Permission, with one little condition

Oldbill

Forum Supporter
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
479
Location
Las Cruces, NM
I researched metal detecting ordinances in my town, Las Cruces, NM, and was pleased to find that it was allowed with a facilities use permit in city parks, but not ballfields. So I went to pick up the free permit and they were happy to issue it. But -- "no digging allowed!" 😄
 
I researched metal detecting ordinances in my town, Las Cruces, NM, and was pleased to find that it was allowed with a facilities use permit in city parks, but not ballfields. So I went to pick up the free permit and they were happy to issue it. But -- "no digging allowed!" 😄
Sounds like a city desk jockey stupid idea of a joke. Did they say anything about not blasting? If not, get yourself some blasting caps or M-80 fire crackers and blow open the ground. That hardly qualifies as digging. Digging implies using a metal instrument of some sort.
 
I researched metal detecting ordinances in my town, Las Cruces, NM, and was pleased to find that it was allowed with a facilities use permit in city parks, but not ballfields. So I went to pick up the free permit and they were happy to issue it. But -- "no digging allowed!" 😄

If it had simply been silent on the subject, then presto : It would not be disallowed. And whenever there is any cities (like yours) that ever dreamed up a permit, or disallowance, or allowance , I have a sneaking suspicion of how that came to be. Care to take a guess ?

And the caveat : "No digging allowed" : I have a sneaking suspicion of why that too showed up in print there. Care to take a guess ? (And no it's not that "someone must have left holes in the past")

And actually, even if that specific language , on that permit, didn't exist, yet : Trust me, it exists, in every single city in the entire USA. In some form or fashion every speck of public land will have some language like "alter", "deface" "molest /destroy" "vandalism", blah blah blah. But obviously all such language applies to the end result. So if/when you and I leave no trace (we cover/stomp/fluff-up), then presto : You have not alterED or defacED anything. Right ?

And yes I would apply the same logic to dIg versus dUg .

Not sure if probing with a blunted screwdriver constitutes “digging” either.

And here's the fastest way to get someone there to agree that blunted screwdrivers fall afoul of some law or rule : Simply show up there at their desks asking "Can I ?". Then your pressing question will get bandied around, desk to desk. Until someone envisions geeks with shovels. And then presto : A new law or rule or "no" will get passed down.
 
If it had simply been silent on the subject, then presto : It would not be disallowed. And whenever there is any cities (like yours) that ever dreamed up a permit, or disallowance, or allowance , I have a sneaking suspicion of how that came to be. Care to take a guess ?

And the caveat : "No digging allowed" : I have a sneaking suspicion of why that too showed up in print there. Care to take a guess ? (And no it's not that "someone must have left holes in the past")

And actually, even if that specific language , on that permit, didn't exist, yet : Trust me, it exists, in every single city in the entire USA. In some form or fashion every speck of public land will have some language like "alter", "deface" "molest /destroy" "vandalism", blah blah blah. But obviously all such language applies to the end result. So if/when you and I leave no trace (we cover/stomp/fluff-up), then presto : You have not alterED or defacED anything. Right ?

And yes I would apply the same logic to dIg versus dUg .



And here's the fastest way to get someone there to agree that blunted screwdrivers fall afoul of some law or rule : Simply show up there at their desks asking "Can I ?". Then your pressing question will get bandied around, desk to desk. Until someone envisions geeks with shovels. And then presto : A new law or rule or "no" will get passed down.
My goodness if you got arrested for molesting a park you would be put on a list and prohibited from going within 1/4 mile of any park. Even probing with a blunt screwdriver might fall under the molest provision.
 
My goodness if you got arrested for molesting a park you would be put on a list and prohibited from going within 1/4 mile of any park. Even probing with a blunt screwdriver might fall under the molest provision.

Sure. This is why laws are written vaguely. So as to apply to a myriad of circumstances that *might* come up. Otherwise cops could never get their jobs done. People could forever be arguing semantics with cops in -the-field. So laws are purposefully written broadly, so-as-to be melded to what comes up in-the-field. Eg.: Laws that forbid annoyances. Or "blocking sidewalks", etc......

So does this mean that you and I must go get permission and act preemptively ? No. If someone in-authority wishes to appraise me that my activities fall-afoul of some grey-area catch-all language, THEY'RE CERTAINLY WELCOME TO ! Which is why, if I'm about to do nice-manicured turf, that I opt for low-traffic times.

Kind of like nose-picking : Not illegal, nor do you seek sanctions or clarifications. Instead you use discreet timing, so-as-not to offend the squeamish. Eh ? It is not yours & I's job to please every last person on earth.
 
Was curious, just checked online the Metal Detecting regulations for Las Cruces parks. All it says is conduct your detecting in ways that do not damage the natural and cultural resources... nothing about "no digging." Just do a great job, horseshoe plug, towel for your dirt, small hand trowel or lesche, water if needed to keep grass healthy, and it looks like you are good to go!

"Model Airplanes/rockets, metal detecting, and remote-control cars are recognized as legitimate recreation activities when they are conducted in ways that do not damage the natural and cultural resources of City of Las Cruces park facilities.

A Facility Use Permit is required to use any city park for these activities. Use of metal detectors is limited to park areas only and not in ball field areas. To obtain a Park/Facility use Permit visit the Parks and Recreation Administrative Office at 1501 E. Hadley."
 
Was curious, just checked online the Metal Detecting regulations for Las Cruces parks. All it says is conduct your detecting in ways that do not damage the natural and cultural resources... nothing about "no digging." ........

But here's what La Cruces md'rs should dutifully do : Go ask the powers-that-be, if "digging" would disturb the "natural and cultural resources".

And when they show up to ask that important question, they should have a shovel in hand. And be sure to pepper their question with phrases like "Indian bones" and "holes" (lest the person fielding the question not understand the full implications of their question).

And THEN you can clarify what the verbiage means. RIGHT ? After all, ya can't be too safe, RIGHT ? :nono:
 
The permit clearly states "NO digging," and the office staffer repeated this to me at the desk.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_9185.jpeg
    IMG_9185.jpeg
    105.7 KB · Views: 91
I gotta side with Tom once again and when a place is deemed public and if there are no signs posted stating detecting not allowed, then go for it. This is one of those situations when playing dumb would probably work in your favor. JMHO.
 
Thanks for that clarification. The online Park Regs do NOT say "NO digging." But the permit does. Just a back handed way to try and stop folks from detecting at all.
 
Congratulations : You are now the latest member of the "no one cared UNTIL you asked" club .
What a second...he went online and checked for any rules/regulations regarding metal detecting in his town...which is exactly what you always say people should do. It was there that he learned that he needed to acquire a "free permit", which he then went and got. It was the permit that stated "No Digging". He didn't do anything wrong. He didn't ask some worker sitting at a desk.
 
..... He didn't ask some worker sitting at a desk.

On the contrary , Here is what I was commenting on, when oldBill said :

".... and the office staffer repeated this to me at the desk......"

And I might be wrong, but I'll bet that that staff officer would probably never have noticed an md'r, nor given this matter a moment's though, prior to this inquiry.

I do not deny that it's in-the-fine print (so I'm not disputing you there). I'm just saying that the fastest way to "bring everyone's attention to it" (and get people to "care"), is to show up seeking clarification. Then guess what will happen when that same desk jockey happen-chances past the park, and sees an md'r (whom he previously would perhaps never have mentally registered) : He'll remember the earlier inquiry and think "Aha, there's one of *them*" :roll:

I've seen this psychology play out before, where ....... sure .... there might have been the obligatory boiler plate language about "dig" or "deface". Yet truth be told, it was never an issue (no one ever had a problem). But then one day we began to get scrams or stink eyes. And we trace the source of it back to this very phenomenon, where it turns out someone(s) had gone in seeking clarification, permission, asking questions, etc..... And then .... sure ... the "pressing question" will get the "safe answer"
 
On the contrary , Here is what I was commenting on, when oldBill said :

".... and the office staffer repeated this to me at the desk......"

And I might be wrong, but I'll bet that that staff officer would probably never have noticed an md'r, nor given this matter a moment's though, prior to this inquiry.
What are you talking about? He didn't go there for any "inquiry", he went there to pick up the required permit, as per the online regulations/rules, and the permit itself already stated IN WRITING that digging was not allowed. To the best of my knowledge, Oldbill didn't ask to borrow a crayon so he could add that little nugget himself. I mean, in looking at the picture of the permit that he posted, it sure looks like it was already written there.

Oldbill went online to see if metal detecting was permitted, and came across the rules/regulations (just as you suggest people should do) and learned that he needed to go pick up a free permit. Yeah, he had to go to some sort of office to get the permit, and yeah, someone was probably sitting at a desk. What do you suggest that he should have done instead? Waited until they were closed and break in? Guess what, even if he had done that and gotten away with it...the permit STILL would have stated IN WRITING that digging was not allowed. And for the record, I would also like to point out the Oldbill did not say that he asked for clarification. Nope. Instead, all he said was that the guy at the desk repeated to him that the permit stated "NO Digging".

Now, is it ridiculous to allow metal detecting and then add a rule stating that digging is not allowed? Yeah, most definitely. Is it reasonable for someone picking up a permit to metal detect, and noticing that it states, in writing, NO Digging, to maybe ask someone what that actually means, as it relates to metal detecting? Yeah, of course it is. I know that if I would have read that, I would have said to myself: "Wait...what...this must mean something else?", and then doublecheck before walking out. I most certaily would have asked for clarification from someone before metal detecting in the Parks, that's for sure.

I am truly curious how you would have better handled this situation. You do the right thing and research online for the rules/regulations regarding metal detecting in your area. You find out that you need a free permit to detect in the Parks and that you need to pick one up at the County Building. So,Tom, what do you do from here? Do you ignore the rule and forgo getting the permit, and only detect at night when no one is there? Do you pick up the permit and see that it further states that no digging is allowed, but decide to just ignore that an go detecting anyway? What would you have done differently than what Oldbill did?
 
Back
Top Bottom