Permission Granted

archaeology22 · Oct 1, 2014

Pulled up to a 100+ year old middle school last Saturday to detect the adjacent park only to find "No Trespassing - area under surveillance" signs flanking every entrance. Very discouraging; however, I returned home and looked up the school and sent the principal an email requesting permission to hunt the area. She forwarded my request to the superintendent of schools who then submitted my request to the Mayor's office. Was just granted written permission today by the Mayor's chief of staff. Just goes to show you that instead of being discouraged and writing it off, it always helps to try to get permission. Good luck out there.

Tom_in_CA · Oct 1, 2014

was it the "adjacent park" that had the no-trespassing sign ? Or the school ? Hard to tell from your text. If it was the park, then that's pretty strange to have a "no trespassing" sign on a park ? :?:

NectarDetector · Oct 1, 2014

Tom_in_CA said:
was it the "adjacent park" that had the no-trespassing sign ? Or the school ? Hard to tell from your text. If it was the park, then that's pretty strange to have a "no trespassing" sign on a park ?

All the parks in my town have no trespassing signs at the gates. As well as "private property" Since homeowners in our town own all amenities, they are not public areas unless you own property here, or are accompanied by a property owner. Could be the same case in his area.

Some would say "Why wouldn't they be public?" Because we PAY a monthly fee and own a stake in all of our amenities.

Our parks are THE cleanest in the entire county, our lakes are clean and you don't see a bunch of riff raft hanging out in our parks!

Life is good!

archaeology22 · Oct 1, 2014

The park is part of the school, so I am guessing it is only for the use of the students.

NectarDetector · Oct 1, 2014

archaeology22 said:
The park is part of the school, so I am guessing it is only for the use of the students.

There's a park in a neighboring town, during the day it is school property only. After 5 pm, it is a public park. But it too has a no trespassing sign that states the rules I just mentioned.

Tom_in_CA · Oct 1, 2014

Nectar said:
There's a park in a neighboring town, during the day it is school property only. After 5 pm, it is a public park. But it too has a no trespassing sign that states the rules I just mentioned.

Hmm, interesting. I can think of at least 2 schools in my city, where a park directly abutts a school. And I think that they just become the defacto school yard during school hours. Yet are .... still a "park" none-the-less (perhaps after school hours?). But I have never paid attention to if there's a sign there saying "no trespassing". They certainly aren't fenced. But I can't say for sure if there is a sign. And if there IS a sign, then ..... it's certainly not stopping persons from using the park on weekends and such.

For sure though the schools all started getting those obligatory signs starting in the late 1970s (and fences, etc....). However, at least in my area, they are still someone open. I mean, there is always a gate that is permanently propped open. And persons still seem to play ball, or jog the track, or use the hoops, etc... on off-times.

ace350pro · Oct 1, 2014

Im still procrastinating about asking permission for our local parks. But there is also a law stating no detecting.

Tom_in_CA · Oct 1, 2014

ace350pro said:
Im still procrastinating about asking permission for our local parks. But there is also a law stating no detecting.

Bummer. How long has that law existed in your city's park ? And does anyone there now currently, know how or what brought about the idea to make that law ?

Kemper · Oct 1, 2014

ace350pro said:
Im still procrastinating about asking permission for our local parks. But there is also a law stating no detecting.

What does the law state? Is it a law/code/ordinance? Some ordinances are not enforced unless there is a problem. Is the park posted?

stewart73 · Oct 1, 2014

Hey Tom and Kemp, instead of ripping every positive story to shreds and examining all the little bits of it looking for something to support your cause, it's okay to just sometimes say "Hey congrats on the permission, hope you do well there!" :roll:

To the OP: Hey congrats on the permission, hope you do well there! :lol:

Kemper · Oct 1, 2014

stewart73 said:
Hey Tom and Kemp, instead of ripping every positive story to shreds and examining all the little bits of it looking for something to support your cause, it's okay to just sometimes say "Hey congrats on the permission, hope you do well there!"

To the OP: Hey congrats on the permission, hope you do well there!

What do you think our cause is Stewart, since you mentioned it. :grin:

NectarDetector · Oct 1, 2014

stewart73 said:
Hey Tom and Kemp, instead of ripping every positive story to shreds and examining all the little bits of it looking for something to support your cause, it's okay to just sometimes say "Hey congrats on the permission, hope you do well there!"

To the OP: Hey congrats on the permission, hope you do well there!

+1 for realzzzzzzzzzz

Kemper · Oct 1, 2014

I think people should look into the possibilities of legally hunting various types of property. Each piece of property can be as varied as any relic or item recovered from the ground. While some may think research and permission is the same issues over and over again I can tell you that is not the case.

Whether it be for inner city youth or the person in a rural town, there are opportunities to detect properties that may not be available if you do not discuss and research them, but only take the easy route and go ask before you have.

If a person takes the time to really look into whether or not a place may be legal to hunt they may then be able to decide how and when to hunt it.

I am interested in how someone gained permission if needed and why that permission was granted. I am also interested if that site could have been detected without asking.

If a person invests in a detector, and asks to detect public property ,and are told no, when they may have been able to detect that property without a problem had they just did it ,that is a big issue. Losing sites like this can be a huge problem for some.

If it is someone's position that you always ask and if you are told no to just go somewhere else they have a right to do that. People that want to go a different route have that right too.

CTCurt · Oct 2, 2014

stewart73 said:
Hey Tom and Kemp, instead of ripping every positive story to shreds and examining all the little bits of it looking for something to support your cause, it's okay to just sometimes say "Hey congrats on the permission, hope you do well there!"

To the OP: Hey congrats on the permission, hope you do well there!

Thank you Stewart. I was just gonna go there......

Cfmct · Oct 2, 2014

stewart73 said:
Hey Tom and Kemp, instead of ripping every positive story to shreds and examining all the little bits of it looking for something to support your cause, it's okay to just sometimes say "Hey congrats on the permission, hope you do well there!"

To the OP: Hey congrats on the permission, hope you do well there!

Couldn't have said it better... Just because a couple may be able to get away with what they do in their states doesn't mean others in other states can do the same thing without consequences and maybe they should add that to their replies not reply at all. :mad:

Tom_in_CA · Oct 2, 2014

cfmct, thanx for all your hard work as a moderator. I'm trying to be "brief", tone-it-down, etc.... over the last several months, as you can see.

Cfmct said:
.... Just because a couple may be able to get away with what they do....

Cfmct said:
..... consequences ....

Do you see the implicit statement in your wording? "Get away with ..." ? "Consequences" ? In each case it's implying that those-you-allude to are doing something wrong. Illegal, illicit, etc... Really ? Isn't that the point (whether that's the case or not), to begin with ?

And yes, reviewing *this* particular post, I don't see anyone specifically asking "the question" . It was/is just someone lamenting a true sign, or a true rule, etc..., not *that* issue". Thus yes, Stewart is right that no one needed to go on digging deeper into possible ORIGINS of such rules, blah blah.

Kemper · Oct 2, 2014

archaeology22 said:
Pulled up to a 100+ year old middle school last Saturday to detect the adjacent park only to find "No Trespassing - area under surveillance" signs flanking every entrance. Very discouraging; however, I returned home and looked up the school and sent the principal an email requesting permission to hunt the area. She forwarded my request to the superintendent of schools who then submitted my request to the Mayor's office. Was just granted written permission today by the Mayor's chief of staff. Just goes to show you that instead of being discouraged and writing it off, it always helps to try to get permission. Good luck out there.

Just because that worked in your state and city that may not be the case everywhere.

Tom_in_CA · Oct 2, 2014

Kemper said:
Just because that worked in your state and city that may not be the case everywhere.

now now Kemper, look closely back at the facts leading up to this: In this case (if I understand correctly?) there *was* a true sign ("no trespassing", blah blah). Thus ....... c'mon now buddy, let's be honest here. Whether or not it's "obligatory" or "enforced", etc... is besides the point. You can't fault anyone for toe-ing the line. So ....... c'mon now buddy.

Kemper · Oct 2, 2014

Tom_in_CA said:
now now Kemper, look closely back at the facts leading up to this: In this case (if I understand correctly?) there *was* a true sign ("no trespassing", blah blah). Thus ....... c'mon now buddy, let's be honest here. Whether or not it's "obligatory" or "enforced", etc... is besides the point. You can't fault anyone for toe-ing the line. So ....... c'mon now buddy.

Yeah in this case the No Trespassing sign did not mean you could not metal detect. The Op refers that is always the case. I guess you and I are perhaps a little too cautious.

Tom_in_CA · Oct 2, 2014

Kemper said:
Yeah in this case the No Trespassing sign did not mean you could not metal detect........

Huh ? Well if you can't be there physically from the git-go, then ... how does someone metal detect ? haha

Permission Granted

archaeology22

Full Member

Tom_in_CA

Elite Member

NectarDetector

archaeology22

Full Member

NectarDetector

Tom_in_CA

Elite Member

ace350pro

Full Member

Tom_in_CA

Elite Member

Kemper

Banned

stewart73

Kemper

Banned

NectarDetector

Kemper

Banned

CTCurt

Cfmct

Administrator

Tom_in_CA

Elite Member

Kemper

Banned

Tom_in_CA

Elite Member

Kemper

Banned

Tom_in_CA

Elite Member

Similar threads