Met a jerk today

[jb7487]

You people are making huge assumptions that just aren't correct. The CITY owns the property and forces you to maintain it. This does not give EVERYONE the right to dig in it. Just the city. You do NOT have the city's permission to dig there even if you are the OWNER of the property. However, the city will usually not press the issue unless there is a real problem. I don't understand how people can be so ridiculous as to believe that all city property is fair game simply because they are a tax paying citizen. It makes no sense whatsoever. Try metal detecting in the White House lawn sometime using the excuse that you pay taxes and that it is public property.

So some guy coming along digging in other people's easements is not OK. The police probably do not know the law on this one and probably just don't want to spend the time messing with it so they told the guy to let it go. That does not mean that it is technically legal. If the city wanted to press charges they could. But the guy across the street can't do anything about it because it is not his property in the first place. The best he can do is report it to the city in which case they have better things to do. But again, that does not make it legal. Just because you aren't arrested or someone doesn't press charges doesn't mean that what you are doing is legal.

And even if it was perfectly legal in his area, the OP still needs to get permission instead of going around and digging in people's yards. I don't care if the house is abandoned or not. I know this is a touchy topic here but it is clear that other people are getting pissed off at the actions of some of us and it can only lead to trouble down the road. I can tell you that if some guy started digging in "my yard" without permission I'd be pissed. And if he was a fellow detectorist I'd be even more so.

Yes, the guy across the street was a jerk. But the OP was in the wrong for digging in other people's property without permission. And being a jerk back to the guy certainly didn't help at all. That's my two cents. And both cents were found on property that I had permission to hunt...

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[BuckleBoy]

You people are making huge assumptions that just aren't correct. The CITY owns the property and forces you to maintain it. This does not give EVERYONE the right to dig in it. Just the city. You do NOT have the city's permission to dig there even if you are the OWNER of the property. However, the city will usually not press the issue unless there is a real problem. I don't understand how people can be so ridiculous as to believe that all city property is fair game simply because they are a tax paying citizen. It makes no sense whatsoever. Try metal detecting in the White House lawn sometime using the excuse that you pay taxes and that it is public property.

So some guy coming along digging in other people's easements is not OK. The police probably do not know the law on this one and probably just don't want to spend the time messing with it so they told the guy to let it go. That does not mean that it is technically legal. If the city wanted to press charges they could. But the guy across the street can't do anything about it because it is not his property in the first place. The best he can do is report it to the city in which case they have better things to do. But again, that does not make it legal. Just because you aren't arrested or someone doesn't press charges doesn't mean that what you are doing is legal.

And even if it was perfectly legal in his area, the OP still needs to get permission instead of going around and digging in people's yards. I don't care if the house is abandoned or not. I know this is a touchy topic here but it is clear that other people are getting pissed off at the actions of some of us and it can only lead to trouble down the road. I can tell you that if some guy started digging in "my yard" without permission I'd be pissed. And if he was a fellow detectorist I'd be even more so.

Yes, the guy across the street was a jerk. But the OP was in the wrong for digging in other people's property without permission. And being a jerk back to the guy certainly didn't help at all. That's my two cents. And both cents were found on property that I had permission to hunt...

You are Absolutely right.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

SWR, that citation you gave is just for one city. That would not apply to other locales, unless they too, had something that specific. That's highly unusual I might add. I mean, it's almost like someone had bottle diggers or metal detectorists in mind, when that was written (even though they're not specified by name). In my city, there isn't even anything remotely close to that type of "prospecting" & "removing artifacts" lingo.

jb7487, I notice that within the space of 4 short paragraphs, you are able to use "dig" or "digging" 6 times. While none of us can dispute there is that nasty retrieval process (unless you are only picking them up off the top of the ground, there is at least probing). But the only trouble I have, is with the inferences you portray. The tone leaves the impression (to the average non md'r) by the constant inference of "digging", that we are morons leaving holes, scars, etc... Do you leave holes and do damage? I don't. If you do, I would suggest you learn proper retrieval skills and discretion.

And then adding things like "press charges" "arrested" "pissed off" "lead to trouble", what inference does the average person get, from reading such things? Here it is: That md'rs are akin to bank robbers, child molesters, etc... Where are all these people who sit at their kitchen table all day long, peeking through the blinds, waiting to pop out and get you arrested at the mere sight of a detector? I must've missed them. To the contrary, I find most people nice, interested in md'ing, and just offering a freindly wave.

But sure, anything, any hobby, and any person, with the proper "loaded" terms, can be made to look like an aweful hobby, an aweful person, etc... Politicians can do this in speaches all the time, to "lead" you to the mental image they want.

Try to look at the glass as half full for a change.

 

[BuckleBoy]

jb7487, I notice that within the space of 4 short paragraphs, you are able to use "dig" or "digging" 6 times. While none of us can dispute there is that nasty retreival process (unless you are only picking them up off the top of the ground, there is at least probing). But the only trouble I have, is with the inferences you portray. The tone leaves the impression (to the average non md'r) by the constant inference of "digging", that we are morons leaving holes, scars, etc... Do you leave holes and do damage? I don't. If you do, I would suggest you learn proper retrieval skills and discretion.

And then adding things like "press charges" "arrested" "pissed off" "lead to trouble", what inference does the average person get, from reading such things? Here it is: That md'rs are akin to bank robbers, child molesters, etc... Where are all these people who sit at their kitchen table all day long, peeking through the blinds, waiting to pop out and get you arrested at the mere sight of a detector? I must've missed them. To the contrary, I find most people nice, interested in md'ing, and just offering a freindly wave.

But sure, anything, any hobby, and any person, with the proper "loaded" terms, can be made to look like an aweful hobby, an aweful person, etc... Politicians can do this in speaches all the time, to "lead" you to the mental image they want.

Try to look at the glass as half full for a change.

You don't have anything to say about the Legality of hunting easements and curbs? Nothing?

All you can say is "jb used the word "dig" lots of times in his reply."

 

[Tom_in_CA]

buckle-boy, you say:

"You don't have anything to say about the Legality of hunting easements and curbs? Nothing?"

Uh, well gee, try these posts #s of mine, just within this thread:

27, 31, 35, 38, 42, 46, 54, 68, 72, and 99

 

[Born2Dtect]

Now you have done it Ray. You have pissed off your local sheriffs janitor. Oooooo.... Your in trouble now!

Ed D.

 

[blurr]

I'll tell you guys what. The city did some sort of repair work to the water main and used my easement for access. They left a mess. I was pissed, called them, and to my surprise they came back and cleaned up their mess. If I saw someone on my easement mdting, I really wouldn't like it. I would probably ask them to leave. If they wouldn't, I would absolutely call the cops. If for no other reason than to find out what's right. I would expect all of you would be doing the same if a stranger was walking the perimeter of your property with a metal detector and digging tool. Let's take it a step further. How about if someone set up a stand on your easement to sell tomatoes? How about kids playing catch on your easement? How about someone taking a nap on your easement? How about someone spraying herbicide on your easement to kill dandelions? How about someone putting signs up on your easement? Just some thoughts.


John

 

[jb7487]

jb7487, I notice that within the space of 4 short paragraphs, you are able to use "dig" or "digging" 6 times. While none of us can dispute there is that nasty retrieval process (unless you are only picking them up off the top of the ground, there is at least probing). But the only trouble I have, is with the inferences you portray. The tone leaves the impression (to the average non md'r) by the constant inference of "digging", that we are morons leaving holes, scars, etc... Do you leave holes and do damage? I don't. If you do, I would suggest you learn proper retrieval skills and discretion.

Whether or not you leave holes has nothing to do with the legality of digging/probing/or otherwise altering the surface. If he wants to "metal detect" by swinging his MD around that would probably not be illegal as walking in these areas is not illegal either. But once you start altering the surface in any way (digging, popping, raking, mowing, chopping, or whatever), you have now entered into special consideration of the law. The guy across the street surely had no idea whether or not the OP was leaving holes and the OP telling him that he wasn't leaving holes didn't quell the situation at all. So "leaving holes" has nothing to do with it. I don't care if someone comes in my yard and assures me that he won't leave any holes when he is done. I'm going to kick his butt off of my property anyway.

And then adding things like "press charges" "arrested" "pissed off" "lead to trouble", what inference does the average person get, from reading such things? Here it is: That md'rs are akin to bank robbers, child molesters, etc...

You have a wild immagination for sure. I did not imply that at all. But nice try using FUD to try and distract us all from the actual topic at hand: the legality of digging in someone else's easement.

Are you stating that digging in someone else's easement without written permission from the city is lawful? Cut the FUD crap for once and just answer the question. You and I have gone round and round about permission in the past so I know where you stand on the issue. It's time to put your money where your mouth is. Do you agree that it is illegal or not? It is NOT legal in my city. People have been getting ticketed for digging holes for basketball poles. Heck, they even get ticketed for leaving a temporary basketball hoop in the easement area. And don't think that just because the city doesn't say anything to people who have gardens there that it must be legal. The city has better things to do than police all the digging that goes on. But if push comes to shove the city will take a stand on any digging that is causing problems. I know for a fact that my city will ticket people for illegal digging in the easement (even the owner of the property) as one of my neighbors got in trouble for it. And it doesn't have to appear as some ordinance for this to happen. It is implied that the city owns this area and it is used for things like sewers and utilities. There are reasons why they forbid digging in those areas.

I for one am getting tired of the attitude that "I pay taxes so I have the right to dig wherever the heck I want to dig on public property!". It just isn't so. And you of all people should understand the impact these people have on how our hobby is perceived by the public.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

John Blurr:

a) the road work guys who left a mess, had a "mess" violation. So that solves that one.

b) A "stand to sell tomatoes" would certainly run afoul of zoning ordinances (commercial activity), so that is solved.

c) Napping on the eavesement would be a "camping" violation, so that one is solved.

d) Someone spraying herbicide? Well, if they were helping to kill dandilions, then I suppose it would be akin to someone picking up trash? or mowing it for you? etc... Not sure what law that would be a violation of. We have volunteers in our city that do such things (clean parks, etc...). And I have a neighbor that actually does spray roundup weed-killer at the park in our neighborhood, to kill weeds around the fountain, etc... Now why someone would want to maintain other people's eavesements, I would have no idea

e) putting up signs on the eavesment runs afoul of signage rules. You know, there's codes about even things like real-estate signs, garage sale signs, political campaign signs, etc... So I would imagine the "signs" analogy is a violation of existing law. So that one is solved.

f) Kids playing catch? Actually this is not far fetched! I live right across the street from a park. As such, on any given day there are people who park in front our house, and cross the street to take their kids to the park. They will often unload their gear onto the eavesement (picnic basket, baby stroller, etc... ) as they unload their vehicle. There would be nothing to stop two little boys from tossing a ball right there, and truth is, I probably wouldn't even notice it, as it is such a common site anyhow for park goers, coming and going, to be milling around at our curb. I suppose though, after reading this thread, that I should come out and police these miscreants more closely!! eh?

 

[jb7487]

I suppose though, after reading this thread, that I should come out and police these miscreants more closely!! eh?

That depends... are they filling their holes?!?

 

[blurr]

This was just my opinion. If your city allows this sort of thing, go for it. I just wouldn't go "probing" too close to home. You might have some crazy neighbors that don't want you doing such things in front of their houses. Tough to live next to pissed off neighbors. By the way, isn't it more fun to hunt in a place less likely to draw the ire of others? I would think it can't be much fun to have to be looking over your shoulder all the time, or to have to explain yourself to everyone that wants to know why you are "probing" in front of their house. Again, just my opinion.

John

 

[Tom_in_CA]

jb7487: When you put it that way, you are right. No metal detectorist anywhere, will ever be given permission to dig and alter the surface. I mean, when metal detecting is defined in that way, there is NONE of us that will EVER get permission to metal detect in ANY turf. Oh sure, maybe a sandbox, but that's about it. Because think of it: if you walk into ANY city hall, ANYWHERE, and asked "Can I dig holes in the eavesements (or parks, or schools or whatever) and alter the surface"? What do you THINK their answer will be? Doh!

This is why I sort of chuckle when I read posts about people who successfully got permission to metal detect at schools or parks in their town (as if their success was merit to the idea that permission is needed, even when not specifically disallowed). Because you can BET that whomever gave them permission, simply didn't have the right mental images. Because the person asking permission probably carefully asked "is there anything that prohibits metal detecting?" Instead of asking the more appropriate correct question "Can I destroy the park?" You see, it's all in how you word things. This eavesement thing is no different.

So you're right, when detecting is automatically defined as destruction, your conclusion stands: No one should ever do it, nor would any city say yes to this, on any of their properties (eavesments, parks, etc...) Heck, you wouldn't even be able to ask the homeowner, you'd have to ask the city.

All I can say is, you're right, given the premise. And psychologically even more-so, when talking about eavesement. Not LEGALLY any more correct than at a school or park, but image-wise, because as we know, most people consider the eavesement their own property. Like I said earlier in this thread, I don't personally hunt them (although I have years ago), since I'm strictly a "big game" hunter (ghost towns, urban demolition, beach storms, etc...).

So I wonder, do you ever hunt parks or school's turf? If so, with your given definition of metal detecting, how do you do it?

Let me give you an example: if a person defines eating meat as "cruelty to animals" (since afterall, animals had to be killed to provide you with your hamburger), how does a person with that definition join a "meat eaters club"? See what I mean? The meat eater can certainly say "I don't consider it animal cruelty" but he would have a hard time convincing the PETA [People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals] of that opinion.

In the same way, I can not argue that I do....... in some form or fashion, no matter how temporary or innocuous, "probe or dig", and can not argue, that just like PETA, someone will define that as "damage" etc... I also can not argue that any city or county or state or fed entity, would NEVER say "yes" to someone asking "can I damage the park please?".

So you're right. All I can say is, someone with these pre-set definitions, that lead down this road to automatic illegalities, is in the wrong hobby. In the same way that PETA person would be in the wrong club, to be in a Deer Hunting Club, and then get all upset at the other hunting club members, for their cruelty.

 

[jb7487]

When you put it that way, you are right. No metal detectorist anywhere, will ever be given permission to dig and alter the surface.

I didn't put it that way. You did. And that doesn't even make sense. But once again, nice job using FUD to try and scare everyone into believing that by asking permission we will all get banned. It just isn't so. When I asked for permission from my local parks department I got a very cheerful "go ahead, have fun!". And I have the letter to prove it to anyone who asks. But again, that is not the point of this thread. We have agreed to disagree about asking permission to hunt in parks and schools if you remember.

So since you didn't answer the question I have to assume that you realized that you had to agree that it would be illegal to dig in someone else's easement without permission from the city. If you don't actually feel this way then please say so. But do so directly and stop all of the unnecessary exhaggeration, FUD, and hand waving as it is not relevant and very tiresome.

The bottom line is that the OP felt justified in lashing out at the rude man across the street because he is of the mistaken belief that what he was doing was not illegal. Many of us here have pointed out that the OP was likely (not definitely, but likely) in the wrong. I'm sure that he and many of you are surprised by this and are taken aback by the thought that you could potentially get into trouble for doing something you've been doing all along. But ignorance of the law is no excuse. And if you decide to make a big enough stink about it then it will be more likely that the city will indeed get involved. They don't want to but if you push it they will. And you will likely have a hard time convincing the judge that you have a right to dig on all public property for the sole reason that you are a taxpayer.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

"since you didn't answer the question .... " Oh, sorry, I had long since gone off on a rabbit trail, and was not on the specifics of the "Ray" thing. So to answer THAT specific: yes, the OP was wrong, and Ray was in the right. HOWEVER, if a person uses the definition that detecting = destruction, then no, Ray was not in the right.

Personally, I do not see that detecting = automatic destruction, so I would have to say the OP is wrong. It all depends on how "detecting" is defined. But I tend to go hunting at places where I avoid busy-bodies to begin with, and thus, am not into eavesment huntings. Therefore all this is theoretical, and doesn't mean I hunt eavesements, nor would I suggest it, since why expose yourself to the headaches?

Just curious, how did you get permission from your local parks dept? Did you inform them that you would be "digging" and "altering the landscape", etc...? I mean, it seems to me that if anyone walked into city hall anywhere, and asked "can I dig holes in the park to look for treasure?" that they would get a "no". Naturally, I'm sure you were a little more careful in your wording. But with your definition here in this thread, being so certain that detecting = destruction, why wouldn't you use such phrases? (lest they not fully understand the implications of your request)

 

[jb7487]

HOWEVER, if a person uses the definition that detecting = destruction, then no, Ray was not in the right.

I didn't use that definition. Again, you are attempting to put words in my mouth and it is getting tiresome. I take it you can't give a straightforward answer to my question without qualifying it to death. So I'll let you off the hook. Don't answer my direct question. See if I care.

But with your definition here in this thread, being so certain that detecting = destruction, why wouldn't you use such phrases? (lest they not fully understand the implications of your request)

Again, that is your definition not mine. This is getting ridiculous. The topic at hand is whether or not the OP was justified in his actions based on his belief that he was not doing anything illegal. Several of us have stated that we do believe what he was doing could be construed as breaking the law and that the city could potentially press charges if they were so inclined. Several of us have also stated that, despite being fellow detectorists, would have reacted similarly to the way the nosey neighbor reacted if we saw him on our property or a neighbor's property. I think that speaks volumes about how the OP reacted in this situation.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

"what he was doing could be construed as breaking the law " Yes. If detecting is "altering the surface" and such (those are your words, so no, I did not put them in your mouth, please see your post # 111), then yes, a person can be construed as breaking the law.

Yes, I interpret your words like "digging" and "altering the surface" to be another way of saying "damage". That is the implication it seems to me. I mean, if they are said in the context of "illegalities", then what other interpretation can someone make, except that this means "detecting = damage"?

oh well, interesting topic.

 

[cdltpx]

An armed society is a more polite society.

 

[blurr]

A pillbox in every front yard

John

 

[Newt]

This JERK? has gotten what he wanted. Everyone Else feels bad too. In the end he got it and does'nt even know it (yet).
Newt

 

[onfire]

I v found a funny way to beat some of these liberals had a sign on my truck that says "WATER" thats it and I wear a yellow vest most don t bother me if they do you can tell them your increasing the drainage lol