A quiz @ the Genesis of off-limits sites:

[Sluice Willis]

Here's a typical example of a place being added to the ever-widening list of "off-limits sites". One of those type stories that makes us all groan and get mad.

No detectors at Bluff BOC following DNR on metal detectors - Thomaston Times - thomastontimes.com

So, using this particular recent story as a case-example, what lessons do you see being played out here? What is the genesis of the reasons for this? Ie.: "who to blame", so-to-speak. What could have been done to have kept this place from becoming this way ?

Just want to see if others are reading between the lines, like I am, on this one.

Sprewell Bluff park is a state park it was already off limits. The example I see being played out is lack of common sense. Why would anybody ask a county commissioner about a state park? This is an example of uniformed people asking other uniformed people. Either one of them could have used google and came to the same conclusion, metal detecting is not permitted in Georgia state parks. When they asked permission, a written restriction was already in place prohibiting metal detecting. It's not like they just prohibited it either, so there is nothing that could have been done to prevent it, it's a protected area and private property leased by the state.

The land where Sprewell Bluff outdoor recreation area is located is owned by Georgia Power Company, but it is leased by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources for the park. Approximately 150 acres is used for the park and the remaining acreage is called Sprewell Bluff Natural Area, offering archery-only hunting. Sprewell Bluff is the only outdoor recreation area located on the Flint River. It is unique in its natural history, having one of the few Montane Longleaf Pine forests left. The site also protects the threatened Blue Darter fish and the Flint River is one of a few places that Shoal Bass or "Redeye Bass" is located in Georgia.

Collecting: All wildlife, plant life, driftwood, artifacts, and any other natural or man-made features are protected and may not be disturbed or removed. Please leave wildflowers for other visitors to enjoy. Use of electronic devices for “treasure hunting” is prohibited.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[TreasurDiggrNY]

No need to read between the lines. I was commenting on the line that I highlighted and said I was quoting on.

Sorry about that, ok here goes, ready?. No reading between the lines I'll just comment on your reply to the small part of my reply to Tom that you highlighted, ready?

You don't know who these people are, what they know or what they did regarding research but you imply they are stupid and lazy people who metal detect....nice.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

sluice-willis, thanx for setting me/us straight on all that. I was only going by what I read in the news account. My observations on what you've said:

1) - It still illustrates the # of persons who waltz into various offices inquiring/asking.

2) - I then wonder that..... ok, so there was a pre-determined "canned" answer. But what caused THAT canned answer ?

 

[Sluice Willis]

sluice-willis, thanx for setting me/us straight on all that. I was only going by what I read in the news account. My observations on what you've said:

1) - It still illustrates the # of persons who waltz into various offices inquiring/asking.

2) - I then wonder that..... ok, so there was a pre-determined "canned" answer. But what caused THAT canned answer ?

Color it however you like but the fact is, that a clear written restriction existed beforehand, asking simply made those who inquired aware of that. It's also posted at the park and they could have just looked it up on google, fourth one down on the page https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=metal+detecting+in+georgia+state+parks . I get what you are saying, if they never asked they would have never been told no. But what I am saying is they would have gotten into trouble when they got caught, it's a state park, it's a protected area, those who patrol the park know that. I see the point you are trying to make you just happened to choose a very poor example to express it, the devil is in the details.

Park Rules and Regulations | Georgia State Parks Collecting: All wildlife, plant life, driftwood, artifacts and any other natural or man-made features are protected and may not be disturbed or removed. Please leave wildflowers for other visitors to enjoy. Possession of metal detecting equipment is prohibited.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Sluice, yes: asking in this case gave way to being shown an actual specific law. But that-being-the-case (as you cite here specifically saying "no detecting"), then why-oh-why did the news article give, as the eventual justification: The "artifact" song & dance ?

Why wasn't the specific "no detecting" rule you allude to, given as the end-all answer to the question ? Because when the answer was "artifacts", I had to groan and think "sheesk, and let's add bothering earthworms too!". Not that those interpretations can't be made by someone mind you. But ... just saying ....... can you blame me if the article only cites that, and not what you've now brought up ?

slink, sorry to have come down hard on you. No, a singular some asking "can I?" does not cause the sky to fall everywhere in the USA. But the slow steady drumbeat of 1000's who do that annually, at city, county, state, and federal levels, eventually adds up.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

What did people do before the internet as for detecting parks where there wasn't a sign prohibiting it ? Did laws change when the internet developed ? In the "old days" if a person traveling came upon a city park on a week-end did they detect it if there was no signage against it ? Are people expected to go find an internet source to decide if they should detect or play croquet in a situation as I just referenced ? I don't think so.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, no different then hunting wild game. Hunters are obligated BY LAW to know the laws on hunting where they are at.. Is hunting allowed there, what game is allowed to be hunted, is the property private or public, what weapons are allowed? It is your legal obligation as a hunter to know the answers to all these questions.

 

[kayakpat]

you cannot make assumptions that you can do what you want on property you don't own.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

What did people do before the internet as for detecting parks where there wasn't a sign prohibiting it ? Did laws change when the internet developed ?...

Haha, good question. And the answer is, what TH'r is saying: Persons were still responsible to know the the laws. The only difference then was, you didn't have the ease to find things on-line. Heck, even now, there's still scores of cities (typically smaller ones) that don't have any of their muni charter, codes, laws, or any such website beyond cryptic lacking anything useful.

So the advent of the internet really has nothing to do with the topic

Back then (I was detecting since the 1970s), for starters , if you were travelling and rolled into a town, let me set one thing straight: It never even OCCURRED to us that something might be wrong, or dis-allowed, etc... Oh sure, we had the presence of mind to avoid obvious historic sensitive monuments. But for routine parks, schools, beaches, etc.... this type notion of "wondering if it's allowed", was a total non-issue, as we'd never heard of, or thought there might be off-limits parks TO BEGIN WITH!

However, assuming their was such a thing, then the technical answer would have been to go to city hall or their police dept. Leaf through a binder of the city codes, laws, rules, etc.... Thus even then, such info was available in printed form in the pre-internet days. So even then, it did not require talking to a live person asking "can I?" (if you didn't want to)

But as I say, this doesn't mean we ever did any of that, because it never occurred to us it was necessary, to start with. Occasionally you might get a "scram" from someone who thought you were about to leave a hole, etc.... Then I guess to answer your question: That's the way we did it: We: "waited to be "told otherwise".

 

[cudamark]

I am so sorry I never thought asking 1 park security guy if detecting was allowed here in my small town would be me contributing to a nationwide problem of areas being restricted.

I guess its a good thing I dont hunt public land much.If I did I would likely destroy the entire hobby for everyone on earth.

In the sense of being one drop that's contributing to the bucket of prohibitions, you are correct.

 

[cudamark]

The land where Sprewell Bluff outdoor recreation area is located is owned by Georgia Power Company, but it is leased by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources for the park. Approximately 150 acres is used for the park and the remaining acreage is called Sprewell Bluff Natural Area, offering archery-only hunting. Sprewell Bluff is the only outdoor recreation area located on the Flint River. It is unique in its natural history, having one of the few Montane Longleaf Pine forests left. The site also protects the threatened Blue Darter fish and the Flint River is one of a few places that Shoal Bass or "Redeye Bass" is located in Georgia.

Collecting: All wildlife, plant life, driftwood, artifacts, and any other natural or man-made features are protected and may not be disturbed or removed. Please leave wildflowers for other visitors to enjoy. Use of electronic devices for “treasure hunting” is prohibited.[/QUOTE]

None of these "threatened" items would be effected by our metal detecting the ground. If there are posted rules (on site or in the regs book) then that is the law and we should abide by it. I just quarrel with the basis for that law and would hope to overturn it and others like it when enacted. In most cases it makes no sense, and some cases, counter productive to what they're trying to achieve. In this case, it's somehow no problem to shoot arrows around (and hitting goodness know what) but we can't recover a target rarely as deep as a foot down in the dirt with gardening tools? I'm sure this makes sense to somebody, but, it escapes me. Detectorists are not looking for wildlife, plants, driftwood, bones, or any other "natural" resource. We're looking for items lost by other people.....coins, jewelry, relics, etc. Seems like we would actually be doing the place a favor by removing all these "foreign" objects from their sensitive area that they're so worried about.

 

[cudamark]

Haha, good question. And the answer is, what TH'r is saying: Persons were still responsible to know the the laws. The only difference then was, you didn't have the ease to find things on-line. Heck, even now, there's still scores of cities (typically smaller ones) that don't have any of their muni charter, codes, laws, or any such website beyond cryptic lacking anything useful.

So the advent of the internet really has nothing to do with the topic

Back then (I was detecting since the 1970s), for starters , if you were travelling and rolled into a town, let me set one thing straight: It never even OCCURRED to us that something might be wrong, or dis-allowed, etc... Oh sure, we had the presence of mind to avoid obvious historic sensitive monuments. But for routine parks, schools, beaches, etc.... this type notion of "wondering if it's allowed", was a total non-issue, as we'd never heard of, or thought there might be off-limits parks TO BEGIN WITH!

However, assuming their was such a thing, then the technical answer would have been to go to city hall or their police dept. Leaf through a binder of the city codes, laws, rules, etc.... Thus even then, such info was available in printed form in the pre-internet days. So even then, it did not require talking to a live person asking "can I?" (if you didn't want to)

But as I say, this doesn't mean we ever did any of that, because it never occurred to us it was necessary, to start with. Occasionally you might get a "scram" from someone who thought you were about to leave a hole, etc.... Then I guess to answer your question: That's the way we did it: We: "waited to be "told otherwise".

Exactly. Parks were made for recreation, we recreated.....It's only the busybodies that came later who thought their idea of park use trumped ours.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... Detectorists are not looking for wildlife, plants, driftwood, bones, or any other "natural" resource. We're looking for items lost by other people.....coins, jewelry, relics, etc. Seems like we would actually be doing the place a favor by removing all these "foreign" objects from their sensitive area that they're so worried about.

Good point. We can ALL agree that verbage that pertains to historical stuff (as in the case of historic monuments) does indeed have a direct relation to md'ing. Right ? But for pete's sake , what does marine life have to do with metal detectors? Ie.: sea urchins, sand crabs, star fish,wildflowers, driftwood, etc... That's great that they protect them so that people can enjoy the little critters in their natural habitat. But HOW does anyone figure that md'ing harms them ?

I have a sneaking suspicion of how the DNR came up with that, whenever way-back-when, it was invented/added.

 

[slink]

slink, sorry to have come down hard on you. No, a singular some asking "can I?" does not cause the sky to fall everywhere in the USA. But the slow steady drumbeat of 1000's who do that annually, at city, county, state, and federal levels, eventually adds up.

No need to be sorry Tom.
I really have alot I would like to say on the subject.However,I can't as it would be leaning toward political discussion.

 

[Sluice Willis]

None of these "threatened" items would be effected by our metal detecting the ground. If there are posted rules (on site or in the regs book) then that is the law and we should abide by it. I just quarrel with the basis for that law and would hope to overturn it and others like it when enacted. In most cases it makes no sense, and some cases, counter productive to what they're trying to achieve. In this case, it's somehow no problem to shoot arrows around (and hitting goodness know what) but we can't recover a target rarely as deep as a foot down in the dirt with gardening tools? I'm sure this makes sense to somebody, but, it escapes me. Detectorists are not looking for wildlife, plants, driftwood, bones, or any other "natural" resource. We're looking for items lost by other people.....coins, jewelry, relics, etc. Seems like we would actually be doing the place a favor by removing all these "foreign" objects from their sensitive area that they're so worried about.

So cutting through tree roots wouldn't be damaging? Search this forum and you will find dozens of comments on what people use to hack through those troublesome roots. Sprewel Bluff is home to one of the last Montane Longleaf Pine forests, this is the main thing they are trying to protect. Regardless of that, detecting is off limits in ALL GA state parks.

 

[Sluice Willis]

Sluice, yes: asking in this case gave way to being shown an actual specific law. But that-being-the-case (as you cite here specifically saying "no detecting"), then why-oh-why did the news article give, as the eventual justification: The "artifact" song & dance ?

Why wasn't the specific "no detecting" rule you allude to, given as the end-all answer to the question ? Because when the answer was "artifacts", I had to groan and think "sheesk, and let's add bothering earthworms too!". Not that those interpretations can't be made by someone mind you. But ... just saying ....... can you blame me if the article only cites that, and not what you've now brought up ?

slink, sorry to have come down hard on you. No, a singular some asking "can I?" does not cause the sky to fall everywhere in the USA. But the slow steady drumbeat of 1000's who do that annually, at city, county, state, and federal levels, eventually adds up.

Simple answer, you found an article you thought supported your theory and you stopped there. With a little research you would have realized it was a poor example and searched for another. You can't blame that article for your failure to do the proper research. IMHO that was no different than asking a park worker permission to detect, you relied on information from a third party, information that was totally incorrect. You can find an article online to support any crazy notion.

 

[kayakpat]

seems like a crazy notion to me that people do not understand, all property has a owner or authority in charge, they have legal right to restrict to restrict it's use anyway they see fit, property rights are very important in this country and taken very seriously. The owners or authority may or may not been restrictive before, but they have the right to change at any time. There are legal channels to appeal any action on common ground if you want to change a actions, but there are very expensive penalities for violating the right of property.. So if you don't ask for permission or follow the rules you may have a expensive lesson on property rights. Thing have been this way for a very long time. and it is a crazy notion that some people have that you are FREE to do what you please with property you do not own. people may have been lieniant before but times change, people are more selfish and protective, and more disrespectful too

 

[Sluice Willis]

You won't find one that supports the notion that it is better to ask for permission when permission is not necessary although you seem to think that is a good thing. Sounds like a crazy notion to me.

Excuse me but how do you figure permission was not needed at Sprewell Bluff? It seems that a quick google search confirms that it is indeed off limits. Yet somehow those pre existing regulations were caused by people asking permission. I think you guys should wrap it up after that major fail. Let's rewind to the OP and look at all the comments made.

 

[Sluice Willis]

If what I highlighted is true that would be simple. Just restrict people from cutting through the roots on those trees if that is the main thing. I don't think the people on this forum would cut through them if they were allowed to detect with a restriction against cutting them. Does seem like your claim is out of context if your claim about the main reason is true.

They restricted people from cutting the roots by restricting the use of metal detectors. I hardly believe people wouldn't cut through tree roots if it was restricted, people do stuff they shouldn't all the time, including you. Save it, I'm done with the subject, you can argue all you like. This thread shows how totally absurd your line of reasoning actually is. Asking permission isn't a bad thing, being an idiot is. When you can cite a specific example where asking permission led to a place becoming off limits then we can talk. But until then save your time I'm just going to ignore your posts, I don't have time for stupidity.

I have learned to never argue with an idiot, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience every time. I've made my point in just a few short posts, if you cannot do the same, then you have nothing. Stop quoting me if you're just going to say stupid stuff.

 

[kayakpat]

no matter if it is private property or public or corporations, property has a owner, or a authority in charge of property has the same rights to ban or allow any action to the property they are in charge of. Geez, you do not have that right of determination

 

[Sluice Willis]

My comment was in reference to what I have highlighted above. You were not talking specifically about Sprewell Buff.

What are you talking about? What you quoted was my direct response to Tom griping about why those details were not in the article about Sprewell Bluff. It was specifically about his lack of research concerning Sprewel Bluff, maybe you should go back a page and pay a little more attention to the details. http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/treasure-hunting-legal-issues/449704-quiz-genesis-off-limits-sites-3.html#post4386687

But hey we didn't let things like the details and facts get in the way of the OP. They got a canned answer for asking permission, the fact that is had been off limits for years had nothing to do with the answer they got though right? Like I said, save it, this is a perfect example of how a lack of comprehension leads to a misunderstanding. I have asked you to stop quoting me if your just going to say stupid things. I'm just going to start reporting it as harassment. I haven't quoted you, I haven't responded to any of your posts, even after you quoted me several times. Today I see you didn't take the hint and haven't given it a rest, go troll somebody else, ignore my posts and stop harassing me and quoting me.