NYC Metal Detecting Permit

[FliesOnly]

I think perhaps we are talking passed each other to one degree or another. As such, I am going to sum what I feel is the fundamental flaw of your argument, that being that “asking permission” inevitably leads to either permits being required or an outright ban on metal detecting altogether.

The big question you seem to gloss over is the “Why”? question. You say the ban results from asking permission…from swatting the hornet’s nest, so to speak. But if you think that through, it makes no sense. Why would simply asking for permission lead to a ban? Does the worker hate being asked questions in general? Probably not, or they would have quit and found a new job years ago. Does the worker specifically hate being ask if “permission” for any given activity is required? Highly doubtful, or pretty much everything would be banned by now.

Think about it. If someone askes the park worker: “Hey, can I throw a frisbee in the park?”, it’s extremely unlikely that doing so will result in a ban on frisbee throwing. If someone asks the park worker: “Hey, can I go for a walk in the park?”, it’s extremely unlikely that doing so will result in a ban on walking in the park. If the park is open to fishing and someone asks the park worker: “Hey, can I go fishing in the park?”, it’s extremely unlikely that doing so will result in a ban on fishing in the park. If walking your dog in the park is allowed as long as the dog is leashed, and someone asks the park worker: “Hey can I walk my dog in the park as long as he/she is on a leash?”, it’s extremely unlikely that doing so will result in a ban on walking leashed dogs in the park. I could go on, but I think that you get the idea.

But according to your argument, if someone asks a park worker: “Hey can I metal detect in the park?”, then suddenly chaos ensues and metal detecting is quickly banned in the park!!

So the big question is “why”? Why did that particular inquiry result in a ban, when none of the other inquiries resulted in that same outcome? My answer is that the perception of metal detectors is not a positive one. Our hobby is NOT viewed as innocuous, unlike fishing, or frisbee throwing, or dog walking. If someone breaks fishing laws on one lake, it’s not banned on other lakes because fishing is not perceived as a sport the does damage, regardless as to whether or not it actually does. Same for frisbee throwing or dog walking. You claim that “asking permission” resulted in the ban. I say that in a small way perhaps you are correct, but only in that the asking was the straw that broke the camels back. To me, if a given park bans metal detecting after someone simply inquired whether or not it’s allowed to begin with, then that “ban” was inevitable, regardless of that inquiry.

Personally, I think that you’re perhaps a bit naive to think that online forums and chat rooms and FaceBook, and Instagram and other assorted social media platforms play little to no role in people’s perceptions of metal detecting. I’m obviously not suggesting, as you alluded, that “desk jockies” peruse online forums and chat rooms wondering what metal detectorists are thinking. But to assume that on these forums, where people talk about breaking laws and “rules” if they feel no one will catch them, and hope that their words never make it out to the general public, shows a bit of shortsightedness as to the power of social media. It’s all about perception. Reality, as we have discovered over the past few years, means very little to a large segment of the population. People believe what they want to believe, regardless of facts. Our job should be focused on changing that perception, not trying to stop people from asking for permission.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

But why did he "boot them" to begin with? Isn’t THAT the question we need to answer, and then address?............

In all cases (both your envisionment, and mine) it's no doubt because of perceived violations of : 1) alter/deface, 2) harvest/remove, and 3) cultural heritage. Right ? I don't think either us deny those "go-to" reasons, Right ? Then the question is not-so-much "why?", the question is really : "What puts that on his/her plate ?", eh ? If so, then you tell me : What's the "fastest way to put that on their plate ?" Drumroll: ASK THEM ! Right ?

.....And if he decides “not”, we need to figure out why he reached that decision and not one that says “yes”......

His "why" is is the 3 factors I spelled out in my first paragraph. That I think we can both agree on. And if so, then you and I are not likely to EVER get them/him to agree to 1) let people alter & deface the park, 2) take and remove items, and 3) exploit 51+ yr old sensitive historical objects.

Oh sure, you can try. But if md'ing is already going on at these places, and no one cares, then: WHY GO THERE SWATTING HORNET'S NESTS in the first place ?

....So is it rare or not rare?.....

The cities with *specific* rules and/or permits are rare. And the best thing we, the md'r community can do , is endeavor to KEEP it that way.

But I will admit that a "policy" is not rare. Ie.: The scramming at the mere site of an md'r out there, EVEN when no one ever asked that particular individual "can I?". Why ? Because, let's be honest : The mere site of a man with a detector, in nice manicured turf (especially if he's down to dig a target) is what ? HOLES ! But here's the dirty-little-secret : Going in ahead of time asking "Can I?" does not solve that. It will only ACCELERATE the no's and the policies.

.....I point out that if that's the case, then lots of places probably require permits and that therefore you can’t blame newbies from asking if a permit might be required.....

Actually, for this pyschology, it doesn't have to be "rampant" in order to make "newbies rush to inquire at every city hall". Instead it is like shark-attack mentality : EVEN IF IT IS RARE : The mere mention of ANY city with a "permit" or a "no", causes the newbies to do what ? Start inquiring everywhere. Lest some horror befall them too, eh ? Just like in rare shark-attacks. The problem in OUR case, is that it only increases the very thing they were wondering about IN THE FIRST PLACE :/

It can be : 1) Rare, and we can 2) Endeavor to keep it that way, and 3) Your stance (of swatting hornet's nests) will not have the end-result of keeping-it-that-way (IMHO)

.....They do not specifically ban swinging or basketball.....

Nor do they (for purposes of places of our discussion, where it is silent on the subject) specifically ban md'ing either.

.....because they perceive those two activities differently.....

And trotting down to city halls ahead of time asking "can I?" DOES NOT SOLVE that It only ACCELERATES that

.....But they remember the metal detector......

And asking "Can I?" ahead of time, does not solve that . It only accelerates that. If metal detectors were/are "big and bad", then SO TOO will that be a factor at day-time hunting too. And does showing up pre-emptively at city halls solve this ? No, it only accelerates this

.....No. But I do think that if they were made aware that the park is considering requiring permits or perhaps enforcing an outright ban, that they WOULD show up and put in his two cents worth on the issue…and it likely wouldn’t be positive......

Fine, let's just say I grant you all of this "after night/dusk curfew" stuff (which is breaking an EXISTING non-disputed rule, in the first place), then : How does any of this justify "pre-emptive move of seeking express blessings" (ie.: asking "Can I?") in the first place ? I can just grant everything you're saying and conclude: FINE : Don't hunt after dusk ! It's not adding to the pros/con's of our discussion. Is it ?

.....Unfortunately, I don’t think we will have much of a choice......

This is assuming that a rule in on-the-agenda of proposed new laws. If THAT is the case, fine then, fight it. But no, NOT "pre-emptively" (showing up asking "can I?" type questions), when no-such specific rule existed in the first place.

.....but people are going to continue to ask if they need a permit,.....

hopefully not after being educated as to the self-fulfilling nature of such endeavors. Ie.: Hopefully not after reading Tom_in_CA rants

.....And more importantly, what can we do to change it? .....

To educate folks not to swat hornet's nests !

.....What we should actually be trying to do is change that very perception.....

I'm not disputing the "perception". I am on record as perpetually saying that we have "connotations" (that we might be about to leave a hole). But no amount of "trotting in there ahead of time" solves that. It only accelerates that The mere image (put on their plate for consideration) will only bring about the risk of yet-more-'no's'

.....By definition, you cannot have “numerous examples” of an event that is, by your own words, rare. That’s counterintuitive......

For the places/times when codified rules, policies, and permits HAVE been put in place, then in THOSE case, the genesis of which I speak is NOT rare.

.....I think you and I view “verifiable proof” in different ways.

And here's what would invariably happen if/when I cite for you the numerous examples that strike me as proof: You would merely scratch each of them off the list as A) Exceptions and flukes, B) Try to re-define them with possible other explanations. C) "that's just anecdotal"

In other words: No matter HOW many examples someone could give you, you could ENDLESSLY say "That's the exception" or " Well, it's possible he/they meant such & such" or "Maybe they saw someone (gasp) detecting after dark also" blah blah

And let's be honest: If/when any govt. agency ever got asked "why did you implement this ?", do you REALLY think they are going to say "Because someone(s) asked" ? OF COURSE NOT. Instead, they will reach for the go-to answers of 1) holes, 2) harvest/remove/take, and 3) cultural heritage. So the bigger question is then: What put it on their plate, in-need-of-a-pressing decision, IN THE FIRST PLACE ?

 

[FliesOnly]

In all cases (both your envisionment, and mine) it's no doubt because of perceived violations of : 1) alter/deface, 2) harvest/remove, and 3) cultural heritage. Right ? I don't think either us deny those "go-to" reasons, Right ? Then the question is not-so-much "why?", the question is really : "What puts that on his/her plate ?", eh ?

. No. The question really is “Why does asking result in a ban?”. A ban is the “Result”. I’m asking about the underlying “Cause”

But I will admit that a "policy" is not rare. Ie.: The scramming at the mere site of an md'r out there, EVEN when no one ever asked that particular individual "can I?". Why ? Because, let's be honest : The mere site of a man with a detector, in nice manicured turf (especially if he's down to dig a target) is what ? HOLES ! But here's the dirty-little-secret : Going in ahead of time asking "Can I?" does not solve that. It will only ACCELERATE the no's and the policies.

OK, if that’s the case, then what we should be doing is trying to change that attitude, not ignore it. There’s no way you’re going to get people to stop asking for permission. That’s just not going to happen. So why not try to change the attitude of the person saying “no”?

Your stance (of swatting hornet's nests) will not have the end-result of keeping-it-that-way (IMHO)

That’s not my stance. I don’t necessarily condone asking, I’m just a realist and understand that people are going to ask regardless.

And trotting down to city halls ahead of time asking "can I?" DOES NOT SOLVE that It only ACCELERATES that

That’s probably true. The difference between you and I is that your solution is to stop people from asking. That’s not going to happen. My solution is to get the powers that be to say “sure, go ahead”.

Fine, let's just say I grant you all of this "after night/dusk curfew" stuff (which is breaking an EXISTING non-disputed rule, in the first place), then : How does any of this justify "pre-emptive move of seeking express blessings" (ie.: asking "Can I?") in the first place ?

It doesn’t, but that wasn’t the reason I mentioned it to begin with. The reason I mentioned it was to point out that it adds to the negative connotations relating to our hobby.

To educate folks not to swat hornet's nests !

Good luck with that.

And here's what would invariably happen if/when I cite for you the numerous examples that strike me as proof: You would merely scratch each of them off the list as A) Exceptions and flukes, B) Try to re-define them with possible other explanations. C) "that's just anecdotal"

Actually, I would not do that. I’m not someone who refuses to change their opinion as new information becomes available. I’m trained in science. It’s my nature to questions things and reevaluate as needed. The problem I have with your evidences is that they are not evidence. They’re inferences. Plus, even if you can conclusively prove that after someone “asked for permission” the park decided to ban metal detecting, that still ignores the MOST important aspect of that interaction…namely, why did they ban it. Asking the question didn’t cause the ban. The ban was put into place because of all of the negative connotations associated with our hobby. Change those, and then “asking for permission” is no longer an issue.

In other words: No matter HOW many examples someone could give you, you could ENDLESSLY say "That's the exception" or " Well, it's possible he/they meant such & such" or "Maybe they saw someone (gasp) detecting after dark also" blah blah

Not at all true. Regardless, the problem I have with your evidence is that, again, it is merely addressing the result while ignoring the cause.

And let's be honest: If/when any govt. agency ever got asked "why did you implement this ?", do you REALLY think they are going to say "Because someone(s) asked" ? OF COURSE NOT. Instead, they will reach for the go-to answers of 1) holes, 2) harvest/remove/take, and 3) cultural heritage. So the bigger question is then: What put it on their plate, in-need-of-a-pressing decision, IN THE FIRST PLACE ?

But it will inevitably, at some point in time, BE PUT ON THEIR PLATE!!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

. ...I’m asking about the underlying “Cause”...

The "cause" is, that we : 1) dig, 2) take things, and 3) *could* find cool old things that belong in museums .

This is just the undeniable truth of our hobby's definition. And no amount of going in there ahead of time and talking to them, or asking them "Can I?" Changes those 3 things. You will not "change that perspective". Unless, of course, you intend to 1) not dig, 2) not take, and 3) find only new clad.

BTW: The average passerby CARES LESS about those 3 things. In fact, even the average park worker cares less about those 3 things. Until, that is, you put it on someone's plate with a "Can I?". And thus he is tasked with thinking through the ramifications, giving his signature to it, etc.....

. ....So why not try to change the attitude of the person saying “no”? ...

If it were POSSIBLE, then SURE ! I'd LOVE to convert every last person on earth to love & adore my hobby. But I'm afraid I've taken a dose of reality : We dig, like-it-or-not. We "take things", like it or not , and we find old coins.

I've worked with enough museums, and thus rubbed shoulders with enough archies, that I can tell you : You are not going to convert the archie-community to love & adore md'rs.

Even in places like England (where there's a supposed hand-holding with md'rs), they do NOT allow md'ing @ scores of public places. It is not some sort of "carte-blanche" there, as some seem to think it is. Why do you think that 99% of their hunting is done @ private land ? And their archies also look with derision upon our hobby, and only *tolerate* it on private land.

*IF* the "world could be converted", then sure ! But the problem is, that it won't happen. The MERE DEFINITION of our hobby (when tasked with thinking through the ramifications) just leads the average desk-jockey to reach for the easy answer.

. ... I’m just a realist and understand that people are going to ask regardless....

Actually, In this day-&-age of increasingly digital info., I've actually seen where the ... uh ... "crusade" to get md'rs to "look up potential laws and rules for THEMSELVES" and "don't swat hornet's nests", is actually getting out there. A local buddy of mine got a good laugh when he was getting ready to travel to the east coast. A business trip, so he was thinking about bringing his detector. So he hopped on line and did some google word searches, and humorously, guess what was among the top hits of the list of google results ? Tom_in_CA who had chimed in @ legalities and "don't swat hornet's nests", and other such hits. haha

So don't think that people are "going to ask regardless" is inevitable. People can and do get educated.

 

[Gaspipe]

Just looked can’t believe this thread still has legs ! I beg you let it die.

 

[Cfmct]

Just looked can’t believe this thread still has legs ! I beg you let it die.

Tom is working on his quota for number of posts per month and he doesn't want to fall behind

 

[randy]

.
But it will inevitably, at some point in time, BE PUT ON THEIR PLATE!!

And, inevitably, we all die. But, rationally, there doesn't seem a reason to hasten that outcome, now does there?

 

[joe dert]

Hello All,

I recently applied for a permit and had it back with around a 3 week turnaround time. I must say I’m kind of impressed with the turnaround time. I should be ready to hit the ground running come Spring.

-Benny

I had one when I lived in Brooklyn. Never had a hassle. I was asked to stay out of an area once by a park worker, so I complied. Had a supervisor stop the truck one time and ask me if I was finding anything good. Big point here is just don’t act like a jerk. Follow simple rules. The best park left to hit with a permit in NYC is prospect park..go for it

 

[BennyV]

I had one when I lived in Brooklyn. Never had a hassle. I was asked to stay out of an area once by a park worker, so I complied. Had a supervisor stop the truck one time and ask me if I was finding anything good. Big point here is just don’t act like a jerk. Follow simple rules. The best park left to hit with a permit in NYC is prospect park..go for it

Nice!

 

[FliesOnly]

And, inevitably, we all die. But, rationally, there doesn't seem a reason to hasten that outcome, now does there?

I agree, I'm NOT condoning asking permission. But I'm also not ignoring the fact that people are going to ask. But let's stick with your analogy. If you have a condition that will hasten your death, would you not try to do something to fix that particular problem? I mean, why am I such a bad guy for suggesting that trying to change how people perceive us is actually a positive strategy?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... If you have a condition that will hasten your death, would you not try to do something to fix that particular problem? ....

Sure. But 1) You would not do "something" that hastens your death, and 2) death is inevitable.

So to compare that to md'ing analogy :

1) you would not ask "Can I ?", nor would you try to convert them to love & adore or tolerate this/us. Those things only further accelerate the very death that we speak of.

2) The "inevitable death" is analogous to the random potential for a scram or stink-eye. Sure, some nosy-parkers might not like it. But just keep a lower profile, go at lower traffic times, and avoid such busy-bodies. To think you can go get their blessings and/or over-turn them, is only going to accelerate your "inevitable death".

99.99% of people who pass by an md'r could care less, nor even notice you. To me, that's good enough.

 

[FliesOnly]

Sure. But 1) You would not do "something" that hastens your death, and 2) death is inevitable.

I guess we see two different, fatal, conditions. You see “asking permission” as a death warrant, when in reality is merely a symptom. I see preconceived notions and negative connotations as the actual deadly disease. I’m trying to actually deal with the fatal disease. You’re simply taking an aspirin to mask the symptom, in hopes that doing so will prevent death. It won’t. It’ll just make your death a bit more comfortable perhaps, and maybe you won’t then see it coming.

1) you would not ask "Can I ?",…

as I have said more than a couple times now, I’m not condoning the “asking of permission”.

…nor would you try to convert them to love & adore or tolerate this/us. Those things only further accelerate the very death that we speak of.

Wait, are you trying to tell me that changing their attitudes will hasten our deaths? Seriously, you think that acting in a responsible, lawful manner will only lead to more permits and/or outright bans? Cuz that’s certainly what this seems to imply.
To be absolutely clear, I’ve never said nor implied that asking permission will make them “love & adore or tolerate this/us” us. However, people are going to ask permission, we both know this to be the case. So please explain to me why we should not bother to try to change the attitudes of “the powers that be” such that maybe they don’t ban our hobby when they’re asked if it’s ok to detect.

2) The "inevitable death" is analogous to the random potential for a scram or stink-eye. Sure, some nosy-parkers might not like it. But just keep a lower profile, go at lower traffic times, and avoid such busy-bodies. To think you can go get their blessings and/or over-turn them, is only going to accelerate your "inevitable death".

Sure, this is sound advice. However, as we both know, there are those who feel that it’s OK to perhaps “bend the laws/rules a little bit”, if doing so will get them into places to detect where it might not be allowed. You yourself have condoned this behavior. Why is THAT not the issue we’re trying to resolve?
I mean, you get all worked up when you read about people asking for permission, as if that’s the reason why places require permits or have imposed outright bans, but you don’t seem to care about fixing the underlying issue of WHY we get banned. Granted, changing attitudes and perceptions is a long term goal, but all long journeys start with that first step forward, yes?

99.99% of people who pass by an md'r could care less, nor even notice you. To me, that's good enough.

Made up numbers don’t really mean anything.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... Seriously, you think that acting in a responsible, lawful manner will ......

The word "lawful" is a very loaded term. Because we're NOT talking about places with SPECIFIC "No MD'ing" laws, right ? We're only talking about the type places with the catch-all verbiage of things like alter, deface, take/remove, lost & found, cultural heritage, etc.... Right ?

If so, the I hope you'll agree that when it comes to the "grey area" verbiage, that it can be whimsical and arbitrary as-to-interpretation. I mean, take "alter and deface" for example: If you leave no trace of your presence , then you haven't alterED anything. Right ? But can someone else interpret that differently ? SURE ! But would I call that "un"-lawful ? Not necessarily. So your premise word of "lawful" is a bit loaded for this conversation. See ?

..... Wait, are you trying to tell me that changing their attitudes will hasten our deaths? Seriously, you think that acting in a responsible, lawful manner will only lead to more permits and/or outright bans?.......

......... So please explain to me why we should not bother to try to change the attitudes of “the powers that be” such that maybe they don’t ban our hobby when they’re asked if it’s ok to detect......

F.O. : Don't get me wrong : I certainly WISH I/you/we could "convert the world". And attain cart-blanche to tromp around in nice manicured turf, digging holes, taking things, and selling cool old coins on ebay for our own profit. If such-a-thing were attainable, then I'd totally be on-your-side. But I'm afraid reality dictates that that day will never come And yes: efforts to "change their attitudes" (which would require that we parade ourselves and our intentions in front of them), will, yes: Lead to more problems.

And don't think for a moment that Britain can be pointed to as an example of some sort of "solution" or "love-relationship" between archies and md'rs. Because : A) Over there, all the wealth under the land belongs to the queen. We have no-such-laws here in the USA for our private land. B) Their eventual law/rules for md'rs did NOT grant any "carte-blanche" to hunt public land. They STILL don't hunt nice-turfed public parks (or sensitive historic monuments) either. JUST like here. Why do you think that 99% of UK md'ing is done on private land ? C) The archies there still despise md'ing, and you still can't tromp on lots of public land there. D) Over here, what you find on private land is TOTALLY BETWEEN you and farmer-Bob, with NO intrusion by the govt. on how to split, sell, etc.... Why would anyone want anyone else meddling in that affair ?

..... you don’t seem to care about fixing the underlying issue of WHY we get banned......

It's not that I "don't care". I certainly DO wish that I could fix the "underlying issue" (ie.: And get them to love & adore that "issue"). But any attempts to fix it, will involve bringing us front and center for their princely consideration.

And if most places are non-issues (ie.: No one cares), then why isn't it better to do our best to keep-it-that-way ?

The random stink eye or scram is like being socially ostracized for farting on a crowded elevator or picking your nose : You can attempt to get all those people to understand that farting & nose-picking is only normal and natural and harmless, and "change their attitudes". Eh ? In an attempt to get them to stop their "no's" and "stink-eyes". OR you can opt to simply be a little more discreet on where you fart and nose-pick. Rather than thinking your going to convert them to put-up with it, permit it, etc....

And yes: I'm glad we agree on the lack-of-need to ask-permission, in cases of locations that have no express/explicit dis-allowance.

 

[FliesOnly]

The word "lawful" is a very loaded term. Because we're NOT talking about places with SPECIFIC "No MD'ing" laws, right ? We're only talking about the type places with the catch-all verbiage of things like alter, deface, take/remove, lost & found, cultural heritage, etc.... Right ?

Maybe you’re only talking about those places, but I’m talking about our hobby as a whole. People don’t form negative opinions of us solely based on how we behave in parks.

If so, the I hope you'll agree that when it comes to the "grey area" verbiage, that it can be whimsical and arbitrary as-to-interpretation. I mean, take "alter and deface" for example: If you leave no trace of your presence , then you haven't alterED anything. Right ? But can someone else interpret that differently ? SURE ! But would I call that "un"-lawful ? Not necessarily. So your premise word of "lawful" is a bit loaded for this conversation. See ?

Not really. Again, you seem to be basing your entire argument on the sole premise of “asking for permission”. I’m talking about how metal detectors behave in general, no matter the location. It’s plausible that many Park employees dislike us, not based on our behavior in “their” park, but rather based off of stuff they’ve seen or heard or read that are completely unrelated to their place of employment. You always seem to be very myopic when we discuss this, only referencing the particular thread we’re in at the time, and not looking at the big picture. You focus on the minutia, a very specific niche, and seemingly ignore the rest of the World.

F.O. : Don't get me wrong : I certainly WISH I/you/we could "convert the world". And attain cart-blanche to tromp around in nice manicured turf, digging holes, taking things, and selling cool old coins on ebay for our own profit. If such-a-thing were attainable, then I'd totally be on-your-side. But I'm afraid reality dictates that that day will never come

Why? Maybe if some of us didn’t act like a-holes by trespassing, or by removing objects we’re not supposed to remove, or by not being considerate in where we dig or how we leave the area looking…stuff like that…then maybe attitudes would change. And just to be absolutely clear, I’m not referring solely to parks…I’m talking about everywhere and anywhere that we may be detecting. Plus, we don’t need to convince everyone. We need only to show “the powers that be” that their negative perception of us is based off of faulty or flawed information.

And yes: efforts to "change their attitudes" (which would require that we parade ourselves and our intentions in front of them), will, yes: Lead to more problems.

What? How does acting in a lawful, responsible manner “parade ourselves and our intentions in front of them”? This makes no sense at all.

And don't think for a moment that Britain can be pointed to as an example of some sort of "solution" or "love-relationship" between archies and md'rs. Because : A) Over there, all the wealth under the land belongs to the queen. We have no-such-laws here in the USA for our private land. B) Their eventual law/rules for md'rs did NOT grant any "carte-blanche" to hunt public land. They STILL don't hunt nice-turfed public parks (or sensitive historic monuments) either. JUST like here. Why do you think that 99% of UK md'ing is done on private land ? C) The archies there still despise md'ing, and you still can't tromp on lots of public land there. D) Over here, what you find on private land is TOTALLY BETWEEN you and farmer-Bob, with NO intrusion by the govt. on how to split, sell, etc.... Why would anyone want anyone else meddling in that affair ?

I’m honestly not sure why you brought this up, or what relevance it has to this conversation. I mean, I’ve never suggested we do anything that would in anyway jeopardize our access to private property or lead to the Gov claiming ownership of all buried items. Instead, I’ve only been saying that as long as detectorists behave in a manner that reflects negatively on us, then there will likely be continued hostility towards us and our hobby. As such, I have only been suggesting that a change in our behavior would likely be the best way to stop the negative connotations some (many?) people have.
Yet you keep saying that doing so somehow puts “our intentions in front of them”. I’m still not sure how acting responsibly can in anyway be interpreted as a bad thing. But, I guess to some, that’s now the World we live in. Good behavior is viewed as a negative, while being an a-hole is rewarded. We’ve certainly seen that of late, so who knows, maybe you’re right.

It's not that I "don't care". I certainly DO wish that I could fix the "underlying issue" (ie.: And get them to love & adore that "issue"). But any attempts to fix it, will involve bringing us front and center for their princely consideration.

Ummmmmm…what? This make just as little sense here, as it did a couple paragraphs ago.

And if most places are non-issues (ie.: No one cares), then why isn't it better to do our best to keep-it-that-way ?

How is suggesting the metal detectors act in a lawful, responsible manner in anyway, somehow or another, suggesting that I’m advocating for “asking for permission”?

The random stink eye or scram is like being socially ostracized for farting on a crowded elevator or picking your nose : You can attempt to get all those people to understand that farting & nose-picking is only normal and natural and harmless, and "change their attitudes". Eh ? In an attempt to get them to stop their "no's" and "stink-eyes".

Well, if farting in an elevator results in being banned from all elevators, then people would most likely not fart in elevators. Whereas, acting in a responsible manner results in you being allowed to ride elevators. See how that works, pretty cool eh?

OR you can opt to simply be a little more discreet on where you fart and nose-pick. Rather than thinking your going to convert them to put-up with it, permit it, etc....

Yeah…that’s called acting in a responsible manner. Something I have been suggesting for a number of posts now.
To be honest, I thought that this would be a slam dunk discussion from the very beginning. I thought for sure that we’d agree on this topic. That you’d see that a bifurcated response was the best course of action. First, don’t ask for permission if there are no specific rules/laws/guidelines/whatever against metal detecting at that specific location. And Second, act in a lawful, respectful, responsible manner while detecting, no matter where you happen to be. And instead I’m told that the second part of the plan is actually a terrible idea.

And yes: I'm glad we agree on the lack-of-need to ask-permission, in cases of locations that have no express/explicit dis-allowance.

Yep. And if we want to keep it that way, maybe don’t be an a-hole while you’re there. That would help down the road, when someone inevitably asks for permission.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Maybe you’re only talking about those places, but I’m talking about our hobby as a whole. People don’t form negative opinions of us solely based on how we behave in parks.....

Then I think you're subconsciously falling victim to "shark attack" mentality : Thinking that "everyone has negative opinions of us" because WHY ? Because of the occasional stink eye or scram or "no" that we read about on hobbyist forum posts (Eg.: someone coming on to lament they got booted, or got a no or stink-eye, blah blah). So it's easy for you/us to conclude : "oh no, people are negative about us". But this is nothing more than rare shark-attack mentality :

If someone is attacked by a shark, guess what makes the newspaper headlines the next day ? EVEN THOUGH A MILLION PEOPLE might be swimming during the year, along that same shoreline. Those "non shark attack" events never made headlines. Only the shark attack made headlines. So too is it with md'ing: I assure you that 99.99% of passerbys could CARE LESS or even notice you. Nor form a "negative opinion" of you. In fact, it's quite the opposite. The average passerby I run into wants to know: "What's the best thing you've ever found" and "how deep does it go" and "where can I buy one of those", etc.....

And BTW: What's this about how we "behave in parks"? I behave just fine in parks. Don't you ?

... What? How does acting in a lawful, responsible manner “parade ourselves and our intentions in front of them”? This makes no sense at all....

F.O.: You or I can go into ANY forest, desert, beach, park, etc.... and act in a "lawful responsible manner", and still get a scram or a stink-eye or a no. The scrams, the stink-eyes, and the 'no's' are not necessarily because any of us acted in an unlawful or irresponsible manner in the past. Archies will always despise md'rs. And the md'r in nice-manicured turf will always have the connotation of "holes" (EVEN WHEN THE PERSON NEVER SAW ANY). And so forth. None of which is unlawful (for grey area verbiage). This is just the mere definition of our hobby. And no amount of "education to them" changes this. All it does is bring us "front and center" for them to consider and ponder EVEN MORE. Thus, the LESS they think of us, the better.

Then if 1) We agree on this, then ... . and 2) We agree that you are not suggesting we all go grovelling for permission at each park, then .... 3) What is it that you want ? It seems like you think we need to form solidarities to get the "powers that be" to have good opinions of us. Right ? If so, is that not "parading ourselves in front of them" ?

Or if you merely meant : "Being good citizens", then sure, we agree. But I got news for you : The mere act of md'ing, in some people's minds eyes (the rare "shark attack") is that it's a bad thing. I mean, think of it : Didn't it occur to you, when you took up this hobby, that you'd be: A) digging holes, B) taking things, and C) Some of things might be old and cool and valuable ? There's no escaping (and no amount of education) that changes this intrinsic definition. The good thing is, that 99.99% of people don't care. And let's do our best to keep it that way.

 

[MikeyT2]

I was speaking with someone in the NYC Parks Department before the blizzard. Prospect Park is an issue because there are groups of detectorists digging with large shovels instead of garden trowels or probes. It appears they are posting their hunts on You Tube. The permit verbiage is clear. Not too difficult to follow.

 

[FliesOnly]

I was speaking with someone in the NYC Parks Department before the blizzard. Prospect Park is an issue because there are groups of detectorists digging with large shovels instead of garden trowels or probes. It appears they are posting their hunts on You Tube. The permit verbiage is clear. Not too difficult to follow.

Well, the good news is, is that this sort of behavior really doesn't matter. No one sees those videos. As long as they don't...god forbid!!!...ask for permission, all is good.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I was speaking with someone in the NYC Parks Department....

Mikey-T2 : What that parks guy told you might or might-not have been-the-case. Consider that there's a lot of times where someone cites "holes" or "[long-handle] "shovels", SIMPLY because they saw someone detecting. In other words : The mere site of a man detecting can, in some people's mind's eyes, conjur up images of "holes" and "shovels". And sometimes, therefore, it doesn't actually mean there was ever a case of actual holes or long-handled-shovels.

Do you have the links to the supposed videos ?

 

[stursmad]

Long handled shovels in Prospect Park-New York

Mikey-T2 : What that parks guy told you might or might-not have been-the-case. Consider that there's a lot of times where someone cites "holes" or "[long-handle] "shovels", SIMPLY because they saw someone detecting. In other words : The mere site of a man detecting can, in some people's mind's eyes, conjur up images of "holes" and "shovels". And sometimes, therefore, it doesn't actually mean there was ever a case of actual holes or long-handled-shovels.

Do you have the links to the supposed videos ?

Here's a link you requested;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCUuy_pUmgU

 

[stursmad]

Another link

Mikey-T2 : What that parks guy told you might or might-not have been-the-case. Consider that there's a lot of times where someone cites "holes" or "[long-handle] "shovels", SIMPLY because they saw someone detecting. In other words : The mere site of a man detecting can, in some people's mind's eyes, conjur up images of "holes" and "shovels". And sometimes, therefore, it doesn't actually mean there was ever a case of actual holes or long-handled-shovels.

Do you have the links to the supposed videos ?

Another link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noIAEeJPKpA

There are plenty more.