How Do You Interpret This ???

[kkbroker]

First you need a license to MD in a city park...then after you get your license you can't dig if you have a metal detector? Why should I get a license then?

Sec. 32-107. - License required.


No person shall operate or possess a metal detector in any public park or on any public school property in the city unless such person shall first apply for and obtain a license from the city clerk. A licensee under this article shall carry such license on his or her person at all times while operating or possessing a metal detector in a public park or on public school property.


(Code 1962, § 3-1702)
Sec. 32-108. - Administration.


The application, issuance, denial, renewal, expiration, transfer, revocation, suspension, and fees required for the metal detector's license shall be governed by chapter 21 of this Code.


(Code 1962, § 3-1703)
Sec. 32-109. - Destruction of property.


No person shall dig up, pull, rake, trample, disturb, or damage any grass, flower, tree, bush, or plant in any public park or on any public school property, through the use of a metal detector, rake, shovel, spade, or any other device, or by hand.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

First you need a license to MD in a city park...then after you get your license you can't dig if you have a metal detector? Why should I get a license then?

Sec. 32-107. - License required.


No person shall operate or possess a metal detector in any public park or on any public school property in the city unless such person shall first apply for and obtain a license from the city clerk. A licensee under this article shall carry such license on his or her person at all times while operating or possessing a metal detector in a public park or on public school property.


(Code 1962, § 3-1702)
Sec. 32-108. - Administration.


The application, issuance, denial, renewal, expiration, transfer, revocation, suspension, and fees required for the metal detector's license shall be governed by chapter 21 of this Code.


(Code 1962, § 3-1703)
Sec. 32-109. - Destruction of property.


No person shall dig up, pull, rake, trample, disturb, or damage any grass, flower, tree, bush, or plant in any public park or on any public school property, through the use of a metal detector, rake, shovel, spade, or any other device, or by hand.

Welcome to the harsh cruel reality of "permits" for metal detecting. Isn't it odd, that whenever skittish folks get wind of any sort of hassles (by reading "scary" stories from elsewhere), that their knee-jerk instinctive reaction is to think: "Wouldn't it be GRAND if we had 'permit' systems in my local park? Then I could just go nilly-willy anywhere and everywhere, and no one would ever bother me!!" Because "permits" sounds seeeoooo nice and inviting. It just "rolls off the tongue" doesn't it? But as you can see, the REALITY is, that no-where no-how is there ever going to be some sort of "blanket allowance" for anyone persons to "destroy" "alter" "deface" etc.... There are places with "permits", that have nothing at all about "digging" (restrictions, etc...) by the way. But I bet that's simply becauase whatever city officials dreamed up "permits" for detecting (years earlier when someone came in grovelling for "permission" probably), simply didn't have that conjured up in his mind. But let's face it: that IS the connotation often-times for our hobby, isn't it? That ......... afterall ..... you have to "dig" to get the item. There's been no shortage of md'rs asking at city halls or ranger stations, and the answer they've often received is: "yes but you can't dig". EVEN THOUGH the md'r made NO mention of "digging". This is because often-times, it's just the mental image the authority you're asking has.

I've heard of a county here in CA that has permits for their county parks. And oddly, it has verbage that restricts the digger tool to no more than 3 inches (or something silly like that). And forbids holes "in excess of 6 inches deep" (or some silly depth limit like that). But no one in that county, who's gotten that permit, has EVER had his tool measured, or his holes measured (I mean, seriously now, is anyone really standing over you to measure your holes? Doh!). And actually, very few persons have ever even been carded for their card. And if you were to go try to buy the permit there, you'd be met with blank stares from the desk clerk or rangers, who wouldn't know what the heck you were talking about probably (as they issue only a few dozen per year, and even-then-so in bulk through the local club there, so they don't pass through county-persons physical hands too often).

KKbroker, since metal detecting for objects ON TOP of the ground is pointless, one thing you might try to do, is interpret that last paragraph in the following light: All such verbage about "dig up", "pull", "rake", "trample", "disturb", or "damage", all inherently refer to the END result, if you think of it. Right? Ie.: if you leave the area exactly as you found it, with no trace of your effort (pack, stomp, ruffle up, etc....), then *technically*, you have not: dug up, pulled, raked, trampled, disturbed, or damaged anything. Sure someone might debate the semantics of that interpretation, and debate the temporary evil process of extraction. So what. AVOID such lookie-lou busy-bodies, and go at low traffic times. In fact, it's gotten to where I only hit parks and schools in the way-off hours. Like early Sat. AM's, or after 5pm's. Or quite literally, at night in the dark! So peaceful. So serene

 

[thrillathahunt]

No person shall "disturb" "any grass" on public property.

Hmm, I guess that eliminates those who would want to: Play soccer, play baseball, play touch football, jog, pitch horse shoes, lawn bowl, play a game of croquet, put up any sort of shade canopy or beach umbrella, or have a party (because a concentration of people in a small area can "disturb" grass.) AND, don't even think of bringing your dog! Sounds like a fun park to me!

 

[echodog]

We have a very similar permit deal here. They restrict digging as well. I have been stopped by both park rangers and cops. They usually ask the normal questions watch me dig a target or two and move on. Even when I dug a pot pipe up in front of a cop! Lol
Bottom line I would detect with the permit until someone ticketed me. Then I would move on to greener pastures or fight it. Just make sure you are being responsible with your holes.
That said I am assuming its a city ordinance, if that is a state deal your going to have to move!

 

[maipenrai]

Tom, I somehow have the feeling that you dont like PERMITS! Hahahahah.

 

[flinthunter]

I sometimes hunt an Army Corp of Engeneers lake area. The rules state that metal detecting is allowed is certain areas of the park but no digging is allowed. I went to the rangers office and asked if retrieving coins with a screwdriver was considered digging. I was told that using the screwdriver was an acceptable way to pull up coins. You cannot believe the amount of coins that have been pulled out of the park.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

I sometimes hunt an Army Corp of Engeneers lake area. The rules state that metal detecting is allowed is certain areas of the park but no digging is allowed. I went to the rangers office and asked if retrieving coins with a screwdriver was considered digging. I was told that using the screwdriver was an acceptable way to pull up coins. You cannot believe the amount of coins that have been pulled out of the park.

Flinthunter, can you see how whimsical and arbitrary that is? It was simply one person's interpretations, that you put yourself up to the whims of. In other words: he could just as easily have said "screwdriver poking is considered 'digging' too... ". Or you could just as easily have gotten another person at the desk, on another shift, who could have said something completely different. And then what were you going to do, debate them?

If it was even POSSIBLE (which I agree it was) that the term "digging" could be interpretted in multiple different ways, I would not leave that mood-and-image contingent judgement on someone's personal feelings. The mere fact that it *could* be up for interpretation (ie.: was not "clear") to me means I'd just go. And odds are, if you were way out in the middle of nowhere, was anyone really there to split hairs over semantics anyhow? I mean, for example, it sounds as if you've gone out and pulled LOTS of coins from the park, with this "yes" that you received. In all that time you've been detecting then, have you EVER had to use that "yes" to fend off any busy-bodies? I mean, have you ever been carded ?

 

[Diggin-N-Dumps]

Wow!!...I couldnt even imagine having rules like that

 

[flinthunter]

Flinthunter, can you see how whimsical and arbitrary that is? It was simply one person's interpretations, that you put yourself up to the whims of. In other words: he could just as easily have said "screwdriver poking is considered 'digging' too... ". Or you could just as easily have gotten another person at the desk, on another shift, who could have said something completely different. And then what were you going to do, debate them?

If it was even POSSIBLE (which I agree it was) that the term "digging" could be interpretted in multiple different ways, I would not leave that mood-and-image contingent judgement on someone's personal feelings. The mere fact that it *could* be up for interpretation (ie.: was not "clear") to me means I'd just go. And odds are, if you were way out in the middle of nowhere, was anyone really there to split hairs over semantics anyhow? I mean, for example, it sounds as if you've gone out and pulled LOTS of coins from the park, with this "yes" that you received. In all that time you've been detecting then, have you EVER had to use that "yes" to fend off any busy-bodies? I mean, have you ever been carded ?

Tom, what is your problem. You were not there. What makes you think I talked to just one person. For your information I talked to a number of rangers about this including the head ranger for the area. No, I have not been carded. Also in your post you state that "I'd just go". What are you thinking. This is FEDERAL PROPERTY. Its comments like that, that get people like us that try to do things right banned from public places. Its people like you that feel they are so high and mighty that they have to find fault with what others post that keeps me from posting more often than I do. I was just trying to show that sometimes there are ways to get around stupid rules.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

sorry flint-hunter, I should have re-read my post, to see that it did seem like an attack. Sorry about that. Let me re-phrase: my question was not particularly about this specific spot of yours (no matter what entity, because it could have been any type: city, county, state, or federal, that was not the point). I was just looking at the subject of us md'rs seeing a "metal detecting is allowed" rule, and then seeing another rule "no digging". That was the only thing I was intrigued about, not the # of people you asked (I assumed it was one though), or the entity specific to your particular "yes".

Glad you got a "yes". Do you think it's just random luck that no one's ever carded you? What I mean by that is: the lack of your having-ever-been-carded, seems to indicate that ........ even if you'd never gotten a "yes" to say that screwdrivers don't constitute "digging", that .... you could have gone (like you have been), and no one apparently ever stops to challenge or anything?

The reason I ask all this is: while it's great you got a "yes", there's been cases of someone seeing a "no digging" or "no alterations and defacement" type clauses (which are in EVERY park in the USA, btw...). So they present themselves to the city hall, or state park, or fed. location, or wherever to ask as you did. They would ask as you did, to see if "probing" and "popping" is not the same as "digging". Mind you the only reason they would ask (as did you), is that the rules aren't clear, and simply say "digging". I'm the first to agree that if you do no harm, and leave no trace, and just wriggle shallow ones from only a few inches, that someone would be hard-core to call that "digging". Nonetheless, others have gotten "no's" trying to clarify such a thing. And oddly, it can and does happen at parks where detecting had always gone on, and no one ever cared before. Or like your location, where permission or not, didn't seem to matter, as no one seemed to care.

Anyhow, it is about the principle of the permission thing for any type sites, in similar scenarios, and sorry if it seemed like a personal jab at you or this particular site.

 

[flinthunter]

sorry flint-hunter, I should have re-read my post, to see that it did seem like an attack. Sorry about that. Let me re-phrase: my question was not particularly about this specific spot of yours (no matter what entity, because it could have been any type: city, county, state, or federal, that was not the point). I was just looking at the subject of us md'rs seeing a "metal detecting is allowed" rule, and then seeing another rule "no digging". That was the only thing I was intrigued about, not the # of people you asked (I assumed it was one though), or the entity specific to your particular "yes".

Glad you got a "yes". Do you think it's just random luck that no one's ever carded you? What I mean by that is: the lack of your having-ever-been-carded, seems to indicate that ........ even if you'd never gotten a "yes" to say that screwdrivers don't constitute "digging", that .... you could have gone (like you have been), and no one apparently ever stops to challenge or anything?

The reason I ask all this is: while it's great you got a "yes", there's been cases of someone seeing a "no digging" or "no alterations and defacement" type clauses (which are in EVERY park in the USA, btw...). So they present themselves to the city hall, or state park, or fed. location, or wherever to ask as you did. They would ask as you did, to see if "probing" and "popping" is not the same as "digging". Mind you the only reason they would ask (as did you), is that the rules aren't clear, and simply say "digging". I'm the first to agree that if you do no harm, and leave no trace, and just wriggle shallow ones from only a few inches, that someone would be hard-core to call that "digging". Nonetheless, others have gotten "no's" trying to clarify such a thing. And oddly, it can and does happen at parks where detecting had always gone on, and no one ever cared before. Or like your location, where permission or not, didn't seem to matter, as no one seemed to care.

Anyhow, it is about the principle of the permission thing for any type sites, in similar scenarios, and sorry if it seemed like a personal jab at you or this particular site.

Tom, lets start by saying that the park areas I'm talking about are around a 16,000+ acre lake. Detecting is only allowed in a few of the recreation and camping areas but that still covers a lot of acres. Rangers, and a lot of them, patrol the areas constantly. Its not luck that I haven't been checked while hunting, its called doing my homework. I asked for and received a copy of the areas I am allowed to hunt and carry the copy with me while hunting, that way I can prove that I am not in an off limits area if anyone should ask. I made it a point when asking about using the screwdriver to talk to more than one ranger including the head park ranger. If a ranger is around while I'm detecting I don't try to hide the detector, instead I wave and make sure the ranger sees me with the detector in hand. If the chance arises and a ranger is close I start a short conversation or at least make sure to say hello. In a couple of the better areas there may be several hundred people present in the middle and later part of the day. These areas I hunt early early mornings and leave to less used areas when the public starts to show up. Very few people see me hunting. Using there tactics I have never had a problem with anybody there.

 

[Tnmountains]

I think flinthunter was very clear in his first reply and explanation. He was not going through a myriad of hypothetical situations. He stated what worked for him and the area he hunted. I do not think he was wanting his facts debated. He was replying to the posters original thread and gave ideas that worked for him.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Tn-mountains, you say:

"He stated what worked for him...."

No doubt true. Sometimes people get a "yes" afterall (the answer from deskbound bureaucrats is not always "no", afterall).

The only thing I'm concerned about, is not the "yes" in this particular situation, but rather: the persons who read examples of "yes's" like this, so ....... wow ...... they see this as advice that they can and should do the same thing. Afterall, that's what people read forums for, and how they choose thread titles to click on afterall, is to learn what to do, from those that have gone before them, in similar situations. So I wasn't so concerned about any particualar "yes", other than to wonder if the person could have simply just gone, and accomplished the same thing. Ie.: been un-bothered.

Oh, and this thought just occurred to me: Often-times on threads of when, where, and whether we need as ask permission, inquire of laws, etc.... comes up, invariably others chime in with examples of their "yes's" or "no's" they received. And notice the instinctive inference of each answer: If the person got a "yes", then they think "Wow, it's a good thing I asked. Because now I have total run of the place, and now I have permission, so now I know for sure!" CONVERSELY if they receive a "no", the instinctive inference is: "Wow it's a good thing I asked. Because otherwise I could have been arrested, and now I know that I can't and shouldn't have been metal detecting"

So you see, either answer (a yes or a no), seems to re-inforce, to the inquirer, that it was a "good thing they asked".

But that's not the way human nature, of persons in authority works. NEVER will the cop, or gardener, or city clerk, or ranger, or whomever say this: "Gee why are you asking me that? You don't need my permission. That's a silly question". No. On the contrary. They will bestow on you their princely "yes" or their princely "no", since ....... afterall, you asked. The mere fact that you are standing their in front of them asking, merely infers that this activity needed their sanction, to begin with (lest why would you be asking them, if it didn't need their approval?).

Thus I do not consider examples of "yes's" or "no's" to be proof positive that we .... therefore ... needed to ask. We can look up the rules, or laws, or muni codes ourselves. If it is silent on the subject (nothing saying anything about metal detectors), then there's your answer.

There's a great thread on the "general discussion" forum right now titled "banned detecting", that is along this lines.

 

[George (MN)]

It seems they contradicted themselves! Section is about destruction, but then mentions things that are far less than destruction. These could be the "ancient" laws, with someone like a state archaeologist or person from historical society having the words metal detector added. It seems odd that they think a detectorist uses a rake, spade, or shovel. Either someone hates detectorists or they have no knowledge of the hobby. Generally, the purpose of a permit is to instruct as to what tools are allowed & how to be neat on removal., what areas are allowed, what times it's allowed.

If they are really serious about no detecting, do the parks have no detecting without a permit signs. I wonder if you get a permit is it contradicts any part of this, allowing for neat removal once a license is obtained. Perhaps you can get more clues what they are thinking by checking out chapter 21. If not, then you can try detecting neatly & see what happens, or you can call up the police & ask could I be fined for detecting in the city parks? If they say something like maybe if you left a big hole that could injure someone, then you have permission. Or if they say only if you do damage, that would seem permission to remove things neatly. Damage should be defined as something bad enough to need repair.

Check out the chapter 21 permit section first. Perhaps the permits are for beach & underwater? Obviously, nobody would buy a permit just to recover surface items. Best wishes, George (MN)

 

[Topdecker]

A lot of these rules are enforced when they feel they need to do it... I mean, if you go out on a ball field where they sod the grass and are concerned about the quality of the surface, you might discover that they will enforce the rules fairly vigorously. If you are out in random green spots with a great big, giant shovel, you might get booted. But if you are away from game fields and are discreetly digging with little tools, you will probably get ignored.

Park rangers, if the park is big enough to have one, can explain exactly how they are enforcing whatever rules they might have. It is better to talk with them than to look it up online because there can be a considerable difference between what is written and what is enforced.

Top

 

[Tom_in_CA]

A lot of these rules are enforced when they feel they need to do it... I mean, if you go out on a ball field where they sod the grass and are concerned about the quality of the surface, you might discover that they will enforce the rules fairly vigorously. If you are out in random green spots with a great big, giant shovel, you might get booted. But if you are away from game fields and are discreetly digging with little tools, you will probably get ignored.

Park rangers, if the park is big enough to have one, can explain exactly how they are enforcing whatever rules they might have. It is better to talk with them than to look it up online because there can be a considerable difference between what is written and what is enforced.

Top

topdecker, you say: "A lot of these rules are enforced when they feel they need to do it...". Well yes, they are a lot like noise curfews. Any city has noise limits, where if you exceed a certain decibals, after a certain hour of the night (say, 10pm for instance), then yes, you are breaking the law. But the REALITY is, no one is going to care or notice, until there is a complaint. At which point the police come out, bring their measuring equipment, and see if it's above a certain decibals. I know of this all-to-well, because I'm in the street sweeper business, and our equipment (street sweepers and backpack blowers) have sometimes cause noise complaints from residents near shopping centers. So when this happens, we re-route our schedules so that we do the lot/center where "miss complainer" complained, and do that earlier in the night, and ...... instead, ........ do our later night stops at industrial areas of town, where there are no residences to be woken-up, and thus......... no complaints.

BUT WAIT!! It's entirely possible that the "industrial area" of town IS STILL within the city limits, and thus technically still within the noise decibal limits of the city code. However, since no one lives near there, and no one cares, we can work away, and ........ no one cares. No one ever brings out decibal measuring equipment, and everyone's happy. But "technically" if I were to go to city hall, and announce that I intended to run such & such equipment, which generates such & such decibals, at 2am .... and "ask permission" (or inquire if I'd run afoul of laws, etc...), they'd be duty-bound to tell me "no you can't".

So therefore I'd have to take exception when you say: " It is better to talk with them than to look it up online because there can be a considerable difference between what is written and what is enforced. " If that were the case, then no, it's not good to "talk with them", because as you can see from the above example, they might say "no", when in fact, no one would ever have cared. And it's better to see 'what is enforced' (as in the above example) because THAT becomes reality. As you say yourself, if you are at "random green spots", no one might care. So why risk a "no", if no one really cared? (till you asked)

 

[scurvy_seadog]

(Code 1962, § 3-1703)
Sec. 32-109. - Destruction of property.


No person shall dig up, pull, rake, trample, disturb, or damage any grass, flower, tree, bush, or plant in any public park or on any public school property, through the use of a metal detector, rake, shovel, spade, or any other device, or by hand.

Well I would take photos of people disturbing the grass and ask if everyone needs a licence to use the park? feet and shoe's are a device. Point out the obsered in the law.

 

[302guy]

Yes OP. That should say "if you own a Metal Detector just donate your money to the Stop Metal Detecting fund."

 

[G.I.B.]

We have a park in my area that requires a permit.

Having the permit shows that you have read the rules. Where you can and can not dig, refilling holes, if you find artifacts what has to be turned in, so on and so forth. That way the folks with detectors stay within the rules of that particular park.

So the permit you are supposed to get... is it for the same basic reason? Did you get one?

 

[Gold Maven]

I'm sure it just means don't make a mess.

I have a large trash pouch, and I always pick up trash I see lying on the surface, when I'm approached I always show all the trash and say something like, "just cleanin' up the park", or " just findin' trash", it is a great ice breaker and softens up most grounds keepers.

Don't carry a giant shovel, and I bet you will be ok.