Iowa Hunting Laws

[MrSchulz]

I have heard alot of contradicting info on hunting in iowa. I've hunted parks and bouelvards with no problem, police officers have drove by and so have city workers. I ran into an off duty city worker metal detecting a boulevard for fun and he said its legal. But i've also heard you can't. Whats the scoop?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Tom_in_CA]

Well, for starters, you're asking about "Iowa hunting laws" (which is the title of your thread afterall), but then in the body of your text, you switch to city level issues. So which is it? state owned/operated land? Or city level owned/operated lands? Because they're two different entities. State level laws would have nothing to do with the curb-strips, parks, schools, etc... in a city, that are city owned.

And to answer the question about city level: Most all cities rules have nothing at all specific about metal detecting. Ie.: you RARELY ever hear of a city having something that says "no metal detectors". And rarely ever (only in a few bigger cities) is there every a "permit" (I can think of only 3 or 4 in all of CA, for instance, out of hundreds of cities). So the answer is: It's almost always silent on the issue.

However, someone *might* morph something else to apply to you, if you were a nuisance in some way: Like they could try to say you're leaving holes, or hurting earthworms, or ........ who knows what. But so long as you're not being a nuisance in some other way, then as you yourself have seen: most people could care less. However, I bet if you walked in to enough city offices, and talked to enough bored desk-bound clerks, you would finds ones who say "no". Simply because perhaps they have an image of geeks with shovels. Who knows? But odds are, those would simply be cases of "no one cared, till you asked".

So do what you're doing, which as you say has seemed to pass muster. Heck, if a city worker or cop passed me, with nothing but a friendly wave, then why oh why oh why would anyone question that?

 

[MrSchulz]

Well, for starters, you're asking about "Iowa hunting laws" (which is the title of your thread afterall), but then in the body of your text, you switch to city level issues. So which is it? state owned/operated land? Or city level owned/operated lands? Because they're two different entities. State level laws would have nothing to do with the curb-strips, parks, schools, etc... in a city, that are city owned.

And to answer the question about city level: Most all cities rules have nothing at all specific about metal detecting. Ie.: you RARELY ever hear of a city having something that says "no metal detectors". And rarely ever (only in a few bigger cities) is there every a "permit" (I can think of only 3 or 4 in all of CA, for instance, out of hundreds of cities). So the answer is: It's almost always silent on the issue.

However, someone *might* morph something else to apply to you, if you were a nuisance in some way: Like they could try to say you're leaving holes, or hurting earthworms, or ........ who knows what. But so long as you're not being a nuisance in some other way, then as you yourself have seen: most people could care less. However, I bet if you walked in to enough city offices, and talked to enough bored desk-bound clerks, you would finds ones who say "no". Simply because perhaps they have an image of geeks with shovels. Who knows? But odds are, those would simply be cases of "no one cared, till you asked".

So do what you're doing, which as you say has seemed to pass muster. Heck, if a city worker or cop passed me, with nothing but a friendly wave, then why oh why oh why would anyone question that?

Thank you, I am good for the city basis. How about state operated land?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

Thank you, I am good for the city basis. How about state operated land?

well, according to this site, Iowa is yes:

Federation of Metal Detector & Archaeological Clubs Inc.

Albeit at "beaches" only. Doh. But you have to bear in mind how lists like this one, came about, to begin with. Here's how: someone asked. Sounds logical enough. I mean ..... who better to ask, than the state's themselves? So for example, when lists like this first came about (a book by a guy named "Grimm" wrote "Treasure Laws of the United States decades ago), he did it by the following method: He merely sat down, xeroxed off 50 letters, and sent them to 50 states park's dept's headquarters, asking "what are the laws regarding metal detecting in your state's parks?" Then he would take all the 50 replies, compile them in his book, and ...... presto: In theory, you could merely take that book with you when you travel, and know ahead of time if you could, or couldn't, in any particular state's parks. And if someone hassled, you, you'd merely pull out the book, and show them the law. All this sounds logical enough.

But the odd thing was when books and lists like that surfaced, culled from people asking, there was the odd pyschological effect of ....... sometimes getting a "no", simply because the desk-bound clerk, tasked with answering this letter, applies something silly. Like cultural heritage verbage, or whatever. I mean, ask youself, if YOU were the bureaucrat answering that letter, what do YOU think the "easy" answer was going to be? Afterall, there are, in ANY state, admittedly some historically sensitive monuments, right? And no one would argue with being able to snoop around those, right? But then there may also be legions of other parks which no one ever cared, and they weren't an issue. But when answering a question like this, you simply can't go into detailed minutia like: "no at these 10, but yes at those 20, and yes at this one, except on the north end where the cabin is..." blah blah blah. So apparently the "easy" answer was "no" most of the time (as you can see reading that list).

Oddly, there were a lot of states on those lists, when the lists started making the rounds, where ..... quite frankly,..... no one had ever had a problem before. So when these lists came out, you had old-timers scratching their heads saying "since when?". See how the self-fulfilling pyschology works? It's the old "no one cared, till you asked" routine.

And I can tell you for a fact, that some of those states with "no's" (or limitations such as Iowa), may in fact have state parks that are detected, and no one continues to care. Or perhaps you can go till you're blue in the face, and receive nothing but a friendly wave from the ranger. But I bet if you were to walk up to that SAME ranger and ask "can I?", that perhaps he'd have to check his rule book, call state capitol (as perhaps it never occured to him), and tell you "no".

Moral of the story?

 

[New Orleans Relic]

Well, for starters, you're asking about "Iowa hunting laws" (which is the title of your thread afterall), but then in the body of your text, you switch to city level issues. So which is it? state owned/operated land? Or city level owned/operated lands? Because they're two different entities. State level laws would have nothing to do with the curb-strips, parks, schools, etc... in a city, that are city owned.

And to answer the question about city level: Most all cities rules have nothing at all specific about metal detecting. Ie.: you RARELY ever hear of a city having something that says "no metal detectors". And rarely ever (only in a few bigger cities) is there every a "permit" (I can think of only 3 or 4 in all of CA, for instance, out of hundreds of cities). So the answer is: It's almost always silent on the issue.

However, someone *might* morph something else to apply to you, if you were a nuisance in some way: Like they could try to say you're leaving holes, or hurting earthworms, or ........ who knows what. But so long as you're not being a nuisance in some other way, then as you yourself have seen: most people could care less. However, I bet if you walked in to enough city offices, and talked to enough bored desk-bound clerks, you would finds ones who say "no". Simply because perhaps they have an image of geeks with shovels. Who knows? But odds are, those would simply be cases of "no one cared, till you asked".

So do what you're doing, which as you say has seemed to pass muster. Heck, if a city worker or cop passed me, with nothing but a friendly wave, then why oh why oh why would anyone question that?

I agree with this and many of your posts Tom but I haven't noticed you touch on wrongfull precedence when officials are asked and give bad info. Which I find disturbing.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I agree with this and many of your posts Tom but I haven't noticed you touch on wrongfull precedence when officials are asked and give bad info. Which I find disturbing.

relic, can you please expand a little on the meaning of "wrongful precedence" ?

Does that mean when you ask an official "can I?", and he gives "bad info" (ie.: "no") ? If so, this is a GOOD reason to look up the rules for oneself, and not ask Since you'd be surprised how often this happens. It is not uncommon to fetch a "no", and have them cite something silly to back themselves up. Usually the dreaded "alteration" verbage, but it can be other stuff, like rules that forbid "collecting" (which was meant so no one can back up their truck to the park and help themselves to all the tan-bark, or roses, or whatever.) The trouble then becomes, if you object, and fight that, guess who's going to win? You'll only end up getting rules further interpretted and even specifically written, to "address this pressing issue". (when perhaps no one would ever have cared, or even noticed, doh!)

To answer your question, I don't think the above scenarios would even fall under "bad info" anyhow! Because think about it: Those elected or appointed officials are TASKED with interpretting the laws, to apply to a myriad of circumstances that arise, as they do their work. In other words, often time laws and rules are purposefully written vaguely, to begin with, so as to apply to a myriad of things that come up in the field. So for example: If you are wearing a single sock, and a cop tries to arrest you for public nudity, well then, he has the latitude to ignore your objection that your sock constituted adequate clothing. And superiors above cops and rangers will usually always side on the side of the field personell (unless it's truly agregiously obviously patently wrong).

 

[themarkd]

well, according to this site, Iowa is yes:

Federation of Metal Detector & Archaeological Clubs Inc.

Albeit at "beaches" only. Doh. But you have to bear in mind how lists like this one, came about, to begin with. Here's how: someone asked. Sounds logical enough. I mean ..... who better to ask, than the state's themselves? So for example, when lists like this first came about (a book by a guy named "Grimm" wrote "Treasure Laws of the United States decades ago), he did it by the following method: He merely sat down, xeroxed off 50 letters, and sent them to 50 states park's dept's headquarters, asking "what are the laws regarding metal detecting in your state's parks?" Then he would take all the 50 replies, compile them in his book, and ...... presto: In theory, you could merely take that book with you when you travel, and know ahead of time if you could, or couldn't, in any particular state's parks. And if someone hassled, you, you'd merely pull out the book, and show them the law. All this sounds logical enough.

But the odd thing was when books and lists like that surfaced, culled from people asking, there was the odd pyschological effect of ....... sometimes getting a "no", simply because the desk-bound clerk, tasked with answering this letter, applies something silly. Like cultural heritage verbage, or whatever. I mean, ask youself, if YOU were the bureaucrat answering that letter, what do YOU think the "easy" answer was going to be? Afterall, there are, in ANY state, admittedly some historically sensitive monuments, right? And no one would argue with being able to snoop around those, right? But then there may also be legions of other parks which no one ever cared, and they weren't an issue. But when answering a question like this, you simply can't go into detailed minutia like: "no at these 10, but yes at those 20, and yes at this one, except on the north end where the cabin is..." blah blah blah. So apparently the "easy" answer was "no" most of the time (as you can see reading that list).

Oddly, there were a lot of states on those lists, when the lists started making the rounds, where ..... quite frankly,..... no one had ever had a problem before. So when these lists came out, you had old-timers scratching their heads saying "since when?". See how the self-fulfilling pyschology works? It's the old "no one cared, till you asked" routine.

And I can tell you for a fact, that some of those states with "no's" (or limitations such as Iowa), may in fact have state parks that are detected, and no one continues to care. Or perhaps you can go till you're blue in the face, and receive nothing but a friendly wave from the ranger. But I bet if you were to walk up to that SAME ranger and ask "can I?", that perhaps he'd have to check his rule book, call state capitol (as perhaps it never occured to him), and tell you "no".

Moral of the story?

The moral is that it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission.