Need a Lawyer

[chenty]

Any Lawyer to Interpret this for me PLEASE!

ARTICLE 8 – PRESERVATION OF COUNTY PARKS

Sec. 6308 – PARK PRESERVATION – It is unlawful for persons using County Parks to
do so in a manner which will damage the man-made, natural, cultural or historic
resources within the Park.

Sec. 6308-1 – Flora and Fauna – No person shall dig, remove, destroy, injure, mutilate or
cut any part of any tree, plant shrub, or flower growing in any County Park or remove,
destroy or otherwise disturb any animal in a County Park.

Sec. 6308-2 – Mineral Features – No person shall destroy, disturb, deface, or remove
earth, rock, sand or gravel, oil, minerals or fossils, nor remove water from any source in a
County Park in any amount exceeding one (1) gallon, except as provided in Section
6309-6(b). (pertains to water faucets)

Sec. 6308-4 – Historical and Archaeological – No person shall remove, destroy or
otherwise disturb historical or archaeological materials in any County Park.

Sec. 6308-5 – Defacement Prohibited - No person shall in any way deface buildings,
monuments, fences, walls, benches, trees, or other structures, apparatus or property or
other structures.

Sec. 6308-6 – Tampering – No person shall tamper with or damage County property of
any kind (vehicles, equipment, or fixtures, etc.).

Just trying to figure out the word playing game

Thanks for your help

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[bevo]

are you allowed to breath the air in the county park?

 

[kevin hoffman]

breathing allowed IF you brushed this morning

 

[pong12211]

Just dont remove any trees or shrubs or minerals or historical items and you should be fine... Wow what a deffinition of a public park..

 

[pippinwhitepaws]

seems to say...NO...

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Chenty, what secret-canyon seems to want to say, is that all those things in your list-of-rules, if someone thinks about it "long enough and hard enough", COULD be found to apply to detecting. EVEN THOUGH "metal detecting" is no where listed as something that is prohibited. Yet, ... let's face it: you might be deemed to have "altered or disturbed" the flora (the grass blades). Or if you found a 51+ yr. old penny someone *might* say you've "removed an archaeological resource". Heck, if you cut an earthworm in half, you might fall afoul of having failed sec. 6308-1, which forbids disturbing any animal.

But let me tell you, if you (or secret-canyon) automatically apply these things to yourself, because someone can morph them to apply to your activity, then ....... hang it up now and choose another hobby. Or stick to private land with permission. Because I can gaurantee you right now, that verbage such as that, is in EVERY public place (park, school, beach, etc...) EVERYWHERE, in EVERY U.S.A. city, at every level.

Yup, for example verbage that disallows "vandalism" and disallows "tampering" and so forth, will, of course, be in every public spot, right? I mean, seriously, did you expect to go to the city and ask them "Hi, can I please vandalize and alter the park for my own fun and enjoyment please?" No, of course not. Verbage like that is there so that when someone paints graffiti, or lights the picnic benches on fire, that they can prosecute. Verbage like that way pre-dates metal detectors (I mean, did you think there was ever a time or place where "vandalism" and "defacing" was allowed?). But the key question is: are we at risk of falling under those clauses? SURE! Anyone can gripe about anything, at any time, and say "you can't do that".

Thus no, I (and most md'rs) do NOT consider those clauses to automatically apply to us. Because if you do, then give it up now, and choose another hobby. Because to be honest with you, clauses about "alterations" and "defacing" and so forth, all inherently and implicitly refer to the END result, do they not? In other words, if you leave no trace of your presence (cover your hole, stomp it in, ruffle it up, etc...), then *technically*, you have not alterED, or defacED anything, NOW HAVE YOU? Does that mean that someone might not come up and debate those semantics? SURE. If that bothers you (that not everyone rolls out the red carpet for you), then I fear you have chosen the wrong hobby. Or you're just going to have to look for modern targets on top of the ground.

If we all looked long enough and hard enough, at enough laws, and tried real hard to find ways to morph them to ourselves, you can find endless things that *might* apply, if you ran into *just* the right-busy-body to make the connection. I mean, why stop at the laws you listed? You can even find things that disallow harvesting and collecting and taking. Now of course, those things were never meant to apply to individual coins, rings, and pulltabs. They were there way-back-when to forbid someone from helping themselves to all the roses in the rose-garden. Or to stop someone from backing his truck up to the park and loading up all the tan-bark for use in his own garden back home. Or from cutting down the park's trees for fire-wood, and so forth. But could it apply to singular coins, if you tried long enough and thought deeply enough? SURE. But did anyone really care or think that way? Probably not.

Or how about "lost & found" laws that are also in every single state. Did you know that any item in CA worth over $100, you are to turn it in to the police? Born out of wandering cattle laws of the 1800s, or so that no one thinks they can scoop up wads of cash when a brinks armored car door swings open on the freeway. But can they apply to individual rings (even ones lost 10 or 20 yrs. ago)? SURE. But does anyone really worry or think about it in that way? A simple look at the "finds" forum here on t'net, and .... there's no shortage of people posting their rings and other items worth over $100. And did you think any of them are rushing to the police dept. and turning them in?

Thus me thinks you are worrying too much. Just don't leave any mess (as the rules say), and don't take home anything "archaeological". Now, if you happened to find a coin from the 1800s, did you plan on parading it around in front of archies asking "is this historical?" I mean, .....seriously now..... c'mon.

I notice from your other posts, that you are from So. CA, and have done your share of beach hunting. And as you know, most of the So. CA shoreline beaches are state-administered. right? (as opposed to city owned beaches, or county or federal owned beaches). Most of the beaches along CA's coast are state-run, with only a smattering being city or county or federal. Ok, just to put this in perspective: Are you aware that there is CA state parks verbage about "cultural heritage" and stuff, that applies to the beaches here too? Afterall: the same parks dept. that manages and oversees the inland parks, is the SAME "parks dept" that over-sees the beaches here too. And there's nothing to stop rules that apply to the inland parks, from also applying to the beaches here too. HOWEVER, in ACTUAL PRACTICE (as you probably well know by now), NO ONE CARES. Yup, you can detect state-of-CA beaches till you're blue in the face, and no one cares. Yup, you can even find an old coin (which show up after deep beach erosion, and someone *might* call an archaeological or cultural resource) and no one would care. Yet ....... if you looked long enough and hard enough at the state-of-CA rules, and asked enough archies in Sacramento, you would find someone to tell you "no you can't". Yet as you can see, in actual practice, no one cares, and that's not the case.

Thus me-thinks you're worrying too much about ancillary verbage. Unless it specifically says "no metal detecting", then no, I do not consider those other things to apply to us/me.

Now this doesn't mean that, therefore, you can just go waltzing nilly willy over beach blankets at an archie convention, digging big holes in front of gardeners. I mean, C'MON, you STILL need to use a bit of due-discretion on your timing and image. There's nothing to stop a busy-body from griping still, so ... for pete's sake, you've got to pick low traffic times when doing turf-hunting (which has admitted connotations).

 

[Oradden]

A post describing the best community on one website for treasure hunting.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

oh, as a post-script: One time, about 10 yrs. ago, a buddy of mine was detecting on Seacliff State beach (a little south of Santa Cruz). It just so happened that a state archaeologist was to be at that beach that day. Because he was going to be giving a lecture at the little beach-side museum that's at that beach. And it just so happened that as the archie arrived, and got out of his car to walk into the museum, that he glanced out to the beach and saw my friend detecting.

So the archie walked down the stairs, and out on to the beach, to accost my friend. The archie read the RIOT ACT to my friend, telling him things like "you can't do that here" and so forth. At first, my friend didn't know what this guy was talking about, or who he was. Now you can only imagine the confusion my friend was feeling, as THIS WAS NEWS TO HIM. I mean, everyone around here knows you can detect all the beaches, and there's no prohibitions. Right? I mean, heck, they've been detected for decades. Detectors are a common site. So how the heck was this archie coming off telling my friend to scram? The archie told him "....because it's a state beach" (which, of course, was odd, because SO TOO are MOST of the beaches around here, doh!). And then the archie pointed to the cement ship that permanently beached there (now turned in to a fishing pier) and said "... and you might find an archaeological resource...". That too was an odd thing, because the frickin ship only dates to when it was purposefully beached there in 1929. Prior to that, this cliffy remote beach area, was only sparsely populated area, and a road didn't even exist to reach it. Hence it's actually one of the more MODERN beaches in our area! Doh! (as opposed to Capitola, Santa Cruz, Watsonville, etc... which have beaches which were popularly used even way back into the mid 1800s for recreation, commercial usage, etc...). So when this archie was citing "archaeological remains", that too made no sense.

The two of them squared off and argued, but eventually, the archie had to leave as he had an appointment to start his little speach at the museum right then.

After this "encounter", that friend posted about it on a local CA forum. Several of us read it, and laughed at how st*pid that is. I mean, afterall, we all "know" that you can detect state of CA beaches, RIGHT? Thus OBVIOUSLY this archie is the one who is mistaken. Right? So a few of us had half a mind to set-this-guy in his place, and prove him wrong. But oddly, as we began to look into the minutia (much like you have done with your county-rules thing), we began to see verbage that ...... if someone worried and though long enough and hard enough, that *could* be applied.

So, in the end, we all decided to "leave good enough" alone and NOT fight this and NOT seek to "get this clarified". I mean, let's face it: that archie (probably the only guy in the entire state of CA that would think or notice or morph such things) no doubt went back to Sacramento, and will never see an md'r again.

In other words, THINGS WERE JUST FINE THE WAY they are, the WORST thing we could do, is go start asking a bunch of questions. It would only be a case of "no one cares, till you ask" psychology. Thus sometimes chenty, you have to give "lip service" if accosted, and avoid "just that one person" in the future.

If this bothers anyone, that they do not find spots with "metal detecting welcome here" signs, then ...... alas, as I say, this is probably not the hobby for you.

 

[chenty]

WOW! I want to thank all for your replies

Tom, You have answered it just the way I needed it.
I'm not big on comprehension, especially when it comes to legal mumbo jumbo.
You said it in ENGLISH so I could understand it better and I thank you.

My wife was asking me this morn. what it all meant? basicly I told her it was all
a play on words...... It all depends who and how someone interprets it.

I have learned my machine and what I think it is telling me, but there is a lot more
learning to do. I am ready to take on some parks and that is why I asked someone to
help me interpret these laws or regulations so I could understand them better.
No, it does not say go ahead and DIG and No, it does not say NO MD'ing. SO I think
I will just give it a shot and if someone tells me that I can't be there or it's not
allowed I will deal with it then.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

WOW! I want to thank all for your replies

Tom, You have answered it just the way I needed it.
I'm not big on comprehension, especially when it comes to legal mumbo jumbo.
You said it in ENGLISH so I could understand it better and I thank you.

My wife was asking me this morn. what it all meant? basicly I told her it was all
a play on words...... It all depends who and how someone interprets it.

I have learned my machine and what I think it is telling me, but there is a lot more
learning to do. I am ready to take on some parks and that is why I asked someone to
help me interpret these laws or regulations so I could understand them better.
No, it does not say go ahead and DIG and No, it does not say NO MD'ing. SO I think
I will just give it a shot and if someone tells me that I can't be there or it's not
allowed I will deal with it then.

Glad to be of assistance As you surmise, this does not, therefore, mean that you/we can just go "tromp around nilly willy" *just* because there's not a specific rule. I mean, just like nose-picking: we all STILL ... uh ... use a little discretion on our timing. So in the same manner, since our hobby *does* have admitted connotations (that you might be about to make a mess, or bother indian bones or something), then you still need to pick low traffic times, avoid busy-bodies and lookie-lous, etc...

I wish it weren't like that. I wish there were neon signs saying "metal detecting and digging welcome here". But alas, it just aint gonna happen.

 

[jerseyben]

Any Lawyer to Interpret this for me PLEASE!

ARTICLE 8 – PRESERVATION OF COUNTY PARKS

Sec. 6308 – PARK PRESERVATION – It is unlawful for persons using County Parks to
do so in a manner which will damage the man-made, natural, cultural or historic
resources within the Park.

Sec. 6308-1 – Flora and Fauna – No person shall dig, remove, destroy, injure, mutilate or
cut any part of any tree, plant shrub, or flower growing in any County Park or remove,
destroy or otherwise disturb any animal in a County Park.

Sec. 6308-2 – Mineral Features – No person shall destroy, disturb, deface, or remove
earth, rock, sand or gravel, oil, minerals or fossils, nor remove water from any source in a
County Park in any amount exceeding one (1) gallon, except as provided in Section
6309-6(b). (pertains to water faucets)

Sec. 6308-4 – Historical and Archaeological – No person shall remove, destroy or
otherwise disturb historical or archaeological materials in any County Park.

Sec. 6308-5 – Defacement Prohibited - No person shall in any way deface buildings,
monuments, fences, walls, benches, trees, or other structures, apparatus or property or
other structures.

Sec. 6308-6 – Tampering – No person shall tamper with or damage County property of
any kind (vehicles, equipment, or fixtures, etc.).

Just trying to figure out the word playing game

Thanks for your help

Not only are these rules fairly clear, they seem rather fair to me.

The only part that is questionable is the use of the word "historical", as that could mean almost anything.

 

[cudamark]

The word "disturb" is the vague term that bothers me. Who's to say what has been disturbed? Simply walking on the grass, jogging in the sand, or wading in the surf is technically disturbing something. I think they deliberately make these ordinances vague so they fit any violation they choose to apply them to. It gives them the latitude to enforce whatever is politically correct at the moment.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

The word "disturb" is the vague term that bothers me. Who's to say what has been disturbed? Simply walking on the grass, jogging in the sand, or wading in the surf is technically disturbing something. I think they deliberately make these ordinances vague so they fit any violation they choose to apply them to. It gives them the latitude to enforce whatever is politically correct at the moment.

Well then cudamark, I'd suggest that before the next time you walk on the grass, that you go clarify, ahead-of-time, that it's ok, and won't run afoul of those laws. Afterall, you wouldn't want to get a ticket or get arrested ...... now would you?

Seriously now, yes: laws are purposefully written vaguely and broadly, so as to fit a myriad of circumstances, as they may arise, in the field. You know, catch-all things like laws that forbid "annoyances" and so forth. Because when you think of it, it only makes sense: Because they certainly can't make a list of laws that lists EVERY SINGLE THING that is prohibited. Otherwise everyone would perpetually be arguing semantics and trying to claim that there's not a law that specifically addresses *their* supposed error. You know, like if you walked around in the park with a single sock on, a cop might try to arrest you for "public nudity". Yet you'd try to argue with him by saying: "But officer, I was wearing a single sock, so tehnically I wasn't nude". And so forth.

Thus laws are written in such a way, as to cover a variety of situations. And "duly-appointed-public-officials" are given latitude to interpret as they see fit (obviously as needs arise, since not every single thing can be predicted or foretold). And in the interest of cultural stability, you can see why. Otherwise chaos would break out, etc.... And their superiors will no doubt usually side on behalf of the rank-and-file in the field (lest no cop would ever want to do his job, if he was always fighting city hall, lawyers, etc...).

Thus is why I say, AVOID SUCH LOOKIE LOUS AND ENCOUNTERS TO BEGIN WITH. Why swat hornet's nests? For petes sakes.......

 

[cudamark]

Hey, I agree with you. I was mainly commenting on jerseyben's statement that "the only part that is questionable is the use of the word "historical". I think there are lots of questionable uses of words in these types of ordinances and I think deliberately so. I realize it's impossible to cover every situation with one short sentence but I also think they could do a better job of zeroing in on the problem they're trying to solve. Mainly keeping the park from being used as a nursery or building supply center for homeowners. If they have a specific problem with any particular activity, they should name it. Otherwise we should be able to enjoy our hobby in the park like everyone else without having to wonder if we're in violation or not. As written, I don't think we are and I choose to ignore them. The problem with them, as written, is that the OP and others will read these ordinances and then start asking questions about them. First to themselves and family/friends, then to officials, which can be a problem in the long run for all of us.