No Trespassing?

[WaveHiMike]

I have found a place I want to hunt but I'm not exactly sure if I'm allowed to go there. It is an empty field owned by a real estate company that will eventually build a walmart or strip mall there. It used to be an old farm house. I think I'm going to go at night because I think during the day would be too risky. I'm mostly worried about being caught in a place that says no trespassing, which I'm not 100% sure if it says that but I think it might. Most likely I will go and not even be seen but you never know. Is this ok to do? Or am I breaking the rules. The only way I would be caught is if someone sees my light. I think tonight is the night I will do it too because it's warm enough and it was raining all day so the ground will be soft.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[RJ55]

If it were me I would get permission and not take the risk of getting in trouble.

 

[WaveHiMike]

How do you get permission?

 

[wainzoid]

Will you be able to post pics of your finds, from jail? Can't wait to see them!

 

[Keppy]

First go see what the sign says if it does not say No trespassing just go hunt it ... How do you know what the sign says if you do not go read it .. That is the first for me someone saying i think the sign says but will not go read it..

 

[WaveHiMike]

Actually I was just thinking about this a bit and realized that I bet the way to get permission is to call the company and ask. Duh. But it also occurred to me that by asking for permission to metal detect their property we are basically asking for a favor. We would call them up and use up some of their time and ask for them to do something for us for no reason at all. It would all depend on the person who is giving the permission, I assume some people are nice and say yes because who cares, but some people might say no because they feel they're being protective of their land or they see no reason to do it. I wonder how many companies usually give permission, do you guys get a lot of yeses from the bigger corporate companies?

 

[Terry Soloman]

Actually I was just thinking about this a bit and realized that I bet the way to get permission is to call the company and ask. Duh. But it also occurred to me that by asking for permission to metal detect their property we are basically asking for a favor. We would call them up and use up some of their time and ask for them to do something for us for no reason at all. It would all depend on the person who is giving the permission, I assume some people are nice and say yes because who cares, but some people might say no because they feel they're being protective of their land or they see no reason to do it. I wonder how many companies usually give permission, do you guys get a lot of yeses from the bigger corporate companies?

Automatic "No." Risk manager will shut it down. If you're a pirate, sun up to 7am. Hit it hard in prime likely spots!

 

[WaveHiMike]

Here's the sign, got it off of google earth, there's nowhere to park near it so I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing yet only drive by



So wainzoid what you're saying is you wont hunt a spot like this without permission because of risk of getting caught?

and Terry what you're saying is you're more of a if it's a dumb rule why follow it kind of person

Well i'm more of a pirate too so I'm going to do it

If a cop wants to trek the half mile in to tell me to stop then good for him. I'm more worried about the animals I might encounter

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

That sign is just a notice of impending development and public notice of plans to ammmend local zoning for the site usage.

I wouldn't hunt the site without permission because that is trespassing whether it is posted or not.

Not because I was afraid of getting caught; but because I didn't have permisson.

 

[WaveHiMike]

Is it likely to get permission from that sort of company?

 

[WaveHiMike]

I'm going to drive by tonight and check it out and see how it feels. All my other spots are just parks basically. I was trying to find a new spot to hunt that might be good.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

I'm going to drive by tonight and check it out and see how it feels.

Normally it's a slightly uncomfortable feeling, quickening of pulse and a blushing of the skin accompanied by a sensation of heat; especially the ears and cheeks.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

wave-hi-mike: You're asking this question on a forum where some people think you need permission to hunt city park sandboxes. So go figure the answers you'll get.

Would you ever use a short-cut path across a vacant lot ?

 

[patiodadio]

Is it likely to get permission from that sort of company?

I don't think they would let you. They will say its to risky, liable for you getting hurt etc. You might dig into a buried elect. line etc etc.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

wave-hi-mike: You're asking this question on a forum where some people think you need permission to hunt city park sandboxes. So go figure the answers you'll get.

Would you ever use a short-cut path across a vacant lot ?

Tom this has nothing to do with a public city park, the land is private owned, trespassing is trespassing.

 

[Captain Caveman]

I agree with Charlie. You should always get permission to hunt private property. If you are worried that they will say NO, then you already know that you need permission to hunt it, you just want to be able to plead ignorance if caught. We simply are not going to be allowed to hunt everywhere. On the other hand, they could say YES, you won't know until you ask.

 

[TheHunterGT]

wave-hi-mike: You're asking this question on a forum where some people think you need permission to hunt city park sandboxes. So go figure the answers you'll get.

Would you ever use a short-cut path across a vacant lot ?

On the other hand...some people on this forum think it is ok to trespass on private property or even "questionable property" and then tell others they should do the same. This post is testament to that as there are people actually encouraging his attempt to MD a property that is owned by a real estate company....aka...private property.

Trespassing is against the law plain and simple. Ignorance of that law is no excuse. Anybody who is encouraging this should probably never give advice on the ethics of metal detecting ever again. Credibility is kaput IMO.

 

[digger460]

Plain and simple. If it ain't your land, you get permission or move on. Simple MD ethics.

 

[Anduril]

Tom this has nothing to do with a public city park, the land is private owned, trespassing is trespassing.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Here's the law for Toronto. (I assume this to be the general location of concern.)
Trespass to Property Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21 | Ontario.ca

Assuming the lot is not a garden, agricultural lot (i.e., farm), or fenced or walled-off, there may be a presumption that entry is not automatically prohibited by law.
For a vacant, un-fenced, proposed future Wal-Mart construction site, much may depend on how effectively the property is placarded (i.e., how many, and what kinds of signs, and do they meet the legal requirements).

I would not condone intentional trespass.
However, as a practical matter, an offense occurs only if someone complains or their rights are abridged in some meaningful way.
If the property owner is required to take affirmative steps to curb trespass, and they fail to do so, it's a little difficult to argue that they have not waived those rights.

I would also argue, as a practical matter, that Wal-Mart would likely rather avoid any negative publicity.
Now, if this is a active construction site - different story. Wal-Mart and its contractors would not have safety reasons to deny access, etc...
Ditto if Wal-Mart knows (for example) that it is building over-top of sensitive, yet undisclosed, environmental, historical, archaeological, or other "protected" environments.
In the latter case, one might even argue that the "trespassor" has a DUTY to reveal the fact that Wal-Mart is about to buldoze over say..., the last of a species! (or an indian burial ground).
Things are often not black-&-white. (Though from the original post, this is clearly about a guy who just wants to metal-detect another's property without asking for permission first.)

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Maybe. Maybe not.

Here's the law for Toronto. (I assume this to be the general location of concern.)
Trespass to Property Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21 | Ontario.ca

Assuming the lot is not a garden, agricultural lot (i.e., farm), or fenced or walled-off, there may be a presumption that entry is not automatically prohibited by law.
For a vacant, un-fenced, proposed future Wal-Mart construction site, much may depend on how effectively the property is placarded (i.e., how many, and what kinds of signs, and do they meet the legal requirements).

I would not condone intentional trespass.
However, as a practical matter, an offense occurs only if someone complains or their rights are abridged in some meaningful way.
If the property owner is required to take affirmative steps to curb trespass, and they fail to do so, it's a little difficult to argue that they have not waived those rights.

I would also argue, as a practical matter, that Wal-Mart would likely rather avoid any negative publicity.
Now, if this is a active construction site - different story. Wal-Mart and its contractors would not have safety reasons to deny access, etc...
Ditto if Wal-Mart knows (for example) that it is building over-top of sensitive, yet undisclosed, environmental, historical, archaeological, or other "protected" environments.
In the latter case, one might even argue that the "trespassor" has a DUTY to reveal the fact that Wal-Mart is about to buldoze over say..., the last of a species! (or an indian burial ground).
Things are often not black-&-white. (Though from the original post, this is clearly about a guy who just wants to metal-detect another's property without asking for permission first.)

[h=3]Trespass an offence[/h]2. (1) Every person who is not acting under a right or authority conferred by law and who,
(a) without the express permission of the occupier, the proof of which rests on the defendant,
(i) enters on premises when entry is prohibited under this Act, or
(ii) engages in an activity on premises when the activity is prohibited under this Act; or
(b) does not leave the premises immediately after he or she is directed to do so by the occupier of the premises or a person authorized by the occupier,
is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $2,000. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 2 (1).

Private property is private property.