I don't know if I'd call them "detecting specific", but .... insofar as they deal with "digging" and "disturbing", sure. But so too does every single other park and/or school etc.... have the same rules. So if that constitutes "specific", then there's really no place that you/we *shouldn't* ask permission. Eg.: to make sure what we do doesn't constitute "annoyances", "disturbing", "altering", and so forth. Afterall, you can't be too safe. And afterall, it's not our decision as-to-the interpretation, right?
How could the rules the OP described be any
more detecting-specific?
You normally try to wiggle around existing rules by arguing that the words "metal detecting" are not used; in this case those very words are mentioned a few times, in a very small paragraph. Seems fairly obvious they are talking about detecting doesn't it? Of course I know you have your agenda to further and are thus bound to see things in a certain light, but I think in this case anybody can plainly see that it's metal detecting that is being talked about. I think you could argue your way around a "No metal detecting" sign and continue on your merry way.
When I read that part about how the parks people allude to others they've seen (in the sandboxes or whatever), I took that to be nothing more than an observation on their part, that they'd seen others md'ing. Not sure what bearing that has on the issue, other than .... sure, ANY city person is more likely to find sandboxes or tan-bark boxes more innocuous than turf. And then sure, they might point that out. But again, this all goes back to the genesis of why is any of you even having this conversation to begin with? Answer: Because you're standing there asking them "can I?" So the reference to others the city -person had seen md'ing, seemed incidental to me. I mean, what if he'd never seen anyone detecting? What difference will it make ?
As I said, the fact that the 'princely powers', as you put it, are already familiar with detectorists in their park, familiar with the potential damage, and already have detailed rules in place (presumably long before the OP asked for permission) logically leads to the conclusion that the OP wouldn't have simply gotten away with digging in that park had he gone ahead and done so instead of asking. Would you not agree?
If my theory about a vast majority of such answers resulting in the "because you asked" notion, then do you see how this is a chicken-&-egg question? You're merely looking at the END result (the answer), and asking
"How can someone say they wouldn't have cared, since this answer clearly shows they DO care?".
But it fails to ask oneself: Why ARE they now "caring" ? If my theory is correct, then the answer (which you're pointing to as proof), is spurned by nothing more than the "pressing question" you're causing them to think of, answer to, decide on, etc...
Or put another way: "How can one argue that they wouldn't have cared", here's another answer: Because I've seen it occur over and over again where detecting is just common place, and no one ever had a problem, till .... guess what ?
Not saying this is 100% of the off-limits places Stewart, but ... just asking you to realize the psychology has occurred, and can occur more in the future.
Not a chicken and egg question at all. In my opinion it's your definition of "not caring" that is a bit problematic, as is your assumption of what psychology is at work in all of your examples. Firstly, in reality, what percentages of "No's" do you think are handed out by authorities simply out of ignorance, meanness, or the unbearable pressure of being asked a simple question? You would have us believe that most, if not all, refusals are a result of these factors. Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, the person being asked is simply stating a truth, ie. detecting is not allowed? And there may be very good reason for that. Again, if you believe that detecting is a God-given right and every refusal is unreasonable and given under conditions of duress, then yes, you might be making sense but I can't believe that this is the case in the majority of....um, cases. Yes, I know you've got several stories to support your case but is it enough to come on to this forum and tell everyone they should never ask for permission, ever, because it will ruin the hobby for everyone? In my opinion, no way.
You also often say "nobody cared" until....yada, yada. What is your criteria for not caring? Could it not be just as likely that they simply haven't been noticed/caught yet? Is not knowing something is occurring the same as not caring about it? People can get away with things for very long periods of time and may begin to think, "Hey I was right, nobody cares!" but again, it may just be that they haven't been caught yet. "Not caring" is knowing about something and making a decision to not care about it. It is different from not knowing. I mean if somebody is fishing in a place where it probably isn't allowed and they are careful to avoid the crowds, catch some big fish and have a great time, can they honestly conclude that it's all good because nobody cares? Not really. They've simply gotten away with it for the time being. And yes, I know that in some cases that can go on for years. And yes, I also know that in some places the authorities
really don't care! But I would say not in quite as many as you would have us believe (which seems to be pretty much all places). And certainly not enough to justify catch-all phrases such as 'nobody cares until you ask' or 'you'll always get a no' or 'asking permission is damaging to the hobby', etc., etc. Your own experiences and motives dictate what you choose to believe (which is natural) but my question with you has always been how you can insist that they apply everywhere, for everyone...and failure to comply will result in the hobby's inevitable doom. Like, how could anybody be crazy and reckless and selfish enough to ask for permission before digging?! Madness.