tickets and fines for detecting

[Nugs Bunny]

If "public' doesn't mean you or me, who does it mean? Do guests from somewhere else fall under different rules than the locals? "if you don't own it you have no rights"......I don't even know where to start there.....

There is a difference between public property and property open to the public.

Of course we all agree we collectively own public and government property, that really should not even be an issue or debate.

Most of the areas I work are posted "State Property No Trespassing" although it is public property access is restricted.

One individual does not hold the sole ownership rights to public property, they hold an ownership interest in public property... in other words collective ownership.

Legally speaking, what it comes down to is right of possession vs. right of ownership.

A very simple way to look at it is... We The People are the legal owner... Uncle Sam is the legal tenant.

Can you trespass on your own property? | Criminal Law[h=2]Ownership Versus Possession[/h]The law recognizes different kinds of property rights: a person can have an ownership right, or a possessory right, or both. For example, a landlord owns a house, but does not have the right to be there any time he or she pleases. The right of possession belongs to the tenant. Similarly, a spouse may jointly own a house but either due to separation or a protective order, the other spouse may have the sole right of possession.
In trespassing and burglary cases, a person who both owns and possesses a piece of property cannot be charged with these crimes because, absent unusual circumstances, the defendant always has permission to be on the property. However, a person who has an ownership interest in a property, but not a right of possession, can be charged with trespassing or burglarizing his or her own property in some states.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Nugs Bunny]

A yes or no could depend on how one asks, how they look, how they present themselves, etc...--Nugs
Maybe a restriction exists and they don't care as long as you retrieve targets carefully.--Nugs

In reference to a park where metal detecting is not clearly restricted there is a reason why a person should detect without asking. That reason being that the person you would be asking could not make a fair assumption as to what you are asking to do unless they would see how you were doing it. The things referenced here in the first quote would not give one any information on what a person is actually asking to do. I would agree on the second quote and would ask,and encourage one to inspect, only where a clear restriction is in place such as a "NO Metal Detecting" sign.

In St Clairsville Ohio there is Memorial Park, it's nothing fancy. There are lot's of snooty busy bodies that live in St C and the town itself has a lot of areas they have landscaped and beautified.

The fate of Memorial Park has come down to a small feral cat population.

Several people have been feeding the cats for well over ten years, they have them spayed and neutered, get them shots and go well beyond what most folks would do for stray animals. Most see this as a humane and caring act and feel those participating in the activity are kind and generous people... and they are!

But a few dog walkers don't seem to like the cats, and they have become the proverbial "Bee in the Bonnet" after years of complaints to the City, they banned the "cat people" from the park, and a ban was put in place on feeding the cats. They went around picking up bags of garbage, then blamed those feeding the cat's for all of it.

That didn't stop these ladies from feeding the cats though and now they are considering closing the park permanently to all.

In Ohio there are no restrictions or very little restrictions on several activities, but when and if a problem arises that all changes...

https://www.facebook.com/pages/St-Clairsville-Memorial-Park/183523148365998?rf=105806612809392
https://www.facebook.com/pages/St-C...istrict/421682737867529?sk=info&tab=page_info
City of St. Clairsville, Ohio - Rules & Regulations of the National Road Bikeway
Public Way

Now have a look at Powerline Park, also in St Clairsville... 1000 acres of off-roading park. There are trails everywhere, plenty of mud holes, hills & rocks, and a huge free camping area. POWERLINE PARK // St. Clairsville, Ohio

 

[Nugs Bunny]

Just a few miles outside of St Clairsville they hold the Super Bowl of Country Music!!! Jamboree in the Hills!!! Yeeee Haaaaw!!!! It's like Mardi Gras fir us rednecks and hillbillies!

Powerline Park and Jamboree pretty much sum up the ideology of the majority in my neighborhood!

Jamboree In The Hills :: Jamboree In Hills 2015 - July 16-19

 

[Nugs Bunny]

I don't get your point at all Nugs in reference to the quote of mine that you have shown.

No surprise...there are a lot of things you "don't get"...

In Ohio there are no restrictions or very little restrictions on several activities, but when and if a problem arises that all changes...

 

[kayakpat]

powerline park look really fun, where is st clairsville?

 

[Nugs Bunny]

 

[Nugs Bunny]

powerline park look really fun, where is st clairsville?

Belmont County Ohio on I-70, about five minutes west of the WV/OH border.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I would consider "no" a restriction specific to that ONE individual.....

You've gotta be kidding me ! Ask yourself: If that person told you "no", then why on earth would he give the next person a "yes", to the EXACT SAME QUESTION ? And let me ask you honestly in the following way, to illustrate: Ok, here's the stage set: You just got a "no". So you follow it up with another question: "Does this apply to anyone who wishes to detect, or just to me?". What do you think that person is going to answer ?

But your next statement is very revealing:

....A yes or no could depend on how one asks, how they look, how they present themselves, etc....

what ? Are you saying that this is arbitrary, whimsical, capricious, mood-driven, dependant on who you ask and how you ask it ? Say it isn't so ! Ok, I'll go with that. So put yourself in the following shoes predicament:

You're sitting in a metal detecting club meeting watching the monthly show & tell portion of the meeting. A fellow at the podium is showing off his entry , which is an old coin "found in central park". Someone in the audience raises his hand to render a question. He says: "I thought md'ing wasn't allowed in Central park?". Confusion ensues, as various other old-time members assure the newbie that md'ing is allowed. But the newbie persists, and explains how he got that information: He asked! Someone at city hall told him "no". Hmmm,

Ok. So under your logic, the club tells this person "that only applies to you, not us". Right ? If you were that newbie, what would you be thinking right then and there ? That you're stuck and home, while your buddies get to find the old coins, simply because they asked the *right* person who was in a better mood?

What's wrong with that picture Nugs ?

I'm willing to give you examples of actual written rules that come md'rs seeking permission, but ..... first, I want to explore this notion of yours that "no only applies to the single person who got that no".

If this premise is true, then why do we md'rs put stock into the FMDAC list ? Barring a few states on there which have actual specific verbage, there's multiple others with a "no" in their column, that do nothing more than rely on odd-ball cultural heritage stuff, alteration, defacing, etc.... In other words Nugs: When that list was assembled way-back-when, guess how the compilier got his information? Here merely sent out 50 letters, to all 50 states, and ASKED. Ok, then why are those "no's" taken as nothing more than a "no" to *just* that one individual who wrote the letter of inquiry ?

..... if an individual that was told no... I could claim his attitude or demeanor have prompted the negative response and not the premise of metal detecting.....

I agree. Which is why I say to NOT go ask permission, IN THE FIRST PLACE. Instead, if a person is skittish, they look up the rules/laws for themselves . If nothing is there that specifically says "no metal detecting", then presto: It's not prohibited.

 

[Nugs Bunny]

This is the perfect example of the respect we have and the appreciation for it in Appalachia...

the value of asking permission
a local bar came under new ownership last spring and developed a motorcycle campground to accomodate local functions.well used during the summer.stopped today to ask about coinshooting the campground.bought a couple of beers and then the owners fronted a couple. they were so impressed that i would ask permission that they gave me exclusive right to hunt for me and respectful friends.also offered to let me stay past 8pm with no cover charge.8's when the girls start taking their clothes off... discretion being the better part of valor i thanked them for permission to hunt and hiked my sorry butt home to my braxton county redhead. now i'll be alive to hunt clad and motorcycle bling when the weather warms.

Stop to ask permission in some places here... and you just might get invited to the cookout too! We never had much here except our animals, our property, our word and respect for those things.

 

[57chevy]

I once asked permission to detect at Fort Churchill east of Carson City Nevada. I told them they could mark where I found everything and even keep everything I found for their museum. I was just interested in the history and wanted to find out what was there. They turned me down. Go figure.

 

[TheHunterGT]

So there are 2 basic sides here.

Group A thinks that they are self-entitled to detect just about anywhere and everywhere they want...unless it is obviously posted or known as off-limits. If they are not sure, they would rather say "I don't need permission" and carry on anyways. They fear no what-ifs and maybes. They believe that asking permission will lead to rejection on an increasing scale.

Group B would rather be "safe than sorry" and wants to know their boundaries. Tickets and possible jail time does not excite them to the least. They will seek permission from whoever will provide them the positive answer to continue safely. This group also feels there is a certain respect to asking permission that side A lacks. They believe further reward can be gained by seeking permission.

Possibly there is a C. This might occur when both A and B combine to argue about what the other said and how they said it. This apparently takes 11 pages in a standard internet forum and gets so twisted that all original meaning of the topic is lost by page 2.

My thoughts are that I am skinny and broke. Jail and/or fines are both out of the question for me. I'll take group B.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

hunter-gt, good post The "characterizations" you put on each group, is very revealing. The implications are:

a) md'ing is a class-of-activity which requires "permission". If this premise is true, then everything else you're saying does logically follow.

b) and therefore, *not* asking permission, is "dis-respectful". Again, if the premise of (a) is true, then yes, this logically follows.

c) that md'ing requires an "entitlement" and "right". In other words, if not expressly allowed, then .... one should assume that it must be illegal, wrong, dangerous, harmful, etc.... (hence "requiring permission" or "express allowances). If this premise is true, then everything else you say logically follows.

d) that failure to go with group B results in jail and fines. If this premise is true, then logically, no one in their right mind would be in group A. Afterall, who wants "Jails and Fines" ?

e) that no examples exist of places receiving a "no" , where .... prior to that ... detecting had never been an issue or problem before. If this premise is true, then everything else you're saying does logically follow, that .... asking "can I?" has no risk of this occurring.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

No politics please...

 

[TheHunterGT]

No politics....understood. I am new here and want to play nice so I will try to word it carefully.

Sadly Tom....those characterizations were observations that I made from 11 pages of back-and-forth. I will leave the implying to you as you stretched my post into more branches than this entire thread.

Right off the bat with (A) I disagree. I definitely do not see metal-detecting as a class-activity that "requires" permission as there is no law stating that. 11 pages just told us that many members do not ask when they are unsure....but dig anyways...so how would it be required? It is a choice, not a requirement. I fully agree with your right to not ask permission. I simply choose to do so.

My opinion is that asking permission to dig it is not the terrible act you make it out to be. If there are laws in place X that can and will put you in jail...is it ridiculous to make sure location Y does not have those same laws? Because that is what you are saying. You (and others) feel that because location Y does not get the attention...just go for it. One poster even said to "take your lumps" and carry on. Really? The advice is to just take your chances and if it goes sour just take your "lump" in jail? No thanks. I am unsure how anybody can take that as sound advice....ever.

Not sure why you nit-picked my post. IMO mean it was pretty clear and easy to comprehend what transpired over the last 11 pages.

Many members clearly stated that if they were unsure about the law (even if there is a possibility of it being illegal).....they will dig anyways. They are not concerned about citations and arrests, as they feel they do not happen often enough to matter. That is the nutshell is it not? One poster went so far as to theorize that asking for permission might lead to a snowball effect of rejections. That has not been my life experience at all. It has been my personal experience that asking for permission can open further doors and lead to further exploration. That is why I place myself with this latter group.

As far as point (B) and the respect issue...that matters little to me. Somebody else had posted about the respect of it, which is why I added it for that group. I personally ask permission to cover my ass....as mine is the only one I can truly protect.

(C)....Yes. I do think you should assume that digging on unsure land could be illegal, wrong, dangerous, harmful, etc... As I said above...if there are laws at location X saying no...I will assume location Y says the same until I find out otherwise. If we already know location Y is a safe dig...then of course there is no point.

(D) In your implied world....yes...that is how it would work. Failure to go with B would result in jail. However in our real non-implied world where it is not a forced law to ask permission...no. Going with group A would not be automatic jail time. It would just have a higher chance as they do not eliminate chances for error as group B does by asking permission.

(E) I have no idea how anything I said bought us here....but it's par for the course at this point. I am going to go out on a WILD limb and say yes....somewhere there has been a law written in this vast world where no metal detecting is allowed before a detector was even turned on. Some poor sap called and got a "no" before this first dig ever occurred. Sounds reasonable enough in this day and age.

 

[cudamark]

My post disappeared.....what did I say that was political?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

..... If there are laws in place X that can and will put you in jail...is it ridiculous to make sure location Y does not have those same laws?....

Which is why you can look them up. Then there's no "un-sureness" involved. If it doesn't say "no metal detecting", then presto, it's not dis-allowed .

But no doubt you're referring to the vague catch-all stuff, right ? Like cultural heritage, taking and removing, altering and disturbing, etc... Right ?

Then let me ask you this: If you arrive in a new place (let's say you just moved to a new state), and .... you're just about ready to ask permission to hunt the beaches there (afterall, you can't be too safe, right ?). But before you do, you meet some other long-time locals, who detect the beaches in question all -the-time. In fact, you learn the beaches have been detected since as far back as anyone remembers (40+ yrs), w/o no issues or problems. Ok, do consider that conclusive that it's "ok" ? Or do you still go ask permission ?

 

[TheHunterGT]

If it doesn't say "no metal detecting", then presto, it's not dis-allowed.

Not only 100% incorrect but terrible advice to give others.

There is absolutely no municipal code/law anywhere near where I live that states "a sign must be posted to deter activity that otherwise breaks law". Near Denver there is....but not near me. I was fined $250 for walking my leashed and muzzled dog in a business district. Nobody from the officer to the judge cared about the muzzle and leash and the fact she is perfectly trained to hold her potty until it's time. The rule is no dog unless a work dog. I asked about a posted sign and they said it is similar to smoking marijuana....illegal in public...but we don't post signs for it. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse...etc etc...have a nice day.

Taking into account that others have been arrested and jailed for breaking posted laws...I will make sure there are no un-posted laws.

So to answer the bottom portion of your question, yes, I do ask permission still. I would absolutely trust the locals on where the best place to eat is however.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....
There is absolutely no municipal code/law anywhere near where I live that states "a sign must be posted to deter activity that otherwise breaks law" ....

Correct. And did you notice that I said to "look it up". NOWHERE did I say "... on a sign". I totally agree that a law or muni-code or park rule could be on-the-books somewhere, yet not necessarily on a wooden sign at the park entrance. Laws forbidding nudity, are one example of this. Ok then, fine, you can look up said laws for yourself. If there is no law saying "no metal detectors", then presto, it's not prohibited.

....

So to answer the bottom portion of your question, yes, I do ask permission still ....

Ok, then let's assume you did that, and found an archie to tell you "no". Because he thinks you'll disturb cultural heritage, or nesting snowy plover birds or sandcrabs. Then ... in your mind ....... are all those other md'rs law-less miscreants ? I mean, did the "no" apply only to you? Or to all md'rs ?

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

My post disappeared.....what did I say that was political?

PM sent...

 

[TheHunterGT]

Ok, then let's assume you did that, and found an archie to tell you "no". Because he thinks you'll disturb cultural heritage, or nesting snowy plover birds or sandcrabs. Then ... in your mind ....... are all those other md'rs law-less miscreants ? I mean, did the "no" apply only to you? Or to all md'rs ?

First off, I would not be asking an archie. I could care less what he thinks about his birds and crabs as he does not enforce the law. I would be calling the local police/sheriff/ranger to ask the local law regarding metal detecting a certain location. They simply tell you there is a law or there is not a law. I thank them for their time and hang up.

Here in eastern Colorado we have a very popular dinosaur track area in the Commanche Grasslands about 10 miles from my house. Also some ancient rock carvings and drawing that are a few thousands years old. I called last year to ask about hunting and shooting out there. No problem as long as you stay away from the protected areas. Took the name of the office lady giving me permission and even flagged down the truck out there and asked the 2 USDA rangers on duty if I could plink with my son. Sure....don't shoot over there and your good. They drove off and we shot for hours no problem.

Called them just last week and asked them if it was ok to detect out there. No problem at all...same rules applied. Steer clear of the tracks and the carvings.

To answer your last part....I will assume that the yes did not just apply to me. I will also assume if they told me no....that they would tell the next guy no and any other md'er who calls. So yes...that would apply to all.

Do I think ANYBODY is law-less miscreants because of it....hell no. Do I think they are lazy when it comes to the matter....yes...but it is really is of little concern to me when it comes down to it.

I think you are trying to make some sort of "statement" on the matter and I can def appreciate that. I think you have every right to not ask and detect away if it so pleases you. Murica and all that good stuff.