Tom_in_CA
Gold Member
- Mar 23, 2007
- 13,804
- 10,336
- 🥇 Banner finds
- 2
- Detector(s) used
- Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
In the discussion of potential gripers (park workers, or whatever), I have often suggested to pick lower traffic times. Or even at night, to avoid singular gripers. Which, of course, elicits images of "sneaking around" ,"breaking the law", "having something to hide" & "looking over your shoulders", etc....
I thought of an example which to me illustrates the legitimacy of sometimes having to employ the need to be more discreet. And not " swat hornet's nests" :
There is a spot in CA, that is an off-limits historical sensitive monument. But some property adjacent to it is private property farm/ag land. And the influence of potential targets extends over into that adjacent land. We got very casual permission. Ie.: nothing more than bumping into the farmer while happen-chancing onto him while he was driving past this portion of his 100's of acres one day. Just a casual "whatever" type nod. Nothing written. No names exchanged. Not clarified if for a single day or on-going, etc...
Not being ones to argue with a "yes", we proceeded to hunt it several times. We were getting buttons and coins. HOWEVER: About the 3rd or 4th time there, a caretaker/administrator of the adjacent historic off-limits spot next door spotted us. She started her rant of "you can't be doing that." To which we replied "We have permission". She then challenged that. Asking who gave us permission, etc... She marched back into her offices saying "we'll see about that" .
It was clear to us that she was probably calling her neighbor ranch offices, to see if we were telling the truth. Which gave us the willies. Because we knew that if push came to shove, then OF COURSE the rancher would align with his long time neighbor . And not two yahoo strangers from some far away city.
She came back out a few minutes later and started harping that we could not cross the dirt road that divides the 2 properties. To which, we assured her: We were well aware of the dividing line. Then ... she just stood there watching us for the longest time. We ended that hunt quickly. And put the word out to the other friend of ours that someone next door was raising a ruckus.
A month or so went by, before we made the drive for the next trek here. But THIS particular time, was becoming the time of year when it's getting dark early. So quite coincidentally, just by virtue of our work schedules (not off work till 5pm) it turns out we weren't arriving till it was after dark. Which, of course, doesn't affect the ability to detect.
And naturally, guess what ? No lady to come out and bark at us. No risk of our permission being revoked . And ... to this day, 10 yrs. later, we just make that a practice for this spot. We only ever hunt this at night.
So to me, THIS is an example of how being un-seen solves things. And is an example of how you're not necessarily breaking a law in the process. But just to face the reality that "not everyone on earth is going to love metal detecting".
We *could* have gone to the farmer to cement and clarify our "permission". And we *could* have gone and defied the lady and told her "neener neener". But as you can see, odds are, the decision would have come down AGAINST our favor, rather than in our favor.
So too is it the same mentality in all the posts about guys who catch flack in parks. They get a verbal "scram", even though perhaps there is no express and explicit "no detecting" rule/law. So they run around like a chicken with their head cut off trying to split hairs on verbiage about "alter/deface" or "take/remove", attempting to over-turn a scram. And I have suggested "avoid that singular lookie-lou" . And this post is an example of that practice working just as it should . So peaceful. So serene
I thought of an example which to me illustrates the legitimacy of sometimes having to employ the need to be more discreet. And not " swat hornet's nests" :
There is a spot in CA, that is an off-limits historical sensitive monument. But some property adjacent to it is private property farm/ag land. And the influence of potential targets extends over into that adjacent land. We got very casual permission. Ie.: nothing more than bumping into the farmer while happen-chancing onto him while he was driving past this portion of his 100's of acres one day. Just a casual "whatever" type nod. Nothing written. No names exchanged. Not clarified if for a single day or on-going, etc...
Not being ones to argue with a "yes", we proceeded to hunt it several times. We were getting buttons and coins. HOWEVER: About the 3rd or 4th time there, a caretaker/administrator of the adjacent historic off-limits spot next door spotted us. She started her rant of "you can't be doing that." To which we replied "We have permission". She then challenged that. Asking who gave us permission, etc... She marched back into her offices saying "we'll see about that" .
It was clear to us that she was probably calling her neighbor ranch offices, to see if we were telling the truth. Which gave us the willies. Because we knew that if push came to shove, then OF COURSE the rancher would align with his long time neighbor . And not two yahoo strangers from some far away city.
She came back out a few minutes later and started harping that we could not cross the dirt road that divides the 2 properties. To which, we assured her: We were well aware of the dividing line. Then ... she just stood there watching us for the longest time. We ended that hunt quickly. And put the word out to the other friend of ours that someone next door was raising a ruckus.
A month or so went by, before we made the drive for the next trek here. But THIS particular time, was becoming the time of year when it's getting dark early. So quite coincidentally, just by virtue of our work schedules (not off work till 5pm) it turns out we weren't arriving till it was after dark. Which, of course, doesn't affect the ability to detect.
And naturally, guess what ? No lady to come out and bark at us. No risk of our permission being revoked . And ... to this day, 10 yrs. later, we just make that a practice for this spot. We only ever hunt this at night.
So to me, THIS is an example of how being un-seen solves things. And is an example of how you're not necessarily breaking a law in the process. But just to face the reality that "not everyone on earth is going to love metal detecting".
We *could* have gone to the farmer to cement and clarify our "permission". And we *could* have gone and defied the lady and told her "neener neener". But as you can see, odds are, the decision would have come down AGAINST our favor, rather than in our favor.
So too is it the same mentality in all the posts about guys who catch flack in parks. They get a verbal "scram", even though perhaps there is no express and explicit "no detecting" rule/law. So they run around like a chicken with their head cut off trying to split hairs on verbiage about "alter/deface" or "take/remove", attempting to over-turn a scram. And I have suggested "avoid that singular lookie-lou" . And this post is an example of that practice working just as it should . So peaceful. So serene
Last edited: