Treasure Classifieds Forum

Not to say this is a bad story, but one of a club working diligently with the local city council to rectify what might become a problem within the politicians eyes. This is in Wisconsin. I thought all they had up there was cheese and cows? Just Kidding. Love the cheese but it blocks me up.

http://www.wqow.com/story/27863579/2015/...-detecting

As individual detectorists we have an obligation to instruct and nurture new detectorists in all aspects of our ethics and methods. Especially if the cities we work in are becoming fearful of detecting in general and the methods we use to dig. I think this is an important issue that each of us here, and those who detect in city parks, should address with every detectorist we meet or know so as to keep our integrity and respect of public property to the forefront of our hobby. I wouldn't want some knucklehead digging up my front lawn either. Take my word for it, they spend a fortune, by our standards, keeping the parks great. That's just the way it is. Nationwide, city budgets are shrinking and excess maintenance on fields, with workers spending extra time repairing holes, the legal liability of children breaking an ankle on un-repaired fields, and just the manpower issue alone, could become a real financial issue. I know our motto is, "Leave it like you found it.", but can we be liable for everyone out there detecting and how do we solve this?

I think this club in Wisconsin has the right idea.

The finds issue is another story. England has adopted a fair and nominal percentage system which is workable to a degree through a historic finds council that they have set up in the local areas. Rules on permits issued to me, in my state, inform that (possibly) historic objects found must be turned over and be considered property of the State/Park System and a fair value will be evaluated when the judgement comes in. Pretty vague in my opinion.

Personally, I think that these rules refer to finds made on historic, on the road, State Historical areas, possible homestead areas, etc... Basically, I feel that if I find something of such importance, gauged by my research and work into the area I am detecting, that it is a fair deal if I get credit for the discovery and some compensation if it were an important enough find. If it were just an important relic I wouldn't want compensation, just the recognition that it was a discovery made by Ed Szklarz/Ohio Dirt Fisher, while metal detecting in that area. That'd be real nice. A milestone I would think.

And I know that we could talk the, "We pay taxes.", issue all night long. But, and this is sincere, reality says they are giving me permitted rights and as a taxpaying citizen, I have to abide by them. In their legal structure, which at this point the Rangers haven't given me a problem with, I detect their property extensively.

So if and when I would make such a discovery, the moral issue is the ethics of detecting. Of course, I would do the right thing. Because I think the people that gave me the permit, in my case for free, well they should be informed. I can't imagine what I would find that they would want to know about, but if I run across it, I'll let them know. And that's not to be funny. Just to ask myself the question of what is, and what is not an important find.

How do you honestly feel about this?

Ed

I agree with you 100% Ed. To detect in New York city parks you need a permit and that is only the parks the city aloud you too , also here in New Jersey some state parks aloud detecting with a permit also. Over the years I have seen a lot of spot I used to detected now you can't. I would pay a small fee if needed to hunt on park land we can't get on now. Back in the late 70's and 80's central park was the place to go, but now you can't. I have read about how in England they have there system what doesn't sound to bad.Like the article said it only take one person to ruin the hobby for the rest of us.

It's funny, Gerry & I are always talking about this precise issue almost everytime we go out. There are MANY places that are non-detectable here in NJ, as in most states; state parks, etc. If they offered a pay to play option via permits, I'd be the first online. Now, do I believe that we should even HAVE to pay? Absolutely not, however, as you say, it doesn't matter, as that's not the reality. We have to deal with what IS, not the way we wish it was.

Where I will absolutely have to disagree though, is on the turning over of finds. I would NEVER do so. Period. Why? Well...

I have hunted private homes before, where I've even OFFERED to turn everything over to the owner. Of course, I wouldn't want to, however, I would GLADLY do so for just the privilege to hunt, and as you said, the opportunity to make the find. This is more than enough for me. BUT...

This person OWNS the land. There's a certain amount of respect due, as they are letting me hunt THEIR land. Additionally, items found on the property will be tied to the history of that residence. They are personal in nature. So, again, for these reasons, and others, I wouldn't mind giving up finds. On public lands though...

WE own that land! Yes, it's the taxes thing. Shit, I'm paying practically HALF my salary to the gov! Taxes on my paycheck, when I buy something in a store, gasoline, property taxes, hell, they even get you when you die with a death tax!!! So, not only would I have to pay for the permit (which I can make an exception for) to hunt on OUR lands, but, now I have to hand over my finds, too?!?! NO WAY That is absolutely where I would draw the line.

And yes, we ALL need to encourage & educate people newer to the hobby. Some dipshit's were in a park my buddies hunt about 2 years ago, using Ace 250's & using big spade shovels to dig! Worse, forget about plugs, these ass wipes were just throwing crap everywhere and NOT bothering to fill anything back in. When I saw them, I went over and politely (ha!) told them the error of their ways. They quickly left, and I never saw them again. The moral of this story is...

If we don't get involved and help, this is just one of the many negative byproducts.

Joe