Hi there washington guys. I couldn't help but notice a humorous side-bar note in this thread. Notice posts #42 and #43, between Animal76 and JSMITH. One guy walks into Seattle city hall (or sends an email or calls or whatever) and gets a "firm no". Hmmm. However, JSMITH has routinely hunted those parks. And not just because he "helped himself", but actually asked, and got a "yes". Hmmm.
For starters, this just shows the Russian Roullette of thinking you need to ask, where there may not be any actual rules that specifically said "no detecting". However, as you can see, when you ask, you're merely at the arbitrary whims and mood of whomever you ask. One person might be in a bad mood, while the next guy isn't. Or one may have images of geeks with shovels, while the next guy sees it as harmless. Oh sure, I suppose you could challenge them and say "...
but where is that written?", but guess who'll win that debate
They'll cite something silly about disturbing earthworms or whatever.
Me, for one, I would not risk that someone will pass out an arbitrary no, where no real rule exists. For example: JSMITH, in all the time you've hunted Seattle's parks, have you EVER had to show your "permission" to deflect any busy-bodies? If not, ..... , then in reality ....... whether you had "permission" or not, didn't really even matter (as apparently no one cares).
If I'm wrong, and your permission worked wonders to deflect busy bodies, let us know. I'm just curious. And what would you think if (hypothetically), animal76 saw your post, so he returns to city hall to object or challenge the "no". He says:
"that's not fair, because JSMITH got a yes, so you guys gotta clarify this, and give me permission too". Hmmm, so city hall looks into this pressing issue. It gets passed back and forth between multiple bureucrats for review. Guess what's possibly gonna happen next? They make it easy, and just make a uniform "no" rule across the board. Aaarrgggh. Not saying animal76 would do that, but .... you have to admit, some people *would* see that as unfair, that one person can go, while the next person has to sit at home.
Or perhaps animal76 would read of JSMITH's "permission" and think
"aha!, well in that case, I'm going to just go, and phooey with whomever told me no". Hmm, ok, does that make animal76 a law-breaker, in violataion of the md'ing code-of-ethics? Its all so silly. That's why I never ask. If there's no rule saying you can't, then presto, it's not prohibited.
