Fines...Tickets?

[bettendorfJoe]

I have never detected anywhere that I didn't either have permission or knew by reading ordinances that I could detect, so I have not been subject to a ticket or fine.


What was your fine/ticket for? And...how much was it?

Just curious....

Joe

 

[lookindown]

Both the sheriff and PD answered me immediately without hesitation. I will assume they are of the "average" sort. The Sheriff even gave me 2 spots to check out. So yes...it is "no wonder" I felt there was no harm in asking. I don't live a life of paranoia over a simple rejection. I got something positive out of it - proving to "me" that I have nothing to fear in my area.

My other activities do not involve digging holes in the ground in what some idiot could consider "defacing public property" or whatever wording they want call it. You all admit there is a stigma and stereotype already placed above md'ers heads by the stories of "strange stares" and "piss off" requests you vets share. Yet you scoff at the idea of a new player covering their butt and being sure. It boggles my mind.



Nobody knows 100% of everything. No denying that. However, I think somebody who does a certain job for a living has a higher general knowledge than most would give credit for. I see your point Cudamark. I too agree that it would benefit everybody if it just stayed off their minds 100%. But that is seemingly impossible as your story (and many others) notes.

You were told to move along with there being no law...no questions asked. Just some paranoid type who thought you were up to no good. The very stigma and stereotype many other have noted here at TN. Is it a silly stereotype md'ers are up to no good? Absolutely. But there it is.

I'd like to play a silly scenario here. Anybody tackle these questions here please.

1. "What if" there was a law and you were violating it without realizing it? Let us say that you tried to look it up and found nothing...as the city had not updated their website yet. Would you expect the police to do you a solid and ask you to move along....or should they say too bad so sad, here is your ticket for digging?

2. If it is the latter and you got a ticket or fine or whatever....would it change your mind on inquiring? Would your advice towards other change a bit?

That is where I am suspicious. The invisible law that is going to bite me in the ass and some "I'm having a bad day cop" chooses me as his perk up. Who is to say that a law is not already in place due to those "stares" and "you can't be here" protests? If there were no laws anywhere about md'ing we would not be having this conversation in the first place. Being compliant to the law would mean understanding the laws in place.

How can somebody seriously take advice to "just do it....you will be alright" after stories like that? You guys are like Vietnam vets talking about guts spilling and bullets flying by....then shrugging and saying "no big deal". Terrible analogy but you get my drift.

Tom....I'll tackle that in the morning lol. Interesting and something for me to ponder as always.

You didn't answer my question about asking officers if it was OK to do other activities in your city...the only thing people seem to think they need to ask about is metal detecting...WHY?....If you ask the police for permission to do other things then I understand, but I doubt you do that...you should do whats right for YOU...Im not trying to tell you what to do, just saying what I do...I just don't understand why people think they should ask about metal detecting when they don't ask about anything else.

 

[TheHunterGT]

You didn't answer my question about asking officers if it was OK to do other activities in your city...the only thing people seem to think they need to ask about is metal detecting...WHY?....If you ask the police for permission to do other things then I understand, but I doubt you do that...you should do whats right for YOU...Im not trying to tell you what to do, just saying what I do...I just don't understand why people think they should ask about metal detecting when they don't ask about anything else.

I stated that my other hobbies/activities do not involve digging holes that could be perceived unfavorably. So no...I do not ask. If my other activities could be looked at as "defacing public property" or whatever the hell the bat poop crazies come up with...then yes I would ask to cover my end.

There is a perception with certain idiots that md'ers are up to no good. Sad state of affairs but there it is. Just look at some of the stories on this forum. MD'ing has a stereotype other activities do not.

I want to think we are all allies here. My intent is not to cause more harm. I am just wanting to cover my butt. There is the perception that doing so will cause more negative issues for me and other md'ers.....yet I do not see that as my experience was the exact opposite...it was positive. All the "what if" scenarios cannot change what happened to me. They were polite...kind...and offered me tips. Told me to have a great day.

Is it like that everywhere...obviously not. We should all use our own life experiences as lessons and act accordingly. but in this topic I don't feel a blanket "ask or don't" covers all the intricacies.

If I think chocolate tastes good....I eat it. Somebody saying it tastes bad for them so it MUST taste bad for me does not work for my brain. I suck at analogies so I hope somebody makes sense of that.

Thanks for being civil and not personally attacking me. I like heated conversations as I feel they stimulate thought more than normal banter. Time and place for both obviously. If I offend anybody I want to apologize. I am trying hard to word things in a polite manner. English was not my first language so I am relying on Google and auto-correct quite a bit even at 39 years of age. Cheers all.

 

[lookindown]

I stated that my other hobbies/activities do not involve digging holes that could be perceived unfavorably. So no...I do not ask. If my other activities could be looked at as "defacing public property" or whatever the hell the bat poop crazies come up with...then yes I would ask to cover my end.

There is a perception with certain idiots that md'ers are up to no good. Sad state of affairs but there it is. Just look at some of the stories on this forum. MD'ing has a stereotype other activities do not.

I want to think we are all allies here. My intent is not to cause more harm. I am just wanting to cover my butt. There is the perception that doing so will cause more negative issues for me and other md'ers.....yet I do not see that as my experience was the exact opposite...it was positive. All the "what if" scenarios cannot change what happened to me. They were polite...kind...and offered me tips. Told me to have a great day.

Is it like that everywhere...obviously not. We should all use our own life experiences as lessons and act accordingly. but in this topic I don't feel a blanket "ask or don't" covers all the intricacies.

If I think chocolate tastes good....I eat it. Somebody saying it tastes bad for them so it MUST taste bad for me does not work for my brain. I suck at analogies so I hope somebody makes sense of that.

Thanks for being civil and not personally attacking me. I like heated conversations as I feel they stimulate thought more than normal banter. Time and place for both obviously. If I offend anybody I want to apologize. I am trying hard to word things in a polite manner. English was not my first language so I am relying on Google and auto-correct quite a bit even at 39 years of age. Cheers all.

We are absolutely allies and I love a good heated debate/conversation/argument and like I said, people should do whats right for them...theres no wrong or right way, just whats right for you...I try hard to stay within T-NET rules too, and I can tell you do the same...some people cant have heated conversations without name calling...I couldn't have hard feelings towards someone that I don't even know over a conversation...if we all thought the same way it would be pretty boring.

 

[cudamark]

So, you're saying that if you know you're in the right, you're going to tell a cop to "piss right off" and continue detecting? Interesting strategy to keep in their good graces. You don't think this is going to negatively effect the next encounter that cop has with a detectorist? He's going to think, "damn, there's another one of those detector knuckleheads". "I think I'll go and roust him". Your interaction with the police has been a good one.....so far.....great.....I hope it continues. The thing is, for most of us, it's a roll of the dice as what answer you'll get depending on who you're going to ask. I choose to avoid that crap shoot. If you make an issue of being "right", they'll get on their high horse and find something to apply negatively against you. You can count on it. There are so many vague laws that they'll stretch something to encompass what you are doing and prevent you from doing it, if you make it an issue. That definitely WILL effect the next guy who starts asking the same questions. Better they don't even know we exist.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... Do you have an example for all your "what ifs"? ......Show me all the laws that popped up because all somebody did was ask about a law in place....

Yes I have examples, but first let me ask you: Do you consider getting a "no" to be ... uh ... a "no" ? In other words, is it equal to law ? And let's say that you try to debate them that no-such-rule-exists (which makes me wonder why you're even asking them TO BEGIN WITH, but ... oh well): And they refer you to rules about "disturb", "alter", & "remove". So therefore: Does is that "no" as good as a rule or law ? Afterall, you have to obey it now, right ? (lest why else would you have asked them?).

And is that "no" binding on others too? Or just the person who asked and got the "no" ?
The reason I ask this, is I can give ... .yes ... some examples that resulted in specific "no detecting" rules to eventually evolve out of that noble beginning. But I can give LOTS MORE examples where even though it might not have resulted in a specific "no detecting" rule, yet .... a "no" is a "no", right ?

.... I simply will not waste my time doing that when I can call and ask....

Exactly what is it you're "asking" ? Do you say "Hi, can I metal detect here?" . Or "Hi, what are your laws concerning metal detecting?". "Where are the laws and muni codes available for public viewing?".

If the 3rd option is what you ask, then I can go with that. They'll direct you to where it exists in binder form behind some desk somewhere, etc... The problem with the 1st and 2nd way of asking, is it becomes to easy for someone to say "no because we think you'll hurt the sprinklers". Or some such nonsense. Then what do you do ? Debate them about that ??

......Cop approaches me I can easily say "Hold up...I called to make sure and was told by X that it was ok. Call your supervisor please". .....

Hunter, are you aware that there are many stories of md'rs doing exactly as you envision: Proudly whipping out their permission to show the griper. Thinking, I guess, that the griper will tuck his tail between his legs, and aplogize for dared having bothered you. Right ? But no. Instead the griper gets on his phone, calls city hall or whomever and says: "... But he's tearing the place up!" (which isn't true, of course). Then guess what happens to your "permission"?

NOT that "permission" isn't a comforting factor (because yes, it will deflect *some* busy-bodies). But just saying, don't think it's the end-all security.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

You didn't answer my question about asking officers if it was OK to do other activities in your city...the only thing people seem to think they need to ask about is metal detecting...WHY?....If you ask the police for permission to do other things then I understand, but I doubt you do that...you should do whats right for YOU...Im not trying to tell you what to do, just saying what I do...I just don't understand why people think they should ask about metal detecting when they don't ask about anything else.

lookin-down, I too have often asked this question. Because you're right: The mere fact someone thinks they need permission (or to make sure "it's ok" , etc...) is that there must be something inherently wrong, dangerous, harmful, evil, etc... with metal detecting. Otherwise, why would you be asking, if the activity were innocuous ?

And oddly, this implied inference is subconsciously picked up on by the hearer. Ie.: the mere fact you think you need to ask them, is simply going to put them in a frame of mind to look for potential things this "runs afoul of" , or "harm that it might cause", etc.... Afterall, why else would you be asking them, if it were harmless ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I stated that my other hobbies/activities do not involve digging holes that could be perceived unfavorably. So no...I do not ask. If my other activities could be looked at as "defacing public property" or whatever the hell the bat poop crazies come up with...then yes I would ask to cover my end. ..... There is a perception with certain idiots that md'ers are up to no good. ....

Ahhh, now we're getting somewhere. Ok, I'll grant you that some persons "might not like it" (as opposed to frisbee flying or skipping stones on ponds, where less persons would see it harming anything). Ok, I'll go with that.

But YOU AND I know that you'll a) Do no harm, and leave no trace, and b) That the item in the ground was going to rot forever, so no one's being harmed by its removal. Yes, I realize that not every passerby "sees it that way". My heart bleeds for them. Really. But I don't think it's my obligation to run around get them all to "love me", before I can start. As much as I wish they would love me, and roll out red carpets for me, it aint gonna happen. So rather than run around getting sanctions, my tactic is to avoid such individuals, from the git-go.

And to be honest with you, it's a very small percentage that "take offense", demographically speaking. I mean, if you're talking run-of-mill normal parks, beaches, etc...., (versus sensitive monuments, etc..., ) then ... it's not like "archie commando navy seals lurk behind every tree to jump out and hate you".

... .. Thanks for being civil and not personally attacking me. I like heated conversations as I feel they stimulate thought more than normal banter. Time and place for both obviously. If I offend anybody I want to apologize....

And I too offer my apologies if I come on strong. Just want to pick any brains that challenge my thinking, to see if it withstands scrutiny.

 

[TheHunterGT]

So, you're saying that if you know you're in the right, you're going to tell a cop to "piss right off" and continue detecting? Interesting strategy to keep in their good graces. You don't think this is going to negatively effect the next encounter that cop has with a detectorist? He's going to think, "damn, there's another one of those detector knuckleheads". "I think I'll go and roust him". Your interaction with the police has been a good one.....so far.....great.....I hope it continues. The thing is, for most of us, it's a roll of the dice as what answer you'll get depending on who you're going to ask. I choose to avoid that crap shoot. If you make an issue of being "right", they'll get on their high horse and find something to apply negatively against you. You can count on it. There are so many vague laws that they'll stretch something to encompass what you are doing and prevent you from doing it, if you make it an issue. That definitely WILL effect the next guy who starts asking the same questions. Better they don't even know we exist.

Naw lol....I would not tell him to "piss off"...but I would absolutely challenge his authority to tell me to leave. And no I'm not some freedom nut who drives through checkpoints and calling them Nazi's on Youtube. However, my camera is out recording all my metal detecting fun-time...so it is def not being turned off if an officer approaches me. I would ask for the supervisor to drive over and mediate and hopefully explain the officers reasoning. If he told me to leave I would...and then take it up with his supervisor and their supervisor and etc etc. That answer is sure to make you all vomit in your mouths....but there you have it.

Yes I have examples, but first let me ask you: Do you consider getting a "no" to be ... uh ... a "no" ? In other words, is it equal to law ? And let's say that you try to debate them that no-such-rule-exists (which makes me wonder why you're even asking them TO BEGIN WITH, but ... oh well): And they refer you to rules about "disturb", "alter", & "remove". So therefore: Does is that "no" as good as a rule or law ? Afterall, you have to obey it now, right ? (lest why else would you have asked them?).

And is that "no" binding on others too? Or just the person who asked and got the "no" ?
The reason I ask this, is I can give ... .yes ... some examples that resulted in specific "no detecting" rules to eventually evolve out of that noble beginning. But I can give LOTS MORE examples where even though it might not have resulted in a specific "no detecting" rule, yet .... a "no" is a "no", right ?

I am asking if a md law is in place...so yes....a no is equal to the law. I am not asking permission and would not need feel a need to debate them. Either the law is there or it is not there. Not sure I understand the question. I think I am having a translation error on my end. I am very sorry Tom. English is crazy hard believe it not. I really apologize man. If you can explain that different I will try again.

Exactly what is it you're "asking" ? Do you say "Hi, can I metal detect here?" . Or "Hi, what are your laws concerning metal detecting?". "Where are the laws and muni codes available for public viewing?".

If the 3rd option is what you ask, then I can go with that. They'll direct you to where it exists in binder form behind some desk somewhere, etc... The problem with the 1st and 2nd way of asking, is it becomes to easy for someone to say "no because we think you'll hurt the sprinklers". Or some such nonsense. Then what do you do ? Debate them about that ??

I ask the 2nd option as I don't have time to flip those 2000 page binders which are often in chrono order and not alphabetical. When you say it becomes easy for them to say no because "X reason".......I will counter that with it is just as easy for them to answer me with a yes or no. As I stated the sheriff even advised me of 2 old homesteads to go hit up. It is very easy for a human to take either path. I am sorry your experience are negative....but mine was positive.


I'm going to stop right there actually. I just deleted a long 30 minute reply and figured I am just going to test it out. I am sure some of you will curse me under your breath....but here goes.

Just called 6 different police departments. I asked it EXACTLY like this. "I am curious if there are any metal detecting laws I need to be aware of on public land inside city limits. I know I have to ask for private property...but I am wondering about public property. Thank you."

Here my results....

Pueblo, CO = Dispatcher transferred me to light duty officer. Officer informed there is no municipal code and to have at it. No private property unless I ask. Thank you...good bye.

Colorado Springs, CO = Dispatcher transfer again to officer. Officer informed me there is no law against it. Thank you good bye.

Denver, CO - Dispatcher transfer to information officer. Information officer did not know of any law and transferred me to a Captain. Captain explained there are no laws he was aware of - he offered to place a quick search for me in his database. I thanked him and he placed me on hold for a good 6-7 minutes. (At this point my hands got sweaty and I cursed myself saying...damn it they are right). He came back on the phone and said there are no laws coming up. He then joked about how I should turn in any gold or diamonds...but keep the silver. We both laughed. He told me to have a great time...thank you good bye.

Fountain, CO - Dispatcher transfer to light duty officer. Officer explained how she was new to the district but was unaware of any law. She explained how her last district did not have any....but she wanted to make sure. She placed me on hold and asked another officer....came back and said all is well...no laws. She said "Happy Hunting" before she hung up.

Fresno, CA - (I used to live there) Dispatcher placed me on hold and transfer to another officer. Officer was unsure and took my name/number and would call me back. (Again I was sweating this one). Phone rings a few minutes later and he said he checked.....no laws about metal detecting. He told me to have a great time and even chimed in about how he always wanted to try that. Thank you and goodbye.


So I am batting 7 for 7 if I include my local PD and 8 for 8 if I include my local sheriff.

No "what ifs" needed for me. No mayors...no desk clerks....no city hall meetings. Not a single no. Not a single "but"....

Are these results what everybody is going to receive? Obviously not as some cities will say "yes" that they do have a law against it. But I am guessing I could have called 8 more and had similar results if no such law is present. There was no conspiracy to place new laws. There was not a single stipulation anywhere in any of the answers. They were all clear cut "go for it...no law here" answers and more than half wished me well and have fun.

Be more than happy to make a Youtube video of it as well. Name the cities...i'll do the dirty work. London...Paris....New York. I'm game. 8 calls cannot be called a good scientific experiment. But maybe 20-40 would be?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Hunter. Great post. And to think you put all that time into this real-life test. Thanx. 7 out of 7 success rate. Here's my thoughts:

1) the fact that you got 7 out of 7, tells me that you'd have had the same success rate if you'd looked up the laws for yourself as well.

2) I have heard of persons doing that, who get transfered to the park's dept . Who decide "no" d/t some ancillary reason, even though there's no *specific* law. Or the police themselves say "yes but you can't dig".

3) Or persons get the blessings like you got here. So they proudly go the park, ONLY TO BE ACCOSTED by an irate gardener or cop. Who promptly boots them because (gasp), they were "digging". So I notice you've conveniently left out the "ugly truth" and gotten permission under "false pretences" by "mincing words". So here's your next test:

4) Call 7 more cities, and THIS time: be sure to mention the words "dig" and "holes". You are welcome to counter it with assurances that you'll COVER the holes and be tidy-about-it. But none-the-less, you must let them know you'll be digging in the park. Report back to us the results of this.

Heck, I think I might even do this It'd be kind of fun ! Like yourself: I'll have a scripted line. So that .... just like your post, it will clear. Anyone got a suggestion as to the way of wording, such that it mentions holes & dig ?

 

[thumper]

I have hunted many parks, schools, and vacant lots in the last 20 years. In 5 different states. In parks if I see More
Than a few people I return later. At schools only on weekends. Vacant lots, if nobody is around. Never had anyone say a word to me. Police have slowed down to look , but never confronted me.

 

[TheHunterGT]

In post #25 you wrote this.

Exactly what is it you're "asking" ? Do you say "Hi, can I metal detect here?" . Or "Hi, what are your laws concerning metal detecting?". "Where are the laws and muni codes available for public viewing?".

If the 3rd option is what you ask, then I can go with that. They'll direct you to where it exists in binder form behind some desk somewhere, etc... The problem with the 1st and 2nd way of asking, is it becomes to easy for someone to say "no because we think you'll hurt the sprinklers". Or some such nonsense. Then what do you do ? Debate them about that ??

So when I called I worded it like #2...and nobody said anything about sprinklers "or some such nonsense". There was no debate. Now you are saying in #3 below I minced words and used false pretenses. All of a sudden there are new standards and stipulations I was supposed to follow in my wording? I'm not sure that is fair.

Hunter. Great post. And to think you put all that time into this real-life test. Thanx. 7 out of 7 success rate. Here's my thoughts:

1) the fact that you got 7 out of 7, tells me that you'd have had the same success rate if you'd looked up the laws for yourself as well.

I agree with that 100%...but that was not the point of the exercise. This was to prove there was no negative impact or harm by calling and asking about metal detecting laws. Making it clear what my intention would be by specifically saying "metal detecting laws".

2) I have heard of persons doing that, who get transfered to the park's dept . Who decide "no" d/t some ancillary reason, even though there's no *specific* law. Or the police themselves say "yes but you can't dig".

Well now you have heard of person not getting transferred. So chalk one up for the other side of the coin. Public parks are city property which is policed by the cities police department. The poor groundskeeper will never know I was there. I am going to go ahead and assume that officers who tell me "happy hunting" and joke about bringing all the gold to them realize I will be digging holes.

3) Or persons get the blessings like you got here. So they proudly go the park, ONLY TO BE ACCOSTED by an irate gardener or cop. Who promptly boots them because (gasp), they were "digging". So I notice you've conveniently left out the "ugly truth" and gotten permission under "false pretences" by "mincing words". So here's your next test:

4) Call 7 more cities, and THIS time: be sure to mention the words "dig" and "holes". You are welcome to counter it with assurances that you'll COVER the holes and be tidy-about-it. But none-the-less, you must let them know you'll be digging in the park. Report back to us the results of this.

Heard of strange stares and crazy old ladies but have yet to hear of anybody being accosted. People get punched doing far less than metal detecting so I'm not concerned for my safety tbh. I never used false pretenses and never once minced my words. I clearly asked about metal detecting laws making my intent known. Nobody asks about metal detecting laws to fly airplanes. They knew what was going to happen...holes will be dug. It's common sense there Tom. I fail to see how saying "dig" and "holes" would matter. Metal detectorists dig holes....everybody knows this. They don't go beep beep then walk away. It is like saying you will BBQ...and then saying there will be a fire. One goes with the other.

However I will say this....the officer lady in fountain did tell me to not dig a huge 6ft by 6ft hole. It was in a joking manner of course. I laughed and told her nobody will ever know I am there as my holes are perfect plugs. Then she said "Happy Hunting" and said goodbye. So I am already 1 for 1 on your challenge to bring up diggin holes. Icing on that cake is that she brought it up...not me. She is using the wording you think is a no-no. So obviously she realized metal detecting = holes.

Heck, I think I might even do this It'd be kind of fun ! Like yourself: I'll have a scripted line. So that .... just like your post, it will clear. Anyone got a suggestion as to the way of wording, such that it mentions holes & dig ?

While it was a scripted line....it was a line that you professed here (and the other thread) that would lead to new laws and restrictions and all sorts of negative voodoo and hoodoo. Everybody scoffed at the idea and I showed there is nothing to be paranoid about. Now all of a sudden I worded it so "it will clear"? I don't see it that way sorry. Just more verbal hoops to jump through.

Was I really supposed to call and say "Hey officer...I'm a md'er....I'm gonna go dig holes in the park and I'm wondering if there are laws about that"? Nonsense. You are not giving me a fair shake man. I called....asked about laws about "metal detecting"...and nothing but positive vibes came at me. Nobody talks like that...and if they did talk like that they deserve a big no. Fire is hot....ice is cold. MD'ers dig holes. It is like asking if you can fly your plane....in the sky.

But I will play your "it has to be worded precisely X way for the negativity to happen" game.

Tomorrow I will call some major cities and say this. "Hello officer...I am a MD'er and wondering if there are any city laws against MD'ing I should be aware of. I plan on "digging holes" on public property and want to make sure no law is in place".

We shall see what happens. But I will make it clear now that I see no reason to use wording like that as IMO it sets you up for failure. My wording worked when MANY scoffed that it would not. Now I am saying your wording will not work....IMO you are peppering it with wording to place yourself in trouble. Why? Because you heard some other guy say it like that one time? That guy is crazy IMO.

Tomorrow I shall get crazy then. I'll make 8 more calls. San Francisco.....Chicago....Dallas.......Miami.....and then 4 smaller yet well known cities to make it even. I will word it with "dig" and "holes"....and we will see what happens.

Here is to my faith in humanity.... I am actually hoping to get at least one "no crap" when I say that as a md'er I will be digging holes.

 

[garyo1954]

Hunter. Great post. And to think you put all that time into this real-life test. Thanx. 7 out of 7 success rate. Here's my thoughts:

1) the fact that you got 7 out of 7, tells me that you'd have had the same success rate if you'd looked up the laws for yourself as well.

2) I have heard of persons doing that, who get transfered to the park's dept . Who decide "no" d/t some ancillary reason, even though there's no *specific* law. Or the police themselves say "yes but you can't dig".

3) Or persons get the blessings like you got here. So they proudly go the park, ONLY TO BE ACCOSTED by an irate gardener or cop. Who promptly boots them because (gasp), they were "digging". So I notice you've conveniently left out the "ugly truth" and gotten permission under "false pretences" by "mincing words". So here's your next test:

4) Call 7 more cities, and THIS time: be sure to mention the words "dig" and "holes". You are welcome to counter it with assurances that you'll COVER the holes and be tidy-about-it. But none-the-less, you must let them know you'll be digging in the park. Report back to us the results of this.

Heck, I think I might even do this It'd be kind of fun ! Like yourself: I'll have a scripted line. So that .... just like your post, it will clear. Anyone got a suggestion as to the way of wording, such that it mentions holes & dig ?

Use the same words, you suggested I ask the city manager here, Tom:

Quote:

"Gary, do you think the answer would have been any different, if you had ask "Can I metal detect and dig stuff up on city property, while taking and keeping what I find for my own enrichment and profit?"

Afterall, you *are* going to dig. And you *are* going to remove. And you *do* hope to profit (ie.: find a goodie you hope, for your own pleasure and mantle-place). So if you had not "minced words" and been "less than forthcoming", do you think their answer would have been different?"




'

 

[TheHunterGT]

It's not minced or worded softly when it is slap in the face obvious. Nobody in their right mind thinks that md'ers do not dig and take what beeps. If they truly think we just beep and walk away without digging holes and taking the object found.....they are bat-poop crazy.

The mere fact you say your are metal detecting is about as forthcoming as it gets. I mean we might as well use terms like "plunder" and "loot" at this rate.

If you call about scuba laws....they understand you are going swimming. If you call about a pilots license....they understand you are going to fly. If you call about metal detecting....they know you dig and take objects found.

It sounds simple because it is. Making it over-complicated is hammering home words that are already encompassed in the vision of the activity.

 

[wainzoid]

I asked the local boro manager about hunting their public properties and the police chief about the school properties and fields. Both said there were no restictions. They mentioned that hunting during school time was not the best time, and I said that was obvious. I also offered my metal detecting services to both. I also hunt 3 different properties owned by a state trooper. No problems anywhere.

 

[TheHunterGT]

I asked the local boro manager about hunting their public properties and the police chief about the school properties and fields. Both said there were no restictions. They mentioned that hunting during school time was not the best time, and I said that was obvious. I also offered my metal detecting services to both. I also hunt 3 different properties owned by a state trooper. No problems anywhere.

Yeah def don't go at recess lmao.

I will add that my local PD did ask me to inquire with the school itself. With the Colorado school history I told him that was 100% understandable....most outter fenced off areas are locked up tight 24/7 for no access.

I called and asked the principal at one school and she said no problem....I have not asked the other 2 schools yet. High school here is all astroturf anyways....so probably won't be calling them.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... Never had anyone say a word to me. Police have slowed down to look , but never confronted me.

So you think this combination of facts "makes it right" ? I bet I can go to any of those parks , ask around long enough and hard enough, using the right combination of words and phrasing, and I bet I can indeed get a "no" to the question of detecting. Shame on you. Now go back and start asking questions. Afterall, you "can't be too safe", right ? And afterall, you "don't want to be looking over your shoulder", right ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Hunter, thanx for being a good sport to dissect this deeply

Ok, regarding the 7 out of 7 success rate (yes, which is commendable, and yes, seems to fly in the face of my "sky-will-fall" notions, haha), I then upped the anty and suggested that you should include the word "dig" in your question (and btw: be sure to clarify though, that you will cover your spots, etc...). The reason I added this in to the criteria, is that there has been examples on forums before, of persons getting permission, but then thrown out on their tails anyhow. Why ? Because (gasp) they dug. So you tell me if your statements here are correct, when you say:

"I am going to go ahead and assume that officers who tell me "happy hunting"..... realize I will be digging holes. "

and

"I fail to see how saying "dig" and "holes" would matter. Metal detectorists dig holes....everybody knows this."

Ok then, if a) it would fail to matter whether or not you added "hole" and "dig", and b) if everyone already knows that's what it involves, then c) then you should continue with the current batting average eh ?

But no, I don't think you will. And no, while it *may* seem to be self-evident that detecting requires digging, yet.... sometimes this doesn't immediately register. In the post that I will do next, I will give 2 true examples of this.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Example #1:

A fellow goes into city hall and asks the desk clerk: "Hi, can is it legal to metal detect in the parks here?". To which the confused dazed clerk has to ask him to clarify his question (I guess she was thinking of metal detectors at court and airline entrances type things). To which the md'r chuckles and explains it's the handheld types that go "beep beep" over coins (as he makes a sweeping motion with his arm back and forth). The lights go on in her head, and she now understands his question. So she reaches for the binder of city rules, park regulations and looks through all the pages.

Eventually she looks back up at the gentleman and says "well I can't find anything about that in city or park codes, so I guess you can!"

The md'r gleefully says to her "Great! And I'll be certain to cover all my holes so you can't even tell I was there!" As soon as the lady heard the word "holes", she stopped him and said "what do you mean?". So he explained how he'd be digging a small hole with a screwdriver, to get to the coins. But "not to worry, because I leave no trace, and you can't even tell".

The lady then says to him: "Excuse me, I need to go check with someone else on this". The man sees her go down the hall, sticking her head into various other offices, conferring with other superiors at their desks. She eventually returns to the front desk and says: "I'm sorry sir, but we're going to have to tell you no".

The man sensed something very arbitrary was going on, and couldn't understand why his "yes" was so quickly turned to a "no". So he asked "Why?". She then hands him a pamphlet brochure from the utility company entitled "Call before you dig". And on the cover of the brochure, was a picture of a backhoe ! The man chuckled because he realized this was for heavy equipment operators and construction companies. So he handed the brochure back to her and said: "but mam, I'm only going to be digging a few inches deep NOT 6 FOOT DEEP "

The lady flipped through the pages of the pamphlet, and handed it back to him saying: "But sir, the pamphlet doesn't say HOW deep, it only says ANY digging. So we're still going to have to tell you 'no' ". So the dejected md'r left city hall, with the pamphlet TRUE STORY

So as you can see, the dig aspect isn't always clear, on the part of the hearer. Or ... only brought up to the conscious level, TILL you bring it up, etc....

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Example #2:

A fellow goes to a large city's city parks dept. desk. Asked "can I metal detect?". The clerk answers: "sure, help yourself".

A week later, the man realizes he'd failed to get that person's name, so that he'd have it handy if anyone questioned him. So he decided to go back to the same place, to get that person's name who'd given him the go-ahead. However this time, it was someone else manning the desk. He asked the person what the other fellow's name was. But the current person didn't know who the md'r was talking about . Because it was a big city, and a big department, with multiple different people who could staff the desk, at any given day or time.

So the current person on duty just says "well what is it that you wanted to know?" So the md'r repeats his question. The current person on duty says "Sure, help yourself ! But you can't dig"

Doh! So why was it only an issue (or something "known" as implicit) to the first person, while it was implicit to the 2nd person ?

So all I'm saying is, .... no, it's not always implicit in the mind of the person fielding the question.

Oh, and if you do this test, while including the "dig" and "holes" words, please do me a favor and DO NOT include SF in your test pool. Because I sometimes make the drive to hunt that far north, and ..... no need that md'ing be on anyone's radar there , thankyou

 

[Nugs Bunny]

This nonsense again?

First off if it's been stated in the 1000 times this has been debated it's all in how you ask. It's also been stated a 1000 times by Tom the mere mention of metal detecting brings into mind visions of digging and destruction.

Call and ask "Hey can I go dig up the park looking for lost treasure so I can get rich?" What do you think the answer will be? Call and ask if there are any restrictions on detecting and you will most likely get the responses huntergt did.

Even if hunter called 7 more police departments and used this scripted line "Can I metal detect and dig stuff up on city property, while taking and keeping what I find for my own enrichment and profit?" and got 7 yesses the naysayers would ask for more.

Why not state you intend on slapping babies and killing kittens too while you excavate the local park looking for lost treasure while your at it?!?!

Human nature is to downplay our actions if we feel they are restricted, not emphasize them.

Originally just asking permission was supposed to cause a plethora of new laws restricting it. When that didn't happen it's because they asked too nicely and should have asked in a way that would offend somebody.

Now let's get back to reality... nobody is going to ask permission in such a manner, and I doubt anybody ever has and when dealing with public officials there is no telling what will happen. I think folks face a better chance of getting a fine than they do causing new restrictions by asking permission.

The reality is the there are morons who tear places up and we all suffer the consequences because of them. That handful of idiots that don't dig responsibly and leave a mess behind are the leading cause of restrictions on the hobby.