Go Ahead But Don't Dig Holes -

bottlecap4u

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2022
Messages
369
As I hunt public spaces, I curtesy call the local city, township or county offices to 1-let them know I'll be out there and 2- only detecting in public spaces such as parks and curbsides, (between road and sidewalks). Going out today to do a new village about 25 minutes away and did a quick review of their website on any city ordinances (none) then made the call. After some waiting I was told ok to do parks but not curbsides (ok) but I couldn't dig holes. I pushed back, explained I'm not excavating, I detect up to a foot, pull a plug, extract the item, put plug back and take trash as I go. I then got the ok to go ahead. Just goes to show how few public officials know about what we do as detectorists. I make the call so if they get calls about me or police stop by I'm covered by the approval of the local authority to be there. I know most don't do this, nor probably shouldn't particularly if there are no ordinances or posted rules prohibiting detecting but for me, I try to avoid conflict if at all possible and want to keep peace in the valley with other folks who see me about. Anyone else get the '''er...ah...you can't dig holes" reply, how's it worked out for you?
 
I haven't had to explain my retrieval to anyone, but if I did, I would say:

"It's a small diameter 6" deep plug I cut out, retrieve the target, then the plug gets put back in. Kind of like lifting up a corner of a throw rug, then putting it back down".
 
As I hunt public spaces, I curtesy call the local city, township or county offices to 1-let them know I'll be out there and 2- only detecting in public spaces such as parks and curbsides, (between road and sidewalks). Going out today to do a new village about 25 minutes away and did a quick review of their website on any city ordinances (none) then made the call. After some waiting I was told ok to do parks but not curbsides (ok) but I couldn't dig holes. I pushed back, explained I'm not excavating, I detect up to a foot, pull a plug, extract the item, put plug back and take trash as I go. I then got the ok to go ahead. Just goes to show how few public officials know about what we do as detectorists. I make the call so if they get calls about me or police stop by I'm covered by the approval of the local authority to be there. I know most don't do this, nor probably shouldn't particularly if there are no ordinances or posted rules prohibiting detecting but for me, I try to avoid conflict if at all possible and want to keep peace in the valley with other folks who see me about. Anyone else get the '''er...ah...you can't dig holes" reply, how's it worked out for you?
I never ask the city for permission upfront to hunt tax paid public ground. That is just asking for a "no." City clerks are lame but they don't get paid much.
 
Saying you can detect but just don’t dig holes, is like saying you can go swimming but just don’t get wet. 🤔
The difference is that most don't have a clue about metal detecting. In other words, there are many who think that when you ask to search their lawn, they think you'll be trying to find stuff on the surface that is hidden in the grass blades.

There is even a recent thread about that. The homeowner gave permission, but got understandably angry, when she realized the hunters were digging holes in her lawn.
 
Tom incoming in 3.... 2..... 1..... :popcorn:

What was that old Nike slogan?
I'm convinced that Tom uses A.I. to scan for any thread, anywhere on the internet, that has to do with permission and digging :D

Hey you guys, C'mon ! If it wasn't for control freaks like me , nothing would get done right in the world ! :sissyfight:
:hi5::laughing:
 
....... I curtesy call the local city,....


Welcome. You are now the latest member of the "No one cared UNTIL you asked" club.


bottlecap4u : If there was/is no law forbidding md'ing, then presto : It's not disallowed. The moment anyone calls (or emails or whatever ) to ask "Can I ? ...", is the moment you merely cast aspersions on you and your hobby. As if there was something dangerous or harmful or damaging about your hobby. :shrug: LEST WHY ELSE WOULD YOU BE ASKING ?


For example : Would you have called and asked "Can I fly frisbees ?" (might poke someone's eye out) . OF COURSE NOT. Why ? Because : Flying frisbees, or walking backwards or whistling dixie is innocuous and harmless . RIGHT ? SO : No one asks to do those things . RIGHT ? SO TOO IS IT WITH MD'ING (as you well know) : Harmless. You'll leave no trace. You'll hurt no one and harm nothing . RIGHT ? But the moment you feel the need to ask "Can I ?" what does that imply ? (Drum Roll) : That it's harmful, etc... And let's be honest : What the mental connotation of a "man with a metal detector" ? HOLES !

So all you have done is simply become the latest victim of "No one cared ..... UNTIL you asked" club. And now, presto : Another law or rule or policy is born. And now, that SAME desk jockey (who perhaps never gave the matter a moment's thought before, nor would ever have cared less) is NOW going to see another md'r in the park. And will remember the earlier inquiry. And NOW will think "Aha ! there's one of *them*", AND START BOOTING OTHERS ! I've seen this happen before many times. And when we trace it back, it was exactly this : Someone before : Swatting hornet's nests.


We md'rs can be our own worst enemies !!


And make no mistake : I'm not saying that we're not an oddity, I'm not saying that we don't carry connotations. SURE ! But going in ahead of time and grovelling DOES NOT SOLVE IT! Go at lower traffic times and avoid such lookie lous. Presto, problem solved. :roll:


And no : I do not construe laws/rules that forbid "alter" and "deface" and "mutilate" etc... to apply to us. Because if you leave no trace of your presence, THEN PRESTO : You have not alterED or defacED or mutilatED anything. NOW HAVE YOU ! And yes I say this applies to dIg vs dUg too. It's just that we don't spell it diggED.:blink:


Now will everyone on earth agree with those semantics ? OF COURSE NOT ! So : Go at lower traffic times and avoid such kill-joys. Like nose picking : You opt for discreet timing so as not to offend the squeamish. RIGHT ? Notice that : You did not alert them, nor seek their permission, etc.... RIGHT ?
 
Last edited:
..... the age old saying, “It’s easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission.”
....

Haha, well I would not even invoke that ^ ^ Because THAT simply implies that you and I are doing something wrong (or illegal or harmful or dangerous or whatever)


BUT SAYS WHO ? I happen to consider md'ing to be : HarmLESS, benign, beneficial, healthy, nutritious, wise, etc..... RIGHT ? Why this starting default notion premise that it "needs permission" or "needs forgiveness" ? The moment you and I start with that mindset, IS THE MOMENT THAT IT ONLY BECOMES SELF-FULFILLING ! Ie.: the moment you and I have that in-our-mind (eg.: the "looking over our shoulders" feeling), is the moment that passer-bys will pick up on that body language. If you "act evasive", then ....... ONLY THEN do people wonder "gee, what's he doing ?"

So ironically, it's when we act "like we own the place" that : NO ONE CARES !

Now sure , I'm not advocating trying this at obvious historic sensitive monuments . SURE ! But when it comes to mundane routine parks, sand boxes, beaches, etc.... It most certainly applies. Do NOT become the latest victim of : No one cared UNTIL you asked" routine.

And : Since when is it our obligation to please every last person on earth ? I am FULLY AWARE that not every last person on earth will agree with these semantics. Sure. If THAT is your goal in life, then : You and I have chosen the wrong hobby. A much better hobby would be to pass out $100 bills. :roll:

There are even some parks, here in CA, that I only do at night these days. So peaceful. So serene. NOT that I think I'm "doing something illegal or wrong". But ONLY because I've learned that I will never please every last person on this planet. The mere fact that I can not "waltz over beach blankets at an archaeologist convention " does NOT mean that : "I am therefore breaking laws and required to grovel at city halls wherever I go to"
 
I never ask the city for permission upfront to hunt tax paid public ground. That is just asking for a "no." City clerks are lame but they don't get paid much.
Have to agree. Too many agents think they can add to the law, which is simple: We The People may do any act not proscribed, but our agents may only do those acts prescribed.
 
Have to agree. Too many agents think they can add to the law, which is simple: We The People may do any act not proscribed, but our agents may only do those acts prescribed.

Dejure, I know it's easy to think that the desk clerk agents are "adding" to the law . When they tell you or I "no". When there isn't a specific law that forbade an action. But actually, ........ think about it : It is actually the md'r HIMSELF who is setting himself up for this. And you can't blame the desk-jockey for his making this decision . To answer our "pressing question".

Here's what I mean : It's all wrapped up in the implicit psychology OF THE QUESTION ITSELF : When you or I stand before a desk jockey and say "Hi, can I metal detect in the park ?", there is a WORLD OF IMPLIED CONNOTATIONS GOING ON. With the QUESTION ITSELF :

1)
It implies that something is wrong (harmful, dangerous, risky, etc...) with the activity you're asking about. Because if it were benign and harmless, then WE WOULDN'T BE ASKING ! This implication is not lost (subconsciously) on the person you're asking. And presto, the wheels of their brain start turning. And what is the connotation of a man -with -a-metal- detector ? HOLES, of course, right ? (or "taking things", or whatever).

2) It implies that the person you are asking HAS the power and authority to interpret grey area verbiage . To apply to whatever your question is. Otherwise : WHY WOULD WE BE ASKING ? In other words, it implies that their say-so and their decision is needed. LEST WHY ELSE WOULD WE BE ASKING ? The moment we asked that (as if their princely say-so-was necessary), is the moment we just imputed that power to them.


AND NOTE : I am *not* saying that a city employee doesn't indeed have the power and authority to "scram" someone. And I'm not saying they *don't* have the authority to morph laws & rules, to fit a myriad of situations that might come up in the field. Sure. Because it is simply impossible to write laws for every conceivable thing that might happen in the field. That is why laws are written vaguely in the first place. And yes, cops (gardeners, etc...) have the latitude to apply as they see fit. SURE ! You can dispute them if you want, and ask for a ticket. And then take your matter before a judge later on. BUT THAT'S SILLY and no one wants to do that.

All I am saying is that if someone thinks they're going to solve this "occasional busy-body" phenomenon by waltzing into city halls ahead of time grovelling , is only going to MAKE IT WORSE ! We are only swatting hornets nests. Among people who perhaps would never have given it a moment's thought, nor never even noticed us.


If there is no *specific* law or rule that said "no md'ing", THEN PRESTO ! NOT PROHIBITED ! Since when do we need express allowance ? Would you need "express allowance" to fly frisbees ? Like a law (or rendered decision) that said : "Frisbees allowed here" ? No, of course not. And : I happen to consider md'ing as benign & harmless as frisbees.

Now sure : Avoid obvious historic sensitive monuments. And sure : Don't do nice manicured grass, and be in the middle of deep retrievals, when busy bodies are staring. And sure, you're welcome to check to see if an actual true rule or law exists. BUT DON'T SWAT HORNET'S NESTS BEFORE YOU'VE EVEN STARTED.

And I realize that some people, when I have posted this rant, will link some podunk city or beach or place that has a rule. Couple of responses to that :

A) I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the only reason such a rule exists IN THE FIRST PLACE THERE, is that some md'rs, in past decades (bless their little hearts), went in asking "Can I" questions. Hence presto : Another law was born. And ....

B) The mere fact that someone can push back against me by citing a law or rule that exists somewhere, is MERELY PROVING MY POINT that : Laws and rules can BE LOOKED UP ! Hence : NO NEED TO GROVEL !


In this digital day & age that we live in, there's practically no public place where laws & rules and muni codes, charters, etc... can't be looked up for oneself. Eg.: Dogs on leash. No fireworks. Closes at sunset, and so forth. Right ??
 
Agree with Tom in Ca... the old addage applies: "better to ask forgiveness than permission"
 
Agree with Tom in Ca... the old addage applies: "better to ask forgiveness than permission"

I wouldn't go so far as to ply that platitude slogan. Because it merely presupposes that what we're doing is "wrong" or "disallowed" ? Or that it will "need forgiveness" Says who ?

But if you meant : Giving lip service to a potential busy body griper ? Ok, sure. You and I will not be able to please every last person on this planet. I'm not denying that a person "might gripe" (d/t the connotations we carry). Sure. But just saying that : Going in ahead of time and asking "Can I ?" doesn't solve it. It only makes it a self-fulfilling vicious loop.

But sure : There's no guarantee that every passerby is going to "roll out red carpets " for us. Sure. And then sure, I'll give lip service. And simply come back later when said-singular lookie-lou isn't around. Presto : Problem solved. It is NOT our obligation to please every last person on earth. Nor is it our obligation to over-turn every scram, dispute semantics, seek clarifications, etc.....

It's even gotten to where there's some turfed parks that I only do at night these days. NOT because I think I'm doing anything illegal, but ......... think of it like : Nose picking : Not illegal, nor do you ask permission. BUT FOR PETE SAKES you choose discreet times, so as not to offend the squeamish. Right ? :roll:
 
Dejure, I know it's easy to think that the desk clerk agents are "adding" to the law . . . . When they tell you or I "no". When there isn't a specific law that forbade an action. But actually, ........ think about it : It is actually the md'r HIMSELF who is setting himself up for this. And you can't blame the desk-jockey for his making this decision . To answer our "pressing question".

I was in law for years. My job was going after agents who overstepped. That included clerks, judges, cops and so on. From that, my tolerance for agents who violate law is somewhere around zero.

The higher courts actually declared public agents are held to a higher standard of law than are we, the common man.

This is not unreasonable. Agents are given the law in hard copy, and in searchable form for their computers. Too, they can seek FREE legal advice from city attorneys, prosecutors, or, if they are elected, attorneys general. Then there is that they have access to law libraries we do not.

Our laws can be boiled down to simple terms:

We The People may do any act not LAWFULLY proscribed. Conversely, public agents may only do those acts prescribed.

In this instance, inquiring if there were specific laws prohibiting metal detecting might have been the better approach. Perhaps better yet would have been spending a twenty minutes on the computer searching city/count codes for all things metal detecting.
 
Last edited:
I was in law for years. My job was ...

Dejure, thank you for your service. That is a thankless job I can imagine.

I once got booted from a particular city park (by a gardener or some sort of city employee). It was a city where I happened to know that there wasn't any *specific* law or rule that said "no md'ing". But the guy was grumping about "digging". (You know the drill). So after giving lip service, I did the following :


I reached out to a lawyer friend of mine and asked : Doesn't there have to be a specific law that said "no md'ing" ? Otherwise it's capricious and whimsical. Isn't it ? I mean, shucks, I'm not leaving any holes or trace, therefore the verbiage about "alter & deface" doesn't apply. Because if I left no marks, then I haven't alterED or defacED anything. Right ?



But the lawyer friend explained that it doesn't work that way. And that the duly-appointed city person has the latitude to apply rules/laws as he sees fit. And that there does NOT need to be a "specific" No-MD'ing rule or law. I kept pushing back saying that this sounded arbitrary ! But he explained that ALL LAWS are written with a bit of vagarity in them. Eg.: Laws that forbid "annoyances", for example. Or "blocking sidewalks", etc... The laws HAVE TO BE WRITTEN with broad language, SO AS TO APPLY TO A MYRIAD OF THINGS that might arise in the field. Otherwise cops would be forever arguing semantics in the field. And so for this reason the lawyer told me, that the judge will usually side with the city worker or cop. (Unless outright egregious abuses or corruption or whatever).


That made sense to me. And think about it : SO TOO CAN OTHER laws/rules be said to apply to our actions : Harvest and remove verbiage (we "take" things after all). Or "Lost & Found" laws, and so forth. The list is endless.


Then you say : "...In this instance, inquiring if there were specific laws prohibiting metal detecting might have been the better approach. ....."


I have heard this tactic before. This "better way of phrasing the question". So that instead of saying "Hi can I metal detect ?", yousay : "Is there any law that prohibits md'ing". And you would THINK that this puts the burden on them to CITE such a law (that specificially says "MD'ing"). Eh ? HOWEVER : I've heard how even this better way of phrasing can still back-fire. Like the recipient of your question can say something silly like : "No because you can't dig" (EVEN THOUGH YOU NEVER MENTIONED DIGGING). Or could simply say "No". And when you say "But where is that written ?", they point you to the catch-all verbiage. And then what are you going to do, debate them ?


And since you're asking the desk-jockey if there's specific verbiage, then : This implies that that desk jockey is getting it FROM SOME ACTUAL SOURCE , right ? So why not just ask him this instead : "Hi. Where can I view all the city code, as it applies to usage of the park ?" And they will direct you to where it can be found. Eg.: In binder form at city hall, or give you a link, or whatever. And if they say "what is it that you needed to know ?", you stick to your guns and say : "To know where all the rules applicable to the city parks can be found". IT HAS TO EXIST SOMEWHERE. Right ?
 
Back
Top Bottom