metaladdict
Elite Member
So I hunted a park for 3 hours and when I left I saw a sign stating..No puncturing the turf allowed...I thought oops!
At least I was done.
At least I was done.
Signs!
- Thread starter metaladdict
- Start date
Charlie Tuna
Elite Member
S*%& happens right? It sucks, but I wouldn't worry about it now.
Charlie
Charlie
Duckhunter811
Elite Member
Did you at least find anything worth while?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So I hunted a park for 3 hours and when I left I saw a sign stating..No puncturing the turf allowed...I thought oops!
That's a new one. I'm going to have to check with my guy out west. Have they been having trouble with people playing horseshoes? Or setting up volleyball nets? Did it seem like it was to deter metal detecting?
kingman mikey
Elite Member
Signs, what signs ? I don't see no stinking signs. 
junkhunter
Elite Member
hunted park for 4 hours one time
dug 18 indain cents,barber dimes,wheat cents ect.Was having a field day.Then a craby old lady walking her dog chewed my butt out.The no metal detecting sign was hidden on BACK of park rules sign which I did look at.Now why the heck would you have all but one rule on one side?I got out of their quick.And passed the cop coming in.On my way out.What a mean old lady.
dug 18 indain cents,barber dimes,wheat cents ect.Was having a field day.Then a craby old lady walking her dog chewed my butt out.The no metal detecting sign was hidden on BACK of park rules sign which I did look at.Now why the heck would you have all but one rule on one side?I got out of their quick.And passed the cop coming in.On my way out.What a mean old lady.
Tom_in_CA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 20,761
So I hunted a park for 3 hours and when I left I saw a sign stating..No puncturing the turf allowed...I thought oops!
What ?? You mean you weren't arrested ?
Haha. Let's all save each other a lot of time: If verbage such as "puncture", or "deface" or "alter", or "remove" automatically equates to "no detecting", then save yourself some time: Don't detect any public ground whatsover, anywhere. Because I can gaurantee you that laws that forbid "annoying", "molesting", "vandalizing", and perhaps even specific "dig" and "puncture" exist EVERYWHERE. On ALL public land. I mean, duh, do you think that you can "destroy" public park features?
The key though, is that all such verbage, when you think of it, inherently refers to the end result. Ie.: deface versus defacED, alter versus alterED, and so forth. Thus if you leave no trace, the presto, you're compliant. Yes I admit that present tense verbs like dig and puncture are more problematic semantics. But I would still maintain that their inherent purpose is puncturED, and dUg. Leave no trace, and you've fulfilled that intent.
stewart73
Forum Supporter
What ?? You mean you weren't arrested ?
Haha. Let's all save each other a lot of time: If verbage such as "puncture", or "deface" or "alter", or "remove" automatically equates to "no detecting", then save yourself some time: Don't detect any public ground whatsover, anywhere. Because I can gaurantee you that laws that forbid "annoying", "molesting", "vandalizing", and perhaps even specific "dig" and "puncture" exist EVERYWHERE. On ALL public land. I mean, duh, do you think that you can "destroy" public park features?
All he needs to do is ask permission and find out for sure how they would interpret their own laws. It's up to them remember? Not us.
stewart73
Forum Supporter
You seem pretty sure of that Tom. Did you write the rules? Do you decide how they are enforced in all places? What do you do if approached while digging? Your hole is still, um, "dug" at that point. Alas, we've been through this before and you were unable to answer then so I expect no different now.
GroundSweeper
Forum Supporter
Well that kind of thing happens in life in a bunch of different circumstances. You can always learn to pop the coins out I suppose, or just don't dig to China and maybe you'll be alright. If you do it right, maybe they won't care.
joetoilet
Senior Member
I agree Tom...
ohiochris
Elite Member
"............No puncturing the turf allowed.........."
This is probably what they have had to resort to because of this interpretation........
" The key though, is that all such verbage, when you think of it, inherently refers to the end result. Ie.: deface versus defacED, alter versus alterED, and so forth. Thus if you leave no trace, the presto, you're compliant. Yes I admit that present tense verbs like dig and puncture are more problematic semantics. But I would still maintain that their inherent purpose is puncturED, and dUg. Leave no trace, and you've fulfilled that intent. "
Think about it.
This is probably what they have had to resort to because of this interpretation........
" The key though, is that all such verbage, when you think of it, inherently refers to the end result. Ie.: deface versus defacED, alter versus alterED, and so forth. Thus if you leave no trace, the presto, you're compliant. Yes I admit that present tense verbs like dig and puncture are more problematic semantics. But I would still maintain that their inherent purpose is puncturED, and dUg. Leave no trace, and you've fulfilled that intent. "
Think about it.
ace350pro
Full Member
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2014
- Messages
- 171
Done it bunches of times anyway even with signs. When im approached i just state "im new to detecting i had no idea" and "my bad im sorry". Then you just go back next week. Some of the benefits of being a young detectorist is you never get in trouble your just a not too bright youngster.LOL
Done it bunches of times anyway even with signs. When im approached i just state "im new to detecting i had no idea" and "my bad im sorry". Then you just go back next week. Some of the benefits of being a young detectorist is you never get in trouble your just a not too bright youngster.LOL
Hmmm Some people break the rules and some people go ask if they can break the rules.
stewart73
Forum Supporter
Hmmm Some people break the rules and some people go ask if they can break the rules.
Not exactly Kemp. If the authority/entity that created the rules (or is in charge of interpreting and enforcing them) gives you the go ahead you're no longer breaking the rules. Simples.
Not exactly Kemp. If the authority/entity that created the rules (or is in charge of interpreting and enforcing them) gives you the go ahead you're no longer breaking the rules. Simples.
If authority has a different rule for someone that asks than they do for someone that doesn't ask they could be breaking the law. Unless there is a permit system in place.
stewart73
Forum Supporter
If authority has a different rule for someone that asks than they do for someone that doesn't ask they could be breaking the law. Unless there is a permit system in place.
Why would the rules be different? You're simply clarifying the law before you dig. In places where it's illegal (ie. they have decided that their no digging/disturbing rules DO apply to detecting) I'm sure they would tell you "no" if you asked, just as they would stop somebody they found detecting in the field. If it's legal they would tell you "yes" if you asked, just as they would probably leave somebody alone they found detecting in the field. I don't see any differential treatment in that.
ohiochris
Elite Member
If authority has a different rule for someone that asks than they do for someone that doesn't ask they could be breaking the law. Unless there is a permit system in place.
Not necessarily. The "authority" normally has the disgretion whether to enforce or not enforce.....as unfair as that may seem , they are the authority afterall. Just as when a tresspassing crime is committed , or some others , LEO's are not duty bound to arrest if the owner or custodian chooses not to press charges. OR.........if there is a sign that says "absolutely no trespassing" , the authority can still allow certain people access.
You are not clarifying the law,but rather clarifying their interpretation of the law. They might not have a different rule for ask/don't ask situations. But they might. The only advantage to asking would be to make you feel better. I realize it may be easier for some of us to bypass the asking thing than others.
If someone buys a detector and is planning on hunting their city property and they call and ask and are told no they may have lost most if not all of their potential sites. If they call and are told yes it means they didn't have to call.
I would not advise anyone to gamble on their sites by calling. I would advise them to gamble in the field. Calling and not calling are both gambles if their is no signs restricting detecting. You can not gain a site by calling unless it is already restricted.
