Thoughts on permission for hunting private land

[jb7487]

As you may have noticed, I've been getting a lot of heat about asking for permission. One of the things I've noticed out here is that there are a lot of differing opinions on when (if ever) you should ask for permission to hunt private land. I see a lot of stories about people driving down the road and seeing an old homestead or deserted area and detecting it. I can't imagine that these people are taking the time to get permission. I've also seen several posts where people talk about when they do and do not get permission. These have peaked my curiosity.

Please vote and keep it civil. I'm not trying to impose my beliefs on others. I'm just curious as to what the general mindset is of the forum participants. There is no right or wrong answer. Thank you for participating.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Gary in Pennsylvania]

Me

Only if there are "no trespassing" signs posted.

Otherwise - I'm all over it!


Well - Lemme clarify.....
If the site is actively being lived on, but there's no 'No Tresspassing' signs.....I'm not gonna touch it without permission. If the property looks unkept/abandoned etc.... I'm in there.


-

 

[Dirty WhiteBoy]

I don't know the laws in your state, but here in Florida you may just end up in jail if you remove anything from someone elses property without permission. Not only are you guilty of tresspassing, but you could also go to jail for theft and property destruction. Some of the old guys here in Florida are very particular about their grass and lawns and he may just get really ticked off at the fact that you simply did not ask! I would be very hesitant to just go on Private Property without permission. Some people are very anal when it comes to someone on their turf without asking! Be a real treasure hunter and always get permission or you may have a really bad day of FINES!!!

 

[thrillathahunt]

I never EVER hunt private land without permission. Public land is a different story.

 

[Noodle]

I don't know the laws in your state, but here in Florida you may just end up in jail if you remove anything from someone elses property without permission. Not only are you guilty of tresspassing, but you could also go to jail for theft and property destruction. Some of the old guys here in Florida are very particular about their grass and lawns and he may just get really ticked off at the fact that you simply did not ask! I would be very hesitant to just go on Private Property without permission. Some people are very anal when it comes to someone on their turf without asking! Be a real treasure hunter and always get permission or you may have a really bad day of FINES!!!

Yeah, I'm one of those "anal" ones. I'm on 90 acres. Don't know your circumstances, but maybe you're on a half acre. Want me to come walk onto your lawn and start digging?? Didn't think so. Don't think of my 90-2000 acres any differently than your half acre. Get permission. I've cleaned up more dead dogs, cats, lawnmowers, dryers, washers, beer cans, condoms and plastic than you'll ever encounter on your little half acre in three lifetimes. My property is not your's, anymore than your's is mine. Get it?

Thanks, DWB, I needed your help and support. Good job! I mean it!

Noodle

 

[Dirty WhiteBoy]

Thank you Noodle! I think we are definately in the right on this subject! I definatley appreciate your support too! Thank you! Jim

 

[diggemall]

There is no right or wrong answer. Thank you for participating.

I'm going to go ahead and be a little bit judgemental here: There is only one RIGHT answer: Private property = ask permission, period.

Aside from the raw, inconsiderate nature of just walking onto someone elses property and poking around like it was your own, it's a violation that could get you charged with trespass and property damage.

MD-ing isn't the only form of hunting that has participants that believe "not posted" = fair game; Plenty of folks have had to deal with deer and small game hunters brazenly hunting in their back yards. (I even had one who drove his van 1/2 way across my fields to get to "his" deer.)

Diggem'

 

[Gary in Pennsylvania]

There is no right or wrong answer. Thank you for participating.

Aside from the raw, inconsiderate nature of just walking onto someone elses property and poking around like it was your own, it's a violation that could get you charged with trespass and property damage.

That all depends Diggemall.
I'll post a quote from another thread:

-



This is for Pennsylvania. It is all useful and interesting - but I'll highlight the important stuff (ya should read it all, though):

§ 3503. Criminal trespass.
(a) Buildings and occupied structures.--
(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is
not licensed or privileged to do so, he:
(i) enters, gains entry by subterfuge or
surreptitiously remains in any building or occupied
structure or separately secured or occupied portion
thereof; or
(ii) breaks into any building or occupied structure
or separately secured or occupied portion thereof.
(2) An offense under paragraph (1)(i) is a felony of the
third degree, and an offense under paragraph (1)(ii) is a
felony of the second degree.
(3) As used in this subsection:
"Breaks into." To gain entry by force, breaking,
intimidation, unauthorized opening of locks, or through
an opening not designed for human access.
(b) Defiant trespasser.--
(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is
not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in
any place as to which notice against trespass is given by:
(i) actual communication to the actor;
(ii) posting in a manner prescribed by law or
reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders;
(iii) fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed
to exclude intruders;
(iv) notices posted in a manner prescribed by law or
reasonably likely to come to the person's attention at
each entrance of school grounds that visitors are
prohibited without authorization from a designated
school, center or program official; or
(v) an actual communication to the actor to leave
school grounds as communicated by a school, center or
program official, employee or agent or a law enforcement
officer.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (1)(v), an offense
under this subsection constitutes a misdemeanor of the third
degree if the offender defies an order to leave personally
communicated to him by the owner of the premises or other
authorized person. An offense under paragraph (1)(v)
constitutes a misdemeanor of the first degree. Otherwise it
is a summary offense.

(b.1) Simple trespasser.--
(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is
not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in
any place for the purpose of:
(i) threatening or terrorizing the owner or occupant
of the premises;
(ii) starting or causing to be started any fire upon
the premises; or
(iii) defacing or damaging the premises.
(2) An offense under this subsection constitutes a
summary offense.

(b.2) Agricultural trespasser.--
(1) A person commits an offense if knowing that he is
not licensed or privileged to do so he:
(i) enters or remains on any agricultural or other
open lands when such lands are posted in a manner
prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the
person's attention or are fenced or enclosed in a manner
manifestly designed to exclude trespassers or to confine
domestic animals; or
(ii) enters or remains on any agricultural or other
open lands and defies an order not to enter or to leave
that has been personally communicated to him by the owner
of the lands or other authorized person.
(2) An offense under this subsection shall be graded as
follows:
(i) An offense under paragraph (1)(i) constitutes a
misdemeanor of the third degree and is punishable by
imprisonment for a term of not more than one year and a
fine of not less than $250.
(ii) An offense under paragraph (1)(ii) constitutes
a misdemeanor of the second degree and is punishable by
imprisonment for a term of not more than two years and a
fine of not less than $500 nor more than $5,000.
(3) For the purposes of this subsection, the phrase
"agricultural or other open lands" shall mean any land on
which agricultural activity or farming as defined in section
3309 (relating to agricultural vandalism) is conducted or any
land populated by forest trees of any size and capable of
producing timber or other wood products or any other land in
an agricultural security area as defined in the act of June
30, 1981 (P.L.128, No.43), known as the Agricultural Area
Security Law, or any area zoned for agricultural use.
(c) Defenses.--It is a defense to prosecution under this
section that:
(1) a building or occupied structure involved in an
offense under subsection (a) of this section was abandoned;
(2) the premises were at the time open to members of the
public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions
imposed on access to or remaining in the premises; or
(3) the actor reasonably believed that the owner of the
premises, or other person empowered to license access
thereto, would have licensed him to enter or remain.
(d) Definition.--As used in this section, the term "school
grounds" means any building of or grounds of any elementary or
secondary publicly funded educational institution, any
elementary or secondary private school licensed by the
Department of Education, any elementary or secondary parochial
school, any certified day-care center or any licensed preschool
program. (June 23, 1978, P.L.497, No.76, eff. 60 days; Oct. 27, 1995,
P.L.334, No.53, eff. 60 days; Dec. 3, 1998, P.L.933, No.121,
eff. imd.; Oct. 2, 2002, P.L.806, No.116, eff. imd.)

2002 Amendment. Act 116 amended subsec. (b) and added
subsec. (d).
1998 Amendment. Act 121 added subsec. (b.2).
1995 Amendment. Act 53 added subsec. (b.1).
1978 Amendment. Act 76 amended subsec. (a).
Cross References. Section 3503 is referred to in sections
2710, 3311, 6105 of this title; section 2314 of Title 34 (Game);
section 3573 of Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure).

Like I've said many times before - If it's NOT posted and it clearly looks unkept and abandoned - I will carefully MD the land and neatly fill the holes.

If questioned by authorities...I'll refer them to the law above "Well - the owner APPARENTLY didn't put too much care into keeping up the grounds OR any structure. Let the property show that the condition of the premises suggests that the owner didn't covet the look of the land or the appearance of the shambled structure. So me - The actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or other person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed me to enter or remain. I would promptly leave if asked.


-

Granted, I'm the one of the few voices that say "Hit it!" out load.......But I'm sure that my 'minority' isn't all that small.

Some of the responses I've seen posted regarding finding someone on their land would be ruled Illegal here in PA.......while the act of someone on a property isn't necessarily illegal (following the law above).


-

 

[deepskyal]

Thank you Gary. This has been my point exactly. The way I've used my common sense approach to detecting abandonded properties. And probably why in all my years, no one has ever said a peep to me about it.

If it is clearly a "maintained" area, I steer clear. Either someone owns it or someone is claiming squatters rights. Either way, I'm respectful of the assumed ownership of it. Posted or not.
But those places, out in nowhere, old foundations with trees growing out of them...unposted....I'm all over it.

It does vary, state by state. And if someone takes a shot at me in Pennsylvania...even if I was accidentally trespassing....that's attempted murder. Even to point a gun at me and threaten me, that's a terroristic threat, punishable by law. Police don't even have carte blanche to fire at someone just because they are somewhere they aren't suppose to be. Never assume that owning property gives you exclusive rights to shoot someone. Better double check your laws. You could be the one going to jail.

Looks like in my state, Pennsylvania, it is the property owner's responsibility to communicate their possesion in a form of signage, fences, or verbally. That's what I've been saying all along.
Al

 

[jb7487]

Nice lively discussion!

I think that it shows what I've thought all along. Most people are good about asking permission. But there are some folks who will go onto private land without permission if it is not posted or if they think they won't get caught. I tend to believe that the poll results are slightly slanted because some of those who don't ask for permission are potentially afraid to vote. For those who did vote that they don't ask for permission, thanks for being honest about it. As I said before I don't think there is a true right or wrong answer and I appreciate the honest discussion.

One point I'll make in their defense is that it would be ridiculous to walk onto someone's private property and start digging up their lawn. I think that goes without saying and even those who admit they don't ask for permission would never do that. The gray area is where you see a property that you know is private but hasn't been kept up. It is out in the middle of the woods or far away from any roads. Perhaps it would be impossible to even find the real owner and ask for permission. I can see where some would say that there is no harm in going ahead and detecting these areas as the odds of anyone even knowing you were ever there are very small. I disagree with this line of reasoning but I do understand it.

I don't know what the ratio of public to private land is in the US, but I would think that private land is at least an order of magnitude more common than public land. That means that the majority of undiscovered treasure is sitting on private land. And getting permission is a difficult thing to do at best. So it is reasonable for treasure hunters to be tempted to want to get a chance to hunt that land if they think no one will even know about it. It's human nature. After many years of hunting tot lots and pulling up clad while others with access to private lands continue to pull up nice stuff, I may be tempted to change my tune about this whole topic. But you never know.

Some people will surely believe that my interest in this subject is due to a bad case of "sour grapes". And I probably can't deny that. I've just started in this hobby and so far I have been unable to get permission to hunt any private land. I've got some great locations from the 1800's that are just taunting me. But they are owned by corporations that really don't want to deal with me. I like to browse the "today's finds" section to see what everyone else is finding. And I am very happy that so many people are having so much luck. But it gnaws at me to think that some of these people are only finding good stuff because they are willing to detect on private land without permission. I wonder what the backlash would be if people posting on the "today's finds" section had to disclose the type of land and whether or not they got permission? I think that it could potentially get ugly real fast. I'm not sure how many people would be willing to hand out kudos to others that they think are violating the code of ethics.

Thanks again to all for participating.

 

[jb7487]

Looks like in my state, Pennsylvania, it is the property owner's responsibility to communicate their possesion in a form of signage, fences, or verbally.

That's interesting. But I don't think it is realistic. I mean, imagine a hundred acres or woods. What are the odds that someone trespassing could have seen that single "no trespassing" sign on the northern border? It seems like forcing an owner to put up signage implies that you are forcing the owner to incur a significant cost to communicate possesion (especially for large areas) because a trespasser could easily claim that there was no sign in the location where they first entered the property.

 

[Digginman]

I always ask and go one step further. I know where the land I have permission on ends. I always know where I am, and won't "accidently" wander onto someone else's property.

DM

 

[deepskyal]

Looks like in my state, Pennsylvania, it is the property owner's responsibility to communicate their possesion in a form of signage, fences, or verbally.

That's interesting. But I don't think it is realistic. I mean, imagine a hundred acres or woods. What are the odds that someone trespassing could have seen that single "no trespassing" sign on the northern border? It seems like forcing an owner to put up signage implies that you are forcing the owner to incur a significant cost to communicate possesion (especially for large areas) because a trespasser could easily claim that there was no sign in the location where they first entered the property.

Actually, it is realistic. Somewhere there is regulations to posting No trespassing signs and how far apart they need to be to ensure visibility and no error on where the property line is. That's my beef with the Pa. State Game Lands. Nothing is marked at all except the occasional billboard near a parking area.

There are many, many areas in Pennsylvania with hundreds of acres fenced off or posted accordiingly with signs. If you can afford the property, you can afford to protect it thru signs or fences. Why should I incur an expense because someone can't define their property?

As an example, a recent old foundation I detected was not posted. Just up the road, on the other side of the street, was another foundation with signs every hundred feet or so, clearly fastened to trees. Some were old, some obvious replacements....complete with owners name.
I can't understand why someone would post some old pile of bricks, but I respect this effort. They obviously have their reason.

I do not know if I'm trespassing or not. That's an assumption you make. I assume if it's unposted, it's public, donated to the state through some means.

Pennsylvania, and I'm sure our state is not alone, has a tendancy of grabbing land for themselves, stripping the owners of title.
Again, an example is the Pennsylvania Game Commission. What used to be millions of acres of public land became Game Commission land by the swipe of a pen. Now it's essentially a private hunt club for license holding folk for game purposes only. Any private land within it's boundaries is now game commission land.

It's so bad in this state, the game commission was sueing the turnpike commission over land rights. Both Pa. commissions. Now that's crazy.
People die, taxes don't get paid anymore...the state takes it.

So when I see something in the woods....no signs or fences.....I have no fear of any repercussion for my actions. The law's the law.

And one more point on signage...kind of a funny story actually.

I had a house and property, abutted on 3 sides by a county park. When I had a survey done, I put very long spikes in the ground defining my boundaries.
The park employees pulled them out, thinking I had put in horseshoe pegs on park property, and proceeded to dump all their tree and brush debris in my woods.
I never felt a need for signs or fences til then...I could care less of people walking thru my woods. I promptly put up signs on the trees but my lawn area continued further out to meet with park grass. It was fine with me when the park cut my grass or people played frisbee there. No one ever came near my house. I had installed an electric fence to keep 3 large dogs in and the deer out in an acre area surrounding the house.

And to boot....the borough didn't have a bit of problem condemming a swath of my land to run a sewer line through it. I lost rights to property almost dead center of my property...split it in 2. It wasn't mine anymore and they expected me to maintain it.....and by the way, no...I didn't. It became a wildlife zone...

Different states have different laws and it's probably best to know your state laws. Fortunately for me, the law is skewed on my side.
I never assume I'm trespassing. I had voted Other in your poll....I didnt fit the profiles.

Al

 

[Gary in Pennsylvania]

..........But there are some folks who will go onto private land without permission if it is not posted or if they think they won't get caught.

......... So it is reasonable for treasure hunters to be tempted to want to get a chance to hunt that land if they think no one will even know about it. It's human nature.

Sheesh.
And no.....I don't wear a hooded ninja suit when I hunt.

I'm not sure how many people would be willing to hand out kudos to others that they think are violating the code of ethics.

Ethics is subjective. To a vegan - this other post of mine is a horrific ethical violation: http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,245159.0/topicseen.html

And for THIS current thread? I may be outside of YOUR ethical boundaries....but I am still within the law. Given a choice, I know which I'd rather be aligned with.

It seems like forcing an owner to put up signage implies that you are forcing the owner to incur a significant cost to communicate possesion (especially for large areas) because a trespasser could easily claim that there was no sign in the location where they first entered the property.

Hey - not my doing. The State requires that.







And now......let's all enjoy a piping hot cup of freekin' hypocrisy together, now shall we?

Does anyone recognize THIS thread http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,243906.0.html
Boy......sure are a lot of TN'ers replying in THAT one, eh

Now lets just say that someone found some old, dusty FEDERAL guidelines that specifically covers a treasure trove law? The law provides a loophole that legally allows finders to claim rights to any treasure/cache/what-have-you that they uncover if it of reasonable belief that said treasure would likely never have been found had the detectorist never wandered along.

BOY OH BOY! The bandwagon wouldn't be large enough to hold us all, eh



-

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Me? Well of COURSE I don't hunt any land, unless there is a neon sign saying "metal detecting welcome here". I mean, c'mon! You can't be too safe, eh?

 

[truckinbutch]

In WV the fine print says that it is the obligation of the noncustodial party to have written authorization from the landowner to trespass for any reason and it is the trespasser's obligation to know where boundaries are .
Some young 'Possum Cops' got their legs strapped last year for trying to tell us locals that our law was the same as PA .
IF YOU DON'T OWN IT AND IT AIN'T WORTH ASKING FOR >>>THEN YOU GOT NO RIGHT TO BE THERE !

 

[diggemall]

So, if I owned a piece of property in PA, and didn't fence it, post it, or mow it, I'm supposed to believe that the law would side with the guy that wandered on in, started searching for tangible items buried on the property, and removed (stole) whatever items he found to be to his liking ?

Not trying to be a pain here, but I gotta believe there is PA law that allows a landowner to be able to reasonably expect to be able to leave his property unattended AND unmolested.

What does PA law say about theft ?

Diggem'

 

[deepskyal]

So, if I owned a piece of property in PA, and didn't fence it, post it, or mow it, I'm supposed to believe that the law would side with the guy that wandered on in, started searching for tangible items buried on the property, and removed (stole) whatever items he found to be to his liking ?

Not trying to be a pain here, but I gotta believe there is PA law that allows a landowner to be able to reasonably expect to be able to leave his property unattended AND unmolested.

What does PA law say about theft ?

Diggem'

I'm sure we could create a hundred different scenarios in which you could make me look like some thief.

In WV the fine print says that it is the obligation of the noncustodial party to have written authorization from the landowner to trespass for any reason and it is the trespasser's obligation to know where boundaries are .
Some young 'Possum Cops' got their legs strapped last year for trying to tell us locals that our law was the same as PA .
IF YOU DON'T OWN IT AND IT AIN'T WORTH ASKING FOR >>>THEN YOU GOT NO RIGHT TO BE THERE !

This was/is my point. State to state, laws are different.

If I'm going along your property, out in the country, it's unmowed, unfenced and no signs....AND IT IS CLEARLY ABANDONED.....and I cannot tell anyone owns this...CLEARLY ABANDONED...piece of property...yes the law will be on my side for removing burried finds. This isn't stealing or trespassing. And I don't feel like a thief or a trespasser. If I did, I wouldn't really enjoy this hobby thinking I was breaking the law and have to constantly look over my shoulder. I'm not ashamed of my hobby, nor do I do anything illegal. That's what makes it fun.

On the other hand, if the property is simply unmowed, but I see any indication that it has been mowed in recent history, I let it be.

Like I keep saying...you have to use common sense in this hobby. If there are ANY indications that property is actively owned, I leave it alone. I think I'm intelligent enough and lived long enough to know the difference.

If I see abandoned property like you mention, unmowed, etc. and there is a new car sitting in the field....I stay away. Common sense!

I'm not hunting in the back 40 of some farmers field because he's left it go fallow a couple years and an old barn foundation is sitting there. In Pennsylvania, it's probably fenced anyhow. But again, common sense.

I'm not a thief nor a trespasser. You can split hairs from here til tomorrow, but the law is the law. Just because your state limits this ability for you, don't try to make me out the bad guy.
I've been detecting happily for close to 25 years and intend to continue this hobby til I can no longer.

I'd be the first one to fight for private property rights...and I have when I lost part of my property through "Eminent Domain". I know how being violated feels. So I have my criteria determining what appears used and what appears abandonded. My property was clearly marked, fenced and used. I had state and federal laws on my side. It just took one crooked judge.

As i pointed out above....I've seen abandonded property POSTED! In the middle of nowhere. So yes...you can leave your property and expect it to be unmolested....IF YOU POST IT PROPERLY! And obviously, here in Pennsylvania, landowners post their private property if they expect it to remain unmolested. I respect signage, abandoned looking or not.

On the other hand...just splitting hairs...say you have a blighted house in a small community, holes in the roof, windows missing, grass overgrown, trash strewn everywhere and a big ole family of rats living it....and you're just some bum slumlord paying the taxes and thinking you are impervious to the local codes. Are you gonna fight your private property rights when the community comes along with a wrecking ball and takes it from you? And because you let this place deteriorate for 30 years without putting fifty cents into it for upkeep, except the taxes...and expected everyone living next to it to tolerate this eyesore and health hazzard, after the bulldozer is done clearing the debris, are you going to cry when I come along with my metal detector and find where the yard was and take some coins? Because......you can bet your last dollar, that's exactly what I'll do and have done and will continue to do. And I will feel good about it.

I'm sure some could come up with a hundred reasons the owner let the place fall into such disrepair. There is no excuse. There are too many programs out there and options to prevent this. If you cannot afford the upkeep, get rid of it. Period! And very frankly, I have absolutly no respect for a property owner that subjects others to such disrespect.....and neither do the neighbors, the community group that fought to demolish it or the police that had to do extra patrols because of fear of arson or druggies.

If my tax dollars are used to rid eyesores and health hazzards, as far as I'm concerned, it's now public, reguardless of whether you hold title or not. Because......you still are not maintaining the vacant lot. You can't even post one sign saying No Trespassing on a city lot?

Around here, it becomes squatters rights if the property is next to you. I maintain a lot next to me because of the absentee landowner. I won't live in a jungle. The property on the other side of me is slowly deteriorating but I still maintain the grounds....I like my neighborhood nice. A young guy owns the place next to me...I met him...a real...(not suitable to print). Hasn't put a dime into the unoccupied triplex in the last several years. He bought it just a year or so earlier. Just keeps hauling more trash into the building. A private dump. Unfortunately, I'll have to wait years, watching the place slowly crumble to the point of no return before anything gets done about it and him. And it is in a sad state of disrepair already.

With ownership comes responsibility. Post it, maintain it, fence it...whatever you need to do to keep and prove ownership. Otherwise, don't cry when I come along looking for coins and relics.

Al

 

[jb7487]

If you can afford the property, you can afford to protect it thru signs or fences. Why should I incur an expense because someone can't define their property?

I could flip that around and say "why should they incur an expense because someone can't keep themselves off of other people's property". I'm not tyring to put you down with that comment. I'm just pointing out the differing opinions. I think that property owners should have a reasonable expectation of privacy and shouldn't have to take any measures at all to put up fences and signs just to claim their land. You believe the opposite. A long time ago, before all of the land was taken, it was reasonable for people to have to lay claim to land to point out that it was "taken". But in this day and age it really shouldn't be required. If you don't personally own a given piece of land then it should be obvious that it is owned by someone else. And it should be your responsibility to find out if it is ok for you to use it. That's my feelings on the subject. You obviously disagree and so does your state.

 

[Old Dog]

Yeah, I'm one of those "anal" ones. I'm on 90 acres. Don't know your circumstances, but maybe you're on a half acre. Want me to come walk onto your lawn and start digging?? Didn't think so. Don't think of my 90-2000 acres any differently than your half acre. Get permission. I've cleaned up more dead dogs, cats, lawnmowers, dryers, washers, beer cans, condoms and plastic than you'll ever encounter on your little half acre in three lifetimes. My property is not your's, anymore than your's is mine. Get it?

Thanks, DWB, I needed your help and support. Good job! I mean it!

Noodle

Ditto