Find's Treasure Forums

Welcome to Find's Treasure Forums, Guests!

You are viewing this forums as a guest which limits you to read only status.

Only registered members may post stories, questions, classifieds, reply to other posts, contact other members using built in messaging and use many other features found on these forums.

Why not register and join us today? It's free! (We don't share your email addresses with anyone.) We keep email addresses of our users to protect them and others from bad people posting things they shouldn't.

Click here to register!



Need Support Help?

Cannot log in?, click here to have new password emailed to you

Meeting with Cook County Forest preserve to address detecting ban.. Tuesday July 30th in Chicago.

chicagoron

New member
Well it has been a work in progress for quite some time. Pat Anderson president of the Chicago club sent an email to the president of the Cook County forest preserve in Oct 2012 asking for a meeting to address the ban on detecting in Cook County preserves. He also included a plan for training and a permit system to regulate when and where hunting was allowed. No response was received until June 14th of 2013. That response from the district was merely a thank you for writing, these are the rules for detecting.
The Task Force has hired an attorney, Anne Shaw, to help with their situation, and a letter from the attorney went out the other day to the Forest Preserve District of Cook County.

This is the districts reply.

Hello Everyone:
This is to advise you that the General Superintendent of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County recently has received several requests to meet with various individuals for the purpose of discussing the Forest Preserve District
 
I hope that the meeting goes well, and that an agreement is reached.
 
Glad to hear that Ron. It's the least you can do considering your "good fortune" in this hobby, if you want to call it that. Take a day off from the tanning booth and give back to the folks who got you to where you are today ..
 
Ron, thanx for the info. When you go, if the evolution of such a rule comes into discussion, please find out how such a thing ever got onto their plate ........... to begin with. I mean, who dreamed up such a thing, and what was the kernal that inspired them to think such a hobby even needed his/their srutiny .... TO BEGIN WITH. Certainly it can't be "holes", since we're not talking turf. We're talking un-improved forests, swamps, trails, etc... Thus, why oh why oh why did this ever come up as something that "needed a rule", in the first place? Please see if you can read between the lines, to the very start of this, and let us know.
 
It's in Illnois--nuff said.
People are leaving the state so fast the cops are going to start checking papers before they let you out.
In Illinois the bureaucrats do things not because they need to or because they want to but simply because they can.
 
Wish I would be home to attend but will be out of the state. I hope they are willing to say why the ordinance was put in effect. We hunted for years with no problems. Good luck. It's my opinion if you don't have anything postive to add why bother.
 
Tom, Good question. I would like to hear what prompted them also, hopefully they give an honest answer.

Ron, thanks, and keep us informed.
 
Steve O said:
Tom, Good question. I would like to hear what prompted them also, hopefully they give an honest answer.

Ron, thanks, and keep us informed.

I just told you what prompted them--they knew they could , so they did. Why do you think they need a reason?

Robert2300 posts "If only we were as strong as the NRA!"-----never going to happen because for 25 years detectorists have adopted a diametrically opposed position to the NRA when it comes to preserving their rights. NRA members are willing to defend what's theirs while detectorists continue to ask permission to have the same rights to public property that everyone else enjoys. If you accept the position of a second class citizen , expect to be treated as such. Until that mind set changes the hobby will be more and more restricted. What bully doesn't look for the biggest wimp to pick on and who fits that scenario better than the government of Illinois and the detectorist.
 
They were probably prompted by the TRASH HEAP metal detecting t.v. shows. I'm actually surprised more areas aren't prompted to act against detecting because of the TRASH HEAP metal detecting shows
 
Guys I live in Illinois and we were having problems with guys getting tickets for detecting the Cook County preserves years before the last 3 shows hit the air. I don't care for the TV shows but we have had the problem for a long time. I have been detecting since the late 80's and the Will county and Dupage County preserves were off limits then. I live with this problem living close to Cook County. I travel a lot sprchng and Illinois is not unique in it's problems. If you have a beef with the state go to the views forum and make a post.

Cook County is not Illinois and most of the state has no problem with detecting. I have hunted most areas of the state and have never been banned.

Where are you Fred?
 
sprcng, you say that the reason for their idea to do this, was that they "knew they could". But that doesn't make sense. Because so too could they ban frisbees (afterall, you "might poke someone's eye out"). Yet despite their ability to ban frisbees, they don't. Nor whistling dixie, nor jump rope, nor skipping stones on the pond (might hurt the fish), etc...

So the answer: "because they know they can" isn't answering question. OF COURSE we know they have the power to enact a wide variety of things, if the mood-so-struck-them. But the question here is: What prompted them to "get this idea" that this was something in need of their "princely sanction" IN THE FIRST PLACE?

I'll bet I know: I bet a bunch of people went asking "can I metal detect in the forest preserves?". If you get that repeat question often enough (which in turn must get put past various other dignataries for a proper answer), then go figure: It's just going to be a matter of time before this "pressing issue" gets a new rule invented, to address it. Just my theory. Let's see if someone there at this meeting can cut to the root of it.

Mind you, even if you COULD ask the genius to thought this up, you can bet he's not going to say "because a bunch of people asked". Instead, he'll probably cite "cultural heritage" or "holes" or whatever. Sure. Fine. That's there "go to" reason for the rule they just invented. But if it were possible to push back further in the evolution, and find out "What made you one day to wake up and decide "gee, I think md'rs are hurting the cultural heritage" ? SOMETHING put it "on their radar"
 
Sprching, seemed to me you were just letting loose some steam and I didn't give your post much thought...sorry bud.

My rule is; I check the county's website first, if there no rules about detecting, I'm in. When arriving at the park, I read the Park Rules sign. If it doesn't say "NO METAL DETECTING" , I'm in. I will never ask permission from a county official in person or over the phone......a State Park is different. Here, the rule is "Ask the particular State Park official AT the office to receive verbal permission to detect.
 
When you say that the state rule in your state is to ask at each individual park you come to, I presume you're getting that info from the state-by-state alphabetic list, right? ie.: this: http://www.fmdac.org/parks/parks.htm

If so, CA has something similar to that as well: "inquire at each kiosk you come to, blah blah."

I wouldn't even call that admonition a "rule", when you think of it. Because to my knowledge, they're not written anywhere, except on the very list you're reading that on. In other words, I don't think you're going to find that in a "law" anywhere, that says, for example: "metal detectors must check in at each park for permission", etc.... Instead, where those statements came into being, was that ...way-back-when..... whenever someone got ready to make such a listing like those, they did so by asking. Yup, like send out a letter to each of the 50 state's park's dept, heads and asking: "what are the rules regarding metal detectors in your state's parks?" Sounds like a great idea, right? I mean, who better to ask, than the states themselves, right?

And as you'll notice, when/if you go down that list, and click to see more detail for each state, that rarely is/was there ever actually any rules that specifically ever said "no metal detecting". Go figure, the advent of detectors wasn't realistically till well into the 1960s, for common hobbyist usage. So in the absence of any verbage on the subject of "metal detectors", whomever receives such an inquiry, would search too and fro to find other things to morph to apply to the question. You know: verbage about "collecting and harvesting" or "taking". Or "disturbing the vegetation" or "cultural heritage" and so forth. And then they come back with dire sounding answers, or out-right no's. (when in fact, prior to that, perhaps no one ever cared or had any problems, eh?)

But a lot of them as you see, had that "ask at each kiosk" type answer. I believe THAT was born out of the following reality: In any given state, there's no doubt bound to be certain of their parks with an admitted historical theme (ie.: historic monuments). Whereas perhaps the other 90% are just run-of-the-mill beaches, non historic monuments, etc.... But whomever is answering the question obviously can't go into super detail like "yes at these 75 parks, but no at these 13, etc... So instead the easier answer was "ask at each kiosk". And notice that was never law anywhere, till now that you asked, and someone's "safe answer" got published on your nifty list. So what happens now? MD'rs read that and are now a steady stream of persons who up inquiring at the kiosks (afterall, that's what the nifty list tells them they must do). And you have wide-eyed bewildered rangers now fielding this question of 'can I metal detect?" (as if it's somehow inherently evil and in need of approval). And you can almost GUESS where this is going to go. What do you THINK that kiosk clerk's easy answer is going to be?

I wish, that way-back-when, whenever/whomever had put together those lists, that they had done so with a look-it-up ourselves approach. We'd have had a lot less "no's" and "inquire at each kiosks" than we do today.
 
No, I never saw that list. The rules are on my states website.

I have stopped at two different park offices, each woman official there, said the screwdriver, ice pic rules of digging utensils, did not have to be obeyed, and I could use a shovel if I want, that kind of blew me away.

I really don't understand the verbal permission. If needed, how do you prove to a Ranger you got permission. The ladies never said to ask at each visit, so my guess is, that I asked once and that's good forever.

I have never been stopped by a Ranger in a State park, County parks yes (because a $10 permit is required).
 
Hi,
So what was the outcome/results of the meeting that Ron mentioned in the first post of this thread ??
hh
skookum ??
 
Steve O said:
No, I never saw that list. The rules are on my states website.

I have stopped at two different park offices, each woman official there, said the screwdriver, ice pic rules of digging utensils, did not have to be obeyed, and I could use a shovel if I want, that kind of blew me away.

I really don't understand the verbal permission. If needed, how do you prove to a Ranger you got permission. The ladies never said to ask at each visit, so my guess is, that I asked once and that's good forever.

I have never been stopped by a Ranger in a State park, County parks yes (because a $10 permit is required).

re permission to violate a written rule: Use your phone to record the conversation if legal in your state. That gives teeth to your 'verbal contract'.

Personally, I'd never use a shovel in a park even if they gave me permission in writing. Too much bad juju.
 
Good idea Kin.
 
skookum said:
Hi,
So what was the outcome/results of the meeting that Ron mentioned in the first post of this thread ??
hh
skookum ??

That's what I would like to know.... I bet it was a "thank you for your time, we will take this into consideration " type of thing.

What is in these forest preserves that is worth going for? Are they hiking, picnicking, swimming types of place?
 
Top