Does a "no" apply just to the guy who asked?

[slink]

Hey gang, a theoretical question :

So someone else could go in the following day, ask another person, and perhaps get a different answer. Right

I think someone could go in the same day,ask the same person,and get a different answer.

Like it or not as people we always have other people judging us.Sometimes the one judging us is the one giving or denying us permission.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Nugs Bunny]

I did some digging on the web in my area for old homesites and other old buisnesses... I found an old courthouse and jail museum dating back to 1886, so I asked went there and asked who to speak with for permission, and they told me that it was county land and I needed to speak with someone from the county. So I headed to the current courthouse and spoke with the county administrator's secretary and she said I'd be contacted on the matter. I received a phone call this morning at about 8:30AM and was told I have full permission to detect the old courthouse, old jail, and old sheriff's residence! IM PUMPED!!!!!!

Better send a memo out to the County Tom... they were supposed to rubber stamp a big fat NO on his permission slip!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Great input guys !

Now that we've got the air cleared that a "no" or a "booting" is specifically for the person asking, then consider the following:

You're all familiar with this site, right ?

Federation of Metal Detector & Archaeological Clubs Inc.

And this has just been taken as "gospel truth" for decades now. As was the fore-runner of this web version, which was the 1980s (pre-internet) version of the same info: The book "Treasure Laws of the United States" R.W. Doc Grim. It was ingenious efforts to make a one-stop shopping for hobbyists. Like in the case of RV'rs who travel state to state. The idea was/is, you can just look up the state you're thinking of alphabetically. And then at your fingertips, you have the info. In each case, the way the data was compiled was by ..... you guessed it ........ ASKING ! Like in Grim's case, he merely xeroxed off 50 letters, and sent them out to the head of each state's state park's dept. It asked something to the effect of: "what is your department's stance on the use of metal detectors in your state parks?"

Then when Grim got all 50 letter replies back, he puts them in book form. Great idea, right ? And who better to ask, than the park's dept. head-honcho's themselves, right ? Genius idea

Ok, in many cases (admittedly) you will, in fact, find specific mention of metal detectors. Ok, that's a good result. But has anyone noticed this: Go down the line and look at anyone with a lot of them dire sounding wording. Eg.: "yes but you can't take anything", Or "yes but you must check in with each park ranger kiosk you come to for permission, blah blah. Or others with outright "no's" in their column. NOW: click on the state name in those type states. You will see that it brings up a box with the more detailed answer, where they've either given a paragraph answer elaborating on the "no". Or ...... cited specific codes they believe applies to create their "no" or whatever.

But notice that ...... a lot of that is only interpretation (of the person who fielded the inquiry). What I mean is, often time in those "no's", it never actually *specifically* said "no metal detectors". Therefore, just like my theoretical city-level situation, it is possible to get a "no", on state park levels too. Where perhaps it doesn't technically say that (unless morphing other things to apply).

NONETHELESS, notice that this famous FMDAC list is simply taken as gospel fact. Even though it is, essentially, the same "go ask a bureaucrat" method of getting a "no". Barring, of course, those that have actual citations saying such a thing.

 

[Nugs Bunny]

But notice that ...... a lot of that is only interpretation (of the person who fielded the inquiry). What I mean is, often time in those "no's", it never actually *specifically* said "no metal detectors". Therefore, just like my theoretical city-level situation, it is possible to get a "no", where ....... it doesn't technically say that (unless morphing other things to apply).

NONETHELESS, notice that this famous FMDAC list is simply taken as gospel fact. Even though it is, essentially, the same "go ask a bureaucrat" method of getting a "no". Barring, of course, those that have actual citations saying such a thing.

It's this simple... Under those such circumstances, you're going to get told no regardless of how you approach the situation.

If you ask and they object... those same objections would apply if they observed you detecting. Asking permission did not cause the objection... the activity did.

What you are saying is if one does not bring attention to the activity there will be no objections... and that just isn't true.

The objections would still exist, they would just be unaware of the ongoing activity... in the simplest terms you are basically stating asking permission may alert them to an activity to which an objection may exist.

The FMDAC is not legal code... and the only thing that should be taken as "gospel fact" is the word of the Lord.

I care what the person in charge that day has to say, not what was garnered through a few emails in the past.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Nugs, thanx for chiming in! I very-much admire your take on things lately. You are a good "thinker". Ok, to address your points:

.....If you ask and they object... those same objections would apply if they observed you detecting. Asking permission did not cause the objection... the activity did.
What you are saying is if one does not bring attention to the activity there will be no objections... and that just isn't true........

This line of reasoning has been rendered before. I can understand what you are saying. Basically that if someone got told "no" at a desk-jockey level, then ..... theoretically, that person who gave the no, would also .... likewise, have booted you if he had seen you in the field as well. So the "asking" did not bring up a "no" out of thin air. That person felt/feels the same (his interpretation, his authority in the matter, etc...) whether or not someone had "asked" versus if they'd just been seen out there in the field. Right ?

I can see how this would seem true. But in actual application, it's not. There are cases I can cite you of powers-that-be, that ..... at one time, never looked twice or noticed md'rs. It just didn't register. But then lo & behold, someone went and asked "can I?". Now, as you can see, it's taking a conscientious step of providing an answer, and putting this question through various mental channels, that .... perhaps, he'd never have had to stop and think about before. And now, a "yes", can have ripple effects, that having simply seen an md'r, might not have had. You know the subconscious drill "gee, if I say yes, then what's to stop all sorts of other yahoos from tearing our parks up?"

I have a few humorous examples of this very thing happening. But for sake of space, I will spare you. However, if you want some actual cases, I have 2 just in my own personal experience, of this happening. It can be summed up in this: "Sometimes no one cared .... UNTIL you asked". It's a question of getting on their radars with "pressing questions". Sometimes it's not "pressing", until you put it front and center for their approval. And then... presto, the easy answer is the easier answer.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... The FMDAC is not legal code... and the only thing that should be taken as "gospel fact" is the word of the Lord....

I agree. It's not "legal code", unless there's actual citation from the law (when you click the popup box) that says such a thing. Nonetheless, whenever you see that link linked, it's taken as if it's the actual end-all-answer (the "yes" or the "no" in the box next to the state)

As for the rest of what you said, I only meant "gospel fact" as a figure of speach. Was not meaning to make any statements about the gospel. Thus, sorry, poor use of figurative speach.

 

[Nugs Bunny]

Nugs, thanx for chiming in! I very-much admire your take on things lately. You are a good "thinker". Ok, to address your points:



This line of reasoning has been rendered before. I can understand what you are saying. Basically that if someone got told "no" at a desk-jockey level, then ..... theoretically, that person who gave the no, would also .... likewise, have booted you if he had seen you in the field as well. So the "asking" did not bring up a "no" out of thin air. That person felt/feels the same (his interpretation, his authority in the matter, etc...) whether or not someone had "asked" versus if they'd just been seen out there in the field. Right ?

I can see how this would seem true. But in actual application, it's not. There are cases I can cite you of powers-that-be, that ..... at one time, never looked twice or noticed md'rs. It just didn't register. But then lo & behold, someone went and asked "can I?". Now, as you can see, it's taking a conscientious step of providing an answer, and putting this question through various mental channels, that .... perhaps, he'd never have had to stop and think about before. And now, a "yes", can have ripple effects, that having simply seen an md'r, might not have had. You know the subconscious drill "gee, if I say yes, then what's to stop all sorts of other yahoos from tearing our parks up?"

I have a few humorous examples of this very thing happening. But for sake of space, I will spare you. However, if you want some actual cases, I have 2 just in my own personal experience, of this happening. It can be summed up in this: "Sometimes no one cared .... UNTIL you asked". It's a question of getting on their radars with "pressing questions". Sometimes it's not "pressing", until you put it front and center for their approval. And then... presto, the easy answer is the easier answer.

Thanks Tom, but we are starting to wear a path here... in the shape of a circle!

I already agreed in California your scenario is more likely to happen than not... other places such as Ohio or West Virginia however it's the exact opposite.

What gets more flies... honey or vinegar? Actually neither attracts the flies like fresh BS! Permission always depends on the people involved but not always the activity... in other word's... it's all in how you ask!

 

[Nugs Bunny]

As for the rest of what you said, I only meant "gospel fact" as a figure of speach. Was not meaning to make any statements about the gospel. Thus, sorry, poor use of figurative speach.

I knew that but somebody's got to rattle your cage... lest you will fall asleep!

 

[Nugs Bunny]

If there is no clear restriction some people jut like to go tell someone what they are planning to do. Sorta like going potty.

Well those of us that are potty trained that is!

Clear restriction my eye... there could be a sign that clearly stated "No Trespassing on any of the property for any reason and Kemper this means you!" and you would still try to wrangle and justify a position that it did not apply to you.

This basically sums up every discussion we have had...

This TEXT is BLACK! ~ Nugs Bunny

It's NOT black... it just isn't white or blue or red or green or purple... ~ Kemper

 

[Nugs Bunny]

If you ask and they object... those same objections would apply if they observed you detecting. Asking permission did not cause the objection... the activity did.--Nugs
Permission always depends on the people involved but not always the activity... in other word's... it's all in how you ask! --Nugs

Yeah too bad everybody else can read! Lol!

It's clear I'm talking about two different circumstances and you are quoting me out of context, but hey I know basic English is hard to understand.

"Asking permission did not cause the objection... the activity did.--Nugs" It's clear that was an answer to Tom's synopsis. In that SPECIFIC example the objection was caused by the activity, not the act of asking permission.

But notice that ...... a lot of that is only interpretation (of the person who fielded the inquiry). What I mean is, often time in those "no's", it never actually *specifically* said "no metal detectors". Therefore, just like my theoretical city-level situation, it is possible to get a "no", on state park levels too. Where perhaps it doesn't technically say that (unless morphing other things to apply).

"Permission always depends on the people involved but not always the activity... in other word's... it's all in how you ask! --Nugs" This was also a response to another specific example of Tom's...

There are cases I can cite you of powers-that-be, that ..... at one time, never looked twice or noticed md'rs. It just didn't register. But then lo & behold, someone went and asked "can I?". Now, as you can see, it's taking a conscientious step of providing an answer, and putting this question through various mental channels, that .... perhaps, he'd never have had to stop and think about before. And now, a "yes", can have ripple effects, that having simply seen an md'r, might not have had. You know the subconscious drill "gee, if I say yes, then what's to stop all sorts of other yahoos from tearing our parks up?"

Notice the difference between the two examples... hence the different answers...

The first situation is dealing where they would object if you asked or if they caught ya.

The second is dealing with one never considering the activity before permission was asked.

Now maybe you are that simple you don't get it...

If one asks and they say no, they would have said no if they caught ya doing it anyway because they object to the activity. But if they don't object to the activity and never gave it a thought prior, one can get a yes if they know how to ask.

Two separate examples... two separate situations... two separate answers.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...... a sign that clearly stated "No Trespassing on any of the property for any reason and Kemper this means you!" and you would still try to wrangle and justify a position that it did not apply to you....

Well, hypothetically, if all those factors were true (a sign saying just that), and .... hypothetically, if a mercury dime were suspected to be there, then I would "wrangle and justify" if I were Kemper too.

Hey, and you gotta admit Nugs, he's DARN GOOD at that "wrangling and justifying"! I'm still trying to figure out who's the best E-lawyer on this forum. And until I met you Nugs, my money was on Kemper. Now you're running a close-second nugs. I'm torn between 2 lovers !

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Nugs back off. Any repeat will not end well.

 

[Tnmountains]

Correct that is a permanent ban offense

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Both of you end it... Mods have already addressed issue..

 

[Nugs Bunny]

Nugs back off. Any repeat will not end well.

Correct that is a permanent ban offense

Sorry guys, I just got caught up in the whole "it's rabbit season... no it's duck season" thing.

No hard feelings on my part I understand, I will do my best to ignore his posts in the future.

 

[Tnmountains]

Sorry guys, I just got caught up in the whole "it's rabbit season... no it's duck season" thing.

No hard feelings on my part I understand, I will do my best to ignore his posts in the future.

I suggest you try the ignore feature. No sense in getting caught up in something as silly as this. We gotta keep these threads on the original ops topic.

 

[Nugs Bunny]

Well, hypothetically, if all those factors were true (a sign saying just that), and .... hypothetically, if a mercury dime were suspected to be there, then I would "wrangle and justify" if I were Kemper too.

Hey, and you gotta admit Nugs, he's DARN GOOD at that "wrangling and justifying"! I'm still trying to figure out who's the best E-lawyer on this forum. And until I met you Nugs, my money was on Kemper. Now you're running a close-second nugs. I'm torn between 2 lovers !

I don't mind who you hang with Tom... but whenever you bring your friends over I end up getting into trouble... next time I'm just gonna take my ball and go home!

On the bright side of things... how many of us would research these topics at the level we do... if we were not trying to prove a point?

Once the dust settles and we look back... we probably all have come away a little more educated than before we started.

There is validity in both our arguments, I thinks it's fair to say asking permission can be good and it can be bad, depending on the situation and the location.

One may ask to detect a run of the mill park in California and get a NO... And one may ask to detect the old Court House lawn in Wisconsin and get a yes...

I can foresee metal detecting getting a bad image in some areas regardless of how cooperative, careful and conscientious we are. I can also see how those same three attributes could give us a good image in other areas.

Good judgment comes from experience and experience comes from bad judgment.

I think it comes down to using good judgment... sound advice in any aspect of life.

Anyways stop being a bad influence ya trouble maker! You keep getting ME into trouble!!!

 

[Nugs Bunny]

I suggest you try the ignore feature. No sense in getting caught up in something as silly as this. We gotta keep these threads on the original ops topic.

Thanks Tn

I understand I gotta follow the rules it's only fair. I can ignore it I was just choosing not too, I guess I just never had a little brother to pick on or something...

 

[Megagold]

Just go Tom and hunt! You got a 50/50 chance! That's what I do....

 

[cudamark]

Or got thrown off With The words NO DETECTING !!!! & Don't Come Back !

because they never asked

Either way, you wouldn't get permission to hunt, but, you might get a few keepers before you got booted. Just because you got told NO, doesn't mean that it's the law. look it up and see.