Metal Detecting Banned Wisconsin DNR Regulated Lands/Waterways

[Tom_in_CA]

Again, I have not been able to replicate what you are saying in any real-world scenario ....

Great. Good. But keep-in-mind: That if EVER a pencil-pusher gets a brilliant idea to invent (or enforce) a law: They would NEVER say: "We're doing this, because you asked" , They will never attribute the chain-of-events like that.

Instead, If you ask them "Why is this a rule ?", they will not say "Because of a bunch of FAQ's.". Instead they will just say: "No". And will point to cultural heritage or "alter/deface" as their rationale. Or point to an Ebay ad, etc...

And so the md'r mutters under his breath "Durned those archies" or "durned those guys that must've left holes or hunted at night". When in fact, the REAL reason, it was on their plate to begin with, was : MD'rs swatting hornet's nests.

I can point you to many real life stories where this evolution is evident. And in each case, if you were to ask those powers-that-be: "But why?", they would point you in all sorts of directions, reasons, etc... Never would they say "Because someone asked, so we decided it was evil".

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

....I think more city officials are put off by people digging sloppy holes ....

Well, yes: This is the NUMBER ONE reason (next to "cultural heritage"), that all powers-that-be will give for a rule. If you complain and ask "why?", they will typically say "because of holes" (especially if the location is nice turf).

So the md'r mutters under his breath "durned those md'rs that left holes", right ? But in a lot (most) of those situations of given-rationales, I'm willing to bet that there was NEVER any "holes" that brought that about.

Think about it : What is the immediate knee-jerk reaction when a cop or gardener or miss-lookie-lou sees an md'r stoop to dig a target in turf ? HOLES. Whether or not he ACTUALLY left any. It will just be the connotation of a "man with a detector". Even if no holes or marks were ever left.

So too is that going to be the connotation when an md'r shows up at various city halls asking "Can I metal detect?". The person fielding the "pressing question" can think "gee, he's going to dig". And when when they say "no", they will say "Because of holes". So you think "aha! Someone must've left holes". When in fact, there isn't necessarily ever any actual incidents of such a thing. Simply a mental connect the dots by the person who must "address your pressing issue".

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Post-script: And if you agree my post above (that it's simply a mental connotation when someone sees a man with a detector), then let me warn you: No amount of waltzing in ahead of time and asking "Can I metal detect?" will solve that. All that will do, is bring about the end result faster.

I hate to say it, but .... when it comes to nice manicured turf, sometimes you just need to pick lower traffic times, and avoid such lookie-lous. Kind of like nose-picking: Not illegal, nor do you ask "Can I?". But you choose discreet times so-as-not to offend the squeemish. Ok, you might call that "sneaking around". Fine then: SNEAK AROUND. You're simply not going to please every last person on earth .

 

[Tiredman]

all great imput

 

[Tiredman]

I just said that to pull you back in.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I just said that to pull you back in.

ok, I'm back in

 

[Clay Diggins]

That is incorrect. Administrative rules and regulations have the force and effect of law. The authority of administrative bodies to make rules is expressly granted by state/federal legislatures. This is known as an enabling act. Administrative rules are black letter law.

Well gosh MidMo that may be the case in Missouri but I gave you the link to the law in Wisconsin that specifically exempts rules that are not based on legislative acts (laws). I can refer you to other Wisconsin laws that clearly distinguish administrative rules from "black letter law".

I've never seen an administrative enabling act that claimed administrative rules and regulations were anything but prima facie evidence there is a law on which the rule is based - not a law itself. "Force and effect" of those rules and regulations pivots on the existence of a law to enforce. There is no implication in any enabling act I've read that the executive branch can create laws - only that they have the duty to enforce legislative acts as law.

It's a fascinating subject with implications for the administrative actors but probably has no chance of influencing the belief systems employed in treasure hunting. So I'll leave this here in hopes that others who wish to read the links I provided for a deeper understanding of the structure and purpose of governments based on the three branches (legislative, executive, judicial) and the attempted separation of those powers.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... It's a fascinating subject with implications ....

Yes. And another common misconception (that gives skittish md'rs fits), is publications, policy letters, FAQ's, etc... which are nothing more than COMMENTARY. That, yes ... admittedly ... sound dire.

So for example: Someone hits the park's dept "contact us" button with a question : "Can I metal detect?". The parks dept. say "no", and cites something silly like "disturbing the vegetation" or "harvest and remove" language. That answer makes its way onto an FAQ list. Or the Cut & paste (perhaps even on a park's dept. letterhead, who can argue with that ??) starts "making the rounds" amongst md'rs. Ie.: "links lead to links" psychology.

But as you can see, in those cases, that is merely COMMENTARY on law. Not law itself. Ie.: someone answered your "pressing question" by pointing to something else they thought applied to the question. And pretty soon, you can NEVER PUT IT TO REST !

I'm not saying that powers-that-be can't indeed interpret as they-see-fit. Yes, you would loose that debate of semantics. But on the other hand, I DO see a difference between commentary and actual law. JMHO.

Clay-diggins, had a very eye-opening actual LEO encounter, where these subtle distinctions came into play. NOT SAYING to throw caution to the wind, but ... just sayin'....

 

[MidMoTreasure]

Well gosh MidMo that may be the case in Missouri but I gave you the link to the law in Wisconsin that specifically exempts rules that are not based on legislative acts (laws). I can refer you to other Wisconsin laws that clearly distinguish administrative rules from "black letter law".

I've never seen an administrative enabling act that claimed administrative rules and regulations were anything but prima facie evidence there is a law on which the rule is based - not a law itself. "Force and effect" of those rules and regulations pivots on the existence of a law to enforce. There is no implication in any enabling act I've read that the executive branch can create laws - only that they have the duty to enforce legislative acts as law.

Again, you are incorrect. The link you provided was to the general statutes regarding administrative rules, and as you correctly stated, rules have no effect unless they are authorized by statute. A statute that authorizes an administrative rule is called an enabling act. The enabling acts that allow the rules in NR chapter 45 are found in Wisconsin statutes 23.11 and 27.01. I understand that this forum is more of a 30,000 foot view of legal issues relating to treasure hunting and not a primer on administrative law, and not everyone on here has had to suffer through two semesters of administrative law and/or actually practice administrative law for a living.

 

[haxor]

Guns? A-OK. Metal detector? Go to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Those 'archeological sites' will *never* be found, or even looked for. An MD'er could uncover the missing link (or even Jimmy Hoffa) and help some college professor become famous.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Guns? A-OK. Metal detector? Go to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.....

Couple of comments here :

A) Do you know of any md'r who "went to jail" for md'ing ? Paid $200 fine for md'ing ? I'll bet not. And if you COULD cite any incident of a ticket (fine) it would probably be someone who ... with a bit of research, ... could have known better (not to tromp around an obvious sensitive monument). Or a fluke or whatever.

B) Do you know what the difference is between those persons using a gun for a crime, versus using a detector for a crime (assuming each person "asked ahead of time") is ? It's this: The gun-user didn't call ahead to ask "Hi, can I shoot someone please ?". But the md'r, who feels it's his God-given duty DOES call ahead and ask "Hi, can I can metal detect?"

Thus: Shame on those gun-criminals for not calling ahead to get permission. Then they-too could start forums, lamenting their lacks of freedoms. Eh ?

 

[XLV]

well metal detecting already banned in 5% of the usa whats another 2%...soon everybody will be a criminal

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.......soon everybody will be a criminal

Sure. And the fastest way to get people to think they are "criminal" ? And the fastest way they can get them to "rush around like chickens with their heads cut off" to alleviate those concerns, is ... what ?

Answers:

1) make posts such as this, and

2) rush to seek clarifications

 

[Johnnybravo300]

I hear that "hate detecting" is a real problem now and will come with stiffer penalties. Digging targets that someone of a different color may have buried is just pure hate and we have to fight that, with hate! Haha

A detector wont do you much good at ancient Indian sites unless you have a pottery detector. They didn't use metals and bones dont ring up.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I hear that "hate detecting" is a real problem now and will come with stiffer penalties. Digging targets that someone of a different color may have buried is just pure hate and we have to fight that, with hate! Haha

A detector wont do you much good at ancient Indian sites unless you have a pottery detector. They didn't use metals and bones dont ring up.

this brought a chuckle to my morning. Thanx :/

Yes: Native American Indians didn't have refined metals. A small geographic exception might be limited zones with "copper culture".

And so: Detectors can't find arrow heads, beads, grind-pestles, bones, pottery, etc.... That means that .... actually ... Detectors are the MOST EFFICIENT way at NOT disturbing things like Indian bones. We go with precision RIGHT to metal objects only. Contrast to an archie's 5 x 5' x 5' pit, where they "disturb" and touch and handle EVERY single object in their path.

Sheeesssk, us md'rs ought to be given an award for our sensitivity in these matters.

 

[Racso]

I feel sorry for all of you who have to put up with all these detecting ban laws. I sure am glad I live in a free country.

 

[XLV]

if i remember right calcium is a paramagnetic metal that conducts electric ...so to ban metal detectors in native american areas might stand up in court ....theres all ways 2 sides to a coin

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... with all these detecting ban laws....

99% of it is "shark attack" psychology. No matter how rare. No matter how infrequent. And no matter how many people swim daily on beaches with zero shark attacks. Yet.... the moment there is ever a headline, somewhere in the world, of a surfer that got chomped . Then : Guess what every fears and thinks is imminent and "everywhere" ?

So too is it with the supposed "everyone hates us" . And "all" the supposed bans with md'ing. 99% of it is nothing more than self-fulfilling vicious circle. Reading a post title, or a headline from far-away place that incites everyone to "rush out and make sure" for their own area. JMHO

 

[XLV]

lets see road closed due to 50 foot deep tunnel dug under them ....countless dead by UXB or tunnels collapse .....new man made lake built by hand these are all the good reasons metal detecting upland is illegal here .... there its all the holes dug that arent filled in just the sight of them good enough reason its used by the national forest service ...and the funny thing 99% of the detecting is just a waste of time and money think about what u spent to what u found

 

[Clay Diggins]

lets see road closed due to 50 foot deep tunnel dug under them ....countless dead by UXB or tunnels collapse .....new man made lake built by hand these are all the good reasons metal detecting upland is illegal here .... there its all the holes dug that arent filled in just the sight of them good enough reason its used by the national forest service ...and the funny thing 99% of the detecting is just a waste of time and money think about what u spent to what u found

Where is "here" 666?