Big Boys Hobbies

Lancaster, PA City Parks - No MD'ing

C

clamdig

New Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
6
Location
South Central Pennsylvania
I was at Buchanan park over the weekend, I read an old post on here that someone said they detected it. After about 45 minutes a female city police officer came up to me and said that detecting was NOT permitted in city parks. She said that they're going to be adding new signage at all the parks to reflect this. I was, as I always am, very polite and said that I checked the website and it didn't have anything about detecting. She agreed but said that it's always been no detecting but they rarely had anyone doing it, lately there's been an increase and they're "nipping it in the bud" now. She did not fine me, let me go with a warning but said that next time it would be a fine.

Guess I'll try the county parks which she suggested.
 
So the guys from Amish Mafia didn't tell you to leave ?

I'd read some local history and then hit the woods to find it.

There will be a move to PA in my future. Have not picked a date yet.

Sent from my Armor_3 using Tapatalk
 
I do not consider isolated fluke "scrams" to constitute gospel law. Unless there is truly something that said "No md'ing".

Read this as an example :

https://metaldetectingforum.com/showthread.php?t=278842

And oddly, I know you mean well, but your post is exactly what gets-balls-rolling to make the vicious circle come true. Ie.: Others read this (finding it by key-word searches, for example), and rush to "seek clarification". And then sure as heck, authorities .... given the "pressing question often enough", will make it official. Presto, a law is born. :roll:

And I too have had gardeners or officers say things like "It's going to be official soon" (like what happened to you). Lo & behold, 10 and 20 yrs. later, nothing ever became of it.

Thus ... no ... I do not construe isolated scrams to constitute law. Sometimes it just means: Give the place a little break, and avoid that one person in the future.
 
clamdig said:
I was at Buchanan park over the weekend, I read an old post on here that someone said they detected it. After about 45 minutes a female city police officer came up to me and said that detecting was NOT permitted in city parks. She said that they're going to be adding new signage at all the parks to reflect this. I was, as I always am, very polite and said that I checked the website and it didn't have anything about detecting. She agreed but said that it's always been no detecting but they rarely had anyone doing it, lately there's been an increase and they're "nipping it in the bud" now. She did not fine me, let me go with a warning but said that next time it would be a fine.

Guess I'll try the county parks which she suggested.
Click to expand...

Well, that was good of her to not automatically fine you, and also neat that she actually suggested where you could detect legally !

I'm sure your polite attitude likely made a difference in how she not only just gave you a warning, but also suggested where you could detect legally ! :thumbsup:

Since you wrote "She said that they're going to be adding new signage at all the parks to reflect this." at least it seems to show she was being legitimate and not merely assuming it was prohibited.

I would think if she was merely anti-detectorist she would not have suggested the county parks.

I understand that occasionally you might get chased off by someone who might not have legitimate information, but later if you notice those signs go up please take a pic and post it on this thread so we can see how they word their no detecting signs.

(Note: Tom does make a legitimate point in that sometimes a worker/officer might wrongly assume detecting is prohibited and chase you off, in this particular instance I get the impression she was being legit, but let us know later if/when those sign go up)

Edit to add:

Just found this, check "Section 16" on the page at the link -

https://co.lancaster.pa.us/DocumentCenter/View/365/Final_Ordinance_No_98

(I could be wrong, but the wording does not seem to totally prohibit detecting in the county, but seems to simply indicate areas where you can't)

(of course county rules and city rules can be different)
 
Last edited:
GKL said:
Well, that was good of her to not automatically fine you, ....
Click to expand...

GKL, do you know of ANY instances, of an md'r being "fined", for detecting a park where there's no rule or law saying "no md'ing" ? :?:


GKL said:
....Note: Tom does make a legitimate point....
Click to expand...

thanx. Check out the link to the thread, that I gave. Where this very issue was discussed awhile back.
 
Tom_in_CA said:
GKL, do you know of ANY instances, of an md'r being "fined", for detecting a park where there's no rule or law saying "no md'ing" ? :?:


thanx. Check out the link to the thread, that I gave. Where this very issue was discussed awhile back.
Click to expand...

Good point, I would think a sign needs to be in place to enforce a fine, but it will be interesting to see later if the OP reports if those signs do get posted.

I did find a rule about the county parks though (see edited post), it seems to just limit detecting areas without totally prohibiting it, but it would not surprise me if the city parks were more restrictive.

Couldn't find anything related to city parks, not saying there isn't, just didn't show up in a quick search.
 
clamdig said:
.......said that next time it would be a fine.....
Click to expand...

I looked at the city's website and agree that there's nothing specifically about metal detecting either on a park rules page or in the city's ordinances. If they're talking fines then it has to connected to an ordinance. It appears that they're choosing to view metal detecting as a violation of the following ordinance:


"Break, cut, deface, disturb, injure or take any flower, fruit, plant, tree, shrub, bench, building, fence, monuments or other structure, apparatus or property."

https://ecode360.com/8118705

Nearly every city/park has a similar rule on their books about damaging city property, and yet most of those places do not consider metal detecting to be a violation in and of itself. In other words, they don't automatically jump to the conclusion that metal detecting always results in damage.

Since metal detecting doesn't appear to be banned specifically by law, it's a matter of interpretation by the current administration. In the short term, it's the same result. But, that also means the interpretation could change in the long run without needing a change in law.

If signs go up, then they'll probably never come down. Ideally, they never put anything up officially and eventually the people in charge are replaced by people who may be indifferent or even favor it.

Indeed, it might not even be true that detecting has always been banned. It very well could be that previous administrations simply didn't think that law applied to metal detecting unless the person was actually causing visible damage.
 
Last edited:
It's always seemed to me that if somebody wanted to fight such a fine---when the basis of it is "damaging plants , etc..."--- then it would likely get dropped when the city was unable to document any actual damages.

I suppose you and the other local detectorists could commit yourselves to doing what somebody did to you. Call the non-emergency police number each time you see somebody:

-let their dog off leash,
-not pick up after a dog
-litter
-gather sticks
-stand in the way of somebody walking on the sidewalk
-play a sport or have a foot race anywhere other than a sports field dedicated to that purpose
-"disturb" any birds or animals in any place
-smoke in non-designated areas
-pick a flower

All of those things are specifically listed ---not an interpretation--in that city's park rules and subject to fines.
 
GKL said:
....

Edit to add:

Just found this, check "Section 16" on the page at the link -

https://co.lancaster.pa.us/DocumentCenter/View/365/Final_Ordinance_No_98

(I could be wrong, but the wording does not seem to totally prohibit detecting in the county, but seems to simply indicate areas where you can't)

(of course county rules and city rules can be different)
Click to expand...

GKL, by implicit definition, that would only apply to county parks. Not "all land within the county". Ie.: Just because a city is a sub-component of a larger county, doesn't mean that rule subrogates downward. In the same way that states, counties, and cities are all a sub-component of the larger federal, right ? Yet no one thinks for a moment that ARPA (federal) subrogates downward to "all land within the USA". Lest .... gasp .... how are all of us finding 51+ yr. old coins in parks ?

Thus county rules apply to county land. Even if they don't spell that out, it's implied. Rules/laws change all-the-time between county vs city. Eg.: some allow dogs off leash, others don't. Some close at sunset, others have overnight camping, etc....

And as for that specific county park rule, 1) you're right, it's not totally forbidding md'ing :cool: 2) I have a sneaking suspicion of how that came to be on their books. :roll:
 
ToySoldier said:
.... Since metal detecting doesn't appear to be banned specifically by law, it's a matter of interpretation by the current administration. In the short term, it's the same result. But, that also means the interpretation could change in the long run without needing a change in law. ....
Click to expand...

I agree with you that any "power that be" can say our actions fall afoul of ancillary wording. Sure. They can even say it violates rules that forbid "annoyances" and "blocking sidewalks". Sure.

But just because a singular person draws that conclusion (thinking we might be about to leave a hole open), doesn't mean it's "interpreted that way" by all others from then-on-out. There's a LOT of times where such things are just singular flukes. Read my link above in post # 3 of this thread, for examples of that.

ToySoldier said:
... Ideally, they never put anything up officially .....
Click to expand...

Exactly. I've heard powers-that-be say things like what happened to the O.P. That supposedly it's "going to be on the rule books, but in the meantime, scram, blah blah". Yet .... it's just talk. It never actually gets on the book. It's just someone's polite way of saying "scram". 20 yrs. later, nothing ever got on the books. Despite someone saying that.

Thus no, I do not construe what happened to the O.P. as constituting law or rule, if it's not an actual law or rule. It simply means : Avoid that one individual in the future .

ToySoldier said:
... who may be indifferent or even favor it.....
Click to expand...

No one needs to be "in favor of it". It merely needs to be "silent on the subject". Then presto, if it's not prohibited , then it's not disallowed. Just don't be in the middle of deep retrievals in nice manicured turf, when busy-bodies might be around. Heck, it's gotten to the point where I do most of my nice-turf hunting at night these days. So peaceful. So serene.
 
Tom_in_CA said:
GKL, by implicit definition, that would only apply to county parks. Not "all land within the county". Ie.: Just because a city is a sub-component of a larger county, doesn't mean that rule subrogates downward. In the same way that states, counties, and cities are all a sub-component of the larger federal, right ? Yet no one thinks for a moment that ARPA (federal) subrogates downward to "all land within the USA". Lest .... gasp .... how are all of us finding 51+ yr. old coins in parks ?

Thus county rules apply to county land. Even if they don't spell that out, it's implied. Rules/laws change all-the-time between county vs city. Eg.: some allow dogs off leash, others don't. Some close at sunset, others have overnight camping, etc....

And as for that specific county park rule, 1) you're right, it's not totally forbidding md'ing :cool: 2) I have a sneaking suspicion of how that came to be on their books. :roll:
Click to expand...

…...sorry, good catch, I meant county parks, but left off the word "parks", see what a difference leaving off just one word can imply :lol:
 
ToySoldier said:
It's always seemed to me that if somebody wanted to fight such a fine---when the basis of it is "damaging plants , etc..."--- then it would likely get dropped when the city was unable to document any actual damages. .....
Click to expand...

Toysoldier, I highly doubt that any md'rs ever got tickets for a "fine" for the grey-area wording of "alter" and "deface" type verbiage. But actually .... I take that back, .... I can think of a SINGLE incident, in all-my 40+ yrs., of someone getting a ticket on that basis (Goes against my own mantra of demanding examples, eh ? haha :laughing: )

It was a certain big city in CA (that shall remain nameless). Even though the silly ticket was only something like $80, the md'r decided to fight it. Since, of course, he knows that he leaves no trace or damage. Thus not leaving nothing alterED or defacED. He just wanted to challenge it on principle alone.

So he filled out the coupon thing to appeal it, and sent it in. He was given a day and time to appear. He waited his turn in the cattle call lineup in the courtroom. When it came his turn to step forward, he started reciting his scripted lines: "Your honor, I don't know what this is all about. I was only metal detecting, which is my harmless hobby. And ....."

As he was starting to recite his scripted lines, the judge was scanning the paperwork, and slammed down his gavel. Before the md'r could even finish. And simply said "Dismissed". And called for the next person in line. It was over in less than 30 seconds.

So the joke, for awhile, among those of us who hunt that city, was that we would xerox off his "dismissed " paperwork, and carry it with us to show any potential busy-bodies. But to my knowledge, no one ever got flack again. So the matter was just forgotten.
 
ToySoldier said:
.... Call the non-emergency police number each time you see somebody:

-let their dog off leash,
-not pick up after a dog
-litter
-gather sticks
-stand in the way of somebody walking on the sidewalk
-play a sport or have a foot race anywhere other than a sports field dedicated to that purpose
-"disturb" any birds or animals in any place
-smoke in non-designated areas
-pick a flower

All of those things are specifically listed ---not an interpretation--in that city's park rules and subject to fines.
Click to expand...

Ok. But do you know what the difference is between those persons who don't pick up their dogs poop, disturb birds, etc... VS metal detectors is ? Easy: Those persons didn't show up at city halls (send emails, make phone calls, etc...) asking : "Hi. Can I please let my dog poop without cleaning it up ?" And "Hi, can I disturb the birds please ?"

If they had done so, THEY TOO would have gotten a "No". Then THEY TOO could start forums lamenting their lack of freedoms. Shame on them, eh ?

Yet for some reason, md'rs feel it's their duty to waltz into city halls swatting hornet's nests asking "Can I metal detect". See the difference between us and them ? :roll:
 
Notice how Lawyers can never do anything wrong but a person who is a environmentally concerned and is looking for the buried cans, knives and other garbage to remove it is the problem?

Sent from my Armor_3 using Tapatalk
 
And yes put a sign up saying lawyer ban in the parks and streets or the city. Why not?

Sent from my Armor_3 using Tapatalk
 
Tom_in_CA said:
But just because a singular person draws that conclusion (thinking we might be about to leave a hole open), doesn't mean it's "interpreted that way" by all others from then-on-out.
Click to expand...

I agree. The police officer might have even been blowing smoke about the ban and plans for signage because she is tired of having to respond every time the ninny that lives across from the park calls about a person "digging up the park".
 
I gotta believe Tom on this one. I don't understand how anyone can enforce a law like that without 1st posting a sign. BUT ! Here in So.Cal , specifically Seal Beach we have something similar. It's on the books about defacing , altering , etc on the beach. IN THE SAND NO LESS ! But also there is no verbiage on any signs anywhere at the beach. Guys metal detect there all the time. Not aware of any actual citations. I don't get it.
 
KOB said:
.... Not aware of any actual citations. I don't get it.
Click to expand...

You don't get it? I get it.


It simply means that no one has gone into the powers-that-be, with that language in hand, asking " Can I deface and alter the beach with my metal detector, please?" Then they would give you the answer : "No".

It doesn't matter whether no one's ever been bothered before, or no one has ever cared. It all just depends on who you ask , and how far up to chain you go.

I'll bet that I can single-handedly get Seal Beach put off-limits to detecting for all of you So. CA guys. By just picking up the phone and asking a few carefully worded questions. But if all you guys will send me $100 each ( I accept PayPal), I can be persuaded not to seek clarification from them on your part. Agreed ? :cool3:
 
ToySoldier said:
I agree. The police officer might have even been blowing smoke about the ban and plans for signage because she is tired of having to respond every time the ninny that lives across from the park calls about a person "digging up the park".
Click to expand...
If the police officer is "blowing smoke" and/or is tired of responding every time a "ninny" calls in a complaint then that officer is in the wrong line of work. The ninny should be told that their complaint has no merit. Blowing smoke is akin to lying...….
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Z
Silver ore
Replies
6
Views
81
KOB
KOB
V
Who did it?
Replies
8
Views
137
jimther
jimther
strandjutter
Traveling by plane
Replies
3
Views
87
strandjutter
strandjutter
longbow62
Older vs. Newer Coins
2
Replies
27
Views
480
Xxray
Xxray
randy
filling holes
2
Replies
23
Views
551
Rock Jock
Rock Jock
Back
Top Bottom