Myers Depot Metal Detectors

Permission for all city property!!

N

Noreaster37

New Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2016
Messages
10
Location
Northern NY(The real one: Canadian Border)
I've just started my journey in md and after reading how hard it is to get permissions I wondered if I had made a mistake. Being a L.E.O. makes just going for it and hoping for the best a non option as could cost me my position. So on a whim I called our city's parks and rec director to see how hard it would be to obtain permission. His response.........He and the city supports md as long as ground is returned to good condition after digging. Couldn't have been more speechless.
 
Noreaster37 said:
... So on a whim I called our city's parks and rec director to see how hard it would be to obtain permission....
Click to expand...

Is there a "no md'ing" rule in your city's parks, such that you needed to get it over-turned with that need-for permission ?
 
In my line of work it's always funny how people want to try and use convenient or true ignorance of the laws in order to get their butt out of the fire. I would rather put in the leg work with permissions than deal with the consequences after the fact.
 
Noreaster37 said:
The only rule on the books like many cities has to do with the digging of objects, and thats what I needed clarification on. Director stated no permit needed and no issue with digging just please "return ground to good condition."
Click to expand...

Ok. Then in that case, as you can probably imagine : ALL cities across the USA have some variation of verbiage to that effect. Eg: "digging" or "alter" or "deface" or something.

While I agree that if the evil "dig" word can give some people the willies (we "dig" afterall, doh!). But the INTENT of such verbiage (that predates md'ing), is that no one's damaging anything. Ie.: deface versus defacED, etc... Thus to leave no trace, fulfills the spirit of such laws/rules. Even the city person who answered your question recognized that implicit intent !

But this is where it gets tricky: Good that you got a "go ahead", but there's been persons who got an arbitrary no to the same exact question. In fact, the next md'r could probably walk into that same city hall tomorrow, ask the next person at the desk, and get a totally different answer.

So rather than risk a whimsical "no" from someone who perhaps imagines geeks with shovels, I would simply go. In the absence of any specific "no md'ing" rule.
 
Noreaster37 said:
Its always funny in my line of work how people try and use real or convenient ignorance of the law to get their butt's out of the fire. .....
Click to expand...

If someone's looked up the laws/rules, and seen nothing that says "no md'ing", then that's not "ignorance of the law". They've done their due diligence and looked up the laws (how much more law-abiding can we be ? :?: )

The issue here is do the "alter" and "deface" and "dig" boiler-plate verbiage automatically mean "no md'ing" (till given a princely blessing to the contrary) ? If so, then md'ing is illegal in all parks across the entire USA. Because all the public land forbids "vandalism", "destruction", "annoyances" etc..... I do not automatically construe them to apply to mean, unless I intend to leave open holes and mayhem.

And actually, think of it Noreaster: Was that guys response a "permission" ? Or was it more akin to an "interpretation" ? I'd say it was the latter. He was clearly interpretting the statutes the way I would too: That as long as you leave no trace, then presto, that's the intent. So I guess the issue is: Is it our obligation to run around getting people's interpretations of grey areas like this ahead of time ?

Some people would say yes, this is our duty. But the problem becomes, you risk running into the "no one cared UNTIL you asked" phenomenon. I've seen this happen where a city's parks have never been an issue or problem. Till one day someone puts the "pressing question" on a bored pencil pushers desk. Glad that didn't happen to you, but just saying, be careful.
 
The problem with debating "intent" is that it cant be cut and dry. If the city municipal codes state explicitly no digging on city property then the "intent" to return the ground to good condition does not matter because they were violated by the simple act of digging. I obtained this permission via email so that if issues arose later a paper trail exists showing permission has been granted for I and any other club members.
 
Noreaster37 said:
Its always funny in my line of work how people try and use real or convenient ignorance of the law to get their butt's out of the fire. I prefer to put in the leg work before rather than deal with the consequences after.
Click to expand...

Always the best choice of action.

Many people believe that if there's no sign , or no mention of no metal detecting on some easily accessible website, then it's fair game if you just go at low visibilty times. Basically, for some it comes down to what are you personally willing to accept as an actual rule.

For others, they like to ask the appropriate entity that over see's that city department and make sure that they are within the allowed use of the area.

Some worry that by asking permission, they are asking for a no...
 
Most issues seem to arise from a lack of communication. City has decided that metal detecting is a great thing and fully supports it, but nobody has bothered to relay this to local P.D. Now a paper trail exists which has been forwarded to all club members and is easily producible.
 
Noreaster37 said:
The problem with debating "intent" is that it cant be cut and dry. If the city municipal codes state explicitly no digging on city property then the "intent" to return the ground to good condition does not matter because they were violated by the simple act of digging....
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, if the word "dig" is used, it is problematic.

Then as an LEO, what is your take on this: If you had looked up in your city park's muni. codes and seen that instead of the word "dig", it had used "alter" and "deface" ? Would you feel ok self-interpretting to deduce that as long as you leave no trace, then logically you haven't alterED or defacED ? Or would you feel that an ethical md'r should also get permission in light of those words too ?
 
Think of it this way. If I came upon you mding on city property while I was on duty I might politely ask you to point out some spots where had previously dug. If I saw that you were doing your do diligence and treating the property with respect than I would wish you a good day and be on my merry way. The problems seem to arise when someone spoils it for all of us. Cities can't be blamed for making laws stricter. It simply comes down to money. It's easier/cheaper to ban something outright than it is to ensure compliance.
 
Noreaster37 said:
Common sense states that if you have returned it to its original condition then no you have not altered or defaced it.....
Click to expand...

YES! I agree .

Then ask yourself, since we both agree those words "need no one's princely blessing or require permission", then:

What is the difference between alter and alterED ? What is the difference between deface and defacED ? Would you agree that the only difference is that one is present tense and the other is past tense. Right ?

Ok then : What is the difference between dig and dug ? Same thing: Present tense vs. past tense. Right ? The only distinction is, that we don't grammatically say "diggED" That's merely a grammar matter. But in all other ways is identical: Present vs past tense. Right ? Hence if one doesn't need permission (by your own admission), then so too doesn't the other.

Not saying that someone's blessing isn't comforting (and glad you got a "yes"), but just saying you could get a "no" that is nothing more than arbitrary whim. And worse yet: What if they dream up a new law or policy from then on out ?
 
Noreaster37 said:
Think of it this way. If I came upon you mding on city property while I was on duty I might politely ask you to point out some spots where had previously dug. If I saw that you were doing your do diligence and treating the property with respect than I would wish you a good day and be on my merry way. The problems seem to arise when someone spoils it for all of us. Cities can't be blamed for making laws stricter. It simply comes down to money. It's easier/cheaper to ban something outright than it is to ensure compliance.
Click to expand...

Excellent input. And I/we totally respect your job as an LEO. Very stressful job that I would not trade you for the world !!

1) yes, if an LEO on duty comes up and alerts any of us that they feel this violates a catch-all grey area law/rule, then yes: You, as an LEO, do have the ability to interpret, in-the-field, to fit situations that may arise. And then yes, the citizen is obligated to obey the cop. That is understood. Same can be said of noise ordinances, blocking sidewalks, etc.... You , as an LEO, are tasked with keeping civil order, and yes: you have latitude and authority to get your job done. And yes: the md'r should comply . If he REALLY had an issue, he can ask for a ticket , and fight it. Or whatever. But sure: citizens should pay respect for cops with a tough job.

2) And yes: If the md'r were obstinate, leaving a mess, can't give lip service and respect, ... then SURE: the issue could "blow up" (as in the picture you paint) leading to "no md'ing rules". Granted. However.....

3) So too has there been cases of well-meaning persons "seeking permission to md" (in places with no specific prohibition), that led to "no md'ing rules" too. Whether by actual implemented written rules, or the mere answer of a "no" (which would be on par with "law" or "rules", would it not ?). And this has happened in places where it was never an issue prior to that. Or strangely, one person gets a "yes" while another gets a "no", and so forth.

Hence my thoughts of "look it up for oneself".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MasonDixonMding
New permission
Replies
3
Views
46
FliesOnly
FliesOnly
maxxkatt
Tom's Theme Song
Replies
3
Views
161
cellrdwellr
cellrdwellr
FliesOnly
A weird question
Replies
11
Views
352
KingTotsalot
KingTotsalot
MasonDixonMding
Research works out fast.
Replies
1
Views
187
hoser
hoser
hoser
Coffee and doughnuts
2
Replies
21
Views
505
Rock Jock
Rock Jock
Back
Top Bottom