Tom_in_CA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 20,757
uh, can you be a little more specific than that ? What happened ? Where ?
Run In With The Law
- Thread starter Coindigger1960
- Start date
uh, can you be a little more specific than that ? What happened ? Where ?
CarsonChris
Elite Member
Closed beach up at Tahoe yesterday. They went down a road that said authorized vehicles only. They all got $50 tickets and photos with the sheriff.
Tom_in_CA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 20,757
If $50 was all I risked, in order to hunt a beach filled with goodies, then, hhhmmm
I can think of some past beaches where that might actually be worth it. Doh*********************************************************
So, if they had walked in, there would be no problem?
Roger
CarsonChris
Elite Member
Not sure. I’ve walked into the closed beaches without problems. Most likely it was the vehicles that caught their attention as I’m sure a dog walker wouldn’t get a ticket.
CarsonChris
Elite Member
There were multiple people in the group. She wrote 4 tickets then got talked out of writing more. Everyone agreed to split the cost of the 4 tickets she wrote. Maybe $30 a person when all is done.
CarsonChris
Elite Member
Yes. Photos available on Reno Prospecting and Detecting Club FB page. People getting cited didn’t take it seriously and either did the officer. Lots of posing
It would have been better if she gave them the boot without tickets though!
Tom_in_CA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 20,757
.... People getting cited didn’t take it seriously and either did the officer. Lots of posing
For $50, that's what I'd be thinking.
Example, I knew a guy who got a $150-ish ticket (for being at a place he knew he shouldn't be, btw), and .... while it wasn't "fun" at the time getting the "3rd degree", yet : Once he got the ticket in the mail, he just paid it. And as he paid the piddly $150, he thought to himself: "If this was all I ever had to pay, for all the places and antics I've done, ..... It's worth it".
Maybe not un-like the occasional obligatory speeding ticket we've all gotten a few times in our lives. People are always going to push the limit and speed, despite the every-7 or 8 yrs. speeding ticket their bound to get.
FliesOnly
Senior Member
I find it somewhat odd that you claim that the reason we are losing spots to detect is because some of us actually ask permission, and yet you ignore things like this...where you are saying to go ahead and detect when you know it involves trespassing. Yep, it's those of us following the law and behaving in an ethical manner that are causing all the troubles...we're such hooligans!For $50, that's what I'd be thinking.
Example, I knew a guy who got a $150-ish ticket (for being at a place he knew he shouldn't be, btw), and .... while it wasn't "fun" at the time getting the "3rd degree", yet : Once he got the ticket in the mail, he just paid it. And as he paid the piddly $150, he thought to himself: "If this was all I ever had to pay, for all the places and antics I've done, ..... It's worth it".
Maybe not un-like the occasional obligatory speeding ticket we've all gotten a few times in our lives. People are always going to push the limit and speed, despite the every-7 or 8 yrs. speeding ticket their bound to get.
Tom_in_CA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 20,757
Flies-only, in the discussion of how off-limits-spots evolved to become-that-way : Don't you see the inherent contradiction in what you just wrote ?
If/when it's true that a spot is off-limits (a historically themed park/preserve, in my friend's case), then .... it's ALREADY "off-limits" already. His being ballsy and hunting it, did not make it "off-limits". Nor did it make it any more "off-limits". See ?
And if it were-the-case that .... at one time (way-back-when) that it WASN'T "off-limits", then hunting it back then wouldn't be illegal nor off-limits. Right ? Nor would it create a situation of making it "off-limits", since the md'r wouldn't (in that case) be doing anything wrong.
So your point doesn't logically follow through.
But , IMHO, my point of people asking-permission-where it's not needed, does indeed end up "swatting hornet's nests" .
BTW: My friend wasn't "trespassing".
GLASSHOPPER1955
Elite Member
I also had this happen while detecting on a dismal New Year's Day 2015 in a park in a small town south of me. The local cop drove up and I thought "Oh cripes, what now?". He just asked how it was going and said he wanted to get into MDing and was considering getting an AT Pro, so I knew then at least he wasn't BSing. I haven't seen him since.
Last edited:
Mud-puppy
Forum Supporter
Ohhh..I misread this!....I thought you meant "your friends from the local detecting club got all EXCITED today!"....American vernacular and regional dialex....
like, "We all snuck into a off limits place, loaded with signals, had it all to ourselves, and got all cited!..
You can see how I misunderstood...I've been a 'cited' a time or two in such situations...never met no lady cop though, which might also be a citing..met a lady game warden once while fishing....I told you that story though...she was 'checking out my can' remember? Even though the whole meeting was a citing, I never got a citing!... She carefully measured my little limp creek chub, and gave me a stern tongue lashing regarding length, girth and knowing my limits!...
I'd really like to get checked out by a lady cop someday!...Like that one on 'Live PD'? You know that one? Her name is officer 'Heather DenHale?' but everybody calls her 'Hotter'?...She could haul me in on charges anytime! I wouldnt even resist! I'd enjoy being Cuft' N Stuft' like HR Puffenstuff, I caint get a little if I caint get enough...!
Last edited:
FliesOnly
Senior Member
There’s no contradiction in my statement. I mean, only in a World where you believe that the only reason that people are denied access to an area is because someone, at some point in the past, had the unmitigated gall to ask permission to detect there, would anyone see a contradiction in what I wrote. But even then, there’s no contradiction. I simply pointed out that it’s odd to say the reason we lose areas in which to detect, is because someone asked permission. Yet you ignore blatant trespassing and think it’s actually OK…and somehow think that doing so apparently carries no negative connotations towards to our hobby.Flies-only, in the discussion of how off-limits-spots evolved to become-that-way : Don't you see the inherent contradiction in what you just wrote ?
That’s true. But since it was off limits, what it does show is that apparently some detectorists seem to think it’s perfectly OK to hunt in areas that are…as you stated…off limits. It shows a disrespect for other peoples’ property, a disrespect for other peoples’ wishes, and a disrespect towards the law (in cases of trespassing). All of which, I would wager, are more detrimental to our hobby than is asking permission.
Ummmmm, I’m not sure where you’re going with this. If it is not off limits and if metal detecting is allowed, then there’s no issue.
How so? Wait a second. Are you seriously going to claim that simply asking permission leads to a loss of access more often than does blatant trespassing and/or other law breaking activities? Again, you making the HUGE assumption that every time an area is off limits, it is so simply because someone asked permission. You seem to think that that is the only reason.
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe permission is denied and/or areas are listed as off limits because the powers that be have seen or heard the stories about detectorists simply ignoring the law? They deny permission because they don’t like detectorists.
Now, I know you’re going to say something along the lines of :
“But if the person wouldn’t have asked, then permission wouldn’t have been denied”. Again, you’re always assuming that prior to asking permission, that detecting was allowed, or maybe wasn’t expressly forbidden. So it was the asking of permission that sparked the denial. I would wager that even in cases like that, that the people in charge of the area in question probably already did not want to allow detecting. So in that sense, perhaps you are correct in stating the asking permission led to loss of access at that exact moment in time, but all it really did was hasten the ultimate outcome.
So the question you should be asking is: “Why did asking permission lead to loss of access?”
In some cases maybe so. But again, the underlying question is “Why do they deny permission?” You’re blanket explanation is always about the perception of doing damage and digging holes. You say it every time this issue arises. But you ignore the distinct, and very real possibility that permission is ultimately denied because of the bad reputation detectorists [may] have due to their lack of respect for other peoples’ property.
Good for him. My post isn’t about your friend, however. It’s about detecting, in general, in places where it is off limits
Tom_in_CA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 20,757
Good discussion. And I can see that you are being intellectually honest, to see from all-angles. I hope I do the same.
In short, let's use this analogy : Shoplifting is illegal. Right ? So to use that as an analogy for md'ing off-limits spots (which is also illegal), then :
When a person shoplifts (ie.: breaks the law), is it their acts of shoplifting that LED TO THOSE LAWS ? No. It didn't serve to create the laws, nor make anyone else, going forward, think: "Gee, let's make more laws for shoplifters".
See how the act of breaking laws, doesn't lead to laws. I can not envision some places, where detecting is acceptable (ie.: not off-limits), where someone there sees a headline of scofflaw md'rs at some un-connected distant place. And thinks to himself : "Gee, I think we should therefore make a law to forbid md'ing here as well".
On the other hand, I can (and have) given you scores of true-accounts of how the evolution of .... yes dreamed-up-laws, WAS IN FACT trace-able to md'rs swatting hornet's nests and putting a "pressing question" on the plate of pencil pushers, who end up passing out a "safe answer". (Presto, a law is born).
Keep in mind, that this quote is loaded with inferences/implications :
1) It implies that our activity is something that "needs permission" (assuming we're talking about places with no rules/laws that forbid). If the inference that "md'ing needs permission" is a true premise, then yes, everything you're saying does indeed logically follow. But why do we start with that premise ? What made md'ing so evil that it "needs permission", in the first place ?
2) to say "unmitigated gal", implies that anyone NOT "asking permission", is a low down dirty-rotten selfish scoundrel. Why that starting implication ? Again, this description of an md'r is only true, when we start with the assumption that md'ing is horrible. Thus needing other's say-so . Why that starting premise ?
This quote is a case of : Assuming what one-is-trying-to-prove, as evidence of his proof for it.
Livinlocal619
Junior Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2019
- Messages
- 67
FliesOnly
Senior Member
You do seem a bit myopic about this particular issue, but I do feel you’re being honest in your opinion. I hope you had a great Thanksgiving.
Yeah…cuz it was already against the law to shoplift. Society, through their elected officials, gets to decide what they want to be deemed as “Illegal activities”. So society decided at some point to make shoplifting illegal, otherwise it would be legal…correct?
You know this makes no sense whatsoever, right? I mean, if there was no law, then the activity in question wouldn't be breaking a law. You cannot break a law that does not exist.
Seriously? I don’t think that you are really thinking this through.
First off…that’s not how a new law is born. Have you never seen “School House Rock”? They do a wonderful job of explaining it.
Regardless, let’s look at this response, because it once again fails to address the larger question of why “they” ultimately decided to deny access. The “swatting of the hornets’ nest” (as you love to call it) may have set the wheels in motion, but it doesn’t explain the ultimate outcome (denial of access). It is my contention that the more likely explanation of why a new law gets passed which denies access to areas where detecting was once allowed, is the easily demonstrable fact that more than just a few detectorists freely admit to behaving in a manner counterproductive to the code of ethics (listed on this very forum, I might add) that we are supposed to adhere to. It’s NOT the misconception that we “dig holes and do damage” that lead our legislators to vote for a new law, but rather it’s the stories they read on forums like this one, or see mentioned on Local or National News broadcasts, that push them to decide against us. After all, it only takes a handful of bad apples making the Evening or National News to solidify negative opinions about large groups of people. We that demonstrated every day.
Sometimes it does. It never hurts to ask.
Because you’re going onto property that doesn’t belong to you. Do you always need permission? No, of course not. But sometimes you do. There are many activities that require permission, why do you feel that detecting should always be immune?
Sometimes they are. It depends on the location and/or if the detectorists follow the rules (which, as we can plainly see from just this forum alone, many feel they do not have to do).
I’m not the one starting with that premise…as I have explained to you countless times, in many many many other threads.
Dude, do you seriously not see the irony in this statement?
Tom_in_CA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 20,757
Happy Thanksgiving to you too flies-only !
Uhhh, correct. But in the case-at-hand, you're lamenting the breaking-of-laws that DO exist. Right ?
Uh, When anyone reads the "police-blotters", and sees of someone committing a crime, they don't conclude "let's make a law". Right ? Because the fact is: The person(s) they are reading about in the police blotter, are ALREADY "breaking a law ". Right ?
Not talking about the bureaucratic process of getting the pen-to-the-paper. I'm talking about the "kernel of thought" that brought-it-about as an issue, that needed-addressing IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Actually .... if you study the rationales of "reasons" for md'ing laws, it will never be : "Because some yahoos were snooping around off-limits spots". (those persons were already breaking existing laws). Instead, any city or county or state or fed. that ever dreamed up "no md'ing" laws/rules, will always list, as the go-to reasons : 1) Cultural heritage (durned those archies) and 2) holes/digging (durned those guys that didn't cover their holes).
If you have any citations where the go-to-reasons has ever been : "Because someone(s) violated an already existing no md'ing rule", please link me.
Huh ? You yourself admitted that it can "set the wheels in motion". Right ?? So ... how do you then figure that it "never hurts to ask" ? Sounds like you just contradicted yourself.
Ok, let's keep the topic on public places. And it sounds like the topic/subject switches to public places where not-disallowed , & where trespassing is not-the-issue. Ok ? As for "... sometimes you do...",
Then: I am of the opinion that this is only true for activities which are disallowed (which we can each agree on). And/or dangerous/harmful/evil activities. Which .... of course .... need permission. I am not of the opinion that md'ing is dangerous, harmful, or evil. Is that to say that every-last person on earth (eg.: every purist archie) agrees with that ? NO ! But is it my/your duty to "please every last person on earth" ?
Really ? You consider md'ing harmless, benign, and innocuous ? GREAT !
Then you'd be the first to agree that it doesn't need permission where not expressly forbidden ! We're getting somewhere 
haha, yes, I do. You're right : I am starting with the premise (ie.: assuming my own point-of-view), that md'ing is harmless, benign, and innocuous
Uhhh, correct. But in the case-at-hand, you're lamenting the breaking-of-laws that DO exist. Right ?
Uh, When anyone reads the "police-blotters", and sees of someone committing a crime, they don't conclude "let's make a law". Right ? Because the fact is: The person(s) they are reading about in the police blotter, are ALREADY "breaking a law ". Right ?
Not talking about the bureaucratic process of getting the pen-to-the-paper. I'm talking about the "kernel of thought" that brought-it-about as an issue, that needed-addressing IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Actually .... if you study the rationales of "reasons" for md'ing laws, it will never be : "Because some yahoos were snooping around off-limits spots". (those persons were already breaking existing laws). Instead, any city or county or state or fed. that ever dreamed up "no md'ing" laws/rules, will always list, as the go-to reasons : 1) Cultural heritage (durned those archies) and 2) holes/digging (durned those guys that didn't cover their holes).
If you have any citations where the go-to-reasons has ever been : "Because someone(s) violated an already existing no md'ing rule", please link me.
Huh ? You yourself admitted that it can "set the wheels in motion". Right ?? So ... how do you then figure that it "never hurts to ask" ? Sounds like you just contradicted yourself.
Ok, let's keep the topic on public places. And it sounds like the topic/subject switches to public places where not-disallowed , & where trespassing is not-the-issue. Ok ? As for "... sometimes you do...",
Then: I am of the opinion that this is only true for activities which are disallowed (which we can each agree on). And/or dangerous/harmful/evil activities. Which .... of course .... need permission. I am not of the opinion that md'ing is dangerous, harmful, or evil. Is that to say that every-last person on earth (eg.: every purist archie) agrees with that ? NO ! But is it my/your duty to "please every last person on earth" ?
Really ? You consider md'ing harmless, benign, and innocuous ? GREAT !
Then you'd be the first to agree that it doesn't need permission where not expressly forbidden ! We're getting somewhere haha, yes, I do. You're right : I am starting with the premise (ie.: assuming my own point-of-view), that md'ing is harmless, benign, and innocuous
FliesOnly
Senior Member
Yes…which is why I was wondering/questioning why you were talking about breaking non-existent laws.Uhhh, correct. But in the case-at-hand, you're lamenting the breaking-of-laws that DO exist. Right ?
Yes…which is why I was wondering/questioning why you were talking about breaking non-existent laws.
OK…but in doing so you’re essentially putting all the blame on that last piece of straw that broke to camels’ back, all while ignoring the other pieces of straw that came prior.
I never said is was [solely] about trespassing. What I said is that md’rs may have a bad reputation amongst the “powers that be” because of some of the stories that appear in the newspapers, or on the TV news, or right here in forums like this one.
There’s a difference between the meanings of the words “Reason” and “Excuse”. I really do not believe that a local park will deny permission for either of those two excuses. After all, they’d know if there was the possibility of some new “historical site” being uncovered, so I doubt that they’d truly use that as justification. As for the second excuse (hole digging), well…I think that one is the one we need to address. So I will once again ask the only question that you seem to ignore, which is “Why?” Where do they come up with that excuse? There must be a reason that they feel that way, yes? I mean, they don’t just come up with it out of thin air. My hypothesis is exactly what I have said over and over. They “hear” things” from others. They read forums like this one. They see a story on the news. They read an article in a newspaper. People have a tendency to forget the good things they may read about a “group” of people, but always remember the negative things that they have seen/read/heard.
I’m not claiming that that is why permission gets denied. Have I not been clear? I’m pretty sure I’ve addressed why I would wager permission gets denied. It comes down to our reputation and how the “Powers that be” perceive metal detectors.
Ha...I added that mostly just to see how you’d respond…and it was as I envisioned. But here’s the thing…I really do not feel that asking permission is ever a bad idea. If doing so truly results in permission being denied, then I’m sure the person asking was, indeed, that last straw. In other words, “they” were just waiting and looking for any excuse to ultimately deny access.Huh ? You yourself admitted that it can "set the wheels in motion". Right ?? So ... how do you then figure that it "never hurts to ask" ? Sounds like you just contradicted yourself.
But it’s NOT your opinion that matters. You’re not the one who gets to decide where we are allowed and where we are not allowed to detect.
Correct. You have to pick and choose who’s rear end you’re gonna kiss, right?But is it my/your duty to "please every last person on earth" ?
I consider metal detecting to be exactly what it is. Many…probably most…of us practice it in an ethical, friendly, safe, harmless, innocuous manner. We’re not the ones that most people remember or care about, though. It’s the bad apples that get us kicked out of places or denied access in areas…NOT the poor guy who just happened to ask for permission.Really ? You consider md'ing harmless, benign, and innocuous ? GREAT !
Not quite…I’m referring to the irony of you saying that what I was doing was…“Assuming what one-is-trying-to-prove, as evidence of his proof for it”...when that is exactly what you are doing. In the many many threads where you and I have “discussed” the notion of asking permission, you have…every single time…claimed that asking permission results in denied access. I’ve never seen any documented proof of this, but you make the claim every time. I mean, heck, I have asked permission three times now (to hunt in local parks) and have been granted access each time. I have even been given written permission to keep the items I find. I received that permission to counter your claim that "Every Park" has rules or guidelines against keeping found items, and that they use that "wording" to deny access.haha, yes, I do. You're right : I am starting with the premise (ie.: assuming my own point-of-view), that md'ing is harmless, benign, and innocuous
That's why I have suggested a couple times that maybe it's "you". Maybe you approach asking permission with the attitude that this is "Murica, dang it...I can do whatever I dang well want!!" Maybe you need to learn who's rear end to kiss.
Tom_in_CA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 20,757
Uhhh, because you had made the assertion , earlier in #30, that when hooligans md where they shouldn't, that it results in "loosing spots to detect" (ie.: that is the kernel that evolves into anti-md'ing laws). Did I mis-understand your point of #30 ?
depends on what "pieces of straws" you are referring to . I have no doubt that the connotations of "holes" and "cultural heritage" will come-to-mind, when the "pressing question" gets on their desks. But that is unavoidable element of our hobby. Because no matter how you slice it, we "dig" and we "take old things". Hence, the less they think of us, the better.
But, in the present discussion (yahoos breaking existing laws), I don't think that is pieces of the straw (leading to their decision). Because if you ever study the rationales behind any such laws that ever got invented, it will ALWAYS allude to cultural heritage, and /or dig/holes/alter/deface. Right ? It will never allude to yahoos snooping around areas that were already off-limits, as the rationale. Right ?
Ok, good, we're in agreement.
Well, personally .... I think that we md'rs have these headlines "jump out at us". Because, of course, this is our hobby. So we groan and moan with disgust. And assume that .... likewise .... other casual readers are doing the same. When in fact the average John Q. Public probably doesn't even register such things. Why ? Because it's not their hobby and they're not into it. No more so than you would be reading the police blotter for any other crime that persons committed, and think "Let's make more laws". JMHO
Really ? How do you figure ? Anytime a rule gets written , or a "no" gets passed out, and you ask them "why ?", they will invariably say: "Because you dig" and "because of cultural heritage" (or harvest and remove type-language). So how do you figure those aren't the reasons ?
I grant you that the BIGGER issue is: "What put it on their plate , as something that needed deciding, in the first place ?". Yet .... once it's there on their plate, then the go-to reasons are those two reasons, all the time.
HHmmm, well .... even if an md'r never left any holes (ie.: he covers/stomps/fluffs his spots), yet : Any casual passerby, seeing the man on his knees digging, will immediately have the connotation/image of "holes". EVEN THOUGH THE MD'R NEVER LEAVES HOLES. So in that sense, yes, the decision maker came up with this image "out of thin air". It's just the knee-jerk connotation, even in the absense of actual holes .
And with archies, let's be honest : Their immediate knee-jerk image is that we md'rs are finding old cool stuff. Heck, guilty as charged, eh ? Hence why put that on their plate (something passed up the chain for their comment on), in the first place ? The less they think of us, the better, right ?
And they are statistically very rare. Ie.: In a city of 200,000 population, I bet there's only a single archie, that would ever-be-in-a-position of making or commenting on proposed rules or laws. Hence : If that archie never has that on his plate to comment on, then .... all the better, right ?
HHmm, I disagree. It's entirely possible , and more-likely ... that md'ing was something that simply never occurred to them. Ie.: They've never given it any thought or concern. Thus ... no .... they're not "just waiting for an excuse". Instead, I envision that the only reason they are now "denying access", is NOT because of "bad press" and "built-up-angst". Instead, it can be a new topic for their consideration, and they merely go to the knee-jerk image , which is holes and taking things. And thus pass out a "no" to the "pressing question" that was put on-their-plate.
I agree. I really do. And you and I both know that we can't please every last person on earth, right ? There will always be someone who "doesn't like" md'ing. Because they think it involves holes, or takes/removes things, or bothers earthworms. Right ? And the fastest way to get people to think of such horrors, is to go grovelling at their desks. Why do that ? If the truth is, that you'd simply have been ignored or unseen, why isn't that the better option ?
I have posted many many stories, and have gone-on-record on many threads, pointing out the direct evolution lineage. Places where .... no one ever had a problem before. Until some well-meaning md'r went asking "can I ?". If you doubt me, I will post a bunch of accounts of this exact lineage. OK ?
And let me guess: The times that md'rs , like yourself, get a "yes", bolsters the assertion that : "Therefore it was good-&-proper for me to have asked". Right ? Ie.: the mere fact of a "yes", implies that their say-so was necessary & beneficial . Right ? Otherwise they would have answered in the following fashion : "Gee, that's a funny question. Why are you asking me ? You don't need my permission for something that's not expressly disallowed" .
But don't you see that authority never answers in that fashion ? Instead, they bestow on you their princely yes or no. So whether the answer is "no", or "yes" , either one confirms your suspicions that "asking was good and essential". I do not see it that way. In the same way that if I asked "Can I skip stones on the pond", and they say "yes", that didn't mean I needed their say-so to do that activity. See ?
As for the taking things (ie.: harvest, remove, take, etc...) rules : I'll bet that I can go to those exact same parks, talk to the exact same people, and ..... can word the request in such a way as to get them to say "no". There has been ample stories of people getting a "yes", and then .... later .... someone goes into that exact same office, and gets a "no". Total Russian Roulette.
Similar threads
