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

[cudamark]

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!

If it's not the activity, why would you need to ask?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[jeff of pa]

Nugs back off. Any repeat will not end well.

Correct that is a permanent ban offense

Correct !

Your lucky Marty got here first & gave you a warning.

Stalking a Members Personal Life and sharing it online,
has gotten members banned for ever with no warning !

What a person did/does Off Line true or not, has Nothing to do with what they do Online here.

 

[cudamark]

Just because someone says NO, doesn't mean it's illegal. It might just be their whim at that moment or maybe they're having a bad day. What's written down regarding the uses of that area is what counts. In the absence of anything concrete, the law is up for interpretation should they want to morph some other restriction to include detecting. Give the place a rest for a while and then come back at a different time and on a different day. Maybe the next interpreter will read the rules differently.

 

[Fletch88]

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. --Tom

Some years back I did a job downtown on a remodel to turn it into a flower shop. The longest tenure lawyer in town is the owner. A lot of people would not work for him citing pay issues etc. I gladly took the job and got along fine with him.

Back then I use to write the paper a lot mostly joking around about local city and political issues. I don't really miss that as I am not a big fan of political discussion. This lawyer was BSing with me one day and we were talking about lawyers. At the end of the conversation he said "there are a lot of good lawyers but it is hard to find a good trial lawyer." People can look up laws and be good at reading them and see what is not in there ,but understanding what is in there is another story. If there is not a clear ban on metal detecting I don't think a person is going to get in trouble for metal detecting. If a person wants to dig deep in those laws and try to find something that says explicitly metal detecting is allowed I don't think they will find it. If they dig deep they may find something that could be read as a ban on detecting.
If they dig deep they could probably find something that would ban most if not all other activities as well. A person should check the laws and see if there is a ban on metal detecting. I would "wrangle and justify" to find a reason to detect. As Elawyers I think we can read them and decide whether or not to go detect a spot. If a person has an issue with me detecting a spot that I checked the law and determined I could legally detect they can present that to me. I'm just an Elawyer and probably would be willing to discuss an issue with an Etrial-lawyer out in the field. I doubt I would argue their position as they would probably have something to back it up. If they didn't that would be another story,but for the most part the person in authority would have the law on his side. That would not mean I did anything illegal up to that point.

Ding, Ding #1 answer Kemper!

Do I need permission to scuba dive this site which has condos around it now on the lake I grew up on? Not pictured is the high dive and slide out in deeper water.

 

[Fletch88]

I'm going by boat. Have plenty of access points, just going to drop in from deeper water.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

You could do that, but in the case of my city park ,if a person were told no and returned the next day and the same authority confronted them it wouldn't go in the hunter's favor. .....

Yeah, but Mark clearly said to "give the place a rest for awhile ....".

So we sort of need to "give lip service", and play the game at the time. And yes: not return the very next day, or defy his order, etc.... . And I'm betting that 3 or 6 months later, it's a forgotten about incident.

I guess worst case scenario: That one person getting a scram can also just elect to treat it as "law" from then on out (ie.: never return). But under no circumstance do I consider that a rule or law that applies to everyone else. OH SURE: the person who told you "scram" may think that. And maybe the poor fellow who got the "scram" may think that . but I don't

 

[Fletch88]

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

If I had only been info detecting back in the 80's before the condos were built. We used to roam all over property through the old pavilion. Swim and jump off of what remained of the high dive dock. There's no telling what is there on land and underwater having been a favorite swimming hole since the mid 1800's through the early 1950's before it shut down.

 

[Diggin-N-Dumps]

OOOooohhhh, so you're "sneaking around", eh ? Hmmm, NOW we know what kind of person diggin-n-dumps REALLY is. haarruummmphhh !

Haha.....I could see how that came out...I stay loyal with the people I detect with..My hunting buddies and I have places that we ONLY hit togather and others we dont care if we hunt alone.

But an perfect example is, my buddy called a school along time ago and got the NO over the phone..so we never really hunted it

One day I went by and saw kids on Motorbikes riding on the field...So I went out and hunted it and found a few goodies

I wasnt sneaking around or anything....I just took the chance

If a "buddy" of yours got mad because you hunted it and he didnt...doesnt sound like much of a buddy to me

 

[mikeraydj]

Haha.....I could see how that came out...I stay loyal with the people I detect with..My hunting buddies and I have places that we ONLY hit togather and others we dont care if we hunt alone.

But an perfect example is, my buddy called a school along time ago and got the NO over the phone..so we never really hunted it

One day I went by and saw kids on Motorbikes riding on the field...So I went out and hunted it and found a few goodies

I wasnt sneaking around or anything....I just took the chance

If a "buddy" of yours got mad because you hunted it and he didnt...doesnt sound like much of a buddy to me

I find it funny that a site that had a no, becomes a yes when you observe someone else doing something questionable there. That is like saying that during a hurricane the authorities say looting is illegal, but you observe others looting so now it's ok. I am sorry but I guess you have to weigh your own conscience and discern for yourself what is acceptable and what you are willing to do for a mercury dime or a civil war buckle. By saying you took a chance, told me you knew that your actions were questionable. Which is ok, you are the one who has to sleep with your decisions. Sometimes I think that people will take a risk just so they can get a "thanks for sharing" on the forum, or banner or get voted into the detecting hall of fame, wherever that is. It is sad that the topic of ethics is one of the most posted about and most controversial.

 

[cudamark]

Exactly. We're talking about an area WITHOUT clear rules regarding detecting. Looting is clearly illegal and there are laws written spelling that out.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I find it funny that a site that had a no, becomes a yes when you observe someone else doing something questionable there. That is like saying that during a hurricane the authorities say looting is illegal, but you observe others looting so now it's ok. I am sorry but I guess you have to weigh your own conscience and discern for yourself what is acceptable and what you are willing to do for a mercury dime or a civil war buckle. By saying you took a chance, told me you knew that your actions were questionable. Which is ok, you are the one who has to sleep with your decisions. Sometimes I think that people will take a risk just so they can get a "thanks for sharing" on the forum, or banner or get voted into the detecting hall of fame, wherever that is. It is sad that the topic of ethics is one of the most posted about and most controversial.

Mike-ray-dj: Thanx for chiming in. Good input. Kemper gave a good reply. My reply is this:

Go back to my original OP opening question. If it's true that a "no" (or a "scram") handed down to one individual applies to all other potential future hunters at the site, ....... then yes: Everything you're saying would be true. But if it's NOT true , then no, what you're saying would not apply.

And Diggin-n-dumps used the phrase about "taking a chance" in a location where he'd heard of a prior "no" (given to someone else), yes I can see how that would be construed as an inherent knowledge of , well .... "something questionable". (Lest why else would he call it "taking a chance" ? Doh!).

And that's the entire reason for my question that opened this thread.

Good conversation guys !

 

[TreasurDiggrNY]

Hey gang, a theoretical question :

You are getting ready to vacation at a certain place. And you inquire ahead of other hobbyists, as to whether or not "such & such park" or "such & such beaches" allow md'ing. And let's say that someone chimed in with your answer: They tell you "no'. And the way they know this, is that they asked at that location, and got a "no" in the past.

So: do you take that to mean a "no" JUST to that one individual ? Or do you take that no to mean that others too (yourself, etc...) are likewise not allowed ?

The reason I ask is, that it's painfully obvious that sometimes it just depends on which particular desk jockey you ask. And how you phrase the question, the mood their in, etc..... Right ? So someone else could go in the following day, ask another person, and perhaps get a different answer. Right ?

So does others bootings or no's constitute a "rule" in your mind ? Or not ?

Mike-ray-dj: Thanx for chiming in. Good input. Kemper gave a good reply. My reply is this:

Go back to my original OP opening question. If it's true that a "no" (or a "scram") handed down to one individual applies to all other potential future hunters at the site, ....... then yes: Everything you're saying would be true. But if it's NOT true , then no, what you're saying would not apply.

And Diggin-n-dumps used the phrase about "taking a chance" in a location where he'd heard of a prior "no" (given to someone else), yes I can see how that would be construed as an inherent knowledge of , well .... "something questionable". (Lest why else would he call it "taking a chance" ? Doh!).

And that's the entire reason for my question that opened this thread.

Good conversation guys !

You need a legal disclaimer or something in closing, this is all a bunch of what-ifs and proves nothing. It was just a theoretical question dreamed up in fantasy land. You're replying to your own posts now? Why? Nobody answered right in your eyes but Kemper came close

the·o·ret·i·cal
THēəˈredək(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: theoretical

concerned with or involving the theory of a subject or area of study rather than its practical application.
"a theoretical physicist"
synonyms: hypothetical, abstract, conjectural, academic, suppositional, speculative, notional, postulatory, what-if, assumed, presumed, untested, unproven, unsubstantiated
"it's just a theoretical situation"
antonyms: actual, real
based on or calculated through theory rather than experience or practice.
"the theoretical value of their work"
synonyms: hypothetical, abstract, conjectural, academic, suppositional, speculative, notional, postulatory, what-if, assumed, presumed, untested, unproven, unsubstantiated
"it's just a theoretical situation"

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...... It was just a theoretical question dreamed up in fantasy land.......

Treasurediggr-NY: You don't think this exact scenarios hasn't happened before ? Do you want some case examples ?

Yes this one was "theoretically based". But believe me: As I was typing it, I had many examples in mind where these very steps transpired. Will you give me $20 for each example I can give ? I accept paypal afterall

 

[Tom_in_CA]

And by "examples", I don't mean for you/us to get lost in the example of the theoretical "...person getting ready to vacation somewhere, inquires ahead ..." blah blah.

But just in general: a) the md'ing community of persons "looking to know laws/rules, bases their knowledge on the "yes" or "no" of others. In the past, that "yes" or "no" could have originated in the asking of the powers that be. Or the knowledge/story of someone getting booted.

If we broaden it to those basic elements, then yes, I can give many many examples.

 

[Diggin-N-Dumps]

I find it funny that a site that had a no, becomes a yes when you observe someone else doing something questionable there. That is like saying that during a hurricane the authorities say looting is illegal, but you observe others looting so now it's ok. I am sorry but I guess you have to weigh your own conscience and discern for yourself what is acceptable and what you are willing to do for a mercury dime or a civil war buckle. By saying you took a chance, told me you knew that your actions were questionable. Which is ok, you are the one who has to sleep with your decisions. Sometimes I think that people will take a risk just so they can get a "thanks for sharing" on the forum, or banner or get voted into the detecting hall of fame, wherever that is. It is sad that the topic of ethics is one of the most posted about and most controversial.

Yea...And I will continue to take a chance...Just because he called and a teacher told him NO..doesnt mean that I was trespassing....this school is opened up to the Public.

So until I see signs that are posted that I cant be there.....or someone tells me to my face that i cannot hunt.....I will CONTINUE to "take a chance"..and guess what? Ive been there several times and never had anyone talk to me about being there...So in my "taking a chance" I found a new place to hunt

I could give 2 (deleted by mod for language) what you think... as you say " I am sorry but I guess you have to weigh your own conscience and discern for yourself what is acceptable"

And Comparing to hunting a ballfield at a school and looting during a hurricane..makes you sound like a complete moron...Your profession totally suits you



You arent giving me a guilt trip...thats just a weak comment trying to say I was doing something wrong...Its a Public school....my freind was an idiot for asking. ive hunted there with staff onsite..Never a problem...nor did I ever feel bad or feel like i was doing something wrong..

And yes...it was worth the 1 Merc and 5 wheats ive pulled there so far

 

[kayakpat]

don't complain if you get fined or something worse. Nowhere in the constitution does it say you have a right to something that is not yours

 

[Diggin-N-Dumps]

don't complain if you get fined or something worse. Nowhere in the constitution does it say you have a right to something that is not yours

huh?...you mean a school ballfield that is used my the public and neighborhood?...Now you are bringing up the constitution?..lol..wow

 

[Tom_in_CA]

wooaahhh diggin-n-dumps, no need to get riled up (in post #69). MikerayDJ is just putting out his take on the issue. I'm sure he didn't mean any ill-will or anything personal. It's all good food for thought that go into a discussion of pro's and con's. Let's not make the mod's jobs any harder than it already is, haha

And kayakpat: Yes. Nowhere in the constitution does it say we have rights to do things, just because a place is public. You're right. And that's why laws and rules of use were invented. Thus if you or I see no rule forbidding a given activity, then it would be implied that it's ok.

Yes I realize this doesn't cover "grey area" things. Ie.: things where ........ even though not specifically forbidden, yet someone could come along and say it falls afoul of SOMETHING ELSE related. Like to claim it's "altering" or "defacing" or "removing", etc..... If someone feels that way, they're welcome to come alert me.

 

[Diggin-N-Dumps]

wooaahhh diggin-n-dumps, no need to get riled up (in post #69). MikerayDJ is just putting out his take on the issue. I'm sure he didn't mean any ill-will or anything personal. It's all good food for thought that go into a discussion of pro's and con's. Let's not make the mod's jobs any harder than it already is, haha

And kayakpat: Yes. Nowhere in the constitution does it say we have rights to do things, just because a place is public. You're right. And that's why laws and rules of use were invented. Thus if you or I see no rule forbidding a given activity, then it would be implied that it's ok.

Yes I realize this doesn't cover "grey area" things. Ie.: things where ........ even though not specifically forbidden, yet someone could come along and say it falls afoul of SOMETHING ELSE related. Like to claim it's "altering" or "defacing" or "removing", etc..... If someone feels that way, they're welcome to come alert me.

Thats fine he has his take on it.. I just dont like the this comment:

"That is like saying that during a hurricane the authorities say looting is illegal, but you observe others looting so now it's ok."


Which I took as being called a thief.. I hunted a field that I felt woundnt be a problem..Just because my buddie (at the time) pulled a newb move and decided to call a random person in the office and get a "NO". That was 5 years ago. I didn't go there and think I was sneaking around..I went there and "Took a Chance" and hunted it. As it turned out, it WAS open to the public. My buddy just talked to someone that probally had no idea what he was talking about and just said NO because it was the best answer to come up with.

Robbing people during a hurricane comes no where near

 

[cudamark]

don't complain if you get fined or something worse. Nowhere in the constitution does it say you have a right to something that is not yours

Nor does the constitution say you have to return items you find either. I think that's kind of a silly argument. Just what kind of detecting do YOU do? Just locate targets, guess what they are, and then walk away? If you follow your own premise that "you have no right to something that is not yours", what could you possibly find and keep? Stuff you personally lost and then found in your own yard?