tickets and fines for detecting

[slowwevo]

clean up all the trash,then check again,and again as necessary,you might find something nice...and I too was attacked by a crazy at the beach,she even claimed she was fbi,after the attack,and owned the whole beach,moral of the story,dont let the petty stuff deter you,but that doesn't mean break any laws either

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[rustynail1961]

Located in a small town of Attwood Michigan is a state park on Rex beach they have a sign that reads you can be fined or arrested and your equipment confescated if you drive into the park with a metal detector in your pocession

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Located in a small town of Attwood Michigan is a state park on Rex beach they have a sign that reads you can be fined or arrested and your equipment confescated if you drive into the park with a metal detector in your pocession

I would love to see a pix of that sign

And what precipitated that sign ? Ie.: what was the reason for such a rule/sign being implemented ?

a) someone left holes?

b) an archie on day drove past, saw an md'r, and thought "oh no! what if they find something old?"

or ? ...........

 

[Threshold]

@57chevy Exactly! The items are left in the ground to rot away with time, but as soon as they are dug up it's a national tragedy. Ridiculous!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

threshold, you say that's "ridiculous" ? Let me give you the archaeologist's line of defense against such accusations: You and I , right now, don't know for sure, where an archaeological dig MIGHT occur 100, 1000, or 5000 yrs from now. So while it might seem "ridiculous" now, yet ........ you'd be surprised of the archaeological information gained from seemingly mundane locations/items, thousands of years later. For example: mundane spots along the Nile River, which were thought to be worker villages, for the laborers who built the pyramids. Archaeologists now gain lots of cool information about what life was like then, by digging in a non-descript desert place now, thousands of years later.

SO TOO is it *possible* that the buffalo nickel you found in the park, forest, or beach. You *think* is nothing but a mundane camper/picnicker loss, that will never be of interpretational value to anyone, right ? But you can't be *certain* that some archaeologist, in the future, won't lay down a 5 x 5 ft pit right there. And by your having removed that coin, you will have deprived future generations from learning about their past. Harruummmpphh

Also I might add that the other line of the defense they would give, is the old "camel's nose in the tent" logic. While we can all agree that Shiloh, Bodie, Ghettysburg, etc... should be "sacred". Ie.: yes, in fact, someone might CERTAINLY do digs there in the future, etc.... Yet if the govt. says "no to those sacred places", but "yes to anything else that's not sacred", all of us md'rs would most certainly be "pushing the envelope" (ie.: camel's nose in the tent). To debate what's sacred and in need of protection, versus what's open desert, non-historically themed, etc.... So ask yourself: what's easier ? It's easier just to say "no to all", rather than devolve into debates of semantics about where exactly you can, versus where exactly you can't.

Sorry, I just had to come to the archie's defense here

 

[cudamark]

I've always found it amusing that things we find criminal today, is admired if you add enough years to it. Most of us condemn people who would dig up someones grave for the items inside, but, dig up a 3000 year old Egyptian mummy and your an esteemed archaeologist with grants to continue your good work. Ancient cave art is revered and protected, but, today it's called graffiti, and punishable. Tell me, if for some reason, the mummies and cave art didn't exist, would we REALLY be missing something in our daily lives? Oh sure, if you're an academic or Egyptian scholar, you may feel a lost as someone who might feel the same about losing a favorite poem or song, but, for the rest of us? I'm try to remember a time when I was truly grateful that King Tut was in my life......I know, I'm demented, but to me, modern man is getting stranger by the day.

 

[KaitoNation]

I just ordered my first detector online today and have been wondering about tickets and people hassling me as well.

I often get mistaken for a young boy so I was going to use that to my advantage and pull the, "my parents just got me this as a gift and I didn't know any better." card.

I also ordered the ML go find 60 and because it folds up and is so light weight, I thought it would be easy for me to toss it in my backpack and leave any situation that comes up pretty fast and easy.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I just ordered my first detector online today and have been wondering about tickets and people hassling me as well. ...

kaitoNation, I'm curious why you've been wondering that. I mean, what did you read (or see) that caused you to think "oh no, I might get a ticket or be hassled" ?

 

[KaitoNation]

Well when I first found out that there are regulations and certain places you need permits, requirements about shovel size and hole size, I was like "whoa, this seems pretty serious." it all makes sense and I get why they have regulations but I guess I just thought I could dig little holes when and where I wanted as long as I fill them in and nobody would care.

Then I started reading different posts on here and it sounds like people get bothered a lot unless they are some place real remote.

I was planning on urban detecting a lot but now I'm not as sure. I think I might stick to the woods!

 

[cudamark]

There's one way to find out......look up the laws that govern whichever piece of property you wish to detect. If there are some, they're posted somewhere. If not, do what you initially thought and make clean recoveries that nobody will notice.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...Then I started reading different posts on here and it sounds like people get bothered a lot unless they are some place real remote....

Exactly as I suspected. It's the psychology of "projection". A person reads of an incident, and then ...... no matter how far away, no matter how remote, no matter how-much-a-fluke, they think "oh no, do I need permits here?" or "oh no, everyone hates md'rs", etc...

Kind of like the fear of shark attacks: You watch the movie Jaws (or read an account of a surfer attacked somewhere), and guess what you'll be thinking/worrying about next time you swim at the ocean ? Shark attacks, of course. Yet the reality is, that shark attacks are very rare, despite tons of people swimming every day along the coast. Because you never read of the 100,000 people who swam yesterday w/o incident. You only read of the 1 who got attacked.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I saw this psychology from the beginning: Go back in time to the late 1970s: Before the net where you could read the stories you speak of, and before TH'ing magazines had any such stories, and before the FMDAC was formed. In those days, it never occurred to anyone there might be trouble. And never occurred to anyone that you needed to ask or inquire of laws before detecting somewhere new. Oh sure, we had the "presence of mind" not to snoop around obvious historic sensitive monuments, but .......... beyond that, we'd have just figured "it's a public park". And barring an occasional gripe from a gardener, no one ever had issues.

But lo & behold when the FMDAC started putting out their monthly newsletter (which always had "scary stories" from far away places, to "garner solidarity"), then all of the sudden, people started worrying. All of the sudden, it made people start inquiring every place they went (afterall, you can't be too safe, eh ? Afterall, you don't want to be arrested like that guy in the story you read, eh ?).

See how that works ? And then it almost simply becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: People went asking , found themselves "no's" (from desk-bound pencil pushers who, quite frankly, probably never gave the matter a moment's thought before that). The md'r dutifully posts the "no" to warn others, and presto, more people get worried.

Just avoid obvious historic sensitive landmarks. Don't be in the middle of holes when busy-bodies are watching. And if you're still worried that the particular place you have in mind "might have a rule", you do as cudamark says: Look it up your self.

 

[tibortt]

It looks like the grease dropped down on the article from your burger.

 

[relicrevivor]

So I recently moved to San Francisco from Ohio. With the rich history of San Francisco I was very excited to get out and explore the city and parks and beaches. I contacted the park and recreation permit department to find out the local laws. The man on the phone told me he wasn't sure but that he didn't think it was illegal as long as I was careful not to damage anything. On the second day of searching, I was approached by a park ranger. He immediately demanded my id. I told him that I had contacted the permit department and what they had said. He told me that they told me wrong and proceeded to write me a citation. Now I have to go to court (as I am contesting the citation) but I am so disappointed. I have since thoroughly researched the laws governing metal detecting around San Francisco and it seems I cannot legally detect anywhere! Not the beaches, not the parks, nowhere. But that won't stop me from researching and seeking out permission on private property.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Relic-revivor, I am seeing this post now, after receiving and answering your PM first. And in this post, I see a little bit more info. Namely that you had actually gone and inquired first of the park's dept. people ! And gotten a "yes". And that that "yes" was EVEN WITH THE IMPLICIT KNOWLEDGE of the person answering , that there was to be some ... uh ... recovery involved. In other words, the mere fact that he asked you to be "careful not to damage anything", implies he knew there was some sort of dig or extraction process . Lest what's there to be "careful" for ? Doh!

In my PM to you, I alluded to the fact that someone in the past, in SF city parks, had had a ticket dismissed. I can give you all that info, which, that, plus your having to call first, will get your dismissed too. HOWEVER, I don't know what infraction had been written in to that guys ticket. Eg.: was it for "metal detecting" ? or was it for "digging" ? etc..... In your case, if I understand you correctly, yours is for "digging".

Let me look into SF muni parks code and see if the evil word "dig" is used. As opposed to "alter" or "deface" etc. I'll get back to you. But it's still probably all a moot point, since you had called first (even though I don't recommend that, doh!) and gotten a "yes" ! That alone will get yours dismissed. The type judge you'd see is doing 100+ such trivial things a day (traffic ticket appeals, littering, noise-ordinances, blah blah), and it's just a "cattle-call" type process, where you'll be in and out fast. If it's anything like the guy it happened to in the past.

There are scores of us who hunt SF city parks. I personally know a guy who's explicitly hunted them since 1976 for instance, and NONE of us (barring that one fluke guy) has ever had any problems. I mean, sure, a fluke "scram" now and then from a gardener in a bad mood. But tickets ? NO. I'd like to help you on this one, and network to get some data (a script, the past dismissed ticket, etc...) in your hands to show the judge, so that your present tix gets dismissed.

And while I know that's NO FUN, there's an upside to it: Like that singular only other fellow I heard of that this happened to in SF: He carried that "dismissed" ticket with him for years afterwards (and I think passed out copies to his friends) so in case any other busy-body approached him thereafter. But since it was never needed again , eventually I think the copies of this past ticket just got forgotten about. But I'll see if I can round one up, if you want. That lone would serve as legal "precedent", right ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Relic revivor, I have gone through this site from end to end. Using their key-word search function, reading pertinent parts, etc.... I find nothing that uses the word "dig" as not- allowed (which would have made this more difficult). There is the obligatory things about "malicious destruction" and "defacement" (which is to be expected in ANY park's rules). But nothing that uses the word "dig". Unless someone here can find it somewhere that I missed ?

http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/park/parkcode?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:sanfrancisco_ca$sync=1

So WHAT is written on your ticket , as the violation ? NOT that they couldn't still stick you with "defacement", but ....... technically speaking, if you left no trace (ie.: haven't defacED anything), then you haven't run afoul of that ! When is your cattle-call date to dispute this ? I would LOVE to see this stamped with "dismissed". I'd make the 2 hr. drive to help you with it, if you'd like This, plus the fact you called first, I would think would get this dismissed right away. And then you could xerox off copies for several other of us

 

[SeabeeRon]

So I recently moved to San Francisco from Ohio. With the rich history of San Francisco I was very excited to get out and explore the city and parks and beaches. I contacted the park and recreation permit department to find out the local laws. The man on the phone told me he wasn't sure but that he didn't think it was illegal as long as I was careful not to damage anything. On the second day of searching, I was approached by a park ranger. He immediately demanded my id. I told him that I had contacted the permit department and what they had said. He told me that they told me wrong and proceeded to write me a citation. Now I have to go to court (as I am contesting the citation) but I am so disappointed. I have since thoroughly researched the laws governing metal detecting around San Francisco and it seems I cannot legally detect anywhere! Not the beaches, not the parks, nowhere. But that won't stop me from researching and seeking out permission on private property.

If this somehow turns out to be true, there are hundreds of law breakers who have been doing it for years and years in and around SF parks and beaches!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

If this somehow turns out to be true, there are hundreds of law breakers who have been doing it for years and years in and around SF parks and beaches!

Well "lawbreakers" about the federal beaches might be right. Because no one's disputing the GGNRA (fed) sections of beach . But when it comes to SF city parks, you're right: They've been detected as far back as the 1960s. So you're right that if this was somehow true that md'ing has been a no-no all these years ,then gee, have all of us been lawless miscreants all these years ?

And while there's been occasional "scrams" over the years, I've also had many many times there where a parks person and/or passing cop pays you NO MIND. So it's sort of been one of those "unless told otherwise" and "to the discretion/decision/interpretation of an individual workers till now. While I know that sounds arbitrary, capricious and whimsical, yet having silence-on-the-subject BEATS THE HECK out of having a specific rule to prohibit.

BTW, I would certainly not mention to the judge that there's been occasional scrams. Because so too has there been many others who give nothing but a friendly wave. So those simply off-set each other, doh!

 

[Clay Diggins]

I'm just guessing it's parks ordinance 603-81

SEC. 3.14. PERFORMANCE OF LABOR.
No person, other than duly authorized personnel, shall perform any labor, on or upon any park, including, but not limited to, taking up or replacing soil, turf, ground, pavement, structure, tree, shrub, plant, grass, flower and the like, without permission of the Recreation and Park Department.

SEC. 4.06. REMOVAL OF TREES, WOOD, ETC.
No person shall remove or take away any tree, wood, bush, turf, shrub, flower, plant, grass, soil, rock, or anything of like kind from any park without permission of the Recreation and Park Department.

I kept a house in San Francisco for 30 years. Generally the cops could care less what you are doing unless you PO another member of the public or give lip when questioned about your activities. The above is pretty weak but it could be enforced if the cop actually showed up for court. Court time is generally overtime (3 hours overtime for appearance) so it could happen if the cop needed some extra money.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I'm just guessing it's parks ordinance 603-81....

Clay, are you aware that verbage like that exists in EVERY single park in the entire USA ? In some form or fashion. Yup, even in parks that have never had an issue before. And even parks where people have "gotten permission" (as if that were needed). So that tells me that ........ while it *could* be applied, yet it doesn't *necessarily* apply. It all depends on mood, image, whim, luck , etc..... But I do not consider it to mean "no detecting", lest we all give up every beach, park, school, forest, etc......

I wonder why we never heard back from the relic-revivor on this ?? Are you still there relic-revivor ? Did you fight the ticket ? If you need the past incident of "dismissed" in that city (when this had happened before to someone), let me know, and I can maybe find the date and copy of that for you. That plus your having called in ahead, will most certainly get this one dismissed too.