Distinction between "Law" vs "commentary"

Tom_in_CA

Elite Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2013
Messages
20,636
A few recent threads on the main forum sections brought up a topic, that I believe needs further discussion.

It's the issue of: "commentary" versus "law". At what point does "commentary" BECOME equivalent to "law" ?

To start with, here's what I mean by "commentary" : It's when there isn't any specific express dis-allowance that truly says "No MD'ing". Yet someone can certainly come along and still say "No". And point you to citations (ie.: the actual codified laws, rules, ordinances, etc...) that deal with "alter", "deface", "harvest" "remove". Or worse yet : "Dig" (because we "dig" after all), and "cultural heritage" (you might find something old after all).

In each and every one of the "commentary" cases, it can be argued by us that there's a technical way around. Eg.: cover your spots and leave no trace, only look for new stuff, etc...

Nonetheless, we all know that the powers-that-be do have the latitude to administer the land as they-see-fit. And ... by golly ... if they say "no", and point to any of the ancillary verbiage, then we are not likely to survive a debate of semantics.

Such a "no" (ie.: "commentary") can come in multiple forms:


1) Someone calls and asks "Hi can I metal detect?" Someone tells him "no". The dejected md'r posts the results of his inquiry on a forum post (to alert his fellow md'rs, to save them embarrassment ). That gets linked to another post. Which gets linked to another post. Which gets linked to another post. After all, it was the authoritative word on the subject.

2) Someone sends an email, or clicks on the "ask a question" question of some agency. They receive a "no", that is now .... I suppose ... in print form. Because that person can show anyone else that "No" screen-capture, that they received "straight from the top".

In each of the above 2 scenarios, perhaps the person answering pointed you to ancillary language that, in their mind's eyes, results in that "no".

3) Perhaps the person who did #2 above, was a list-compiler. The "no" makes it on to that list. The FMDAC state-by-state list attempt is one such great example. And if you follow back in the evolution of how that list evolved, you will sometimes see something dire-sounding (eg.: "inquire at each kiosk", or "no", etc....). Yet when you go to click on the expanded version (ie.: the rationale and citation of actual law/rules), you THEN begin to see that it's based on ... as I say ... Ancillary verbiage. WHICH ISN'T TO SAY THEY CAN'T DO THAT.

Now if the "commentary" evolves its way up to official links that we md'rs pass back and forth, are they still "commentary" ? Or are they now "law" ?

I will give an example in the next post .
 
Example:

There is a certain state beach near me, that has routinely been detected since as far back as anyone can remember. One day, I was reading a facebook post, for an FB page that is CA specific. Someone had listed several beaches' names, asking "Is md'ing allowed". I noticed one of the beach names was this certain-beach near me. So I clicked on it.

I noticed someone else had answered it with a "no". I challenged the person, asking: "Where are you getting this information? We hunt there all the time w/o issue". :?: They responded by posting a screen capture. They had (drum-roll) sent an inquiry to the state park's dept, using the "ask a question" button I suppose. Someone there had answered back "no". And given some ancillary verbiage as their rationale (harvest and remove, if I recall).

I think that most of us can see that example as a true case of "No one cared UNTIL you asked" routine going on. Right ? But wait, what if it makes it into an FAQ list ? What if it makes it into a 3rd party compendium list (like the FMDAC or various other people's attempts). Does it now become "law" ?

Actual law is easy to see and define. If someone can point to a chapter & verse codified law/rule, that truly says "no md'ing". They will typically have their numerical code reference system (eg.: 1.0 a, 1.0 b,subsection such & such, blah blah, etc....)

But what about all the middle ground ? Eg.: Isolated fluke (which we can promptly ignore)? To a "commentary" that never makes its way past a telephone call or singular email ? To commentary that ... on their own website, POINTS to actual law (although never a part of that "actual law" ?)
 
Last edited:
My county, Anne Arundel County, MD, doesn't prohibit metal detecting in the County Code, but they do in a document titled "Facility User Rules and Guidelines".

The County Code specifically says:

§ 14-2-104. Destruction of property.
(a) Applicability. This subsection does not apply to construction projects or maintenance
performed on park land or structures.
(b) Prohibitions. A person may not:
(1) tamper with, mar, deface, remove, or destroy an official sign;
(2) damage, use without authority, or remove an installation, fixture, equipment, or vehicle in or
from the park;
(3) cut, pull up, burn, carve, or in any manner mutilate, misuse, or damage any tree, shrub, plant,
grass, or flower on park grounds; or
(4) intentionally destroy, injure, deface, remove, or disturb soil, rocks, or mineral formations
unless incidental to a permitted activity.
(1985 Code, Art. 19, § 2-104)

For me personally, whenever I see language like that, which doesn't specifically mention metal detectors, I have at it. And I don't take the Facility user rules and guidelines as law, or else it would be written into County Code. If it was specifically mentioned in County Code, then it would be a red light for me.

I've detected almost every Park in Anne Arundel county the past 4 years. In front of police, in front of Parks employees, in front of LOPs, soccer moms, etc. Even pulled my director out at Kinder Farm Park right in front of the Park Directors office, who asked me what I was up to. I told him I was looking for a ring, which was true, I was looking for a ring from a Craigslist ad from someone who lost one while visiting out of state. No issues.

Parks employees ask me all the time if I've found anything good. Metal Detecting isn't listed in the prohibited activities signs at any of the parks. One local detectorist pitched a royal fit about me detecting on a school yard about 3 years ago, even called the cops (our school properties fall under Parks). Police man came out, was really chill, and agreed with me on the County Code vice an internal document created in a vacuum. This police man stated he viewed metal detectors like tobacco, county parks are full of people smoking and dipping even though it is prohibited in the Facility User Rules and Guidelines, and they don't enforce it unless it is backed up by county code and the mention of tobacco in county code only cites prohibition if there is a fire hazard.

Beyond that I've never had anything even remotely close to a dust up. I'm sure many might not agree with me, but personally I don't believe whoever wrote that in the user rules and guidelines has the right or authority to put it off limits without a code or law to back it up.

And my metal detecting doesn't damage the grass any more than a bunch of kids with soccer cleats on does, or the park employee driving across the fields leaving tire ruts. So I don't take any language stating anything about disturbing grass/dirt/rocks/whatever as a red light. I do know that I'd be willing to get cited over it, and take it to court and fight it that way if it came to that. They'll have to prove I damaged something (which I'm sure no matter what they'd try to come up with something, but I dig perfect plugs or I don't dig in parks). Could someone push the subject and get it written into code/law? Sure, but I'd be a thorn in their side all the way up until it happens at every County meeting and after.

I know this is a sensitive topic, and the only right answer is that individuals do what they are comfortable doing in accordance with how they interpret the laws. I will say, I bet the same people that really pitch a fit against any perceived violations of either written or unwritten metal detecting rules/ordinances/commentary/what have you are the same people that bust the speed limit day in and day out, whether it's 1 over or 10 over or more. But ultimately we all determine our own morality and which way our moral compass points.

EDIT: Here is the link to my Counties' Code, and the document titled "Facility User Rules and Guidelines": https://www.aacounty.org/department...-and-publications/ParkRulesandRegulations.pdf
 
... I've detected almost every Park in Anne Arundel county the past 4 years. In front of police, in front of Parks employees, in front of LOPs, soccer moms, etc. ....

Since you were being clearly sympathetic with my stance, I hate to be the "devil's advocate", but here goes :

https://www.aacounty.org/department...-and-publications/ParkRulesandRegulations.pdf

scroll down to about page 8. As you can see, "metal detectors" are specifically mentioned. Are you saying that this bottom part, since it's called "guidelines" as opposed to the upper part, which is called "rules and regulations", that there is a difference ?

If so, please elaborate :) Or perhaps this is simply a case of "no one cares, so why rock that boat" ?
 
Since you were being clearly sympathetic with my stance, I hate to be the "devil's advocate", but here goes :

https://www.aacounty.org/department...-and-publications/ParkRulesandRegulations.pdf

scroll down to about page 8. As you can see, "metal detectors" are specifically mentioned. Are you saying that this bottom part, since it's called "guidelines" as opposed to the upper part, which is called "rules and regulations", that there is a difference ?

If so, please elaborate :) Or perhaps this is simply a case of "no one cares, so why rock that boat" ?

The code, which police can enforce, does not prohibit metal detecting. Metal detectors is only mentioned in the Rules and Guidelines, which is only tacked onto the county code on the website, it isn't found anywhere else.

So the county police can't roll me up or cite me for having a metal detector in the park, as it's not a code or law, it's in a document produced in 2011 not voted on, and not enforceable. They can only go after me for the County code that states destruction of property/grass/whatever.
 
The code, which police can enforce, does not prohibit metal detecting. Metal detectors is only mentioned in the Rules and Guidelines, which is only tacked onto the county code on the website, it isn't found anywhere else.

So the county police can't roll me up or cite me for having a metal detector in the park, as it's not a code or law, it's in a document produced in 2011 not voted on, and not enforceable. They can only go after me for the County code that states destruction of property/grass/whatever.

Yes, I just saw your explanation on the general section of the forum. And addressed it there. Bravo ! Great post.
 
Yes, I just saw your explanation on the general section of the forum. And addressed it there. Bravo ! Great post.

Hahaha, some may get confused as two posts going on touching on a similar topic. I've avoided talking about this topic my whole time metal detecting because I know how contentious it is. The discussion is great, hopefully we can keep emotions out of it and discuss it further.
 
... The discussion is great, hopefully we can keep emotions out of it and discuss it further.

Yes. It's an admitted unhealthy "bee in my bonnet" subject. :roll: :laughing:

Having been md'ing since the mid 1970s, (past club president, etc.....) I saw a lot of the evolution of this. And there would be places we used to detect, without issue, that all of the sudden, supposedly was an issue. So us old-timers are left scratching our heads saying "since when ?" I began to study the issue, of how this has been evolving. Many nuances, technicalities and psychology wrapped up into it.
 
Yes. It's an admitted unhealthy "bee in my bonnet" subject. :roll: :laughing:

Having been md'ing since the mid 1970s, (past club president, etc.....) I saw a lot of the evolution of this. And there would be places we used to detect, without issue, that all of the sudden, supposedly was an issue. So us old-timers are left scratching our heads saying "since when ?" I began to study the issue, of how this has been evolving. Many nuances, technicalities and psychology wrapped up into it.

Mr. President Tom in CA,

I have not been detecting like you since the 1970's but I still absolutely notice the evolution of this topic. My observation is that you can no longer apply "old-timer" logic to permissions no matter who you think or believe owns the land or writes the laws governing it. You must realize the bigger picture that is now in front of you in 2018.

To level set, think of actions and commentary that used to be thought of as completely fine but now land you in trouble

smoke on a plane or in a restaurant
drive a car without a seatbelt or ride a motorcycle without a helmet
let your kids wander the neighborhood in search of kickball & baseball games
tell someone they have pretty hair in the workplace
eat transfats or drink through plastic straws
etc...

Times change and rules change with them whether they be actual laws or best practices. They are designed to keep everyone including yourself safe and out of trouble as well as create equality and respect for people, property and the environment.

Metal detecting has oddly changed in quite the opposite direction. When I first visited this forum I remember reading nothing but great informative posts about how to properly seek permission and be courteous to those around you. This forum used to give me a sense of pride knowing that if I followed the rules other members described and championed I'd become an upstanding preservationist of the hobby. I shudder to think what newcomers are seen doing now based on the advice they receive here.

If there's a fence but no sign that says no metal detecting, jump it!
If they say no during the day, just go at night!
If the cops say no, make sure to give them a hard time so they're forced to show you the exact law and bylaw and subcode you broke!
and so on...

This kind of advice, which now seems standard on this forum, given to new detectorists strongly resembles advice from other declining/dissolving activities in the past. The perfect example is the boom and subsequent crash of file sharing in the late 90s and early 2000's. Once illegal music and video sharing plagued the practice People would twist the interpretation of every law they could get their hands on to make it seem like they supported the activity.

I am not hosting or giving away my music, just downloading it so it's fine.
My friend is just "sharing" his purchased music with me so it's fine
The download server is hosted in the Netherlands so US laws don't apply..it's fine
etc...

what happened? People still got arrested, sued, fined & embarrassed and the once completely legal and moral (non copyrighted) mainstream file sharing scene went away into obscurity.

The fact of the matter and the moral of the story is that in THIS DAY AND AGE you're no longer contributing to the hobby if you detect a place based on your own crazy interpretation and twisting of rules and laws. You're simply coming up with a bad reason to break the rules as you ride out the existence of the hobby for your own benefit.

It's advice like what you give that leads to more and more places being closed off to the hobby and to the public. And honestly not just you but those who give the same advice to hunters, trappers, prospectors, photographers and so on.

If you're unsure just check with someone to see if it's cool to detect. If it is... great, if not, try somewhere else.

It's truly, that simple...
 
....

It's advice like what you give that leads to more and more places being closed off to the hobby and to the public. And honestly not just you but those who give the same advice to hunters, trappers, prospectors, photographers and so on.

If you're unsure just check with someone to see if it's cool to detect. ........

Assuming we're on the same page/thought: Locations with NO specific express "no md'ing" rule. Ie.: Where it's only ancillary commentary. Or where someone in the past might have gotten a "scram". So with that premise in mind:

Very good post BRJ123. I don't disagree with a lot of what you wrote. You bring up a good point that ... essentially ... IT DOESN'T MATTER how some current "policy" (notice I didn't call it "law") evolved.

The fact that someone , in a city of 100,000 "might not like it", should be of our utmost concern. Right ? That's a noble concern. To which I can not raise an objection. If someone feels it's their obligation to make sure every last person signs off on your hobby, then ... By all means: Don't violate your conscience. Ie.: don't go to any place where it's possible to fetch a no. Or where you found commentary of someone in the past who fetched a "no".

You say that if a person is unsure, to simply call and ask (or check in at the kiosk, or send an email, etc...). Right ? And that my advice is the "cause of places getting put off limits". Right ?

I propose to you that it's actually, often-times, the opposite origin. IMHO: It's often those persons who do as you suggest: They are "unsure". So they show up at kiosks, send emails, make calls, etc... Asking: "Hi, can I metal detect?". Their "pressing question" gets bandied around from desk to desk. Till it lands on the desk of an archie. Or till someone envisions geeks with shovels. So a "no" gets passed back down the chain.

Ok, in the above scenario, who was the one who "brought about a law" (or policy or commentary, or ... whatever you want to call it) ? Notice it's not the one who "just went". It's the one who went in swatting hornet's nests.

But yes: I do acknowledge your point that the evolution of how we got to where we are today, is ... in some ways ... irrelevant. I guess I'm just trying to slow that evolution. And ... as I say.... each person should follow his own conscience.
 
If it's not the law then it doesn't matter what anyone says. Their words are meaningless and not enforceable. If 't not law, I say try to stop me and I'll defend myself and property. The Constitution is law of the land, not some bozo that think he's important.
 
If it's not the law then it doesn't matter what anyone says. .....

Well .... Yes and No.

For the "yes" : I agree that if there's not a specific "no md'ing" law/rule, then you're right: I don't count someone's "commentary" as being on par with law.

But for the "No" : I disagree with you, that you could be defiant of a scram.

Unfortunately: If someone in authority tells you to stop, because he thinks your detector is bothering the mating sea lions , or that you're harming earthworms, or that you're violating "alter & deface" language, etc..... You will be on the loosing end of that debate.

So you see the pickle ? On the one hand, we can agree that we will certainly go detecting. But on the other hand, be willing to stop when told to. Right ? And let's be honest, no one likes a "scram", right ? And the solution to head-this-off-at-the-pass is NOT to go in ahead of time asking "Hi, can I metal detect?" Lest you bump into the "No one cared till you asked" routine. :roll:

So when 1 person in 10,000 "might not like it", what's the solution ? For me, it's : "Keep a low profile". I will avoid bumping into kill-joys. If that means choosing lower traffic times, then so be it. Or for nicely manicured turf, I sometimes hunt at night. So peaceful. So serene. Some people might call that "sneaking around". Ok, fine then: SNEAK AROUND. You're simply not going to get every last person on earth to love & adore you.

I will give an example in the next post :
 
There was a certain park in a certain city, that was turning up a lot of silver back in the late 1990s to early 2000's.

One day, as I was down digging a target, a man in a business suit with a briefcase came walking by. He stopped on the sidewalk and was eyeing me. He marched out and hassled me. Telling me I couldn't be digging, blah blah.

Of course I gave lip service and called it a day. As I was putting my machine away, I watched the man continue his walk to an office building that housed some sort of city offices at the edge of the park. So it became clear to me that he was some sort of city office worker, who worked in that building. I also made mental note of the time: 8am-ish. So he had apparently been arriving for work that day.

A month or so later, a friend of mine got booted from this park . I asked him to describe the individual. Turned out to be the exact same guy. And my friend's booting happened @ 5pm-ish. Hence apparently the gentleman leaving his office for the day.

So we put 2+2 together, and just rationalized that .... as long as we hunt on a Saturday or Sunday (that offices were closed on those days), or after 6pm, etc....., then we would not bump into the fellow. Presto, problem solved.

Some people might call that "sneaking around". Ok, fine.
 
We still have some common sense in the Ozarks. Show some respect to the ground crew and they will welcome you, make a mess and they will run you off and use the no dig disturb LAW to justify it. The commentary from the detecting community and the park employees is that no shovels are allowed, but twice a year the local club rents a shelter at a historical park and 40 guys with shovels dig away with park officials watching the fun.

Our park board covers Springfield and Greene county, and they have more money than they know what to do with. We have a 1/4cent sales tax that we vote in every 4 years that goes to the parks and a few rich guys that like their names on buildings. We have a tennis complex that is bigger and better than most cities twice our size that is home to our professional team, the Springfield Lazers. The grass inside is cut in a checkerboard pattern every couple of days and kept perfect. It's obvious they don't want you digging there. The same thing with a couple of our softball parks that are kept groomed to perfection. Most of our parks get the grass cut weekly, fast and furious with a zero turn tearing up more turf than a herd of detectorists ever would, some are left to nature with just a path cut. It's pretty easy to figure out where they don't want you messing with the turf.
 
.... make a mess and they will run you off ...


Scooter-Jim, I agree with everything you're saying. But just want to add the following: It is possible that sometimes an md'r may NOT be "making a mess" (leaving holes, scars, etc...). But even in those situations, it is STILL possible to be "run off". Here's why :

The mere sight of a man with a detector can create the ... uh .... connotations that you might be about to leave a hole. Because, let's be dreadfully honest: The image of a man with a metal detector DOES have the mental image of "he's going to dig".

So even if you have a humble lesche, and even if you don't create scars, holes, etc.... yet .... to the busy-body who might be seeing you, they might have the mental image that you are about to leave holes. EVEN IF YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE AND DON'T.

You can certainly debate them and show them that you will leave no trace. But .... seriously now ... do you think you will be on the winning side of that debate ? :roll: And if they boot you, guess what their rationale will be (and what they tell the next person who asks "why?") : It will be holes. EVEN THOUGH YOU DIDN'T LEAVE ANY.

So while I agree with everything you're saying, I would STILL choose low traffic times, to simply head off any debate of semantics. Because, sure, we "dig". And while I agree with you that .... if we leave no trace, the presto, we have not defacED anything, yet .... to a lookie-lou, it will be a debate I don't want to get into.

So when it comes to nice manicured turf: Rather than "seek permissions" or "enter into debates", it's gotten to where I simply do those locations at low traffic times. Even at night, if that's what it comes down to. Why swat hornet's nests ? Some people might call that "sneaking around". Ok, fine, sneak around :roll:
 
Scooter-Jim, I agree with everything you're saying. But just want to add the following: It is possible that sometimes an md'r may NOT be "making a mess" (leaving holes, scars, etc...). But even in those situations, it is STILL possible to be "run off". Here's why :

The mere sight of a man with a detector can create the ... uh .... connotations that you might be about to leave a hole. Because, let's be dreadfully honest: The image of a man with a metal detector DOES have the mental image of "he's going to dig".

So even if you have a humble lesche, and even if you don't create scars, holes, etc.... yet .... to the busy-body who might be seeing you, they might have the mental image that you are about to leave holes. EVEN IF YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE AND DON'T.

You can certainly debate them and show them that you will leave no trace. But .... seriously now ... do you think you will be on the winning side of that debate ? :roll: And if they boot you, guess what their rationale will be (and what they tell the next person who asks "why?") : It will be holes. EVEN THOUGH YOU DIDN'T LEAVE ANY.

So while I agree with everything you're saying, I would STILL choose low traffic times, to simply head off any debate of semantics. Because, sure, we "dig". And while I agree with you that .... if we leave no trace, the presto, we have not defacED anything, yet .... to a lookie-lou, it will be a debate I don't want to get into.

So when it comes to nice manicured turf: Rather than "seek permissions" or "enter into debates", it's gotten to where I simply do those locations at low traffic times. Even at night, if that's what it comes down to. Why swat hornet's nests ? Some people might call that "sneaking around". Ok, fine, sneak around :roll:

Case and Point:
Saturday Morning at 6:15 am (barely light) Me and my Detecting partner went to a local high school.. supposedly the Football field is un-gated (rarity). Well we got the lame idea to hunt out front first..
No more than 5 minutes in some guy pulls up and parks and sits in his car for awhile. about 10 minutes later he walks over and from 30 ft away yells that he called the superintendent of the school to "alert" him that we were defacing school property and we should be advised that someone was "coming".
He then quickly got in his car and left.
My partner and I looked at each other and said "what do you want to do".. on one hand we sort of wanted a "ruling" and on the other hand we wanted to just say screw it and leave. Well we decided to leave and go somewhere else for the day because we really didn't want a ruling because that would mean the possibility that we couldn't come back right?

Later we both decided that we should of just started on the field and we would of been fine or perhaps a Sunday instead.. who knows.. but we WILL be back and we will start off on the field.

Also it should be noted that the chance of a School superintendent coming to the school to shoe away a couple of knucklehead detectors was pretty slim to none but.. the town we were in well the cops can be dicks so better to run away and live to fight another day so to speak..

So I am with Tom on this one.. be inconspicuous because regardless of how good you are at plugs and leaving no trace the average lookie loo busy body is going to cause you grief one way or another.
 
Case and Point:....

Good post. And while I agree that it's never pleasant to have such an encounter, yet .... I've resolved to "grow a thick skin".

Some people would be shaken up by a "stink eye" like that. Who can blame them ? But, after 40+ yrs. at this, I have long-since given up the notion that I can please every last person on the planet.
 
I got scrammed by the golf pro at the city park course this morning. I was detecting along the driveway next to the driving range in an are where overflow cars park and old men sit in the shade. I was nowhere near a fairway or a green. He stopped his car and asked if I had permission. I told him I had permission at all the city parks and that it was allowed just don't make a mess. I showed him my screwdriver and that I was being carefull, picking up trash, and being an all round nice guy. It didn't work he asked me to leave until he could find out if I was allowed or not. Explained that just because it was park property doesn't mean all activities like dog walking or detecting was allowed. He called me a couple hours later and said they do have a golf course rule against detecting or any activities other than golf but that I was welcome to detect around the irrigation ponds where they let people fish. He did tell me he was concerned about water and power lines. I didn't argue with him, and I am going to hit the pond. I will go back, I may have to wait until they get a new pro or find out when his day off is.
 
A question I often hear is someone asking "is it legal." The thing is that here in the US, everything is legal, unless it is illegal. But for some reason our mindset is that we are constantly looking for someone to give us permission to do things that are legal. The problem with metal detecting is that there are so many activities involved in it that can be deemed illegal, like digging, defacing, removing, those are the things that are getting us. But I think the first step is to get that mindset out of our heads that we can't do anything without permission. If there is not a law against what we are doing, then we can do it. Simple as that. A warning is always preferable to a citation, and those who write citations can be pretty creative in getting their point across, but I seldom just accept that I am wrong just because someone else doesn't like what I'm doing.

The second part of this is policy. Policy is not law, but it helps define the law, and it sets precedence. If I am in doubt about something, like a park, I don't ask for permission, I ask what is the policy on metal detecting. I often get a different reaction to that question, because it is not a yes/no question. Someone has to actually address it. I ran across this when I first started detecting. I asked the fellow who is in charge of park maintenance what their policy was. He told me that the policy is that the ground has to be returned to its original condition. That's exactly what we do. Sounds like a policy that is made for us. But actually it is addressing other issues, like fastening soccer goals to the ground, putting up tents, things like that. We often get caught up in the no digging no defacing wording, but we aren't the only ones who dig. If I had just asked him if I could go out there and metal detect and dig stuff up, it would have been much easier for him to say no. But the policy defines what constitutes illegal. In our parks, it is illegal to dig, but the policy infers that making a hole and filling it back up is not digging.
 
Back
Top Bottom