Feds don't own all areas that ban us??

George (MN) · May 30, 2018

BRJ123 said:
interesting set of creatures you've got living around there!

The only places I know about that have creatures that sound NEARLY as interesting is at this one beach where you're not allowed to swim after 8pm. However the surfing was SO GOOD right at 8:30pm so a few friends would go ride the waves undetected each night. Little did they know 8:30 is also feeding frenzy time for the local sharks and during one of the friends late night adventures they got attacked by a huge man eater! OUCH! but they were just gunna go surf for a while and get out before the lifeguard got in the next morning and nobody would have ever known...the perfect crime! Now the entire beach is off limits to swimming for everyone at all times because of man eating sharks.

This other place I know has some of the most interesting creatures you'll ever meet! Lions...tigers...giraffes...elephants you name it and you can ride your car right into their habitat. The only rule 9:00-5:00 16 year old Timmy the tourguide used to give was don't get out of the car for pictures...Well one day a family was driving the route and witnessed a spectacular sight of 2 lions sunning themselves right next to the road! Timmy the tourguide was nowhere to be seen. SELFIE TIME!!! the family got out of their car, turned their backs to the creatures and got ready for the picture..the perfect crime! Timmy won't even know! Unfortunately the female Lion had offspring nearby and promptly mauled the mother. Now the adventure is shut down for good and the breathtaking sights are no longer seen by any.

So here am I...understanding all I want to do is hunt for pennies, what did I learn from my bold wildlife friends?? Follow the rules!

Different people within the same organization will contradict each other on the rules. If this hasn't happened to you, can you explain why not? Thanks!

Tom_in_CA · May 30, 2018

George (MN) said:
Different people within the same organization will contradict each other on the rules. If this hasn't happened to you, can you explain why not? Thanks!

Humorously, this has happened to some md'rs who thought they needed to get "permission" to hunt parks. One guy gets a "no", so he stays clear. Later he gets acquainted with another md'r in his town, and finds out the guy is md'ing those parks. He says "I thought that wasn't allowed ?". To which md'r #2 says "That's funny, I went to city hall and someone told me 'yes' " .

See how capricious, whimsical, and arbitrary it can be ?

Which is why md'rs should look it up for themselves. If nothing is there that says "no md'ing", then presto, It's not dis-allowed. Why play Russian Roulette ?

BRJ123 · May 31, 2018

Tom_in_CA said:
Humorously, this has happened to some md'rs who thought they needed to get "permission" to hunt parks. One guy gets a "no", so he stays clear. Later he gets acquainted with another md'r in his town, and finds out the guy is md'ing those parks. He says "I thought that wasn't allowed ?". To which md'r #2 says "That's funny, I went to city hall and someone told me 'yes' " .

See how capricious, whimsical, and arbitrary it can be ?

Which is why md'rs should look it up for themselves. If nothing is there that says "no md'ing", then presto, It's not dis-allowed. Why play Russian Roulette ?

Tom in CA,

Let's take a step back and dissect why this fun story of yours is much much different (for the better) than most of your other fun stories.

md#1 is unsure if he is allowed to detect said park so he does the right thing and seeks permission. whether it was necessary or not he was unsure so he asked (great job md#1!!). unfortunately he is given a "no" and walks away to find somewhere else to detect, like an upstanding metal detecting hobby preservationist. Likely within 10 minutes he arrives at another destination and continues the hunt. NICE!

md#2 spends his extra 10 minutes going to city hall for permission because he was also unsure whether he was allowed to detect the park. wait a second did 2 people in the same Tom in CA story just ask permission?? what thread is th.....anyways...he is given a "yes" and continues to the park to detect! NICE!

each md spent some extra time asking permission, each md has a place to hunt and metal detecting as a whole is better because of it! Plus they probably became best friends after meeting eachother in your story. everyone wins!!

I like your story and I think advice like this is what you should be handing out. If you're unsure, ASK! maybe you get a yes maybe you get a no. You can always ASK again sometime but should follow the current wishes of the acting authority. It's THAT SIMPLE!

Tom_in_CA · May 31, 2018

BRJ123 said:
Tom in CA,

Let's take a step back and dissect why this fun story of yours is much much different (for the better) than most of your other fun stories.

md#1 is unsure if he is allowed to detect said park so he does the right thing and seeks permission. whether it was necessary or not he was unsure so he asked (great job md#1!!). unfortunately he is given a "no" and walks away to find somewhere else to detect, like an upstanding metal detecting hobby preservationist. Likely within 10 minutes he arrives at another destination and continues the hunt. NICE!

md#2 spends his extra 10 minutes going to city hall for permission because he was also unsure whether he was allowed to detect the park. wait a second did 2 people in the same Tom in CA story just ask permission?? what thread is th.....anyways...he is given a "yes" and continues to the park to detect! NICE!

each md spent some extra time asking permission, each md has a place to hunt and metal detecting as a whole is better because of it! Plus they probably became best friends after meeting eachother in your story. everyone wins!!

I like your story and I think advice like this is what you should be handing out. If you're unsure, ASK! maybe you get a yes maybe you get a no. You can always ASK again sometime but should follow the current wishes of the acting authority. It's THAT SIMPLE!

BRJ123, I think you missed the moral of that story. Let's dissect :

A) Why is it "the right thing" for md'r #1 to have asked ? Or rather, put it this way : Why isn't it equaly the "right thing" if md'r #1 had gone to read the park rules for himself ? And if he sees nothing that said "no md'ing" to deduce "not dis-allowed" ? How much more law-abiding could he have been ?

B) And see how 2 different md'rs got 2 different answers from 2 different clerks on 2 different days to the exact same question . Doesn't that tell you the results can be capricious & whimsical & arbitrary ? How is that a good thing ?

C) And how is it "Nice" that md'r #1 simply goes to another place to detect, when perhaps the 1st park was perhaps the better more desirable place to hunt ?

D) And if you think my story was an example of the permission-asking being a "good thing", then do tell: Is if fair that md'r #1 can't go, and md'r #2 can go ?

E) And worse yet, what if the desk-jockeys there, faced with this FAQ, decide to make a policy out of it ? Ie.: to "address this pressing issue" ?

This has happened on all levels. For example, if you trace back Utah's state park's dept policy on md'ing, you'll see this evolution. That began from well-meaning md'rs who kept asking (clicking the "ask us" button, and/or emailing, and/or calling, etc....). And eventually, a policy was issued. And ... you guessed it : No md'ing. What was interesting was that the edict memo that went out to the rank & file park's offices, announcing this, SPECIFICALLY said that this was to address the "frequent inquiries", and went on to spell the dept's stance. See ? Apparently prior to that, was simply silent on the subject. See how it can be 'swatting hornet's nests' ?

So why couldn't both md'r #1 and md'r #2 , in my story, have looked it up for themselves ? And seeing no dis-allowance, thus go ?

BRJ123 · May 31, 2018

Tom_in_CA said:
BRJ123, I think you missed the moral of that story. Let's dissect :

A) Why is it "the right thing" for md'r #1 to have asked ? Or rather, put it this way : Why isn't it equaly the "right thing" if md'r #1 had gone to read the park rules for himself ? And if he sees nothing that said "no md'ing" to deduce "not dis-allowed" ? How much more law-abiding could he have been ?

B) And see how 2 different md'rs got 2 different answers from 2 different clerks on 2 different days to the exact same question . Doesn't that tell you the results can be capricious & whimsical & arbitrary ? How is that a good thing ?

C) And how is it "Nice" that md'r #1 simply goes to another place to detect, when perhaps the 1st park was perhaps the better more desirable place to hunt ?

D) And if you think my story was an example of the permission-asking being a "good thing", then do tell: Is if fair that md'r #1 can't go, and md'r #2 can go ?

E) And worse yet, what if the desk-jockeys there, faced with this FAQ, decide to make a policy out of it ? Ie.: to "address this pressing issue" ?

This has happened on all levels. For example, if you trace back Utah's state park's dept policy on md'ing, you'll see this evolution. That began from well-meaning md'rs who kept asking (clicking the "ask us" button, and/or emailing, and/or calling, etc....). And eventually, a policy was issued. And ... you guessed it : No md'ing. What was interesting was that the edict memo that went out to the rank & file park's offices, announcing this, SPECIFICALLY said that this was to address the "frequent inquiries", and went on to spell the dept's stance. See ? Apparently prior to that, was simply silent on the subject. See how it can be 'swatting hornet's nests' ?

So why couldn't both md'r #1 and md'r #2 , in my story, have looked it up for themselves ? And seeing no dis-allowance, thus go ?

you really are dense aren't you

anyways have a great afternoon!

detectorben · Jun 2, 2018

This thread is funny. Anyone who thinks any land in the United states is privately owned is kidding themselves. We are all leasing this land from the government. We pay them a rent or tax every year to use the land and the second we dont pay that rent they can take the land from us. Or they can just take it anytime they want by eminent domain laws. Nobody truly "owns" anything in this country.

I love this country and I am no conspiracy theorist. That is just the sad honest reality of ownership in this country.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Mud-puppy · Jun 2, 2018

detectorben said:
This thread is funny. Anyone who thinks any land in the United states is privately owned is kidding themselves. We are all leasing this land from the government. We pay them a rent or tax every year to use the land and the second we dont pay that rent they can take the land from us. Or they can just take it anytime they want by eminent domain laws. Nobody truly "owns" anything in this country.

I love this country and I am no conspiracy theorist. That is just the sad honest reality of ownership in this country.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Agreed! Boundaries and supposed lines come and go throughout time..the strongest 'enforcement' hand on site always prevails...I also find these discussions hilarious for the reasons you mentioned..Life is all about understanding this and timing!

Feds don't own all areas that ban us??

George (MN)

Elite Member

Tom_in_CA

Elite Member

BRJ123

Elite Member

Tom_in_CA

Elite Member

BRJ123

Elite Member

detectorben

Elite Member

Mud-puppy

Similar threads