How would you interpret this response?

[Tom_in_CA]

Simple answer.

Ignorance is NO EXCEPTION to breaking the law/rule.

I'm not gonna hunt somewhere I don't know that is allowed. For the simple reason IF there is a law/rule in place I'm not gonna risk my $500 detector get confiscated/impounded for a few clad coins an a pouch full of trash. Even on a good hunt a seated barber is not worth a $500 dollar metal detector and possible fine. Simple math....

Chris, sure, if there was a law or rule saying "no metal detecting", then by all means, let's obey it. Right? Afterall, no one wants a "$500 fine" right?

Ok, and if such a law existed, then you or I can go look it up. Right? There's no laws that are "secret" and can't be read about on the books, right? And if there's no rule that said "no metal detecting", then presto, it's not prohibited, right? If it's not dis-allowed, then it's "allowed", right? There need not be express "allowance" to do an activity, does there? Fly kites? skip stones on the pond, etc... right? On the contrary, if those activities are not forbidden, then ... well .... they're not forbidden. Just like if you come to an intersection when driving, and there's no signs or laws forbidding U-turns there, then one assumes he can make a U-turn. Right ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Yep, agreed. Tom however will be along shortly demanding evidence of people in the past having their machine impounded...

oh man, I'm predictable now, eh ?

 

[HarveyH48]

Tom's method is all self-serving, it's entirely crafted to get the individual what they desire most, with the least effort, the least hassles, the 'all about me method'. It's important to never hunt during business hours, since a simple phone call, to the proper office, would clarify for the officer or park worker, exactly what the definition of 'No Digging', as far as the city or park's position. Most likely he's been school on that a few times, which he argued and debated, pepper sprayed or tased, since 'No' is not an option in his world. No reason to ask, since the answer would always mean 'yes', if properly interpreted. Other folks hunting during business hours (daylight), or heaven forbid, asking that deadly question, would most likely threaten his night hunts, because the person who would know the policy, would also be the one reading reports of brown patches and poorly filled holes. Yeah, there are reports, by employees, on how they budget their time on the clock. The things they do, and how long the spend doing them. Incident reports, unusual occurrences. Just matter of time before some office jockey connects the dots. It's really about odds and percentages. You pick the times you are least likely to be spotted hunting, and reported. It's got to be outside of business hours, so no one with any real knowledge of the city or parks position can be reached. This greatly improves the chance of nothing happening, can't write a citation, if they are positive it's correct. Also works, that if a citation is written, it's flawed, and could get thrown out.

I really don't have a problem with Tom doing his thing, lots of people ignore the laws. My objection, is his obsessive promotion, and total disregard for the consequence other may face, by following his advice, in a less the friendly location. For Tom, he's only looking at a $200 fine in some locations, but that isn't pocket change for lots of folks, and there are more severe fines in other areas of the country. Sure, odds are, you can walk away, free to hunt another night, another location, give it a chance to cool down. But not everyone can afford to gamble. Not everyone is so self-serving.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Tom's method is all self-serving,....

harvey, everything you're saying makes perfect sense (how selfish and such that I am), if one BIG premise is taken as a given: That metal detecting is illegal. That a law is being broken. If so, then yes, everything else you're saying logically follows.

What do you say about examples of places where detecting was common place, and never was an issue, UNTIL someone(s) went in asking "Can I/we metal detect" ? Ok, in those examples, who was the ones doing the dis-service for the hobby ?

And yes, I hear what you're saying ... and see the mental image your imagining, that someone on forums reads my take-on-this, and .... then promptly goes out and makes a fool of themselves. Ie.: tromping on historic sensitive monuments since they could find no law prohibiting metal detecting. Or persons who don't know how to leave no trace. Or in some way sticking out like a sore-thumb, catching ire, and then .... "wow, what happened to Tom in CA's advice that I should just go". I truly do sympathize with that, because yes: some people are just magnets for scrutiny, don't know how to conduct themselves, recover targets, etc....

 

[Tom_in_CA]

did you see the post a couple nights ago about a member finding over 23.00 in glad? He had to dig a min. of 155 holes to accomplish that. I'm sure that EVERY hole was perfect when done right? How many trash holes were dug on top of those 155?...

Hold on a moment here. Let's assume for a minute that you're perfectly right. That no one can dig 155 targets (even shallow clad with the poke of a screwdriver) without leaving marks. I'm willing to go along with this premise.

Ok, then, if the subject is whether or not permission is needed given catch-all verbage, then .... please tell me how someone's having permission changes the scenario, of the above "155 holes". No matter permission or no permission (as if it were needed) changes the fact of how that md'r had left marks. If, as I say, what you're saying in an accepted "given".

I mean, unless you also have permission to "leave marks" ? So I don't get it. The part about leaving marks and leaving trash on top, is still wrong, WHETHER or not you "had permission", right ?

 

[stewart73]

Chris, sure, if there was a law or rule saying "no metal detecting", then by all means, let's obey it. Right? Afterall, no one wants a "$500 fine" right?

Ok, and if such a law existed, then you or I can go look it up. Right? There's no laws that are "secret" and can't be read about on the books, right? And if there's no rule that said "no metal detecting", then presto, it's not prohibited, right? If it's not dis-allowed, then it's "allowed", right? There need not be express "allowance" to do an activity, does there? Fly kites? skip stones on the pond, etc... right? On the contrary, if those activities are not forbidden, then ... well .... they're not forbidden. Just like if you come to an intersection when driving, and there's no signs or laws forbidding U-turns there, then one assumes he can make a U-turn. Right ?

Tom, you're pretending again that all laws are clear-cut on the matter when we all know they usually aren't. Many places don't say "Detecting allowed" or "Detecting banned" (as you know) but instead say something like "no digging, disturbing, removing objects, etc." (as you know) which, obviously, would include most types of detecting (as you know) unless you've been given permission otherwise. Just because the words "Detecting not allowed" do not appear in their rules doesn't automatically mean it's okay in cases where other actions that are an inherent part of detecting are clearly banned. Your examples of frisbees is a bit silly but imagine if there was something that said "No throwing objects through the air"...would this not logically and obviously include throwing a frisbee? And so it is with "digging, removing, disturbing" and metal detecting...unless, for the 47th time, you've been given the go ahead or assurance that the authorities will not consider your actions as breaking the law, despite what is written.

 

[stewart73]

Hold on a moment here. Let's assume for a minute that you're perfectly right. That no one can dig 155 targets (even shallow clad with the poke of a screwdriver) without leaving marks. I'm willing to go along with this premise.

Ok, then, if the subject is whether or not permission is needed given catch-all verbage, then .... please tell me how someone's having permission changes the scenario, of the above "155 holes". No matter permission or no permission (as if it were needed) changes the fact of how that md'r had left marks. If, as I say, what you're saying in an accepted "given".

I mean, unless you also have permission to "leave marks" ? So I don't get it. The part about leaving marks and leaving trash on top, is still wrong, WHETHER or not you "had permission", right ?

I don't think the argument being made was one about having permission or not, but that detecting is, in many cases, a destructive activity. You often speak as though it itsn't. As you say, there is no way a park is going to look the same after it's had 155 holes dug in it in one day. Considering how many others probably use the park, is it unreasonable that laws banning detecting are implemented? To NOT do something about it would be irresponsible. I have cleaned up many a messy dectorist's messes. You seem to think that banning detecting for any reason is an awful, selfish act when really...it isn't.

 

[Kemper]

I think it would depend on where one was detecting. I read in here all the time from the experts who can "read a situation" when it fact they would do the samething if the digging is good, keep on digging right???

Now, if that is a baseball field that someone takes the time to maintain, drag the infield after every practice and game (mandatory in this town) then obviously digging 155+ holes in one day would at a minimal irresponsible wouldnt' you say????!!!!

I asked about the post you were referring to and complaining about 155 holes. How many holes do you think would be proper on that site since you said 155 were not proper?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Tom, you're pretending again that all laws are clear-cut on the matter when we all know they usually aren't. Many places don't say "Detecting allowed" or "Detecting banned" (as you know) but instead say something like "no digging, disturbing, removing objects, etc." (as you know) which, obviously, would include most types of detecting (as you know) unless you've been given permission otherwise.... [/I]

Yes. You're right. Someone could indeed take catch-all wording and tell you or I that we're running afoul of it. The only problem I have with pre-empting such a possibility (to "get permission" to break those rules, or have someone say "they don't apply as long as you cover your spot, etc...), is that there's been too many cases of some pencil pusher saying they DO apply, and you CAN'T detect. And oddly, such answers can come from places where .... quite frankly .... detecting had, up-till-then, simply been common-place. Had simply not been a problem. In other words, it risks the "no one cared till you asked" phenomenom.

But yes, you're right, those grey-area catch-alls can indeed be applied. Even verbage about "harvesting", "collecting" and "removing" can be applied (if someone thought long enough and hard enough to realize that md'rs "take" park features home with them, etc....). So you're right, all those things *could* apply by some passerby, or the pencil-pusher you're asking for permission.

 

[stewart73]

So you're right, all those things *could* apply by some passerby, or the pencil-pusher you're asking for permission.

Right. The difference being that it doesn't really matter so much what the passerby thinks. Not so for the authority in charge. And for the record, it's never been the 'pencil pusher' at the front desk that has given or refused permission...they generally know who to re-direct the question to (in my personal experience).

 

[stewart73]

You were the one claiming it was not proper for the person to dig 155 holes in a certain area. Are you now saying you don't know if it was proper or not? Would you like to apologize to the person that dug the 155 holes?

Why would he need to apologize? I don't think we're quite THAT sensitive around here are we? I think the point he is trying to make is quite clear but you are picking on an irrelevant detail so as to 'not understand'.

 

[Kemper]

Why would he need to apologize? I don't think we're quite THAT sensitive around here are we? I think the point he is trying to make is quite clear but you are picking on an irrelevant detail so as to 'not understand'.

I didn't say he needed to apologize. I asked him if he would like to. The point I was trying to make as well as wondering if he would like to apologize is the point that he should look at individual situations as I think if he would do that he would not have such a negative attitude of metal detecting in general.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Let me put a Ol Tommy Boy tale out there for you......

On Tuesday night one of our players, while crossing the safety bag at first base slipped and fractured an ankle. To the point he is now in a boot. That was nobody's fault, just part of the game. Sports have risks while playing them, but sports fields sure as heck don't need someone out there losing up the turf just for a handful of glad and a earing that has a .925 on the back does it? You claim that " I leave no trace". Really???? Do you go back and watch any games to make sure a kid didn't take a bad hop in the outfield because of a soft plug, or maybe rolled an ankle due to your selfish and not so well read digging of an area? Of course not, what is really meant is you dug up a handful of clad and an earing and were able to get out of there without anyone seeing or bothering you about it..... Say what it really is, don't try to use some jedi mind trick on us like we are idiots.

Nobody would argue that it's "good" that (if) a metal detectorist left a hole that caused an injury. So I'm not sure of your point in giving this example. Also it doesn't lend itself to "permission" or "no permission" issue, because, either way, "permission" didn't make the hole smaller, did it?

and if we're talking holes that big so-as-to-cause injury, then .... forget sports fields for a minute: heck, I can't even think of a NON sports-usage turfed field where ANYONE would be "given permission" to make holes of that caliber or danger.

So how is this lending to the permission vs no-permission issue ?

 

[Kemper]

NO not at all. I'm sorry that you didn't understand my sarcasim even though I pointed it out. Re-read the post because I'm not interested in typing it again. I spelled out my point very well.....

did you see the post a couple nights ago about a member finding over 23.00 in glad? He had to dig a min. of 155 holes to accomplish that. I'm sure that EVERY hole was perfect when done right? How many trash holes were dug on top of those 155? Let's not talk about the elephant in the room though boys, just dig!!! -Uptown603

 

[Kemper]

Let me put a Ol Tommy Boy tale out there for you......

On Tuesday night one of our players, while crossing the safety bag at first base slipped and fractured an ankle. To the point he is now in a boot. That was nobody's fault, just part of the game. Sports have risks while playing them, but sports fields sure as heck don't need someone out there losing up the turf just for a handful of glad and a earing that has a .925 on the back does it? You claim that " I leave no trace". Really???? Do you go back and watch any games to make sure a kid didn't take a bad hop in the outfield because of a soft plug, or maybe rolled an ankle due to your selfish and not so well read digging of an area? Of course not, what is really meant is you dug up a handful of clad and an earing and were able to get out of there without anyone seeing or bothering you about it..... Say what it really is, don't try to use some jedi mind trick on us like we are idiots.

Sorry to hear about the player getting hurt. Have you ever seen in person any damage done by someone metal detecting on your field? I think it would be rare for someone to detect a ball field immediately before or during ball season. How is this a Tommy Boy tale?

 

[stewart73]

I think we could safely assume that people, in general, are probably more apt to ignore/break/avoid/rail against laws and rules that they feel are unfair or unreasonable (as opposed to rules they agree with/see the need for/understand). Can we agree on this?

This being the case, Tom do you think that bans on metal detecting in public parks are reasonable and justified, or unreasonable? I mean in a general sense, as a matter of policy. Please try to step out of being a detectorist for a moment and think of it from a wider perspective (as all council members, parks boards, etc. should do, what will do the greatest good for the greatest number). How about in cases where there has been repeated damage by detectorists that have either resulted in injury, complaints by other park users, or in having to pay out more for park maintenance and repair? Are bans justified and reasonable in these cases?

Put simply, do you think a city is ever 'in the right' to ban metal detecting in public places?

 

[stewart73]

Sorry to hear about the player getting hurt. Have you ever seen in person any damage done by someone metal detecting on your field? I think it would be rare for someone to detect a ball field immediately before or during ball season. How is this a Tommy Boy tale?

I have seen (and tried to repair) damage from detecting several times. I've even damaged parks myself, though not intentionally. Plugs get sucked up by mowers before they have time to re-root, people cut too shallow, they leave the rocks they've dug out but replace only the dirt, etc. I once detected a ball field (with permission) in the summer and when I went back a few days later every place I had dug was just a yellow circle in a field of green. I felt pretty bad about that one! Even the most careful of us can easily cause damage, and when that occurs repeatedly it would be a very irresponsible city indeed to not step in and do what has to be done to protect the place for everyone. Like it or not.

 

[stewart73]

Nice try Tom....It's not. It's leading to the garbage you spew about "no digging" or "no defacing" laws that you claim do NOT mean "no metal detecting".

It leads to the point that you try and claim that those who ask are the ones who cause signs to go up, and you know perfectly well that is NOT as likely as it would be if a grounds keeper sees 155+ cut sod areas in one morning, when the area was perfectly fine when he clocked out. Has nothing to do with a "pencil pusher" unless of course the MDer was "pushing a pencil" prior to digging 155+ holes.

Good point. I would guess that irresponsible detecting (and the resulting damage) has resulted in many, many more outright bans than law-abiding citizens simply asking permission. In fact, one of my refusals gave this reason for their ban. "We just got tired of cleaning up the mess", she told me. How can I argue with that?

 

[Kemper]

I have seen (and tried to repair) damage from detecting several times. I've even damaged parks myself, though not intentionally. Plugs get sucked up by mowers before they have time to re-root, people cut too shallow, they leave the rocks they've dug out but replace only the dirt, etc. I once detected a ball field (with permission) in the summer and when I went back a few days later every place I had dug was just a yellow circle in a field of green. I felt pretty bad about that one! Even the most careful of us can easily cause damage, and when that occurs repeatedly it would be a very irresponsible city indeed to not step in and do what has to be done to protect the place for everyone. Like it or not.

Yes you should have felt bad about the ball field you damaged and you stated such. You also stated that you had permission to do so. This shows that "permission" did not keep damage from being done. This is one reason I encourage people to not ask for permission when they already have it. They should be focused instead on proper etiquette. I think people sometimes want a "blessing" to detect and once they get that it can make them think they can (and they can) detect a place in a manner that is not proper.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I think we could safely assume that people, in general, are probably more apt to ignore/break/avoid/rail against laws and rules that they feel are unfair or unreasonable (as opposed to rules they agree with/see the need for/understand). Can we agree on this?

This being the case, Tom do you think that bans on metal detecting in public parks are reasonable and justified, or unreasonable? I mean in a general sense, as a matter of policy. Please try to step out of being a detectorist for a moment and think of it from a wider perspective (as all council members, parks boards, etc. should do, what will do the greatest good for the greatest number). How about in cases where there has been repeated damage by detectorists that have either resulted in injury, complaints by other park users, or in having to pay out more for park maintenance and repair? Are bans justified and reasonable in these cases?

Put simply, do you think a city is ever 'in the right' to ban metal detecting in public places?

Stewart, when you put it that way, like if I (or any of us) were to remove ourselves from the position of being hobby adherants, then yes: I would totally understand any city's frowning on the idea. I can totally understand a "no".

But doesn't this go against everything you're standing for then? If you too can understand any city's ban, and/or likeliness to say "no", then .... it sounds to me like you're acknowledging this is the likely answer, when this "pressing issue" crosses their desk.