Fisheating Creek Campground

[G.I.B.]

I was thinking about meeting up with some family members for the New Year's celebration at the Fisheating Creek Campground located in Palmdale Fl. It's on the west side of Lake Okeechobee in Central Florida. This entire area was used to drive cattle in the 1800's and there are some old campsites along the creek.

This should be a nice place to do some hunting and get my coil to the soil, so I sent in the following request, and received the following reply-

Hi,

I'm planning on visiting your area within the next month or so with my RV. I'm a metal detector hobbyist and am wondering about the area north west of your campground.

Is this your property, the wooded area north of the creek? And if it is, is metal detecting (I refill all my holes and pick up the trash I find) permitted?

Thanks,

Larry

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Larry,
I believe the property you are referring to is not part of Fisheating Creek Outpost. If you have access to the internet, you can go to our website: www.fisheatingcreekoutpost.com and click on the "Campground Map" to see where our boundaries are, then call us at 863-675-5999 and we can further discuss. In the meantime, I will check with the Register's to see if there is a public area around us where you can explore.

Best,

Melanie
Fisheating Creek Outpost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Larry,
I just wanted to touch base with you to let you know that I had spoken with the Register's and metal detecting is not permitted on any wildlife management property.

If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Although we do not allow metal detecting, we have some beautiful hiking trails!!!

Melanie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In all fairness, Melanie was very pleasant and professional, and I'm sure she runs a very nice facility. She was prompt to answer my questions and for that, I give her two thumbs up.

It's the crappy State of Florida again, not letting me enjoy my hobby on state land that was set aside for my enjoyment as a member of this here great state. I can pound nails into trees and set up tree stands, leave garbage, kill animals, and generally trash the place; so long as I don't do any metal detecting and pick up the trash...

*&^%$^*

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[ivan salis]

no driving nails into trees is illegal too * while hunting you can use leaner tree stands pr climber type stands -- but you can not legally use screw in spikes ot nails on a tree -- littering is also illegal be you hunter or non hunter -- of course as a wild life management area --hunt is allowed --but oddly not metal detecting -- yes I hunt but I also metal detect and frankly I like to do both ., so I 'm not happy I can not detect either ,but sadly the state maketh the rules, we just gotta follow em --or better yet try to get the to change em to be more public freindly .

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

G.I.B., notice that "Melanie" doesn't even know the answer to your question about metal detecting. She has to go ask someone else. What does that tell you? Do you think therefore, that prior to your pressing question, if someone like Melanie (or anyone else in rank-&-file there) had simply seen someone detecting, that they'd have ever cared less? No. Of course not. They'd have probably passed you by, without so much as a second glance. But now guess what's going to happen the next time she passes by another md'r (whom she previously apparently never gave thought to)? She'll remember the earlier inquiry and think " aha! there's one of them" and start booting others.

Also notice she doesn't cite any actual rule or text to you that actually says "no metal detecting" !! So maybe it's not really even there (specifically saying such a thing), and you merely got someone's "no", because they morph something else to apply. You know, things like cultural heritage verbage, or things that disallow "collecting", or ....... harming earthworms, or ........ WHO KNOWS!

So why didn't you just look it up for yourself? If you saw nothing there specifically saying "no metal detectors", then presto, it must not be dis-allowed?

I fear you have fallen prey to the "no one cared, till you asked" routine.

 

[G.I.B.]

Tom,

I didn't know that it was wildlife managed property.

If you would look at lots of my previous posts from days gone by- I'd previously put up the rules and regs posted by the State of Florida. Had I had known it was Wildlife Managed property, I would not have bothered to ask her.

Your inference that we should just go ahead and detect until someone objects has some terrible consequences. I've paid WAAAAAY too much money to have my detector and gear confiscated because I was on the wrong plot of land. I prefer to check first so I can enjoy detecting without constantly looking over my shoulder waiting to find out I'm on some unmarked historical or archeological site, or unmarked state land where you can loose not only your detector, but your vehicle as well.

So, I have looked it up myself... Try going on Egmont Key with a metal detector and see what happens. Nothing is posted anywhere saying you can't- so therefore, under your logic, it must be allowed

Let me know when you do it so I can plan to buy your Explorer II at the next government auction.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Hi GIB. No, I'm not advocating breaking any laws. And yes, I'm aware that some things (like nudity in public parks) need not necessarily have a sign saying "no nudity", to be illegal. But on the otherhand, yes there are laws on the book that forbid nudity, that can be looked up. And if one wonders if he can be nude in public, he can slueth it out (without asking someone at the park entrance) and see that ..... yes there are laws that say "no nudity". Same therefore with metal detecting: We can invariably find park and land usage rules somewhere. They HAVE to be available for pubic viewing. Eg.: on the desk at city hall, or on-line at the entities website, etc.....

The problem with asking a govt. entity in-person, is sometimes you can fetch a "no", when no real rule saying such a thing exists. Simply because they think you'll leave a mess, or harm earthworms, or whatever. While on the other hand, might never have cared or given the matter a second thought before (till you asked). It seemed to me, from reading your post, that this was had happened to you. If I mis-understood the time-line and text, forgive me. Reading it again, I see that you were not necessarily asking someone's permission to detect, but rather, to find out who's land it is. But curiously, in their answer, they picked up on those words (your intention to "metal detect") and tell you "no".

And I don't see in your original post that ...... had you known it was a certain entity's land, that you'd have already known that. Maybe I didn't read it right.

Just curious: have you seen actual text in the "Wildlife Management Property" rules/codes, that actually says "no metal detectors"? In other words, where is this information originating from, to begin with?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So if a place has no prohibitions against detecting (which someone can find in the rules/codes/laws), then yes, why WOULDN'T someone be allowed to go? If there's no prohibitions in a given locale, then why and how could someone face "arrests", "confiscations" etc...? Yes perhaps this doesn't apply to here (if in fact a rule really says that), but as I say, it appeared you'd written to an agency, and gotten someone's arbitrary whim. And if were me, I would go, unless there is specific written rule or law, specifically saying "no metal detecting".

And no, I do not consider verbage about "alteration" "defacement" etc... to apply. All such verbage distinctly and inherently refers to the end result. If you leave no trace of your presence, then by logical definition, you have not altered or defaced anything. Sure a busy-body can come take issue with semantics (d/t the evil interim process of extraction). So what? Give lip service and comply. Choose low traffic times and avoid such kill-joys to begin with. But to wonder, ahead of time, if anything that *might* apply automatically *does* apply (and thus need someone's clarification or permission), is to have lost the battle before you start. There are TONS of things someone COULD say apply to you. Including lost & found laws, "annoyances" verbage, cultural heritage issues, damage and destruction verbage, blah blah blah. And if you ask long enough and hard enough, of ANY place (even the most innocuous sand-box), you can always find someone to tell you "no" for some reason or another (even though truth-be-told, perahps they would never have cared or noticed).

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If someone's worried that there might be laws (which I'm not advocating breaking, so no, no one "gets arrested"), then they can look up the laws themselves. Not ask a person "can I do such & such". As I say, if this was not the evolution of your communications with them, then I read it wrong.[/FONT]

 

[Jon Phillips]

Unfortunately, there is a law on the books. It covers ALL state land, except state parks that allow detecting on the dry sand of a coastal beach (and some of those also require a "permit" from the park official).

It also covers all "navigable waterways", even if there is no water. This part of the law doesn't say "no metal detecting", but does say nothing man-made older than 50 years can be removed from the water.

So going on any state owned land and metal detecting is a crime, whether the person in charge of the property is aware of it or not. And in Florida, as in most places, ignorance of the law is not an accepted excuse for breaking it.

So just going on state land and hoping the people in charge just walk by you and not realize it is illegal is pretty much gambling with your money, equipement, vehicle, and possibly freedom, if they want to press the issue, or make an example....

Something can be illegal, and not have to be posted on the "park rules" board.

 

[G.I.B.]

Well said Jon Phillips- It is written, and I've read it. I also posted it here on TN 5 or 6 years ago.

With my original post, and it's intent, was not to spark a debate as to my ability to research rules, but rather inform anyone going to the same area, so they wouldn't face any future problems.

A look down view via Google Map didn't tell me who owned the property, so I asked. If it had been owned by Fisheating Creek, I would probably have been allowed to detect that spot of dirt. If I could have, I would have spent a week there paying fees for my RV spot. If no was the original answer, I would have saved the time, fuel, and trouble of ever driving down there, as in this case.

...and you are very right, ignorance is no excuse with regards to the law. You might get a judge to give you your property back after a court battle, attorneys fees and so on- but was the fight worth it?

 

[Jon Phillips]

I understood what you were saying. I was addressing Tom_in_Ca's statement about just going in there and detecting if there is no sign saying not to.

That may be fine elsewhere...but could cause BIG problems on state land in Florida. You might get away with it 100 times....then on 101.........

In the future, if you need to know who owns a parcel of land in Florida, just go to the property appraiers website for the county you are looking at. Click on the map search, or GIS search (each county's site is different), bring up the areial, or satellite view, with the parcels shown as well, then find the area you are looking at. Then click "id parcel" (or it's equivelent), and click the parcel.It will tell you who owns it, and in most cases, their address.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

"I was addressing Tom_in_Ca's statement about just going in there and detecting if there is no sign saying not to. "

No. "Tom_in_CA" did not say that. He said that if someone is concerned, they can look it up themselves. (As opposed to feeling the need to ask a live person "can I have permission to do such and such"). And to say "look it up...." does not mean strictly the sign-post at the entrance of the park or school or beach or whatever. It means also that, yes, there can be laws or rules that are in print elsewhere. Like in the city charter (available at city's websites, or on the desk at city hall, etc...). Any entities laws and rules are available for public viewing SOMEWHERE.

Thus you will find no mention of "Tom_in_CA" saying the sign-post at the entrance is sufficient. The problem with asking a live person "can i do such & such?", is that you risk a "no", when no real rule exists saying such a thing. Ie.: the old "no one cared UNTIL you asked" routine.

 

[Jon Phillips]

"I was addressing Tom_in_Ca's statement about just going in there and detecting if there is no sign saying not to. "

No. "Tom_in_CA" did not say that. He said that if someone is concerned, they can look it up themselves. (As opposed to feeling the need to ask a live person "can I have permission to do such and such"). And to say "look it up...." does not mean strictly the sign-post at the entrance of the park or school or beach or whatever. It means also that, yes, there can be laws or rules that are in print elsewhere. Like in the city charter (available at city's websites, or on the desk at city hall, etc...). Any entities laws and rules are available for public viewing SOMEWHERE.

Thus you will find no mention of "Tom_in_CA" saying the sign-post at the entrance is sufficient. The problem with asking a live person "can i do such & such?", is that you risk a "no", when no real rule exists saying such a thing. Ie.: the old "no one cared UNTIL you asked" routine.

G.I.B., notice that "Melanie" doesn't even know the answer to your question about metal detecting. She has to go ask someone else. What does that tell you? Do you think therefore, that prior to your pressing question, if someone like Melanie (or anyone else in rank-&-file there) had simply seen someone detecting, that they'd have ever cared less? No. Of course not. They'd have probably passed you by, without so much as a second glance. But now guess what's going to happen the next time she passes by another md'r (whom she previously apparently never gave thought to)? She'll remember the earlier inquiry and think " aha! there's one of them" and start booting others.

Also notice she doesn't cite any actual rule or text to you that actually says "no metal detecting" !! So maybe it's not really even there (specifically saying such a thing), and you merely got someone's "no", because they morph something else to apply. You know, things like cultural heritage verbage, or things that disallow "collecting", or ....... harming earthworms, or ........ WHO KNOWS!

So why didn't you just look it up for yourself? If you saw nothing there specifically saying "no metal detectors", then presto, it must not be dis-allowed?

I fear you have fallen prey to the "no one cared, till you asked" routine.

Sorry Tom_in_Ca....you are correct, and I misspoke on the "sign saying not to"" part. I forgot where I was for a second, and realised how careful I have to be on here with paraphrasing, but I was responding on my phone, and wasn't as careful as I should have been.

All paraphrasing aside....that doesn't change the fact that your response in post number 3 is bad advice.

You said:

"So why didn't you just look it up for yourself? If you saw nothing there specifically saying "no metal detectors", then presto, it must not be dis-allowed?

I fear you have fallen prey to the "no one cared, till you asked" routine"

Yes, you did preface that statement by saying "So why didn't you just look it up for yourself?"

But....the part about, "If you saw nothing there specifically saying "no metal detectors", then presto, it must not be dis-allowed?" sounds ALOT like: "I was addressing Tom_in_Ca's statement about just going in there and detecting if there is no sign saying not to."

So that is where I got that from.....

I get it man...I think a lot of us do at this point.....You had a good park or whatever that you liked to detect at, and then some "newbie" shows up and starts inquireing if it is ok to detect the park or whatever...then the right busy-body gets involved, and it is now illegal to detect there, and maybe all parks in the city/county/whatever....and you get kicked out of "your" park.... Yeah that sucks. I had a good school that was always good for a double handful of clad, and usually some silver until the Columbine shootings, and 9/11....now all schools are fenced in and locked down around here. I see you post ALOT about (warning...paraphrase in effect) "not asking permission" for a spot.....or to not paraphrase: "no one cared UNTIL you asked".

The problem with that is... Just because whoever was in charge might be unaware of any law against metal detecting, doesn't mean they don't exist. And like I said...yeah, you might get by with it 100 times....and the people that walk by you might be unaware that you are breaking the law, but the "right" one might see it one day, and then it is BIG trouble in some places!

I've been metal detecting off and on for 30 years, and I can tell you that the 3 main things that have been pounded into my brain through the years are: fill in all holes, remove all trash, and always have permission. So it is going to be hard for a lot of people to not seek permission. And I know that most people don't need to ask permission for public places, but there are certain public places that it is illegal to detect in.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Jon, you say: "Just because whoever was in charge might be unaware of any law against metal detecting, doesn't mean they don't exist"

I don't get it. If such rules "existed" (in any given particular place), then sure, follow them. If they "exist" then they must be written down SOMEWHERE, on the books, which can be looked up. And then sure, by all means, follow them. But this does NOT mean "ask someone for permission". See the difference? Asking permission, or asking "can I?" etc.... merely puts you at the personal arbitrary whims of someone to say no, even if no real rule exists saying such a thing.

".........but there are certain public places that it is illegal to detect in." Fine. Then don't detect those places. We're not talking about those places! We're talking about places where someone looks it up for themselves, and if they see no prohibitions, then presto, there's no prohibitions.

 

[Jon Phillips]

Jon, you say: "Just because whoever was in charge might be unaware of any law against metal detecting, doesn't mean they don't exist"

I don't get it. If such rules "existed" (in any given particular place), then sure, follow them. If they "exist" then they must be written down SOMEWHERE, on the books, which can be looked up. And then sure, by all means, follow them. But this does NOT mean "ask someone for permission". See the difference? Asking permission, or asking "can I?" etc.... merely puts you at the personal arbitrary whims of someone to say no, even if no real rule exists saying such a thing.

".........but there are certain public places that it is illegal to detect in." Fine. Then don't detect those places. We're not talking about those places! We're talking about places where someone looks it up for themselves, and if they see no prohibitions, then presto, there's no prohibitions.

Well, it's like this.... Have you ever went into a store and just asked someone that worked there "Do you have any 'widgits?" and they got a blank stare on their faces and replied..."Uuuummmm.....let me go check...."? Or even worse...you KNOW something is there, and they tell you it's not...even though they work there.

Example: The local DMV has a "Street Rod" tag. Sometimes when you ask for it, they say they don't have one like that. Then you have to say, "Yes you do. It's in that little room right there on the table to the left." Then they come back with: "Oh...I never knew they were there."

Those are the same type of public servants that work at parks and such. Now those tags exist if I ask for them or not, so asking or not doesn't change it. They also exist if the person working there is aware of them or not. Same thing with rules about metal detecting. If they are not there, and someone asks if they are, that person isn't going to make them appear. If they decide to stop detecting on a whim, then go over their heads and threaten to get an ACLU lawyer...a skinny one with a grey beard, and long ponytail....that wears bluejeans and a light brown sport coat with those patches on the elbows....it will scare the crap out of them!

Now if those rules DO exist...asking about them still won't make any difference. (other than maybe saving you a ton of grief). Yeah, I agree with you that looking them up yourself is best...but it is not foolproof. They aren't always somewhere that you have easy access to.

Case in point is a town that continually pops into my mind when I see you post the "no one cared, till you asked" line. This little town has a couple of city parks, and they are both on top of very historic areas...but...they are just regular parks, and recreation areas...nothing marked historical. Now under your advice...someone should just go there and start detecting, since there is no sign saying not to, and there is nothing on any of the city's website prohibiting it....but...you have to have a permit to detect there. They don't advertise any of that, because they don't want to tip anyone off that they are historical sites. You can bet that if you get out there with a detector, you will be talking to the police real quick. You will more than likely just get ran off...but hassled and have a wasted trip none the less.

So when you say: "Fine. Then don't detect those places. We're not talking about those places!" I think we kinda are talking about "those" places...I mean how much more seemingly ok to detect is a little city park with ball fields and golf driving ranges etc.?

That is an example of one of "those" places that look just like any other place.....

So my point is....the blanket statement about not asking permission doesn't always work for everyones situation....and can lead to some big problems in certain situations.

And again...I do agree with you that there have been plenty of places made off limits because of people asking when it was not specifically neccessary...but I'm just saying there is a flip side to that coin that I don't think you take into consideration.

There are some state parks that have coastal beaches that fit into the "allowed" spots to detect in, but the park chooses to not allow it, or allow it only with a park issued permit....so going by the "existing" searchable laws looks like it is ok to detect....but it's not....and only asking at the kiosk will get you that information.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

Jon, good conversation. I will intersperse my replies, in bold, within your text. You say:

Well, it's like this.... Have you ever went into a store and just asked someone that worked there "Do you have any 'widgits?" and they got a blank stare on their faces and replied..."Uuuummmm.....let me go check...."? Or even worse...you KNOW something is there, and they tell you it's not...even though they work there.

Example: The local DMV has a "Street Rod" tag. Sometimes when you ask for it, they say they don't have one like that. Then you have to say, "Yes you do. It's in that little room right there on the table to the left." Then they come back with: "Oh...I never knew they were there."


Jon, well this occurance, that you cite above, is all the more reason to back up what I'm saying, all along! You're right: a "live person" may not really know. So when I've been telling md'rs to "... look it up for yourself ...", then your example does nothing more than back up the position I'm advocating. And ALL THE MORE reason NOT to ask a potentially un-informed person. So your text back up my position, I'm afraid.

Those are the same type of public servants that work at parks and such. Now those tags exist if I ask for them or not, so asking or not doesn't change it. They also exist if the person working there is aware of them or not. Same thing with rules about metal detecting. If they are not there, and someone asks if they are, that person isn't going to make them appear. If they decide to stop detecting on a whim, then go over their heads and threaten to get an ACLU lawyer...a skinny one with a grey beard, and long ponytail....that wears bluejeans and a light brown sport coat with those patches on the elbows....it will scare the crap out of them!

Jon, again, I think your own text self-implodes your own position again: You acknowledge here that, in fact, the desk-bound bureaucrat can decide to "stop detecting on a whim". Thus you know full well what I'm talking about: Someone who doesn't have any specific "no detecting" rule to cite. Yet merely answers: "no you can't, simply because I said so", or "no you can't, because I think it runs afoul of the 'no harvesting/collecting' verbage", or "no you can't, because I think you'll make a mess", etc..... (and then simply morphs something ELSE to apply to your "pressing question"). So your own text Jon seems to imply that you are aware of this phenomenom. And your jestful answer: "to go get a lawyer" ?? Seriously dude? You wouldn't NEED to debate semantics with them, or get a lawyer, if you hadn't gone and opened up that can of worms with them, TO BEGIN WITH.

Now if those rules DO exist...asking about them still won't make any difference. (other than maybe saving you a ton of grief).

Sure, but if they DON'T exist, then you might merely give space for someone to give an arbitrary no, where perhaps no one really cared, or would have noticed (till you asked).

Yeah, I agree with you that looking them up yourself is best...but it is not foolproof. They aren't always somewhere that you have easy access to.

Why isn't it "foolproof" ? Of course it's fool-proof. If there's a law, and you've looked it up, then that IS fool-proof. If there's no law, then that's fool-proof. I don't get it. I presume when you say "foolproof" you are referring to your next sentence of how difficult it would be to access it. Sure. Not all cities have websites (especially perhaps smaller towns) where their charter, codes, parks dept. rules, etc... appear on the web. But legally speaking, they HAVE to be available to the public to view. You know, like at the front desk at the city or county hall, etc... So it simply has to be accessible somewhere. I know it seems easier to just go ask someone "can I metal detect". But your own text shows the shortcomings of this: In the same way you acknowledge that someone *might* say there isn't a rule (while, in fact, there IS, but they just don't know), in the SAME way the converse can also be true (and it happens all the time): where they say "yes there's a rule" when in fact there ISN'T. Now Jon I suppose that you can beat-them-to-the-punch-line and say: "show me where that's written". But THIS is where it goes downhill from there: The clerk merely pulls out the silly things to apply. And then what do you do? Go get a lawyer? Or worse yet: perhaps they have to agree that there's nothing to stop you (ie.: they can't cite a chapter and verse). So you know what has actually happened in such cases?? They bring it up at the next counsel meeting, and MAKE a "no detecting" rule, to close this loop-hole. This has actually happened in places!! So all you did was get a law essentially written, to address your "pressing issue"

Case in point is a town that continually pops into my mind when I see you post the "no one cared, till you asked" line. This little town has a couple of city parks, and they are both on top of very historic areas...but...they are just regular parks, and recreation areas...nothing marked historical. Now under your advice...someone should just go there and start detecting, since there is no sign saying not to, and there is nothing on any of the city's website prohibiting it....but...you have to have a permit to detect there.

What? If there is a "permit", then it simply HAS to be "on the books" SOMEWHERE. And that "somewhere" has to be available to public study/viewing. Sure maybe their city website is "lame" (some smaller cities don't even have websites, or only chincy 1-page no-details websites) But the info. HAS to be somewhere, and that somewhere CAN be looked up. And I'll go a jump further here: If it were utterly true, that this "permit" info is simply NOT available ANYWHERE except secretly hidden in some park's person's file cabinet, then if you ask me: If I waltzed into that town and started detecting, there is no way in h*ck I'd be in any legal trouble. If in fact the information was hidden from all public view, the most they could do is tell you. And then sure, NOW you'd be appraised, and you move on. Then the only trouble would be is if you ignore that appraisal and continue..

They don't advertise any of that, because they don't want to tip anyone off that they are historical sites. You can bet that if you get out there with a detector, you will be talking to the police real quick. You will more than likely just get ran off...but hassled and have a wasted trip none the less.

So when you say: "Fine. Then don't detect those places. We're not talking about those places!" I think we kinda are talking about "those" places...I mean how much more seemingly ok to detect is a little city park with ball fields and golf driving ranges etc.?

That is an example of one of "those" places that look just like any other place.....

So my point is....the blanket statement about not asking permission doesn't always work for everyones situation....and can lead to some big problems in certain situations.

And again...I do agree with you that there have been plenty of places made off limits because of people asking when it was not specifically neccessary...but I'm just saying there is a flip side to that coin that I don't think you take into consideration.

There are some state parks that have coastal beaches that fit into the "allowed" spots to detect in, but the park chooses to not allow it, or allow it only with a park issued permit....so going by the "existing" searchable laws looks like it is ok to detect....but it's not....and only asking at the kiosk will get you that information.

Interesting that you use the beach vs land analogy. Because .... in actual practice ....you're right, this is sometimes the case: Because since beach sand is harmless to dig in (as opposed to turf), there's lots of beaches were no one cares less (your just ignored as harmless). Such is the case of state-of-CA administered beaches. You can detect them till you're blue in the face, and no one cares. But get this Jon: if someone takes your advice, and goes seeking clarification from the gate kiosk (because perhaps the skittish md'r read on the state-of-CA website that there's dire-sounding rules, or out-right no's). He may have the following scenario open up: The confused kiosk clerk, who perhaps has never fielded such a question, will therefore look it up. And then run it past his supervisors, who in turn pass the queery on to the local state archie, etc.... And lo & behold, they come back to the window, and tell Jon: "no". But then imagine poor Jon's surprise, when he proceeds with his family to the the beach. Only to see other md'rs there on the beach, without a care in the world. And then imagine when that same kiosk clerk sees the other md'rs out there. What do you think is going to happen? He'll remember Jon's earlier inquiry, and start booting others. I've seen this type thing happen Jon!!

 

[Jon Phillips]

I still don't think you get what all I, and G.I.B., are saying.

No matter what happens in California....in FLORIDA, if you go to some of the "those places" that may at first look like just one of the "other places", with a metal detector, you could lose it, your vehicle, your money, and your freedom.

There was no need to quote all the things I said (especially breaking up the parts that were making the same point), to point out how they back up your position.

I out and out said that you are right, and that in some cases asking permission has caused some grief, so yeah....I do "know full well" what you are saying.

You see....I am able to see your point, but I don't think you are able to see mine. I think that might be due to how many times you post about "If you saw nothing there specifically saying "no metal detectors", then presto, it must not be dis-allowed?"

All your counterpoints are fine....except everything you wrote in post #3 could get you into serious trouble in Florida.


You wrote:

"G.I.B., notice that "Melanie" doesn't even know the answer to your question about metal detecting. She has to go ask someone else. What does that tell you? Do you think therefore, that prior to your pressing question, if someone like Melanie (or anyone else in rank-&-file there) had simply seen someone detecting, that they'd have ever cared less? No. Of course not. They'd have probably passed you by, without so much as a second glance."

The problem is the "probably" part. If they "probably" decided to arrest you instead, you would "probably" regret going in there just because you thought you could get away with it. This is the Florida section, so we need to apply Florida rules to the conversation.

The elaborate scenarios I put on here were to point out that not everything is so cut and dry as....if there are no apparent rules against it...just do it. We have to be a little more careful here. The Egmont Key example....the small town that requires a permit...the beach at the park that requires a permit....all places that you might say: "Hey, there was no sign, and I didn't see anything on the website about it...so it must be ok.".....but those places can cause some big problems with that method.

Yes, the lawyer thing was just a joke...but the "moral" was: You don't have to lay down for these clowns that make the rules up as they go. You can just remind them that they are not only public servants, but just regular people when they leave that office....

So your "Seriously dude?" was unneccessary. I guess I could give you a "Seriously dude?" if you expect someone to go down to city hall and search the records for any anti-detecting laws just to coinshoot a park! They are either going to just do it, or ask someone for permission like has been beaten into them to do, just like filling their holes, and removing their trash,

The way looking up the rules yourself isn't "foolproof" was addressed in the example of the small town with no visible rules against detecting in it's parks, but requiring a permit to detect. I GUARANTEE YOU it isn't written down anywhere, and like I said, in that situation, they would probably only run you off, and you would have wasted a trip. Yeah..."leagally" it would "have" to be written down...but this is a small town...in the south...maybe you have heard things like: "The good ol' boy network", "You can't fight city hall", and, "You're in a heap of trouble boy"? It's something they just came up with because a local detectorist complained because out of towners always find more than he does. It could probably be defeated if you wanted to push the issue, but like you said, they would just put it on the books....and why go through all that trouble, instead of just getting the permit?

The other example of it not being foolproof is the beaches that, by all searchable accounts, can be hunted legally, but the park rangers, for whatever reason, decided it would not be allowed, or require a permit. (Which under the law, is at their discretion).

Your example for California beaches is fine, but doesn't translate to the Florida, state park, beaches that I am talking about.

Here is that scenario the way it would play out at one of these beaches that it is illegal to detect in here in Florida:

Someone takes my advice and asks at the kiosk on the way in if they can detect on the beach. They are told "Sorry, even though it is legal to detect from the high tide line to the toe of the dunes at most state park beaches, because ours includes a historical area/sea turtle nesting site/etc., it is not allowed." Now "poor Jon" (how did you know I was poor?) goes out on the beach only to see other md'rs out there on the beach without a care in the world. Now imagine the kiosk clerk/park ranger goes out there. What do you think is going to happen? If they are lucky, they just get yelled at and told to leave, or put up the detectors. If they are not lucky, maybe they get arrested and made an example of.

So what I am saying is: If asking for permission at one place causes you to not be able to detect, when if you just went in there nobody would have cared, and asking permission at another place keeps you from getting arrested, losing your equipement, losing your vehicle, etc.....then that seems like a preety decent trade off.

Again....I agree that it is best to look it up yourself, and I wouldn't hesitate to detect in a public park until I was done or ran off....but the advice to "just do it" CAN get you in serious trouble in Florida.

I'm going to bow out of the discussion now, so unless there is a specific question I need to address, I'll give you the final word, before it degrades to the part where we start picking apart each others grammar and spelling!

Happy Holidays, and Happy Hunting!
-Jon

 

[Tom_in_CA]

" .........and asking permission at another place keeps you from getting arrested, losing your equipement, losing your vehicle, etc.....then that seems like a preety decent trade off....."

No, no one is going to "get arrested" or "loose their equipment" or "loose their vehicle" by following my admonition. Not even in Florida. Because if a person looks up his activity (metal detecting in this case) and sees no laws forbidding it, then NO, they're not going to get arrested, loose their car, etc... And yes, laws and rules are going to be accessible to the public, somehow, some way, for public viewing. If not, then they're not enforceable, if they're "hidden in someone's file cabinet" somewhere. The worst you can get is a warning, and no ticket or confiscation would ever stick.

For example: if someone came and arrested you tomorrow for wearing a blue shirt, you would object and say to the cop: "since when is wearing a blue shirt an arrestable offence??". To which the cop tells you: "It's a secret law, that's not on the books for you to have known. It's in a secret hidden file cabinet down a the police station, so now I'm going to arrest you". What would you say to that cop?

And honestly now Jon, can you tell me of any instance in FL where someone was "arrested" and "had their equipment and detector taken" for metal detecting at a place where the md'r can not have sleuthed out the illegality of his activity ahead of time ?? Do you also think people should get permission to fly frisbees, or skip stones on the pond? (afterall, you *might* poke someone's eye out). No, of course not.

But let me interject that of course there will be rogue cases of someone getting "roughed up" where there was no prohibitions, and if there were, the prohibitions were very hard to sleuth out. Heck, I'll even go so far as to say that someone's "been arrested" for flying frisbees or metal detecting at a place where no such prohibition EVEN EXISTED. But SO TOO can you sometimes "find examples" of a motorist getting "rouged up" by an "over-zealous cop" for nothing but a tail light out! Yup, arrested, car confiscated, etc... for a simple tail light infraction. Does this mean that because of such rare extreme oddities that you don't drive anymore? Or that you "get permission" to drive because of odd-ball extreme exceptions like that? No. Of course not. We all still drive, and we look at cases like that as being exceptions, and wacked out cops.

I'll give you a crisp $20 bill for any incidents of "arrests and confiscations" you can give me, for someone who failed to "get permission" to detect at a place where there were no laws forbidding detecting.

 

[Jon Phillips]

Since you asked a question....

Yes, I have to "get permission" to drive...passed a couple of tests and all that.

The example of Egmont Key is one where it is a state park with a beach that by all accounts of looking up the laws, could be detected by law, but where it is forbbiden.

As far as examples of "arrests and confiscations" ......Here is one that immediately popped up, but I'm sure you will say it's just bunk, and can't be proven...which without a name or arrest report is true.


Metal Detecting In Florida And The Law!

Looks like a pretty inconspicuous place to detect....There is also an easy to find story of a guy that was arrested for detecting a bank parking lot, complete with pics of him in handcuffs....He wasn't asked to leave, just arrested.

Like I said..."Just doing it" CAN lead you to trouble in certain situations.

If you can't bring yourself to believe that, then nothing more I can say will be able to make you....

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Jon, I'll have to look more at the link you give .... a bit later . Am heading out the door right now to go detecting for a several-day-trip

As for the Egmont example, you say that a) no amount of research will ever show an individual that it is "illegal" to detect there yet b) it's illegal to detect there.

Then my answer is: No, it's not illegal to detect there. The only way they can boot you is to morph something else that IS written. Ie.: because they say you're "altering" or "defacing" or running afoul of cultural heritage verbage, or something that IS posted. You simply can NOT get "arrested" for doing something for which there is no law forbidding it. To think otherwise, is to actually believe you can be arrested for wearing a blue shirt, because an entity has a "secret law", that they pull out of a locked file drawer, to arrest persons arbitrarily who wear blue shirts.

Now this brings up something interesting: If you acknowledge that the reason for an "imminent arrest" in Egmont is NOT because of an actual rule specifically saying "no metal detectors", but is instead OTHER rules morphed to fit detecting, then here's what I have to say: 1) then in that case, there IS a law, and it IS something that can be looked up. 2) then this opens another big can of worms, of whether md'rs, all over the United States, need to "ask permission", because there's the chance that someone can morph something else to apply to their activity, in which to boot them (or even "arrest" them).

If you want to go down that route, then that opens up a whole new can of worms. Because I can gaurantee you, that in EVERY single park, school, beach, etc.... there will ALWAYS be rules that forbid "defacement" "alterations", "vandalism" "annoyances" "collecting" "harvesting", etc... Heck, even lost & found laws that are in every state telling you to turn in anything worth over $50 the local police. I mean, the list is endless of things that someone *could* say you are violating. If you start down that road, then you might as well give up now, and choose another hobby. I mean, seriously, if you make the automatic equivalence that your hobby = "vandalism" and so forth, then ... heck, why not walk into city hall and ask: "Hi. Can I please vandalize, alter, destroy the park, while annoying other park-goers? And then can I 'collect and harvest' park features for my own fun and enjoyment, while destroying the park's cultural heritage, to sell on ebay for my own enrichment?". Afterall, if you make the automatic equivalence that your hobby is automatically defined by those things, WHY MINCE WORDS? Thus no, I do NOT make the automatic equivalence that my hobby is evil, destructive, etc.... Might someone else?? SURE! There's ALWAYS going to be a kill-joy out there. If it really bothers you that not everyone will love your hobby, and see it as innocuous, and thus you "need their princely sanction", then I fear you have chosen the wrong hobby.

Anyhow, a cursory reading of your link tells me there's more to that story. If an arrest there actually 'stuck', then there had to be a law that he was violating. (and no, not simply "annoying earthworms verbage, etc..., it had to be specific). And if I'm wrong, and he was violating no laws, then this simply has to be akin to the stories on the news sometimes of a motorist being roughed up for nothing but a tail-light out. There will ALWAYS be examples of extremes. I mean, sheesk, if you worry about things long enough and hard enough, you'll never drive, fly, or walk down the street.

Thus, asking permission more-often-than-not (where there's no prohibitions) will only lead to the risk of "no's", where no one ever cared before. And let me tell you something else!! There has been AMPLE stories of persons STILL getting "roughed up" by over-zealous cops, rangers, or gardeners, EVEN with "permission". And when the md'r proudly whips out their "permission" slip, the cop, or ranger, or gardener, promptly gets on their cell-phone, calls headquarters, and simply says "but he's tearing the place up!!". And guess what happens to your "permission"? Heck, I bet you can even still be "arrested" in a case like that, when they claim you "mis-led" the clerk at city hall, by not divulging your intention to "damage and destroy" "harvest" "collect", etc.... Because we ALL (let's admit it) when we go "ask permission" will use euphamisms like "metal detect". Never do we say "dig", "alter" "deface", "arpa" "indian bones", "sale of public property", etc... right? Because we all know that's silly, and it's the fastest way to get a "no". But, heck, if you're so afraid of "arrests", why not cover those bases, and drop all those key-buzzwords, lest the desk-bound bureaucrat not have a full-mental picture? Afterall, you don't want to "get arrested" by your lack of forthcoming honesty, now do you?