Looks Like "No Metal Detecting" to Me, Agree or Disagree? Your Thoughts?

[Mud-puppy]

Its been explained countless times by our Mentor Tom!

..."Detecting is a lot like picking your nose, both involve digging around in some dank hole for a dirty prize, and while everybody picks their nose, not all are caught eating a booger" Or something to that effect.....

I think the point is, just dont be seen!...
Mud...

 

[Barracuda]

Well? What do you think?

All parks have this. Well in my area.. Call parks and rec. Ask for permission

 

[Tom_in_CA]

a) In any park owned or operated by the Town of Hudson, no person shall cut, break, move, take or otherwise injure, destroy, or deface any trees, shrubs, plants, turf, rock, or any building, fence, bridge sign, or other structure, nor foul any spring or stream, nor shall any person dump any earth, rubbish, or other substance or material in or upon any park without written permission of the Executive Assistant or his designee....

Well? What do you think?

Plastered: You're serious ? This isn't a "bait for controversial topic" post ?

If so (I see my name mentioned by other respondees):

Let's just assume, for sake of argument, that it's option A: Yes it means no md'ing. Afterall, you will admittedly "move a plant" (aka grass blade). Ok, no more dancing around technical reading. Problem solved.

That only leaves option B: Go do as several folks advise here: Go ask 1) "Can I?" and /or 2) "does this apply?", etc.... of various pencil pushers. Be sure to mention "holes", "dig", "liability", "take" and "indian bone". Lest they not understand the full implications of your question.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

But let's assume you still got a "yes". Something doesn't make sense here does it ? Re.:

"Can I?" & "Does this apply?" Since when can a law enforcement or city person authorize you to break the laws ? For example: Go down and ask them: "Can I shopflift?" "Can I break the speed limit?", "can I cheat on my taxes?", etc.... What are they going to say ? : "No". Of course.

Then if your above quote automatically means "no md'ing", then WHY COULD THEY BE ABLE TO TELL YOU "GO AHEAD" ? Since we all know they might chuckle and say "go ahead, just leave no mess", then what does that tell you? It tells you it DIDN'T necessarily mean "no md'ing" Right ? That should be your answer right there, as to whether or not it necessarily meant "no md'ing" or not.

The problem with going and asking #1 or #2 (which on the surface , sounds like a great idea), is that you risk bumping into the following psychology:

Someone can say "yes it applies". Simply because they said so, or were having a bad hair day, etc... And truth-be-told, might never have cared less, or given the matter a moment's thought!

If this automatically means "no md'ing" (till given a princely blessing to the contrary), then Lord-of-the-zincs is right: EVERY park in the entire USA has something to that effect. Forbidding vandalism, alter, deface, etc.... So we all might as well give up detecting every speck of public land (unless some public official rolls out a red carpet for us, with an express "yes you may" )

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I got chased out of a local park by the police due to someone digging holes and not filling them in, causing a jogger to twist her ankle.....

Chevy, don't be so quick to assume that because some gardener or cop tells you this (ie.: "no because of holes"), that there was ever actually a case of this happening.

Often time the "holes" reason is simply the "go-to" reason to justify the "no" or "scram" they just gave you. And the md'r will mutter under their breath "durned that guy who must've left holes".

But holes is often just the mental image that anyone, tasked with thinking about md'rs, HAS. So when they begin to tell you "no" or "scram", they will ALWAYS say "... because of holes". It doesn't mean there ever actually was any. Or any that led to an actual rule or law, etc....

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Chuck, if you get a "yes" to your well-written letter, just be aware:

a) I could just as easily write to the same department and get a "no". Either from a person higher up, or by phrasing it a different way, etc.... All I'd need to do is mention "holes", "dig", "take" "remove", "treasure", "liability", etc... And ask them to sign a permission slip (a red-flag for CYA on anyone's part).

b) That even if, despite all this (permission to dig, take, remove, etc....) that you are STILL not gauranteed carte-blanche to just whip that out and deflect lookie-lous. Reason:

There's actually been posts of persons who had such "yes's". They whip it out to show busy-body gripers. The griper gets on his cell-phone, calls to city hall and says " But he's tearing the place up !!" (which isn't true, of course). Guess what happens to your permission ? And you are even reprimanded for "getting permission under false pretenses" (for failing to mention holes, dig, etc...)

Humorously, the guy posting one such story, DID SO with the question of "when I ask permission at the next city, should I mention holes, dig, take, etc... to save myself such future embarrassment ?" Obviously using such words is IMMEDIATE permission killer, right ?

 

[Ice Scratcher]

With much respect..

I'd hit it, have, and will continue to do so..

<°)))>{

 

[Chris R]

You got that right Scratcher

Sent from my HTC Desire 626s using Tapatalk

 

[scout23]

I guess if I realllllly wanted to be an a$$. I would have a copy of the law and every ball game where kids are wearing cleats, or riding bikes on grass or playing horseshoes etc., I'd make a complaint to the proper authorities. When they refuse to do anything about it, ask why you cant metal detect.

 

[ohiochris]

While you may not be prohibited from detecting , the rules CLEARLY say not to dig in any way. It don't matter what other people or animals do , we are responsible for what WE do. There is a gray area that exists within the rules.... " as they are written ".... that presents an opportunity for the bold to exploit , even though we KNOW very well it is technically illegal.......Its THEIR fault ,...THEY should have written the rules better right ?? .... Like trying to get out of a speeding ticket on a technicality , its not that we aren't guilty of breaking the law its a view that its only illegal if we get caught. I cant say that I have never done it , only that its hypocritical to insist on others cleaning up after themselves and fill their holes , etc....., when we too wipe our behinds with the rules and and don't practice what we preach. You have two options , follow the rules or slip in discretely and hope nobody notices. That's an ethical question we have to address personally.

 

[Digger-Dave]

Chuck, call them up and speak to someone in authority who is a not a petty bureaucrat. According to this set of laws, banging in a tent's spike is a no-no. Several gray squirrels are in the pokey from digging acorns!!

Clinton has the same rules. I called and talked to them. No digging at all is allowed.

Have you worked that area off Electric Avenue yet?

 

[Scott2373]

Easier to beg forgiveness than to ask permission...

 

[40acre1870]

I cant say that I have never done it , only that its hypocritical to insist on others cleaning up after themselves and fill their holes , etc....., when we too wipe our behinds with the rules and and don't practice what we preach. You have two options , follow the rules or slip in discretely and hope nobody notices. That's an ethical question we have to address personally.

I was thinking the exact same thing.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Chris, you seem to be on two sides of the fence. On the one hand you say:

...the rules CLEARLY say not to dig in any way.....

Yet on the other hand you also admit:

..... There is a gray area that exists within the rules.......

I would agree that it's grey.

Reason: Because the mere fact that people have often gotten permission despite such wording , TELLS YOU it's grey. Because no one in authority can authorize you or I to break laws (steal, murder, etc...).

Yes, a technical reading is troubling. But look at the intent of such laws/rules. They pre-date metal detecting afterall. And I bet are in place so that no numbskull thinks he can spin donuts with his 4-wheel drive on the lawns. Or that no one goes to dig out the bushes to put in his own garden at home, and so forth.

I've noticed that skittish md'rs have a much easier time with "alter" and "deface". Because we can *clearly* say that if we've left no trace, then we haven't alterED or defacED anything. Right ? And in each case, it's only a matter of present tense vs past tense of those words, RIGHT ?

Yet the word "dig" conjurs up the willies. But what is the difference between dig and dug ? Same as deface vs defaced. Merely present vs past tense. The only difference is, we don't say "digged".

Thus I would argue that if a person agrees with the logic of us not having defacED, then in a grammatical sense, they would have to agree that the dig vs dug. Yes I know not every else will agree with those semantics. Fine then: Go at low traffic times and avoid such kill-joys.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

If a person in authority sees someone is detecting, they may or may not pay a moment's notice. They may or may not make any decision. But Asking them forces them to make a decision.

 

[ohiochris]

Chris, you seem to be on two sides of the fence. On the one hand you say:




Yet on the other hand you also admit:




I would agree that it's grey.

Reason: Because the mere fact that people have often gotten permission despite such wording , TELLS YOU it's grey. Because no one in authority can authorize you or I to break laws (steal, murder, etc...).

Yes, a technical reading is troubling. But look at the intent of such laws/rules. They pre-date metal detecting afterall. And I bet are in place so that no numbskull thinks he can spin donuts with his 4-wheel drive on the lawns. Or that no one goes to dig out the bushes to put in his own garden at home, and so forth.

I've noticed that skittish md'rs have a much easier time with "alter" and "deface". Because we can *clearly* say that if we've left no trace, then we haven't alterED or defacED anything. Right ? And in each case, it's only a matter of present tense vs past tense of those words, RIGHT ?

Yet the word "dig" conjurs up the willies. But what is the difference between dig and dug ? Same as deface vs defaced. Merely present vs past tense. The only difference is, we don't say "digged".

Thus I would argue that if a person agrees with the logic of us not having defacED, then in a grammatical sense, they would have to agree that the dig vs dug. Yes I know not every else will agree with those semantics. Fine then: Go at low traffic times and avoid such kill-joys.

Yes.....I am on two sides of the fence , because afterall......the lure of potential tempts us all

Is it tempting to throw out the OBVIOUS meaning , that they don't want ANYONE digging ( not just the guys with DEFACER written plainly on their foreheads ) ......rejecting their version of reality and submitting our own , because theirs is inconvenient is just fantasy.

But the wording is very precise , .....and digging don't cease to be digging just because we use a different word for it. Nowhere in those rules does it say ..." except for metal detectorists who promise to be careful and neat ".

That gray area is gray because its an exploit or twist , something not necessary if we were fully in the clear......not because our clever twist of words and meanings has changed rules any.

I realize this is one of your pet topics , but you always sound like a recovering alcoholic trying to justify just one more drink....it will be ok , maybe they wont know.....nobody will even notice.....it probably wont matter......

Im not saying don't do it. Just that this question wouldn't come up so often if people didn't know deep down that it does include metal detecting or atleast most retrieval methods , that it is in fact a violation and a shady ( gray ) twist of meaning is still shady.

Its not against the rules for animals to dig food or people to consequently damage the grass during approved activities......but the rules do explicitly state that it is against the rules for people to purposely dig or disturb the property to remove things from it.....and no matter how you twist it or what spin you put on it the message is very clear.

Yes it is true that what they don't know wont hurt them , but that is skirting the rules not obeying them.

So lets call it what it is......a sneaky way to avoid the consequences of our actions.........not a more accurate interpretation of the law.

 

[ohiochris]

If a person in authority sees someone is detecting, they may or may not pay a moment's notice. They may or may not make any decision. But Asking them forces them to make a decision.

This is true , but the same can be said of speeding or trespassing , or illegal drug use. Not getting caught does not equal legal , and therein lies the inconvenient truth.

 

[PlasteredDragon]

Plastered: You're serious ? This isn't a "bait for controversial topic" post ?

If so (I see my name mentioned by other respondees)

Of course I'm serious! I don't get a kick out of trolling, it's not my thing. For you this is a push-button topic. Your inevitable response is well known at this point. For example, I knew at some point you would mention "cell phone" and "he's tearing up the place". You always do. But there are a lot of detectorists here, and I wanted a panoply of opinions to inform my own.

Let's just assume, for sake of argument, that it's option A: Yes it means no md'ing. Afterall, you will admittedly "move a plant" (aka grass blade). Ok, no more dancing around technical reading. Problem solved.

It's not that clear to me because, as noted by others, there are countless park activities that "disturb the turf" or "move a plant", and nobody is being hauled out of the park for playing frisbee or brushing the branches of a tree aside to retrieve a football. This means there is some room for interpretation and the spirit of the rule is what matters. It could as easily be taken to mean, "when you leave the park, everything should appear as it did when you arrived". That's why I am seeking multiple opinions.

Since when can a law enforcement or city person authorize you to break the laws ?

This is a regulation, and you must read the regulation in its entirety. To whit: "... without written permission of the Executive Assistant or his designee." The rule includes the exception right in the text of the rule.

Someone can say "yes it applies". Simply because they said so, or were having a bad hair day, etc... And truth-be-told, might never have cared less, or given the matter a moment's thought!

Your opinions on government and bureaucracy are well ensconced in record at this point. I've dealt with a lot of government agencies in my life, and most people who work in them (in my experience) are ordinary folks who take their jobs seriously. I've asked governing bodies for permission to do all sorts of things in my life, and only rarely have I felt that I wasn't given a fair shake. Officious twerps exist, but they are not the archetype.

EVERY park in the entire USA has something to that effect.

I've read a lot of them by now, and they are all subtly different. This is the first one I've come across that specifically calls out "cutting and moving" of "turf, rock, and plants".

Thanks Tom, and everyone else for your input. It was helpful, interesting, and informative!

 

[LordOfTheZincs]

Ask until you get a yes. Start with the guy emptying the garbage cans or something and work your way up if you're that worried about it.

 

[mountain digger]

We all have to do what our personal feelings direct us.

If I don't see a "No Metal Detecting" sign or when I check statues and it is not spelled out that metal detecting is forbidden I would approach the park causally. I would just use a probe and not cut plugs. To each his own.

By the way, great letter!

Seabee. And I'd enjoy my time swingin'!