Permission vs no problem anyway

[danloop]

All the permission threads reminded me of the time I asked police officer if it was ok to detect in the city park. Being out of state, I figured it was better to ask. City worker overheard the conversation and offered to show me a few spots to go. Found a few coins and had a good time BS'ing.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Treasure_Hunter]

Well, not to get off track on that particular exact OP example (because yes it might have factors to merit what you're saying). But just "in general": What your saying, to deduce rules by asking someone "is metal detecting ok here?", would be a valid. And time-saving, I might add ! Because in theory: Whomever you're asking afterall, is going to tell what the law says (if anything) on that issue, right ? However, in actual practice, it doesn't sometimes work out that way. Rather than tell you "here's what the law says", you can get odd-ball answers that make you ..... shall we say .... wonder.

Some persons have posted that the way around this "whimsical arbitrary" thing, is to phrase the question in this way:

"Are there any laws or rules addressing or forbidding metal detectors?". Because in THAT way, it puts the burden on them to CITE such an actual rule or law, if one existed. Right ? Rather than sounding like you're asking their permission, right ? What's your take on that TH'r ?

Tom I never ask can I detect, if i do ask someone, I ask is it against the law to detect.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[treasuresalvor]

Anyway, here's how it goes down where I'm from. As far as city property goes (parks,schools,community centers,campgrounds,etc), I never ask. I know the Iowa code for detecting and it's very easy to check on a city ordinance. On rare occasion I have had someone come to me and tell me that I cant do that here. When that happens I don't say anything, I just leave. I'm not going to get in an argument with a citizen of a town that I don't live in regardless of the fact that I could and I'd be right. If I were out of state I would feel better having the verbal OK to do it but If I knew it was legal I'd do it anyway. Usually the people that don't know the law are the non detectorists.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Tom I never ask can I detect, if i do ask someone, I ask is it against the law to detect.

TH'r, thanx for answering that. I very much respect that you took the time to do that, because I know you're ... no doubt ..... weary of the topic. And your job as a mod. is un-thankful at times. So I appreciate your answering that.

Thus to comment on that answer: Yes: Such as been the proposed solution, to phrase it in that way. Eg.: "Are there any laws that forbid such & such". Or: "Is there any mention of use of metal detectors in the city or park codes?" So that the person answering is having the burden to cite any rule/law, if one existed.

However, there's been cases where this seems to have back-fired. Examples:

a) the person answering says "we would prefer you didn't". To which the md'r correctly responds: "but where is that written?". To which the desk jockey shows you something about "harvesting" or "altering" or "lost & found", or "the utility Co's dig rules", etc.... Sure you can try to debate them on those various things, but .... guess who's going to win ?

b) The person answering senses/realizes that if they say "no", that ......... like the question implies, they'll need some sort of law or rule that actually says that. Yet on the other hand, they have images of geeks with shovels. So .... it becomes an issue on the agenda of the next city council meeting. I have actually heard of one city, that specifically cited this as their reason for it being up for a vote. The poor lady at the front desk, related in the news clip that the underlying tone of the person asking was ".... be prepared to show me chapter and verse". When nothing was there that was that specific, guess what happened? A rule was therefore added! Doh!

c) or they say "yes but you can't dig".

d) or they correctly answer and say "nothing addresses detecting". So the md'r proudly goes to the park. Lo & behold, some busy body (gardener, cop, etc...) comes out to gripe. The md'r needn't necessarily have even been "digging" mind you. Simply the SITE of an md'r, perhaps can/does conjur up an image to a passerby of "someone who might make marks". The md'r is therefore accosted. He proudly tells the busy-body that he has checked with city hall front desk, who assured him it was ok. The griper merely gets on his cell-phone, calls to city hall, and gets that promptly over-turned. There's been examples of this on various threads.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

TH'r, thanx for answering that. I very much respect that you took the time to do that, because I know you're ... no doubt ..... weary of the topic. And your job as a mod. is un-thankful at times. So I appreciate your answering that.

Thus to comment on that answer: Yes: Such as been the proposed solution, to phrase it in that way. Eg.: "Are there any laws that forbid such & such". Or: "Is there any mention of use of metal detectors in the city or park codes?" So that the person answering is having the burden to cite any rule/law, if one existed.

However, there's been cases where this seems to have back-fired. Examples:

a) the person answering says "we would prefer you didn't". To which the md'r correctly responds: "but where is that written?". To which the desk jockey shows you something about "harvesting" or "altering" or "lost & found", or "the utility Co's dig rules", etc.... Sure you can try to debate them on those various things, but .... guess who's going to win ?

b) The person answering senses/realizes that if they say "no", that ......... like the question implies, they'll need some sort of law or rule that actually says that. Yet on the other hand, they have images of geeks with shovels. So .... it becomes an issue on the agenda of the next city council meeting. I have actually heard of one city, that specifically cited this as their reason for it being up for a vote. The poor lady at the front desk, related in the news clip that the underlying tone of the person asking was ".... be prepared to show me chapter and verse". When nothing was there that was that specific, guess what happened? A rule was therefore added! Doh!

c) or they say "yes but you can't dig".

d) or they correctly answer and say "nothing addresses detecting". So the md'r proudly goes to the park. Lo & behold, some busy body (gardener, cop, etc...) comes out to gripe. The md'r needn't necessarily have even been "digging" mind you. Simply the SITE of an md'r, perhaps can/does conjur up an image to a passerby of "someone who might make marks". The md'r is therefore accosted. He proudly tells the busy-body that he has checked with city hall front desk, who assured him it was ok. The griper merely gets on his cell-phone, calls to city hall, and gets that promptly over-turned. There's been examples of this on various threads.

Yes the topic is becoming very tiresome, what members do personally is their business, but as I have stated before, TreasureNet will not be used as a podium to encourage members to break the law, ignore the law, or go around the law....

I am a treasure hunter myself, I usually hunt water but have hunted city and county parks, public property and private property many times.

My job as moderator is first to protect the integrity of TreasureNet, then see members are treated fairly and rules are followed and help members when possible.

Many times I agree with what is posted and many times I agree with what is deleted but I or another mod have to delete because it violates our rules, my personal opinion comes last. Mods are not paid in any way, we only do it for the love of the site.

 

[cudamark]

You can not detect parks in Orange County Florida with out a detecting permit, it is the law, put there are no signs in the parks telling you so.

Ignorance of the law is not a legal defense.

So, it's not illegal, it's just that you have to go kneel to the powers that be. In the unlikely event that you would actually be asked to produce your permit, I would bet that if you didn't have one, you would just be asked to go get one, correct? Sure, you shouldn't be ignorant on the subject, but, I seriously doubt there would be fines or penalties imposed on the unsuspecting visitor. The government just wants to keep you under their thumb.

 

[pgfhgs]

Did I show you guys my new shovel for city parks and school yards?//

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

So, it's not illegal, it's just that you have to go kneel to the powers that be. In the unlikely event that you would actually be asked to produce your permit, I would bet that if you didn't have one, you would just be asked to go get one, correct? Sure, you shouldn't be ignorant on the subject, but, I seriously doubt there would be fines or penalties imposed on the unsuspecting visitor. The government just wants to keep you under their thumb.

Cudamark, please leave politics out of it. Permit is free, gives you the ability to not need to look over your shoulder when detecting, and eliminates any hassles from busybodies who might call the police.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

So, it's not illegal, it's just that you have to go kneel to the powers that be. In the unlikely event that you would actually be asked to produce your permit, I would bet that if you didn't have one, you would just be asked to go get one, correct? Sure, you shouldn't be ignorant on the subject, but, I seriously doubt there would be fines or penalties imposed on the unsuspecting visitor. The government just wants to keep you under their thumb.

Mark, the technical answer to this is, that .... I suppose, it was the traveller's *duty* to research at each location he came to, on the off-chance there was a "permit required". Ok, there's your technical answer. But the realistic answer is that you're probably right: If someone were truly unaware , then they'd probably be appraised, and go get one. I can hardly imagine "confiscations", "fines", "jail", etc... for something where it's not normally expected to have known such a thing.

And not that this makes it "right", but I know of a city in CA that ...... yes .... has permits. Yet to anyone's knowledge there, going back 30+ yrs, no one's ever been carded. I don't think the rank & file park workers are even aware that such a thing exists (the local club is in charge , for the city, of passing them out, collecting the $, etc...). And since the city is very big, it's probable that rank and file workers, cops, etc.... have no idea they even exist. A buddy of mine ... humorously, TRIED HARD to get "carded". Went purposefully up to a park worker truck, and detected all around them while they were tending some bushes and fountains and such.

Again, not saying that makes it right not to have one, if one were required.

 

[cudamark]

Cudamark, please leave politics out of it. Permit is free, gives you the ability to not need to look over your shoulder when detecting, and eliminates any hassles from busybodies who might call the police.[/QUOT
Permit or not, I'd still keep an eye peeled for whatever might happen around me. Having a permit doesn't keep the busybodies from calling and complaining, or even hassling you on the spot. Nor does it guarantee you can detect forever to your hearts content if they decide to revoke it, which can be done on a whim at a moments notice. I would disagree that permit is free. It may not cost money, but, you have to give them information and give up some of your freedoms by the need to obtain one. When you're discussing the government controlled permit process, how do you avoid politics? I didn't mention any particular party or candidate.

 

[kayakpat]

look at it this way, you owned or are in charge of taking care of a nice piece of ground, and every time you turn around you find someone doing something to it, hitting golf balls , digging for treasure, playing baseball or football, creating footpaths etc anything and you try hard to take are of the grass. How would you feel about your rights?

 

[kayakpat]

it still boils down to people who think they have a right to something they don't own.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Cudamark, please leave politics out of it. Permit is free, gives you the ability to not need to look over your shoulder when detecting, and eliminates any hassles from busybodies who might call the police.[/QUOT
Permit or not, I'd still keep an eye peeled for whatever might happen around me. Having a permit doesn't keep the busybodies from calling and complaining, or even hassling you on the spot. Nor does it guarantee you can detect forever to your hearts content if they decide to revoke it, which can be done on a whim at a moments notice. I would disagree that permit is free. It may not cost money, but, you have to give them information and give up some of your freedoms by the need to obtain one. When you're discussing the government controlled permit process, how do you avoid politics? I didn't mention any particular party or candidate.

Permit allows you to hunt, busybodies have no grounds, you have permit to hunt. They can call all they want, you have permit. I personally have never worried about someone hassling me in person....

I give the city nothing they do not already have, i am a resident, I vote here, i serve jury duty here, i own property here, i pay taxes here, just what personal info do you think i am giving they don't already have? I do not give any more info then you do for a fishing or hunting license.

As far as the political comment, your last comment was political and not needed for this thread, it dies not have to contain a political party to be politics....

 

[Tom_in_CA]

look at it this way, you owned or are in charge of taking care of a nice piece of ground, and every time you turn around you find someone doing something to it, hitting golf balls , digging for treasure, playing baseball or football, creating footpaths etc anything and you try hard to take are of the grass. How would you feel about your rights?

Kayakpat, do you see what's inherent and implicit in this post ? The premise implied here, is that detecting causes damage. I mean, let's be honest: that was the connotation of "digging", afterall. If that premise is true [that md'ing = damage and destruction], then everything you're saying would be true. But my take on that, is that if you and I leave no marks, then .......... no, I do not consider myself destructive .

Yes I agree that not everyone else sees and thinks of md'ing that way. Sure, someone can think you're about to leave a mess or hole or whatever. As much as I sympathize with that, yet on the other hand, it boils down to that there is simply nothing you can do, to appease every last person who "might gripe". In other words, thinking the solution to this possibility, is to run around getting everyone to sign-off-on-you before you start, is EQUALLY fraught with problems and downsides.

So as much as I hate to say it: Sometimes you just need to avoid those who "might gripe". Rather than thinking it's your duty to "get them to love you". Sure that bites. But ...... back when you got into detecting, didn't it ever occur to you that you'd need to A) dig, B) remove and take ? If that's a big mental block to skittish persons, then. .... at some point, I have to ask that person: Why then did you even get into metal detecting ?

 

[lookindown]

If its public property and there are no signs pertaining to metal detecting then Im hunting it...why would I seek out someone to ask if its allowed?...my hobby is no different than kicking a soccer ball around, throwing a Frisbee, having a picnic, etc...and no one asks if its o.k. to do those activities...WHY do people feel compelled to ask if its o.k. to detect?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...... do your job which is to maintain the park so people can continue to hit golf balls,dig for treasure,play baseball or football, and create footpaths....

Kemper, I too was sort of scratching my head when : "playing baseball and football" was added in to the mix of example items along with metal detecting. As examples of things (if I understood the post correctly) that we should not be so presumptuous as to assume we can do. And I'm thinking: "gee, isn't playing ball a legitimate use of a park?". Sure it is! So what's presumptuous or assuming about that ? So too do I consider metal detecting to be a very legitimate non-dangerous non-harmful innocuous use the park, every bit as much as walking a footpath or playing ball .

 

[TheSleeper]

Yes the topic is becoming very tiresome, what members do personally is their business, but as I have stated before, TreasureNet will not be used as a podium to encourage members to break the law, ignore the law, or go around the law....

I am a treasure hunter myself, I usually hunt water but have hunted city and county parks, public property and private property many times.

My job as moderator is first to protect the integrity of TreasureNet, then see members are treated fairly and rules are followed and help members when possible.

Many times I agree with what is posted and many times I agree with what is deleted but I or another mod have to delete because it violates our rules, my personal opinion comes last. Mods are not paid in any way, we only do it for the love of the site.

Guys, not mentioning any names, your beating a dead dog to pieces, GEEEZZZZZ

I'm not a mod nor do I want to be one so I can state my opinion and yes opinions stink.

The reasons these laws go into affect is because of those of us either past or present who do not abide by the ethics described to by treasure hunters. Parks have in the past looked like the craters of the moon because unethical thr's went in dug targets including junk and left the area looking like a gophers worst nightmare.

It is not your fault, it is not my fault, but we are punished because of them. It is fault by association, they detected and left the park a mess so therefore we are punished, sometimes in life you are only given one chance, and because of those unethical hunters we are lumped together as being the same.

It has been stated in the past, I have even stated it, personally I don't care where you hunt, whether you break the law or ignore the law or refuse to even check what the law states. What is important is the fact TOO many new hunters come to this forum to learn about treasure hunting, they have no ideas about it at first, then they read comments made, go out and detect following those comments and get in trouble.

If you want to debate the laws then dang-it put a disclaimer in your signature, so that any new hunter is aware that these are your views and not necessarily the views of the forum OR law enforcement.

I am and have been very careful of what I say so that I do not mislead someone new to the hobby into getting themselves into trouble, please do the same.

 

[Professor of Engineering]

Hello everyone,

I was detecting a town park and a public works worker pulled-up and said "we usually don't let people detect here", so I struck up a conversation with him and offered to show him how I recover artifacts. He was amazed by the lack of dirt and damage (already dug 20 plugs) to the surrounding area. He said "oh, go ahead since you are here anyway". He also gave me a killer lead to an area 500 yards away in the woods near a 1600's site long since gone. When the snow clears, in the wood I'll go.

That day yielded 8 pieces of silver, one ring, clad and lots of junk all around two old trees.

Regards,

 

[TheSleeper]

Kemper, don't partially quote me just to get a jab in.

It has been stated in the past, I have even stated it, personally I don't care where you hunt, whether you break the law or ignore the law or refuse to even check what the law states. What is important is the fact TOO many new hunters come to this forum to learn about treasure hunting, they have no ideas about it at first, then they read comments made, go out and detect following those comments and get in trouble.


This isn't about me, nor is it about you, it is about and for the new hunters so that they do not get in trouble.

I personally have NO quarrel with you, nor anyone else, I fully realize how you feel. You cannot detect for as many years as I have and not feel it. BUT the most important aspect of this forum is the new hunters, they are the future of this hobby and it is "our" duty to make sure they do not start out by getting in trouble with the law or ethics.

 

[TheSleeper]

Kemper, pertaining to the mods, I do not envy them. They must refrain from stating their beliefs or opinions to keep the peace amongst what 10k 20k members here.

There are probably many topics they would desire to make their personnel feelings known on, but due to their position they cannot. I have had discussions with them in the past, disagreed with them, yes even 5 years ago got in a heated disagreement with one of them, which resulted in me not posting or even visiting this forum for awhile.

But as a whole I feel they perform their duties well, each one of them.

 

[TheSleeper]

This isn't about me, nor is it about you, it is about and for the new hunters so that they do not get in trouble.--TheSleeper

It's about all of us and is not just an issue of whether or not one gets in trouble. It is also about one not restricting themselves by asking when it is not necessary or by believing blanket statements made that are not true in regards to certain types of property. It is also about those willing to discuss those issues without letting moral issues overpower the discussion. If they are overly worried about getting in trouble they will not be able to detect anywhere. We should be worried about them getting in trouble but we should minimize it by looking at reality and not just what sounds good and is the safe answer.

OK Kemper, let us agree that we disagree.
I would rather have a new hunter error on the side of walking up to someone and ask if detecting is legal, then to have them stride in thinking it is legal and get in trouble.


Why don't we keep these issue's in the legal section which is actually where they belong anyway.