Kicked out of park? I don't think so!

[Pastor bob]

Friday I went to one of my favorite Nebraska parks to hunt. I have been there at least ten times and had great success. I have even had the town parks dept. see me there on several occasions. That day about two hours into the hunt a car with two guys pulls up and tells me to leave the park because there is a city ordinance forbidding metal detecting at the park. I told these guys that the city worker has never said a word to me and this guy says the man in the passenger seat is the Mayor and he wants me gone. (Town of 400) I left not wanting to create trouble. On Monday I called this small city, city office and asked them about it. (via voicemail) Tuesday I get a call from a city employee who tells me that he has read through the city ordinances and found nothing pertaining to this. So I am thinking two wise guys said this to make me leave. Maybe they wanted to hunt the park? I WILL be going back. Just because someone tells you to leave don't assume they have the authority especially in small towns.

 

[Elton]

Impersonating an elected Official is against the law. You could have turned that table in a hurry !!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

good job

However, if that really *was* the mayor, then look closely at what you say they said: "...... to leave the park because there is a city ordinance forbidding metal detecting at the park"

How do you know that the "city ordinance" they allude to, might not be some related verbage, yet not specific verbage? Like "alterations" or "defacement" ? If so, then THAT may be the "city ordiance" they are referring to. No, I don't believe such things apply to our hobby (since we fill & stomp our holes, and leave no traces). But that's not to stop someone else from trying to say those things apply. And usually, they can be found in some form or fashion just about anywhere. Or heck, even things about "harvesting" or "collecting" or "removing" (which were meant to stop people from thinking they can cut down trees, take the swing sets, etc...). Yet .... oddly .... some people have morphed them to apply to us.

So you might want to avoid those guys (go at low traffic times), just in case it really WAS the mayor. JMHO.

BTW, what did you find on those previous 10 un-bothered trips?

 

[dr 4 leaf Clover]

Since I am new to metal detecting and would love to be able to detect several old parks where I live. Thanks for the idea of contacting the city for getting permission to detect the parks. As far as I know there is no one that detects in my town. I'm glad you went back to the park after rechecking with the small town. I am very close to NE, only about 3 miles from Eastern NE.

 

[Ism]

Don't ever ask for permission to hunt a park, check ordinances online or in person. If you ask, you are likely to get a NO for an answer.
If you insist on contacting the city, town, township, then ask if there is an ordinance that prohibits metal detecting.

 

[Johnnyanglo]

You should go online and read the ordinances yourself. It may not say "no metal detecting" but it may have rules against removing foliage or damaging grass, etc., which could be used to forbid detecting. That is the case in a nearby city park. I spoke via email with the city officials - they allow detecting but you are forbidden to dig anything in the ground. Despite the ordinance I have detected there and dug plugs - but then I wasn't challenged by anyone (and the park wasn't worth the effort either).

 

[pan4au]

Go Talk To The Mayor.......the buck stops there.. if he gives you permission... then you get asked to leave ... them them to "Go Talk To The Mayor"

 

[IKSDoomsday]

Just had the same thing happen at my town park....Two guys no mayor though. No town ordinance either.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

No, if you read carefully the OP, it wasn't an issue of "getting permission". He had never "gotten permission" for all the times he'd hunted there previously, up-till-then. It was a matter of knowing there were/are NO PROHIBITIONS (which is quite different than thinking you "need permission"). The only reason the OP is talking about NOW going to bureucratic channels for permission (or confirmation, or defence, or whatever), was ONLY because of some busy-body intruder. Or some low-level worker who thinks he makes the rules. Only in THOSE cases should any of us go to higher channels seeking clarification or over-turning type stuff.

Do NOT go into city halls wherever you're at, from the start, seeking permission. Instead what you do (if you're skittish) is confirm via your own research into city muni codes, if there were not a "no detecting" rule. If you see no such rule, then presto, it's not prohibited. No need to "have permission" to do something which is not prohibited. No more so than you'd "need permission" to fly a frisbee, for instance.

Because the problem of taking a post like this, and deducing that going and asking permission is a good thing (to head off such encounters before they might happen), is you'll get the following scenario all-too-often: Some desk-bound bureaucrat tells you "no", when no such rule exists, that says such a thing. Eg.: they could morph something else to apply to your "pressing question", and just give you a "safe" answer. When in fact, they might never have given the matter a moment's thought, or cared less.

The minute any of us thinks he "needs permission" to detect parks for which there is no rule saying you can't, is the minute you simply cast your hobby in some sort of evil category of needing someone's princely say-so. I mean, if it were innocuous, why would you be "asking permission"? That is not subconsciously lost on the person you're asking, and can simply dictate their answer. A self-fulfilling vicious loop.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Ha, I didn't know you'd beaten me to the punch I just typed out the "long-version" under leaf-clover's thread

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Johnny, no need to check to see if such verbage about "damage" "alteraions", etc... exists. Let me save you some time: Such verbage exists in EVERY park, on ANY level, anywhere. I mean, duh, what park is going to "allow" damage, etc...

But all such terms, when you think of it, apply to the END result. Hence if you leave the area exactly as you found it, then presto: you have not damagED, alterED, or defacED anything, now have you? Might someone disagree with those semantics? SURE! Avoid such lookie-lous and go at low traffic times. Kind of like picking your nose: We ALL sort of .... uh .... use a little discretion in our timing lest we offend someone, right?

As for the verbage about "removing" or "collecting" or "harvesting", etc... All such verbage predates detectors, and was there eons ago, so that no numbskull thinks he can go help himself to the swingsets, or take all the tanbark from the tot-lot for use in his own garden. Or cut down tree limbs for firewood, etc.. . Could it be applies to us who could-be-said to be "removing" things? (pennies, pulltabs, etc...). Sure, if you ask enough bored deskbound bureaucrats, I suppose someone could say it applies. But realistically, no, it's rarely thought of in that way. Unless you make yourself a big bullseye begging for someone's sanction, then you'll be the victim of "no one cared ... TILL you asked".

 

[Johnnyanglo]

so that no numbskull thinks he can go help himself to the swingsets

Good point. I'll put them back.