Tom_in_CA
Gold Member
- Mar 23, 2007
- 13,804
- 10,336
- 🥇 Banner finds
- 2
- Detector(s) used
- Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
On a particular California-specific metal detecting forum I participate on, someone came on to ask about detecting a University's expansive grounds. Immediately (and understandably) someone else whom I'll ficticiously call "Dan" (who I love and respect very much) came on with the first reply, suggesting that since it's a private university, one should seek permission, or that they're likely to get the boot, etc....
And at first glance, most md'rs would not think twice about such an answer, right? Afterall, if it's private (heck, even if a place is PUBLIC, some people say you should ask), you should check to make sure "it's allowed", right? Who can argue with that?
But a curious psychology un-folded in the posts that followed "Dan's" reply: Several people from the area surrounding that university in that part of CA chimed in to say they've hunted there, and never had a problem. Some people even showed coins they'd found there, and so forth. Then I noticed that "Dan" therefore, came back onto the thread with the following adjustment:
"Since I see many forum members have hunted [this university] in the past, it looks like this university is fair game. "
Now this comment ALSO would pass scrutiny with most md'rs, regarding any place they wonder about going to. Right? I mean, afterall: oftentimes when someone's getting ready to move or vacation to a particular place, they will often check ahead with hobbyists in that area, to see what the skinny is. To see where people hunt. The thinking of course, is that if someone's been hunting an area for decades, well then duh, they would know "where you can detect". So "Dan's" followup statement also made perfect sense, that most folks would see as logical.
But ask yourself: what changed in the intervening posts that "Dan" read? Did he or anyone go ask "can I?". No. The only thing that changed, was the information that .... people detect there and no one has a problem. So human nature effectively interprets that as: "I guess it's ok then".
But notice that this still doesn't mean that you might not get a "no" if you went and asked. Afterall, there's no shortage of places where detecting had always just gone on, and no one had ever cared, yet when someone asked, they got a "no". Or places where if there *were* a booting, the locals just looked at that as an "isolated event", and so forth. I mean, it's entirely possible that every single one of those persons posting that they'd gone there, simply never ran into the right person.
So this makes me wonder: What has the higher authority: 1) Actual practice? Or 2) Actual rules?
When answering this question, remember that a lot of places that are supposedly off-limits (like a lot of the 50 states parks depts, and the federal's ARPA), mostly never specifically say "no metal detecting". For example ARPA never uses the word "metal detecting". However, verbage within it can indeed easily be morphed to apply to detecting. This is true of lots of state's parks, is that when they pass out the "no", their reference to back up such an answer, is not based on something that specifically says "no metal detecting". Instead they reference cultural heritage verbage, or harvesting/collecting/taking verbage, or defacement verbage, and so forth. So when I say "actual rules", let's assume for argument sakes that we have to take the "high road" and wonder or inquire whether ancillary verbage like this might not also apply to us (afterall, you "can't be too safe" right? you wouldn't want to "get arrested", right?)
Even the most skittish and law-abiding persons, would be inclined to do exactly as "Dan" has done: detect where his mentors before him have gone. Because naturally, we assume it's ok, since it's never been an issue.
Just food for thought
And at first glance, most md'rs would not think twice about such an answer, right? Afterall, if it's private (heck, even if a place is PUBLIC, some people say you should ask), you should check to make sure "it's allowed", right? Who can argue with that?
But a curious psychology un-folded in the posts that followed "Dan's" reply: Several people from the area surrounding that university in that part of CA chimed in to say they've hunted there, and never had a problem. Some people even showed coins they'd found there, and so forth. Then I noticed that "Dan" therefore, came back onto the thread with the following adjustment:
"Since I see many forum members have hunted [this university] in the past, it looks like this university is fair game. "
Now this comment ALSO would pass scrutiny with most md'rs, regarding any place they wonder about going to. Right? I mean, afterall: oftentimes when someone's getting ready to move or vacation to a particular place, they will often check ahead with hobbyists in that area, to see what the skinny is. To see where people hunt. The thinking of course, is that if someone's been hunting an area for decades, well then duh, they would know "where you can detect". So "Dan's" followup statement also made perfect sense, that most folks would see as logical.
But ask yourself: what changed in the intervening posts that "Dan" read? Did he or anyone go ask "can I?". No. The only thing that changed, was the information that .... people detect there and no one has a problem. So human nature effectively interprets that as: "I guess it's ok then".
But notice that this still doesn't mean that you might not get a "no" if you went and asked. Afterall, there's no shortage of places where detecting had always just gone on, and no one had ever cared, yet when someone asked, they got a "no". Or places where if there *were* a booting, the locals just looked at that as an "isolated event", and so forth. I mean, it's entirely possible that every single one of those persons posting that they'd gone there, simply never ran into the right person.
So this makes me wonder: What has the higher authority: 1) Actual practice? Or 2) Actual rules?
When answering this question, remember that a lot of places that are supposedly off-limits (like a lot of the 50 states parks depts, and the federal's ARPA), mostly never specifically say "no metal detecting". For example ARPA never uses the word "metal detecting". However, verbage within it can indeed easily be morphed to apply to detecting. This is true of lots of state's parks, is that when they pass out the "no", their reference to back up such an answer, is not based on something that specifically says "no metal detecting". Instead they reference cultural heritage verbage, or harvesting/collecting/taking verbage, or defacement verbage, and so forth. So when I say "actual rules", let's assume for argument sakes that we have to take the "high road" and wonder or inquire whether ancillary verbage like this might not also apply to us (afterall, you "can't be too safe" right? you wouldn't want to "get arrested", right?)
Even the most skittish and law-abiding persons, would be inclined to do exactly as "Dan" has done: detect where his mentors before him have gone. Because naturally, we assume it's ok, since it's never been an issue.
Just food for thought
). All of our State beaches and parks require a permit, and NYC has its own metal detecting permit. Most folks with an average I.Q. can figure out how to check the state and local laws themselves, but a lot of them fiqure it is easier to let someone else do their work for them (what is the best metal detector?; what is the best coil?; what is the best place to detect coins?; how do I wipe myself?). So, while I appreciate your concern for new hobbyists, I just don't share it. If you are dumb enough to rely on other people's answers about something that can land you in court or jail, you're dumb enough.
