Dig all targets?

[ohmygato]

Mark,

It's hard to say whether or not you're on the right track with the sites you're hunting. I don't think there's enough information to really make that call. Here are the four main factors I look for in a site for jewelry potential:
1. High volume of jewelry-wearers.
2. High level of activity or other mechanisms to separate people from their jewelry. Contact sports and swimming are ideal.
3. Adequate ground cover (ideally sand or tall grass).
4. Low competition.

Demographics play a major role in the equation (ie do the high volume of people who engage in high activity actually wear jewelry when doing that activity?).

Note that I did not mention level of trash or size of site because ideally you can manage each of those issues with discrimination and coverage, respectively.

I lean heavily on Clive Clynick's theories and experience so I will at least mention him here since most of the above is based on his methods.

Have you observed the sites while they are at the highest and lowest points of their activity? Have you observed people wearing jewelry engaged in high activity there? Do your site samples confirm your observations about the site? Are you making recoveries of items that people definitely did not want to lose? A few of the best signs I've seen are lost keys, coin spills, junk jewelry (from adults that is), high ratios of quarters to other coins.

If you'd like to PM me the name of the city you live in I'd be happy to start a dialogue with you about site selection in your particular area. I'm not sure if I can shed any light on it but I'll try.

Best,
Dan

 

[Elton]

n/t

 

[Tom_in_CA]

......... from all I can gather without actually going to the court house is the State Parks Are Off Limits ........

Ok, for the time-being, let's forget turf, TIDs, notching, enhancements, etc... Let's go back to whether or not there's any swimming beaches near you. You've said that the only swimming beaches are state-park lakes near you, right? (no city or county or private swim lakes, eh? only "state" park owned lakes, eh?). But then you say "state parks are off-limits".

And yet you say that this info is "... from all you can gather". Ok. I'll bite: how did you "GATHER" that? Where are you getting that info? And no, don't "go to the courthouse to see. Because it's apparent that you've ALREADY made this assumption based on info you've "gathered". Right? Ok, what was that? Do you have a link? and no, don't go asking some desk-bound person (lest you fall afoul of the "no-one-cared-till-you-asked-safe-answer"). Just what info you have that said West Virginia state parks were off-limits to md'ing. And be aware that even if you can find something to show me/us, that often-time, land vs beaches are treated differently.

For example: If I were to take a litteral reading of the state-of-Ca park's dept. info, I *might* come to some sort of conclusion that I can't hunt state-of-CA beaches here. And certainly there might be some state parks in-land (especially of a historic monument nature) where someone might say something. However, on the beaches, you can detect till you're blue in the face, and no one cares (despite what might be "morphed" if you asked enough questions of the "right" bureaucrats). Hence beaches verses terra firma are often treated differently. Ie.: one someone might care, while the other is seen as inncous (or "grandfathered in").

so let us know where you see that WV state park's lake's beaches are off-limits, and we'll go from there.

 

[mudpuppy]

I sure have learned a lot since finding this Forum, it would cut down a hunters learning curve if he reads and thinks about these wonderful, freely given, and completely honest replies...Thanks guys!
Mud

 

[MarkCZ]

......... from all I can gather without actually going to the court house is the State Parks Are Off Limits ........

Ok, for the time-being, let's forget turf, TIDs, notching, enhancements, etc... Let's go back to whether or not there's any swimming beaches near you. You've said that the only swimming beaches are state-park lakes near you, right? (no city or county or private swim lakes, eh? only "state" park owned lakes, eh?). But then you say "state parks are off-limits".

And yet you say that this info is "... from all you can gather". Ok. I'll bite: how did you "GATHER" that? Where are you getting that info? And no, don't "go to the courthouse to see. Because it's apparent that you've ALREADY made this assumption based on info you've "gathered". Right? Ok, what was that? Do you have a link? and no, don't go asking some desk-bound person (lest you fall afoul of the "no-one-cared-till-you-asked-safe-answer"). Just what info you have that said West Virginia state parks were off-limits to md'ing. And be aware that even if you can find something to show me/us, that often-time, land vs beaches are treated differently.

For example: If I were to take a litteral reading of the state-of-Ca park's dept. info, I *might* come to some sort of conclusion that I can't hunt state-of-CA beaches here. And certainly there might be some state parks in-land (especially of a historic monument nature) where someone might say something. However, on the beaches, you can detect till you're blue in the face, and no one cares (despite what might be "morphed" if you asked enough questions of the "right" bureaucrats). Hence beaches verses terra firma are often treated differently. Ie.: one someone might care, while the other is seen as inncous (or "grandfathered in").

so let us know where you see that WV state park's lake's beaches are off-limits, and we'll go from there.

Well, I've never seen any body out there detecting,
And the few people that I have came in contact with that metal detect claim to have been ran off,
And without searching the states around me the one state park lake near me is the only one I know about.
It has a pretty small man made beach area for swimming and you have to pay to get in.

So I did a little searching and found this in the State Park Regulations.

2.1. No person shall cut, deface, destroy, or drive any object into any tree, shrub, rock, sign, building or other structure or object in a state park, state forest, or state wildlife management area. This subsection does not apply to the erection of temporary blinds or tree stands in state wildlife management areas.

2.2. No person shall remove any man-made or natural object, material, substance, plant, animal or historical or archeological relic or artifact from a state park, state forest, or state wildlife management area, except those legally acquired through hunting and fishing in accordance with W. Va. Code

 

[sprchng]

This is simple enough:
19.5.2.24 METAL DETECTING: Metal detecting within a state park is prohibited unless a visitor obtains the superintendent

 

[tabman]

This is simple enough:
19.5.2.24 METAL DETECTING: Metal detecting within a state park is prohibited unless a visitor obtains the superintendent

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Mark, You are right to deduce that your state's verbage for state park rules, does NOT *specifically* prohibit metal detecting. Because after I had posted that last post to you, I too went to google, and found out the same as you. IN FACT, I found some posts where persons from your state (bless their little hearts) had gone asking a series of bureaucrats for "clarification". And someone had even gotten an admission to the effect that there is nothing specific to prohibit detecting. Yet they added " .... but you can't *take* anything". Doh!

Ok, I could write a book on this type answer. And the "defacement" and "alterations" verbage you've found. But I'll try to be brief:

For starters, all the deface, destroy, alter, blah blah blah verbage you've found can be found in ANY park, of ANY entity, in ANY state. I mean, seriously, of COURSE there are laws against vandalism, stealing, destruction, alteration, and so forth. The question is though: Do those phrases automatically mean metal detecting? In other words, is "metal detecting" equivalent to "alteration" "defacement" and so forth? The answer is: All such text inherently and implicitly refers to the end result. Right? So if you've left the area exactly as you've found it (covered your spots, ruffled them back up pretty, etc...), then by logical definition, you have not alterED or defacED anything. NOW HAVE YOU ? Now is that to say that some busy-body might disagree with those semantics? (because afterall, detecting has connotations and draws lookie-lous). Of course anyone can gripe and level such a gripe. So what? So too might you get flipped off in traffic for someone who thinks your lane change was sloppy. Does that mean you don't drive anymore? That's why you go at low traffic times and avoid such panty waists.

As for the "taking" verbage (or sometimes phrases as "harvesting" or "collecting"), that too is .... in some form of wording, found everywhere as well. And all such things pre-date detectors, so that no one thinks they can help themselves to the swing sets, or take all the tan-bark home for use in their own garden, or cut down the trees for firewood, etc.... I mean, seriously did anyone ever mean for such verbage to apply to fumble fingers coins and rings? No, of course not. Such verbage way predates detectors and electronics. Well why then, is such things cited now, by bureaucrats answering the "can I metal detect?" question ? Here's why: Because md'rs in the last 20 -ish years have taken it upon themselves to go asking desk-bound bureaucrats: Can I metal detect? And then the person tasked with answering such a "pressing question", will go hither and yonder through all their rule books, looking for the "safe" answer. When in fact, probably no one ever cared, or would have noticed. It's a clear case of "no one cares, till you ask" psychology.

So if you ask me, unless there is a SPECIFIC verbage saying "no metal detecting" , then no, all other such things to me, do not be construed to mean that, UNLESS SOMEONE WANTS TO COME TELL ME, then they're welcome to.

Because to think that all such type things (disturbing earthworms, etc...) all automatically preclude detecting, then you might as well give it up now and stick to private property. But no, parks and schools and beaches ROUTINELY get detected ALL THE TIME. And I gaurantee you, they all have some form or fashion of those type texts.

And the only reason something gets picked up in the internet as supposed "rules" (and gets repeated and linked and spread around, and before you know it, it's just accepted as a given that such & such state or park or city is "off-limits"), is because of the very psychology that I speak of. And then one day, old-timers sit around, and wonder "since when?" "who says?" "where is that written?"

There's been no shortage of places where you can detect till you're blue in the face, and no one ever cared. Then someone took it upon themselves to go ask "can I?" or "does this cultural heritage stuff apply?" (seeking clarifications). The lo & behold, they fetch themselves a "no" (when in fact, probably no one really cares even still to this day).

Sorry for the rant, but this just roils my blood.

If it were me, in the absence of something specific, I for sure would go. If someone wants to appraise you otherwise, fine then, give lip service and move on. And as for "antiquities" and "cultural heritage", for pete's sake, you're only finding new stuff, right? And for pete's sake, you're looking for the boy-scout ring your dad lost there when he was a kid, RIGHT?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

N/t

 

[sprchng]

This is simple enough:
19.5.2.24 METAL DETECTING: Metal detecting within a state park is prohibited unless a visitor obtains the superintendent

 

[WV62]

Mark, You are right to deduce that your state's verbage for state park rules, does NOT *specifically* prohibit metal detecting. Because after I had posted that last post to you, I too went to google, and found out the same as you. IN FACT, I found some posts where persons from your state (bless their little hearts) had gone asking a series of bureaucrats for "clarification". And someone had even gotten an admission to the effect that there is nothing specific to prohibit detecting. Yet they added " .... but you can't *take* anything". Doh!

Ok, I could write a book on this type answer. And the "defacement" and "alterations" verbage you've found. But I'll try to be brief:

For starters, all the deface, destroy, alter, blah blah blah verbage you've found can be found in ANY park, of ANY entity, in ANY state. I mean, seriously, of COURSE there are laws against vandalism, stealing, destruction, alteration, and so forth. The question is though: Do those phrases automatically mean metal detecting? In other words, is "metal detecting" equivalent to "alteration" "defacement" and so forth? The answer is: All such text inherently and implicitly refers to the end result. Right? So if you've left the area exactly as you've found it (covered your spots, ruffled them back up pretty, etc...), then by logical definition, you have not alterED or defacED anything. NOW HAVE YOU ? Now is that to say that some busy-body might disagree with those semantics? (because afterall, detecting has connotations and draws lookie-lous). Of course anyone can gripe and level such a gripe. So what? So too might you get flipped off in traffic for someone who thinks your lane change was sloppy. Does that mean you don't drive anymore? That's why you go at low traffic times and avoid such panty waists.

As for the "taking" verbage (or sometimes phrases as "harvesting" or "collecting"), that too is .... in some form of wording, found everywhere as well. And all such things pre-date detectors, so that no one thinks they can help themselves to the swing sets, or take all the tan-bark home for use in their own garden, or cut down the trees for firewood, etc.... I mean, seriously did anyone ever mean for such verbage to apply to fumble fingers coins and rings? No, of course not. Such verbage way predates detectors and electronics. Well why then, is such things cited now, by bureaucrats answering the "can I metal detect?" question ? Here's why: Because md'rs in the last 20 -ish years have taken it upon themselves to go asking desk-bound bureaucrats: Can I metal detect? And then the person tasked with answering such a "pressing question", will go hither and yonder through all their rule books, looking for the "safe" answer. When in fact, probably no one ever cared, or would have noticed. It's a clear case of "no one cares, till you ask" psychology.

So if you ask me, unless there is a SPECIFIC verbage saying "no metal detecting" , then no, all other such things to me, do not be construed to mean that, UNLESS SOMEONE WANTS TO COME TELL ME, then they're welcome to.

Because to think that all such type things (disturbing earthworms, etc...) all automatically preclude detecting, then you might as well give it up now and stick to private property. But no, parks and schools and beaches ROUTINELY get detected ALL THE TIME. And I gaurantee you, they all have some form or fashion of those type texts.

And the only reason something gets picked up in the internet as supposed "rules" (and gets repeated and linked and spread around, and before you know it, it's just accepted as a given that such & such state or park or city is "off-limits"), is because of the very psychology that I speak of. And then one day, old-timers sit around, and wonder "since when?" "who says?" "where is that written?"

There's been no shortage of places where you can detect till you're blue in the face, and no one ever cared. Then someone took it upon themselves to go ask "can I?" or "does this cultural heritage stuff apply?" (seeking clarifications). The lo & behold, they fetch themselves a "no" (when in fact, probably no one really cares even still to this day).

Sorry for the rant, but this just roils my blood.

If it were me, in the absence of something specific, I for sure would go. If someone wants to appraise you otherwise, fine then, give lip service and move on. And as for "antiquities" and "cultural heritage", for pete's sake, you're only finding new stuff, right? And for pete's sake, you're looking for the boy-scout ring your dad lost there when he was a kid, RIGHT?

I have been following this thread and I think I see your point. By the way I am MarkCZ,s older brother Ron. If they really don't want you to hunt there and are getting tired of running people off they will put up a sign. So if you see a sign posted, (NO METAL DETECTING) don't metal detect there, if no sign try it and see what happens.

Now what happens if you get run off, do you wait a few days and try again, or just not hunt there any more? I guess I could send one of my brothers in and see if the same thing happens to them.

Ron in WV

 

[brocantes]

-- moved topic --

 

[ohmygato]

I think it's time for you gentlemen to shed your nerdy image and go slay some sand.

 

[GeorgeinSC]

West Virginia does not allow metal detecting in any of the state parks. I have checked since I visit Wv two or three times a year.

 

[metalhead]

Why not check out some swimming area beaches at Corps of Engineer Lakes? Metal detecting is permitted at the swim beaches. They say to turn in any finds of "value", but then again, they don't look over your shoulder while you detect either, so just don't mention any valuable finds. If asked, just show them the bag of pull tabs, bottle caps and other trash that you've cleaned up from the beach.
I don't know what part of West Virginia you are in, but a simple internet search shows seven different Corps of Engineer Lake swim beaches in that state.

http://corpslakes.usace.army.mil/visitors/states-activity.cfm?state=WV

Best of luck to ya!
Happy Hunting!