Tom_in_CA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 20,817
grey metal, I have looked over that post you gave the link to. And if you look closely at any of the "sky-is-falling" comments on there, you will see that it is mostly the result of either:
a) someone asking "can I?" and receiving a "no".
b) someone who got accosted in the field, and told "you can't do that".
c) someone looking for an express allowance. Ie.: they don't see some rule or code that says "metal detecting allowed here", or they find silence on the subject of detecting , so they become worried, therefore, that it's not allowed (in the absence of an express allowance).
d) they've found some sort of verbage about cultural heritage, or "holes", "deface" "alter", and feel that , therefore, includes metal detecting (we dig afterall, eh ?). And perhaps they've even found some gardener or mayor or pencil-pusher that tells them this.
In no case , in your link, do I see express dis-allowances in actual written law. And if there *IS* such a thing (at the state park level, for instance), then that would only apply to state parks. Not other forms of land or entities within that state (city, county, fed, private, etc....). Do not make the mistake of thinking that something on the state park level automatically subrogrates down to other sub-entities within that state. On the contrary: park rules differ all the time, from park to park !
To (a): Welcome to the "no one cared till you asked" psychology. I do not construe such "safe answers to pressing questions" to be authoritative, unless it were truly in print as a true "no detecting" rule.
To (b) : I do not construe busy-bodies (even from authorities of that entity) to necessarily constitute a "rule". You/they might just have run into a single person having a bad day. OH SURE: give lip service and move on. But in the future, it merely means: "avoid that one lookie lou, and pick lesser traffic times when he isn't there". Unless , of course, there is actual rule or law that says what he's saying.
To (c) : There need-not-be express allowance for our activity. No more so than thinking you need express allowance to fly frisbees. If the law is silent on the subject (no rule that says "no md'ing"), then presto: It's not dis-allowed.
To (d): If you leave no trace of your presence, then you have not defacED or alterED anything, now have you ? Oh sure, not every busy-body or pencil pusher might agree with those semantics. Fine then, choose lower traffic times and avoid such kill-joys. You're simply not going to please every last person on this planet.
a) someone asking "can I?" and receiving a "no".
b) someone who got accosted in the field, and told "you can't do that".
c) someone looking for an express allowance. Ie.: they don't see some rule or code that says "metal detecting allowed here", or they find silence on the subject of detecting , so they become worried, therefore, that it's not allowed (in the absence of an express allowance).
d) they've found some sort of verbage about cultural heritage, or "holes", "deface" "alter", and feel that , therefore, includes metal detecting (we dig afterall, eh ?). And perhaps they've even found some gardener or mayor or pencil-pusher that tells them this.
In no case , in your link, do I see express dis-allowances in actual written law. And if there *IS* such a thing (at the state park level, for instance), then that would only apply to state parks. Not other forms of land or entities within that state (city, county, fed, private, etc....). Do not make the mistake of thinking that something on the state park level automatically subrogrates down to other sub-entities within that state. On the contrary: park rules differ all the time, from park to park !
To (a): Welcome to the "no one cared till you asked" psychology. I do not construe such "safe answers to pressing questions" to be authoritative, unless it were truly in print as a true "no detecting" rule.
To (b) : I do not construe busy-bodies (even from authorities of that entity) to necessarily constitute a "rule". You/they might just have run into a single person having a bad day. OH SURE: give lip service and move on. But in the future, it merely means: "avoid that one lookie lou, and pick lesser traffic times when he isn't there". Unless , of course, there is actual rule or law that says what he's saying.
To (c) : There need-not-be express allowance for our activity. No more so than thinking you need express allowance to fly frisbees. If the law is silent on the subject (no rule that says "no md'ing"), then presto: It's not dis-allowed.
To (d): If you leave no trace of your presence, then you have not defacED or alterED anything, now have you ? Oh sure, not every busy-body or pencil pusher might agree with those semantics. Fine then, choose lower traffic times and avoid such kill-joys. You're simply not going to please every last person on this planet.
