Friendly Metal Detecting Forums   Quality Metal Detectors
List all sponsors

Go Back   Friendly Metal Detecting Forums > Metal Detecting > Research and Getting Permission

Notices

Reply
  
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 11-30-2019, 08:30 PM
diggin4clad's Avatar
diggin4clad diggin4clad is online now
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Eastern Connecticut
Posts: 2,917
Default

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Yup. Believe it or not, cops have "bigger fish to fry" than geeks with metal detectors.

I/we too have been "given the 3rd degree" by LEO-types. And ... just as happened to you ..... told "scram" , is all. And in retrospect: We always get a good laugh (albeit 30 minutes later) thinking that they're probably thinking: "What a bunch of losers. Dudes out at midnight with metal detectors". Doh !
Being told to scram and being told to sit in the car while they check to see if we have warrants out on us are two different things. I agree that the cops have bigger fish to fry but in these two cases we were treated as if we were those "bigger fish".

__________________
Garrett AT MAX - Garrett ATPro - Garrett Ace 400 -White's Digmaster - Garrett Pro Pointer 2 - Garrett Z-Lynk AT ProPointer

Reply With Quote


  #42  
Old 11-30-2019, 09:56 PM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is online now
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 10,356
Default

Originally Posted by diggin4clad View post
Being told to scram and being told to sit in the car while they check to see if we have warrants out on us are two different things. I agree that the cops have bigger fish to fry but in these two cases we were treated as if we were those "bigger fish".
No doubt that wasn't pleasant. I too have had the "3rd degree" , while the check your license , tell you to drop your digger tool (as if it's a weapon, etc...). And sure .... it's never pleasant at the time. But later, we just shrug it off. Never had any tickets or fines or anything . Plenty of scrams and stink-eyes though
Reply With Quote


  #43  
Old 12-01-2019, 02:58 PM
CarsonChris CarsonChris is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Carson City, NV
Posts: 822
Default

Originally Posted by Livinlocal619 View post
Where were they hunting?
It wasn’t so much where they were hunting. They drive down an access road that said authorized vehicles only. They didn’t get cited for detecting. They got cited for Trespassing.
Reply With Quote


  #44  
Old 12-01-2019, 03:26 PM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is online now
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 10,356
Default

Originally Posted by CarsonChris View post
....They didn’t get cited for detecting. They got cited for Trespassing.
Well then, it's not giving md'rs a "bad name". It's giving a bad name to those durned rascals that drive "un-authorized" vehicles
Reply With Quote


2 members found this post helpful.
  #45  
Old 12-02-2019, 02:39 PM
k2gleaner k2gleaner is offline
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: NC
Posts: 212
Default

Re: the "smell the bodies" comment. Success with that joke there does not mean you can joke with the TSA guy at the airport when he asks what you're detecting with that machine in your luggage. Do NOT mention "b*mb". Fair warning!

__________________
k2gleaner | At this since 2/2019 | AT Pro | ProPointer |
Only prized find: 1944 Walking Liberty Half-dollar. and some flat buttons. :)

Reply With Quote


  #46  
Old 12-03-2019, 04:00 PM
FliesOnly FliesOnly is offline
Full Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Middle of Michigan
Posts: 124
Default

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Uhhh, because you had made the assertion , earlier in #30, that when hooligans md where they shouldn't, that it results in "loosing spots to detect" (ie.: that is the kernel that evolves into anti-md'ing laws). Did I mis-understand your point of #30 ?
Yes. Let’s just chalk this line of discussion up to a misunderstanding and let it go the way of the Dodo.


Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
I have no doubt that the connotations of "holes" and "cultural heritage" will come-to-mind, when the "pressing question" gets on their desks. But that is unavoidable element of our hobby. Because no matter how you slice it, we "dig" and we "take old things". Hence, the less they think of us, the better.
This has not been my experience at all. However, I do agree that “the less they think of us, the better”, is probably correct..


Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
But, in the present discussion (yahoos breaking existing laws), I don't think that is pieces of the straw (leading to their decision). Because if you ever study the rationales behind any such laws that ever got invented, it will ALWAYS allude to cultural heritage, and /or dig/holes/alter/deface. Right ? It will never allude to yahoos snooping around areas that were already off-limits, as the rationale. Right ?
I don’t know…I’ve never seen and proof of the rationale behind their decision. I do know this, however, it’s easy to disprove their excuse of “digging holes and doing damage”, which is why I do not see this as a real reason behind denying access. Of course, we all know that sometime facts mean very little to a politician, but that doesn’t actually change the facts.


Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Well, personally .... I think that we md'rs have these headlines "jump out at us". Because, of course, this is our hobby. So we groan and moan with disgust. And assume that .... likewise .... other casual readers are doing the same. When in fact the average John Q. Public probably doesn't even register such things.
I completely disagree with this. John Q Public may not go “searching it out”, but if there’s a story about people being a-holes, then they’re likely going to read it/watch it/listen to the story.


Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Why ? Because it's not their hobby and they're not into it.
Shooting guns is not a hobby of mine, but if I see a story about a “mishap” at a gun range, I can guarantee you that I’m going to watch/read that story. Racing cars is not a hobby of mine, but if I see a story about some idiot crashing his $400,000 sports car, you can bet your life I’m going read/watch that story. Curling is not a hobby of mine, but if I hear about a story about some drunken Canadians hooliganism after a curling match, there’s no doubt that I’d read/watch/listen to that story.

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
No more so than you would be reading the police blotter for any other crime that persons committed, and think "Let's make more laws". JMHO
Seriously? Dude, this happens all the time. Public opinion is pretty much ALL that matters to a politician.


Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Really ? How do you figure ? Anytime a rule gets written , or a "no" gets passed out, and you ask them "why ?", they will invariably say: "Because you dig" and "because of cultural heritage" (or harvest and remove type-language).
I have never been told this, nor seen it as justification for denying access.


Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
So how do you figure those aren't the reasons ?
Because they’re untrue. They may be part of an “excuse”, but they’re not the reason.



Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
I grant you that the BIGGER issue is: "What put it on their plate , as something that needed deciding, in the first place ?". Yet .... once it's there on their plate, then the go-to reasons are those two reasons, all the time.
So says you…but I have never seen actual proof of this.


Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
HHmm, I disagree. It's entirely possible , and more-likely ... that md'ing was something that simply never occurred to them. Ie.: They've never given it any thought or concern. Thus ... no .... they're not "just waiting for an excuse".
I cannot believe that even you believe this. We’re talking about parks that have been around for decades, in many cases. You seriously think that no one there ever saw a person detecting? You seriously think no one ever bothered to ask permission, until just before the park suddenly became off limits? Some of the local parks in my area require a permit to detect, so obviously they’re aware of its existence, and yet somehow still allow it to happen.


Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Instead, I envision that the only reason they are now "denying access", is NOT because of "bad press" and "built-up-angst". Instead, it can be a new topic for their consideration, and they merely go to the knee-jerk image , which is holes and taking things. And thus pass out a "no" to the "pressing question" that was put on-their-plate.
And yet, oddly, this has never happened to me. I’ve asked three times for three locations, and have been told that it’s ok to detect and that it’s ok to keep what I find. This demonstrates that they already know about detecting and obviously also know that we “dig holes”, yet they said it was fine for me to detect, fine for me to dig holes, and fine for me to keep what I find.
Reply With Quote


  #47  
Old 12-03-2019, 04:07 PM
FliesOnly FliesOnly is offline
Full Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Middle of Michigan
Posts: 124
Default

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Why do that ? If the truth is, that you'd simply have been ignored or unseen, why isn't that the better option ?
I have issues with the premise. I do not think we have been unseen.



Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
I have posted many many stories, and have gone-on-record on many threads, pointing out the direct evolution lineage. Places where .... no one ever had a problem before. Until some well-meaning md'r went asking "can I ?". If you doubt me, I will post a bunch of accounts of this exact lineage. OK ?
You have written proof that “digging holes and doing damage”, and/or “loss of cultural heritage” are the excuses they provided for why access was denied…after someone asked for permission? Of course, I’m not saying that those excuses are never given, I’m just of the opinion that they’re probably not the most common reason given. And the context of the reason is important here, Tom. These have to be proofs of denial, based on those excuses, after someone asked for permission.



Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
And let me guess: The times that md'rs , like yourself, get a "yes", bolsters the assertion that : "Therefore it was good-&-proper for me to have asked". Right ? Ie.: the mere fact of a "yes", implies that their say-so was necessary & beneficial . Right ? Otherwise they would have answered in the following fashion : "Gee, that's a funny question. Why are you asking me ? You don't need my permission for something that's not expressly disallowed" .
And once again I get your canned response. I can look back at any thread where you and I have discussed this issue, and see the exact same reply.
We both agree that some places do not allow detecting, yes? So the notion that any given area may not allow detecting is not necessarily false, correct? So, if I’m unsure, or if I simply want to clarify a particular rule or regulation, then I’m going to ask.
Of course, it is now your contention that in doing so, I have called attention to my hobby….attention that the guy I’m asking never dreamt about until such time that I asked…that metal detecting had been going on in the park for eons of time and no one that worked there ever noticed. But I asked, and now it’s probably ruined. That’s what you believe?


Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
But don't you see that authority never answers in that fashion ?
Instead, they bestow on you their princely yes or no.
Or, they say: ”Sure, there’s no rule against it.” That’s essentially what I’ve always been told. You’re very cynical of authority figures, aren’t you?

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
As for the taking things (ie.: harvest, remove, take, etc...) rules : I'll bet that I can go to those exact same parks, talk to the exact same people, and ..... can word the request in such a way as to get them to say "no".
I received written permission from a park to keep things, after I asked about the very issue you’re raising…because you raised it. They had wording about removing items, and killing grass, and picking flowers, etc, etc, etc…and yet when I asked for clarification, they replied that of course I can keep what I find (as long as it wasn’t one of the specifically listed items I cannot remove), since that’s kind of the whole point behind metal detecting to begin with. So if later on, someone else asks (like you, perhaps) and gets denied, then I'd say it was on them. It was how they approached the issue and how the worded their request.

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
There has been ample stories of people getting a "yes", and then .... later .... someone goes into that exact same office, and gets a "no". Total Russian Roulette.
It has to be your approach, Tom. Maybe an attitude adjustment is in order. Maybe you just come across as someone they’d rather not let detect.
Reply With Quote


  #48  
Old 12-03-2019, 05:10 PM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is online now
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 10,356
Default

Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
...... which is why I do not see this as a real reason behind denying access.....
Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
.....Because they’re untrue. They may be part of an “excuse”, but they’re not the reason.....
Correct. For example : Whenever someone says "no because of holes" , we md'rs are quick to think "Durned those md'rs who must've left holes in the past". But you're right : It doesn't necessarily mean that anyone ever truly left holes. Sometimes those things are just the "go to" reason, to justify a "no" they just whimsically decided, when the "pressing question" was on their desk.

Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
..... Some of the local parks in my area require a permit to detect, so obviously they’re aware of its existence, and yet somehow still allow it to happen......
And I have a sneaking suspicion of how some of those "local parks" that you speak of, got the initial idea that md'ing needed a " permit" system. Care to guess ?

Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
..... yet they said it was fine for me to detect, fine for me to dig holes, and fine for me to keep what I find. ....
Glad you are batting 100% so far, in the 3 spots you allude to. Congratz in the Russian Roulette game. My response would be that : The fact that they said "ok", merely means that you didn't need to ask, in the first place. Ie.: the fact they say "yes", means it wasn't disallowed, and you could merely have simply gone. And thus avoid Russian Roullette. Ie.: The "yes" you get doesn't mean that "Therefore, I can now detect". It meant you could have detected anyhow.


Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
........ These have to be proofs of denial, based on those excuses, after someone asked for permission.........
Well, I'm not saying that they necessarily "bolster" their "no" with ANY particular reason. Although, if you bugged them with a "why ?", then IMHO, they will probably say " ...d/t you dig", or "cultural heritage" or "harvest/remove" .

And yes, I can give you account after account of places where md'ing was never a problem, until-the-day that someone went in and asked, and fetches a "no". So the md'r makes a stink, to "fight the no", going higher-up-the-chain seeking "clarifications" (Ie.: swatting hornet's nests). And ... presto, a law or policy is born.

Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
.... So, if I’m unsure, or if I simply want to clarify a particular rule or regulation, then I’m going to ask.....
Why not look it up for yourself ? If it doesn't say "no md'ing", then .... isn't that a sufficient answer ? Why give someone the arbitrary possibility that .... in-lieu of your "pressing question", he may say "no" ? When in fact, perhaps he'd have never given the topic a moment's thought (till you came in swatting that hornet's nest ) ?

Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
.....until such time that I asked…that metal detecting had been going on in the park for eons of time and no one that worked there ever noticed. But I asked, and now it’s probably ruined. That’s what you believe?.....
I can give you multiple examples of this exact lineage/evolution.

Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
..... Or, they say: ”Sure, there’s no rule against it.” That’s essentially what I’ve always been told. ....
In which case you didn't need to have asked. That info was available for you to have looked up. Thus avoiding Russian Roulette.

Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
..... You’re very cynical of authority figures, aren’t you? .....
Only cynical of asking where asking isn't necessary.


Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
.... It has to be your approach, Tom....
Hmmm, interesting to ponder . Since yes it is true, in human nature, that : Some people (perhaps yourself) simply have the "million dollar smile ". And others do not. Then : Let's say, for example, that someone else came in before you, to those offices where you got a "yes". And so, let's say that they (because they lacked the million dollar smile), fetched a "no".

Ok, then that means that the park is off-limits now. Right ? In which case you'd be the first to agree that .... it was not wise for that other person to have gone in swatting hornet's nests , right ?
Reply With Quote


  #49  
Old 12-05-2019, 11:55 AM
FliesOnly FliesOnly is offline
Full Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Middle of Michigan
Posts: 124
Default

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Correct. For example : Whenever someone says "no because of holes" , we md'rs are quick to think "Durned those md'rs who must've left holes in the past". But you're right : It doesn't necessarily mean that anyone ever truly left holes. Sometimes those things are just the "go to" reason, to justify a "no" they just whimsically decided, when the "pressing question" was on their desk.
Correct, there is a difference between an “excuse” and a “reason”…which then begs the question: “What is the REAL reason they don’t want to allow metal detecting?”…which is what I have been trying to address for several posts now. I am of the opinion that one of the reasons is because metal detectorists have a reputation of ignoring rules, regulations, and laws. Look no further than another thread currently running (Erie county parks NY) where some people are telling the OP to ignore the rule requiring a permit to detect in certain parks, and instead telling him to go when no one will notice. Yet, you seemingly believe that that behavior is not nearly as bad as is the notion of asking for permission.



Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
And I have a sneaking suspicion of how some of those "local parks" that you speak of, got the initial idea that md'ing needed a " permit" system. Care to guess ?
Yeah…they read forums like this one and learn the many detectorists seem to think that the rules/regulations/laws don’t apply to them.




Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Glad you are batting 100% so far, in the 3 spots you allude to. Congratz in the Russian Roulette game. My response would be that : The fact that they said "ok", merely means that you didn't need to ask, in the first place. Ie.: the fact they say "yes", means it wasn't disallowed, and you could merely have simply gone. And thus avoid Russian Roullette. Ie.: The "yes" you get doesn't mean that "Therefore, I can now detect". It meant you could have detected anyhow.
Yes and no. Remember, at one location I knew a free permit was required to detect, so the question I asked of them was about keeping what I find. And I only asked that because you presented me with the other of your favorite arguments pertaining to wording within the rules that said I could not keep what I had found. I simply asked for clarification and the response I got was one stating that of course I can keep what I find, otherwise what would be the point of detecting to begin with? The person responding was actually surprised that I felt the need to even ask.




Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Well, I'm not saying that they necessarily "bolster" their "no" with ANY particular reason. Although, if you bugged them with a "why ?", then IMHO, they will probably say " ...d/t you dig", or "cultural heritage" or "harvest/remove" .
Again, they may use that as an excuse, but it is not the real reason.



Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
And yes, I can give you account after account of places where md'ing was never a problem, until-the-day that someone went in and asked, and fetches a "no". So the md'r makes a stink, to "fight the no", going higher-up-the-chain seeking "clarifications" (Ie.: swatting hornet's nests). And ... presto, a law or policy is born.
I’m not going to say that this has never happened, but I will say that doubt that it has happened very often. I would wager that it’s actually quite rare. But again, to me, the underlying unmentioned primary factor as to WHY asking resulted in denial of access was because of a lack of respect for the rules, regulations, and laws shown by some detectorists that have “polluted” the minds of the people in charge. As such, when the opportunity presented itself, they used it to block any further access. So, in that sense, the “asking of permission” did lead to denial of access…but it was going to happen at some point regardless.




Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Why not look it up for yourself ? If it doesn't say "no md'ing", then .... isn't that a sufficient answer ? Why give someone the arbitrary possibility that .... in-lieu of your "pressing question", he may say "no" ? When in fact, perhaps he'd have never given the topic a moment's thought (till you came in swatting that hornet's nest ) ?
Because I know for a fact that some places do not allow detecting and some places allow detecting in certain areas, and some places allow detecting only with a permit. And all of those “other” places were within a stone’s throw of the “current” place in which I wanted to detect, but could not find a set of rules or regulations online. So, I felt the best thing to do was to ask if detecting was allowed, since I couldn’t really find any rules or regulations about activities allowed or not allowed in the park. Am I saying that no such information was available online? Nope. I’m saying I could not find the information. So I asked. She was unsure and checked. She came back saying something along the lines of “well, no once says it’s expressly forbidden, so go ahead”.




Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
I can give you multiple examples of this exact lineage/evolution.
How would you provide those examples? Did the “powers that be” put their justification for denying access into writing, with a link I can click on and go read for myself?





Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
In which case you didn't need to have asked. That info was available for you to have looked up. Thus avoiding Russian Roulette.
Believe it or not, sometimes the information is not available online, or sometimes it’s worded in a confusing, unclear manner (probably purposefully because the want to keep the explanation in broad-based terms).





Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Only cynical of asking where asking isn't necessary.
This is like a Catch-22. “Yossarian would be crazy to ask for permission if it turns out he didn’t need to ask for permission, but he’d also be crazy not to ask for permission if he was unsure if it is allowed”.





Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Hmmm, interesting to ponder . Since yes it is true, in human nature, that : Some people (perhaps yourself) simply have the "million dollar smile ". And others do not. Then : Let's say, for example, that someone else came in before you, to those offices where you got a "yes". And so, let's say that they (because they lacked the million dollar smile), fetched a "no".
Ah…very cleaver, dear Sir…I see what you’re trying to do here. However, it would be my contention that if someone came before me (who did not possess my unmistakable good looks and charm) and was an a-hole, then he might be the person that added that last piece of straw…but all he really did was speed up the ultimate outcome.




Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Ok, then that means that the park is off-limits now. Right ? In which case you'd be the first to agree that .... it was not wise for that other person to have gone in swatting hornet's nests , right ?
True, if you believe that if no one asks, then access with never be denied.
See, the thing is, is that I do not accept that premise. If all it took was the simple act of someone asking if detecting is allowed to end up getting the whole place closed off, then there were already some underlying problems, and that powers that be were simply looking for an excuse to shut it all down.

The other problem I have with your opinion that asking permission leads to denial of access is that it doesn’t hold. I mean, if they were looking for a reason to shut things down, and use the opportunity of someone asking for permission to do just that, then why didn’t they shut it down after I asked? Why doesn't it happen every time after someone asks? You admitting that maybe it’s even partly related in how the person asking for permission behaves, actually bolsters my argument and diminishes yours.
Remember, correlation does not necessarily show causation.
Reply With Quote


  #50  
Old 12-06-2019, 10:03 PM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is online now
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 10,356
Default

Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
..... but could not find a set of rules or regulations online. So, I felt the best thing to do was to ask if detecting was allowed, since I couldn’t really find any rules or regulations about activities allowed or not allowed in the park. Am I saying that no such information was available online? Nope. I’m saying I could not find the information. ....
only-flies, here's a thought :

Based on the above quote , It appears that you *do* grant merit to the idea of person's looking up potential laws & rules for themselves. But you refer here to a location where you did not find such a list (muni codes, park rules, etc...). Thus .... You went and asked.

Then here's a thought : Instead of "Can I metal detect ?", how about : "Where can I find a listing of all the rules that apply to park usage here ?". Then they can direct you to the correct link. Or they can tell you were the muni/city codes exist, in binder form, at city hall or the library or whatever. Eg.: Dogs on leash, no fireworks, etc...


If they say "What is it that you need to know ?" You stick to your guns and say : "To know where the rules/laws pertaining to park usage are, for public viewing "

You will probably answer this by saying that .... even if it is "silent on the subject" (eg.: not mentioned, and neither expressly allowed , nor disallowed), yet : There is ancillary language that *might* apply. Eg.: alter, deface, harvest, remove. And so it's your duty to go make sure that doesn't apply to us. Right ? Did I correctly anticipate your answer ?
Reply With Quote


  #51  
Old 12-06-2019, 10:13 PM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is online now
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 10,356
Default

Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
..... How would you provide those examples? Did the “powers that be” put their justification for denying access into writing, with a link I can click on and go read for myself? .....

Good question.

You and I both know that when a rule or law forbids md'ing, that the supporting language (if it happens to contain their rationale) will NEVER say : "Because someone asked in the past, so we are inventing this rule, because they swatted hornet's nests and we chose to give the easy answer and invent this rule"


Naturally, the supporting rationale, for the invention of rules/laws, will never cite such a reason as that. Instead, if you bug them with "why?" questions, they will cite the "go-to" reasons. Eg.: Cultural heritage, holes, harvest/remove, blah blah blah

But IMHO, the much bigger question is : What brought it to their attention, as needing-to-be-addressed IN THE FIRST PLACE ?

It's certainly *possible* that some council member or alderman was just happen-chance walking by, saw an md'r, and thought "oh no, he's going to leave holes". Or it's certainly possible that an archie happen-chanced walking by the park, saw an md'r, and thought "Oh no, he might find something old". Sure. Not saying those aren't some originating kernals. And BTW : No amount of permission-asking would have solved those 2 scenarios ! (Your "permission" is promptly revoked when the council-man or archie makes a stink. Eh ? )

Thus : No, I can't link you to a law, that gives as it's supporting rationale, as being "Because someone asked 'Can I?' " . But I can give you scores and scores of stories (pulled from forum posts and personal 45-ish yrs. md'ing experiences) of laws and rules that .... when you trace them back, my theory of origin is very plain to see. Yet they will always/only say : "Because of holes", or "because of archie concerns" (the "go-to" reasons). Not "Because someone asked can I "

Last edited by Tom_in_CA; 12-06-2019 at 10:31 PM.
Reply With Quote


  #52  
Old 12-09-2019, 09:47 AM
FliesOnly FliesOnly is offline
Full Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Middle of Michigan
Posts: 124
Default

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
only-flies, here's a thought :

Based on the above quote , It appears that you *do* grant merit to the idea of person's looking up potential laws & rules for themselves. But you refer here to a location where you did not find such a list (muni codes, park rules, etc...). Thus .... You went and asked.

Then here's a thought : Instead of "Can I metal detect ?", how about : "Where can I find a listing of all the rules that apply to park usage here ?". Then they can direct you to the correct link. Or they can tell you were the muni/city codes exist, in binder form, at city hall or the library or whatever. Eg.: Dogs on leash, no fireworks, etc...


If they say "What is it that you need to know ?" You stick to your guns and say : "To know where the rules/laws pertaining to park usage are, for public viewing "

You will probably answer this by saying that .... even if it is "silent on the subject" (eg.: not mentioned, and neither expressly allowed , nor disallowed), yet : There is ancillary language that *might* apply. Eg.: alter, deface, harvest, remove. And so it's your duty to go make sure that doesn't apply to us. Right ? Did I correctly anticipate your answer ?
The internet can be a wonderful tool, I will grant you that. As such, people are certainly welcome to try to find the answers to any questions they might be pondering.

Let’s say you want to set up a bake sale for your local Boy Scout troop inside your local bank. You look for the rules/guidelines addressing such issues on their webpage, but you cannot find specific wording regarding bake sales, so…

You walk into a bank and ask for their list of rules pertaining to activities allowed in the bank. They ask “What is it you need to know?” You stick to your guns (pun totally intended) and say “To know the rules/laws pertaining to bank usage…oh, and do you know when the guards take their lunch?”

There are two primary reasons why I wouldn’t ask in the manner that you describe.
1) It comes across as me being an a-hole.
2) It sounds as if I might be wanting to do something they’d prefer me not to do.

In other words, it sets off their alarm bells and has me cast in a negative connotation before I even start my activity.

So…wouldn’t it be a lot easier to simply ask if it’s OK the set up a bake sale, and to let them know that you have a couple free cookies for the guards?
Reply With Quote


  #53  
Old 12-09-2019, 10:47 AM
FliesOnly FliesOnly is offline
Full Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Middle of Michigan
Posts: 124
Default

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Good question.
Thanks, I thought so too…that’s why I asked.


Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
You and I both know that when a rule or law forbids md'ing, that the supporting language (if it happens to contain their rationale) will NEVER say : "Because someone asked in the past, so we are inventing this rule, because they swatted hornet's nests and we chose to give the easy answer and invent this rule"
Again, though…I don’t think you’re understanding what it is I am trying to tell you. I’m simply saying that asking permission is NOT analogous to swatting the hornets’ nest. I’m saying that the hornets were already plenty pissed off, and that all some poor soul did was simply walk past. They were looking for an excuse to sting.

Do you understand? To say that asking permission resulted in getting us all banned, is silly. There’s no justification behind that statement. If you asked permission to play Frisbee golf, would they suddenly, out of the blue, ban the playing of Frisbee golf on their Frisbee golf course? If you asked permission to walk on the trails, would they suddenly ban walking on the trails? No, of course not. So why would they suddenly decide to ban metal detecting if someone asked? The only logical answer is because we were already on their radar for some reason (justifiable or not) that they deemed worthy of banning us for. I’m trying to figure out what the reason happens to be, and “asking permission” is most certainly not it.





Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Naturally, the supporting rationale, for the invention of rules/laws, will never cite such a reason as that. Instead, if you bug them with "why?" questions, they will cite the "go-to" reasons. Eg.: Cultural heritage, holes, harvest/remove, blah blah blah
We both know that “because of holes” and “because of cultural loss” are NOT valid reasons for why permission gets denied and access is closed off. You even admit that those are NOT the actual reasons that we get booted. Those are just excuses.
So, since both of us know that the “reason” they are giving us is NOT the true reason for denying access, it begs the questions: “What IS the actual reason?”




Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
But IMHO, the much bigger question is : What brought it to their attention, as needing-to-be-addressed IN THE FIRST PLACE ?
And I’m telling you, that the chances we get denied access is because some guy simply asks a question, is so low as to be effectively zero. It HAD to be that we were on their radar already. Otherwise, permission would get denied as soon as someone asked, and I’m living proof that that doesn’t happen. I mean, are you really going to tell me that places, where we are now denied access, would still be open if some dude wouldn’t have inquired about detecting? That in the years before access was denied, not one single person ever asked if it was OK to detect? Come on, even you can’t possibly believe that.

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
It's certainly *possible* that some council member or alderman was just happen-chance walking by, saw an md'r, and thought "oh no, he's going to leave holes". Or it's certainly possible that an archie happen-chanced walking by the park, saw an md'r, and thought "Oh no, he might find something old". Sure. Not saying those aren't some originating kernals.
It doesn’t have to be any of those. It could have been some old lady walking by and she reported it to park personnel. Or some guy walking his dog. Or the son of a councilman. Or the daughter of an archeologist.


Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
And BTW : No amount of permission-asking would have solved those 2 scenarios ! (Your "permission" is promptly revoked when the council-man or archie makes a stink. Eh ? )
Correct. And also, BTW, asking permission therefore wasn’t the reason we got banned.




Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Thus : No, I can't link you to a law, that gives as it's supporting rationale, as being "Because someone asked 'Can I?' " . But I can give you scores and scores of stories (pulled from forum posts and personal 45-ish yrs. md'ing experiences) of laws and rules that .... when you trace them back, my theory of origin is very plain to see.
How can you possibly “trace them back”? I mean, this truly like a self-fulfilling prophecy




Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Yet they will always/only say : "Because of holes", or "because of archie concerns" (the "go-to" reasons). Not "Because someone asked can I "
And we know that “holes” and “archie concerns” are NOT the true rational behind denying access, so we therefore also know that there must be some other reason. You say it’s because someone asked…which make no sense whatsoever. They are specifically targeting metal detecting. Why?
Reply With Quote


  #54  
Old 12-09-2019, 11:55 AM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is online now
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 10,356
Default

Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
....

So…wouldn’t it be a lot easier to simply ask if it’s OK the set up a bake sale, and to let them know that you have a couple free cookies for the guards?
Good answer. It shows you've thought through all the ramifications.

Hmmm, since you've used a "bank" as an illustration/example (who has private property involved), then : Would it be fair to say that this isn't equivalent to the subject-in-question ?

In other words: A "bank" isn't obligated to "post their rules" of public usage (ie.: what can occurs on their parking lot) ahead of time ? They can nilly-willy arbitrarily say what groups can set up a "bake-sale", based on their whimsical feelings.

Contrast to public land, where .... someone(s) can indeed find-a-standard by which they can apply.

Just a thought.
Reply With Quote


  #55  
Old 12-09-2019, 12:21 PM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is online now
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 10,356
Default

Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
.... I’m saying that the hornets were already plenty pissed off,

..... They were looking for an excuse to sting.........
"built up angst". Right ? Those pencil pushers were "hell-bent" on disallowing md'ing . Because they saw some headline (of md'rs poaching Shiloh or Bodie), and therefore : Whether they: 1) happen-chance saw someone md'ing, or 2) had someone at their desk asking "can I?", then : 3) Either way, they were already "pissed off" (built up angst) , Thus trigger-happy to say "no". Right ?

Let's just grant, for the moment, that all this is true : Then isn't it better for them to NOT have that "decision on their table" ? :/ Ie.: Why give them any opportunity to "sting" ... IN THE FIRST PLACE ?


Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
......... The only logical answer is because we were already on their radar for some reason ..........
No the "on-the-radar" is not d/t "holes" or "night-hawker-news-clippings". The "radar" is only-always because of the admitted knee-jerk-connotation of our hobby. Ie.: that we "dig" and that we "take things" and that we (gasp) might find something old. The moment you mention "metal detecting" is the moment that they envision "geeks with shovels" who "take things" and (to the archie) : "might find something old".

BTW : All of which is entirely true. I'm not denying that. We (gasp) dig, we (gasp) take things. And we (gasp) might find something old. If all of those are horrible in your mind's-eyes, then : I suggest you've chosen the wrong hobby. Because you are never going to get every-last-person on earth to "sign -off" on those activities.

Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
....are you really going to tell me that places, where we are now denied access, would still be open if some dude wouldn’t have inquired about detecting?.....
What if provided you actual instances of JUST SUCH a lineage/evolution. Would you then agree ? Probably not.

Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
....It doesn’t have to be any of those. It could have been some old lady walking by and she reported it to park personnel. Or some guy walking his dog. Or the son of a councilman. Or the daughter of an archeologist......
Uh... ok. So let me get this straight : It is our obligation to get every "old lady" to sign-off-on-us. Right ? Every "park personnel" to sign off on us. Every dog-walker to sign off on us, right ? Every son-of-council-men to sign off on us, right ? All daughers of archies to sign off off on us, right ? If so ... you've got your work cut out for you. Good luck.

Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
....How can you possibly “trace them back”? .....
You too , would see the direct lineage/evolution. Do you doubt me ? Do you want to take a few sample stories and see if it isn't exactly as I paint ? Places where : It was never an issue before , till someone (bless their little hearts) took it upon themselves to ask ?

Originally Posted by FliesOnly View post
....They are specifically targeting metal detecting. Why? .....
Because the admitted (yes, .... I admit) mental connotations of a man-with-a-metal-detector is : Someone who is going to "dig" and "take" cool "old things". Guilty as charged.
Reply With Quote


Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.