NYC Metal Detecting Permit

I was checked at a state park. Not a big deal.

I wouldn't think it would be. Just like having a fishing/hunting license checked.

Also a great time to pump them for info.... best streams, recently stocked with fish....

Some may claim that this check is an intrusion, a violation of rights....

But, no one forced anyone to purchase/apply for a hunting, fishing or metal detecting permit or license.

To me it is simple. You don't feel a permit is necessary, by all means don't get one.

If stopped and asked for permit, just be prepared for the consequences, whatever they may be.
 
...by all means....

If they're actually "checking", then sure, you're absolutely right. And on the other hand, there's places that dreamed these up, where no one can ever recall being "carded".

And guess what ? If you ARE in a location that actually cards people and the rank-&-file knows about them (and does indeed care), guess why they "know about them" and "care" in the first place ? Easy : Because we md'rs hooted and hollered and made ourselves a giant bullseye fuss, at various times in the past.

So for example, at the city in CA that I'm thinking of, where no one in authority has ever cared less, and no one can ever recall getting "carded", I'll bet that if you gave me 24 hrs, I could change that in a heart-beat : Merely rat on some other md'r who (gasp) didn't have one. Or gleefully go showing my card to random passing park workers (who otherwise would never have cared less, etc....). Then sure, it will now be "front and center" for their attention radar on others :roll: In other words, ask yourself : Even when it's true that "they cared", then WHY do they "care" ?
 
If they're actually "checking", then sure, you're absolutely right. And on the other hand, there's places that dreamed these up, where no one can ever recall being "carded".

And guess what ? If you ARE in a location that actually cards people and the rank-&-file knows about them (and does indeed care), guess why they "know about them" and "care" in the first place ? Easy : Because we md'rs hooted and hollered and made ourselves a giant bullseye fuss, at various times in the past.

So for example, at the city in CA that I'm thinking of, where no one in authority has ever cared less, and no one can ever recall getting "carded", I'll bet that if you gave me 24 hrs, I could change that in a heart-beat : Merely rat on some other md'r who (gasp) didn't have one. Or gleefully go showing my card to random passing park workers (who otherwise would never have cared less, etc....). Then sure, it will now be "front and center" for their attention radar on others :roll: In other words, ask yourself : Even when it's true that "they cared", then WHY do they "care" ?

"Why do they care?"

I don't know, and more importantly I don't care.

I can't see myself applying for a permit, due to the restrictions.

I'll just hunt areas that don't require a permit.
 
Actually, no. This is not true. It's actually QUITE RARE that cities dream up "permits" for md'ing. For example, in the entire state of CA, I can think of perhaps 3 or 4 is all. And it's also VERY RARE that any city park's dept. actually has a "no detecting" rule in their park's codes. 99.99% of the time it's simply silent on the issue (not mentioned either way).
Ummmmmm...so then I guess this means that all those people that ask for permission aren't actually causing the problem(s) you keep bringing up, right?
 
And guess what ? If you ARE in a location that actually cards people and the rank-&-file knows about them (and does indeed care), guess why they "know about them" and "care" in the first place ? Easy : Because we md'rs hooted and hollered and made ourselves a giant bullseye fuss, at various times in the past.

I don't know a thing about the history of metal detecting permission in NYC parks, bur the following scenario is plausible in theory.

Imagine it was illegal in the past. Then, metal detecting activists pressed the bureaucrats to make it legal. Imagine it was on some board meeting agenda. Imagine other park users did not want it. Imagine they protested. Imagine the compromise reached was a permit would be required, thus, de facto, limiting the traffic.

This scenario would be consistent with the attitude I received when I detected the Brooklyn park as I described in a previous post. I'm not saying this happened, and it likely did not happen (at least in this form), but this line of reasoning and similar lines provides a different explanation to the "philosophy".

We have a similar situation here. Detecting is illegal in Montgomery County PA parks (the next county over from me). Were I a resident, I would advocate for making it legal under some sort of permit scheme, because there are some hot sites in those parks. It is sort of a "reverse hornet's nest" scenario. I've been to board meetings on other issues, and I assure you it would be contentious. There are simply busybodies who do not want others to have fun, and for whatever percentage of the human race those people are, it is simply human nature.

My experience in Brooklyn was that that percentage was abnormally high. Who knows why, but thought along the above lines may or may not explain it. YMMV
 
Ummmmmm...so then I guess this means that all those people that ask for permission aren't actually causing the problem(s) you keep bringing up, right?

haha, good point. If I say that *true* md'ing *specific* restrictions are rare, then ... what the h#ll am I whining about. Right ? :roll: Good job.


So here's what I have to say : 1) This doesn't take into effect the places where someone got a "no", which turned into a "policy" Those places too are victims of the "no one cared till you asked" scenario :/
Versus turns into a specific "rule" or "law". Ok ? Ok, then we md'rs are sitting around whining about "policies" (which are not a part of the 99% I alluded to). See ? 2) In the places which, yes, DID dream up codified "no's" or "permits", THAT'S the "people" we're talking about. In THOSE cases, you have to wonder : "what's the genesis ?"

ok ?
 
Not necessarily illegal, but sheesh, we all use a bit of discretion in timing, so as not to offend the squeamish.

Unfortunately this is how I have to approach detecting in the parks here where I live. I always feel like I have to do it in a way and at a time as not to offend the "concerned citizens" or the overzealous park employees. It's illegal to be in the parks after sun down so night hunting is not an option here.

Some park employees ignore me while others will take issue with me digging small plugs with a hand trowel in the park. There are no specific laws against detecting but there are the usual rules about defacing / disturbing / altering the park grounds, blah blah. Those laws are vague and open to interpretation and I really don't feel like debating the legality of what I'm doing with a minimum wage park employee or nosy citizen.

If a permit was required here then I would probably get one. It would be easier for me to say to those Karens or park employees "I'm sorry about your concerns but I have a permit to do this....so bug off...." rather than debate the vague legalities with these people.
 
Unfortunately this is how I have to approach detecting in the parks here where I live. I always feel like I have to do it in a way and at a time as not to offend the "concerned citizens" or the overzealous park employees. It's illegal to be in the parks after sun down so night hunting is not an option here.

Some park employees ignore me while others will take issue with me digging small plugs with a hand trowel in the park. There are no specific laws against detecting but there are the usual rules about defacing / disturbing / altering the park grounds, blah blah. Those laws are vague and open to interpretation and I really don't feel like debating the legality of what I'm doing with a minimum wage park employee or nosy citizen.

If a permit was required here then I would probably get one. It would be easier for me to say to those Karens or park employees "I'm sorry about your concerns but I have a permit to do this....so bug off...." rather than debate the vague legalities with these people.

Well said.
 
..."I'm sorry about your concerns but I have a permit to do this....so bug off...." rather than debate the vague legalities with these people.

And this is exactly why a lot of people "wax romantic" at the notion of "permits". For exactly the reason you cite. Eh ? So that they think they now have "carte-blanche". You merely whip that puppy out, and people will be sorry for ever having questioned you. Eh ? :roll: Thus : What's not to love about "permits" ? It puts an immediate end to whimsical interpretations about "alter" , "deface" or whether you "can" or "can't", blah blah . I mean, heck, who can argue with an express "yes" ? Rather than "silent-on-the-subject", yet subject to other catch all verbiage like "harvest/remove" and "alter/deface", or cultural heritage, right ?

I get it. I do totally understand why people WANT "permits". In fact, I've even heard of a fellow who was afraid of the very things you cite (ie.: persons might come up to him and stink-eye him, etc...), so guess what he did ? : He took the initiative to approach his city's park's dept, and suggested they implement a "permit" system. Even though there was no express dis-allowances and no permits in his city ! Care to guess where his suggestions went ? :roll:

Here's the problem : While I know they sound wonderful, yet you'll notice, that in almost every city that ever dreamed them up, that they are riddled with silly-ness if you read the fine print. Eg.: On sandy beach only. Or "not within 10 ft of any tree". Or "yes but you can't dig". Or "turn in all objects of value to city hall" (yeah right), etc... And worse yet, there's been cases of places that had permits, yet revoked the system entirely a few years later. And simply began to say 'no' to md'ing. Care to guess Why ? Because since it's a "permit", then it's perpetually something on their radar as they look at their annual lists of paperwork. And sure as heck, one year, someone's gonna think : "Gee, do we really want all these yahoos out digging in the parks ?".

Thus the LESS they think of us, the better. Not the "more".

Thus, while I agree with you that it's true we can bump into other rules (alter, deface, etc...), permits are not the solution to that. I'll bet that if you're in a city that has "permits" and were in the middle of a deep retrieval in nice turf, when a city worker comes up on you, that ... no .... you're not gonna be able to tell him "get lost, I have a permit". It's still not going to allow you to dig in nice manicured turf with impunity IMHO.

As far as parks closing at sunset type signage : I lived right across the street from a park in our city, where , listed on the sign was "closed at sunset", or something to that effect. And in ALL THE YEARS I lived there, across from the park, the ONLY time I EVER saw it enforced, was when another neighbor of ours called the cops one time to break up a teenage keg party. So me thinks that type verbiage is so that authority can usher on someone who thinks he's going to camp out and homestead the park, etc..... It wasn't unusual to see someone walking through the park after sunset, d/t it connected 2 different neighborhood together (a sidewalk laced through it). Or dog-walkers, etc.....

It's on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps some places it's a big deal. But not in my city. I hunt parks after dark all the time, and quite frankly, there's no one there to see or call or say-anything, in the first place.
 
Where I agree with the "bug off" part of your post Estim8or. Why can't a mdr say bug off with out the permit.

Because the busybodies and park employees don't know the rules.

I had a problem with a park office manager here where I live. She said "thats illegal" and threatening calling the police.
I left but not before I asked her where is the rule. I have all rules and regulations their own websites downloaded to my phone. She said she didn't have time to look it up. I was like gotcha! But I left and now detect out of sight.
Same place a month later while out detecting I told this story
to a park maintenance employee. He said "there's no rule about it. We like you guys because you keep the parks clean."
Then he said the funniest thing. "She's an alcoholic %@%!$ she thinks she owns the place." He then basically gave me her work schedule.

Now as for permits I really don't want to give up personal information for a permission slip.

I believe it's the nosy busybodies calling the powers that be more than mdrs asking permission. Never ever ask permission for a public place.

The calls they must get from some of these people.
 
Where I agree with the "bug off" part of your post Estim8or. Why can't a mdr say bug off with out the permit.

Because the busybodies and park employees don't know the rules.....

I wouldn't be so quick with this notion. Because a busy-body park worker (or cop or whatever) can indeed morph the dreaded "alter" and "deface" type verbiage. Oh sure, you can try to debate them in-the-field with a debate of semantics. Eg.: that you cover/stomp/fluff, leaving no trace, right ? Hence you haven't alterED or defacED anything, eh ? But seriously, do you want to be in that debate ? :roll:

Thus while I might try feebly to explain that I'm leaving no trace or harm, I will not be defiant and debate semantics. I will just give lip service, and come back later when the singular lookie-lou is not present. And no .... permits don't solve this either.

....I believe it's the nosy busybodies calling the powers that be more than mdrs asking permission.....

I dunno. I suppose that a passing nosy-parker might call authorities, thus starting-that-ball rolling. But I don't think that's a very big percentage of the "genesis". Here's why : If it's true that a nosy-parker wants to call in an authority, they are more likely to call the police, right ? Not the park's dept. head-people. And the funny thing is, that if it's true that someone calls the police, then guess what ? : The cops have MUCH BIGGER FISH TO FRY, than some geek with a detector in the park. And even if it's true that a cops scrams any of us, I don't think it's likely that they show up to the park's dept personnel, or the next city council meeting , with a "proposed new law".

Thus no, I don't think it's nosy-parkers that rush-to-city hall with "proposed rules". Anything's possible, but I don't think that accounts for much of the genesis' of these anywhere.
 
haha, good point. If I say that *true* md'ing *specific* restrictions are rare, then ... what the h#ll am I whining about. Right ? :roll: Good job.
OK, so before we go too much further, I just want to make sure I’m understanding you correctly. You and I agree that those detectorists who ask if permission is required are NOT responsible for the advent of permitting systems we seen implemented in some locations, yes?.



So here's what I have to say : 1) This doesn't take into effect the places where someone got a "no", which turned into a "policy" Those places too are victims of the "no one cared till you asked" scenario :/
Versus turns into a specific "rule" or "law". Ok ? Ok, then we md'rs are sitting around whining about "policies" (which are not a part of the 99% I alluded to). See ? 2) In the places which, yes, DID dream up codified "no's" or "permits", THAT'S the "people" we're talking about. In THOSE cases, you have to wonder : "what's the genesis ?"
Instead, what you are telling me is that those detectorists who ask if permission is required ARE responsible for loss of the right to detect in numerous locations.
So in a nutshell, what you’re trying to tell me is that detectorists asking if permission is required are not responsible for the introduction of a permitting system, but instead they are responsible for outright bans on detecting. That seems rather unlikely and hugely overly simplistic, if I’m being honest here. And I don’t think even you believe that because this whole thread has been about permits, and you’ve repeatedly used your “no one cared until someone asked” argument throughout the entire discussion.



Honestly, I can't say if it's "OK". The problem I have with essentially placing the bulk of blame on "newbies who ask permission" is that it's just an easy excuse. The old timers get to blame the new guys while ignoring, perhaps, their own past behavior(s).
 
OK, so before we go too much further, I just want to make sure I’m understanding you correctly. You and I agree that those detectorists who ask if permission is required are NOT responsible for the advent of permitting systems we seen implemented in some locations, yes?.....

No. Here is what I think happened : You saw that I said that "very few cities have permits" . And "very few cities have specific 'no md'ing' rules" So you thought that was a defeater, for my stance that: "permits and rules come via past md'rs who went in swatting hornet's nests". If we assume that hornet-swatting is going on all-over-the-place, then we would assume that therefore, there should be codified "no" rules and permits all over the place then. Right ?

But no, all I'm saying is that when there IS a specific rule or permit, THEN the odds are, that it can be traced back to the origin/genesis that I am suggesting. And I suppose there's legions of cities where no one has ever gone in swatting hornet's nests (thank goodness).

Because you have to remember that a lot of times, those persons asking "Can I?" might only get a "no". Yet no one dreams up a codified law, or permit after that. To which you might be tempted to think "Ok, then what was the harm, if no permit or codified rule got dreamed up via that genesis ?" Right ? Here's the harm : That same person who passed out the no, might begin scramming others , that he otherwise would not have noticed or given a moment's thought to. In other words, while that's not necessarily a "codified rule" or "permit", yet a "policy" can become just as bad. And "policy" can start with the genesis I describe, and be every bit as bad as codified rules.

It also creates confusion that I've seen: One guy goes md'ing without a care in the world, and no one ever cares. While the next guy (who showed up asking "Can I?" ) fetches a "no". Ok, you tell me: Is it ok to detect in those parks, OR NOT ? See the complication ? So no matter how you slice it, we should look up rules and potential permits for ourselves. There is no reason to have to go in swatting hornet's nests.

.... Instead, what you are telling me is that those detectorists who ask if permission is required ARE responsible for loss of the right to detect in numerous locations.....


Yes.

......That seems rather unlikely ...

Would you like me to give you numerous examples where, yes, this was EXACTLY the genesis ?
 
No. Here is what I think happened : You saw that I said that "very few cities have permits" . And "very few cities have specific 'no md'ing' rules" So you thought that was a defeater, for my stance that: "permits and rules come via past md'rs who went in swatting hornet's nests". If we assume that hornet-swatting is going on all-over-the-place, then we would assume that therefore, there should be codified "no" rules and permits all over the place then. Right ?
Yes. If what you keep telling us is true, then “Yes” metal detecting should pretty much be universally banned by now.

But no, all I'm saying is that when there IS a specific rule or permit, THEN the odds are, that it can be traced back to the origin/genesis that I am suggesting.
And I’m saying (as I have done repeatedly) that there’s no real way to verify this. And I’m also saying that it’s overly simplistic and ignores many other likely contributing factors, such as past bad behaviors, and/or reading forums like this one (and many others), thus allowing the "powers that be" to see for themselves some of the attitudes detectorists have towards any restrictions on their hobby. I mean, we both know that there are people here who say it’s perfectly fine to trespass and removed found items if…you know…if the property is maybe isolated, or has been used by the public for some period of time. Or maybe detecting in a park after hours. Let's be honest, if a police officer or park ranger kicks someone out of a park who was simply passing through after hours, versus someone who was metal detecting (both harmless both relatively innocuous), who do you think the office or ranger is going to remember? Which party do you think has a higher chance of having the park either requiring a permit or banning their behavior outright? Yet, oddly, you seem to think that those attitudes and behaviors play no role in permits or bans being implemented.
So I guess we can ignore those past bad behaviors then, yes? The negative connotations that these park workers have, and city planners have, and the “Rule Makers” have of detectorists are solely the result of being asked one too many times if a permit is required, correct?

And I suppose there's legions of cities where no one has ever gone in swatting hornet's nests (thank goodness).
Who knows…maybe “yes”, maybe “no”.

So no matter how you slice it, we should look up rules and potential permits for ourselves.
I do agree that the best way to start is certainly in the manner you’ve just described.

There is no reason to have to go in swatting hornet's nests.
Again, I don’t disagree with this.


So asking permission does result in permits and/or bans? Honestly, I can’t keep track of which side you’re on.



Would you like me to give you numerous examples where, yes, this was EXACTLY the genesis ?
Wait...you're going to give me numerous examples of a behavior (asking) resulting in an outcome (permit/ban) that you’ve admitted is rare? That seems rather counterintuitive, if you ask me. Plus, we’ve been through this before, and your examples really aren’t examples. That is to say, you "infer" that someone asking for permission resulted in either a permitting system or an outright ban being implemented, but you have no actual, verifiable proof.
 
Yes. If what you keep telling us is true, then “Yes” metal detecting should pretty much be universally banned by now.....

But this is making an assumption that people are showing up in droves in every city, grovelling at desks swatting hornet's nests. I've never said that. If that premise of the syllogism were true, then yes, the rest of your musings would be true. But no one ever said that it's happening in droves.

All I'm saying is that when it DOES happen, THEN there's the risk of laws or permits to "address this pressing issue".

And am also saying that it might not result in codified laws or permits, but can result in whimsical arbitrary "no's", that then become a sort of un-written policy, from then-on-out, by whomever the individual was you talked to. Because then, when he sees others md'ing, he'll remember the earlier inquiry and think "Aha ! there's one of THEM" and start booting others. (I've seen that happen).

Because remember: They can indeed scram us on periphery grey-area language (alter, deface, remove, etc....). And sometimes the GENESIS of what gets that ball-rolling in their mind, is NOT the happen-chance passing an md'r in the park. Instead, it's when it's "on his desk for a decision", that makes him think "Gee, do I allow this, or not ?"

......And I’m saying (as I have done repeatedly) that there’s no real way to verify this....

I have not denied this. That's why I repeatedly say "I have a sneaking suspicion of ...", etc.... And by the same token, you too don't know if my musings are correct (and/or the degree-to-which they come into play). And I *CAN* cite story after story of where my musings are EXACTLY what the history is. I was there, watching all this un-ravel, back in the 1970s, 80s, and '90s. In clubs, as club prez. for awhile, etc.... and saw this happen in local circumstances. And it made me wonder "Gee, is this possibly the origins elsewhere too ? :?: And on bigger scales of bigger entities ?" :?: And the more I looked into it, I began to see that , yes it often-time was !

..... .I mean, we both know that there are people here who say it’s perfectly fine to trespass and removed found items if…you know…if the property is maybe isolated, or has been used by the public for some period of time....

Sure, there's "locker-room talk" on the forums here. Granted. But whether or not that "leads to new/more laws" : I am perplexed by this notion. Because in the case of someone who's ... uh .... breaking existing laws elsewhere, since when does that make someone else, in an entirely different area, think "I know, let's ban md'ing !".

For example: If fishing were not allowed in a certain lake. But some micreants simply snuck around, and did it anyhow. Ok, no one disputes that they're 'breaking a law at this one certain lake'. But does that cause the lake down the road to now think "I know, let's ban fishing at our lake, since we know of some yahoos who fish at the off-limits lake over there" . I simply do not see that happening.

Nor do I envision any desk-jockies out there reading geeky metal detecting forums, thinking "Gee, I wonder what md'rs think ?". I highly doubt any of them are reading md'ing forums. Just like you are not reading crochet forums, to catch up on the latest needle-work design gossip. So too does the average person not give 2-hoots to other people's hobby (unless it's on his desk for "princely attention and say-so").

....Or maybe detecting in a park after hours.....

The thing that person hunting at night would be "doing wrong" is NOT the md'ing. It's the being there at night. Because if we're talking about places with no-rule-forbidding, then the error is not "md'ing without someone's permission", but rather, disobeying the curfew. I mean, let's say that the person who was in the park after hours was shooting hoops or swinging on the swing set. Then by your logic: They make a "no swinging" and "no basketball" rule afterwards ? NO ! they simply scram him for being in the park after hours. NOT the md'ing, or the swinging, or the hoops. See ?

. ... Let's be honest, if a police officer or park ranger kicks someone out of a park who was simply passing through after hours, versus someone who was metal detecting (both harmless both relatively innocuous), who do you think the office or ranger is going to remember ? ....

Good point. I do have to admit that I acknowledge, all the time, that we're in an "odd-ball hobby" with connotations. Ok, score one for flies-only. Here's all I can say to that : Do you have an example of this sort-of-thing being a genesis for a blanket rule or permit ? I don't. Do you ? And when/if it's cops that scram someone for (gasp) being a park after hours, I really think that in-today's-world, they have bigger fish to fry. Oh sure, they'll scram you, but .... do you really think they show up to the next city council meeting , or trot over the park's dept, and suggest a proposed rule ? No. Me thinks they're scramming persons in the park for being there after hours, not the md'ing, period.

.... Yet, oddly, you seem to think that those attitudes and behaviors play no role in permits or bans being implemented...

Anything's possible. Could something remote like that be a genesis ? Sure. But guess what ? Trotting over to city halls asking "Can I ?" each time in each city, does NOT solve this. The only thing grovelling does, is further accelerate the "no's". So while I can't discount or disprove what you're saying, I'm just saying that "permission asking" and "permits" is not the solution to abate those genesis that you speak of. See ?

..... . I do agree that the best way to start is certainly in the manner you’ve just described. ......

Well then we're actually on the same page, for a large part of this discussion :)

............. So asking permission does result in permits and/or bans? Honestly, I can’t keep track of which side you’re on......

Maybe the word "does" is too strong. Because it's entirely possible someone gets a "no" or a "yes", and whatever desk jockey that is simply forgets the entire matter. I'll grant that ! But the word can be "might" (with strong emphasis). Why ? Because I've seen it happen over and over, with this genesis.

Also, in this question, you haven't included "policy". Where perhaps nothing got codified, but yet the mere "matter on their plate" makes them start to take notice, and scram people via the grey-area-minutia. Ie.: Not a "specific express disallowance", but scrams none-the-less, that you do NOT want to argue with them over . Because, sure, let's be honest, we "dig". And no amount of permission asking solves this dilemma. It only makes it worse :(


............. Wait...you're going to give me numerous examples of a behavior (asking) resulting in an outcome (permit/ban) that you’ve admitted is rare? ....

YES ! And it's not "counterituitive". Here's why : So that we can collectively, as a community of hobbyists : KEEP IT RARE !

............. That is to say, you "infer" that someone asking for permission resulted in either a permitting system or an outright ban being implemented, but you have no actual, verifiable proof.

Huh ? What are you talking about ? I have LOTS of "actual verifiable proof". Where have you been ? I have example after example where everything was just fine, till people (bless their little hearts) went in asking "Can I ?" type-questions. Which led to either verbal 'no's' (policies), or outright codified rules, and/or permits.

Do you want me to start listing them ?
 
Because then, when he sees others md'ing, he'll remember the earlier inquiry and think "Aha ! there's one of THEM" and start booting others. (I've seen that happen).
But why did he "boot them" to begin with? Isn’t THAT the question we need to answer, and then address?


And sometimes the GENESIS of what gets that ball-rolling in their mind, is NOT the happen-chance passing an md'r in the park. Instead, it's when it's "on his desk for a decision", that makes him think "Gee, do I allow this, or not ?"
And if he decides “not”, we need to figure out why he reached that decision and not one that says “yes”.




And I *CAN* cite story after story of where my musings are EXACTLY what the history is. I was there, watching all this un-ravel, back in the 1970s, 80s, and '90s. In clubs, as club prez. for awhile, etc.... and saw this happen in local circumstances. And it made me wonder "Gee, is this possibly the origins elsewhere too ? :?: And on bigger scales of bigger entities ?" :?: And the more I looked into it, I began to see that , yes it often-time was !
So is it rare or not rare? You seem to go both ways on this. First, you make it appear rampant. 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. You refute my argument by telling me it's rare. And now, here you are again making it seem rampant. Which is it?




I mean, let's say that the person who was in the park after hours was shooting hoops or swinging on the swing set. Then by your logic: They make a "no swinging" and "no basketball" rule afterwards ?
No, that’s the exact opposite of my logic. They do not specifically ban swinging or basketball because they perceive those two activities differently than they perceive the big bad metal detector. That’s my point. We’re treated differently than walking or swinging or “basketballing”.




NO ! they simply scram him for being in the park after hours. NOT the md'ing, or the swinging, or the hoops. See ?
But they remember the metal detector.




.... do you really think they show up to the next city council meeting , or trot over the park's dept, and suggest a proposed rule ?
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.




No. Me thinks they're scramming persons in the park for being there after hours, not the md'ing, period.
Maybe. But I would wager that they will remember that specific event in a negative way IF or WHEN the issue comes up.



Anything's possible. Could something remote like that be a genesis ? Sure. But guess what ? Trotting over to city halls asking "Can I ?" each time in each city, does NOT solve this. The only thing grovelling does, is further accelerate the "no's". So while I can't discount or disprove what you're saying, I'm just saying that "permission asking" and "permits" is not the solution to abate those genesis that you speak of. See ?
Unfortunately, I don’t think we will have much of a choice. Like you, I start by searching through websites when I want to detect in an unfamiliar location for the first time. I look for information regarding rules and regulations. We can hope and dream all we want, but people are going to continue to ask if they need a permit, so what we should really be worried about is why doing so inevitably leads to permits or bans. What is it about our hobby that drives that decision-making process? And more importantly, what can we do to change it?



Well then we're actually on the same page, for a large part of this discussion :)
Miracles do happen!! 😊



Because, sure, let's be honest, we "dig". And no amount of permission asking solves this dilemma. It only makes it worse :(
It doesn’t make it “worse” per se. What is does is bring it to the forefront. What we should actually be trying to do is change that very perception. That should be our focus…not worrying about people asking permission, because that behavior is likely not going to change anytime soon.




YES ! And it's not "counterituitive". Here's why : So that we can collectively, as a community of hobbyists : KEEP IT RARE !
So, is it rare or is it commonplace? By definition, you cannot have “numerous examples” of an event that is, by your own words, rare. That’s counterintuitive.



Huh ? What are you talking about ? I have LOTS of "actual verifiable proof". Where have you been ? I have example after example where everything was just fine, till people (bless their little hearts) went in asking "Can I ?" type-questions. Which led to either verbal 'no's' (policies), or outright codified rules, and/or permits.
I think you and I view “verifiable proof” in different ways.




Do you want me to start listing them ?
Again, this only makes sense if “asking permission” pisses the worker off so much that they instigate a permitting system, or ban the activity altogether. That’s not logical. You keep avoiding the issue of WHY they did what they did. Why ban metal detecting? Is it simply because someone asked? Of course not.
And your examples will be, at best, anecdotal, unless you can provide us with “the powers that be” outright and definitively stating that it was the asking of permission that resulted in the ban.
 
Back
Top Bottom