Is THIS a valid example of the evolution-of-some laws ?

Tom_in_CA said:

In the discussion of whether or not "swatting hornet's nests" (via asking "Can I?" type questions of pencil-pushers) : I was challenged that : An example I gave, of a "no" being passed out (to some sincere well-meaning md'r who sought permission/clarification from a city hall) that : His "no" answer was not an example of "asking" leading to "law/rules". Since, in that particular case, that there is, to-this-day, no actual law or rule that truly says "no md'ing". So my case-story was written off as non-conclusive. Or only applying to that singular individual. And since no law or rule ever became of his "no", then .... it didn't qualify as an example of how "swatting hornets nests" leads to "laws/rules" against us.

Ok. Fair enough. I don't think any of us would dispute that it was, at least, confusing , in that, for the REST of the local md'rs around there. They could logically have thought : "Oh me oh my, does that mean I can't detect there either ?". But suffice it to say : No actual written law or rule or policy ever became of that incident. So : Some persons (here's a shout out to Flies-only) can therefore dismiss that as not sufficiently showing an example of how asking lead to any law/rules. Ok, fair enough.

So I will float this one. Which DOES have a written lineage. And see if the trail-of-evolution, in this one, isn't sufficient to show the psychology-in-action :

Go to this link, re.: State of Utah state parks system :

http://utrules.elaws.us/bulletin/10/15/2004/27442

Notice it is dated : 9/21/2004

Now, Notice under the paragraph heading titled : "Summary of the rule or change: " You will see the following quotation :

".....Parks receive numerous calls each year from people wanting to do metal detecting activities within the parks. The law is not specific enough that it addresses metal detecting....."

And then go to the bottom, and you will see that md'ing is "prohibited". (Without a "permit". Which, of course .... no one except a credentialed archaeologist will ever get )

But in this rare case, we are given a glimpse back to 2004, as to what led to this pronouncement. Right ? Namely : "Numerous calls each year". AKA "FAQ's", eh ? Hence this BOL determination memo is to address those FAQ's. Eh ? I'm only quoting direct from them !

And from this, we can likewise deduce that .... prior to this date in 2004, that it was apparently silent on the subject. Ie.: Not disallowed. Lest .... why have to issue this notice/policy, if it were already disallowed ?

The link , straight from the Utah powers-that-be even STATES, right IN THEIR OWN WORDS :

"... The law is not specific enough that it addresses metal detecting ...."

So is it fair to "follow the dots" and see that : Prior to 2004, apparently it was a non-issue (barring persons being an utter nuisance I suppose). But now .... given the "numerous inquiries", they went and made an official proclamation (essentially "no").

Thus : Is this, or is it not, a clear-cut case of "no one cared till you asked" psychology in play ? By their own admission . Although I bet that wasn't their intent of laying the ground-word premise of their pronouncement, yet .... it's a clear connection-of-the-dots. Yes ? No ?

Click to expand...

I say yes.

Most definitely YES
Here's a tip before you go to a public place get the rules and regulations for that place. Read them if it doesn't say anything specific about no metal detecting you are good to go. Download the rules to your phone or print them out take it with you while you hunt so if there's any problem.

Remember if a crazed park office manager with a pitbull skows up screaming and bow out and hunt another day!

Yes

Tom_in_CA said:

Go to this link, re.: State of Utah state parks system :

http://utrules.elaws.us/bulletin/10/15/2004/27442

Click to expand...

Went there.

Tom_in_CA said:

Notice it is dated : 9/21/2004

Click to expand...

Yep.
Do you know what wording was prior to 2004?

Tom_in_CA said:

Now, Notice under the paragraph heading titled : "Summary of the rule or change: " You will see the following quotation :

".....Parks receive numerous calls each year from people wanting to do metal detecting activities within the parks. The law is not specific enough that it addresses metal detecting....."

Click to expand...

I see that. It says the law is not specific enough to address metal detecting. Seems like maybe the wording prior to 2004 was too ambiguous to let people know, one way or the other, whether or not metal detecting was legal in State Parks.

Tom_in_CA said:

And then go to the bottom, and you will see that md'ing is "prohibited". (Without a "permit". Which, of course .... no one except a credentialed archaeologist will ever get )

Click to expand...

I like how you add “without a permit” as somewhat of an afterthought. Truth be told, it is allowed.
And in reading a bit about metal detecting in the State Parks of Utah, I’m not really sure you can make the statement that “.... no one except a credentialed archaeologist will ever get.” From what I understand, it seems like it’s not too difficult to get that permit, but obviously I can’t say for sure. Maybe some members of this forum can shed some light on this.

Tom_in_CA said:

But in this rare case, we are given a glimpse back to 2004, as to what led to this pronouncement. Right ? Namely : "Numerous calls each year". AKA "FAQ's", eh ? Hence this BOL determination memo is to address those FAQ's. Eh ? I'm only quoting direct from them !

Click to expand...

But we don’t get a glimpse at what it was like prior to 2004. Obviously there were some problems/issues.

Tom_in_CA said:

And from this, we can likewise deduce that .... prior to this date in 2004, that it was apparently silent on the subject. Ie.: Not disallowed.

Click to expand...

It’s not “disallowed” now. The only difference is that you need a permit.

Tom_in_CA said:

Lest .... why have to issue this notice/policy, if it were already disallowed ?

Click to expand...

Because the needed to clarify what apparently was a confusing policyy.

Tom_in_CA said:

The link , straight from the Utah powers-that-be even STATES, right IN THEIR OWN WORDS :

"... The law is not specific enough that it addresses metal detecting ...."

Click to expand...

So…

Tom_in_CA said:

So is it fair to "follow the dots" and see that : Prior to 2004, apparently it was a non-issue (barring persons being an utter nuisance I suppose).

Click to expand...

No, it’s not really fair to say it was a “non-issue”.

Yes, I will concede to you, that because of a great many inquiries from citizens wanting clarification about detecting in the State Parks of Utah, and new rule was drafted allowing it by permit only. So in that sense, your premise holds. But it’s a far cry from claiming that it was not an issue “before someone asked”.

Tom_in_CA said:

But now .... given the "numerous inquiries", they went and made an official proclamation (essentially "no").

Click to expand...

Yes. Because people asked, they clarified the rule.

Tom_in_CA said:

Thus : Is this, or is it not, a clear-cut case of "no one cared till you asked" psychology in play ? By their own admission . Although I bet that wasn't their intent of laying the ground-word premise of their pronouncement, yet .... it's a clear connection-of-the-dots. Yes ? No ?

Click to expand...

Yes. But as I have said over and over again, this still does not address WHY they clarified the previous “rule” in the manner that they did with regards to the “new rule”. You like to blame the people asking, as if it’s their fault the rule was implemented.

FliesOnly said:

.....Do you know what wording was prior to 2004? ....

Click to expand...

Good question. And would it be safe to assume that A) it was different. [Lest why else make this pronouncement, if nothing had changed ?]. and B) that it was probably less severe . Like in some way silent on the issue. Or ambiguous. C) And that those silences and ambiguities were probably LESS restrictive to md'ing. Not MORE restricting . I think we can both agree on these factors. Right ?

Because: When is the last time you saw laws go from *more* restrictive to *less* restrictive, for md'rs ? Unless, of course, it was via a hobbyist solidarity that over-turned restrictive laws? (which, as you can see from the context, is not what was going on here). On the contrary, the clear context of this dept. memo : Shows that it is a tightening (via the "clarification" here) not a loosening. So: What does it matter that neither of us knows what the rules were prior to 2004 ? It's clear from this, that the noose was tightened. Not loosened. And that's all that matters for the point I'm trying to show.

BTW : I'll bet that the law, prior to 2004, was identical to whatever went into effect on this 2004 date. The only difference is: This is an ADDENDUM (not a "change") to previous law. Ie.: to clarify what had been there prior. So to answer your question : There was probably NO change in the wording. It's just the ADDITION of the wording that you see , in the link. Which is clearly making md'ing to be a specific "no", from this point onward.

FliesOnly said:

.... Seems like maybe the wording prior to 2004 was too ambiguous to let people know, one way or the other, whether or not metal detecting was legal in State Parks.....

Click to expand...

FliesOnly said:

.....But we don’t get a glimpse at what it was like prior to 2004. Obviously there were some problems/issues.....

Click to expand...

FliesOnly said:

..... Because the needed to clarify what apparently was a confusing policy.........

Click to expand...

Well, I am assuming that by this statement, that you consider ANY possible remote language (in the pre 2004 wording), that *might* (yes admittedly) apply to us, is therefore: "Ambiguous" or "Confusing" situation. Right ? And therefore: Since it's entirely possible that md'ing *might* fall afoul of ancillary catch-all things, then: That means it's ambiguous. Right ? Hence needing this wonderful clarification . Right ?

So for example, if you stop on the sidewalk to answer your cell-phone, that might constitute violation of an "ambiguous" law that forbids "blocking sidewalks". Unless, of course, someone in power gave you authority to stop on the sidewalk to answer your cell-phone. Only then would it be ok. Right ?

FliesOnly said:

..... From what I understand, it seems like it’s not too difficult to get that permit, but obviously I can’t say for sure. Maybe some members of this forum can shed some light on this......

Click to expand...

Thankyou for your fair stance on this. To say that you can't-say-for-sure. Well I'm pretty durned certain that this is NOT the type "permit" that some cities (very rare BTW) dreamed up. I am certain that that's not the type 'permit' (like a fishing permit, or a garage sale permit, that you just walk-right-in-and pick up @ $25 for a wallet-card) that is alluded to there. I'm certain that it's the type that only credentialed archies get.

FliesOnly said:

...... Yes. Because people asked, they clarified the rule....

Click to expand...

And I think you would agree that the "clarification" served to make it LESS lenient . Not more lenient. If so, then why was it a good thing they sought clarification ?

flies-only, why can't "ambiguous" be a good or tolerable thing ? Why can't "silent-on-the-subject" be a good or tolerable thing ? Why can't people leave it in that status ? I don't doubt that some people prefer an "express allowance" . Who can argue with that , after all? But in their quest to get that "express allowance", look what happens, as seen by this example. See ? A tightening of the noose. Not a loosening of the noose.

FliesOnly said:

.... But as I have said over and over again, this still does not address WHY they clarified the previous “rule” in the manner that they did with regards to the “new rule”. ....

Click to expand...

I know why they did it in "that manner". It's ALWAYS the same "go-to" reason they will cite. We've discussed this before, and it is this: The admitted connotations, that someone with the "pressing issue" on their table, can easily mentally envision . Especially when passed to the on-staff-archie for his input on the matter : Cultural heritage. And if it's not that, it's going to be "harvest and remove" (we "take" things after all). And if it's not that, it's going to be alter and deface (we dig after all). These are all very knee-jerk images that .... when you're pressed to issue-a-decision, can easily come to mind.

Could the same "knee-jerk-connotation" happen if they had merely been happen-chance passing by the park, and seen an md'r ? Sure. But then : a) You're not in violation of any clear explicit rule, at the time, and b) I have seen occasions where a person making a new proclamation in-print, was often-time a person who held-that-position of power for a long long time. And had seen other md'rs. And .... it never crossed their mind or registered to them up-till-then. Ok, so what changed ? How is NOW on their radar ? Easy: When they are asked to give their princely blessing. THEN the wheels of their brain start turning .

I have a perfect case-in-point example of this exact phenomenon, where : The ONLY reason for "scrams" by a person who'd never paid us any mind before, DIRECTLY followed on the heels of a sincere well-meaning local md'r who'd gone swatting hornet's nests.

Tom_in_CA said:

Could the same "knee-jerk-connotation" happen if they had merely been happen-chance passing by the park, and seen an md'r ? Sure. But then : a) You're not in violation of any clear explicit rule, at the time, and b) I have seen occasions where a person making a new proclamation in-print, was often-time a person who held-that-position of power for a long long time. And had seen other md'rs. And .... it never crossed their mind or registered to them up-till-then. Ok, so what changed ? How is NOW on their radar ? Easy: When they are asked to give their princely blessing. THEN the wheels of their brain start turning .

I have a perfect case-in-point example of this exact phenomenon, where : The ONLY reason for "scrams" by a person who'd never paid us any mind before, DIRECTLY followed on the heels of a sincere well-meaning local md'r who'd gone swatting hornet's nests.

Click to expand...

Good post.

Tom_in_CA said:

Good question. And would it be safe to assume that A) it was different. [Lest why else make this pronouncement, if nothing had changed ?]. and B) that it was probably less severe . Like in some way silent on the issue. Or ambiguous. C) And that those silences and ambiguities were probably LESS restrictive to md'ing. Not MORE restricting . I think we can both agree on these factors. Right ?

Click to expand...

Since the old rules were ambiguous, then it’s hard to say what the restrictions were.

Tom_in_CA said:

Because: When is the last time you saw laws go from *more* restrictive to *less* restrictive, for md'rs ?

Click to expand...

They went from unclarified to clarified.

Tom_in_CA said:

So: What does it matter that neither of us knows what the rules were prior to 2004 ?

Click to expand...

Because apparently many people were not able to discern whether or not metal detecting was allowed. Many probably thought that it was not allowed.

Tom_in_CA said:

It's clear from this, that the noose was tightened. Not loosened. And that's all that matters for the point I'm trying to show.

Click to expand...

It does show that because people were asking if it’s allowed, they felt the need to clarify/change a rule. I will grant you that. That new rule states that a permit is required. My question has always been “Why” did they deny access after someone asked? We all know your “go to” response, but we also know that you ignore many additional factors.

Tom_in_CA said:

Which is clearly making md'ing to be a specific "no", from this point onward.

Click to expand...

It did not make it a “specific no” from this point onward. It requires a permit. You don’t really help your position by stating something that is categorically false.

Tom_in_CA said:

So for example, if you stop on the sidewalk to answer your cell-phone, that might constitute violation of an "ambiguous" law that forbids "blocking sidewalks". Unless, of course, someone in power gave you authority to stop on the sidewalk to answer your cell-phone. Only then would it be ok. Right ?

Click to expand...

Apples to Oranges.

Tom_in_CA said:

Thankyou for your fair stance on this. To say that you can't-say-for-sure. Well I'm pretty durned certain that this is NOT the type "permit" that some cities (very rare BTW) dreamed up. I am certain that that's not the type 'permit' (like a fishing permit, or a garage sale permit, that you just walk-right-in-and pick up @ $25 for a wallet-card) that is alluded to there. I'm certain that it's the type that only credentialed archies get.

Click to expand...

Have you tried to get a permit? I’d like to hear from people in Utah who have applied for a permit, and get their point of view.

Tom_in_CA said:

I know why they did it in "that manner". It's ALWAYS the same "go-to" reason they will cite. We've discussed this before, and it is this: The admitted connotations, that someone with the "pressing issue" on their table, can easily mentally envision . Especially when passed to the on-staff-archie for his input on the matter : Cultural heritage. And if it's not that, it's going to be "harvest and remove" (we "take" things after all). And if it's not that, it's going to be alter and deface (we dig after all). These are all very knee-jerk images that .... when you're pressed to issue-a-decision, can easily come to mind.

Click to expand...

But you always ignore the additional “reason” of “Detectorists’ Attitudes”. Some of the negative connotations you allude to have to include metal detectors that knowingly trespass and/or knowingly steal objects from other people’s property. You encourage that behavior yourself. In other words, “we” bring many of these negative connotations on ourselves by providing the powers that be, the ammunition they need to start denying us access.

FliesOnly said:

... They went from unclarified to clarified....

Click to expand...

Yes. And now that they "clarified it", we can all sit around and lament our lack of freedoms. Eh ?

FliesOnly said:

... Because apparently many people were not able to discern whether or not metal detecting was allowed. Many probably thought that it was not allowed....

Click to expand...

Right. I don't doubt that that's exactly what happened. I totally agree. That's what I've been harping on for years. And now, as we see here in this clear example: It becomes self-fulfilling loop.

Instead, if those persons (that we both agree exist to do-this-series-of-steps) had taken my stance, then : Such a proclamation would never-have-come forth. Hence what you are saying here, is entirely my point.

FliesOnly said:

.... Apples to Oranges....

Click to expand...

Yes it's "apples to oranges" because of an implied premise on your end : Stopping on the sidewalk to answer your phone, is harmless and benign (even though it could be construed as "blocking sidewalks"). Versus md'ing, which is dangerous and harmful. Thus, if we accept those starting premise definitions, then yes: It's apples to oranges.

FliesOnly said:

... Some of the negative connotations you allude to have to include metal detectors that knowingly trespass ....

Click to expand...

We've been over this ground before. The very very few instance that ever "make the news" about "night-hawkers" could ... I suppose ... drive someone's attitude. For example, on TV's History Channel, they occasionally have had the re-run episode where UK md'ing is profiled. And it has a short segment of that episode that talks of the blight of nighthawkers over there. But otherwise, the rest of that episode deals with md'ing in general .

So, correct me if I'm wrong but ... on your view, a legislator here in the USA is up watching late night TV one night. He sees that episode. And therefore thinks to himself : "We need to create laws here". Right ? Or to apply to the Utah case: On your view, the fellow that drafted that proclamation, could have watched that TV episode. So that when those FAQ's crossed his desk, that therefore he had bad impressions of md'ing in general. Thus leading him to decide on that tightening of the noose. Right ? But if it had NOT been for him-having-seen that episode, he would have given a green-light answer to those FAQs. Right ?

If I've understood you correctly, then how about a compromise : IF I GRANT YOU that this string-of-events (that drove someone's mental perceptions) can occur, then : Can you therefore grant to me, that sometimes: It's not that ? Eg.: Even if they'd never seen any "bad press", that .... simply to envision a guy on nice turf with a lesche, can drive a mental perception.

And BTW: To an archie, they need-never-have-seen anything but angelic md'rs. Their whole enterprise, from the git-go, is diametrically opposed to the notion of "mere mortals" poking around. So they don't even need to see any "bad press"

Tom_in_CA said:

We've been over this ground before. The very very few instance that ever "make the news" about "night-hawkers" could ... I suppose ... drive someone's attitude. For example, on TV's History Channel, they occasionally have had the re-run episode where UK md'ing is profiled. And it has a short segment of that episode that talks of the blight of nighthawkers over there. But otherwise, the rest of that episode deals with md'ing in general .

Click to expand...

It only takes one incident viewed by one person in the office to spread the word...and the story likely gets worse each time it's told.

Tom_in_CA said:

So, correct me if I'm wrong but ... on your view, a legislator here in the USA is up watching late night TV one night. He sees that episode. And therefore thinks to himself : "We need to create laws here". Right ?

Click to expand...

Let me correct you...again. It doesn't have to be that guy watching the TV. Long before I ever wanted to take up this hobby, I was well aware of a "negative connotation" about this hobby. How did I hear of it? Honestly I don't remember...which is sorta the point.

Tom_in_CA said:

Or to apply to the Utah case: On your view, the fellow that drafted that proclamation, could have watched that TV episode. So that when those FAQ's crossed his desk, that therefore he had bad impressions of md'ing in general. Thus leading him to decide on that tightening of the noose. Right ? But if it had NOT been for him-having-seen that episode, he would have given a green-light answer to those FAQs. Right ?

Click to expand...

Are you purposefully being obtuse and disingenuous?

Tom_in_CA said:

If I've understood you correctly, then how about a compromise : IF I GRANT YOU that this string-of-events (that drove someone's mental perceptions) can occur, then : Can you therefore grant to me, that sometimes: It's not that ? Eg.: Even if they'd never seen any "bad press", that .... simply to envision a guy on nice turf with a lesche, can drive a mental perception.

Click to expand...

Sure. I've never said it can't happen. However, they HAVE to envision them negatively for some reason or another...correct?

Tom_in_CA said:

And BTW: To an archie, they need-never-have-seen anything but angelic md'rs. Their whole enterprise, from the git-go, is diametrically opposed to the notion of "mere mortals" poking around. So they don't even need to see any "bad press"

Click to expand...

Again with the dislike of archeologists...and you wonder why they might not like you so much either.

FliesOnly said:

... and the story likely gets worse each time it's told.....

Click to expand...

I never knew md'ing was so reviled by the all the general public. Maybe it's just in your locale ? Because, ... honestly ... I run into very few that have this notion that "md'rs are horrible" (because they knew of night-hawkers, from discussions around the water-cooler, blah blah).

How do you figure this universal disdain that exists out there ? I have experienced just the opposite. When I'm out detecting, people come up and ask "what's the best thing you've ever found?", and "how deep does it go ?" and "where can I buy one of those ?". A far cry from this loathing that you seem to think exists in everyone's minds.

And if the discussion comes up in social circles: The topic comes up at a party I'm attending, or a social function question comes up as to "what's your hobby?". I have not encountered this public disdain that you paint. Instead, the comments are "wow that's interesting" and "I've always wanted to try that", etc.... Yet the way you paint the picture, they should be responding as if I'd just said "My hobby is torturing baby kittens".

FliesOnly said:

.... Again with the dislike of archeologists...and you wonder why they might not like you so much either.

Click to expand...

It's not that md'rs (like myself) dislike archaeologists. It's that they dislike us (well ... our hobby I mean). And it has NOTHING to do with "bad press" or "who disliked who first". It has everything to do with their starting beliefs/disciplines. Starting in their university classrooms. Esp. if they had a "purist" professor. Nothing at all to do with whether-or-not md'rs had acted angelically in the past or not.

It is strictly a difference in academic disciplines, goals, objectives. Even if every arrow-head-hunter and md'r throughout the ages had always acted like angels, they would still say that : Only a credentialed archie can poke around in the dirt.

Re.: The notion that md'ing has suffered through bad press. Which now drives policy makers to "tighten nooses" and "dislike md'rs".

I'm going to start a new thread, as to how I think that mindset, among us md'rs, gets started .