• Forum server maintanace Friday night.(around 7PM Centeral time)
    Website will be off line for a short while.

    You may need to log out, log back in after we're back online.

Public perception of md'ing (as it pertains to rules formulations)

Tom_in_CA

Elite Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2013
Messages
20,637
In the discussion of how rules against md'ing come into existence : At SOME point when the pen & ink came together to pen the rule, that required that rule-writer (legislator, or park board committee, or ranger office, etc...) to : Weigh the data involved in the decision that they were about to make. Right ?

Regarding the notion that public-opinion is stacked against md'rs: Ie.: the notion that powers-that-be are trigger happy to make rules against us. Because they have a poor-impression of the ethics of some past md'rs . And that this "poor-impression" lurks in theirs & everyone's mind:

I am going to suggest that this is just the trick, that we md'rs will be easily prone to think, because of what's known in psychology as "projection". That is where : If you are highly into something, you tend to think that others, around you, are also equally intrigued, notice it, etc...

So, to use a hobby as an example, if you are very much into birdwatching, you might therefore be watching lots of youtube birdwatching videos. And you might "project" that others randomly in-the-public are also randomly tuning into those same videos. And if an incorrect bird identification was on that video, then you moan and groan at the wrong ID mistake. Right ? And you think that.... certainly .... that's the next day's gossip at the water cooler at various random offices, eh ?

And you'd be participating in birdwatching forum discussion boards, and you'd notice any newspaper article that had to do with birdwatching. Why ? Because that's your hobby. So if there were a newspaper article out there that told of a birdwatcher who trespassed to get a better birdwatching spot, you'd moan and groan that he is "giving our hobby a bad name" (which, yes, would be true). Then you'd "project" that your friends, neighbors, and the general public had also read that clipping, and thus : Are likewise moaning and groaning at that clipping. And hence : Looking with disdain on birdwatchers.

When the truth actually is : They could care less about birdwatchers. :roll: They DON'T watch those youtube videos. They DON'T read birdwatcher internet forums. They DIDN'T see that random clipping in the newspaper last year. And thus they DON'T have a mistrust (nor could care-less) about birdwatchers.

But to the hardcore birdwatcher, they "project" that all those things are true. So too is it with all of us md'rs: We love md'ing. So it's easy for us to amplify and project and assume that others are seeing and registering the same things that we are seeing and registering. But .... in the same fashion that you could "care less" about birdwatching, SO TOO does the non-md'r tend to "care less" about md'ing.
 
You started out talking about the thought process of the "rule writers" and "rule formulation" by park managers, rangers, city officials, etc... But, you then go on to draw your conclusions based on your discussion of the general public or public at large and their perceptions.

I agree that the general public is largely indifferent about metal detecting. They might even be a hair on the side of being curious or positive about it. I mentioned in another discussion that many non-detectorists I speak to ask if I've ever detected at [fill in the name of their favorite park]. They wouldn't ask or even suggest it if they had a negative opinion of detecting.

But, the gatekeepers are not the general public. The park managers, rangers, head groundskeepers, preservation committees and so on have plenty of reasons to think about what activities can or will take place on "their" land. When they read newspaper articles or hear stories (true or not) about what goes on at other places, you can bet they take notice. Some are looking for any reason to create a rule. They also talk to each other. Administrators and groundskeepers often move up the ladder by moving from city to city, and they carry with them ideas and rules they learned and grew accustomed to elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
I suggest, at least in some municipalities, it's not about the MD'r, or the possibility of someone digging holes. It's about income derived from a permit system.
If a municipality has a permit system in place for , say, "recreational activities" that costs a person some dinero, then it's about money, not damage or "takings" from the area in question.

Just my opine.....Roger
 
I think it's powers that be want to seem powerful. Bird watchers don't (gasp) dig holes or remove something that could possibly be (uggh) an archeological relic. You know that 100 year rule-1919 or now even 1920 wheat cent.
Bird watchers just take pictures and the park sees a calm person with a camera. They see us and see Oak Island sized holes or KG and Ringy running around jumping and hanging upside down from trees.
So go at low traffic times and learn how not to be seen.
 
I thin both public & private opinion is the major contributor to how detecting is seen. You might go to one total stranger and ask what they think of the guy over in the public park with his detector and get either a "I think they shouldn't be allowed to dig up our park" from the sour people, and a "I wonder if they are finding anything?" from the good natured.

Public employees have are somewhat governed by laws/rules from their employer, but like an officer often has the option to give you a warning or a ticket for the same offence, I believe most public employees do also.
 
You started out talking about the thought process of the "rule writers" and "rule formulation" by park managers, rangers, city officials, etc... But, you then go on to draw your conclusions based on your discussion of the general public or public at large and their perceptions. ....

Yes. Because: Those "rule-writers" are ... themselves ... a part of the public. They're just "John Q. Public", like you and I, yet who happen to have a job as the head the parks dept, or a council-member at city hall, or whatever.

Thus: If the public-at-large has this 'perception' (which flies-only maintains is-the-case), then ... it's only logical that so-too does the rule-writers feel this way.

... But, the gatekeepers are not the general public....

Interesting. On the one hand, you agree that the general public probably never even *thinks* about the ramifications of md'ing. Eg.: finding something old (cultural heritage), holes/damage, taking home park objects, etc.... And I agree that they could "care less".

But if I understand you correctly, are you saying that the "gatekeepers" (rule-writers) are in a different class of people ? As-to-the-way they develop their notions, ideas, mental perceptions, etc... ?

So perhaps you're suggesting that .... whereas the non-md'r drives by a park, and DOESN'T EVEN REGISTER the md'r off-in-the-distance, yet .... the park director is more LIKELY to register the md'r. Eh ? And then the wheels-of-his-brain start turning ?

Even if I agree to this "difference in what-people-"care"-about theory : I still say that ... to the extent this could be true, then ... Why oh why oh why do anything MORE that "puts it on their radar" as something to think about ? If the odds are, that that particular head-person is in an office all day long (not the rank and file lawn-mower guy) then ..... why not just leave it at that ?

... Some are looking for any reason to create a rule. ....

Then doesn't this just support my stance ? Why put it on their plate, as a something they might elect to "make it a rule" ? To address a "pressing question" on their desk ? ESPECIALLY if the answer they are about to give (like to an email inquiry) involves a written response ? (versus a verbal "no" or "scram" )
 
... It's about income derived from a permit system....

Roger, this is a dangerous path to go on.

I realize that "permits" sound wonderful. The word "rolls off the tongue". It conjurs up images of being able to detect nilly-willy with an express allowance. And you just "whip out the card " to show any busy-bodies. Right ? Thus ... who could be against permits ?

And gee, the cities should be gleeful and giddy to implement an md'ing permit system right ? So they can make extra money. Eh ? A win win for both sides, eh ??

Oh but I wish it were that easy. To start with .... the cities (that have ever dreamed up "permits") do NOT need the $25 per year from the local meager handful of geeks. It probably costs them more in administering such a program , that any income derived. And .... It's just "one more bureaucracy" to have to handle. One more "odd-ball question" to field, a card to print and pass out, someone to collect the fees. And .... gee ... did you really think anyone is going to go out in the field and start "carding people " ?

And ANY place that has ever dreamed up such a thing, shows the "devil in the details" of them: They invariably have silly rules and conditions like "On sandy beaches only". Or " yes but you can't dig". Or "digger tool shall not exceed 3" in length". Or "turn in all objects of value to the park office". Or "not within 30 ft. of any tree".

And worse yet, you'll notice that many cities, that USED to have then, have sometimes abandoned and revoked the system years later. WHY ? Because it's perpetually always on their radar, at their annual meetings where they review all the annual things. And then .... sure as heck .... someone years from now seeing this line-item blurb about metal detectors thinks: "Gee, do we really want all those yahoos out digging up the parks ?"

And to even SUGGEST to any city that they should develop a "permit system" (like for when there's no specific rule, but you feel you must fight a scram or stink-eye you just got) will often back-fire. To even start suggesting it, will just end up swatting hornet's nests.
 
..... Bird watchers don't (gasp) dig holes or remove something that could possibly be (uggh) an archeological relic. ...

Haha, ok, someone could argue that hobby #1 (birdwatching) is innocuous and harmless. While hobby #2 (md'ing) is toxic and harmful. (my answer below is tongue-in-cheek : )

Personally, I don't consider md'ing toxic and harmful. I find it harmless, benign, healthy, nutritious, and wise. I'm going to "fill my holes", and "leave no trace", thus removing that objection.

And as for the archie relic thing, well ....: Gee .... if the day comes where it's "wrong to dig old things", then you almost have to ask yourself : WHY DID YOU GET INTO THIS HOBBY ? Ie.: didn't it occur to you that you might find old cool things ? :?: Bearing in mind that: There are archies who are aghast at ANY md'r digging ANY old thing, even @ the tamest public land sites (eg.: beach, sand-box, etc...) So there is NO way you and I are ever going to please every-last-archie that exists.


....So go at low traffic times and learn how not to be seen.

Bingo. Just like nose-picking: You choose discreet times so as not offend the squeemish. You DON'T go "seeking their permission".
 
Roger, this is a dangerous path to go on.
To even start suggesting it, will just end up swatting hornet's nests.
**********************************************************
Tom, let me clarify something that I neglected to do in my first response.
I, in no way, shape, or form, wish my response to be construed as advocating a permit system. Quite the opposite......I shouldn't have to ask, (from my elected leaders or tax-funded employees), permission to do anything, let alone something as innocuous as MD'ing. (I think we agree here.)

That being said, "they" do like to initiate such systems, if not for monetary gain, then to exercise control over even insignificant portions of society. To require "the people" to ask permission of the "officials" to do anything, requires those same people to surrender certain authority to the elected, or appointed governmental populace. Ultimately, it goes back to the saying that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Just my 2-pence.....Roger
 
….. That being said, "they" do like to initiate such systems, if not for monetary gain, then to exercise control over even insignificant portions of society. ...

Emphasis in bold, above, is mine .

I wouldn't say that they "like" such systems. In the context to which-we-speak now. Because: As is seen in statistics, VERY VERY few cities , across the USA, have ever dreamed up such a thing for md'ing (thank goodness). It's actually quite rare. Like, for example, in CA, I can think of perhaps 2 or 3 cities, and 2 counties, IN THE ENTIRE STATE, whose parks systems ever dreamed "permits" up, for md'ing.

(And the humorous side-joke is that: No one, in those locales, can ever recall being "carded". Doh ! )

And I don't think there's any "power control -grab" by the folks that administer park systems. They just have to set the rules of use , so that chaos doesn't break loose. They're just doing their job to maintain peace and order. No "power-complex" IMHO.

So: When a "pressing decision" comes onto their plate, …. they're just thinking through the ramifications. And … let's be honest … md'ing has connotations. And human-nature being what it is: They're going to tend to go with the "safe" and "easy" answer.

But I don't think they have any great desire to implement permits, to raise $ for city coffers. Our hobbyist #s are just to small to be anything but a nuisance and waste of time. JMHO
 
Tom I was trying to get into the general public and park officials perception of mdrs
Most general public are really nice and ask me if I have found anything good or a myraid of other questions.
Grounds keepers I have come into contact with are super cool. I've had them wait to mow so I could finish.
Now the "officials" that live in their offices and think they have some capacity of control over their little park kingdoms are a different story. Especially when they venture out and see what the pub
 
Unfortunately, New York State parks have a permit system.

Fort Drum Regulations specifically prohibit metal detecting, but I observe people doing it. If enforced, it must be enforced selectively.
 
You can’t make this stuff up. I’m told that the reason we get booted out of places is likely NOT because of a negative point of view held by general public, because they simply don’t care or notice us.

Meanwhile, in another thread on this very forum, we read about an individual metal detecting on church grounds, who subsequently has encounters with two members of the general public. One is friendly and inquisitive, while the other is considered to be an “a-hole”. Important to the story is the fact that the detectorist does not have permission to detect on the church property.

So the “a-hole” from across the street calls him out, yelling at him to leave the property because he does not have permission to be there. To be clear, the person yelling from across the street is somehow the “a-hole” in the story, but not the person detecting without permission.

Oh the irony.

And let’s take this one step further. Of the two individuals that the detectorist interacted with, which one do you think is most likely to call the Priest or Minister of that church to express their opinion of metal detectorists? Do you think the guy who was friendly and inquisitive is going to call the church leader and tell him how awesome people who metal detect are, and that they should be allowed to do their thing on church property? Or do you think the pissed off person is more likely to call? Gee, I wonder.

And that’s always been my point. If 50 people walk by a person violating some law or regulation while metal detecting and 49 of them don’t care, but one does…whom of those 50 people is/are most likely to make a call? It only takes ONE person to get detectorists onto someone’s radar. And of course, that person that did call is also quite likely to get their fiends to call. It’s a snowball rolling down the hill.
 
...
Now the "officials" that live in their offices and think they have some capacity of control over their little park kingdoms are a different story. Especially when they venture out and see what the Public actually does in their little park kingdoms

Hippy: Perhaps you are right, that : A) the general public, and B) even rank-&-file park maintenance folk could care less. But that the higher-up (who make-decisions from-their-desks) have a different view.

But I don't chalk that phenomenon up to a notion that those "desk-bound" guys have started out with any different psychological make up from the rest of the people. Just like the general public, I bet that they-too initially didn't register it, nor care-less, as well.

I say it's only because the desk-jockeys are the very ones who tend to field this "pressing question" over the years. From skittish md'rs who feel they need permission . So the desk-jockies are not initially in a different bias/mindset than the rest of the public. It's merely the eventual outcome of "no one cared till you asked" psychology at work, right before our eyes .
 
Exactly!
Like the office manager lady that kicked me out of the park. She just had to flex her supposed power of an "office manager ".
The grounds keeper superintendent of the same place loves me and wants to see what I've found and how much trash i have picked up. He's outside not in an office. I guess he realizes its really hard to hurt dirt.
 
I always look up the rules and regulations for a particular public taxpayer supported place.
No regulations against mding means no asking for permission in a place I feel I already own.
 
... Meanwhile, in another thread ....

And notice I didn't chime in on that thread. :roll:

I have no beef with your stance stated here. That : Md'rs who trespass (no matter how innocuous the-place-may-be) can elicit gripes. Which subsequently mean that that persons can end up with bad-impressions of md'rs . You don't have any disagreement from me there.

But I say that the MUCH BIGGER "mental impression" (as "their impression" of the hobby) is NOT fluke things like what happened in that church thread. Or the "nighthawker" blurb on the history channel show. Or some "locker room" talk on a geeky md'ing forum. While .... YES : Those are all "blights", but .... no, I don't believe that's the reason for what-drives all laws that come-about after that.

Instead, it can come about with ZERO influence or knowledge of such things. Even if the rule-maker had NEVER known of any such instances. It can simply be because of the obvious mental connotation of digging and holes. Or with an archie that ... gasp ...we might find something old. As you can see, they do NOT have to be having this built-up-angst that you seem to think drives their ultimate decision.

But NO MATTER WHERE THE "angst" starts from , a bigger question is: How does it end up on-their-plate in-need of decision, in the first place ?

And even if you were right, then : All the more reason that it doesn't cross their desk, as something that needs their princely decision. Eh ? :?:
 
....Like the office manager lady that kicked me out of the park. She just had to flex her supposed power of an "office manager ".....

Well, I wouldn't chalk that up to someone simply being power-hungry flexing muscles. Instead I would chalk that up to the following : It's "office managers", like her, who are the ones most-likely to field the question "can I metal detect? " Ie.: If ever that phone call, or email, or person-walking-in to the office happens, it will tend to get forwarded to the decision-maker over-see person. Right ? Like that office-manager lady. Right ?

So then, if they say "no", then, guess what will happen the next time that same office-manager passes by the park, and sees another md'r ? She'll remember the earlier inquiry, and START BOOTING OTHERS ! (versus prior to that, when perhaps it wouldn't even have mentally registered). I've seen this very phenomenon.

Thus it's not due to "mean-spirited" power-hungry pencil-pushers.
 
Back
Top Bottom