How would you interpret this response?

[Tom_in_CA]

Good point. I would guess that irresponsible detecting (and the resulting damage) has resulted in many, many more outright bans than law-abiding citizens simply asking permission....

If the "law abiding citizens" (which I take to mean "those who asked permission"), had left 155 holes, then they TOO would have been responsible for a ban in that place. So whether the md'r had "permission" or not, is irrelevent. (unless.... their permission specifically was for damaging turf and leaving marks/holes?) Right? So how does the permission issue play into this at all ? Either way, it's going to result in a ban, so .... this is not lending to your desired outcome.

 

[Kemper]

I think we could safely assume that people, in general, are probably more apt to ignore/break/avoid/rail against laws and rules that they feel are unfair or unreasonable (as opposed to rules they agree with/see the need for/understand). Can we agree on this?

This being the case, Tom do you think that bans on metal detecting in public parks are reasonable and justified, or unreasonable? I mean in a general sense, as a matter of policy. Please try to step out of being a detectorist for a moment and think of it from a wider perspective (as all council members, parks boards, etc. should do, what will do the greatest good for the greatest number). How about in cases where there has been repeated damage by detectorists that have either resulted in injury, complaints by other park users, or in having to pay out more for park maintenance and repair? Are bans justified and reasonable in these cases?

Put simply, do you think a city is ever 'in the right' to ban metal detecting in public places?

Cities should not ban "proper" metal detecting if they are doing it because someone did it improperly. That would be like banning barbecues just because someone did not do it properly. They should not ban ball playing just because someone did it improperly. We should not single out metal detecting as an activity that should have harsher punishments than other recreational activities because someone did it improperly.

Enough of this mindset that metal detecting causes as much damage as some people on this forum claim. When you compare the amount of metal detecting that is done as a whole I think there is very minimal damage. I just can't understand why people in the hobby would want to highlight that damage so much.

 

[stewart73]

Stewart, when you put it that way, like if I (or any of us) were to remove ourselves from the position of being hobby adherants, then yes: I would totally understand any city's frowning on the idea. I can totally understand a "no".

But doesn't this go against everything you're standing for then? If you too can understand any city's ban, and/or likeliness to say "no", then .... it sounds to me like you're acknowledging this is the likely answer, when this "pressing issue" crosses their desk.

I was not speaking in the 'likelihood' of a yes or a no, but simply pointing out that I do not feel personally affronted or wronged when the answer does turn out to be a no. I can understand that there may be reasons for them not allowing detecting. This however doesn't stop me from at least asking, and luckily I usually get a yes. So I don't see how what I've said goes against anything I 'stand for'.

I think where we differ is that you consider the likelihood of hearing an answer you want before even asking the question...or for a reason to not ask the question in the first place. I don't do that. What the answer may or may not be is not up to me and it has no bearing on how I feel about asking. I would rather be given a straight-up "no" at the beginning than sneak into a place I know has rules against some of the things I'm doing, worry about whether I'm in the wrong or not, slink around, maybe find some stuff, maybe not, maybe get away with it, maybe not. It's just not worth it to me. Honestly. You've lined up so many reasons in your head NOT to ask now that to do so would probably seem absurd to you. You believe pubic servants are hopeless and spiteful, asking is groveling, they'll probably say no, but even if you do get a yes somebody else in the building might not agree, but even if they do somebody in the field might not agree, but even if this doesn't happen it just proves you never needed to ask anyway....to heck with all that! You've merely created an elaborate scaffolding of possible 'reasons' to justify doing things the way you want and can twist any story or reasoning to match your agenda. Doesn't make it accurate or right though!

 

[stewart73]

Cities should not ban "proper" metal detecting if they are doing it because someone did it improperly. That would be like banning barbecues just because someone did not do it properly. They should not ban ball playing just because someone did it improperly. We should not single out metal detecting as an activity that should have harsher punishments than other recreational activities because someone did it improperly.

And who would police which detectorists are doing it properly and which aren't? You use the example of banning barbeques because some people do not do it properly....not fair in a philosophical sense but isn't this how most laws come into being? We all know it only takes a few to ruin it for the many. Most laws don't come about because everybody was engaging in the now-banned activity, they came about because enough people did it and the expense of trouble of not having the law became more than the benefits would be if they did have the law and *voila*...a new law is made.

 

[stewart73]

If the "law abiding citizens" (which I take to mean "those who asked permission"), had left 155 holes, then they TOO would have been responsible for a ban in that place. So whether the md'r had "permission" or not, is irrelevent. (unless.... their permission specifically was for damaging turf and leaving marks/holes?) Right? So how does the permission issue play into this at all ? Either way, it's going to result in a ban, so .... this is not lending to your desired outcome.

Tom I don't think we're really discussing the permission aspect exactly with this particular example. I was using the story to make the point that it is completely understandable why laws banning detecting are implemented, and also to make the point that city officials finding their fields filled with holes is probably more likely to result in bans than some guy wandering in to city hall and asking for permission.

 

[stewart73]

I just can't understand why people in the hobby would want to highlight that damage so much.

Not highlighting it, but not pretending it doesn't exist either like some do on this forum. To pretend it doesn't happen is simply not accepting reality....and that doesn't help anyone. Once you accept that reality you don't have such a problem when then answer is "no" either. I understand the "no" because I can see it from a wider perspective, not just as a detectorist who is dying to get into every park for a few Rosies. Of course I want to get a "yes" but I don't fall to my knees screaming at the heavens when I don't.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... To pretend it doesn't happen is simply not accepting reality....:

ok, I'll bite . I/we will accept the reality that some md'rs do a lousy job at leaving no trace.

However, I am not personally willing to accept the outcome of their actions, if I can at all help it. If I know that I am not the culprit, and if as you say holes are the issue .... then presto , I will leave no holes . Thus problem solved . Simple .

 

[Kemper]

And who would police which detectorists are doing it properly and which aren't? You use the example of banning barbeques because some people do not do it properly....not fair in a philosophical sense but isn't this how most laws come into being? We all know it only takes a few to ruin it for the many. Most laws don't come about because everybody was engaging in the now-banned activity, they came about because enough people did it and the expense of trouble of not having the law became more than the benefits would be if they did have the law and *voila*...a new law is made.

Doom and Gloom Stewart. I really wonder if you and Harvey and Uptown ever met at a park if you would detect it. Probably would get into a fight over who would get to go to city hall first and kiss axx. Then you'd spend a considerable amount of time griping about ever bad aspect of detecting you could come up with. Then you'd have to spend a lot of time patting each other on the back. You're such a fun bunch.

 

[stewart73]

Doom and Gloom Stewart. I really wonder if you and Harvey and Uptown ever met at a park if you would detect it. Probably would get into a fight over who would get to go to city hall first and kiss axx. Then you'd spend a considerable amount of time griping about ever bad aspect of detecting you could come up with. Then you'd have to spend a lot of time patting each other on the back. You're such a fun bunch.

Haha...sorry you see it as 'doom and gloom' but how do you think most laws come about? I was simply describing a factual process; how you choose to see it is beyond my control. Swimming used to be allowed at the beach but some kids died so they made it illegal. Used to be able to fish in the river but they overfished it and now it's not allowed. Used to be able to BBQ in the park but enough people left messes that they banned it. Happens all the time. Most bylaws become necessary because people are stupid/careless/selfish unfortunately.

It's also ironic how you take offense if you sense even a whiff of exaggeration, misquote, or insult towards yourself yet you are more than happy to dish it out. Doesn't bother me though, as I've said before, this isn't life-or-death we're talking about here...it's metal detecting. I'm sure all the people discussing this are pretty good people...we just seem to disagree on a few things concerning a pretty niche hobby.

 

[stewart73]

ok, I'll bite . I/we will accept the reality that some md'rs do a lousy job at leaving no trace.

However, I am not personally willing to accept the outcome of their actions, if I can at all help it. If I know that I am not the culprit, and if as you say holes are the issue .... then presto , I will leave no holes . Thus problem solved . Simple .

While I think it's admirable (and advisable) that you, as an individual, decide to fill in all your holes, this unfortunately does not guarantee against all others leaving a mess behind, thus upsetting people, and thus, perhaps, leading to bylaws against detecting. In that sense, in the bigger picture, it's not quite 'problem solved' unfortunately.

As for you not willing to accept the outcome of their actions, well, isn't this how most bylaws came about? If partygoers consistently leave BBQ remnants behind on the beach, thus forcing the city to ban it, are you going to keep having BBQs on the beach with the stance that you will not be subject to the results of the actions of others? You are above the law because you, personally, had nothing to do with the implementation of it? Might work in a Social Philosophy 101 class but you'd have a hard time arguing that one in court.

 

[HarveyH48]

harvey, everything you're saying makes perfect sense (how selfish and such that I am), if one BIG premise is taken as a given: That metal detecting is illegal. That a law is being broken. If so, then yes, everything else you're saying logically follows.

What do you say about examples of places where detecting was common place, and never was an issue, UNTIL someone(s) went in asking "Can I/we metal detect" ? Ok, in those examples, who was the ones doing the dis-service for the hobby ?

And yes, I hear what you're saying ... and see the mental image your imagining, that someone on forums reads my take-on-this, and .... then promptly goes out and makes a fool of themselves. Ie.: tromping on historic sensitive monuments since they could find no law prohibiting metal detecting. Or persons who don't know how to leave no trace. Or in some way sticking out like a sore-thumb, catching ire, and then .... "wow, what happened to Tom in CA's advice that I should just go". I truly do sympathize with that, because yes: some people are just magnets for scrutiny, don't know how to conduct themselves, recover targets, etc....

You've yet to provide one verifiable example, of where one person asked, and the city banned the hobby, for no other reason. Seem if that's common, and the main reason for a ban, you shouldn't have any problem digging up a few links to city council minutes, where the issue was discussed and voted on. Your 'True' story examples aren't credible evidence. A fact must be verifiable, tested independently. I've search a few times, when threads start about cities with a ban, but had no luck finding when the ban was put into place, so was unable to find a starting point to search the meeting records. Just don't have that kind of time, too many other interests.

 

[HarveyH48]

Let me put a Ol Tommy Boy tale out there for you......

On Tuesday night one of our players, while crossing the safety bag at first base slipped and fractured an ankle. To the point he is now in a boot. That was nobody's fault, just part of the game. Sports have risks while playing them, but sports fields sure as heck don't need someone out there losing up the turf just for a handful of glad and a earing that has a .925 on the back does it? You claim that " I leave no trace". Really???? Do you go back and watch any games to make sure a kid didn't take a bad hop in the outfield because of a soft plug, or maybe rolled an ankle due to your selfish and not so well read digging of an area? Of course not, what is really meant is you dug up a handful of clad and an earing and were able to get out of there without anyone seeing or bothering you about it..... Say what it really is, don't try to use some jedi mind trick on us like we are idiots.

I sorry to hear about the injury. It is unfortunately part of most sports. It gets down played a lot, since it's a big reason some parents don't let their kids play. It's understandable though, some really put all their hopes and dreams in their child becoming a sports superstar, and lose site that only a handful actually make it, injuries take out quite a few before college level.

I would hunt the sports field here myself. The soil is basically the same as beach sand, very soft, loose. Only thing holding it together is the roots and a little moisture. Even if I put that plug back, so it looks perfect and natural, in every way, I still cut the only thing holding it in place. It's pretty much sports season the entire year as well. Tough to keep a field looking green, with expected wear and tear of normal use, just don't think it's right to intentionally go out on them, to abuse them. I can find the same stuff in other places.

 

[itsaring!]

I usually show them a screwdriver I pop targets with. And carry a pouch of trash to show. We have someone out here digging up sports fields. They seem to have an attitude that is winding up getting whole parks closed to detecting. Problem some have is, They don't realize the City can tell you no. Hell they can make you clean your yard and paint your house! If you don't, they can make you wish you did. IMO, the ones willing to do so much confrontation are the ones who are gonna get detecting banned everywhere. At least that's who I'm blaming!

 

[itsaring!]

Sorry to hear about the player getting hurt. Have you ever seen in person any damage done by someone metal detecting on your field? I think it would be rare for someone to detect a ball field immediately before or during ball season. How is this a Tommy Boy tale?

You should see a school/ball field someone with a metal detector tore up out here! It's not as rare as you think. Maybe where you are?

 

[Kemper]

Doom and Gloom Stewart. I really wonder if you and Harvey and Uptown ever met at a park if you would detect it. Probably would get into a fight over who would get to go to city hall first and kiss axx. Then you'd spend a considerable amount of time griping about ever bad aspect of detecting you could come up with. Then you'd have to spend a lot of time patting each other on the back. You're such a fun bunch.

+1

 

[Jay_781]

Can you four give it a rest?? You've hijacked every single permission thread for weeks, if not months just hurling scenarios at each other that all lead to the same damn thing.. All the OP asked is how would you interpret this response and now there close to 100 irrelevant responses If I was a betting man the safest bet would be that when someone makes a permission thread, that you four will hijack it to further your debate until some other new member that doesnt know how to use the search feature starts a new one for you guys.. I get that your debating your positions but at this point its borderline insanity

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Haha...sorry you see it as 'doom and gloom' but how do you think most laws come about? I was simply describing a factual process; how you choose to see it is beyond my control...

Correct. Yes. That's how laws come about. Granted. And by all means, if there's a law that really said "no metal detecting", then sure, obey it.

But I don't think that's what we're talking about here (albeit perhaps strayed from the O.P.). In this case, we're talking about ancillary things which *could* apply, if you asked certain person's opinions. And "do you ask permission at parks without a specific prohibition?".

 

[Tom_in_CA]

You've yet to provide one verifiable example, of where one person asked, and the city banned the hobby, for no other reason. Seem if that's common, and the main reason for a ban, you shouldn't have any problem digging up a few links to city council minutes, where the issue was discussed and voted on. Your 'True' story examples aren't credible evidence. A fact must be verifiable, tested independently. I've search a few times, when threads start about cities with a ban, but had no luck finding when the ban was put into place, so was unable to find a starting point to search the meeting records. Just don't have that kind of time, too many other interests.

Harvey, I've given examples, links, etc.. But you don't accept them as verifiable. Even gave examples where .... the writing was on-the-wall that *IF* persons were to ask questions, they may indeed get a ... uh ... "decision" that md'ing is not allowed (yet at present, you can hunt till you're blue in the face).

No city (minutes-of-meetings, etc..) is ever going to say that "we're proposing this rule because people asked". OF COURSE no one ever says things like that. Instead in their minutes they'll say "because of holes" or "because of archie concerns". Right? And then us md'rs says "durned those people who must've left holes" or "durned those archies". Right? But what this is failing to ask oneself, is: why is this "pressing issue" even on their plate, for them to find "things to apply" IN THE FIRST PLACE ?

Now I grant you that archies and holes might indeed be reasons alone that a place got off-limits (without any asking permission). Yes. But for PETE'S SAKE let's not accelerate it, and put this front & center up for their princely consideration, when it's entirely possible that holes and archies AREN'T issues in some locales. That's all I'm saying. Why would you want to make ourselves a big red bullseye ? Can't you see that sometimes less attention, ... not more .... is desirable ?

 

[stewart73]

Can you four give it a rest?? You've hijacked every single permission thread for weeks, if not months just hurling scenarios at each other that all lead to the same damn thing.. All the OP asked is how would you interpret this response and now there close to 100 irrelevant responses If I was a betting man the safest bet would be that when someone makes a permission thread, that you four will hijack it to further your debate until some other new member that doesnt know how to use the search feature starts a new one for you guys.. I get that your debating your positions but at this point its borderline insanity

Hey what happened to your Bruins avatar??

 

[stewart73]

+1

Um...generally you don't "+1" your own posts but...have at 'er!