Nothing in that link about metal detecting at all. Just the typical vegetation, soil, grass stuff you see everywhere.
NO Digging In Montana City Parks WTH This Is Montana
- Thread starter buttedigger
- Start date
OP
OP
buttedigger
Jr. Member
- Mar 31, 2013
- 69
- 22
- Detector(s) used
- Garret AT PRO /Tesoro Lobo SuperTRAQ
- Primary Interest:
- Metal Detecting
- Thread starter
- #23
Thanks guys
MoJoe
Jr. Member
- Nov 17, 2009
- 58
- 36
- Detector(s) used
-
Garrett Ace 250,
Fisher F2, Fisher F Point
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
I was planning a trip to Crater of Diamonds State Park in Arkansas. People dig there ALL day long. That is the purpose of the 30 acre park. Since it is a State Park I emailed them to ask if I could Metal Detect (thought I would clean up on stuff people lost while they hunted for diamonds). I was told Metal Detectors were NOT allowed in the park! What could possibly be the problem with metal detecting in an area where people move dirt by the bucket full?
Sandman
Gold Member
- Aug 6, 2005
- 13,398
- 3,992
- Detector(s) used
- Excal 1000, Excal II, Sovereign GT, CZ-20, Tiger Shark, Tejon, GTI 1500, Surfmaster Pulse, CZ6a, DFX, AT PRO, Fisher 1235, Surf PI Pro, 1280-X, many more because I enjoy learning them. New Garrett Ca
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Archeologists maybe.
Tom_in_CA
Gold Member
- Mar 23, 2007
- 13,837
- 10,360
- 🥇 Banner finds
- 2
- Detector(s) used
- Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
reply
What could be the problem? The problem would be when you asked "can I metal detect?".
Because you're right, prior to that, there probably wasn't a problem, and it probably wouldn't have been given any thought. That is: if you'd just gone and done it, odds are, no one would have cared. Because as you have noted "holes" is not the issue. I guess in that case, they'd have had to have relied on their "cultural heritage" verbage (can't take home archaeologically significant items). I suppose the counter argument to that is, that ...... "what's to stop someone from digging for diamonds, from stumbling upon an old coin or buckle or whatever?".
Bottom line is, I think you got a case of "no one cared till you asked". If you'd just gone (afterall, you lost your wedding band there the week before, right?), I bet no one would have paid you a second glance.
What could be the problem? The problem would be when you asked "can I metal detect?".
Because you're right, prior to that, there probably wasn't a problem, and it probably wouldn't have been given any thought. That is: if you'd just gone and done it, odds are, no one would have cared. Because as you have noted "holes" is not the issue. I guess in that case, they'd have had to have relied on their "cultural heritage" verbage (can't take home archaeologically significant items). I suppose the counter argument to that is, that ...... "what's to stop someone from digging for diamonds, from stumbling upon an old coin or buckle or whatever?".
Bottom line is, I think you got a case of "no one cared till you asked". If you'd just gone (afterall, you lost your wedding band there the week before, right?), I bet no one would have paid you a second glance.
thrillathahunt
Silver Member
I have never known anyone who has asked permission to metal detect a public park get a YES.
George (MN)
Hero Member
- May 16, 2005
- 829
- 98
12.08.060 park vegetation says no removal or damage of sod, turf or topsoil. It does *not* say no metal detecting, no removal of finds, it doesn't even say no disturbing the soil or even no cutting of the grass. If you use a screwdriver, there is an easy way to remove coins from the top 3"-4". It says you can't remove sod/turf/soil, but what if when you cut a plug, you leave it attached on one side & the dirt stays attached to the sod? It does say no removal of topsoil, so putting a pile of dirt on something might be questioned. If it's a borderline case, it sounds like they ban you from all parks for 30 days. They *probably* reserve the fines for people who have done real damage, as in the damage needs a repair that costs something.
But your city-county govt is really strange. Butte annexed the whole county to be one city, even though a continuous build-up of the county doesn't exist. And nearly everyone elsewhere has a county courthouse, but it says the courthouse is owned by the city of Butte. I forgot to check to see if there are both city police officers & county sheriffs? They would be the only ones that could issue a fine & they would know if they are supposed to issue fines. They would be the only ones who could answer if you could be fined for detecting city/county parks, so there's no need to ask people who can't fine you.
I heard St. Paul MN parks said no detecting so I called city hall & they said no digging. I asked if my screwdriver was considered the same as a shovel & they said law also said no disturbing the soil. Then they suggested I could call the police, so I did. I asked could I be fined & they said maybe if I left a big hole that could cause an injury. Then they said other than that, use your own judgment & that they really didn't have time for this stuff. So, in effect, permission granted. But if an insane person who lives by the park thinks of the park as their property calls the police, they'll probably come out & try to resolve the conflict. So if the complainer is mentally ill, police will tell the detectorists they should leave. Hope this helps! Best wishes, George (MN)
But your city-county govt is really strange. Butte annexed the whole county to be one city, even though a continuous build-up of the county doesn't exist. And nearly everyone elsewhere has a county courthouse, but it says the courthouse is owned by the city of Butte. I forgot to check to see if there are both city police officers & county sheriffs? They would be the only ones that could issue a fine & they would know if they are supposed to issue fines. They would be the only ones who could answer if you could be fined for detecting city/county parks, so there's no need to ask people who can't fine you.
I heard St. Paul MN parks said no detecting so I called city hall & they said no digging. I asked if my screwdriver was considered the same as a shovel & they said law also said no disturbing the soil. Then they suggested I could call the police, so I did. I asked could I be fined & they said maybe if I left a big hole that could cause an injury. Then they said other than that, use your own judgment & that they really didn't have time for this stuff. So, in effect, permission granted. But if an insane person who lives by the park thinks of the park as their property calls the police, they'll probably come out & try to resolve the conflict. So if the complainer is mentally ill, police will tell the detectorists they should leave. Hope this helps! Best wishes, George (MN)
Tom_in_CA
Gold Member
- Mar 23, 2007
- 13,837
- 10,360
- 🥇 Banner finds
- 2
- Detector(s) used
- Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
reply
Actually, there's been many people who have posted proudly that they "got permission" to detect a their park, or their school, or whatever. So it's not 100% no's. Not sure whether the success ratio is 50/50, or whatever. But no matter even if someone has a 50% batting ratio, it still begs the question: "why risk a no, if there's no rules saying 'no detecting', and perhaps no one would ever have cared or noticed?"
When it comes to the question of whether permission is needed for certain places to begin with, then the fact of someone "getting permission", does not .... to me .... lend itself to the question of whether or not permission was needed, in the first place. But in their mind, it works like this: When someone "gets permission", then in their mind, they say to themselves "gee it was a good thing I asked". Or even if they get a "no", then they likewise say to themselves: "gee it was a good thing I asked, or else I could have been arrested". So you see,no matter what the answer, (either a "yes" or a "no"), they feel that either answer confirms that, therefore, "asking" was necessary. Because I guess in their mind, if permission had not been needed, then the person answering would have said something like: "that's a silly question. Why are you asking me? You don't need permission to do that if there's no rule saying you can't". No. It never works like that. Never will someone in authority give you that type of answer. Instead they will bestow on your their princely "yes" or their princely "no". Afterall, you asked. And that merely presumes it's something that needs their permission (lest why would you be asking?).
Therefore when someone comes on a post with an example of "how they got permission" at their park, school, or whatever, I do not take that to mean that "therefore, permission was necessary".
Actually, there's been many people who have posted proudly that they "got permission" to detect a their park, or their school, or whatever. So it's not 100% no's. Not sure whether the success ratio is 50/50, or whatever. But no matter even if someone has a 50% batting ratio, it still begs the question: "why risk a no, if there's no rules saying 'no detecting', and perhaps no one would ever have cared or noticed?"
When it comes to the question of whether permission is needed for certain places to begin with, then the fact of someone "getting permission", does not .... to me .... lend itself to the question of whether or not permission was needed, in the first place. But in their mind, it works like this: When someone "gets permission", then in their mind, they say to themselves "gee it was a good thing I asked". Or even if they get a "no", then they likewise say to themselves: "gee it was a good thing I asked, or else I could have been arrested". So you see,no matter what the answer, (either a "yes" or a "no"), they feel that either answer confirms that, therefore, "asking" was necessary. Because I guess in their mind, if permission had not been needed, then the person answering would have said something like: "that's a silly question. Why are you asking me? You don't need permission to do that if there's no rule saying you can't". No. It never works like that. Never will someone in authority give you that type of answer. Instead they will bestow on your their princely "yes" or their princely "no". Afterall, you asked. And that merely presumes it's something that needs their permission (lest why would you be asking?).
Therefore when someone comes on a post with an example of "how they got permission" at their park, school, or whatever, I do not take that to mean that "therefore, permission was necessary".
foiler
Sr. Member
- Mar 17, 2013
- 395
- 389
- Detector(s) used
- Fisher, Wilson-Neuman, Whites, Minelab, Tesoro and others I've long since forgotten
- Primary Interest:
- Metal Detecting
And upon sending out the response to your question, the park manager turns to his office cronies and says, "that's another one of those pesky metal detector people that won't be infecting MY park". So this I say to you, all. If you think you won't like the answer to questions asked, DON'T ASK.
