Devil’s Den Preserve Weston, CT

[Tom_in_CA]

The rules/regulations stated no removal of artifacts. ....

Sure. And that could MOST ASSUREDLY apply to us, *if* we found old coins (modern coins and rings are not "artifacts" by definition). But yes, it MOST CERTAINLY can apply. Because, gasp, we could find something old. I agree that it could apply. As grounds for a "scram". Does that surprise you ?

But then guess what ? So too is there scores of things that "could apply" at EVERY SINGLE PLACE we all detect across the USA. There's not a single park or beach, in the entire country, that I couldn't find some grey boiler plate minutia that could apply (if you stood on one foot and squinted real hard). Things like: Alter and deface. Harvest and Remove. Lost & found laws. Harming earthworms & sandcrabs. Annoyances (someone may find it "annoying"), etc.... The lists is endless.

So if that means it is therefore our duty to get permission at all these places, then: That would mean we need permission for every speck of public land we come to. Oh wait .... that is your position. Doh!

 

[tinsmith]

While visiting our kids in central Fl. I went to a town/county park in Volusia County. I was all excited since I knew this park had or was near a 19th century Ferry stop on the St John's River. I just got started when the white truck pulled up and a big Volusia ci parks department employee approaches, All he did was nicely say "Unfortunately detecting isn't allowed in Volusia co parks." That's all. O Ok and I packed it right up. All I said was sorry, Thought it was Ok to detect . Have a nice day. Usually thats all that transpires.
I live here in Ct and not far from a State park. I started detecting there. Found a great 1964 Kennedy half. I think about every person that started tectin in this western/North western side of the state has trotted his new "Bounty Hunter" across the big open field right at the entryway of the park. I've been there usually in and out of the paths and all along the creeks and have seen rangers but never had trouble from anyone. Sometimes its just that particular park? I've found State or town employees don't care at all wether im there or not, State parks, town parks, If it looks like an old man picking change up with his detector most don't care.

 

[FliesOnly]

Sure. And that could MOST ASSUREDLY apply to us, *if* we found old coins (modern coins and rings are not "artifacts" by definition). But yes, it MOST CERTAINLY can apply. Because, gasp, we could find something old. I agree that it could apply. As grounds for a "scram". Does that surprise you ?

You're just not getting it, are you? In this case, the OP felt that the posted rules were ambiguous...at best...and he wanted clarification. You and others stated that since the rules did not expressly forbid detecting, that he should just go ahead and detect. Well, that was not good advice. In other words, in this case you were wrong. You pretty much told him to go ahead and break the rules. And yet you still somehow act surprised when I say the metal detecting may not have the best of reputations. Do you not see the irony?

But then guess what ? So too is there scores of things that "could apply" at EVERY SINGLE PLACE we all detect across the USA. There's not a single park or beach, in the entire country, that I couldn't find some grey boiler plate minutia that could apply (if you stood on one foot and squinted real hard). Things like: Alter and deface. Harvest and Remove. Lost & found laws. Harming earthworms & sandcrabs. Annoyances (someone may find it "annoying"), etc.... The lists is endless.

Then maybe clarification would be warranted?

So if that means it is therefore our duty to get permission at all these places, then: That would mean we need permission for every speck of public land we come to. Oh wait .... that is your position. Doh!

My position is clear. If the rules/regulations perhaps need clarification, then clarifying them is a good idea.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... In this case, the OP felt that the posted rules were ambiguous......

And to you, ALL rules are "ambiguous". Unless they give an express allowance for us . Eg.: silence on the subject (ie.: not expressly disallowed or expressly allowed) means "ambiguous. And grey area stuff that *could* apply, means: It's ambiguous. Thus meaning persons should go ask "Can I ?"

And this would therefore be: Every speck of public land. Unless .... of course, it had something in their rules saying "MD'ing allowed here". Without that express allowance, it is therefore ambiguous. And needs someone, in an office somewhere, to tell you and I : "Yes, I grant you that allowance". Only THEN is it un-ambiguous. Right ?

If I've understood this progression of logic correctly, then : Can you see how it then becomes a self-fulfilling vicious loop ? At places that were never an issue or a problem before. Until someone(s) took it upon themselves to go in looking for express allowances, clarifications, permissions, blah blah . Then the "pressing issue" gets passed up the chain, till presto, a law or policy risks being born.

I say "risks", because I'm sure you can cite instances where you got a "yes". (ie.: no rule-was-born). And as I've said before : This merely means you: A) didn't need to have asked then, and B) Got lucky @ Russian Roulette, and I could get an entirely different answer at that same office tomorrow.

 

[TB8788]

While visiting our kids in central Fl. I went to a town/county park in Volusia County. I was all excited since I knew this park had or was near a 19th century Ferry stop on the St John's River. I just got started when the white truck pulled up and a big Volusia ci parks department employee approaches, All he did was nicely say "Unfortunately detecting isn't allowed in Volusia co parks." That's all. O Ok and I packed it right up. All I said was sorry, Thought it was Ok to detect . Have a nice day. Usually thats all that transpires.
I live here in Ct and not far from a State park. I started detecting there. Found a great 1964 Kennedy half. I think about every person that started tectin in this western/North western side of the state has trotted his new "Bounty Hunter" across the big open field right at the entryway of the park. I've been there usually in and out of the paths and all along the creeks and have seen rangers but never had trouble from anyone. Sometimes its just that particular park? I've found State or town employees don't care at all wether im there or not, State parks, town parks, If it looks like an old man picking change up with his detector most don't care.

Which state park? There’s a couple I’d love to try

 

[diggin4clad]

There will never be a list of things you "can" do, whether it's metal detecting, throwing a frisbee, playing catch, or breathing.....only lists of what you "can't" do. Lists can be interpreted differently based on how they are worded such as the sign on my avatar which is a real sign at Owen Bell Park in Killingly, Conn. The sign clearly says "Metal Detectors Prohibited In Park". Plain and simple....cut and dry. But....does that mean if I come to the park for a picnic or stroll on the grounds but happen to have the detector in my car I'm violating the rules? On the other hand the sign makes no mention of shovels, rakes, or pitchforks. Therefore maybe I can start digging with a shovel or pitchfork and then sift through the "plug" with a rake with the hope of finding a coin or piece of jewelry. I won't be detecting in this particular park because the rule is clear but if a site has no DEFINITE rule that prohibits detecting I'll be there digging targets.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... All he did was nicely say "Unfortunately detecting isn't allowed in Volusia co parks." That's all......

And apparently this is true. Ie.: A specific rule. Not just an opinion relying on grey-verbiage :

https://www.volusia.org/services/co...park-facilities-and-locations/park-rules.stml

And I have a sneaking suspicion of how-that-came-to-be.

.... All I said was sorry, Thought it was Ok to detect . Have a nice day. Usually thats all that transpires....

What ? No "tickets" ? No "jail" ? No "confiscations" ? No lawyers and bail ? SAY IT ISN'T SO ! That is what we are told is imminent and certain, after all.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

There will never be a list of things you "can" do, ....

Thus, to some people, that would mean it's "ambiguous". And thus you should go in asking permission/clarification to do those things. Silence on-the-subject (ie.: not specifically disallowed) isn't good enough. There has to be an express/explicit "yes". Otherwise, we assume we can't do those things, till-told-otherwise.

... throwing a frisbee,....

This could poke someone's eye out. And it might run afoul of some catch-all verbiage about "throwing projectiles" or "causing danger". Hence : It is your duty to go ask "Can I fly frisbees ?" Eh ?

 

[FliesOnly]

And to you, ALL rules are "ambiguous". Unless they give an express allowance for us . Eg.: silence on the subject (ie.: not expressly disallowed or expressly allowed) means "ambiguous.

This is, of course, completely untrue.

Look, why can't you just admit you were wrong here? You told the OP to just go ahead and detect, even though the rules relating to detecting were ambiguous, and stated that the removal of artifacts was forbidden. This was not a park. This was not public property. This was TNC lands. This was a nature preserve. OP did what any ethical detectorist should always do...seek clarification before going onto the property in question to detect. And this is especially true if the property is private. In other words, the type property in questions needs to be taken into account when trying to determine what is and what is not allowed on the property. Public property is NOT treated the same as private.

And grey area stuff that *could* apply, means: It's ambiguous. Thus meaning persons should go ask "Can I ?"

Yes...having "grey areas" in the regulations implies, by definition, that they are ambiguous.

And this would therefore be: Every speck of public land. Unless .... of course, it had something in their rules saying "MD'ing allowed here". Without that express allowance, it is therefore ambiguous.

Not at all. Even you don't believe this, so why are you continually harping on it?

And needs someone, in an office somewhere, to tell you and I : "Yes, I grant you that allowance". Only THEN is it un-ambiguous. Right ?

Nope.


Happy New Year, btw.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....Happy New Year, btw... .

Happy new Year to you too. Which I mean sincerely.

....Look, why can't you just admit you were wrong here? You told the OP to just go ahead and detect, even though the rules relating to detecting were ambiguous, and stated that the removal of artifacts was forbidden. ....

Did you miss post #41 here ? In that post, you will see that I clearly admitted that: Yes, "artifacts " could indeed apply (if the objects you find are over 50 yrs. blah blah). Ok, so there's the "admitting". Ok ?

Then see this humorous un-folding of your stance : I suggested that you consider all rules to be "ambiguous". Since something can be found in all-park-rules, everywhere, that .... if given enough thought, could be construed to apply. To which you say:

....This is, of course, completely untrue.....

But then oddly, you turn right around and say :

.... Yes...having "grey areas" in the regulations implies, by definition, that they are ambiguous.....

HHmmm.

 

[FliesOnly]

Did you miss post #41 here ? In that post, you will see that I clearly admitted that: Yes, "artifacts " could indeed apply (if the objects you find are over 50 yrs. blah blah). Ok, so there's the "admitting". Ok ?

Bwa ha ha ha ha…nice try. What you will not admit to, is that you were wrong to suggest the TB8788 go ahead and detect, since the rules did not specifically state that metal detecting was not allowed. That’s always your fallback position…that if the rules do not specifically mention that metal detecting is not allowed, then it’s OK to detect. You say it all the time. And in THIS example, many of us suggested that perhaps seeking clarification was the correct course.

Now, which course of action was actually the correct course of action here, Tom?

Then see this humorous un-folding of your stance : I suggested that you consider all rules to be "ambiguous". Since something can be found in all-park-rules, everywhere, that .... if given enough thought, could be construed to apply.

I do not agree with this statement.

But then oddly, you turn right around and say

Because not every set of rules have actual “grey areas”, despite what you keep trying to tell us. Just because you want to make the blanket statement that every park in this Country has some sort of rule about removing items from the premises and that therefore the rules are ambiguous, does not, ipso facto, make that true. In most every case, the wording of what can and cannot be removed is specific to items that the park has added or purchased for park use, and does not refer to items that have been “lost” over time. Obviously, there are exceptions, but to simply say that all rules are “ambiguous” is silly.

In this example, we are talking about a piece of PRIVATE property that has a rule forbidding the removal of artifacts. Now, “artifacts” can be open to various interpretations, and since this is a piece of PRIVATE property, that designation could then also forbid metal detecting. As such, the prudent and ethical thing to do is to ask the TNC what their actually policy is regarding metal detecting. And guess what…as it turns out, you were wrong (again, something you have yet to admit to) in suggesting that TB8788 go ahead and detect…because metal detecting is not allowed.

 

[TB8788]

I actually called the office for a state park about any rules with metal detecting and they didn’t have a problem with it. As long as I filled back the holes as to not making a walking hazard. Pays to ask.

 

[FliesOnly]

I actually called the office for a state park about any rules with metal detecting and they didn’t have a problem with it. As long as I filled back the holes as to not making a walking hazard. Pays to ask.

That's awesome...I stand corrected. Clarification is, in my book, the best way to go if there's any doubt. I'm glad to see that I was wrong in my assessment.

 

[TB8788]

That's awesome...I stand corrected. Clarification is, in my book, the best way to go if there's any doubt. I'm glad to see that I was wrong in my assessment.

No you were right. I didn’t get permission for devils den. I got permission for another state park. Clarification is the best way to go I agree with you. Doesn’t hurt to ask

 

[FliesOnly]

No you were right. I didn’t get permission for devils den. I got permission for another state park. Clarification is the best way to go I agree with you. Doesn’t hurt to ask

lol...that too is awesome..and once again I stand corrected. Enjoy your hunting, I hope you find plenty of cool items.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I actually called the office for a state park about any rules with metal detecting and they didn’t have a problem with it. As long as I filled back the holes as to not making a walking hazard. Pays to ask.

Hey there TB8788, Some observations about this :

1) At first blush, anytime a "yes" comes forth, then naturally, the conclusion seems to be : "See, it was a good thing I asked". Also, if the answer had been "no", then likewise the same conclusion follows: "See, it was a good thing I asked."

So you can see that whether the answer was "yes", or "no", EITHER reply concludes with "See, it pays to ask". Eh ? And never does anyone in authority answer in the following way: "Gee, that's a funny question. Why would you need my permission or verdict ? " Of course they don't answer in that fashion. Instead they bestow on you their princely "yes" or "no". Eh ?

2) In your particular case here, if your "yes" stands-up-to-scrutiny (Ie.: assuming that person wasn't in error), then : You didn't need his say-so in the first place. It merely means it wasn't disallowed. So getting a person's verbal say-so isn't what made it acceptable or allowed.

3) The reason I say "stands up to scrutiny" is: Believe it or not, there has been ample stories of persons who did what you did, and .... got a "yes". But the following odd stories have ensued:

3a) Someone else comes along and tries to "scram" them. The md'r proudly whips out his name-to-drop or permission. The griper then over-rides that, with stern admonishments that you didn't explain that you were going to take things, dig holes, etc... And/or that the office person wasn't high-ranking enough, and gave you the wrong info. Ie.: your "permission" is promptly revoked.

3b) Or another person goes into that EXACT SAME OFFICE on another day, talks to another person, and gets a "no". Because perhaps person #2 was envisioning "holes". Or person #2 was of an archaeological mindset, and envisioned (gasp) someone finding something old.

In other words, I can walk into that same exact office, on a different day, and get an entirely different answer. I have seen this happen before, and can give a very humorous example of it from my area. But for sure: Congrat's on your success in Russian Roulette. For me, I would just check the rules.

If you (or ... ahem ...others on the thread) consider anything "ambiguous" to mean: Don't go without an express "yes", then : Just be prepared for Russian Roulette. And the "no one cared till you asked" potential. Worse yet, the potential of making the FAQ into a official stance (ie.: presto, a law is born).

 

[FliesOnly]

So you can see that whether the answer was "yes", or "no", EITHER reply concludes with "See, it pays to ask". Eh ? And never does anyone in authority answer in the following way: "Gee, that's a funny question. Why would you need my permission or verdict ? " Of course they don't answer in that fashion. Instead they bestow on you their princely "yes" or "no". Eh ?

But you (and others) told him to go ahead and detect the TNC property since the rules did not explicitly say "No". And that, as we all now know, was terrible advice that could have resulted in TB8788 getting in trouble. So based on that terrible advice, I can see why he'd be "gun shy" to try other locations without first asking if detecting is allowed.

And why do you constantly denigrate park employees with your condescending: "Instead they bestow on you their princely "yes" or "no.""?. Look, it's part their job to assist the public with questions. It's not them acting all high and mighty or like they're on some kind of power trip. A question was asked, and they answered it.

2) In your particular case here, if your "yes" stands-up-to-scrutiny (Ie.: assuming that person wasn't in error), then : You didn't need his say-so in the first place. It merely means it wasn't disallowed. So getting a person's verbal say-so isn't what made it acceptable or allowed.

Correct. But what it did do was clarify whether or not detecting is allowed, since TB8788 was unsure how to interpret the rules and regulations.

3) The reason I say "stands up to scrutiny" is: Believe it or not, there has been ample stories of persons who did what you did, and .... got a "yes". But the following odd stories have ensued:

Yes, we all know about your anecdotal stories, which thus far, I might add, have not actually resulted in anyone getting banned.

If you (or ... ahem ...others on the thread) consider anything "ambiguous" to mean: Don't go without an express "yes", then : Just be prepared for Russian Roulette. And the "no one cared till you asked" potential. Worse yet, the potential of making the FAQ into a official stance (ie.: presto, a law is born).

Are you ever going to admit that you (and others) gave TB8788 terrible advice when you said he should just go ahead and detect on the TNC property, since their rules didn't explicitly say "No Detecting Allowed"?

I mean, it's almost hilarious that you took the time to sit down and write out your above post, essentially giving TB8788 the EXACT SAME ADVICE as you did for the TNC property, and still not even consider the idea that TB8788 asked for clarification at the park because he saw that to just go ahead and detect may likely be terrible advice. Do you truly not see the total one sided nature of your argument?

It's just mind boggling to me how you can act as if your giving of terrible advice actually never happened, and just continue with your same ol' broken record opinion that "asking permission" ultimately gets us all banned.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

fly-only: re.: "Terrible advice..." (on an invidual place ): I am talking about the general concept. Not a single individual place.

... And why do you constantly denigrate park employees with your condescending: "Instead they bestow on you their princely "yes" or "no.""?. Look, it's part their job to assist the public with questions. It's not them acting all high and mighty or like they're on some kind of power trip ....

I am on-record as agreeing that Yes: It is "part of their job" to administrate the parks. And a law or rule doesn't have to "be specific" for them to scram you. And that you're right: They're just "doing their job" to answer a question, that someone brings in. Nothing 'high and mighty about that. Eh ? You/I respect their authority. You/ I know they're not on "power trips", etc.....

And when it comes to grey-area language, then ... sure : They exercise that "part of their job" to decide whether-or-not something falls afoul of "ambiguous" language. And therein lies the devil-in-the-details: The bigger question is: Why are they exercising that "part of their job " ? Because .... drum-roll ... someone asked : "can I?". And THAT'S what starts the ball rolling. See ?

 

[FliesOnly]

fly-only: re.: "Terrible advice..." (on an invidual place ): I am talking about the general concept. Not a single individual place.

I understand that…and I think that’s where our problem lies. You’re “general concept” fall-back position is “If it doesn’t explicitly say that metal detecting is forbidden, then it’s OK to go ahead and detect”. That’s your general concept. And you think that that is the best advice you can give someone. What I’m saying is that that is terrible advice. Why? Well, because they location in question may have worded their Rules/Regulations to simply say it’s against policy to remove items. By saying that the removal of artifacts is not allowed, for example, covers all ways that people may go about finding and removing artifacts…not just metal detecting. They don’t have to specify using Dowsing Rods. They don’t have to specify using a shovel or rake. They don’t have to specify using a trained dog. In other words, they don’t have to cover their rear-ends in every imaginable way. They simply state that the removal of artifacts is not allowed.
Now, if someone were to follow your “general concept” advice and go ahead and detect because metal detecting was not specifically mentioned as something that is not allowed, they would be in violation. If TB8788 had followed your “general concept” advice, he would have been breaking TNC rules for that nature preserve. Ergo, your “general concept” advice is, as we now all know, terrible advice.
Now, I know you’re canned response is to say the every park has wording to that effect, but we all know that that is nothing more than a lame excuse you use as an example as to why you should never ask if metal detecting is allowed. In the real world, it has been my admittedly limited experience that most parks, in using that type of wording, make it pretty obvious that they’re referring to items purchased for use in the park. And if it’s not clear that that is what they are referring to, then I think it’s prudent to ask for clarification. My local County Park, for example, very carefully spells out pretty specifically what cannot be removed. I did ask for clarification, but only to prove to you that you were being silly. And I proved my case.

And when it comes to grey-area language, then ... sure : They exercise that "part of their job" to decide whether-or-not something falls afoul of "ambiguous" language. And therein lies the devil-in-the-details: The bigger question is: Why are they exercising that "part of their job " ?

No, the bigger question is" "WHY is their fall back position to state that detecting is not allowed?" People are going to ask, that’s just a fact. Our job as ethical detectorists should be to educate the public about our hobby so they have a better understanding of what it is we do. When we leave an area after detecting, out impact should ne negligible. It should be difficult to know we were even there. We should respect rules/regulations about where we can detect and what we can remove. We should not detect on private property without permission. You know, stuff like that. Stuff that you have actually spoken out against…and yet still act like it has no bearing whatsoever in us getting “scrammed” from some location.

Because .... drum-roll ... someone asked : "can I?". And THAT'S what starts the ball rolling. See ?

Yes, someone asked: “Can I?” because they were unsure how to interpret the rules/regulations. Your advice to them is always “Go ahead and detect if the rules/regulations do not explicitly say “No Metal Detecting Allowed”” (or words to those effect). But, as we can all clearly see from this example, that advice is not really very good advice. I have carefully spelled why this is, in numerous posts already, yet you just seem dead-set on ignoring it.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I understand that…and I think that’s where our problem lies. You’re “general concept” fall-back position is “If it doesn’t explicitly say that metal detecting is forbidden, then it’s OK to go ahead and detect”. ...

Ok, I'll accept that summary of our difference. Then if so: The reverse would also be true for you too : That your "fall-back position" is that if it doesn't necessarily say md'ing is allowed , and/or something can be construed to apply to-our-hobby, then : We need to clarify . And/or get a green-light, before proceeding.

If you say my position dangerous (because of a current singular individual spot used as an example), then so too can I characterize your position as dangerous. D/t ample accounts of "No one cared till you asked" phenomenon being at risk.

...No, the bigger question is" "WHY is their fall back position to state that detecting is not allowed?" ...

Yes. We've been through this before. You say it's because their constant front-&-center consternation/image of md'rs is "fence-hoppers" and "people who didn't grovel", blah blah . Hence, the moment the issue appears on their desk for decision, they say "no". But I say: The average passerby or desk clerk could care-less/register, nor even thinks about the topic. Until it's put in front of them for "deep thought consideration". Then ... let's be honest, what image comes to mind ? Holes, digging, taking things, etc.... Ok, gee, aren't ya glad you poked them to connect-the-dots and give "safe answers" ?

So I am convinced that the mere sight/image of a man with a detector can conjur up images. EVEN IF THEY NEVER SAW/HEARD of any black-hat md'rs. Especially if they see you on your haunches about to (gasp) "dig" a target.

....Our job as ethical detectorists should be to educate the public about our hobby so they have a better understanding of what it is we do. ...

First of all, re.: "ethical" : I consider looking up rules for oneself to be VERY "ethical".

Second of all, why is it necessary to "educate the public " on what we do ? If/when this ends up on the plate of purist archies , then that is the day you'll realize that the LESS they think of us, the better. Not the "more" the better. They will simply never change their stance (it's implicit in their definition) . So why do we/you perpetually swat hornet's nests trying to make them love and adore you ?

...Yes, someone asked: “Can I?” because they were unsure how to interpret the rules/regulations. ...

Ok. And if we are "unsure how to interpret the rules/regulations", then .... If I'm understanding you correctly, we : 1) Assume that they are going to be interpreted against our favor, so 2) Thus we go ask "Can I?". To "clarify" this and get a green light. Eh ?