Fines...Tickets?

[bettendorfJoe]

I have never detected anywhere that I didn't either have permission or knew by reading ordinances that I could detect, so I have not been subject to a ticket or fine.


What was your fine/ticket for? And...how much was it?

Just curious....

Joe

 

[TheHunterGT]

I will def leave SF out. I will go further north and call Portland or Seattle. I will call this weekend as I won't be able to get to it today. Wife has plans for us today...has me by the ear shopping and all that.

My opinion of the examples is this. Strike 1...desk clerks. Strike 2...city hall. Strike 3...using dig and holes as words. But that is the point of this 2.0 portion so strike 3 is a ball I guess.

I call the police or sheriffs only. No desk clerks....ever. I advise anybody to do the same if the laws are not readily available online. <----- Yes...I agree with NOT calling anybody if you can find the laws online easily and are certain they are up to date. I cannot argue with the logic that it being out of sight out of mind is a bad thing. I just don't think it is as terrible as people are making it out to be if you are unsure and want to make a call to be 100% sure.

Like I said....I will be setting myself up for failure when I make these calls by adding those words as IMO they are unecassary...even with the above examples. IMO those examples will not the norm as 99% of the people are not as daft as those 2 clerks and understand the inner details of a md'ing hunt. But I am going to try it anyways. Only will take 30-40 minutes of my time to call 8 cities and to be honest....I am truly interested in this experiment.

I will word it one of 3 ways....let me know what you prefer.

#1 "Hello officer...I am wondering if there are any city laws against MD'ing the parks and public land? I plan on "digging holes" on public property and want to make sure no law is in place and that it will be ok."

Or...

#2 "Hello officer...I am wondering if there are any city laws against MD'ing the parks and public land? (wait for answer) "Ok...so just to be clear you realize I will be digging holes and retrieving an object correct?"

Or...even a 3rd option which will allow me to profess how the holes will be covered as in your example above....

#3 "Hello officer...I am wondering if there are any city laws against MD'ing the parks and public land? (wait for answer) "Ok...so just to be clear you realize I will be digging holes and retrieving an object correct...however those holes will be all but invisible when I am done."

 

[TheHunterGT]

Call and ask "Hey can I go dig up the park looking for lost treasure so I can get rich?" What do you think the answer will be? Call and ask if there are any restrictions on detecting and you will most likely get the responses huntergt did.

Even if hunter called 7 more police departments and used this scripted line "Can I metal detect and dig stuff up on city property, while taking and keeping what I find for my own enrichment and profit?" and got 7 yesses the naysayers would ask for more.

Agreed 100% Nugs. It would appear no matter what I do this is going to get shot down at the end...but whatever, I'm game for anything.

Human nature is to downplay our actions if we feel they are restricted, not emphasize them.

Originally just asking permission was supposed to cause a plethora of new laws restricting it. When that didn't happen it's because they asked too nicely and should have asked in a way that would offend somebody.

Now let's get back to reality... nobody is going to ask permission in such a manner, and I doubt anybody ever has and when dealing with public officials there is no telling what will happen. I think folks face a better chance of getting a fine than they do causing new restrictions by asking permission.[/QUOTE]

My feelings exactly. A bit of back pedaling here once it worked out just fine for me. Suddenly I must ask in a "certain way" that nobody in their right mind would. The examples given were honestly the last people I would ask...and the last way I would ask.

The reality is the there are morons who tear places up and we all suffer the consequences because of them. That handful of idiots that don't dig responsibly and leave a mess behind are the leading cause of restrictions on the hobby.

Yup...somebody is the General Discussion just yesterday posted about how some fool dug on private property and it made a treasure publication print as a story. Terrible people like that are what cause new laws...not inquires.

 

[Nugs Bunny]

When I was a teenager my friends and I got run off from the library for playing football at the library, they said we were tearing up the grass, and we were. (Hobby other than detecting that got me booted from public property.)

When I wanted to do some target shooting I called the Sherriff and asked if that specific location was considered City Limits. (Hobby other than detecting that I contacted a public official about.)

While flying my RC choppers at the public boat launch parking lot I was questioned by police about what I was doing. They appeared to have a problem with the hobby, my presence or both, they left me alone but parked on the street and continued to watch me. (Hobby other than detecting I was confronted over.)

This permission debate is pretty senseless, asking the wrong person the wrong way in an uptight State like Cali may get a "no" but then again that goes for just about anything you could ask there.

If there is a policy that prohibits "digging" "defacing" or "altering" then it doesn't matter how carefully you recover targets, it's off limits. If such a policy exists and one asks permission to detect there, of course the likely answer will be a "no" in one form or another.

It doesn't matter what the laws are anyway, metal detecting could be considered the State Hobby and red carpets rolled out across the land... parks even public ones have rules and regulations, those are what you need to be aware of when detecting a park... not the laws for the entire State.

If it's a public park with no restrictions on digging or detecting then there is no need to ask permission.

It's the law that the law be posted in a manner likely to come to the attention of those expected to abide by it. A ordinance that takes hours or days to find is obscure and while you may get charged, it can be beaten in court.

People are better off asking permission if they are unsure about a specific location, even if they get the fabled "no" from time to time.

How many new articles have you read where asking permission have caused restrictions? How many news articles have you read about guys sneaking into parks and other idiots trashing places?

Nobody should ask "permission" anyway... we are a Nation of LAWS not men, if we had a King then asking permission would be the correct thing to do. Asking an official if a law or regulation exists is in no way asking for permission... it's asking for the law.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... IMO those examples will not the norm as 99% of the people are not as daft as those 2 clerks and understand the inner details of a md'ing hunt. ...

I can give you more examples and links if you want. There's been multiple (that I saved the links to), of persons who had permission, only to get booted (and sometimes even verbally reprimanded) EVEN after they showed/cited their permission. When the griper saw the permission, they would say "yes but you can't dig". Or they'd get on their phone, call the permission giver, and say "but he's digging holes ...", etc.... (and the permission is promptly revoked). If you'd like more examples, I'm game

As for the 2 ways of wording: the 3rd way sounds good to me !

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Hi bunny-nugs! Love your input

.......... If there is a policy that prohibits "digging" "defacing" or "altering" then it doesn't matter how carefully you recover targets, it's off limits. If such a policy exists and one asks permission to detect there, of course the likely answer will be a "no" in one form or another............ If it's a public park with no restrictions on digging or detecting then there is no need to ask permission. ....

Really ? Then you've just single-handedly wiped out detecting at every single park across the entire USA, at all levels. Because I can gaurantee you that there's going to be verbage that either directly says "dig", or some variation that anybody could morph to mean the same. Eg.: alter, disturb, deface, etc....

And ironically, I agree with you that there would, in those cases, be no need to "ask permission". Because when you think of it, NO PUBLIC OFFICIAL can give you permission to "break laws", now can they ? I mean, if I walked in and said "Hi, can I break the speed limit please?" Or "Hi, can I cheat on my taxes?". Naturally they can't give you permission to break laws (technically speaking, but sure, it probably happens all the time in a "wink wink just be neat about it" type answer.

But the fact that a) detecting is commonplace at parks across the USA and b) that that happens both with and without permission, and c) that no doubt rules exist to forbid "dig, alter, disturb, molest, take , remove", etc... that therefore d) THEREFORE THOSE RULES DON'T NECESSARILY PRECLUDE MD'ING. And instead, are meant (realistically speaking) to address the end effect of damage (holes left open , etc...) or for people who think they can steal park benches and cut down trees for firewood, etc.....

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... People are better off asking permission if they are unsure about a specific location, even if they get the fabled "no" from time to time ... .

Well the devil is in the details here. Because what constitues being "unsure" to one person, isn't an issue of "unsure" to another. To a lot of people, even the silence of the laws and codes on the subject (because they don't see an express "metal detecting allowed here" clause) to them means they're "unsure". Or they worry that dig, or alter, or remove , etc... could apply to them., etc... To which I suppose you'd still say

"ok, so what? If that's their caution and comfort level, more-power-to-them-to ask? why does it bother you ? So what if they get a 'no' " ?
The problem with that "so what no", is that 1) they've just precluded themselves from a spot where perhaps detecting is common place, and not an issue. or 2) that whomever passed out that "no", might .... from then on out, ... have that in their subconscious. Like if the following day, they're driving past the park, see another md'r, they think "aha, there's one of *them*, and start booting others. I've seen that happen before (and will give the examples if you doubt). Sure, I'm not saying it "happens all the time", but .... it's just the slow steady drumbeat as years-roll-on, of all these "yahoos that show up at city halls asking permission" sort of slow evolution.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... .How many new articles have you read where asking permission have caused restrictions? ... .

It's rare to ever read, of the implementation of a law , something to the effect of:

"We're drafting this law because person(s) came in here asking 'can I?' So it got us curious, we saw the gap/silence of wording, and decided to address that pressing issue. All because he put it on our plate as a matter we should address".

No. You never see such explanations. Instead they will ALWAYS attribute it to something like "cultural heritage" (to which we md'rs mumble durned those archies). Or attribute to holes (to which we md'rs mumble "durned those md'rs who must've left holes"), or simply give no explanation whatsoever.

There's no need for them to say what put it on their plate as something address, in the first place (a non-issue in their eyes).

And all of this applies to simple bootings or scrams: If some one boots you, it's not likely they're going to say : "because someone a week ago was asking. I told them no, so you caught my eye, and I realize I have to enforce this equally". OF COURSE they're not going to go into that detail (nor are they probably consciously thinking of it in those terms anyhow).

...... Asking an official if a law or regulation exists is in no way asking for permission... it's asking for the law ... ... .

Sure, but the devil is in the details again. While you think and sincerely believe you are only "asking for the law", it's possible they can morph other laws they believe applies to your question (the dreaded dig stuff, etc...).

Or I even heard of one humorous story, where the md'r had CAREFULLY phrased it so as to put the burden-of-proof on the clerk to cite any law, if one existed (ie.: he distinctly asked "are there any laws that prohibit..."). The clerk says to him "we would prefer you didn't" (as if he'd just ask their preference or permission). To which the md'r rightly asked: "ok, but where is that written ?" . And it just went downhill from there

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Post-script for nugs: I do have an example, of an entire state's park dept. memo staff-letter, going out to all rank-&-file field-offices. The letter was to clarify the department's stance on the use of metal detectors in their state parks. And it went on to list dire sounding things, blah blah .

But what was fascinating in this particular case, is it DID give the back-ground, of what was the reason for this edict letter: The opening paragraph that preceded the ... uh ... "dire sounding" info, opened with something to this effect:

"The department staff receives multiple inquiries per year regarding the use of metal detectors in our state parks. The following letter will serve to give the spell out the department's policies. ...." etc...

Ok Nugs, slow down and r-e-a-d s-l-o-w-l-y the above introduction. What as the reason for the "department policy letter?" It's not a hard question. The answer is right there. And I might also point out something else that is inferred from this : That PRIOR to such a letter going out, it's inferred that no such rules, or policies etc... on this matter existed. Otherwise, why write this, if it was already spelled out somewhere ? In other words, apparently prior to this, it was silent on the subject

Do you see now ? And that's on a statewide level!

I hesitate to name the state, lest it go down a rabbit trail on that (debate over *just* that state rules, blah blah). But if pushed , I'll dig it out, and post it.

 

[Nugs Bunny]

Did the memo ban or restrict detecting? Or was it just a clarification of the rules governing metal detecting within the State parks?

So it's possible rangers were restricting the activity when they shouldn't have been, it's also possible all those inquiries were on reference to getting booted even though it's permitted.

Without the details it can be construed either way, it's very possible the memo was to inform the rangers where it's permitted so they stop booting people.

Let's go back to one of the examples you gave in the past... remember the protected area you claimed became off limits because somebody asked permission. You failed to look at the details in that case too.

It was a wildlife sanctuary, protected area and private property leased by the State, it was off limits to detecting from day one... yet you blamed the restriction on those who felt they needed some authority's "princely permission".

I bet it's the same in this case, they got tired of all the people calling and asking so they sent a memo to clarify that it's permitted and where. Most State parks do restrict metal detecting and I'm sure they all receive numerous inquiries every year.

Post the letter and the agency it originated from, I bet we can find policy that existed prior to the memo. They always put the date when the policy went into effect and the reference number of the old policy that preceded it on any regulation.

It's very easy to determine what existed prior the memo by simply checking the date on the policies in effect, no debate is needed if you can do math.

 

[lookindown]

Hi bunny-nugs! Love your input



Really ? Then you've just single-handedly wiped out detecting at every single park across the entire USA, at all levels. Because I can gaurantee you that there's going to be verbage that either directly says "dig", or some variation that anybody could morph to mean the same. Eg.: alter, disturb, deface, etc....

And ironically, I agree with you that there would, in those cases, be no need to "ask permission". Because when you think of it, NO PUBLIC OFFICIAL can give you permission to "break laws", now can they ? I mean, if I walked in and said "Hi, can I break the speed limit please?" Or "Hi, can I cheat on my taxes?". Naturally they can't give you permission to break laws (technically speaking, but sure, it probably happens all the time in a "wink wink just be neat about it" type answer.

But the fact that a) detecting is commonplace at parks across the USA and b) that that happens both with and without permission, and c) that no doubt rules exist to forbid "dig, alter, disturb, molest, take , remove", etc... that therefore d) THEREFORE THOSE RULES DON'T NECESSARILY PRECLUDE MD'ING. And instead, are meant (realistically speaking) to address the end effect of damage (holes left open , etc...) or for people who think they can steal park benches and cut down trees for firewood, etc.....

Yeah, if digging, defacing or altering puts them off limits...then detecting public parks is over with...they all have those rules...just keep asking and everything will be fine. Ill just keep my mouth shut and go detecting.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Did the memo ban or restrict detecting?..

What's the difference ? Either way, you can't detect. So I don't get the question.

.... Or was it just a clarification of the rules governing metal detecting within the State parks? ...

wouldn't a "clarification" still restrict you and I ?

....it's also possible all those inquiries were on reference to getting booted even though it's permitted. ....

Huh ? If it's "permitted" , then why anyone "booted" ?

..... Without the details it can be construed either way, it's very possible the memo was to inform the rangers where it's permitted so they stop booting people....

ahh, now I know what you're driving at.

... Most State parks do restrict metal detecting and I'm sure they all receive numerous inquiries every year....

Exactly my point

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... Post the letter and the agency it originated from, I bet we can find policy that existed prior to the memo. ...

The "policy that it existed "prior to the memo" will be spelled out in the memo: Cultural heritage stuff.

So the debate would boil down to "does that constitute a no md'ing policy?" I don't doubt that the cultural heritage logic would ! Afterall, you "might (gasp) find something old ! (heaven help us!). And whereas before that was a "grey area" beforehand, yet now it's going to be a specific "no md'ing" issue. Ok, so did the "policy" exist beforehand or didn't it ?

If that is the train of events, let me know if that qualifies as a rule-being-invented. Otherwise, I will be a victim of you "moving the goal-posts".

 

[Nugs Bunny]

In Ohio the regulations are very clear and defined, I've posted it for you awhile back... remember?

You are way off base once again Tom.

"wouldn't a "clarification" still restrict you and I ?" No it would not... the ORIGINAL policy would restrict you or I, a memo sent out reminding rangers of that policy is not a law or regulation... it's a reminder. Clearly it was sent out to get everybody on the same page and not to enact a new policy.

"If it's "permitted" , then why anyone "booted" ?" You have never heard of somebody getting booted from an area where detecting wasn't restricted?

It's very possible the Rangers were booting people from the park totally unaware detecting is permitted in certain areas, and the reason for the memo was to inform them that it is indeed permitted.

If you were at a State Park in an area where detecting is permitted and a Ranger booted you... would you call the Park office and complain?

Perhaps this was the case, and the memo was to restrict the rangers and not those detecting...

Perhaps the answer varied from Ranger to Ranger, maybe one would grant permission and the next Ranger to come along would revoke it.

Perhaps anybody who asked was referred to main office, and the main office was tired of doing the Rangers job, so they decided to inform them of it... with a memo.

Without the details we can assume numerous reasons for the memo...

However... good ol' common sense dictates if the problem was with the public, they would have issued public notices... not internal memos. They would have erected signage and taken other steps to insure it would come to the public's attention.

A memo clarifying the regulations to the Rangers conveys THEY did not understand or interpret them correctly... not Joe Public.

We get it Tom... but we don't all live in California and we don't all ask permission. Like I have said time and time again, if I were to ask, it would be the regulations, I will interpret them myself.

People have been getting run off from the old asylum for the past 30 years, it's State property and posted no trespassing. I stopped the caretaker, who is also a officer with the State Police, and asked permission to detect. How do you think that went?

He told me yes, stay out of the buildings and stop by his house to check in whenever I'm there. He came by later that day to see if I had found anything good, he also showed me where somebody removed a time capsule from the corner.

We speculated about what might have been in that, I told him a little history about the place he didn't know and showed him some of my finds. We chatted awhile about cars, hunting and firearms and he went on his way. He passed by one more time but was taking a walk with his family and dogs, his house is about a 1/4 mile up the road.

 

[bettendorfJoe]

Well...I'm no dentist but, I believe I hit a nerve here.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...."wouldn't a "clarification" still restrict you and I ?" No it would not... the ORIGINAL policy would restrict you or I,....

Then why send out the memo, if it were already restricted then? Clearly this memo was a B.O.L. type letter sent out. (or perhaps a "determination" letter, eh?) Why ? If the rank & file were ALREADY "diligent to usher people on" d/t previously existing cultural heritage stuff, then ... NO NEED TO SEND THE MEMO OUT. So it stands to reason this memo only served to handicap us. Not "allow" us. And going back to the introductory section, what precipitated all that Nugs ?

..... it's a reminder. Clearly it was sent out to get everybody on the same page and not to enact a new policy....

Ah, then weren't you and I BETTER OFF before that reminder ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...... Like I have said time and time again, if I were to ask, it would be the regulations, I will interpret them myself......

Maybe we're on the same page then. Question: When you ask for the regulations, are you asking where the entire list is (a binder, or a website, or whatever), and then look to see if md'ing (or digging, or removing) etc.. might be listed ? Or are you saying you ask them "are there any regulations for md'ing?"

Because if it's the latter, what do you do if they show you something about "alter/deface" or "remove/harvest", yet it's not exactly saying "no metal detecting" ? Do you interpret that (as they do) to mean "no detecting" ?

 

[Skippy SH13]

Example #1:

The lady then says to him: "Excuse me, I need to go check with someone else on this". The man sees her go down the hall, sticking her head into various other offices, conferring with other superiors at their desks. She eventually returns to the front desk and says: "I'm sorry sir, but we're going to have to tell you no".

The man sensed something very arbitrary was going on, and couldn't understand why his "yes" was so quickly turned to a "no". So he asked "Why?". She then hands him a pamphlet brochure from the utility company entitled "Call before you dig". And on the cover of the brochure, was a picture of a backhoe ! The man chuckled because he realized this was for heavy equipment operators and construction companies. So he handed the brochure back to her and said: "but mam, I'm only going to be digging a few inches deep NOT 6 FOOT DEEP "

The lady flipped through the pages of the pamphlet, and handed it back to him saying: "But sir, the pamphlet doesn't say HOW deep, it only says ANY digging. So we're still going to have to tell you 'no' ". So the dejected md'r left city hall, with the pamphlet TRUE STORY

Ok, I'm going to go ahead and take it at face value that your true story actually happened. I'm also going to suggest, politely, that the person it happened to, didn't bother to actually note the fact that all he had to do was "Call before he digs."

If the "No" was based on the pamphlet, all he had to do was Call before he dug... In fact, every one of those brochures I've ever seen have legal print (or something similar) that point out the results of failing to call before digging is that "If you don't call, you're liable for any electrical/sewage lines you damage." In fact, I strongly suspect if the person had bothered to actually call and say, "I'm going to be digging 2-6" in this location, would you like to come out and spray first, before I dig? They'd get a laugh, and be given permission to dig.

In your true story, the person didn't handle the situation well. He could have simply said, "OK, I'll call first, Thanks!" and left. Instead, your story has the MD'er leaving dejectedly. Man, I'd have grinned, said "THANKS!" and left with the name and # of the person who told me "no" based on the fact I had to call before I dug. I'd have written it ON the brochure and carried it with me.

Someone in City Hall saying "no" to you in a lobby and handing you a brochure does NOT make a law, statute, or ordinance for which you could get a ticket. In fact, he could have VERY well simply walked out made the phone call before he dug, and then if confronted, show the brochure that City Hall gave (and the name of the person) as defense. They'd have a REALLY hard time explaining that one, if they decided to send him to court.

As for what would happen at that point? Would the city pass an ordinance out of spite? Depends on the city... and the politics.

Bottom line... People need to HANDLE situations, not be simply driven by them.

Skippy

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...all he had to do was "Call before he digs."...

Yes. And perhaps they'd even tell him "go ahead". Or how about this solution: Just go, since it's OBVIOUS that this doesn't apply to md'rs (unless they're asking silly questions). I mean, if other md'rs go there with no problems whatsoever, then was this step even necessary, to begin with ? Do YOU call ahead to utility co's before YOU dig?

. ... Someone in City Hall saying "no" to you in a lobby and handing you a brochure does NOT make a law, statute, or ordinance for which you could get a ticket....

Really ? You mean that someone who gets a "no" from city hall, can promptly go out and detect anyhow ? I don't get it. Why have asked then ?

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Continuing to rehash the permissions threads over and over really gets old.... It is like some think if you change a word maybe the argument will be different... Topic is becoming like the cemetery threads...

 

[wainzoid]

Continuing to rehash the permissions threads over and over really gets old.... It is like some think if you change a word maybe the argument will be different... Topic is becoming like the cemetery threads...

Change one word? Heck I can answer both questions with the same one word!
Is it wrong to ask permission? Or should I hunt a cemetery? .....No