Ban on detecting makes local news

[Goodyguy]

Louisville Ky:

VIDEO:
http://www.whas11.com/video/feature...gle-over-metal-detector-policy-138621969.html

Black said park officials are now cracking down on the policy and claimed they have threatened to use force.

“We try not to be confrontational. Has something escalated? I don’t know," said Assistant Parks Director Marty Storch.

Storch said they are enforcing Kentucky law. The Kentucky Revised Statute, KRS 164.720, states, in part, that no one can explore or excavate on land owned by the Commonwealth or any political subdivision or municipal corporation without first obtaining a permit.

“We're just trying to preserve and protect our parks. You know, we can't be there to see what they may be taking or what they may not be taking away," said Storch.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Dave44]

Louisville Ky:

VIDEO:
http://www.whas11.com/video/feature...gle-over-metal-detector-policy-138621969.html

Black said park officials are now cracking down on the policy and claimed they have threatened to use force.

“We try not to be confrontational. Has something escalated? I don’t know," said Assistant Parks Director Marty Storch.

Storch said they are enforcing Kentucky law. The Kentucky Revised Statute, KRS 164.720, states, in part, that no one can explore or excavate on land owned by the Commonwealth or any political subdivision or municipal corporation without first obtaining a permit.

“We're just trying to preserve and protect our parks. You know, we can't be there to see what they may be taking or what they may not be taking away," said Storch.

Storch has a chihuahua disease and you will respect my authority!
Time for America to get a political enema. But then, I have been saying that for 8 years !

 

[Tom_in_CA]

If you read the law carefully (I invite KY guys to check this out), you would see that there is a mis-interpretation of the law being applied, to come up with the archie's desired end result of "no metal detecting on ANY public land" (even down to city level, etc...).

Read the fuller text for yourself:

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/164-00/720.PDF

You will see that the land the law is talking about is ARCHAEOLGICAL sites, not "All" public land. Or put another way: yes, all public land, upon which there are archaeological sites. So this only applies when you are on an archaeological site WITHIN public land, at whatever given locations those may be. And no: not all public land is an archaeological site, border to border, in the entire state This is also very implicit within the text if anyone wants to read further on the matter, because elsewhere in the statute, it can be seen that specific spots can be designated as such, when conditions merit (eg.: something is found, or whatever, to prompt it to receive such a designation). Well think of it: if a spot had to receive such a designation, to be regarded as such, then by logical implication, it was NOT an "archaeological site" prior to that

So no: not all KY public lands are "archaeological sites", and this law only applies to sites which have been deemed such. Sure, if all Louisville city parks got this designation at some time in the past, then so be it. But they are not simply off-limits to detectors, simply because they are public land within the state of KY. Because that simply does not follow legally, when you read the law in context.

Also, notice the origin of this law: 1962. That way predates hobbyist metal detecting. Makes me wonder, if this had been on the books for all these years, why only now being some sort of impediment?? I mean, my hunch is that KY parks of various city and county entities, were probably routinely detected for the last 30+ yrs. (just like in any other state at city and county public spots), right?

 

[Dave44]

If you read the law carefully (I invite KY guys to check this out), you would see that there is a mis-interpretation of the law being applied, to come up with the archie's desired end result of "no metal detecting on ANY public land (even down to city level, etc...).

Read the fuller text for yourself:

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/164-00/720.PDF

You will see that the land the law is talking about is ARCHAEOLGICAL sites, not "All" public land. So this only applies when you are on an archaeological site WITHIN public land. And no: not all public land is an archaeological site. This is also very implicit within the text if anyone wants to read further on the matter, because elsewhere in the statute, it can be seen that specific spots can be designated as such, when conditions merit (eg.: something is found, or whatever, to prompt it to receive such a designation). Well think of it: if a spot had to receive such a designation, then by logical implication, it was NOT an "archaeological site" prior to that.

So no: not all KY public lands are "archaeological sites", and this law only applies to sites which have been deemed such. Sure, if all Louisville city parks got this designation at some time in the past, then so be it. But they are not simply off-limits to detectors, simply because they are public land within the state of KY. Because that simply does not follow legally, when you read the law in context.

Very nice! Now you know that is not what Storch is saying, so, as has been stated in other posts, you must know the law, because when the cops come to you, they will not! They act on the say so of their superiors.

Looks like you should carry a copy of this statute, and highlight the important parts. Thank you Tom.

 

[Goodyguy]

If you read the law carefully (I invite KY guys to check this out), you would see that there is a mis-interpretation of the law being applied, to come up with the archie's desired end result of "no metal detecting on ANY public land" (even down to city level, etc...).

Read the fuller text for yourself:

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/164-00/720.PDF

You will see that the land the law is talking about is ARCHAEOLGICAL sites, not "All" public land. Or put another way: yes, all public land, upon which there are archaeological sites. So this only applies when you are on an archaeological site WITHIN public land, at whatever given locations those may be. And no: not all public land is an archaeological site, border to border, in the entire state This is also very implicit within the text if anyone wants to read further on the matter, because elsewhere in the statute, it can be seen that specific spots can be designated as such, when conditions merit (eg.: something is found, or whatever, to prompt it to receive such a designation). Well think of it: if a spot had to receive such a designation, to be regarded as such, then by logical implication, it was NOT an "archaeological site" prior to that

So no: not all KY public lands are "archaeological sites", and this law only applies to sites which have been deemed such. Sure, if all Louisville city parks got this designation at some time in the past, then so be it. But they are not simply off-limits to detectors, simply because they are public land within the state of KY. Because that simply does not follow legally, when you read the law in context.

Exactly! and that is what the KY guys have been saying all along!
But the parks still continue to harass them illegally.

Now they are fighting at the state level and have just introduced a metal detecting bill to the Kentucky Legislature.
Jan 19-introduced in Senate
Jan 24-to Economic Development, Tourism & Labor (S)
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/12rs/SB105.htm

 

[Tom_in_CA]

goodyguy, I don't really understand the link you give. Is this something by the archies to limit us, or something by a hobbyist to "open up" places? Please expand on that.

But in ANY case, if you ask me, there is nothing to "fight", as it stands right now. I mean, if we both agree that the harrasment is un-founded and based on wrong interpretations, why not simply go metal detecting? Why not ignore the busy-body who might object? And if they DID give you a ticket or whatever, simply go show the judge that this is incorrect, and you were within the boundries of the law?

For example: If I was driving 55 mph, in a 55 mph zone, why would I need to "fight" for my right to drive 55? And if some highway patrol decides I can't drive 55 in a 55 zone, then fine. Let him ticket me, and I'll merely show the judge that I was abiding by the speed limit. I don't get it.

 

[Goodyguy]

goodyguy, I don't really understand the link you give. Is this something by the archies to limit us, or something by a hobbyist to "open up" places? Please expand on that.

But in ANY case, if you ask me, there is nothing to "fight", as it stands right now. I mean, if we both agree that the harrasment is un-founded and based on wrong interpretations, why not simply go metal detecting? Why not ignore the busy-body who might object? And if they DID give you a ticket or whatever, simply go show the judge that this is incorrect, and you were within the boundries of the law?

For example: If I was driving 55 mph, in a 55 mph zone, why would I need to "fight" for my right to drive 55? And if some highway patrol decides I can't drive 55 in a 55 zone, then fine. Let him ticket me, and I'll merely show the judge that I was abiding by the speed limit. I don't get it.

It seems no one wants to be the test case in court, so they are trying other methods to persuade the parks to cease calling the cops and having the detectorists removed. Once the cops have been called it's a trespassing matter, not a detecting one, refusing to leave would result in an arrest for trespassing and resisting would not be advised. The parks have even accused the detectorists of vandalism for digging in the vegetation. (grass)

I think the Ky folks want the parks to have it in no uncertain terms that it's legal for metal detectorists to pursue their hobby in public parks and that there is specific legislation in place that is not ambiguous or subject to interpretation. Even if it means having to have a permit to do it legally such as has had to be implemented in other cities. Then if someone is caught vandalizing (not filling in their holes) they will be fined.

 

[HUNTER12]

Looks like no vacation in Kentucky.

 

[bearbqd]

I hope it's not a sign of things to come for other states.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Goody, to dissect your answer point by point:

"It seems no one wants to be the test case in court....."

Was there some sort of council, amongst md'rs, to decide on this? And after this council, no one raised their hand? My hunch is that this is not the case at all, and that those who are fighting this, are doing so because they believe the interpretation is relevant. I mean, they probably really do believe that the law forbids them now, simply because some archie told them so. Poll the panel there amongst the persons fighting this, and I bet you that what I'm saying will come as a surprise to them, that they are fighting something that isn't illegal, to begin with. And thus I think if this truth were made known there certainly WOULD be someone willing to be a "test case". Because it is FAR less difficult to get something done on the judicial means, than it is to get new laws. And I mean, think of it: why would someone need a "law over-turned" or a "new law allowing something" if there was never a prohibition, to begin with? It simply can't be legally done, I would think, since no such prohibition exists (except if you want to detect on archaeological sites anyhow, but no, not "all public land"). Plug in the 55mph example: In the same way, no one needs to get a law over-turned that forbids them from going 55, If there were no such law to begin with. Nor do they need a new law allowing going 55, If that's what the law already says.

So I don't think it's a case of no one willing to be the guinee pig. I think it's a case of mis-information on the part of md'rs there.

"Once the cops have been called it's a trespassing matter, not a detecting one"

Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but there MUST be some connection made on the ticket paperwork, to metal detecting. Because the ONLY reason a cop could say you were "trespassing", is because you were "detecting" right? The ticket HAS to deal with metal detecting, on some level. Because truth is, if you were just standing there bird-watching or flying a frisbee, then you would not be "trespassing", right? Sure you move on, I'm not saying to defy the order. But you merely ask the cop for a ticket, and then you'll move on. They'll be happy to oblige you with no force, etc... If done with a smile, and even a notice ahead of time (to tell them ahead of time that you'll be in the park on such & such date) is the way to do it. And you'll get your chance to tell the judge you were not "trespassing", even if that is vocabulary is used. So it's a mute point whether it's called "metal detecting" or "trespassing", it's still gets the day in court to be heard.

"The parks have even accused the detectorists of vandalism for digging in the vegetation. (grass) "

Now you're talking a whole other topic Goody. A separate matter entirely. A topic which is true for ANY park or school yard in the USA, as to whether we "vandalize" or "deface" or whatever. That is on another level, and totally separate from this conversation. Not that it doesn't deserve discussion too, but at another time, on another thread. There's been many threads on this topic, but it is a separate matter. If the Louisville park people alleged this too, that's fine, but it's still another topic, and NOT the one that's what started this thread. And NOT the one that is what md'rs are fighting about. So for purposes of discussion, to keep from mixing topics, let's keep it on the topic of whether or the law, as it currently stands. Let's assume we're talking about a guy who intends to only part the grass and pick up items on top of the ground, for sake of argument. If you want to start another thread on the issue of the retrieval process, let's start a separate thread.

"I think the Ky folks want the parks to have it in no uncertain terms that ..... there is specific legislation in place that is not ambiguous or subject to interpretation"

Right! And that's exactly what md'rs routinely get when they go seeking clarifications, sanctions, blessings, and so forth. Thinking they're doing their hobby good, what they end up getting instead is specific language "to address their pressing issue"! I've seen this happen again and again, and sometimes, when the outright "no's" or "rules invented to address or clarify their question" get passed down, the folks who fought end up realizing they've done more harm, than good! I know it's a catch-22, because if someone, somewhere, ran afoul in a single city, by a single gardener or cop, then the knee-jerk reaction is to think "we must fight this". Seems to me, that it's sometimes better to avoid "just that one person", before you end up getting legions of upper level staff, to merely become aware, conjure up mental images of geeks with shovels stealing our past, and so forth. Now instead of 1 cop or gardener having his panties in a wad, now you get the archies involved in the question, and downhill it goes

For example: how about other cities in KY, besides Louisville? I bet if I were to go to KY now, and pick some podunk little town far from Louisville, and waltz in to the sandbox with my metal detector, that no one would care less, right? BUT WAIT!! If I asked the archie in state capitol "can I?" what do you think he would say? Moral of the story??

 

[Goodyguy]

Goody, to dissect your answer point by point:

"It seems no one wants to be the test case in court....."

Was there some sort of council, amongst md'rs, to decide on this? And after this council, no one raised their hand? My hunch is that this is not the case at all, and that those who are fighting this, are doing so because they believe the interpretation is relevant. I mean, they probably really do believe that the law forbids them now, simply because some archie told them so. Poll the panel there amongst the persons fighting this, and I bet you that what I'm saying will come as a surprise to them, that they are fighting something that isn't illegal, to begin with. And thus I think if this truth were made known there certainly WOULD be someone willing to be a "test case". Because it is FAR less difficult to get something done on the judicial means, than it is to get new laws. And I mean, think of it: why would someone need a "law over-turned" or a "new law allowing something" if there was never a prohibition, to begin with? It simply can't be legally done, I would think, since no such prohibition exists (except if you want to detect on archaeological sites anyhow, but no, not "all public land"). Plug in the 55mph example: In the same way, no one needs to get a law over-turned that forbids them from going 55, If there were no such law to begin with. Nor do they need a new law allowing going 55, If that's what the law already says.

So I don't think it's a case of no one willing to be the guinee pig. I think it's a case of mis-information on the part of md'rs there.

The local club knows the law full well and has been fighting the ban for over three years now.
These guys are not California sit-in types and choose not to be arrested to do a court test. Perhaps you know of someone who could be persuaded to be the guinea?

"Once the cops have been called it's a trespassing matter, not a detecting one"

Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but there MUST be some connection made on the ticket paperwork, to metal detecting. Because the ONLY reason a cop could say you were "trespassing", is because you were "detecting" right? The ticket HAS to deal with metal detecting, on some level. Because truth is, if you were just standing there bird-watching or flying a frisbee, then you would not be "trespassing", right? Sure you move on, I'm not saying to defy the order. But you merely ask the cop for a ticket, and then you'll move on. They'll be happy to oblige you with no force, etc... If done with a smile, and even a notice ahead of time (to tell them ahead of time that you'll be in the park on such & such date) is the way to do it. And you'll get your chance to tell the judge you were not "trespassing", even if that is vocabulary is used. So it's a mute point whether it's called "metal detecting" or "trespassing", it's still gets the day in court to be heard.

Here is your correction: If the parks department asks you to leave due to their "No Detecting Policy" and you do not leave, then you are guilty of trespassing. So far no one has volunteered to stay after being told by the police to leave. Would you?

"The parks have even accused the detectorists of vandalism for digging in the vegetation. (grass) "

Now you're talking a whole other topic Goody. A separate matter entirely. A topic which is true for ANY park or school yard in the USA, as to whether we "vandalize" or "deface" or whatever. That is on another level, and totally separate from this conversation. Not that it doesn't deserve discussion too, but at another time, on another thread. There's been many threads on this topic, but it is a separate matter. If the Louisville park people alleged this too, that's fine, but it's still another topic, and NOT the one that's what started this thread. And NOT the one that is what md'rs are fighting about. So for purposes of discussion, to keep from mixing topics, let's keep it on the topic of whether or the law, as it currently stands. Let's assume we're talking about a guy who intends to only part the grass and pick up items on top of the ground, for sake of argument. If you want to start another thread on the issue of the retrieval process, let's start a separate thread.

It just goes to show that without a specific law on the books permitting metal detecting that any excuse can be used to ban detecting.

"I think the Ky folks want the parks to have it in no uncertain terms that ..... there is specific legislation in place that is not ambiguous or subject to interpretation"

Right! And that's exactly what md'rs routinely get when they go seeking clarifications, sanctions, blessings, and so forth. Thinking they're doing their hobby good, what they end up getting instead is specific language "to address their pressing issue"! I've seen this happen again and again, and sometimes, when the outright "no's" or "rules invented to address or clarify their question" get passed down, the folks who fought end up realizing they've done more harm, than good! I know it's a catch-22, because if someone, somewhere, ran afoul in a single city, by a single gardener or cop, then the knee-jerk reaction is to think "we must fight this". Seems to me, that it's sometimes better to avoid "just that one person", before you end up getting legions of upper level staff, to merely become aware, conjure up mental images of geeks with shovels stealing our past, and so forth. Now instead of 1 cop or gardener having his panties in a wad, now you get the archies involved in the question, and downhill it goes

For example: how about other cities in KY, besides Louisville? I bet if I were to go to KY now, and pick some podunk little town far from Louisville, and waltz in to the sandbox with my metal detector, that no one would care less, right? BUT WAIT!! If I asked the archie in state capitol "can I?" what do you think he would say? Moral of the story??

Evidently you didn't watch the video that stated detecting was welcome in Shively Ky (which borders Louisville)

I'm with you about asking for permission, however, asking for permission was never the issue. Fighting the ban by the Louisville parks department against metal detecting in the public parks is the issue.

I've told you this many times over the last couple of years but you keep harping about asking for permission being the cause when it absolutely was not in this case!

The clubs philosophy is: .....If you don't like a public policy, Do something to get it changed.
Vs .......Quit detecting, sneak in and hope to not get caught, or go detect in some other city.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

goody, is it just my computer, or is the video no longer up there? I had just read the text accompanying the video earlier, and assumed the video was the same. Now though, when I go to try to watch the video, it's no longer there?

Anyhow, is this Louisville thing because they think the STATE disallows it, on all land, even down to city and county level? (ie.: "all public land")? If so, then the city is wrong to draw that interpretation, as we both agree. Or is this because only Louisville itself, simply decided to enact such a thing, and is NOT drawing on state-level laws, in their justification or rationale? If it is simply a single city saying this, then you're right: they can come up with any silly stuff they want (ie.: "you might harm the earthworms", etc..) and then yes, by all means fight it.

If it is only a city level thing, then why are you citing a state-level law, in the beginning of the post??

So please help me clear this up, because several years ago, there was in fact a post started on the subject of KY, where indeed a state level archie was saying a ban applied to the whole state, down to even city and county levels, blah blah blah. Is this not related to that, or is it? Or is it an individual city's whim?

yes if it's an individual city's whim, then by all means don't sneak around, and by all means fight it.

So please clear this up. If the video cleared that up, does anyone have a working link?

 

[Goodyguy]

goody, is it just my computer, or is the video no longer up there? I had just read the text accompanying the video earlier, and assumed the video was the same. Now though, when I go to try to watch the video, it's no longer there?

Anyhow, is this Louisville thing because they think the STATE disallows it, on all land, even down to city and county level? (ie.: "all public land")? If so, then the city is wrong to draw that interpretation, as we both agree. Or is this because only Louisville itself, simply decided to enact such a thing, and is NOT drawing on state-level laws, in their justification or rationale? If it is simply a single city saying this, then you're right: they can come up with any silly stuff they want (ie.: "you might harm the earthworms", etc..) and then yes, by all means fight it.

If it is only a city level thing, then why are you citing a state-level law, in the beginning of the post??

So please help me clear this up, because several years ago, there was in fact a post started on the subject of KY, where indeed a state level archie was saying a ban applied to the whole state, down to even city and county levels, blah blah blah. Is this not related to that, or is it? Or is it an individual city's whim?

yes if it's an individual city's whim, then by all means don't sneak around, and by all means fight it.

So please clear this up. If the video cleared that up, does anyone have a working link?

The video link works fine for me.

Not a state thing........

It's the Louisville city parks director who is fighting tooth and nail to prevent metal detecting by any means necessary and has both the mayor and the city council on his side. Together they are willing to cite any state law or policy they think will stick.

That is why the local club has circulated a petition, started a letter writing campaign, sought help from national metal detector organizations (FMDAC) http://fmdac2.org/ and the World Wide Association of Treasure Seekers (WWATS) http://www.wwats.org, have gone to the local news media, and have lobbied the state representative for help and with his help were able to introduce a bill that if/when enacted will force the City of Louisville to capitulate.

This may be related to a previous Louisville Kentucky post you had in mind, except it was the city who was erroneously interpreting the archaeological laws to apply to metal detecting in the city parks.

I believe the Archie post you mentioned was in reference to Michigan. He really screwed up Michigan for detecting, and NO it wasn't because someone asked for permission or if detecting was legal or not.
Here sadly, is where Michigan stands today http://www.wwats.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=430

 

[Tom_in_CA]

ok, the video link works for me now. A few observations:

At 1:25 you'll notice that the city says they are "enforcing a state statute". And we agree this is a misinterpretation of this state statute, right? Oddly, earlier in the clip, it said that it is a city rule that's been on the books since "2008". Hmm, if it was already a state law (in the opinion of the city), why would they need a local level law then to outlaw something that is already supposedly prohibited?

But notice at 2:10: The local treasure hunters there are said to be "checking federal laws that might supecede the state statute". Did you get that goody? How else can this be interpretted, other than that the local hunters think the state statute REALLY does stop them from detecting the parks (assuming, of course, that all the local parks have not been designated archaeological sites, that is).

Well basically, if the city continues to believe this is state law, then they would be bound to believe that they CAN'T repeal their 2008 law, even if they wanted to. So how about the KY gang simply show the Louisville personell their mis-interpretation of this?

I'd be more than happy to tell the city fellow shown/named on that video clip, from state wording itself, that no .... it doesn't disallow detecting border to border on all public land in the state of KY.

This is not to stop them from simply making a city level law anyhow, granted. But at least they won't think the state law requires them, as the video clearly states, and as the local hunter seem to believe, based on the statement at 2:10.

 

[Goodyguy]

ok, the video link works for me now. A few observations:

At 1:25 you'll notice that the city says they are "enforcing a state statute". And we agree this is a misinterpretation of this state statute, right? Oddly, earlier in the clip, it said that it is a city rule that's been on the books since "2008". Hmm, if it was already a state law (in the opinion of the city), why would they need a local level law then to outlaw something that is already supposedly prohibited?

But notice at 2:10: The local treasure hunters there are said to be "checking federal laws that might supecede the state statute". Did you get that goody? How else can this be interpretted, other than that the local hunters think the state statute REALLY does stop them from detecting the parks (assuming, of course, that all the local parks have not been designated archaeological sites, that is).

You misinterpreted the motive for the check. It was in order to prove to the city their error.

Well basically, if the city continues to believe this is state law, then they would be bound to believe that they CAN'T repeal their 2008 law, even if they wanted to. So how about the KY gang simply show the Louisville personell their mis-interpretation of this?

I'd be more than happy to tell the city fellow shown/named on that video clip, from state wording itself, that no .... it doesn't disallow detecting border to border on all public land in the state of KY.

This is not to stop them from simply making a city level law anyhow, granted. But at least they won't think the state law requires them, as the video clearly states, and as the local hunter seem to believe, based on the statement at 2:10.

Great! Your help (or anyone's) would be appreciated.

Light em' up!

Parks switchboard: 502-456-8100
Director of parks: Michael Heitz: 502-456-8130
Asst Director: Marty Storch: 502-456-8176
Mayor of Louisville: Greg Fischer: 502-574-2003

 

[Tom_in_CA]

ok, will do. I posted to KY Ed's thread on this too.

 

[Goodyguy]

ok, will do. I posted to KY Ed's thread on this too.

Thank's Tom

Just so you know, Here is a public letter written to the Rants section of the local news by one of the KY members:
Showing that they know the law full well and that the parks department refuses to acknowledge the intent of the Archaeological laws..........


I want to address the ban on metal detecting. I would like to comment on the Article done on Feb 3 2012. By Channel 11 reporter Maggie Ruper


The first thing I want to address is the statement made By Assist. Parks Director Marty Storch:” We try not to be confrontational. Has something escalated? I don’t know”

I have been approached by parks workers three times before the policy and have been threatened with physical threat of them personally throwing me out with two witnesses with me at the time and with being arrested as well. I have been in contact with the parks Security officer (Mr. Mauney) and was told there was no authority from the parks workers to do so. How can the parks not know there is no confrontation? Are they hiding the facts? There was no law or policy at the time.

Storch said they are enforcing Ky. Law. The Kentucky Revised Statute, KRS 164.720 Why did he in part quote it; instead of writing the whole law? Why was the beginning of the law addressing what the law was; left out? (( Entering Rock Shelters)) Are the city parks Archaeological sites? Then if they are, how did the city build and dig and bulldoze and backhoe and put in sewer lines and drainage pipes and buildings without getting the permits from the state? Were they not designed to recreate in and bring the community together and build a unity from all walks of life? Is it legal to leave off part of a law to make it look like we are law breakers? Why was this particular law used anyway?

As used in KRS 164.705 to 164.735, unless the context otherwise requires:

1. “Archaeological site” means any place where articles of value in the scientific study of historic or prehistoric human life and activities may be found, such as mounds, earthworks, forts, mines, burial grounds, graves and village or camp sites of Indians or any aboriginal race or pioneers..

2 “Object of antiquity” means a ruin, monument, relic, bone deposit, artifact or any product of human workmanship of Indians or any aboriginal race or pioneers. “Department” means the Department of Anthropology of the University of Kentucky.

How did all of a sudden the public parks became Archaeological sites?

Storch says”We’re just trying to preserve and protect (our) parks”.

My question is: Who are (we)? What are you preserving them for and who are you protecting them from? Are not the parks for the public? They do not belong to the parks (WE) Department! These parks are used by the public and not to be mandated to; from the (WE). The parks dept. has rules ( Chapter 42 Parks and Cemeteries) for the public use. Why try to place a policy using the KRS 164.720 to suit your personal endeavor to displace people who use metal detectors? Shame on you!!!


Why did you make a policy and make our children criminals and ruin our tourism to our cities? What is wrong with our children going to a tot lot and find a coin with a metal detector? What is wrong with parents or grandparents taking time to go to the parks and having a family to play together? Shame on you!


The parks dept. has used the statement that we are saving the parks for future generations. Which generation do you give permission to use the parks? My grandfather is passed away. My father is passed away I am now the oldest of my generation and I have a son and a grandson. Pick out one of these as I would like to have the freedom to use (our) parks before I pass on! Shame on you!


The parks have been razed and rebuilt so many times that if there were any relics or antiques it would be a miracle if any have survived the equipment that have been in the parks over the years. Please reconsider your stance against the public.


There is no law in Kentucky or in Kentucky Parks against metal detecting. I stood before the Senate Committee to find out and the Senate committee confirmed that. That is a fact! The public has certain rights for the persuit of happiness and no one has judicail rights to prevent that. Check out “Color of Law” Our rights have been violated by the officials of this city and you don’t seem to get it!

The public has a right to know !



I believe (along with the Ky MD club members) that the Parks department is pursuing a personal vendetta against metal detecting and only strong public support against their actions will deter their efforts!

The more the parks department hears an outcry from the public against their unfair policy the better chance the ban will be lifted!

 

[deepskyal]

I certainly do wish you guys luck in Ky. I hope you get a FAIR and HONEST judge to review your situation.

My experience here in Pa. with local judges has been much less satisfactory. When our borough decided to put a sewer line through my property, I held them up in court on the legality of their construction methods which would have destroyed my leechfield for my septic system, simply to add one additional house to their line. Tap-ins would not have been available for another year and my waiste had the potential of polluting personal drinking wells downhill from me.
Both state and federal laws prohibited what they were attempting to do. Despite all the data and laws, the local judge superceded state and federal laws and ruled against me. The sewer line went through. It was quite evident that the judge had some vested interest in allowing an illegal activity to occur. I eventually filed a complaint under the federal RICO act. Some state senator was investigated and brought up on unrelated charges but I'd like to think I got some ball rolling into his investigation of corruption charges. Besides the judge, he too was named in my complaint once it was discovered they had closed door meetings on the sewer line issue.

I would look into the judges background and be ready for a ruling in favor of the ban. "Goodguy politics" still exist with the buddy system of officials supporting each other for a variety or reasons they prefer to keep behind closed doors.

I'm just saying, if they rule against you locally, try to find out the TRUE reason behind it. There's one there somewhere.

Best of luck,

Al

 

[Goodyguy]

I certainly do wish you guys luck in Ky. I hope you get a FAIR and HONEST judge to review your situation.

My experience here in Pa. with local judges has been much less satisfactory. When our borough decided to put a sewer line through my property, I held them up in court on the legality of their construction methods which would have destroyed my leechfield for my septic system, simply to add one additional house to their line. Tap-ins would not have been available for another year and my waiste had the potential of polluting personal drinking wells downhill from me.
Both state and federal laws prohibited what they were attempting to do. Despite all the data and laws, the local judge superceded state and federal laws and ruled against me. The sewer line went through. It was quite evident that the judge had some vested interest in allowing an illegal activity to occur. I eventually filed a complaint under the federal RICO act. Some state senator was investigated and brought up on unrelated charges but I'd like to think I got some ball rolling into his investigation of corruption charges. Besides the judge, he too was named in my complaint once it was discovered they had closed door meetings on the sewer line issue.

I would look into the judges background and be ready for a ruling in favor of the ban. "Goodguy politics" still exist with the buddy system of officials supporting each other for a variety or reasons they prefer to keep behind closed doors.

I'm just saying, if they rule against you locally, try to find out the TRUE reason behind it. There's one there somewhere.

Best of luck,

Al

I prefer to call it "Good ol Boy" politics

Al,
I think the initial reason for the oustings was that someone with connections in high places in local government witnessed someone digging in the park and complained. Evidently that person was very influential. It was rumored to be the mother of the mayor at that time.

The story goes that when she confronted the person who was doing the digging and asked him what he was doing, he was very rude to her and told her to f-off and mind her own business or something to that effect. (the story probably has been exaggerated over time)
Not something you would want to say to the mayors wife, mother, relative, campaign contributor, or anyone else for that matter

*NOTE it was not a member of the local club who was responsible for that act. The incident was related to a club member by an unidentified source.

I believe the continued harassment toward md'ers is due to a personal vendetta by the power drunk director of parks because of the actions of the local club not going away quietly. Now it has become a contest of wills. Hopefully the will of the people will prevail

 

[poorhunter78]

Here In WV, Last spring I called and talked to an old fella, Who was an administrator at a state park, So I took of the conversation.. I asked If there was any possible way, A person could obtain a permit, or Permission to detect on state property (parks)... He said "there is no law that says you cannot metal detect the property, But you cannot, I repeat Cannot dig anything in anyway"...

Why restrict us from Something that will never be seen, Unless it is dug up for others to see? I understand, Stealing, Trespassing etc.. But why not lottery, Or just sell us permits to Detect and dig on protected Land..

I was Researching a couple stories, To find their Origin, Is on State Park property..
It's all fine and dandy for The state's to sell off timber, and such.. But It is a no no for us to even collect dead limbs and logs for a camp fire.. What The?

Poorhunter