Places i've hunted without permission

Let’s say I went to the park, HS football game etc.... I lost my wedding band. I go home, grab the ACE 400 and head back to locate MY lost property. Upon locating it and then removing it... did I just steal it? So many angles...
You were not on private property, so it doesn't really fit with the discussion I'm trying to have.
 
Had a friend that was detecting “private property”/ abandoned house. Someone called the police on her. Police responded and informed her she was doing nothing wrong as the home did not have a gate into the property and there were no signs. Hope that helps clear up some of this discussion!
Wait...so the police showed up and said it was ok to trespass and take things from private property because there were no signs or a fence?
 
Flies only, I've studied our recent volleys and I think I've got it figured out :

Here's the things we agree on:

1) that a photographer trespasses to take a pix

2) that the md'r trespasses to metal detect.

3) Hence both are in-the-wrong.
Yep, we agree.



4) But the photographer is not called out on it. We mutually agree it's in the "no one cares" category of life. Right ? Why ? Because his actions are harmless.
Neither of them would be "called out on it yet" since their actions are the same...they both have done nothing more than trespass.



But where we diverge is on the question of "Can the md'rs actions be of-the-caliber that they are not harmless and thus ignored ?" And we have both concluded that , yes, technically ... md'ing is stealing .
If it’s done on private property without permission. I do not view all metal detecting as “technically stealing” and do not believe that the Law sees it that way either.



Why that doesn't likewise therefore apply to public land, is ... yes ... another thread that would be an interesting thread. Because it's a law every single one of us breaks.
I cannot comment on the validity of this statement because I really have no idea about all of the laws pertaining to metal detecting on public lands. I will say this, however…and understand that this is merely my opinion on the subject… if metal detecting IS allowed on any given piece of public property, then no matter the wording in the allowable use of that piece of property (cannot remove, harvest, take, etc.) they would not apply because it is inherently understood that a detectorist will be removing objects. You cannot say something is both legal and illegal at the same time. That is not to say that there cannot be further stipulations applying to what can and cannot be removed. But if I am told it is legal for me to metal detect on a given piece of public property, with no additional stipulations (not including the stuff you keep bring up…cannot harvest, remove, take, etc,etc, etc…those words can still be in the regulation), then I cannot be charged with stealing if I remove the objects I find, since it’s understood and is common knowledge that a detectorist will remove the objects that they have found. In other words, you cannot say it is OK to detect, knowing that in doing so I will be removing objects I find, but then also say “but you cannot remove objects that you find”. If it is allowed, then you can remove obects, even if the regulation says you cannot remove, harvest, take, etc. I hope I’m being clear on what I’m trying to say, but I’m probably not, sorry.



Have I summed it up ok so far ?
Not quite. The "reason" for the trespass is irrelevant. The detectorist is not [necessarily] in trouble for using a metal detector (other than the trespass itself, of which the photographer is equally guilty). It's the fact that he removed an object from private property without permission that gets him (or her) in more trouble.



If so, I think I've pinpointed the reason for the on-going difference of stances : I think it's boiling down to the definition of "trespassing". In-so-far as it concerns the mental images conveyed for our question .
No. The trespass is irrelevant to this discussion. We agree that both parties are equally guilty of this crime. Let the trespass go…it’s a non-issue. It’s the removal of private property that gets the detectorist into additional trouble. That’s all this is about at this point in the discussion…the removal of an object from private property without permission.



The type places I'm envisioning, is the corner weed strewn lot with shopping carts and the short-cut trail across it. Or the field at the end of the suburbs where everyone walks their dogs and kids ride their BMX bikes at .
Does “the field at the end of the suburbs where everyone walks their dogs and kids ride their BMX bikes at.” even still exist in this current era of “lawsuits for the silliest of reason”? Sadly, I doubt that there are too many of these “fields” still around. This is not so much a comment on the notion of detecting, or stealing, or even trespassing, so much as it is a statement about that times in which we now all live….times where you can be sued by your vegan neighbor for BBQing in your own backyard.



And places where .... like the photographer example, no one would "bat an eye" about "stepping off the sidewalk".
It would be my guess that there are virtually no places like this left in this Country. I think you would be hard pressed to find a large piece of private property, in this day and age, that is not posted with “No Trespassing” signs. And certainly if someone would happen to “stumble” upon an old house or foundation while out on an unposted piece of land, I think it would be a safe assumption to make that “you” are most likely on a piece of private property. And while you may “feel” that it’s abandoned and safe to metal detect…cuz no one would “bat an eye” about you being there…you would be stealing if you removed any objects. “You” don’t get to decide which private property is free for you to detect and remove items from, and which ones you cannot detect and remove objects…they’re all private property.



If you were envisioning people's front yards type of thing, Then we'd be in agreement. I have always understood this discussion to be the type places where it's a non-issue . Ie.: To simply be walking there. As in the case of the man walking his dog or taking pictures.
But again, there’s a big difference between walking your dog on a piece of property, and removing objects from that same piece of land. Both are trespassing, yes, we agree on that. But taking something off of the property is stealing.



Can we agree on this ?
Apparently not…but this time at least we agreed on close to 50% of the stuff in your post.:)



And if so, can we start a separate thread about whether-or-not md'rs are violating "harvest and remove" laws on public land ?
Sweet...I am giddy with excitement.



Not that that will stop either of us (or any other md'rs) from doing it. But none-the-less it does shed interesting light on the definition of md'ing.
It won’t shed any light on the definition of metal detecting so much as it will shed a light on what we detectorist know, or do not know, about the laws governing our hobby.
 
It's only considered trespassing if the property is posted...no posted signs means it's not trespassing to enter the property? Does there need to be a fence?

Do keep in mind...and I think Tom_in_ Ca will agree with me on this...that just because that officer on that day said it was "ok", a different officer on a different day might say just the opposite. Because the fact remains that if it is private property, it is considered trespassing to enter on to the property without permission, regardless of a lack of "No Trespassing" signs and/or a fence. The officer saying it was "ok", does not make it legal.

Has the city or State claimed that land as "theirs" (through eminent domain or some other legal means), I'm just curious?


Let me throw out this hypothetical, just to see how people would respond:

Let's say your friend finds a very valuable ring or coin. Let's say he's silly enough to post about it on this Forum, and word gets back to the owner of the property. Who do yo think wold prevail in a Court of Law, as it pertains to the legal ownership of the ring or coin? I'm seriously asking...I'm not trying to be a "know-it-all".
 
My understanding was there was a fence but no gate into the property. This is common where I live due to cattle grazing and doesn’t necessarily mean property is private. A county sheriff was called on her. He told her there was no gate and no signs so it’s not considered trespassing. I searched a homesite over the weekend using this same set of rules. The abandoned house in the next section of property has a gate so we didn’t search there.
 
if metal detecting IS allowed on any given piece of public property, then no matter the wording in the allowable use of that piece of property (cannot remove, harvest, take, etc.) they would not apply because it is inherently understood that a detectorist will be removing objects.

Not necessarily. As much as you might think it's "inherently understood" that the md'rs take and remove things. Yet, read and weep: Humorously .... there's been places that allow md'rs to detect, yet forbid them to take anything from the place. So as you can see: The 2 actions can-indeed be thought of as two separate actions.

Thus it is not necessarily implicit that md'ing = taking things. For example, tell me any public land you detect on. Whether via express allowance (something in the rules that says md'ing is ok), or merely silent on the subject (not expressly forbidden, so you assume it's ok). I'll bet I can go to those administering personnel and ask them if it's ok for flies-only to take park features. And I'll bet they'd say it's not ok. Yet they might say it's ok to metal detect. See ?


And as for the word "allowed" :

A location of public land need-not-need an express "allowance" for md'ing. Right ? Ie.: As if you were going to find a "metal detecting allowed here" sign or law. Right ? On the contrary, if there's no law that says "no md'ing", then presto, it's not dis-allowed. Right ?


It's the fact that he removed an object from private property without permission that gets him (or her) in more trouble.

Correct. So I did sum it up correctly : That md'ing is a more egregious activity than photography. Hence it's a worser-level-of-trespassing. Since you've defined md'ing as "theft", then sure, everything else you're saying does indeed logically follow.


Let the trespass go…it’s a non-issue. It’s the removal of private property that gets the detectorist into additional trouble.

Aaaahh, interesting. HHmmm. So we shall put the "trespass" element aside. The "removing " (aka theft) is the egregious thing about md'ing. Hhhhmmm. Ok, I'm with you. Fine. Then with that definition of md'ing clearly in place. Via your words here, not mine. Then apply it to my other thread. All-the-while remembering your definition: "MD'ing = theft". Whether or not someone is trespassing.

the removal of an object from private property without permission.

But then you are again: Trying to sneak "trespassing " in through the back door again ! If trespassing is a "non-issue", then how is someone supposed to be getting access, to even dig the buffalo nickel anyhow, UNLESS he were stepping foot on private property in-the-first-place ?

.... so much as it is a statement about that times in which we now all live….times where you can be sued by your vegan neighbor for BBQing in your own backyard.

Yes I'm old enough to remember when school yards didn't used to be fenced. And when we went to catch tree frogs or ride our BMX bikes in farmer-bob's field.

But to whatever extent people are these-days "sued" for such things, is kind of "telling" to therefore extend this same level of "worry" to md'ing. I mean, sure: Just like the vegan suing the BBQ, well for that matter .... sure .... the md'r can get "sued" or the kid who hunted for tree-frogs in farmer bob's creek can "sue", etc.... Is it possible ?? SURE.

But heck, for that matter, you and I can discuss the risks of walking down the street, because a 747 might crash-land there too. Right ? After all, it's entirely possible, right ? But seriously : At a certain point, the BBQ guy has to say "screw it", and go on with his BBQ, and just risk that his vegan neighbor might sue him. Right ?

In other words, if we thought about it long enough and hard enough, none of us would ever leave our front doors in the morning (lest a lion attack you) . Right ?

.... It would be my guess that there are virtually no places like this left in this Country.

But if they did, then you'd agree that , limiting the conversation to such places, then our disagreement is solved. Right ?
 
It's only considered trespassing if the property is posted...no posted signs means it's not trespassing to enter the property? Does there need to be a fence?.....

I am aware of what Carson Chris is saying. At least as it pertains to CA laws. And Nevada is probably even looser yet . Since in vast portions of Nevada, you can practically go off road anywhere, onto endless dirt roads into the wilderness. And never even know whose land you're on.

But in CA, he's right : If the land is not fenced or posted, then a person can not be charged with trespass. In fact, there's even stipulations as to how far apart the signs can be , blah blah.

For example, I knew of a man who was farming vegetables in a little garden of his, on a corner lot , in a small rural town here in CA . One day he pulled up to get ready to tend his garden, JUST in time to see someone pulling away in a truck, who had JUST apparently picked a bunch of his vegetables . So he got the license # and called the sheriff.

The sheriff showed up and surveyed the scene. The gardener gave the sheriff the lic. #. But the sheriff said there was nothing that could be done. Since the lot wasn't signed or posted.

So the gardener promptly signed the lot, on all 4 corners : "No trespassing, private property". So as to be able to "put teeth" into going after any future veggie stealers.

I am not saying this to "justify stealing" (like, as was the case with these vegetables there). That's not the point. But it's just to comment on what Carson Chris said, as far as it concerns the laws of what constitutes trespass.

BTW : To expand on the "veggie" example: I would see a difference between the man metal detecting versus the guy stealing the crops. Would you agree ?
 
I've been reading thru this, just dropping some of my thoughts.

What happens when the photographer's picture he "took" goes viral, and he rakes in millions, because for what ever reason everyone wants a copy of that photo/use it's image in advertising. Then does it become an issue? Did the photographer still only trespass?

I say yes, he only trespassed. He did not "steal" anything.

Is a picture just a picture still? Would the original owner of the property have something different to say? Like "Hey! That's my barn with my property on that T-shirt!"

Now.... if the metal detectorist "trespassed" and left with 3 pull tabs, two bottle tops, and a handful of nails. Maybe a 1989 Lincoln penny too.... Is he a trespassing thief? Or just a trespasser....

I'd say still just a trespasser. and he'd still be trespassing and not a thief if the same hunt left him with a valuable coin. If he was arrested, for what ever reason or another, I think it would be on the grounds of trespassing. Not theft. In my eyes...

If he went on the property because farmer Joe hides his mercury dimes in the third fence pole from the south, and you go and metal detect them and directly steal them... then I see that as theft.

When these "valuable" coins were lost, they weren't valuable. They were face value. Dropped and forgotten about along with what ever other garage they left in the same spot.

Just a quick edit:
Does a photographer have the same quarrels as a detectorist deciding if they should contact an owner of a long forgotten property to take a picture of it to sell in their gallery? Or is their picture taking still considered harmless?
 
....

Let's say your friend finds a very valuable ring or coin. Let's say he's silly enough to post about it on this Forum, and word gets back to the owner of the property. Who do yo think wold prevail in a Court of Law, as it pertains to the legal ownership of the ring or coin? I'm seriously asking...I'm not trying to be a "know-it-all".

Flies-only, this subject has come up on md'ing forums before.

The scenario that you describe would fall under Lost & found laws. All 50 states have them. They were born out of wandering cattle laws of the 1800s. And have various thresholds of value to when-you're-required to turn things in to the police station L&F. Typically $50 to $100 value, for example. And then theoretically, if no one claims the item in 30 days, you can get it back. After you pay storage fees. And/or fees for their advertising a "found" classified ad in the newspaper, etc...

And the laws serve for good purpose. So that, of course, if the back door of a Brinks armored cars swings open, the next passerby can't just claim "finders keepers". Or when you "find" the mountain bike propped up next to the light pole, you can't just say "lucky me, look what I just found".

And the law makes NO distinction on when YOU think an item was lost. Ie.: a ring that appears to be lost for years, versus a shallow one which was maybe just lost. And the law makes no distinction for your own ability to find the owner. (eg.: pinning a note to a telephone pole, or running a CL "found" ad, etc...). Instead, it merely says to turn it in to the police station.

And there's been some interesting legal twists and stories that have evolved out of these laws. Do they affect us md'rs ? YOU BET ! A quick look at any beach hunters forum, and you'll see no shortage of md'rs showing off their latest show & tell finds. Right ? Ok, how many of them do you think rushed to the police station ?

Thus this falls under the "technical" versus "reality" test-of-things. We all know, in our heart-of-hearts, that after a week or month or whatever , NO ONE is still looking for that ring they lost years ago. Right ?

There's another law you break on public land in the course of this evil hobby :laughing:
 
.... Dropped and forgotten about ....

Agreed. There's a gut-instinct difference between the merc. dime dropped and forgotten about 80 yrs. ago, versus the merc. dime in farmer Bob's coin collection.

Is there a technical difference ? No. But is there a gut-instinct difference that we're all aware of ? Yes.
 
Flies-only, this subject has come up on md'ing forums before.

The scenario that you describe would fall under Lost & found laws. All 50 states have them. They were born out of wandering cattle laws of the 1800s. And have various thresholds of value to when-you're-required to turn things in to the police station L&F. Typically $50 to $100 value, for example. And then theoretically, if no one claims the item in 30 days, you can get it back. After you pay storage fees. And/or fees for their advertising a "found" classified ad in the newspaper, etc...

And the laws serve for good purpose. So that, of course, if the back door of a Brinks armored cars swings open, the next passerby can't just claim "finders keepers". Or when you "find" the mountain bike propped up next to the light pole, you can't just say "lucky me, look what I just found".

And the law makes NO distinction on when YOU think an item was lost. Ie.: a ring that appears to be lost for years, versus a shallow one which was maybe just lost. And the law makes no distinction for your own ability to find the owner. (eg.: pinning a note to a telephone pole, or running a CL "found" ad, etc...). Instead, it merely says to turn it in to the police station.

And there's been some interesting legal twists and stories that have evolved out of these laws. Do they affect us md'rs ? YOU BET ! A quick look at any beach hunters forum, and you'll see no shortage of md'rs showing off their latest show & tell finds. Right ? Ok, how many of them do you think rushed to the police station ?

Thus this falls under the "technical" versus "reality" test-of-things. We all know, in our heart-of-hearts, that after a week or month or whatever , NO ONE is still looking for that ring they lost years ago. Right ?

There's another law you break on public land in the course of this evil hobby :laughing:
Even on private property? Yous always seem to ignore that fact that I talking specifically about finding stuff on private property. I'm pretty sure there's a big difference between finding a valuable ring or coin on a public beach, and trespassing onto private property and finding a valuable ring or coin.
 
I've been reading thru this, just dropping some of my thoughts.

What happens when the photographer's picture he "took" goes viral, and he rakes in millions, because for what ever reason everyone wants a copy of that photo/use it's image in advertising. Then does it become an issue? Did the photographer still only trespass?
Good question. I do not know the answer to that.

I say yes, he only trespassed. He did not "steal" anything.
I might make a difference what he photographed? I’m just throwing that out there…I’m not sure if it would make a difference.

Is a picture just a picture still? Would the original owner of the property have something different to say? Like "Hey! That's my barn with my property on that T-shirt!"
I think if the photographer was making money on the image, then there might be additional legal issues involved…but again that’s just a guess on my part. It's possible that there might be a copyright infringement issue though...depending on what was photographed, but that's a separate topic I suppose.

Now.... if the metal detectorist "trespassed" and left with 3 pull tabs, two bottle tops, and a handful of nails. Maybe a 1989 Lincoln penny too.... Is he a trespassing thief? Or just a trespasser....
He may have stolen things...in that I do believe that the monetary value of the items removed would come into play. Plus…and this is also just a hypothetical…what if the owner of the property is a “artists” and claims that the detectorist removed objects of value because “He” uses them in my art? I mean, I suppose a case could be made that what the detectorist saw as junk of no value, could be seen by the owner of the property as valuable pieces of his art.

I'd say still just a trespasser. and he'd still be trespassing and not a thief if the same hunt left him with a valuable coin. If he was arrested, for what ever reason or another, I think it would be on the grounds of trespassing. Not theft. In my eyes...
Why would it not be a theft? I’m curious why you think that removing a very valuable ring from private property [where you did not have permission to detect] would not be considered a theft.

If he went on the property because farmer Joe hides his mercury dimes in the third fence pole from the south, and you go and metal detect them and directly steal them... then I see that as theft.
I’m not sure why you make this distinction.

When these "valuable" coins were lost, they weren't valuable. They were face value. Dropped and forgotten about along with what ever other garage they left in the same spot.
What if it’s a diamond ring?

Just a quick edit:
Does a photographer have the same quarrels as a detectorist deciding if they should contact an owner of a long forgotten property to take a picture of it to sell in their gallery? Or is their picture taking still considered harmless?
I think if the object being photographed can be photographed without trespassing, then even if the photographer did trespass, he would likely not get in additional trouble for taking the picture and making money off of it. But I’m not a lawyer, so don’t bet on it.

I like this post…it raises some very interesting ideas that I hadn’t though about.
 
Agreed. There's a gut-instinct difference between the merc. dime dropped and forgotten about 80 yrs. ago, versus the merc. dime in farmer Bob's coin collection.

Is there a technical difference ? No. But is there a gut-instinct difference that we're all aware of ? Yes.
But it's buried on MY property, therefore it belongs to me. It's value when it was lost matters not one iota, nor does it matter when it was lost...yesterday or 200 years ago. It belongs to me, not you. You came onto my property uninvited, detected, and removed a very valuable coin. I'm pretty sure that I'd win that case in a Court of Law...all things being equal.
 
Even on private property? Yous always seem to ignore that fact that I talking specifically about finding stuff on private property. I'm pretty sure there's a big difference between finding a valuable ring or coin on a public beach, and trespassing onto private property and finding a valuable ring or coin.

No. Not on private property. So what are we to conclude with this post of yours here then ? :?: Are you saying that ..... on public property ... that we ARE all violating the laws of Lost & found ? :?:
 
.... Why would it not be a theft? I’m curious why you think that removing a very valuable ring from private property [where you did not have permission to detect] would not be considered a theft....

Technically, yes, it would be theft. And no, it doesn't even have to be "valuable" to be "theft". The same principle applies to a clad dime that you (gasp) picked up off the vacant lot as you took the short-cut path across it. The ring or coin doesn't have to be "valuable", to be theft.

Hence, there you go. The answer is: Technically, yes, it's theft. Flies-only : You are right .

Thus ... now that we've 1) established this definition, and 2) established that laws/rules also forbid theft on private & public land, that therefore 3) you will cease stealing from public land then. Right ?

Yes yes yes, I realize public and private land are different. All I'm trying to do is point out that : deep down inside all of us, we know that our hobby is not theft. We know that the objects we get are unknown and forgotten. NOT like the dime in the museum, and NOT like the dime on farmer bob's nightstand. Even though, yes, they are technically the same.
 
But it's buried on MY property, therefore it belongs to me. It's value when it was lost matters not one iota, nor does it matter when it was lost...yesterday or 200 years ago. It belongs to me, not you. You came onto my property uninvited, detected, and removed a very valuable coin. I'm pretty sure that I'd win that case in a Court of Law...all things being equal.

Technically, yes, everything you're saying is technically true.

And since you brought up "court of law", then I'm sure you'll agree, that your actions would likewise be considered theft in a "court of law" when done on public land as well. Oh sure, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who cares less about the buffalo nickel you got (ahem "stole") from the park. I agree. AND THAT'S JUST THE POINT. There's a gut instinct knowledge of the difference.

Is there any difference if lawyers wanted to hash it out ? No. The fact that "no one cares" would not be a defense if lawyers wanted to hash it out.

So I invite you to take this "technically correct" definition, and merely be consistent with all your hunting, everywhere. Ok ?
 
No. Not on private property. So what are we to conclude with this post of yours here then ? :?: Are you saying that ..... on public property ... that we ARE all violating the laws of Lost & found ? :?:
Honestly, that's a good question, and to be truthful, I don't know the answer, as I have never looked into the laws in my State as they relate to finding valuables on public property and how that pertains to "Lost & Found". However, I would hazard a guess that in all likelihood, "proof of ownership" would be the determining factor.
 
Back
Top Bottom