Does this constitute "No Metal Detecting"?

[stewart73]

Sorry for showing up late with my input .

Just a reminder that if it's legal...then it's not illegal. And if it illegal...then it's not legal.....f something is illegal, there must be verbiage making it illegal (laws, ordinances, etc).

In theory I agree with you. One of the aspects of this discussion that remains vague is everyone's definition of "it". If the laws state that "there shall be no disturbing the ground, digging, or removing of objects" does that mean that metal detecting is illegal? It doesn't specifically state "metal detecting" but metal detecting is, essentially, all of those things (or at least involves them all as an inherent part of its process). So assuming that "it" in this particular case is metal detecting, is it legal or illegal? I would say it is illegal unless you are simply scanning the ground and not actually digging...and I don't think anybody does that. Of course that doesn't mean you can't ask for permission anyway (and may very well get it) but Tom's point seems to be that only a fool would do this.

 

[msand]

The "no excavation by tool part" means just that, end of story . Now, I would still go out and surface detect. Have a copy of the city rules with me and leave any digging tools behind in my truck.

Everyone has had good input on this subject. HH

Does anyone know how Geardaddy came out with this?

 

[37mmgunner]

"make any excavation by tool"

"make any excavation by tool"

Hmmm, I'm not a lawyer or anything, but, this probably means no metal detecting.

 

[ohiochris]

What seperates this particular issue from the standard " better to ask forgiveness than to ask permission " phrase is that its not hard to see the "implied" reference to metal detecting even though its not mentioned by name. I wish they could be more literal to clear up any misunderstanding but it is what it is. Now if there is no wording in the rules that clearly implies detecting , I say go for it until told to stop. Of course then you have a different decision to make on how to handle that particular situation.

 

[HarveyH48]

Still think it's best to ask. Once it's clearly defined, there is no chance at all of detecting. The more you push for clarification, the more likely you will get it, and likely not be pleased with the verbage, or signage. Maybe things are different in the big cities, but the city workers are friendly, helpful, not evil. Guess maybe good paying jobs, with benefits are hard to find in town, so they appreciate having them more. I drive 40 minutes to get to work. Doubt there would be an issue, long as you aren't causing problems, creating a nuisance, or people complaining. Like hunting the soccer field, a group shows up to play, you refuse to leave, since you were there first, and you have every right to be there... Even though you are getting some very nice targets, the right thing to do, would be to move off the field, and let the kids play soccer.

Got a hunch there are a lot of places, of questionable historic significance, which cities submitted to the Federal Government, for some of that easy to get grant money. Once they accepted the check, they agreed to certain restrictions and guidelines. The rules about no digging, no removing, alteration, and so forth. Parks are probably pretty easy to get a historic designation, and fairly safe to accept the grant money, since they are seldom slated to be removed, or radically changed.

Why is it so wrong to accept that some places just aren't open to detecting, it's a big world, lots of land to hunt. Are we so blinded by lust and greed, that we need to find some angle, some way to slip in there and get the goods, until caught, asked to leave. Do you change machines, appearance, and go back in a week or two, stubbornly set on getting what you 'rights', entitle you to?

The vague rules and ordinances give us some room, to work with people in charge of a particular site. They have a little room in how they choose to interpret those rules. Talking to people, finding places to hunt, where it's not going to be a problem, ensures that it never gets to the point where it needs to be clearly defined. Asking a city worker, might get you a 'No' at a few sites, but if the city has to update the rules, it most likely will involve most of the city, so they don't have to keep revisiting the same business. You keep taunting the big dog, the big dog will bite.

There are a lot of people who fly under the radar, work the system, avoid paying taxes. How many people actually go to city hall, pay for permits to repair their house, add plumbing or electrical? Usually, if they have to pay a professional, he's got a license to protect. The do it yourself guy, probably not, unless he's looking to get tax credits, break on insurance. Many people get away with it, most of the time. Some get caught, and usually they would have been better off playing by the rules. They really weren't doing any harm, just trying to save a few bucks, avoid a few hassles.

We aren't they only creatures digging holes, and not everyone hunting is going to do a pretty job of filling them in. When you talk to someone, you get a chance to explain what, and how you do it. You are less likely to catch the blame for a mess you didn't create. 'Wasn't me', or 'It was like that, when I got here', while you stand there with your metal detector, and digging tool, probably won't work any better, than when you were a child. Least you won't suffer corporal punishment...

 

[msand]

I have to believe this is not the first time this subject has come up. I have not done a search on it yet. I have some questions and don't mean for everyone to run out and find the answer from their city hall. Has this ever happened to anyone?

1) Has anyone asked their city does "no excavation by tool" mean NO Metal Detecting?

2) Has anyone been out on a city park that the rules say "no excavation by tool" and have been kicked off or given a fine, ticket for Metal Detecting (surface detecting not digging)?

 

[HarveyH48]

I have to believe this is not the first time this subject has come up. I have not done a search on it yet. I have some questions and don't mean for everyone to run out and find the answer from their city hall. Has this ever happened to anyone?

1) Has anyone asked their city does "no excavation by tool" mean NO Metal Detecting?

2) Has anyone been out on a city park that the rules say "no excavation by tool" and have been kicked off or given a fine, ticket for Metal Detecting (surface detecting not digging)?

Seems clear enough to me, that I either take my hunting somewhere else, or ask someone working in the park, if they would have a problem. For now, probably not a good idea to force the issue. Just ask, accept the answer given, don't argue, or throw a tantrum. Definately don't just sneak in there, when the park workers aren't around. We want to change the rules, we need to keep it open an honest, communicate.

 

[msand]

HarveyH48, I can accept that. I am lucky where I live I have more places to hunt then I have time for. For me it's more of a over all understanding of the rules and to help others if I can be of any help.

 

[mountain digger]

In theory I agree with you. One of the aspects of this discussion that remains vague is everyone's definition of "it". If the laws state that "there shall be no disturbing the ground, digging, or removing of objects" does that mean that metal detecting is illegal? It doesn't specifically state "metal detecting" but metal detecting is, essentially, all of those things (or at least involves them all as an inherent part of its process). So assuming that "it" in this particular case is metal detecting, is it legal or illegal? I would say it is illegal unless you are simply scanning the ground and not actually digging...and I don't think anybody does that. Of course that doesn't mean you can't ask for permission anyway (and may very well get it) but Tom's point seems to be that only a fool would do this.

If the law or ordinance says "no metal detectors allowed" or "no metal detecting" then MDing is not allowed. If the law says "no digging" you are not allowed to "dig" but you can certainly MD, you just can't dig. The question arises as to what constitutes "digging"...and this may be subject to interpretation.

Look at it this way, if a friend calls and asks to borrow a shovel and he lives just a short walk away through a park with a no digging rule. Would you be in violation of the law to walk the shovel over to his house through the park? Clearly, the answer is no UNLESS YOU STOP TO DIG SOMETHING UP. Do you need to ask permission to walk the shovel over to your friends house through the park? If you answer you do, I'd say REALLY?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply to Stewart

Stewart, you say:

"So you mean that even if the laws/rules say something like "no disturbing the ground, no removal of artifacts, no digging" you would not consider metal detecting to be included within that, simply because the words "metal detecting" aren't written? "

Correct. And the reason is tied up in the definitions of "artifact". I don't consider barber dimes or IH's "artifacts", do you? Or to "disturb", if you leave the spot(s) exactly as you found them (no trace of your presence), then technically, you have not disturbED anything. Now have you? And same for "dig" versus dUg. As sticky as the evil "dig" word is, yet the intent is quite clear: The END RESULT, right? So if you leave no trace of your presence, then seems to me you're fulfilling this as well.

Yes it's true that not everyone will agree with those semantics. Avoid such lookie-lous and go at lower traffic times. The bottom line is Stewart, that ALL public land has something(s) that *could* be applied, if you wanted to. There's no speck of public land (no park in the entire USA) that doesn't have some form of verbage that disallows vandalism, defacement, alteration, taking, harvesting, and so forth. Yet if you'll notice, there's no shortage of people md'ing parks. Why is that? How could it possibly be? The answer is not that they "got permission". Because even in cases where that's true, you can NOT get a public official to "allow you to break the law". No gardener or city clerk can "allow" that. No more so that the highway patrol can give any certain individuals allowance to run stop signs, exceed speed limits, etc... So the mere fact that people have often gotten permission to dig and detect parks, to me, SIMPLY PROVES THE POINT: that those texts are not OF NECESSITY there to dis-allow md'ing. Lest how else can they give permission? See? It merely proves the ambiguity of those things, that as long as you're leaving no trace, you HAVE fulfilled those laws. So do you see now?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply to Harvey

Harvey, you say:

"Doing the right thing isn't always easy, and we don't always get what we want. Might have worked well for some children, who simply had to tell the parents, or household staff. We pay taxes, doesn't mean we own a controlling share of everything government owned. Our taxes also pay the salary, for the people who care, and maintain, administer to those public lands. Personally, I'm not so easy to manipulate, and like it or not, I'll continue to do what's right, even if I don't get what I wanted, least I have a clear conscious, and mind, instead looking for bad guys, maintain our schools and parks. "

why can't "doing the right thing" be to look up the laws for oneself ? Why do you make the automatic equivalence that doing the right thing means to go grovel for someone else's say-so, (in the absence of any specific prohibition saying you can't). I have a "clear conscience" when I hunt at parks, because I leave no trace of my presence. How much BETTER way to "maintain" our parks and schools by leaving them exactly as I found them? So again, your stance is littered with premises that need-not-necessarily follow. A premise that somehow detecting is dangerous, damaging, illegal, dis-liked by all, etc..... If all those premises were true, then sure, ask away. But no, they're not "givens". Sure there may be 1 out of 1000 passerbys that may care less. Ok, fine, avoid that one person. Since when was it our obligation to get the entire world to love us, before we can leave our front doors in the morning?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply x2 to Stewart

Stewart you say:

" I still don't get how you can know that the laws say "no removing things from the ground" or "no digging" and not think that would include metal detecting, regardless of whether the laws were originally intended to stop just detecting. I think that if everybody follows the 'never ask permission' advice the laws could eventually become even more strict as more and more people are 'busted' hunting in parks where it is prohibited. Maybe I am still missing something...."

Yes, I agree, things that forbid "removing" and "taking" and "harvesting" COULD INDEED be made to apply to singular pulltabs, coins, dandillions, the seashell your 12 yr. daughter picks up, etc... So therefore, if that bothers you (that someone could morph those things to apply), then you might as well give it up now. Because clauses like those appear in every single park, everywhere. And no, you can't "get permission" to break the law. No more so than the city clerk can grant you permission to cheat on your taxes, sell crank to grade-schoolers, shopflift, etc... So don't even bother asking (if you make this automatic equivalance that those clauses apply to md'ing). Stick to private property with permission. Skip all beaches, parks, schools, etc... (unless privately owned). And then you can look askance at all those lawless miscreants, who post daily on "finds" forums everywhere, detailing their latest coins, rings, etc.... they found (read "took", "harvested", "collected" , and "dug") from .... gasp .... public property. It's amazing to me that all such finds-forums aren't immediately shut down by the feds. Especially considering those persons aren't even disguising the fact that they found ("took", "collected" , etc...) such things at public grounds.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply to ohio Chris:

ohio-chris, you say:

"I think the true absolute here is that the interpretation of the rules falls on officials , not us , and THEIR interpretation is decides what is legal and what is not....."

Yes, there are laws that are written ambiguously. Fluid rules and laws like laws that forbid "annoyances", for example. Purposefully written so as to apply to a myriad of circumstances that could come up in the field. Yet there are other laws that are QUITE specific and distinct, leaving nothing to semantics.

But getting back to the laws that are ... as you admit, up-for-interpretation, I think you've answered your own question here: The mere fact that they ARE up-to-interpretation (as evidenced by the fact that some people "get permission" to "break" them) merely proves my point: That they AREN'T *necessarily* meant to apply to us (so long as you leave no damage, and aren't bothering anyone). And yes, someone can "announce" that decision to you (that it doesn't apply to md'ing) by simple whimsical princely say-so. OR they can be in a bad mood and say "no md'ing", for nothing other than whimsical mood, or the "CYA" type answer. And the sad part about a lot of those "no's" from city persons who decide on-the-spot that such clauses apply, is that quite often, those SAME PERSONS might never have given it a moment's thought! Perhaps that same person, if he'd simply been driving by the park and seen an md'r, might never have paid a moment's notice. It can truly be a case of "no one cared .... TILL you asked".

Because the mere fact you think you need to grovel and ask him, merely presumes something is wrong, or damaging, or risky, that you had to ask, to begin with. Or that their permission was needed, to begin with. Lest why else would you be there asking, if it were innocuous and harmless, or didn't need permission? This is not subconsciously lost on the person you are asking. So you risk getting "no's", where perhaps no one would ever have cared less! The md'ing forums have many such stories of this happening, in places where you used to be able to just go, and no one ever cared less. Till one day, someone took-it-upon themselves to go in asking "can I?". Bless their little hearts, eh?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply to m-sand

msand, you ask:

"1) Has anyone asked their city does "no excavation by tool" mean NO Metal Detecting?

2) Has anyone been out on a city park that the rules say "no excavation by tool" and have been kicked off or given a fine, ticket for Metal Detecting (surface detecting not digging)? "

haha, if someone went in to their city hall, with the citation you list about "no excavation by tool", and specifically handed that to someone to look at. And then followed it up with the question: "does this mean md'ing?". That would seem to be the FASTEST way to get told that ... yes it applies. Because the mere fact you are there asking the question, with that in context, is merely going to put the image in their mind that .... in fact ..... you WILL be "excavating"! (lest why else would have have that rule-in-hand, asking if it means no-md'ing, if that weren't the entire implication of this conversation.... to begin with?). MD'ing is ALREADY filled with connotations, even when you DON'T mention dig. It's just the knee-jerk reaction a lot of folks have when they think of it, even when you never mention "dig". So how much more-so will they connect-these-dots, when you waltz in with that specific prohibition in-hand? That's just begging for a "no you can't". Or at a minimum, to be told : "you can only pick up targets off the top of the ground" Doh.

So for this reason, a lot of people on forums, when discussing the best ways to ask permission at city halls, is to leave out any mention of "dig" or "holes" etc... Have you noticed that? Well as you can see, they are mincing words, conveniently leaving out phrases, Not being forthcoming, etc.... And often, sure, maybe they'll get a "yes". And then they can either hunt till their heart's content, and no one ever says a thing to them. Ie.: no one ever "cards" them to ask "who said you could do this". In that case, as you can see, their permission didn't really do them much good, as it was never, apparently, "needed" in the field. Or another thing that can happen is some busy-body cop or gardener comes up to boot them. The md'r proudly whips out their permission (the permission-in-which-he'd conveniently left out all mention of "dig"). The cop or gardener gets on his cell phone, calls city hall, and says: ".... but he's tearing the place up!" Which isn't true, of course, but guess what happens to your permission ??

As for your 2nd question, sure, you can be booted for md'ing, EVEN when you weren't digging. Someone can simply come up and say you're bothering the spotted owls, or the earthworms, or noise-ordinances, etc... I actually got booted from a rocky cove beach once because some nature-lover went and got a harbor patrol to boot me, because she said I/we were bothering the mating sea-lions! No joke! The sea lion was over 100 yards away, and we didn't even notice or pay attention to them. So we had to leave, as we obviously weren't going to win an on-the-spot debate of how many feet you can be from wildlife, blah blah blah. So to answer your question, you can never 100% guarantee that "everyone will love you" and roll out red carpets for you. If this bothers you, then you've chosen the wrong hobby.

But as for arrests, confiscations, fines, etc... No. Not unless you're snooping around obvious historic monuments, night-sneaking obvious off-limits places, or someone who can't take a warning. If someone has an example of someone getting tickets, fines, jail, confiscations, etc... for simple beaches, sandboxes, school yards, or routine normal parks, I would LOVE to hear it.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply to harvey x2

harvey, you say:

"Seems clear enough to me, that I either take my hunting somewhere else, or ask someone working in the park, if they would have a problem. ".

Ok, what would you do, if while employing your stance, you single-handedly got an entire city put off-limits, because some city official got a bee-in-their-bonnet to implement a rule? Or at a minimum, because of the "no" they hand out to you, it becomes a "BOL" policy from then-no-out. Ok, and let's say that prior to your asking, detecting had just been routine and common there, for locals since as far back as anyone could remember?

All I can say is, that I hope no one comes to MY area and start employing your stance. Because things are just fine here the way they are. And the LAST thing we want any bureaucrats to do, is start looking at some sort of "pressing issue" that needs their attention. I can give you many such examples of this (and will do so in the months to come on this forum). And in each case, those that went asking simply made themselves an enemy of the long-timers there, who realized that it was them that .... in effect, got parks and such off-limits.

 

[stewart73]

Tom, aside from the actual points being discussed here, the problem with many of your posts is that they are absolutely dripping with sarcasm and condescension when in response to someone who has a different viewpoint than you. That alone will put many people off. Your eyes-rolling emoticons, asking us if we finally SEE, if we finally GET the obvious POINT you are making. It's as though you are the keeper of the one Great Truth and those who question or disagree are simply stuck at various levels of 'not quite getting it yet'. Like, how could we all be so stupid as to ask for permission to hunt a park?

Anyhow, several of your statements still don't make sense to me (yes, I guess I still don't SEE). To choose but a few.... You have been saying that the laws imply a final result and not necessarily the act itself. Firstly, probably a bad idea to 'assume' what a law means or deal in implications. If it meant 'dug' instead of 'dig' or 'disturbed' instead of 'disturb' then why wouldn't it be written that way in the first place? If it says 'no digging' then technically 'digging' is illegal, regardless of whether you fill the hole back in. By that logic you could go out and 'steal' a car, drive it around, wash it, gas it up, and return it and all would be cool because the car is no longer in the state of being 'stolen'. I take your point (ie. if you leave everything as it was before you arrived, what's the problem?) but if a law says it's illegal to 'dig' then it's illegal to 'dig'...regardless of what you do after the fact. Anything else is just fanciful interpretation. You also compare asking permission to 'begging' or 'groveling'...I have never felt or acted in that manner when asking for permission. Then there are the massive assumptions and leaps of 'logic'. You seem to think that nobody anywhere will care if you just hunt anywhere you like...but those same people will ALWAYS say no if you give them a chance and do something reckless like ask politely for permission. And that asking for permission will ruin the hobby for all of us by inciting the normally happy-go-lucky bureaucrats to rage against us all and implement MD-specific laws. Ruining it for everyone you permission-asking scoundrels! Or that the very act of asking permission serves only to prove to the person being asked that we are up to something evil (Hey, why else would we be asking?). Not true.

Anyhow, you seem to have a very large stake in making everyone here see that you are 100% correct so I'll leave you to it. For me however, I will continue to do the unthinkable and ask for permission in areas where I'm not sure if detecting is legal or not.

 

[Jason in Enid]

Stewart, you seem just as adamant on expressing how the absence of a restriction still forbids metal detecting. So please tell me what you do when you ask that random park worker and they tell you "no"? How do you know that person has ANY authority to grant or deny permission? Most parks have workers, commissioners, boards of directors, and none of them can grant or deny permission that isn't in the law.

 

[McClod]

Tom,

In reply, I will just address each section of your message to me one by one.

"McClod, you say that the rules of your county forbid you to:


"Dig or remove any soil, rock, sand, stones, trees, shrubs or plants or other wood or materials, or make any excavation by tool, equipment, blasting or other means or agency."
“So you contacted them to see if this refers to md'ing. And they
emphatically told you it applies, and that ... no ... you can't detect.”

No, I contacted the county because when I was trying to look up the county regulations online I did not find anything specifically addressing whether metal detecting is legal or illegal in “county parks”. So I emailed the County parks department and they replied telling me metal detecting was not allowed and they quoted only a portion of the regulations, the portion that I pasted above. I did more online research and was able to find the regulation that covered that paragraph in its entirety. If I remember correctly, I don’t think it said no metal detecting, but what difference would it make if you can’t dig, you can’t recover any targets so I guess if you want to split hairs you might get away with swinging a metal detector over the counties dirt, but you better now have a digging utensil or get caught using one. That spells it out clear enough for me so I moved on to parks I can legally detect (read dig targets that I detected with my metal detector) in.

“I suggest to you that you may have simply been the latest victim of: "No one cared ... TILL you asked". I mean, that type verbiage appears (in some form or fashion) in EVERY park in the USA, on EVERY level (to forbid vandalism, defacement, and so forth). And sure, if you ask enough bored desk-bound bureaucrats, you risk finding one that says "no, you can't detect". When truth be told, perhaps they never gave the matter a moment's thought, nor would have paid you any mind, till your "pressing question" passed their desk. “

Wrong, I am not a victim of anything, other than my own desire to metal detect within the legal boundaries that are set forth by local, county, state, and federal laws, so as not to be one of those guys that “brings the heat” down on other people in the hobby that enjoy being able to detect in their parks and other publically owned land. I’m sure you might find a way to verbally tap dance all over this statement about what is allowed in “publically owned” land, but the bottom line is all I am doing is researching, and asking where necessary to obtain the regulations and/or laws as they pertain to metal detecting where I live.
“Then you say: " I hunt all the other parks in the county's cities but not county parks. "

"Here's a challenge for you: check deeply. Research on your own to all muni codes in those cities. I bet you'll find something that forbids vandalism, defacement, alterations, and so forth. Ok, once you found that, go to those cities (the cities in which you don't have a problem and no one bothers you). Go to city hall asking if those things forbid metal detecting. Be sure to use key words like "dig", and "take" and "treasure" and "holes". And I bet you can find people there too to tell you it applies, and ... no... you can't detect. Ok? Now hurry, go do the right thing. “

I may be retired, but I have far better things to do with my time AND the time of local city employee’s and officials, than go around visiting their city halls, wasting their time and mine by asking them stupid questions that are made to sound even more stupid by going out of my way to intentionally craft those questions in such as way as to guarantee a negative response. Why do you even waste your and our time and the OP’s time by replying to everyone else’s posts and comments here by injecting sarcasm combined with your personal logic and interpretation of laws that are clear enough for anyone that can see lightning and hear thunder?

The OP’s question was simple and honest enough in getting verification from others here that his interpretation of the law is correct. All he is wanting to do is what most honest law abiding people that care enough about their hobby and desire to not wreck it for others by researching the laws.


“All such verbiage inherently applies to the END result. If you leave no trace of your presence, then technically, you have not alterED, defacED, or dUg anything, NOW HAVE YOU ? Might someone disagree with the semantics of that? (the necessary temporary evil process of extraction)? SURE. Avoid such busy-bodies and go at lower traffic times.”

Following your above logic, begs the following question…HOW HAVE YOU MANAGED TO STAY OUT OF JAIL! LOL As long as you’re giving out “Legal advice” this is the only advice I can offer to others and that is DO NOT FOLLOW THE ABOVE ADVICE!!

Think about it!!! it is exactly “the necessary temporary evil process of extraction” that is against the LAW!!

Expanding on your logic, it is OK to rob a bank, provided that you are only removing the money temporarily, and plan on doing it after hours so no one see’s you doing it, and you plan on returning it after you invest it for your own personal monetary gain, then once you’ve made your money in the stock market (on the stolen money you only temporarily took from the bank as after all, it was a necessary but temporary evil required in order for you to have the capital to invest in the first place to make money for yourself) the money will be back in the bank and no one the wiser! If the crime wasn’t seen, and there was no evidence left, it was not a crime right!!! WRONG!

McClod, you say that the rules of your county forbid you to:


"Dig or remove any soil, rock, sand, stones, trees, shrubs or plants or other wood or materials, or make any excavation by tool, equipment, blasting or other means or agency."

So you contacted them to see if this refers to md'ing. And they
emphatically told you it applies, and that ... no ... you can't detect.

I suggest to you that you may have simply been the latest victim of: "No one cared ... TILL you asked". I mean, that type verbage appears (in some form or fashion) in EVERY park in the USA, on EVERY level (to forbid vandalism, defacement, and so forth). And sure, if you ask enough bored desk-bound bureaucrats, you risk finding one that says "no, you can't detect". When truth be told, perhaps they never gave the matter a moment's thought, nor would have paid you any mind, till your "pressing question" passed their desk.

Then you say: " I hunt all the other parks in the county's cities but not county parks. "

Here's a challenge for you: check deeply. Research on your own to all muni codes in those cities. I bet you'll find something that forbids vandalism, defacement, alterations, and so forth. Ok, once you found that, go to those cities (the cities in which you don't have a problem and no one bothers you). Go to city hall asking if those things forbid metal detecting. Be sure to use key words like "dig", and "take" and "treasure" and "holes". And I bet you can find people there too to tell you it applies, and ... no... you can't detect. Ok? Now hurry, go do the right thing.

All such verbage inherently applies to the END result. If you leave no trace of your presence, then technically, you have not alterED, defacED, or dUg anything, NOW HAVE YOU ? Might someone disagree with the semantics of that? (the necessary temporary evil process of extraction)? SURE. Avoid such busy-bodies and go at lower traffic times.

 

[HarveyH48]

Simply asking a question, suddenly get's the folks over at City Hall all fired up, to ban metal detecting city-wide, just to make one taxpaying voter's life miserable? So, after talking to the guy, actually working at the park, thanking him for his time and consideration, respect the answer given. He's going snatch up the phone, call city hall, and raise panic? Sure, there are a lot of unstable people around, but this is just stretching it, and seems to be the only possible outcome, in your mind anyway...

The city, county, or state owns the land, not you or me, there are rules and restriction. You can spin, twist, and interpret them to best justify your personal wants an needs, but it makes no difference, your the one determine whether or not you broke the rules, and what action, if any to be taken.

Still can't grasp, how you equate simply asking a question, which implies you are responsible, respecting, and honest, to getting a city-wide ban implemented. You wouldn't be asking, if you were going to do it anyway, and already knew the answer. Or, after you get you 'No', do you inquire further, as to how sever the penalties?

If other people can enjoy their sports, hobbies, recreation on city land, why can't you? Never know, unless you asked. You can keep fighting to preserve your same-old, same-old detecting spots, or you can work with the cities, to potentially open up some of those previously closed areas. A little sincere interest and respect goes a long way. The Code of Ethics, is an attempt to change the image, the way people look at our hobby. Maybe the words 'Metal Detecting' doesn't appear in the rules and ordinances, but it could, and the only way it's going to be accompanied with 'Allow', is if we do our part, we do the work, it's what we would much rather see. You can stay with tradition, 'Nobody cares...', but eventual some people will, and they will get what they want...

 

[stewart73]

Stewart, you seem just as adamant on expressing how the absence of a restriction still forbids metal detecting.

False. In the absence of any restrictions I would go ahead and detect. Things like "no digging", "no removing items/artifacts", "no disturbing the ground" are very clear restrictions that quite obviously relate to metal detecting. Whether that was the original intention behind writing the law or not makes no legal difference. In such cases I clarify with either the city hall or the city works (parks) office. In my experience most of them have been very friendly and accommodating and even thanked me for taking the time to clarify.