• Forum server maintanace Friday night.(around 7PM Centeral time)
    Website will be off line for a short while.

    You may need to log out, log back in after we're back online.

How would you interpret this response?

wadepliskin

Full Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
243
Location
Marysville, Washington
Hey all,

Just wondering how you would interpret the permission to metal detect at this park?

"With regards to metal detecting, we permit metal detecting in the parks, providing there is no digging of the turf, planting areas or disturbance of the natural features. We have two or three metal detectors up here and the other parks every week. We don’t allow digging as we have so much use here the turf doesn’t have time to re-root before it gets kicked up by other park users. We have also seen some big holes left on slopes which don’t heal over.
We do permit digging within the playground area which is covered by wood chips."


To me it sounds like I can only do any retrieving from the playground part that is covered with wood chips or pick up items on top of the ground.

I did send a reply asking them to define digging so I'll hope for a more clear answer on the matter but was wondering how others would interpret the response at its merit.

Thanks,

Corey
 
To me, its just their way of saying that they would prefer that you detect in the wood chip areas however, you can retrieve a surface find in the rest of the park. I would ask them about coin popping and see if they would consider that digging.
 
at my local parks the wording is almost the same - except that do have it worded that I can use an ice pick or screwdriver to remove items. Cant remember the exact wording they used.

so I just use a screwdriver for "coinpopping"
 
That's in my follow up question to them.

This place is late 1800's-present day. I can only dream of what might be hiding 7 inches below my feet when I'm there :)
.


I know the feeling. There is a University in my City that has been here since the 1800's and I want to detect there so bad but they do not allow MDing. It's tough to pass by those old buildings every day but my house is close to the campus. I don't know about in your area but around here I have found silver at 2-6 inches deep so you could pop the majority of them. The biggest problem in my area is that the ground is like concrete and just clods up and makes a mess when you try to retrieve coins.
 
I totally agree with Pescadore, and I also agree that the park is totally within their rights to impose these rules.
Maintenance of manicured turf is a labor and cost intensive endeavor, and the efficiency of park staff is evaluated by the public (read that to say "tax levies" and operating funds") on the appearance of their park.
Past gripes have been that the "authorities" won't clearly state what their expectations and restrictions are regarding metal detecting.
Isn't this a nice way to counter that gripe?
This restriction may be closer observed and acted upon depending on the season.
I'd talk to the park maintenance supervisor and get the specifics before I simply drove off in a huff and counted the park off as a lost cause.
One park we dig regularly has told us that we are not allowed to dig in "irrigated" or "sodded" areas....such as their immaculate golf course.
We are allowed, so long as we repair our digging damage elsewhere in the park without restriction.
Another sports complex with immaculate and totally "sodded"....differentiating these areas from the "grassed" areas...says we can metal detect in the complex but coin popping is the only way to recover buried targets.
Tom, the park maintenance manager said that "regardless of how carefully you may cut and repair cut sod, the curious crows return and flip the divots".
I took this as just being a polite way of keeping metal detectorist out, so...
I went home, cut some divots in my own front yard and landed in deep kimchi with the wife because, early the next morning every divot was flipped and the sod had already dried out.

ATP/GPP/Fiskars Diggers/BH outback/CT hand held
 
Discrimination?

I can certainly agree with a park protecting the turf from overt or excessive damage. What I cannot agree with is when a maint. worker tells me I can't dig a 2" plug that I will instantly repair, because it damages the turf all the while a soccer game a field away is ripping and tearing the same turf in a wholesale fashion but that is OK! This very scene happened to me in a large local park where our metal detector club had detected before. I asked the worker if he was going to go stop the soccer team also or just discriminate against me! He knew exactly where I was coming from and allowed as how maybe I could keep detecting. This illustrates two things to me. First: many times different agents of the same authority (city, county, state) don't know what the REAL policy is (or worse, just try to throw their weight around). Second: There can be a valid case made for discrimination if the authority allows one class of individuals (lets call them soccer players) to do large amounts of turf damage on an entire public field while refusing to allow another class of individuals (metal detectors, i.e. "Me") to dig and repair several 2" plugs with my inch and a quarter trowel on the same public field! The fact of the matter is that whatever the entity is that does the MOST amount of damage to the turf and is ALLOWED to do so sets the maximum standard for turf damage! If you do less damage than THEM and they are allowed, the authorities can't tell YOU no or it is discrimination. In my estimation this is a legally defensible position.

As a Post Script I would like to say that, by and large, most of the park and city level authorities around our area are very reasonable and easy to work with as far as respectful detecting and digging are concerned. I have found that reasonable and courteous inquiries about metal detecting usually result in reasonable and courteous answers in the affirmative!
 
Hey all, ... Just wondering how you would interpret the permission to metal detect at this park?
....

Here's how I would interpret it: Detecting has ... uh ... "connotations" immediate to the ears of whatever desk-bound pencil pusher your inquiry lands on. So since they're knee-jerk mental reaction will be "digging" and/or "holes", well ... guess what their answer will be ? I can't think of ANY park that would say "sure, go ahead and dig holes in our turf".

So here's how I would interpret that:

a) no one cared, till you asked (or if you'd been sticking out like a sore thumb out there). And

b) I could probably find similar answers from city people, in any number of parks I routinely hunt turf at.
 
I can certainly agree with a park protecting the turf from overt or excessive damage. What I cannot agree with is when a maint. worker tells me I can't dig a 2" plug that I will instantly repair, because it damages the turf all the while a soccer game a field away is ripping and tearing the same turf in a wholesale fashion but that is OK! This very scene happened to me in a large local park where our metal detector club had detected before. I asked the worker if he was going to go stop the soccer team also or just discriminate against me! He knew exactly where I was coming from and allowed as how maybe I could keep detecting. This illustrates two things to me. First: many times different agents of the same authority (city, county, state) don't know what the REAL policy is (or worse, just try to throw their weight around). Second: There can be a valid case made for discrimination if the authority allows one class of individuals (lets call them soccer players) to do large amounts of turf damage on an entire public field while refusing to allow another class of individuals (metal detectors, i.e. "Me") to dig and repair several 2" plugs with my inch and a quarter trowel on the same public field! The fact of the matter is that whatever the entity is that does the MOST amount of damage to the turf and is ALLOWED to do so sets the maximum standard for turf damage! If you do less damage than THEM and they are allowed, the authorities can't tell YOU no or it is discrimination. In my estimation this is a legally defensible position.

Even though I might agree with your thinking, I doubt that it would hold up in court because the fields were constructed and designed for sports play not metal detecting. The City would budget in repairing damage to sports fields that are damaged in designed use but not for metal detecting. I have thought the same thing about squirrels and armadillos digging in the park. How dare they be so inconsiderate as to leave uncovered holes :lol: But in all reality we do less damage to the turf than animals. I have seen deep holes left by people riding horses through the park when it's damp or muddy but nobody would say anything to the riders. Their logic with these rules do not make sense but still we have to abide by them and fight for our rights with the proper authorities if we don't like the rules.
 
... I doubt that it would hold up in court because the fields were constructed and designed for sports play not metal detecting....

Pescadore, have you ever seen ANY field or section of park or whatever, that was "designed" for metal detecting? :?:
 
So here's how I would interpret that:

a) no one cared, till you asked (or if you'd been sticking out like a sore thumb out there). And

b) I could probably find similar answers from city people, in any number of parks I routinely hunt turf at.

Well, I would probably stick out as it's a very busy park with lots of grounds crew coming and going. I asked due to that exact reason. If it wasn't such a busy place I would have gone by the posted rules of the park (which I see ignored all the time LOL).

He stated that there are other detectorists that hit the area but unless they are hitting just the tot lot I don't know what they would be finding without "digging".

I do believe you are right that if I would have have just gone I would probably have been left alone until some kind of damage happened to the park & it was blamed on me.
 
...

I do believe you are right that if I would have have just gone I would probably have been left alone until some kind of damage happened to the park & it was blamed on me.


Exactly. And the elements of this post/thread spell out the psychology, again, quite well:

a) There's nothing specific that actually said "no metal detecting". Only ancillary verbage about destruction and altering and such, that an md'r wonders "does this apply to my activity?"

b) So he goes and asks, and is told "no detecting" (except in the sandbox, blah blah ).

c) In conslusion even the md'r himself acknowledges he'd probably have been ignored, as long as he wasn't an eye-sore nuisance, or .... sticking out like a sore thumb.
 
So here's how I would interpret that:

a) no one cared, till you asked (or if you'd been sticking out like a sore thumb out there).

Tom your knack for 'interpreting' a story to 'support' your own worn mantra is....truly fascinating. How you got that 'nobody would have cared at all until he asked' out of the OP's story is beyond me. Sounds to me like they understand the situation quite well (they do after all mention that they already have people detecting there every week) and have specific rules in place. How has the OP asking changed...anything? Like if he had just gone in and started digging they would have been cool with it...highly doubtful to say the least.
 
Tom your knack for 'interpreting' a story to 'support' your own worn mantra is....truly fascinating. How you got that 'nobody would have cared at all until he asked' out of the OP's story is beyond me. Sounds to me like they understand the situation quite well (they do after all mention that they already have people detecting there every week) and have specific rules in place. How has the OP asking changed...anything? Like if he had just gone in and started digging they would have been cool with it...highly doubtful to say the least.

Stewart, the OP himself comes to this conclusion as well (#11). Is that "truly fascinating" too ?

And as for the princely powers mentioning they'd seen others detect (sand box or whatever), ok, so what ? That has no bearing on this.
 
Tom your knack for 'interpreting' a story to 'support' your own worn mantra is....truly fascinating. How you got that 'nobody would have cared at all until he asked' out of the OP's story is beyond me. Sounds to me like they understand the situation quite well (they do after all mention that they already have people detecting there every week) and have specific rules in place. How has the OP asking changed...anything? Like if he had just gone in and started digging they would have been cool with it...highly doubtful to say the least.

In this case it seems like the OP got a position of the person in authority. He did not get a reference to a city code ,probably because there isn't one. The person in authority may give this response to people that ask. Another person with the same authority may give permission if he is allowed to on a personal basis. That person's response may use the word "I" instead of "We" It all depends on how their city government is set up. I don't think they would be allowed to have a different position regarding ask versus don't ask but someone may have the authority to permit metal detecting on a trial or continuing monitoring basis. Probably could find out by having a brewski with the right person.
 
Pescadore, have you ever seen ANY field or section of park or whatever, that was "designed" for metal detecting? :?:

That's kinda my point. I have seen fields that say they are soccer fields, or baseball fields, or football fields. I don't think anyone could say much if you are playing football on a football field and you leave cleat marks. Very different from making those marks with a digging tool. Don't take me wrong though Tom, I detect those fields all the time but the ones I detect don't have the same rule that the OP listed which I thought was pretty specific verbage.
 
Stewart, the OP himself comes to this conclusion as well (#11). Is that "truly fascinating" too ?

And as for the princely powers mentioning they'd seen others detect (sand box or whatever), ok, so what ? That has no bearing on this.

This park sounds like it has fairly detailed detecting-specific rules, right down to an explanation of why digging is prohibited in certain areas. That, coupled with the fact that they are already aware of others detecting there, paints the picture of a place that knows the deal about detecting, ie. the OP asking them obviously isn't their first experience hearing about metal detecting. With that in mind how can one argue that these people probably wouldn't have cared if the OP didn't ask and just went in digging? I mean how likely is that? Like the park staff is going to see the OP digging and think to themselves, "Hmmm...there's a new guy and he's digging holes, he really shouldn't be doing that maybe we should..no wait...he hasn't asked yet so let's 'not care' and just let him do what he wants and operate under different rules than the two long-time detectorists here". Yeah right.
 
This park sounds like it has fairly detailed detecting-specific rules, right down to an explanation of why digging is prohibited in certain areas....

I don't know if I'd call them "detecting specific", but .... insofar as they deal with "digging" and "disturbing", sure. But so too does every single other park and/or school etc.... have the same rules. So if that constitutes "specific", then there's really no place that you/we *shouldn't* ask permission. Eg.: to make sure what we do doesn't constitute "annoyances", "disturbing", "altering", and so forth. Afterall, you can't be too safe. And afterall, it's not our decision as-to-the interpretation, right?

...coupled with the fact that they are already aware of others detecting there, paints the picture of a place that knows the deal about detecting,...

When I read that part about how the parks people allude to others they've seen (in the sandboxes or whatever), I took that to be nothing more than an observation on their part, that they'd seen others md'ing. Not sure what bearing that has on the issue, other than .... sure, ANY city person is more likely to find sandboxes or tan-bark boxes more innocuous than turf. And then sure, they might point that out. But again, this all goes back to the genesis of why is any of you even having this conversation to begin with? Answer: Because you're standing there asking them "can I?" So the reference to others the city -person had seen md'ing, seemed incidental to me. I mean, what if he'd never seen anyone detecting? What difference will it make ?

... With that in mind how can one argue that these people probably wouldn't have cared if the OP didn't ask and just went in digging?....

If my theory about a vast majority of such answers resulting in the "because you asked" notion, then do you see how this is a chicken-&-egg question? You're merely looking at the END result (the answer), and asking

"How can someone say they wouldn't have cared, since this answer clearly shows they DO care?".

But it fails to ask oneself: Why ARE they now "caring" ? If my theory is correct, then the answer (which you're pointing to as proof), is spurned by nothing more than the "pressing question" you're causing them to think of, answer to, decide on, etc...

Or put another way: "How can one argue that they wouldn't have cared", here's another answer: Because I've seen it occur over and over again where detecting is just common place, and no one ever had a problem, till .... guess what ?

Not saying this is 100% of the off-limits places Stewart, but ... just asking you to realize the psychology has occurred, and can occur more in the future.
 
I don't know if I'd call them "detecting specific", but .... insofar as they deal with "digging" and "disturbing", sure. But so too does every single other park and/or school etc.... have the same rules. So if that constitutes "specific", then there's really no place that you/we *shouldn't* ask permission. Eg.: to make sure what we do doesn't constitute "annoyances", "disturbing", "altering", and so forth. Afterall, you can't be too safe. And afterall, it's not our decision as-to-the interpretation, right?

How could the rules the OP described be any more detecting-specific? :?: You normally try to wiggle around existing rules by arguing that the words "metal detecting" are not used; in this case those very words are mentioned a few times, in a very small paragraph. Seems fairly obvious they are talking about detecting doesn't it? Of course I know you have your agenda to further and are thus bound to see things in a certain light, but I think in this case anybody can plainly see that it's metal detecting that is being talked about. I think you could argue your way around a "No metal detecting" sign and continue on your merry way.


When I read that part about how the parks people allude to others they've seen (in the sandboxes or whatever), I took that to be nothing more than an observation on their part, that they'd seen others md'ing. Not sure what bearing that has on the issue, other than .... sure, ANY city person is more likely to find sandboxes or tan-bark boxes more innocuous than turf. And then sure, they might point that out. But again, this all goes back to the genesis of why is any of you even having this conversation to begin with? Answer: Because you're standing there asking them "can I?" So the reference to others the city -person had seen md'ing, seemed incidental to me. I mean, what if he'd never seen anyone detecting? What difference will it make ?

As I said, the fact that the 'princely powers', as you put it, are already familiar with detectorists in their park, familiar with the potential damage, and already have detailed rules in place (presumably long before the OP asked for permission) logically leads to the conclusion that the OP wouldn't have simply gotten away with digging in that park had he gone ahead and done so instead of asking. Would you not agree?



If my theory about a vast majority of such answers resulting in the "because you asked" notion, then do you see how this is a chicken-&-egg question? You're merely looking at the END result (the answer), and asking

"How can someone say they wouldn't have cared, since this answer clearly shows they DO care?".

But it fails to ask oneself: Why ARE they now "caring" ? If my theory is correct, then the answer (which you're pointing to as proof), is spurned by nothing more than the "pressing question" you're causing them to think of, answer to, decide on, etc...

Or put another way: "How can one argue that they wouldn't have cared", here's another answer: Because I've seen it occur over and over again where detecting is just common place, and no one ever had a problem, till .... guess what ?

Not saying this is 100% of the off-limits places Stewart, but ... just asking you to realize the psychology has occurred, and can occur more in the future.

Not a chicken and egg question at all. In my opinion it's your definition of "not caring" that is a bit problematic, as is your assumption of what psychology is at work in all of your examples. Firstly, in reality, what percentages of "No's" do you think are handed out by authorities simply out of ignorance, meanness, or the unbearable pressure of being asked a simple question? You would have us believe that most, if not all, refusals are a result of these factors. Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, the person being asked is simply stating a truth, ie. detecting is not allowed? And there may be very good reason for that. Again, if you believe that detecting is a God-given right and every refusal is unreasonable and given under conditions of duress, then yes, you might be making sense but I can't believe that this is the case in the majority of....um, cases. Yes, I know you've got several stories to support your case but is it enough to come on to this forum and tell everyone they should never ask for permission, ever, because it will ruin the hobby for everyone? In my opinion, no way.

You also often say "nobody cared" until....yada, yada. What is your criteria for not caring? Could it not be just as likely that they simply haven't been noticed/caught yet? Is not knowing something is occurring the same as not caring about it? People can get away with things for very long periods of time and may begin to think, "Hey I was right, nobody cares!" but again, it may just be that they haven't been caught yet. "Not caring" is knowing about something and making a decision to not care about it. It is different from not knowing. I mean if somebody is fishing in a place where it probably isn't allowed and they are careful to avoid the crowds, catch some big fish and have a great time, can they honestly conclude that it's all good because nobody cares? Not really. They've simply gotten away with it for the time being. And yes, I know that in some cases that can go on for years. And yes, I also know that in some places the authorities really don't care! But I would say not in quite as many as you would have us believe (which seems to be pretty much all places). And certainly not enough to justify catch-all phrases such as 'nobody cares until you ask' or 'you'll always get a no' or 'asking permission is damaging to the hobby', etc., etc. Your own experiences and motives dictate what you choose to believe (which is natural) but my question with you has always been how you can insist that they apply everywhere, for everyone...and failure to comply will result in the hobby's inevitable doom. Like, how could anybody be crazy and reckless and selfish enough to ask for permission before digging?! Madness. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Hey all,

Just wondering how you would interpret the permission to metal detect at this park?

"With regards to metal detecting, we permit metal detecting in the parks, providing there is no digging of the turf, planting areas or disturbance of the natural features. We have two or three metal detectors up here and the other parks every week. We don’t allow digging as we have so much use here the turf doesn’t have time to re-root before it gets kicked up by other park users. We have also seen some big holes left on slopes which don’t heal over.
We do permit digging within the playground area which is covered by wood chips."


To me it sounds like I can only do any retrieving from the playground part that is covered with wood chips or pick up items on top of the ground.

I did send a reply asking them to define digging so I'll hope for a more clear answer on the matter but was wondering how others would interpret the response at its merit.

Thanks,

Corey
I think you are doing the right thing by obeying the response you've received. What I see here is that there is no way to tell by the response that you got if the authority is stating their position or clarifying rules for you. Since you asked it does not matter as far as what would be proper to do and that is not to detect at this point. If you read the codes and there was no mention of metal detecting you could have went if you wanted to.
 
Back
Top Bottom