Permission to Hunt

[Jeff95531]

I was still fuming about what I was told by the local NFS....everything prohibited including metal detecting. Grrr, I HATE ultimatums

Well, well, looky what I found

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_...rdb5261774.pdf

The link within the link looks promising too.

I don't know about you, but I will print this out, throw it in a gallon ziplock and stow it with my gear. In this way, if stopped by a LEO, i will present my "signed permission from the FEDERAL government" and establish I did my homework and in return obtained permission. This MIGHT be enough to make the #@%#$&'s just leave me alone.

Truthfully, I never see LEO's, but I like to be prepared. Usually a LEO follows up on a complaint, just like any cop. I can see how people would complain seeing me do it because they were told it was all off limits.

I know better now and it feels good!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

..... and started digging somewhere where we thought it was allowed and turned out that it wasn't.......

marh415, don't think that detecting (or any activity-in-question), needs to specifically "allowed". No, on the on contrary, if an activity is not "dis-allowed" (prohibited), then one assumes he can do it. For example: Nowhere will you find verbage that "allows" you to fly frisbees. Yet no one assumes for a moment that he needs to find that that's "allowed". As if they're going to find verbage that says: "Frisbee throwing allowed here". No, on the contrary: if a person sees nothing prohibiting frisbees, then one assumes he can do it.

I was told to do my own research as all states differ, which makes sense

Yes, sure. If you're wondering if there may be a rule that prohibits metal detectors, sure, "do your research". That would mean, as you did, to look-the-up for yourself. I was only noticing the part about how you thought you saw an ambiguity, so you went to the powers-that-be, for clarification. I understand the feeling of needing to do that. Afterall, who-better-to-ask, than the powers-that-be? doh! But just saying that there's been too many instances where someone did just that ...... trying to get "grey areas" clarified, and ended up getting "no's", where no one had ever had a problem detecting before. And then the sad part can become, that in the future, they start booting others. Thus, if you ask me, if something were vague and ambiguous, that's the BEST way to have it. The LAST thing you and I want, is to think that we need someone else's approval or blessing, or say-so, etc... (because as I say, all too often the easy answer is "no", to address your "pressing issue"). Not saying it happens all the time. Like apparently in your case, they just agreed with you it was "vague", and they couldn't tell you anything that wasn't already there in print. But as I say, there's been other places (cities, etc...) when trying to address this (if there were a void or unclarity), have actually made rules (or at least implementation of "policies" based on grey area wording) to clamp down on it. And perhaps in places where no one had ever had a problem before. That's why I'd always look things up myself, if I were skittish about any particular area.

Just think of the reaction people would get here if they attracted some sort of negative publicity to the hobby.

Yes, that can be a problem if someone went and broke a "no detecting rule". But this would not be the case, if those persons went and looked it up, and presto, if there were a no-detecting rule, then ....... assuming they obeyed that said-rule, then no, there's no bad publicity. And to the extent that someone could be a "big-red-bullseye" attracting attention and scrutiny of some official, sure, it could happen (some people have zero discreetness, I agree). And I suppose some negative publicity is born out of that scenario. But on the other hand, that "negative publicity" is not solved by thinking that going in ahead of time ask "can I ?" solves that. I mean, they'd simply be told "no" from the git-go. And if they did get a "yes, help yourself" and then went out to the park and made a mess, waltzing over archie's beach-blankets, then guess what happens to their "permission"? It gets promptly revoked, and the "negative publicity" is still there, despite their having gone and gotten themselves sanctioned ahead of time. Therefore, in my opinion, there's an equal or higher number of places getting rules and scrutiny via the "pressing questions that need to be addressed" psychology I speak of. That is: making ourselves an activity in-need-of-someone's princely say-so, can equally make it a matter of "negative publicity".

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[cudamark]

Yup, getting permission can sometimes be the worst thing for our hobby. Then people think they can flaunt their "permission slip" at every oppertunity and that it gives them carte blanche to dig huge holes and hunt at all times in front of anybody. Even though that may be legal and desirable, it doesn't help our "negative publicity" problem. After finding no specific prohibition against detecting, hunt discretely, use good retrieval practices, and be friendly when approached will do more for our publicity than anything.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Yup, getting permission can sometimes be the worst thing for our hobby. Then people think they can flaunt their "permission slip" at every oppertunity and that it gives them carte blanche to dig huge holes and hunt at all times in front of anybody. Even though that may be legal and desirable, it doesn't help our "negative publicity" problem. After finding no specific prohibition against detecting, hunt discretely, use good retrieval practices, and be friendly when approached will do more for our publicity than anything.

Mark, some md'rs have realized that it's entirely possible to get a "no", where there's really no rule that prohibits detecting. They realize that you and I are right, that ...... yes, sometimes "no" is the "safe" answer, since .... let's face it, our hobby has connotations. Thus those md'rs who STILL feel like they HAVE to talk to someone ("get permission" or whatever), will do the following compromise:

When they go in and ask at city halls they come to, instead of asking "can I metal detect?", they ... instead ... ask in this way: "Are there any codes or laws here pertaining to metal detectors in the park ?" By phrasing it in this way, as you can see, they think they are putting the burden of proof on the desk clerk to CITE such a rule, if one existed (which is rarely ever the case). And thus, the clerk would be forced to answer that there is nothing in city code saying or mentioning metal detecting.

Yes, that way of phrasing is certainly better than phrasing in the way of "permission" type phrasing, eh?

But think of it: If this is the case, by causing that person who is answering, to CITE any such rule (should one exist), then that infers that you and they are basing the decision on ACTUAL "rules", (not whimsical say-so's and feelings) . Thus if "actual rules" is the final arbitrator in such a discussion, then it stands-to-reason, that the person asking, can do the SAME footwork as the desk-clerk could.

To which someone might say: "But it's much easier since the parks dept. or desk clerks and city hall know the city codes, and where to find them, etc...". Yes, I agree. If a city's codes and laws are not on their city website, then that means you have to do sluething to find where it's accessible for public viewing. Some people don't like that step, and figure "I'll just ask if there's any laws". The problem then becomes, is there's been cases where md'rs get odd answers from the person they're asking. Like:

1) No, there's no rules that talk about detecting, but you can't dig (EVEN THOUGH THE QUESTIONER NEVER MENTIONED DIGGING!)

2) No, we would prefer you didn't (As if you had just asked mother may I). And if you turn that around and say "but where is that written?", guess who's going to win that debate?

3) No because we have rules about harvesting and collecting, and all park "features" belong to the city.

Or any number of other things "morphed" to fit your pressing question, that ..... quite honestly .... probably no one cared about, or would have even thought about, till you come in with your question. Thus, you're right: if someone is skittish: look it up for themselves. And then yes, even though you find nothing addressing detectors, STILL have the common sense to keep a discreet profile. I mean, don't go begging for attention at high traffic times, etc....

 

[WVPapaw]

I was still fuming about what I was told by the local NFS....everything prohibited including metal detecting. Grrr, I HATE ultimatums

Well, well, looky what I found

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_...rdb5261774.pdf

The link within the link looks promising too.

I don't know about you, but I will print this out, throw it in a gallon ziplock and stow it with my gear. In this way, if stopped by a LEO, i will present my "signed permission from the FEDERAL government" and establish I did my homework and in return obtained permission. This MIGHT be enough to make the #@%#$&'s just leave me alone.

Truthfully, I never see LEO's, but I like to be prepared. Usually a LEO follows up on a complaint, just like any cop. I can see how people would complain seeing me do it because they were told it was all off limits.

I know better now and it feels good!

That link does not work now.