Park district rules - or lack thereof

[Dan Hughes]

Let me be the first to admit that my last show was incomplete.

A listener called me out, saying "You suggest telling the policeman the name of the person who granted you permission to search the park, but what if nobody will grant you permission?"

So that's what the new show is all about: How to find out what your local park regulations are, what to do if there aren't any, and how to keep from being told you can't hunt by officials who don't know the law.

I offer several suggestions as to how to get your ducks in a row before you take your metal detector into a park.

And the listener himself came up with a wonderful way to work for change from the inside rather than the outside.

It's all at http://thetreasurecorner.com - just click the pink button!

---Dan Hughes

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[godisnum1]

Hey, I just have to say (once again) that I really enjoy your programs... and I definitely respect you because you take any criticism (which seems to be alot) given to you as a positive, then implement those things to better your show.
Anyway, I really like what you do! Thanks!!

Bran <><

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Just listened to your clip. thanx. What you are basically saying is, that if park's rules (look them up yourself, don't ask) are silent on the issue (don't say anything, either way, about metal detecting), then ...... SO BE IT! Good job

This is better advice than what I've seen promoted from time to time, that we somehow need permission to do our hobby, in public innocuous places. We don't. We should never think of ourselves as any different than someone wishing to fly a frisbee, whistle dixie, etc.... If it's not specifically disallowed, then so be it. And I like how you say, that in a person's quest to know if there's any written rules on the subject, to NOT mention metal detecting. Because as you surmise, that can merely be interpretted as a form of requesting permission. I have actually heard of that happening, where someone asks verbally to some deskbound clerk "is there anything that prohibits metal detecting?". The clerk replies "we would prefer you didn't" or "only for things YOU lost, but nothing else" (as was the case with your audio clip questioneer). In each case, you can see they merely cite an opinion, or just say "no", simply because you asked, and it's the easy answer.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Dan, a question occured to me: In your introduction to this clip (ie.: the reason for the clip), you say it was as a result of an earlier admonition you had given, that if md'rs were approached by a cop, to "give the officer the person's name and agency, who gave you permission".

Do you see the multiple layers of implications, in that earlier podcast? It implies that we "need permission", to begin with. Heck, you even suggest to get that permission in writing (which, by the way, is the FASTEST way to get a "no", in this litigical world we live in) To suggest that we need "permission" in that first podcast is quite a bit different than your subsequent podcast, wouldn't you agree? You have basically contradicted yourself, and now say NOT to "seek permission" (which simply implies that md'ing needs "permission" to begin with), but rather to see if there are any rules prohibiting md'ing. (And if there isn't, then so be it.)

Have you given any thought to altering your earlier podcast, or are you going to let the contradiction between the two remain?

 

[Woodland Detectors]

Still following, Dan

 

[whynot]

Great site, Dan, and I enjoy your podcasts... Maybe I can give you some ideas on using your cell phone to help you MD... I utilize google maps on my BlackBerry to locate the tot lots in my nearby counties... But first, I create a map from the city and county web sites and weed out the lots which don't have playground equipment... Here's a link to one of my techniques:
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,297848.0.html

This can also be done for schools, historical sites, etc. Helps me take advantage of the time I have available to quickly go from site to site. According to what I've read, it is even easier to do with an iPhone...
-whynot

 

[godisnum1]

whynot brings up a very great point! Technology is changing, and so is our methods in MDing & THing. I've used Google Earth before on a previous PDA phone that I had, and it helped a ton... especially finding new spots on the go!

Bran <><

 

[Dan Hughes]

Dan, a question occured to me: In your introduction to this clip (ie.: the reason for the clip), you say it was as a result of an earlier admonition you had given, that if md'rs were approached by a cop, to "give the officer the person's name and agency, who gave you permission".

Do you see the multiple layers of implications, in that earlier podcast? It implies that we "need permission", to begin with. Heck, you even suggest to get that permission in writing (which, by the way, is the FASTEST way to get a "no", in this litigical world we live in) To suggest that we need "permission" in that first podcast is quite a bit different than your subsequent podcast, wouldn't you agree? You have basically contradicted yourself, and now say NOT to "seek permission" (which simply implies that md'ing needs "permission" to begin with), but rather to see if there are any rules prohibiting md'ing. (And if there isn't, then so be it.)

Have you given any thought to altering your earlier podcast, or are you going to let the contradiction between the two remain?

Tom, there is no contradiction. You were simply getting two different viewpoints from two different people.

In the first podcast (#038), the ideas and suggestions advanced were those of ex-police chief Anthony Belli of Lost Treasure magazine, whom I interviewed for the show. I was just the messenger there.

The recommendations in the second show (#039) were my own. I realized my own "clarifications" were necessary after the question about Tony's recommendations.

Hope that works for you.

Best,

---Dan

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Hmm, ok, so you got your admonitions via an interviewee. I just assumed that when you put that "out there", that you were in agreement with the advice.

 

[Dan Hughes]

Hmm, ok, so you got your admonitions via an interviewee. I just assumed that when you put that "out there", that you were in agreement with the advice.

A good instinct for which approach might be best in each specific case will serve you well. If you already have a good relationship with the park supervisor, getting "official" permission is usually pretty easy.

By the way, about gettting permission in writing: if you mail a letter, you're dead. But if you send an informal email, there's a good chance you'll get an informal email back saying "Sure, go ahead, just don't damage anything."

Then you print a copy of THAT email, and you've got your written permission. That's exactly what I did with the Rantoul Park District.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

"A good instinct for which approach might be best in each specific case will serve you well. If you already have a good relationship with the park supervisor, getting "official" permission is usually pretty easy.

By the way, about gettting permission in writing: if you mail a letter, you're dead. But if you send an informal email, there's a good chance you'll get an informal email back saying "Sure, go ahead, just don't damage anything."

Then you print a copy of THAT email, and you've got your written permission. That's exactly what I did with the Rantoul Park District."

Or, an easier way altogether, and even more fool-proof than this, is to go with the advice of your second podcast and not ask at all! As you said in that one, if it's not specifically forbidden, then ..... so be it!

To ask merely implies that permission was needed, to begin with. And sure, you (and others here who've "gotten permission" in the past, may think that this implies that the clerk (or cop or ranger or whatever) therefore must've had the authority, to begin with, lest they wouldn't/couldn't have said "go ahead", to begin with, right? I mean, otherwise they'd have said "why are you asking me?" But human psychology never works that way: The mere fact that you are standing there asking, simply implies that something is inherently evil enough (or wrong, or damaging, or whatever) that you had to ask (I mean, would you have asked permission to fly a frisbee? And yes, someone may say "sure, I grant you permission to fly a frisbee!"). And therein lies the problem, is it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, where you merely get "no's", where no one probably would have ever cared or noticed before.

Therefore your second podcast is much more preferable. The first one can actually get rules written (so to speak) and do a dis-service. It works like this: If someone gets a "no" (where perhaps the concept or thought had never occured to a bureaucrat before), guess what's going to happen the NEXT time that same bureaucrat passes another md'r in the park? He's going to remember the earlier inquiry, and start booting others! I've actually seen that happen before!

 

[artzstuff1]

"A good instinct for which approach might be best in each specific case will serve you well. If you already have a good relationship with the park supervisor, getting "official" permission is usually pretty easy.

By the way, about gettting permission in writing: if you mail a letter, you're dead. But if you send an informal email, there's a good chance you'll get an informal email back saying "Sure, go ahead, just don't damage anything."

Then you print a copy of THAT email, and you've got your written permission. That's exactly what I did with the Rantoul Park District."

Or, an easier way altogether, and even more fool-proof than this, is to go with the advice of your second podcast and not ask at all! As you said in that one, if it's not specifically forbidden, then ..... so be it!

To ask merely implies that permission was needed, to begin with. And sure, you (and others here who've "gotten permission" in the past, may think that this implies that the clerk (or cop or ranger or whatever) therefore must've had the authority, to begin with, lest they wouldn't/couldn't have said "go ahead", to begin with, right? I mean, otherwise they'd have said "why are you asking me?" But human psychology never works that way: The mere fact that you are standing there asking, simply implies that something is inherently evil enough (or wrong, or damaging, or whatever) that you had to ask (I mean, would you have asked permission to fly a frisbee? And yes, someone may say "sure, I grant you permission to fly a frisbee!"). And therein lies the problem, is it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, where you merely get "no's", where no one probably would have ever cared or noticed before.

Therefore your second podcast is much more preferable. The first one can actually get rules written (so to speak) and do a dis-service. It works like this: If someone gets a "no" (where perhaps the concept or thought had never occured to a bureaucrat before), guess what's going to happen the NEXT time that same bureaucrat passes another md'r in the park? He's going to remember the earlier inquiry, and start booting others! I've actually seen that happen before!

Just go hunt the damn park!!!,,,,if ya get run off then leave!!!

thank you

arthur

 

[Woodland Detectors]

"A good instinct for which approach might be best in each specific case will serve you well. If you already have a good relationship with the park supervisor, getting "official" permission is usually pretty easy.

By the way, about gettting permission in writing: if you mail a letter, you're dead. But if you send an informal email, there's a good chance you'll get an informal email back saying "Sure, go ahead, just don't damage anything."

Then you print a copy of THAT email, and you've got your written permission. That's exactly what I did with the Rantoul Park District."

Or, an easier way altogether, and even more fool-proof than this, is to go with the advice of your second podcast and not ask at all! As you said in that one, if it's not specifically forbidden, then ..... so be it!

To ask merely implies that permission was needed, to begin with. And sure, you (and others here who've "gotten permission" in the past, may think that this implies that the clerk (or cop or ranger or whatever) therefore must've had the authority, to begin with, lest they wouldn't/couldn't have said "go ahead", to begin with, right? I mean, otherwise they'd have said "why are you asking me?" But human psychology never works that way: The mere fact that you are standing there asking, simply implies that something is inherently evil enough (or wrong, or damaging, or whatever) that you had to ask (I mean, would you have asked permission to fly a frisbee? And yes, someone may say "sure, I grant you permission to fly a frisbee!"). And therein lies the problem, is it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, where you merely get "no's", where no one probably would have ever cared or noticed before.

Therefore your second podcast is much more preferable. The first one can actually get rules written (so to speak) and do a dis-service. It works like this: If someone gets a "no" (where perhaps the concept or thought had never occured to a bureaucrat before), guess what's going to happen the NEXT time that same bureaucrat passes another md'r in the park? He's going to remember the earlier inquiry, and start booting others! I've actually seen that happen before!

Wow. ?

 

[GulfCoastRelix]

I was in a park today and the city garbage collector was doing his rounds. As I was digging up a coin I didn't pay much attention and he walked up and told me I could get in a lot of trouble metal detecting here. Instead of a big debate since I already did my research on any city ordinances that might prevent me from digging in this park I just said OK and returned to the car. I proceeded to call the city police desk sergeant to make sure. He said that it wouldn't be a problem and that public parks were OK but to be sure not to dig in any official historical sites. I told him that I understood that and appreciated his time. I went back to detecting. Not more than 10 minutes later I was approached by a city cop. I politely greeted him. He was actually nice and apologetic and said that he had a call about me digging out here and that the garbage man had flagged him down. I immediately told him that I had called his precinct and talked to the sergeant. We talked for a few moments and then he went back to his car. A few minutes later he came back and wanted me to come look at a city ordinance he found. I went back to his car and read it on his computer. It simply stated that it was against the law to destroy any park property such as cutting of trees and so on. I assured him that I was just breaking soil and filling my holes afterwards which I ALWAYS do. I asked him would he rather me stop but he said he was unclear of the actual meaning of the ordinance. I showed him the trash I was picking up along the way as well and he seemed OK with it. I thanked him and he left. Some people are resentful of metal detecting for whatever reason. They think they know the law and the best thing is to not get in a debate about it. But I am afraid that at some point I will have to defend my right to detect in a public park and don't know what to say exactly. Permission to detect would seem kinda of useless in this instance. It would never be a good idea to argue with a police officer or park official but you have to defend yourself at some point. He obviously cannot write a ticket if he doesn't have the statute to back it up. I am new to detecting and just wanted to be clear about what to do in these situations. I am always careful to fill my holes as if no one was there at all. Thanks

 

[godisnum1]

I was in a park today and the city garbage collector was doing his rounds. As I was digging up a coin I didn't pay much attention and he walked up and told me I could get in a lot of trouble metal detecting here. Instead of a big debate since I already did my research on any city ordinances that might prevent me from digging in this park I just said OK and returned to the car. I proceeded to call the city police desk sergeant to make sure. He said that it wouldn't be a problem and that public parks were OK but to be sure not to dig in any official historical sites. I told him that I understood that and appreciated his time. I went back to detecting. Not more than 10 minutes later I was approached by a city cop. I politely greeted him. He was actually nice and apologetic and said that he had a call about me digging out here and that the garbage man had flagged him down. I immediately told him that I had called his precinct and talked to the sergeant. We talked for a few moments and then he went back to his car. A few minutes later he came back and wanted me to come look at a city ordinance he found. I went back to his car and read it on his computer. It simply stated that it was against the law to destroy any park property such as cutting of trees and so on. I assured him that I was just breaking soil and filling my holes afterwards which I ALWAYS do. I asked him would he rather me stop but he said he was unclear of the actual meaning of the ordinance. I showed him the trash I was picking up along the way as well and he seemed OK with it. I thanked him and he left. Some people are resentful of metal detecting for whatever reason. They think they know the law and the best thing is to not get in a debate about it. But I am afraid that at some point I will have to defend my right to detect in a public park and don't know what to say exactly. Permission to detect would seem kinda of useless in this instance. It would never be a good idea to argue with a police officer or park official but you have to defend yourself at some point. He obviously cannot write a ticket if he doesn't have the statute to back it up. I am new to detecting and just wanted to be clear about what to do in these situations. I am always careful to fill my holes as if no one was there at all. Thanks

You did awesome... definitely handled yourself much better than others have! Way to go!!

Bran <><