How would you interpret this response?

[stewart73]

Exactly. The goal is to pursue our hobby, not placate every parks employee. Use the system to your advantage.

I absolutely agree with your first two sentences. Of course pursue this great hobby and seek out new potential sites, I would just suggest that you know first if you're allowed to detect/dig there. This sometimes means asking permission in cases where there are rules in place that could be used against you.

As for "placat[ing] every parks employee", well, not sure why you would even attempt that. Unnecessary. I certainly haven't been mention making sure every last person loves you (I've only really heard Tom suggest this most strange and impractical idea, probably in an attempt to exaggerate the asking permission process in order to make it look impractical and absurd); you just need permission from whomever is in charge of that particular park.

In your last sentence it's not clear in which sense you mean using the system to our advantage so I can't really give an opinion on that.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....As for "placat[ing] every parks employee", well, not sure why you would even attempt that......

Here's why, in your own words:

...I would just suggest that you know first if you're allowed to detect/dig there. This sometimes means asking permission in cases where there are rules in place that could be used against you....

But you do clarify with your "proper authority" line when you add this:

....you just need permission from whomever is in charge of that particular park.....

Stewart, there's LOTS of people "in charge" of whatever-park-it-is in question. How high up do you go ? Or do you stop with the first "yes" (even if not the highest you could go), and run with that? You admit yourself that even though you or I might get a "yes" from one person, yet another person might have said "no". Can't you see for just a second that this starts to become a little whimsical and arbitrary, depending on who you ask, how you ask, etc... ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Oh, and Stewart, I had to chuckle the other day, I was reading another forum, and .... I forget the context of the post going on, but someone had cited how their city actually had a "no kite flying" ordinance in their parks.

Well seeing as how some cities might have rules against (interferes with migratory birds perhaps), let me ask you: If you travel to another city, and hatch the idea to go kite-flying with your kid, do you ask permission ? Afterall, there is some cities in the USA that frown on it. And afterall, they *might* morph some ancillary verbage they think applies to your question ,and say "no". So do you ask for kite-flying? Skipping stones on ponds? Letting your daughter pick up a pretty seashell ? Feeding the seagulls bread crusts? Afterall, you can't be too safe, right?

 

[HarveyH48]

Here's why, in your own words:



But you do clarify with your "proper authority" line when you add this:




Stewart, there's LOTS of people "in charge" of whatever-park-it-is in question. How high up do you go ? Or do you stop with the first "yes" (even if not the highest you could go), and run with that? You admit yourself that even though you or I might get a "yes" from one person, yet another person might have said "no". Can't you see for just a second that this starts to become a little whimsical and arbitrary, depending on who you ask, how you ask, etc... ?

The proper authority, is the one most likely to see you digging holes, and raise a fuss over it, since the city code clearly states, 'NO DIGGING'. If you talk this person, and they believe you are going to be doing very minimal impact on their work, they may give you the go ahead. Sure, somebody else might see you, raise a fuss, but you talked to one with success, shouldn't be that hard to talk to others.

Remember Tom, you stated before, that city hall can't give you permission to break the law? So why is it okay for you to give permission, to encourage others to break that same law? Because, for the most part, you can get away with it? If you are clever and careful, you can get away with it for years? Not sure why this topic can continue. You've acknowledged promoting illegal activity. You've twisting it around, squirming about, but it's still comes down to the same thing.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....

Remember Tom, you stated before, that city hall can't give you permission to break the law? So why is it okay for you to give permission, to encourage others to break that same law? ...

Because when I call it a "law", I'm doing so because you say it's a law. To put the burden in your court, by pointing out that if it truly was a black & white, "law", then that just bodes to other outcomes [that you can't be "allowed" to "break laws" etc....].

But I, on the other hand, do NOT see it as a "law". At least not in the black & white sense. Well, for sake of argument here (just bear with me), let's restrict the issue to one of "deface" and "alter" and so forth. In those cases, no, I do not encourage anyone to "break laws", but I do not consider us to be breaking them, in the first place. Only if a law said "no metal detecting", would we be on the same page. But as for "disturb" and so forth, I do not consider them to be broken, if you leave no trace. Then technically, you have not disturbED anything.

Yes, I realize this doesn't address if the word "dig" were used, but.... we've covered that ground many many times. And I would argue that that too is also up for interpretation, as attested to by the many people who already simply do it, and no one cares or quite frankly even get the blessings of others to do it, despite the wording that forbids it.

Now, durnit, if only I had gone in to the police ahead of time and asked for permission to be on the cell-phone when driving, then I wouldn't have gotten the cell-phone ticket I just got the other day. Afterall, I'm sure a reasonable cop would have said "shucks, as long as you're careful, I don't see what harm it can do", right ?

 

[Kemper]

Tom- When you look at the responses from those on the other side of the debate you can clearly see a pattern. That pattern is one of avoidance of the obvious. They repeatedly push a stance of "go ask" yet they have no valid reason for asking. If they really feel that the wording means no metal detecting, as they tell you they truly feel it does, then why would they see a need to ask? I think these people are clearly using the debate to try and make themselves appear more caring as they have shown no other valid reason.

 

[stewart73]

Tom- When you look at the responses from those on the other side of the debate you can clearly see a pattern. That pattern is one of avoidance of the obvious. They repeatedly push a stance of "go ask" yet they have no valid reason for asking. If they really feel that the wording means no metal detecting, as they tell you they truly feel it does, then why would they see a need to ask? I think these people are clearly using the debate to try and make themselves appear more caring as they have shown no other valid reason.

Kemper you're smarter than this. When you say we have 'no valid reason' for asking you must not have read the how-ever-many hundred posts made on this very topic. When the park you are wanting to hunt has rules such as "no digging, no removing objects, no disturbing the ground" it means you will be clearly breaking the law if you just go ahead and detect. UNLESS, as happens over and over in all parts of the globe, the proper authority gives you the go ahead despite those rules. How is clarifying the law before you dig not a valid reason? It's not simply to 'make you feel good' as you've often said.

As for your question "If they really feel that the wording means no metal detecting, as they tell you they truly feel it does, then why would they see a need to ask?", well, isn't the answer obvious by now? I would see a need to ask because there is a very good chance you'll still be allowed to metal detect despite the wording of the local rules...some cities choose to allow detecting even when the rules suggest it would not be allowed. This is a decision for them to make, and luckily they often make it in our favour (if you've ever tried it, as opposed to just wringing your hands behind a monitor worrying and arguing about it). As for us simply trying to make ourselves 'appear more caring', um...okay. Like who are we showing off for? A bunch of anonymous hillbillies and rednecks in cyberspace whom we will never meet? Don't think so.

 

[stewart73]

Then technically, you have not disturbED anything.

Wow...back to the verb tense argument?

 

[stewart73]

Here's why, in your own words:



But you do clarify with your "proper authority" line when you add this:




Stewart, there's LOTS of people "in charge" of whatever-park-it-is in question. How high up do you go ? Or do you stop with the first "yes" (even if not the highest you could go), and run with that? You admit yourself that even though you or I might get a "yes" from one person, yet another person might have said "no". Can't you see for just a second that this starts to become a little whimsical and arbitrary, depending on who you ask, how you ask, etc... ?

The city halls and parks boards I contact know where to direct my call or email. No need to guess who might say yes or who might say no or how far up the chain I need to go or who else in the building might disagree. I ask, they answer. If it's a yes I "run with that". If it's a no I go elsewhere.

This talk about going up the chain, whimsical answers, somebody else having a different opinion is simply a mental exercise you keep repeating in your head. It has no real-world meaning. Maybe you should try asking for permission a few times and you might find it's not nearly as complicated as you would have us believe. I've done it quite a few times and none of the dire situations you describe has ever occurred. Same goes with most of my hunting buddies.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...They repeatedly push a stance of "go ask" yet they have no valid reason for asking.....

Well, to "come to their defense", yes, there is a reason for asking. Because you might find someone to tell you that that's *not* what the "law" really means. That what it really means, is that you simply don't make a mess, then .... in that case, you either a) can "break" the law, or b) be in the "spirit" of the law.

And I can truly understand that notion of theirs. But then, by definition, that simply puts it in another class of things then, doesn't it? There is, by definition, some sort of difference between THAT, and the ticket I just got for being on the cell-phone. Because I gaurantee you there's not a single cop or city or legislator that can or would tell me to "just go ahead, as long as you're careful when driving, you can still talk on a cell-phone".

So .... this, to me, means that we're talking two different kind of "laws" here. One IS "up for interpretation", while other ISN'T. Ok, fine then, I "interpret" it to mean end-result. Presto, problem solved. If someone ELSE interprets it differently, well then they're MORE THAN WELCOME to come alert me.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....As for your question "If they really feel that the wording means no metal detecting, as they tell you they truly feel it does, then why would they see a need to ask?", well, isn't the answer obvious by now? I would see a need to ask because there is a very good chance you'll still be allowed to metal detect despite the wording of the local rules...some cities choose to allow detecting even when the rules suggest it would not be allowed.....

Yes, it's obvious by now: That yes, you're right, it often doesn't *really* mean that! We agree. The difference is that you seek out someone to tell you that (and pat you on the back and send you on your way). Whereas I (and kemper) too are willing to be appraised of the same thing as well. That they're more than welcome to come alert us.

Yes I know you consider that reckless, but I don't. Because the risk of asking ahead of time, is that you might just subconsciously *steer* the answer in a direction, or find yourself in the scrutiny, that you didn't wish to be in, from someone who .... in all honestly ... might not have cared UNTIL you asked Case in point: my CA beaches example where you can detect till you're blue in the face. Why? Because thankfully no one's gone asking of the wrong (or right, in your opinion?) persons.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... If it's a no I go elsewhere...

Ok, that's a fair enough answer. Question: What would you do if, later on, you discovered that other persons in that city routinely already hunted there, and never had a problem ? Would you consider them all law-breakers?

Such was the case of what happened in my city: Someone (who had just moved to our city) went to city hall, and got a "no". Imagine their surprise when they show up at the club meeting, and see someone's find in the show & tell portion of meeting that was "found in central park". The newcomer objected and said "but I thought detecting wasn't allowed in the parks here".

Hmmm, since when? This was news to us! The parks had always ever just been detected, and no one had ever had a problem! In fact, it never occured to any of us you COULDN'T detect the parks, because that's simply where our mentors before us (since the 1960s) had themselves gone, and .... no one ever had an issue. Now all of the sudden there's this answer coming from city hall ?

So in that case, does it apply to just that person who asked? Or is this now a rule that the entire club must follow? Do we go down to city hall and get this "clarified", I'm guessing you're going to say ?

Thus for you, what would you do personally do if you found out that detecting in that spot has always routinely gone on, and no one ever had an issue ? I suppose they're all guilty of violating the code-of-ethics now ?

 

[Kemper]

Kemper you're smarter than this. When you say we have 'no valid reason' for asking you must not have read the how-ever-many hundred posts made on this very topic. When the park you are wanting to hunt has rules such as "no digging, no removing objects, no disturbing the ground" it means you will be clearly breaking the law if you just go ahead and detect. UNLESS, as happens over and over in all parts of the globe, the proper authority gives you the go ahead despite those rules. How is clarifying the law before you dig not a valid reason? It's not simply to 'make you feel good' as you've often said.

As for your question "If they really feel that the wording means no metal detecting, as they tell you they truly feel it does, then why would they see a need to ask?", well, isn't the answer obvious by now? I would see a need to ask because there is a very good chance you'll still be allowed to metal detect despite the wording of the local rules...some cities choose to allow detecting even when the rules suggest it would not be allowed. This is a decision for them to make, and luckily they often make it in our favour (if you've ever tried it, as opposed to just wringing your hands behind a monitor worrying and arguing about it). As for us simply trying to make ourselves 'appear more caring', um...okay. Like who are we showing off for? A bunch of anonymous hillbillies and rednecks in cyberspace whom we will never meet? Don't think so.

Well if you are saying now that you are not sure what it means,then why do you argue the point that "digging,defacing,etc." means no metal detecting? If you are not sure after reading the rules or codes why would you not just detect as it is not clearly stated?

 

[HarveyH48]

Because when I call it a "law", I'm doing so because you say it's a law. To put the burden in your court, by pointing out that if it truly was a black & white, "law", then that just bodes to other outcomes [that you can't be "allowed" to "break laws" etc....].

But I, on the other hand, do NOT see it as a "law". At least not in the black & white sense. Well, for sake of argument here (just bear with me), let's restrict the issue to one of "deface" and "alter" and so forth. In those cases, no, I do not encourage anyone to "break laws", but I do not consider us to be breaking them, in the first place. Only if a law said "no metal detecting", would we be on the same page. But as for "disturb" and so forth, I do not consider them to be broken, if you leave no trace. Then technically, you have not disturbED anything.

Yes, I realize this doesn't address if the word "dig" were used, but.... we've covered that ground many many times. And I would argue that that too is also up for interpretation, as attested to by the many people who already simply do it, and no one cares or quite frankly even get the blessings of others to do it, despite the wording that forbids it.

Now, durnit, if only I had gone in to the police ahead of time and asked for permission to be on the cell-phone when driving, then I wouldn't have gotten the cell-phone ticket I just got the other day. Afterall, I'm sure a reasonable cop would have said "shucks, as long as you're careful, I don't see what harm it can do", right ?

The rule exists, "No Digging", is the tool that would be used to eject you from the park, or get you a ticket. The person you need to ask, would be the person, who would either care enough to pursue usage of that rule, or not see a problem with what you propose. If they really don't want you hunting there, they have the tool (the 'No Digging' rule) to make you stop, least during the hours they work... Since that person is in the park everyday, and has to clean up, after not so tidy diggers, he might be inclined to seek clearer rules, to make sure you get the point. Asking, gives them a chance to clarify their position, before it goes any further, or escalates to a city wide solution. They may not really care that much, simply need a chance to explain what they expect from you, or ask you not to dig in certain areas.

If no one cares, then why are there rules? Why are some areas banned? Why do some get citations. Remember, you gave two example yourself, over on TreasureNet? Obviously, some people do care, and if you keep pushing them, they do push back, and push for stronger wording, stronger penalties. Asking, greatly reduces the escalation, and future bans, if the hunter actually complies with the answers given, rather than simple ignore them, the rules, and hunt anyway, just not during business hours.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... If no one cares, then why are there rules? .....

Good question. Answer: There are often-time rules and laws purposefully written vaguely, so as to apply to a myriad of circumstances, that may arise in the field. To fit various circumstances that may arise. Because it's impossible to write laws to explain and exactly describe a million different things that *might* happen in the field.

That's why, for example, there's laws that forbid "annoyances".

Hence laws are often-times purposefully written in broad ways. It doesn't mean that we need to run around pre-empting them and asking if everything we do constitutes "annoyances". In my opinion, if a cop considers my music too loud, or my standing on a sidewalk to be an "obstruction", etc... then sure, they're more than welcome to come tell me. But no, I do not feel it's everyone's duty to run around asking what other people think constitutes those grey-area-things.

 

[stewart73]

Well if you are saying now that you are not sure what it means,then why do you argue the point that "digging,defacing,etc." means no metal detecting? If you are not sure after reading the rules or codes why would you not just detect as it is not clearly stated?

It's not so much that the meaning of the rules isn't clear (no digging technically means no digging, as does removing, altering, etc.) The question is whether or not the city or park in question would choose to apply and enforce those laws if they found somebody detecting, which is totally within their power to do, or not do, as the case may be. Most times the rules are, to me, fairly easy-to-understand, but luckily some places are prepared to allow detecting anyway. Some are not. I like to find out which it is before my trowel hits the ground.

In your final sentence you suggest just going ahead when the rules aren't clear. This is where my opinion differs. Imagine you want to have a weenie roast at the beach and you look up the local laws. It does say "no fires allowed" but does not mention anything about roasting wieners. Can you in good conscience convince yourself that it would be okay to roast wieners (over a fire) simply because "wieners" wasn't mentioned? I see detecting the same way. Digging, removing, and and altering are part-and-parcel of detecting unfortunately. Knowing that many of the actions inherent to detecting are banned yet barging into a place to dig anyway simply because you felt the law 'wasn't clear' (ie. it didn't say metal detecting) is, in my opinion, not right at all. It's just a bit of metal gymnastics to get you in to every last place you want to detect, whatever the means.

 

[stewart73]

Hence laws are often-times purposefully written in broad ways. It doesn't mean that we need to run around pre-empting them and asking if everything we do constitutes "annoyances". In my opinion, if a cop considers my music too loud, or my standing on a sidewalk to be an "obstruction", etc... then sure, they're more than welcome to come tell me. But no, I do not feel it's everyone's duty to run around asking what other people think constitutes those grey-area-things.

But doesn't the fact that the penalties aren't all that serious factor into this way of thinking? It's not that it's 'right', it's more that you just don't care much if you get caught because in all likelihood it's just going to be, you believe, a verbal warning. Would you still hold this belief in 'grey areas' if you knew the penalties are a lot stiffer, say confiscation of detecting equipment or jail? Something tells me you'd be whistling a different tune. It's easy to be casual about 'possibly breaking the law' when you're not really worried about the consequences should you get caught. I would argue however that doing things your way does have more far-reaching consequences than a cop simply asking you to move on.

 

[Kemper]

It's not so much that the meaning of the rules isn't clear (no digging technically means no digging, as does removing, altering, etc.) The question is whether or not the city or park in question would choose to apply and enforce those laws if they found somebody detecting, which is totally within their power to do, or not do, as the case may be. Most times the rules are, to me, fairly easy-to-understand, but luckily some places are prepared to allow detecting anyway. Some are not. I like to find out which it is before my trowel hits the ground.

In your final sentence you suggest just going ahead when the rules aren't clear. This is where my opinion differs. Imagine you want to have a weenie roast at the beach and you look up the local laws. It does say "no fires allowed" but does not mention anything about roasting wieners. Can you in good conscience convince yourself that it would be okay to roast wieners (over a fire) simply because "wieners" wasn't mentioned? I see detecting the same way. Digging, removing, and and altering are part-and-parcel of detecting unfortunately. Knowing that many of the actions inherent to detecting are banned yet barging into a place to dig anyway simply because you felt the law 'wasn't clear' (ie. it didn't say metal detecting) is, in my opinion, not right at all. It's just a bit of metal gymnastics to get you in to every last place you want to detect, whatever the means.

Well if you are saying now that you are not sure what it means,then why do you argue the point that "digging,defacing,etc." means no metal detecting? If you are not sure after reading the rules or codes why would you not just detect as it is not clearly stated? - my original question to you.

I like to find out which it is before my trowel hits the ground. -the part of your answer that pertains to my questions.

The official you would be asking would not be allowed to give you permission just because you asked. They would have to have the same position whether you asked or not. By you liking to find out before your trowel hits the ground you are only doing something to make yourself feel better.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... Imagine you want to have a weenie roast at the beach and you look up the local laws. It does say "no fires allowed" but does not mention anything about roasting wieners.....

Well, using that example, if you were to go ask their permission to roast weenies, can you imagine the look of confusion on their face, when you say that .... yes you're aware of the "no fires" rule, however, you thought maybe this was different, since these are weenies, afterall. As opposed to marshmellows?

As you can see, it would make no difference WHAT you were roasting on the fire, would it? A fire is still a fire, forbidden, right? So too does my cell-phone ticket constitute the same thing: I'm simply NOT going to find someone to give me "permission" to break that law, am I ?

Contrast that to your having successfully gotten permission to dig while metal detecting (as long as you leave no trace, holes, etc...). See the difference now ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Would you still hold this belief in 'grey areas' if you knew the penalties are a lot stiffer, say confiscation of detecting equipment or jail? ... .

To answer your question: Yes. If there were stories circulating of persons receiving "tickets, fines, confiscations, jail, etc....", then yes. Obviously. But doesn't that illustrate the point beautifully? That that's NOT what's happening ? Because if those repurcussions WERE being handed out, then logically, that would remove it from being a "grey" area law. That it's not up for interpretation. That it's a black & white issue.

So the mere fact of lack of such "tickets" being given out, only furthers my point.