Interesting response to a permission request

sdub

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2020
Messages
36
So I asked about detecting a friend's yard. The house was built in the 1920s, but not in an affluent area. The first response was to express concern, because what if I find a big jar of coins buried there? I said it was unlikely, but offered to split it if it happened.

So here's his take on it.

It's like not knowing what's in my pockets, but asking if you can go through them & either keep it or split it with me.

I may be a high-tech scavenger, but I'm no pickpocket. lol
 
Last edited:
This subject has come up before. Some md'rs BRISTLE that a homeowner would have the *audacity* to consider what's on/in their property, to belong to them. At *best*, the md'r can assume they get half. Ie.: HOW DARE the homeowner say that 100% is theirs, etc....

I know that we md'rs consider what's in-the-ground to be outside of the realm of ownership. Eg.: It's forgotten and gone, so ........ what has anyone else missed ? How have they been harmed ? Yet to the non-md'r : They (gasp) consider what's on their property to belong to them . How silly, eh ? :roll:

But seriously now : It does belong to them. So here's what I do in a case like you describe: I tell the homeowner : "You're welcome to any & all of what I find." And I have NEVER had anyone say, in the end : "Give it all to me."

I will usually pull aside a key date merc, or a trade token, and say "This is one I don't have for my collection, can I have this one ?" (while pushing all the rest of the pile towards them). And have never had anyone say "no". In fact, they usually push the pile back towards me and say "Keep it". :roll:

The only exception to the rule, was when I was given permission to hunt at a highly sensitive off-limits monument. And those buttons/coins are in their museum now. And I wouldn't trade that experience for anything, despite me not having them in my own collection.
 
If the homeowner tells me he wants half or all of it I walk away, means he doesn't trust me. Yes it's his property but the finds were dropped way before he was even born, not worth the hassle. My opinion.
 
This may come as a big shock to some of you on this site, but I'm in total agreement with Tom on this one. :)
When I ask for permissions, and have let the owner know that I'll show them everything I find, if they want to see it, and that whatever I find is theirs to keep...and even if they so "no", I also let them know that if I do find anything that may be of sentimental value or of any real significant value that I'll stop by the show them those items regardless. So far I have not been turned away from detecting, and no one has asked to keep anything that I have found.
 
So I asked about detecting a friend's yard. The house was built in the 1920s, but not in an affluent area. The first response was to express concern, because what if I find a big jar of coins buried there? I said it was unlikely, but offered to split it if it happened.

So here's his take on it.

It's like not knowing what's in my pockets, but asking if you can go through them & either keep it or split it with me.

I may be a high-tech scavenger, but I'm no pickpocket. lol

Here's your response:

OK, but that goes 2 ways. My gear cost $xxxx, and I'd spent $xx in fuel to get here.

Give me half that, and if I find that jar of coins, you get half.

ETA: NO REFUNDS
 
I don't have an issue with a homeowner saying no, or feeling that anything in the ground on their property belongs to them.

I just think it's a terrible analogy.

I'm also surprised to hear that people generally don't want the finds even when they're told they can have them. I've had people ask for finds when the agreement was I keep them. Several times that was ALL the finds. And most folks if I tell them they can have finds, most of the time they take a few. I usually ask if they've lost anything in the yard they'd like returned. I'll look for and return it. And if they see something in the finds they really like, I'll offer it.

This fellow is an actual friend. I'm surprised by the analogy. I'm not sure I want to offer to let him have any and all finds, because I'm concerned he doesn't trust me, and I've done that with someone before. Suspicion, bag inspections, etc. It's uncomfortable.
 
I don't have an issue with a homeowner saying no, or feeling that anything in the ground on their property belongs to them.

I just think it's a terrible analogy.

I'm also surprised to hear that people generally don't want the finds even when they're told they can have them. I've had people ask for finds when the agreement was I keep them. Several times that was ALL the finds. And most folks if I tell them they can have finds, most of the time they take a few. I usually ask if they've lost anything in the yard they'd like returned. I'll look for and return it. And if they see something in the finds they really like, I'll offer it.

This fellow is an actual friend. I'm surprised by the analogy. I'm not sure I want to offer to let him have any and all finds, because I'm concerned he doesn't trust me, and I've done that with someone before. Suspicion, bag inspections, etc. It's uncomfortable.

Then pass. Let him go buy his own gear, and recover "his" own property.

Move on, but don't burn a friendship over it.
 
I've had a few "no's" where the concern seems to be you would be taking something from they're property that has significant value even if they have no intention to find it themselves. Some they like the history found but not for it to leave the property. If they want all the finds I politely walk away from it.
 
I've had a few "no's" where the concern seems to be you would be taking something from they're property that has significant value even if they have no intention to find it themselves. Some they like the history found but not for it to leave the property. If they want all the finds I politely walk away from it.

I think politely walking away is the best choice.
 
..... the concern seems to be you would be taking something from they're property that has significant value even if they have no intention to find it themselves. ....

If you think about it, the same sentiments could be said about public land too :

We do not consider the taking of coins & rings from a park to be "stealing" or "taking" etc... Ie.: It's not on par with taking the picnic benches, or harvesting lumber or sod for commercial sale, etc.... We think of the coins under-the-ground to be in a different class.

Yet in the eyes of the law, they are every bit a fixture of the park, as the sod, the trees, the benches, the sand, etc....

EVEN IF THE CITY HAS NO INTENTION OF DIGGING THEM UP ! MD'rs have had long debates with archies about this : Pointing out that the "resources under the ground" will rot there forever. Thus : Who's being harmed ? How can anyone say they're "stolen" then ?

But the archies have an interesting pushback : They'll say : "How do YOU know that some future archie, 1000 yrs. from now, might not dig on that exact spot ? And would have benefited future generations by digging that buffalo nickel ? " :roll:
 
I have no problem telling property owners that they can keep anything I find, because I am more interested in finding things than holding onto them. That being said, I have never encountered a property owner who insists on keeping everything.

Property owners who allow people to metal detect typically aren't as interested in the finds as the person metal detecting, otherwise the property owner would probably want to metal detect their own property. One property owner I know owns land that his family has held for generations, on the National Register, Civil War activity, etc. He just isn't as interested as the guys metal detecting his property, but he is nice enough to let us detect.
 
Back
Top Bottom