I thought our city parks here were the same way till I called and was shocked when they said it's permitted, have fun and good luck.
 
It might be helpful to make a call to them to find out more, the reasoning, make our case for the right to dig/refill a small hole. If we don't find it - it only stays in the ground and rots to dust for no one to enjoy it. Bassackward. Tell them you won't even charge them for cleaning up all the junk we dig.
I thought our city parks here were the same way till I called and was shocked when they said it's permitted, have fun and good luck.

Well it’s not like I can just call up whoever made this change and be like “hey man what’s up?” And it’s gonna be all ok. This ain’t fantasy world and this is a state level rule or law or whatever it qualifies as.
 
It might be helpful to make a call to them to find out more, the reasoning,....

No :( The only thing actions like this risk, is to make us even MORE "up and front center" . For them to have to "address this pressing issue" even more. And then what happens is that even MORE "B.O.L's" get passed down the pipeline. :wow:

..... I thought our city parks here were the same way till I called and was shocked when they said it's permitted,....

Curious: Aren't the rules/laws of your city, and parks available for viewing somewhere ? Eg.: Dogs on leash, no fireworks, etc... ? If so, couldn't you have checked there ? Because the trouble with calling a desk-jockey and asking "Can I?" is that , all too often someone conjures up images of geeks with shovels, and simply says "no". And then you end up with the "No one cared UNTIL you asked" phenomenon. :roll:

Ie.: why do we think we need some verbal express "yes" to do something that's not forbidden ? (unless of course there were some "no md'ing" verbiage in your city code prior to this ??)

.... This state seems to have a hardon for hating on metal detectors. ....

I dunno, I haven't studied your state. But if state parks actually have an enforced hardon for it, I have a sneaking suspicion why.
 
No I don't have a copy of the old regulations, and I've certainly not been.....lets just say 'following them.' Obviously I'm always out looking for a ring a buddy's wife lost, and he knew I had a metal detector. No that guy you saw the other day must have been someone else. This state seems to have a hardon for hating on metal detectors. I'm sure there's some commie archie type writing more bs every day.

I mean if there were clear regulations, and you were knowingly not following them, maybe people like you are the reason for the blanket ban.
 
I mean if there were clear regulations, and you were knowingly not following them, maybe people like you are the reason for the blanket ban.

Yeah sure, I'll go with that. Doesn't answer my initial question though, and I don't really care. My question is about enforcement. Writing endless laws and never enforcing them is pretty stupid too.
 
I mean if there were clear regulations, and you were knowingly not following them, maybe people like you are the reason for the blanket ban.

hbot37, do you see the self-refuting nature of your statement ^ ^ ? Read s-l-o-w-l-y :

It is suggesting that the reason for regulation/bans, is that : Persons detected where they were knowingly not following them. BUT WAIT ! If something were *already* forbidden, then how does not following the rule, bring about the rule ?

In other words, the rule has to exist FIRST, before someone can break it. Thus breaking it, does not CAUSE it. Do you see ?
 
hbot37, do you see the self-refuting nature of your statement ^ ^ ? Read s-l-o-w-l-y :

It is suggesting that the reason for regulation/bans, is that : Persons detected where they were knowingly not following them. BUT WAIT ! If something were *already* forbidden, then how does not following the rule, bring about the rule ?

In other words, the rule has to exist FIRST, before someone can break it. Thus breaking it, does not CAUSE it. Do you see ?

Dont get me wrong I agree with your philosophy about asking permission and such, no reason to make an issue when there isnt one and all that.

But in this instance, it sounds like a park that already had specific regulations in place for allowing metal detecting recreationally in certain areas. Then the poster admitted to not following the regulations, and is now wondering why they have changed to a blanket ban and how they enforce it.
 
... in this instance, it sounds like a park that already had specific regulations in place for allowing metal detecting recreationally in certain areas. Then the poster admitted to not following the regulations, and is now wondering why they have changed to a blanket ban and how they enforce it.


Ok, so we agree it doesn't bring ABOUT rules. As for whether or not it brings about blanket bans, I'm not so sure. For example: If a place did in fact forbid it on the grass, but had a blanket allowance for the adjacent beach, then what you're saying is that : If someone detects the grass, then presto : They will abolish the beach allowance now. Right ? :?:

I'm not so sure I agree with that. Seems to me they'll scram you off the grass, and tell you to go to the beach. I mean, it's like if someone exceeds the 25 mph speed limit on one road, does that cause the powers-that-be to abolish driving or change speed limits on ANOTHER road ? :?:

Instead, my theory for places where "partials" went to "full" is merely that : The mere fact that it exists, in writing, in ANY form, is nothing-more-than perpetual "front & center" reminder for powers-that-be, to have it cross-their-desk. As something they "allow" (versus silent on the subject). And then sure enough, some day in the future, when any such permit or allowance is reviewed later on, some pencil jockey is sure to ask : "Gee, do we really want all these yahoos out there digging up the park ?"

Also I notice that whenever any oddities of partials exist (places where there's dividing lines, or places that dreamed up a "permit"), is that the mere existence of such a status will drive legions of md'rs to forever-more be knocking on doors, making calls, sending emails, and starting forum threads : "Seeking clarification". This is another reason why it just perpetually comes up for a full ban. NOT that a full ban came about because someone fudged the partial.

JMHO
 
Ok, so we agree it doesn't bring ABOUT rules. As for whether or not it brings about blanket bans, I'm not so sure. For example: If a place did in fact forbid it on the grass, but had a blanket allowance for the adjacent beach, then what you're saying is that : If someone detects the grass, then presto : They will abolish the beach allowance now. Right ? :?:

I'm not so sure I agree with that. Seems to me they'll scram you off the grass, and tell you to go to the beach. I mean, it's like if someone exceeds the 25 mph speed limit on one road, does that cause the powers-that-be to abolish driving or change speed limits on ANOTHER road ? :?:

Instead, my theory for places where "partials" went to "full" is merely that : The mere fact that it exists, in writing, in ANY form, is nothing-more-than perpetual "front & center" reminder for powers-that-be, to have it cross-their-desk. As something they "allow" (versus silent on the subject). And then sure enough, some day in the future, when any such permit or allowance is reviewed later on, some pencil jockey is sure to ask : "Gee, do we really want all these yahoos out there digging up the park ?"

Also I notice that whenever any oddities of partials exist (places where there's dividing lines, or places that dreamed up a "permit"), is that the mere existence of such a status will drive legions of md'rs to forever-more be knocking on doors, making calls, sending emails, and starting forum threads : "Seeking clarification". This is another reason why it just perpetually comes up for a full ban. NOT that a full ban came about because someone fudged the partial.

JMHO

I fully understand your point there, but I just feel like this case is a little different. As much as we wish we did, we dont have a legal right to md on public property. Its a privilege granted to us either by explicit language in regulations, or just the fact that nobody really cares. In this case people cared, and they regulated it. So when people dont follow the rules, like the OP admitted to doing, they take the privilege away. This seems like a case where a few people may have ruined it for everyone by being poor stewards of the hobby.
 
There is no enforcement mechanism as much as I can tell. If you keep reading there’s a rule about not swimming outside the swimming area.
 
There is no enforcement mechanism as much as I can tell. If you keep reading there’s a rule about not swimming outside the swimming area.

That’s all I can find. It’s like the worst they can do is tell you to please stop..
 
I fully understand your point there, but I just feel like this case is a little different. As much as we wish we did, we dont have a legal right to md on public property. Its a privilege granted to us either by explicit language in regulations, or just the fact that nobody really cares. In this case people cared, and they regulated it. So when people dont follow the rules, like the OP admitted to doing, they take the privilege away. This seems like a case where a few people may have ruined it for everyone by being poor stewards of the hobby.
This is something that Tom_in_Ca will never admit to. For him, it's always and only about "no one cared until..." The fact that some people break rules and sometimes even the law in their excursions with a metal detector means very little to Tom as it relates to why more and more places are banning the use of metal detectors. I mean, people on this forum have even told others to go ahead and trespass, as long as no one is looking. Yet, somehow or another, bad behaviors have no impact whatsoever on the rules and regulations surrounding the hobby of metal detecting?
 
This is something that Tom_in_Ca will never admit to. For him, it's always and only about "no one cared until..." The fact that some people break rules and sometimes even the law in their excursions with a metal detector means very little to Tom as it relates to why more and more places are banning the use of metal detectors. I mean, people on this forum have even told others to go ahead and trespass, as long as no one is looking. Yet, somehow or another, bad behaviors have no impact whatsoever on the rules and regulations surrounding the hobby of metal detecting?

There's rules, then there is overreach. In general, any law or rule against metal detecting is a ridiculous overreach. That is why I'm so specific. If theres no way to enforce what should amount to a law, but doesn't seem to be legislated in - then its fair game.
 
There's rules, then there is overreach. In general, any law or rule against metal detecting is a ridiculous overreach.
I don't disagree with this at all. It's hard to come up with a reasonable explanation for an outright ban on metal detecting. However, the point I was making relates to why the rule or law came into existence to begin with. Tom always ignores peoples attitudes and actions. Does "asking permission" lead to a ban? Who knows? I'm sure that in some instances it likely plays a role. But to assume people who break the rule (or a law) during their "metal detecting excursions" plays no role in the ban seems a bit disingenuous.

That is why I'm so specific. If theres no way to enforce what should amount to a law, but doesn't seem to be legislated in - then its fair game.
Maybe. I guess it's a moot point though. I mean, you can certainly continue to metal detect without a permit and face a very small chance of any sort of retribution. Or you can continue to detect without a permit, and potentially be the reason behind a stronger, better worded, more enforceable law/rule being imposed. And this is where Tom and I disagree. Tom would say to just keep detecting and that asking for clarification would likely result in an outright ban. I would say that continuing to detect in a manner that violates the rule is more likely to lead to the outright ban. Which of us is correct? I guess that there's no real way to find out, as our sample size would only be "one". No matter which path you chose, we would have no way to test the "other option", which is why I said it's a moot point.
 
Back
Top Bottom