Permission vs no problem anyway

[danloop]

All the permission threads reminded me of the time I asked police officer if it was ok to detect in the city park. Being out of state, I figured it was better to ask. City worker overheard the conversation and offered to show me a few spots to go. Found a few coins and had a good time BS'ing.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[dirtscratcher]

All the permission threads reminded me of the time I asked police officer if it was ok to detect in the city park. Being out of state, I figured it was better to ask. City worker overheard the conversation and offered to show me a few spots to go. Found a few coins and had a good time BS'ing.

About the same here in my part if Montana everyone seems fine with anywhere that's public property. I hope to never experience the problems I read about here. Police will stop just to see what,you are finding or give advice on a hot spot. I've even had people come up and talk about Diggers and invite me to their yards.

 

[cudamark]

It's always great when you get a YES. What would you have done if you got a NO when there were no rules against detecting, and you saw others doing it? This is the gray area that is usually discussed and debated. The asking might just bring up issues that they wouldn't have given a second thought if you hadn't brought it to their attention. I would look up the rules myself first. If I just had to ask someone, I'd go to fellow detectorists that hunt that area and see what their experience is. They're bound to have run across any problems sometime in the past.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

All the permission threads reminded me of the time I asked police officer if it was ok to detect in the city park. Being out of state, I figured it was better to ask. City worker overheard the conversation and offered to show me a few spots to go.....

Danloop, with this "yes" that you received, are you using to show that therefore: "it was a good thing I asked" ? I'm guessing that's the lesson here, right ? If so, to expand on what cudamark said:

He/they could also have said "no". But sure: when someone (like in your story) gets a "yes" , then in their minds, it's easy to conclude they went about things the right way. Afterall, you can't argue with a "yes", doh!.

But think about it this way: If the answer had been "no", you might ALSO have come away thinking: "Wow, it's a good thing I asked. Otherwise I wouldn't have known it was dis-allowed [and thus could have gotten in trouble, blah blah ]". So you see then: that either answer reinforces the same conclusion. Right ?

But did you really think any person you asked (in a position of authority) was going to answer in the following way: "Gee that's a funny question. Why are you asking me? You don't need my permission if there's no prohibitions against it". No. Of course they never answer like that. They will either bestow on you their princely "yes" or "no". Because the mere fact you're standing their asking them, infers that their say-so is needed. (Lest why else would you be asking?)

Therefore when someone receives a "yes" or a "no", in my mind, lends no data to the question of whether asking was necessary, in the first place. JMHO.

 

[pgfhgs]

Danloop, with this "yes" that you received, are you using to show that therefore: "it was a good thing I asked" ? I'm guessing that's the lesson here, right ? If so, to expand on what cudamark said:

He/they could also have said "no". But sure: when someone (like in your story) gets a "yes" , then in their minds, it's easy to conclude they went about things the right way. Afterall, you can't argue with a "yes", doh!.

But think about it this way: If the answer had been "no", you might ALSO have come away thinking: "Wow, it's a good thing I asked. Otherwise I wouldn't have known it was dis-allowed [and thus could have gotten in trouble, blah blah ]". So you see then: that either answer reinforces the same conclusion. Right ?

But did you really think any person you asked (in a position of authority) was going to answer in the following way: "Gee that's a funny question. Why are you asking me? You don't need my permission if there's no prohibitions against it". No. Of course they never answer like that. They will either bestow on you their princely "yes" or "no". Because the mere fact you're standing their asking them, infers that their say-so is needed. (Lest why else would you be asking?)

Therefore when someone receives a "yes" or a "no", in my mind, lends no data to the question of whether asking was necessary, in the first place. JMHO.

This is the best analogy I have ever seen on this topic! Can I borrow it? as I am NOT Brian Williams or a plagiarist

 

[danloop]

Danloop, with this "yes" that you received, are you using to show that therefore: "it was a good thing I asked" ? I'm guessing that's the lesson here, right ? If so, to expand on what cudamark said:

He/they could also have said "no". But sure: when someone (like in your story) gets a "yes" , then in their minds, it's easy to conclude they went about things the right way. Afterall, you can't argue with a "yes", doh!.

But think about it this way: If the answer had been "no", you might ALSO have come away thinking: "Wow, it's a good thing I asked. Otherwise I wouldn't have known it was dis-allowed [and thus could have gotten in trouble, blah blah ]". So you see then: that either answer reinforces the same conclusion. Right ?

But did you really think any person you asked (in a position of authority) was going to answer in the following way: "Gee that's a funny question. Why are you asking me? You don't need my permission if there's no prohibitions against it". No. Of course they never answer like that. They will either bestow on you their princely "yes" or "no". Because the mere fact you're standing their asking them, infers that their say-so is needed. (Lest why else would you be asking?)

Therefore when someone receives a "yes" or a "no", in my mind, lends no data to the question of whether asking was necessary, in the first place. JMHO.

Fair question. The point was I had fun BS'ing, got showed some spots, found a few coins. The permission threads reminded me of it.

That's about all there is to it really.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

This is the best analogy I have ever seen on this topic! Can I borrow it? as I am NOT Brian Williams or a plagiarist

Thanx pgfhgs. Sure, you can quote me. My copyright rates are quite reasonable afterall. Royalties on each quote are $100 for initial re-print. And then $1 for each "mouse-click" that occurs from anyone clicking the the link to reach the quote in question. I accept paypal

 

[Escape]

Therefore when someone receives a "yes" or a "no", in my mind, lends no data to the question of whether asking was necessary, in the first place. JMHO.

I was down in S.C. at a small town park I was going to metal detect. The only parking space available is next to a police car with the cop sitting behind the wheel reading a book. It must have been a good book cause I had to knock on his window to get his attention. I asked if it was ok, he said yeah, other people detect the park. I'm a vistor. I dont know the rules. If a cop is there I will ask. Otherwise I don't and assume it is ok. If there were lark personal there I would just assume it was ok. If it wasn't they would let me know. There are different levels of authority. When it comes to cops, I smile and ask. Experience had taught me its the prudent thing to do in a new town. Why risk unpleasant experiance.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

It's pretty easy to decide whether to detect or not. Look for a sign. You didn't need to ask the officer sitting there. He probably would have seen you and told you if there were a restriction. You certainly risked an unpleasant experience by asking. He would have no idea as to what you are asking (as in how you were planning on doing it). He would have been better able to see that if he witnessed you hunting. You took a risk and got lucky.

Hate to burst your bubble but there doesn't have to be a sign to be illegal. Check the laws on line if you don't want to ask the police. Ignorance of the law is not a legal defense....

 

[TheSleeper]

The point the Op wanted to make was very clear, he was from out of state and did not know if there were any laws pertaining to hunting on the park.

Personally, I think he handled it quite well.

 

[dirtscratcher]

The point the Op wanted to make was very clear, he was from out of state and did not know if there were any laws pertaining to hunting on the park.

Personally, I think he handled it quite well.

I'll second that.

 

[kayakpat]

Ignorance of the law is not a legal defense.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

It doesn't seem like the OP asked about the law. He asked if it were okay. I don't know if he knows the law yet. Under that logic if he were to return later he would be detecting not knowing what the law is. If the park isn't posted I think he would not be breaking a law by detecting but would if he would continue after being told he couldn't.

You can not detect parks in Orange County Florida with out a detecting permit, it is the law, put there are no signs in the parks telling you so.

Ignorance of the law is not a legal defense.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Looking at the above policy a person could detect in those parks and use a digger but would be in violation of policy. He ,according to policy, would not be arrested or fined. He may be restricted for one year but that is not automatic even if found in violation of policy. I am not suggesting anything but rather looking at actual policy.

Did you not notice I said "with out a permit"! I know the policy I live here.. You lose the ability to detect in any park in the county for one year. As I said to begin with, it is not posted on any park signs.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Yes I noticed. It does not say it is an automatic one year ban,but could be. It looks like the authority at the park has the option on that. A person may be able to get a permit and detect there with no problem if the person in charge has no problem with it. Looks like they would have discretion on all items as it is park policy. You could lose(but not automatically) detecting privileges from parks that you may not be able to dig in anyway. Looks tempting but I'm not suggesting anything.

Geezzzz, anyone can get the permit if they apply...

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Wow this is deeep ! Seems to me that the "fuse" starter was post #8 by Escape. I noticed the same thing Kemper did: that he felt the need to ask, since it just so happened he'd pulled up to park next to an officer just lounging around. HOWEVER , Kemper, notice that he also had said that that was just for convenience sakes, since he found himself right there. And came right out and said that , otherwise ...... barring any signs or known rules, that he'd have just gone detecting.

So hardly worth splitting hairs about. I thought that was a very good compromise on the issue ! Cops, afterall, have much bigger fish to fry, so they aren't likely to care.

As for what Treasure-hunter is saying about rules not necessarily being on the wooden sign at park entrances: Sure. It's possible something can be on/in the muni code, but not necessarily on a sign at the park. If a person is skittish, they're welcome to look up muni charters, codes, buried minutia, etc.. But somewhere, somehow, ALL laws have to be pubic record, that can be looked up, somewhere. No law is "hidden" that can't be looked up.

And I'll have to add that it is VERY rare for any cities (especially smaller towns/cities) to ever have something that specific as to really say "no md'ing in the parks". Or permits, etc... Anything's possible, but seems very remote and rare. Like in the entire state of CA, I can think of only a few cities that ever dreamed up such a thing. Not saying to "throw caution to the wind", but just saying that I think we md'rs can worry ourselves to death for nothing sometimes

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

It is simple, look the laws up for yourself and avoid places that are illegal or restricted.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Nothing wrong with what OP asked either...

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Nothing wrong with what OP asked either...

Well, not to get off track on that particular exact OP example (because yes it might have factors to merit what you're saying). But just "in general": What your saying, to deduce rules by asking someone "is metal detecting ok here?", would be a valid. And time-saving, I might add ! Because in theory: Whomever you're asking afterall, is going to tell what the law says (if anything) on that issue, right ? However, in actual practice, it doesn't sometimes work out that way. Rather than tell you "here's what the law says", you can get odd-ball answers that make you ..... shall we say .... wonder.

Some persons have posted that the way around this "whimsical arbitrary" thing, is to phrase the question in this way:

"Are there any laws or rules addressing or forbidding metal detectors?". Because in THAT way, it puts the burden on them to CITE such an actual rule or law, if one existed. Right ? Rather than sounding like you're asking their permission, right ? What's your take on that TH'r ?

 

[TheSleeper]

Kemper and Tom, I get it, I know exactly how you feel and truthfully think the same way that both of you do.

BUT, and it is a big as cxxp but: (DISCLAIMER)I AM NOT POINTING A FINGER NOR INSINUATING THAT ANYONE ON THIS FORUM HAS BEEN GUILTY OF THIS, BUT IT IS A FACT; WE, meaning those who do not live by the ethical rules governing this hobby have done it to ourselves. Parks were left looking like the craters of the moon, people detected on private property "WITHOUT" permission, battlefields were detected for the relics they contained. This hobby has turned into something that I do not like, now it is not about the joy as much as it is about the financial gain, ok blame it on the financial status of the world if you desire, but it has become about greed. 20-30 years ago sites were shared, there was enough to go around so everyone could enjoy finding a buckle or a Minnie, heck silver didn't matter we all had pockets full of it and it was valued the same as regular coins.

Currently sites have become scarce, torn down for the impeding rush of modernization, so it has become "hey that's my site I'm not going to share it, why should I". Silver is more valuable then regular coins, relics have increased in value due to lands being taken away or regulated. I cannot tell you how many battle/skirmish sites I have researched that are now housing communities or parking lots, 5 in the last week should give you an idea.

The number of hunters, joining our ranks purchasing a detector for the first time has swelled our ranks, but areas where we can hunt has decreased. It is a natural evolution of any sport or hobby, the more popular it becomes the more regulations are imposed upon it, there were no rules nor regulations 30-40 years ago as there were only a handful of us hunting hexx we had basically the whole planet to hunt because NO one knew what the hexx we were doing, that is not the case any more.

Cities, states and feds are adopting more and more rules to govern us and this hobby, I do not like it any more then either of you but it is a sad fact. It royally pixxesss me off that I can no longer go upon soil that I once hunted, not by my fault as I always left an area cleaner then it was before me, my divots were always replaced and no one could tell that I had even dug. SO I am punished because of others, I have lost areas that were and still full of items of historic value, but detectors are no longer allowed because of others.

This has been beat to death, no one likes whether we must ask to hunt a park/homesite/tot lot, etc, etc, but the sad fact is, we as a hobby did it to ourselves.

You may not like what I say, but deep down inside you know it to be the truth!