Myers Depot Metal Detectors

City Parks

luked

luked

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
381
I know a lot of towns and citys are different and we just moved to a new town the first part of this month. there are 2 pretty large parks and my thinking is it will be a nice place to go for a hunt for a couple of hours here and there.

with that being said I would like to make sure to ask permission from the city just to be on the safe side of things. who at our city hall would I talk to or what dept?
 
Go enjoy the city park! You don't need permission, unless there is sign speficially saying metal detecting is not allowed. Be courteous, don't make a mess.
 
Don't ask just observe the posted rules.
I have seen only one park near me with a sign saying do not Pierce the turf.

Happy detecting!
 
I also want to say this...years ago I called an authority of some city type in Lake Tahoe. They denied any detecting. However I asked for permission at a South Tahoe beach and the person said go ahead my mom detects here too. I can detect all Tahoe beaches except national parks.
I have no problems in Tahoe.😁👍
I will say I have detected at County parks in Marin County and have been told beach is ok but not the grassby a park employee.
 
luked said:
I know a lot of towns and citys are different and we just moved to a new town the first part of this month. there are 2 pretty large parks and my thinking is it will be a nice place to go for a hunt for a couple of hours here and there.

with that being said I would like to make sure to ask permission from the city just to be on the safe side of things. who at our city hall would I talk to or what dept?
Click to expand...
You should be able to find a copy of the park rules somewhere online. Start there. I would only go inquire in person if I were unable to answer my questions by looking online.
I'm sure others will tell you to just go ahead and detect.
 
Most city or county parks dont need permission, I have come across one park in Nevada that said NO, & one in 29 Palms,Ca. where you can metal detect but you cant dig a hole :?:
Just keep your plugs neat & small youll be ok.
 
diggin4clad said:
Just go and detect until told otherwise.....
Click to expand...

But .... don't you know that this akin to robbing banks, clubbing baby seals, and hand-grenades ? How could you suggest such a thing ?? Tsk tsk :laughing:

As for the O.P's question, as to his question: " ...Who at our city hall would I talk to or what dept? ..." The proper answer is:

Don't stop till you get a "no". If you get a dumbfounded shrug of the shoulders from the gardener, you proceed to the receptionist at city hall. When she looks at you like a deer in the headlights, you ask to speak to her superior. When that superior shrugs his shoulders and says "I dunno", you keep going up the ladder. Don't take a "yes" or a "beats me", from anyone less than the city lawyer and mayor. After all, they may not be qualified to make-that-decision. Right ? Then the city attorney and mayor will have to run it past a city-council vote. After all, ya can't be too safe, eh ? :laughing:

Then when you finally receive the "no", you can promptly spread the news to any local yokels who have md'd there and never had an issue or problem. After all, you "wouldn't want them to get arrested" right ? :?: :laughing:
 
kingman mikey said:
... I have come across one park in Nevada that said NO, & one in 29 Palms,Ca. where you can metal detect but you cant dig a hole :?: ...
Click to expand...

Was those on a sign ? Or you found those things in muni-code ?

As for the ... "can't dig a hole".... : I'd venture to say that such verbiage (in some form or fashion) can be found in EVERY SINGLE park's boiler-plate, across the USA. AKA : Alter, deface, molest, dig, destroy, damage, etc.......

But the *trick* to any such language, is as you say:

kingman mikey said:
... Just keep your plugs neat & small youll be ok. ...
Click to expand...


Basically: If you leave no trace of your presence, then ... presto, you haven't alterED, defacED, dUg, or destroyED anything. Right ? Is it possible that someone will debate those semantics ? SURE ! :roll: Then go at low traffic times and avoid such kill-joy lookie-lous. Some people might call that "sneaking around", eh ? Ok, fine then : Sneak around. Just like nose-picking : Sometimes discretion-in-timing is better than trying to get every-last-person to agree that you can do it.
 
Tom_in_CA said:
Was those on a sign ? Or you found those things in muni-code ?

As for the ... "can't dig a hole".... : I'd venture to say that such verbiage (in some form or fashion) can be found in EVERY SINGLE park's boiler-plate, across the USA. AKA : Alter, deface, molest, dig, destroy, damage, etc.......

But the *trick* to any such language, is as you say:




Basically: If you leave no trace of your presence, then ... presto, you haven't alterED, defacED, dUg, or destroyED anything. Right ? Is it possible that someone will debate those semantics ? SURE ! :roll: Then go at low traffic times and avoid such kill-joy lookie-lous. Some people might call that "sneaking around", eh ? Ok, fine then : Sneak around. Just like nose-picking : Sometimes discretion-in-timing is better than trying to get every-last-person to agree that you can do it.
Click to expand...

They still get ya if they arrive and watch a dig or there is a pile of dirt on a drop cloth, no matter if the previous holes can't be easily seen. Buddy and I got the boot once, even after the cop agreed that no signs of our digs were obvious.

Just sayin'
 
Martin_V3i said:
.... Buddy and I got the boot once, ....
Click to expand...

Martin, question for you :

I understand that, of course, when a scram or booting occurs, that we all give "lip service" and leave. Sure. But a question for you :

Do you consider that a law or rule, from then-on-out ? And if so, does that only apply to you and your buddy ? Or does it also apply to other md'rs in that location who perhaps have never had any interactions ?

The reason I ask is : In my 40+ yrs. of this, I too have had (or heard of ) "scrams" and/or been "booted". And ... sure ... we give lip service and comply. Yet years later, those exact same parks haven't been an issue since then. And no one can recall any other such interactions ever since then (barring someone being an utter nuisance or whatever).

So I have come to conclude that some "scrams" or "bootings" are flukes. Eg.: Someone having a bad hair day . Or in your example, the cops could have gotten a call from "miss-lookie-lou", and they were merely justifying their call-out.

I can think of scores of parks where .... yes .... someone 5 or 10 or 20 yrs. ago recalls a "scram". Yet no *specific* actual written rule exists. So... after "giving lip service" (and "giving the place a rest") .... it seems that nothing ever became of it. And despite the rogue fluke "scram", detecting seems to be a non-issue ever since then. Because of having witnessed many many such instances of seeing this , I have not been so quick to conclude that it's "gospel law" from then-on-out. Sometimes it only means: Avoid that singular griper in the future. JMHO.
 
Tom_in_CA said:
Martin, question for you :

I understand that, of course, when a scram or booting occurs, that we all give "lip service" and leave. Sure. But a question for you :

Do you consider that a law or rule, from then-on-out ? And if so, does that only apply to you and your buddy ? Or does it also apply to other md'rs in that location who perhaps have never had any interactions ?

The reason I ask is : In my 40+ yrs. of this, I too have had (or heard of ) "scrams" and/or been "booted". And ... sure ... we give lip service and comply. Yet years later, those exact same parks haven't been an issue since then. And no one can recall any other such interactions ever since then (barring someone being an utter nuisance or whatever).

So I have come to conclude that some "scrams" or "bootings" are flukes. Eg.: Someone having a bad hair day . Or in your example, the cops could have gotten a call from "miss-lookie-lou", and they were merely justifying their call-out.

I can think of scores of parks where .... yes .... someone 5 or 10 or 20 yrs. ago recalls a "scram". Yet no *specific* actual written rule exists. So... after "giving lip service" (and "giving the place a rest") .... it seems that nothing ever became of it. And despite the rogue fluke "scram", detecting seems to be a non-issue ever since then. Because of having witnessed many many such instances of seeing this , I have not been so quick to conclude that it's "gospel law" from then-on-out. Sometimes it only means: Avoid that singular griper in the future. JMHO.
Click to expand...

When a cop collects all of my personal ID data and driver's license info while saying this time is just a warning...that place gets "cold to me." It ain't worth a citation and possibly "that ride" in the back of a squad car next time.

Do they really keep such lame data in this world today? Low hanging fruit, if they want to.

This brings up a second question though. If there is not a written rule against an action, are we required to provide personal info at all?
 
Martin_V3i said:
....
Do they really keep such lame data in this world today? Low hanging fruit, if they want to.

This brings up a second question though. If there is not a written rule against an action, are we required to provide personal info at all?
Click to expand...

Couple of responses here : I am prone to believe that when they jot down your name, run your driver's lic, blah blah, that that is more for just a scare tactic. Or ... in the case of getting and running your ID/DL, it can be just to make sure there's no warrants out for you, blah blah.

Yes I know it can be intimidating. But .... I don't think they keep that data , and .... a year later are going to say "aha !". Not saying to "throw caution to the wind", but .... just saying ... I think some of that is a ruse to get our feathers ruffled. Trust me : The cops have bigger-fish-to-fry, in today's world, than some looser-geek in a park with a metal detector.

As for whether or not we are "required to provide personal info", I dunno. I suppose that we are. There's been videos made of individuals who try to show their constitutional right to not give cops any cooperation. And .... I don't see the sense of it. I would respect a cop, and give him what he's asking for. I have nothing to hide, so .... whether or not I have a "legal obligation" to identify myself, I dunno. But in my experience, simply cooperating, with a big smile, and a compliment for their service to our community .... tends to defuse everything, and .... as you say, nothing more than a "scram".

And as for the "place getting cold" (after an unpleasant "scram"), I will post a story about that , in this section of FMDF, next . Let me know your thoughts on that thread.
 
The largest park system closest to me forbids detecting. Literally thousands of acres of old large and small parks. Yet, every person I've ever talked to at length about my detecting hobby has either asked if I ever find anything at the parks or they outright suggest a specific park I should try. They're completely surprised when I tell them the parks are off limits (and that's why I'm always asking people for private permission).

These are people who all use the parks, aren't themselves into metal detecting, and yet they themselves see no problem whatsoever with it.
 
ToySoldier said:
The largest park system closest to me forbids detecting. ....
Click to expand...

And.... based on yours & I's conversation on that locale, it can all be traced back to a singular encounter:

1) A single local hunter, who chose to hunt right next to Park office admin. buildings, (where ample administrator's office windows looked right out over the adjacent grass) . Ie.: He was a lightening rod, begging for attention. Such a location should be saved for after 6pm, or Sundays (when office-personnel aren't likely to be out-&-about).

2) Once confronted, rather than give lip service, he chose to be defiant. Arguing that he was doing nothing wrong, and didn't intend to cease. The office personnel warned him that he had the power to enact a rule, if the guy persisted. The md'r persisted in defiance. So the office-guy marched back into his office, and drafted language , for a proposed rule.

Hence this wasn't a case of persons grovelling for permission, that "brought it to their plate" in that case. However, it was a case where the fellow didn't have an ounce of common sense. Based on the story you told me, that could have been easily avoided, if he'd followed a few common sense rules-of-thumb.
 
Tom_in_CA said:
................Hence this wasn't a case of persons grovelling for permission, that "brought it to their plate" in that case. However, it was a case where the fellow didn't have an ounce of common sense. Based on the story you told me, that could have been easily avoided, if he'd followed a few common sense rules-of-thumb.
Click to expand...


The point of my post wasn't to disprove your theory about how bans come to be. It was to point out that there is a ban, and yet the typical non-metal detecting park-goers I know don't know about it and apparently don't support it because they've suggested that I go and detect there.

As far as how such bans come to be, I'd say "Lots of different ways, of course."

There appear to be some cases where people went seeking permission from city officials and that worked out for them. Although, if that's the case, I'd wager that if they had just went ahead without asking, then it would have worked out for them anyway. Either way, those situations are not proof that people should ask permission to detect a city park because there's no law specifically allowing it. That's deep misunderstanding of how laws work.

The bottom line for me is: Go detect if there aren't any written rules against it. But, if any representative approaches you, don't start going on about how much you pay in taxes and how there aren't any laws against it. That's begging them to create a rule. They don't need an act of congress. They just need to add something to the list of rules right between "no campfires" and "no fireworks" and then send the memo out to every employee.

So, you say "sorry for the misunderstanding" and leave. That's not being sorry for any wrongdoing, it's being sorry for their misunderstanding of the law that has led to the end of your hunt at that park on that day. It could very well be that one employee's opinion and perhaps they're retiring next week anyway. Let them get back to work and forget about you instead of going back to work and firing off emails about you.
 
Last edited:
Martin_V3i said:
When a cop collects all of my personal ID data and driver's license info while saying this time is just a warning...that place gets "cold to me." It ain't worth a citation and possibly "that ride" in the back of a squad car next time.

Do they really keep such lame data in this world today? Low hanging fruit, if they want to.

This brings up a second question though. If there is not a written rule against an action, are we required to provide personal info at all?
Click to expand...

Even "Field Interviews" are maintained, many in searchable databases....

Be very careful in answering a Police Officer's questions.... All of your responses may be used against you.

Is asked, never, ever consent to a search.

if they had a legitimate, legal reason to perform the search, they wouldn't be asking.
 
Last edited:
Bill_Ace_350 said:
Even "Field Interviews" are maintained, many in searchable databases....Be very careful in answering a Police Officer's questions.... All of your responses may be used against you. Is asked, never, ever consent to a search. if they had a legitimate, legal reason to perform the search, they wouldn't be asking.
Click to expand...

Martin_V3i said:
When a cop collects all of my personal ID data and driver's license info while saying this time is just a warning...that place gets "cold to me." ....
Click to expand...

For the sake of discussion and not any recommendation for what somebody should or should not do in a police interaction, I'm not aware of any requirement of citizens to carry identification.

(When you're driving you obviously have to produce a drivers license because the license is required. The police can then use it to identify you, but that's not directly why you have to carry it or produce it.)

You are required to identify yourself and can be arrested for not identifying yourself, and an officer will say you need to give them your driver's license. But, the police are allowed to say lots of things that aren't true.

Quite simply, what would could they do if you left your driver's license in your car? Or, simply walked to the park and not taken it with you?

Or.....did have it, but choose not to give it to them? You don't have to answer how you got to the park, how you plan to get home, which car is yours, and so on. You don't have to answer if they ask if you are carrying your driver's license. Local laws might vary, but wouldn't giving your real full name hold up in court as far as showing you identified yourself? Although, I'm not sure if not giving your address would be considered not identifying yourself.

They can do a pat down without arresting you, but that's only a pat down for weapons--not seizing and searching your wallet. They'd have to arrest you to take and go through your wallet without consent
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MasonDixonMding
New permission
Replies
0
Views
1
MasonDixonMding
MasonDixonMding
maxxkatt
Tom's Theme Song
Replies
3
Views
158
cellrdwellr
cellrdwellr
FliesOnly
A weird question
Replies
11
Views
346
KingTotsalot
KingTotsalot
MasonDixonMding
Research works out fast.
Replies
1
Views
186
hoser
hoser
hoser
Coffee and doughnuts
2
Replies
21
Views
505
Rock Jock
Rock Jock
Back
Top Bottom