Permission, with one little condition

[Tom_in_CA]

What are you talking about? He didn't go there for any "inquiry", he went there to pick up the required permit, as per the online regulations/rules, ....

Again : The old-Bill quote we are discussing :

".... and the office staffer repeated this to me at the desk......"


What is the "this" ^ ^ that old-Bill is referring to ? It is : The inquiry about what constitutes digging.

Yes you're right that he was not inquiring about whether permits are needed. But he was inquiring about the definitions of dig, alter, etc... Right ?

And I remind you : Why do you think there's a "permit" there , to begin with ? I bet because others, years earlier, went asking "can we metal detect ?" So the point still remains.

 

[FliesOnly]

Again : The old-Bill quote we are discussing :

".... and the office staffer repeated this to me at the desk......"


What is the "this" ^ ^ that old-Bill is referring to ? It is : The inquiry about what constitutes digging.

Yes you're right that he was not inquiring about whether permits are needed. But he was inquiring about the definitions of dig, alter, etc... Right ?

Well, perhaps the person at the desk was simply repeating what was already printed on the permit, just to make sure Oldbill saw it. You're merely making the assumption that he asked for clarification. But then, what difference would it make if he had asked for clarification? The words "No Digging" were already printed n the permit, Oldbill did nothing to exacerbate the situation, even if he had asked.

I noticed that you never answered my question(s) though...If you were handed a permit to metal detect in a Park, and the permit said "No Digging", what would you do next?

And I remind you : Why do you think there's a "permit" there , to begin with ? I bet because others, years earlier, went asking "can we metal detect ?" So the point still remains.

No, the point does not still remain. What you had done was to congratulate Oldbill by stating that: "You are now the latest member of the "no one cared UNTIL you asked" club .", which is not at all true. That bridge had likely been crossed many years prior, as you yourself just admitted. Oldbill was simply trying to be an upstanding citizen by making sure that as a metal detectorist, he was not going to besmirch the good name of all metal detecting hobbyists by breaking to rules as laid out by the permit.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

".... Oldbill did nothing to exacerbate the situation, even if he had asked. ...."

If we're talking about "what is the definition of dig", then : This is where we disagree then. Because yes, in a case like that, a person can indeed "exacerbate" situations. Where now this "pressing question" will fetch someone's "safe answer" (when truth be told, the person probably would never have given it a moment's thought or cared-less, prior to that)

"....If you were handed a permit to metal detect in a Park, and the permit said "No Digging", what would you do next?

I would play the semantics game and apply the same logic as "alter" and "deface". Namely that when you and I leave no trace of our presence (cover, stomp, fluff), then presto : We haven't alterED or defacED anything. Ie.: all such rules logically apply to the end-result. And yes, I apply this same logic to dIg versus dUg. And odds are, no one cares less about this semantics (until we ask, of course) . Ie.: If you're not in the middle of deep retrievals in nice manicured turf. while busy-bodies are staring, then : Do you think it's really an issue ? Why this notion that commandos are hiding in the bushes waiting to jump out and bust our chops ?

".... which is not at all true...."

It depends on which issue we're talking about . If it's about "are permits needed", then you're right. But if the issue we're talking about is "what constitutes digging", then no, you're not right. Then indeed a person can bump into the psychology of "no one cared until we asked" routine.

 

[The Rebel]

Easy answer. I'm not digging, I'm probing.

 

[GroundSweeper]

I would just cut a plug, retrieve target, replace plug. How is that digging? It's not.

 

[MuddyMo]

It could be worse..

 

[markinmichigan]

Mo you're a sick puppy. Funny!

Mark in Michigan

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I would just cut a plug, retrieve target, replace plug. How is that digging? It's not.

Correct.

I have often pointed out that if the operative problematic words were words forbidding "alter" and "deface", that : As long as we leave no trace, then presto : We haven't alterED or defacED anything ! And here's why I apply the same logic to the evil word "Dig" : Because if someone can accept the logic of alter versus alterED, then the same logic applies to "dig". The only difference is a spelling issue, that : We don't spell it diggED. Instead we spell it dUg. But the concept is exactly the same.

 

[FliesOnly]

If we're talking about "what is the definition of dig", then : This is where we disagree then. Because yes, in a case like that, a person can indeed "exacerbate" situations. Where now this "pressing question" will fetch someone's "safe answer" (when truth be told, the person probably would never have given it a moment's thought or cared-less, prior to that)

But again, you're assuming that Oldbill asked for clarification of what "NO Digging" meant. He never said that he asked. He simply said that an office staffer repeated it to him.

I would play the semantics game and apply the same logic as "alter" and "deface".

"No Digging" isn't semantics. It means no digging. If they meant to state that you cannot "alter" or "deface" then that's what they would have written.

Namely that when you and I leave no trace of our presence (cover, stomp, fluff), then presto : We haven't alterED or defacED anything. Ie.: all such rules logically apply to the end-result.

So, someone picks up their permit and a staffer points out that it unequivocally states "NO Digging"...to you, that detectorist is the bad guy cuz maybe, just maybe, he asked for clarification? Whereas, to you, the good guy in this scenario is the guy who picks up the permit [and the staffer points out that it clearly states "NO Digging"] and chooses to ignore the actual words written on the permit and instead decides play a game of semantic and go ahead and dig anyway. How odd.

I just want to make sure I understand you correctly. To you, the guy who asks for clarification regarding "NO Digging" on a permit is the reason behind "No Digging" clauses on permits in the first place. But the guy who ignores "NO Digging" and goes an digs holes anyway...that guy in no way gives metal detectorists a bad name and is in no way a major factor in additional, more strict and limiting rules/regulations being implemented? For you, it's the "no one cared until you asked" crowd that causes all the problems, and not the blatant rule breakers, yes?

And yes, I apply this same logic to dIg versus dUg. And odds are, no one cares less about this semantics (until we ask, of course) . Ie.: If you're not in the middle of deep retrievals in nice manicured turf. while busy-bodies are staring, then : Do you think it's really an issue ?

Are you asking me if I think digging in a park that has a "NO Digging" rule is an issue? Yes, I think digging in a park that has a "NO Digging" rule is an issue and without a doubt gives detectorists a bad name. How can you possibly NOT see this as an issue? How does this NOT make detectorists look bad? How does this NOT lead to stricter rules relating to metal detecting?

Why this notion that commandos are hiding in the bushes waiting to jump out and bust our chops ?

Who made any such statement?

It depends on which issue we're talking about . If it's about "are permits needed", then you're right. But if the issue we're talking about is "what constitutes digging", then no, you're not right. Then indeed a person can bump into the psychology of "no one cared until we asked" routine.

"What constitutes digging"? Seriously? Here's a strange concept...digging constitutes digging.


And to be perfectly clear about this, I agree that one should look online for the rules/regulations as they relate to metal detecting, and if nothing is found, then one can assume that metal detecting is allowed...there's no need to go ask. And that is what Oldbill did. The problem arose when it was brought to his attention that the required permit stated "NO Digging". I mean, he provided a picture of the permit and it was right there, clear as day..."NO Digging".
The question becomes..."Why is that now written on the permits"?

Your answer: "Because at some point, someone simply asked if digging was allowed."

My Answer: "Because at some point a detectorist [or detectorists] dug holes and either did a poor job of replacing the plugs, or did not attempt to replace them at all".

Another Answer: "Becasue at some point, after the detectorist did a fantistic job of making the plugs almost totally undetectable, a skunk (or some other crazy animal) came by later that night and flipped over all the plugs while conducting an easy search for grubs, and as a result, that grass died, leaving a whole unch of dead "crop circles" behind for everyone using the Park to see"...i.e. it was really no ones fault, but sometime stuff happens.

Personally, I think answers 2 and 3 are the most likely.

 

[FliesOnly]

Mo you're a sick puppy. Funny!

Mark in Michigan

So...what's your next move? Lets say its a colonial era farmhouse with about 80 or so acres that have never been detected!!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

"....But again, you're assuming that Oldbill asked for clarification of what "NO Digging" meant. He never said that he asked. He simply said that an office staffer repeated it to him....."

Yes, you're right. I assumed that he asked. Because it sounded that way, from-the-account he gave.


But let me understand : Are you agreeing therefore, on the larger picture, that "seeking clarifications" can exacerbate issues ? Are you acknowledging the truth of the psychology of the danger of swatting hornet's nests ? Are you acknowledging that this is the root of a lot of laws and rules against us ?

.... "No Digging" isn't semantics. ..

You can read my thoughts on this, in the answer I gave to GroundSweeper in post #28

.... that detectorist is the bad guy cuz maybe, just maybe, he asked for clarification?....

Yup. Why run the risk of "no one cared UNTIL you asked" ?

...But the guy who ignores "NO Digging" and goes an digs holes anyway...that guy in no way gives metal detectorists a bad name and is in no way a major factor in additional, more strict and limiting rules/regulations being implemented? For you, it's the "no one cared until you asked" crowd that causes all the problems, and not the blatant rule breakers, yes?....

This ^ ^ is going round in-circles right back to the basic disagreement between us: You deny that rules and laws against us have largely come about d/t past md'rs showing up at city desks seeking permissions and clarifications. Right ? And you instead lay the blame at the feet of md'rs who simply just went md'ing. And yes, dug their targets. So you seem to think that passerbys, who ... shucks ... must have seen them, therefore decided "let's make a 'no' rule". Or "let's make a permit". Or "let's say no-digging-to-those md'rs". But no: I do not think that the "random passerby person" is the origin of laws and rules against us. I do not think it was "some past md'r who must have left holes"


And as for "dig" vs "digging" vs "alter" vs "deface" vs "molest and destroy", etc..... : If you want to get technical, I bet that they're all synonymous. So the bottom line is F-O, that if you want to get super technical, then all of us md'rs are lawless miscreants. On every speck of public land. Yet take a quick look at the show & tell forums here. Look at all the stuff they found at public parks, forests, deserts, beaches, etc..... How can that be ??


Because I guarantee you that if you give me enough time, and allow me to inquire of enough desk jockeys, that I can find someone who will tell them "no". Yet as you can clearly see, it's a non-issue, and no one cared. All I am saying is : BEST LEFT THAT WAY ! But you're right that, technically, all of us are lawless miscreants. Eg.: If you tell me what public land you metal detect on, I guarantee you that I can find someone, in that admin, who will agree with me that you've broken some verbiage in their boiler plate fine print. Yet you will be the first to agree that : No one cares.

....How does this NOT lead to stricter rules relating to metal detecting?....

So the "thing that is giving md'rs a bad name" is not the persons who simply go. It's the ones that show up asking "mother may I ?", who are bringing all-the-attention to us.


Why this notion that any passerby gives 2 sh#ts about your detecting ? I am routinely ignored when I go to any park in my city. And if some passerby DID come up and talk to me, FAR from their-being-offended, it is instead things like "What's the best thing you've ever found" and "how deep does it go". So why do you have this notion that anyone even pays attention to us, or is offended by us ??

".... I agree that one should look online for the rules/regulations as they relate to metal detecting, and if nothing is found, then one can assume that metal detecting is allowed...there's no need to go ask....."

Ok, fine. So we agree there.

 

[MuddyMo]

I’ve seen pros and cons, good results and bad from asking permission. There isn’t really any way to know whether it is good or bad until after the fact. Like Tom has been saying for years- it’s easier for them to say no because they’re lazy or don’t want to go out on a limb. On the other hand I’ve seen them say yes and then show other city owned properties that we could hunt. Also if any ignorant LEOs or stupid Karen’s says anything then you know you’re in the right.
It’s time for everyone to be more open minded. Neither and both sides are right and it’s up to the person to make the choice.

 

[maxxkatt]

Sure. This is why laws are written vaguely. So as to apply to a myriad of circumstances that *might* come up. Otherwise cops could never get their jobs done. People could forever be arguing semantics with cops in -the-field. So laws are purposefully written broadly, so-as-to be melded to what comes up in-the-field. Eg.: Laws that forbid annoyances. Or "blocking sidewalks", etc......

So does this mean that you and I must go get permission and act preemptively ? No. If someone in-authority wishes to appraise me that my activities fall-afoul of some grey-area catch-all language, THEY'RE CERTAINLY WELCOME TO ! Which is why, if I'm about to do nice-manicured turf, that I opt for low-traffic times.

Kind of like nose-picking : Not illegal, nor do you seek sanctions or clarifications. Instead you use discreet timing, so-as-not to offend the squeamish. Eh ? It is not yours & I's job to please every last person on earth.

And this varies from park to park. I have a park on the Chattahoochee river close to my home. I am there 2-3 times a week walking my dogs, for many years. They have quite a few don't do this or that signs. Some are individual signs. No grills allowed, no amplified sounds, dogs must be on leashes, clean up after your dog, don't remove any plants or rocks. (and I saw a woman removing rocks weekly for months and taking to her back yard. I reported this to the county by her home address and they did nothing as far as I know because she kept doing it. And guess what I have never seen them enforce any of those rules when they are often broken. An no I don't snitch on people, only the lady stealing rocks.

The only time I saw them enforce a rule was when a pit bull off leash attacked and bit a member of an Indian family walking on the trail. He attacked the man. When I refer to Indians in Georgia, not American native indians but Indians from India. There are basically no native American Indians in Georgia. Before the Trail of Tears forced deportation to the west we had two huge tribes that basically covered he state. They responded with 3 police cars an ambulance and 2 animal control trucks. And they did write a ticket to the other family walking their pit bull off leash in the park because I talked to one of the police officers. I was there after the attack walking my dog on leash.

All in all in metro Atlanta I have only been told to move on in one small city park by a city official. I was only using a brass probe and screw driver. I just told the lady, "yes, I will move on" and left the park. Of course I was leaving zero trace with this method of recovery of shallow coins.

 

[FliesOnly]

Yes, you're right. I assumed that he asked. Because it sounded that way, from-the-account he gave.

You saw it one way, I saw it another...no harm no foul on that issue.
However, to me it doesn't matter. In my opinion, if Oldbill wanted to actually detect in a manner that involves digging, then clarification was needed. If Old bill saw what was written and decided to not dig any holes, then clarification was not needed cuz...well...he can read.

But let me understand : Are you agreeing therefore, on the larger picture, that "seeking clarifications" can exacerbate issues ?

Certainly, in some instances, seeking clarification may result in issues being raised that many of us would have preferred not being raised.

Are you acknowledging the truth of the psychology of the danger of swatting hornet's nests ? Are you acknowledging that this is the root of a lot of laws and rules against us ?

I am most definitely not acknowledging that asking questions is the root of a lot of laws and rules against metal detecting. I think I've mentioned this before, but for me knowing the underlying reason as to WHY they would pass a rule against metal detecting simply because they were asked a question, is what is important. Why do they have a negative connotation of detectorists to begin with? Why would they be sitting at their desk, eagerly awaiting to be asked for "permission" to detect, or for "clarification" of an existing rule, just so they can finally ban us from detecting? Isn't that the most important question to answer?

Yup. Why run the risk of "no one cared UNTIL you asked" ?

Because in this particular case, someone had already beaten him to the punch...the rules already stated "NO Digging". In your scenario, that horrible question had already been asked and answered. Your contention is that the "NO Digging" wording on the required permit is a result of someone asking it they could dig holes. Even if that is true, my question/concern is WHY did they say "Nope, ya can't dig holes"? I have serious doubts that it's simply the result of being asked. What is the underlying issue at hand, that's what I want to know.
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the negative views some people may have of detectorists is a result of poor behavior on the part of some detectorists? How many times would someone need to see first hand (or hear about (even if it's not true) or watch on YouTube/Instagram/TikTok) a detectorist digging holes and not replacing their plugs, or maybe detecting in an area in which detecting is not allowed, or any other behavior that people would find offensive, before they would complain and we would start seeing rules/regulations implemented that limit or deny us access? Sure, maybe some poor detectorist asking someone sitting at a desk if detecting is allowed was the straw that broke the camels back...but you seemingly ignore the underlying issue that would make this person feel justified in finally getting the chance to give us the proverbial boot.
Stop blaming the guy that happened to ask the "forbidden" question, and instead start blaming all the detectorists who have given us a bad reputation to begin with.

This ^ ^ is going round in-circles right back to the basic disagreement between us: You deny that rules and laws against us have largely come about d/t past md'rs showing up at city desks seeking permissions and clarifications. Right ?

I'm denying that it's the primary reason. It may be the ultimate or penultimate reason, but it ignores the justification (in "their" eyes) of finally getting the opportunity to deny our request(s).

And you instead lay the blame at the feet of md'rs who simply just went md'ing. And yes, dug their targets. So you seem to think that passerbys, who ... shucks ... must have seen them, therefore decided "let's make a 'no' rule". Or "let's make a permit". Or "let's say no-digging-to-those md'rs". But no: I do not think that the "random passerby person" is the origin of laws and rules against us. I do not think it was "some past md'r who must have left holes"

Why would you possibly think that detectorists being a-holes is not the reason for [some] people not liking our hobby?

And as for "dig" vs "digging" vs "alter" vs "deface" vs "molest and destroy", etc..... : If you want to get technical, I bet that they're all synonymous.

I'll take that bet. I googled it and looked at a page showing "133 similar and opposite words". Sorry, none of yours made the list.

So the bottom line is F-O, that if you want to get super technical, then all of us md'rs are lawless miscreants. On every speck of public land. Yet take a quick look at the show & tell forums here. Look at all the stuff they found at public parks, forests, deserts, beaches, etc..... How can that be ??

I have absolutely no idea what you asking me here.

But you're right that, technically, all of us are lawless miscreants.

I have never said this.

Eg.: If you tell me what public land you metal detect on, I guarantee you that I can find someone, in that admin, who will agree with me that you've broken some verbiage in their boiler plate fine print. Yet you will be the first to agree that : No one cares.

Ummmmmm...we did this already. You were actually going to get me "kicked out" of a local Park. It didn't work. I shared everything you said to me with the Park Ranger, and she laughed. I still have the emails. As a matter of fact, I still occasionally detect there, and have never had an issue.

So the "thing that is giving md'rs a bad name" is not the persons who simply go. It's the ones that show up asking "mother may I ?", who are bringing all-the-attention to us.

Nonsense.
Yes, I agree with you that it's "not the persons who simply go", but then, I've never made such a statement to begin with. However, I do disagree that it's the fault of those who ask. Again, maybe them asking was the final straw, but that's like blaming the guy who jump on a bridge for causing its collapse, while ignoring all the people before him who were removing the structural components. Look, we have all seen indivuduals [even on this froum] stating that they feel that trespassing to detect is all fine a dandy, if there's a low probablity they will get caught. It only takes a small number of "bad apples" to besmirch the name of all detectorists in general. I think you're underestimating to power of the vociferous.

Why this notion that any passerby gives 2 sh#ts about your detecting ?

I have never made this argument.

I am routinely ignored when I go to any park in my city. And if some passerby DID come up and talk to me, FAR from their-being-offended, it is instead things like "What's the best thing you've ever found" and "how deep does it go"

This has pretty much been my experience as well. What's your point?

So why do you have this notion that anyone even pays attention to us, or is offended by us ??

Have you seen the internet?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Certainly, in some instances, seeking clarification may result in issues being raised that many of us would have preferred not being raised.

F-O, I'm seeing a contradiction between this ^ ^ and this :

then clarification was needed.

On the one hand, you agree with me (thank you), but then you turn around and say we should seek clarifications.

Why do they have a negative connotation of detectorists to begin with? .....

Here's my opinion on this ^ ^ An md'r does not even need to even be digging any holes to begin with. He does not even need to have a lesche digger or any tool on him, to begin with. Because to MERELY BE SWINGING a detector in nice-manicured turf can bring up the following connotation : Holes.


Or let's say that an md'r is seen down on his knees retrieving a target, yet : He will leave no holes . And leaves no trace of his presence. Yet I bet that, to the person who might gripe, they're going to say he's leaving holes . EVEN IF HE NEVER LEFT ANY. Because it's simply the mental connotation of a man-with-a-detector. That's why when I hear the song & dance (for the reason given for a rule or a "no" ) is "because of holes", then I am not so sure that there was ever actually really a case of that. And instead is only the mental connotation that someone has, when tasked with envisioning a "man with a metal detector". And no, going in ahead of time and seeking permission or clarification does not solve this problem. It only makes it worse IMHO.

But sure, when you and I ask the powers-that-be "why ?", they will say "d/t holes". So you are tempted to think : "Durned that person who must have left holes" or "durned that person who didn't ask". But as I say : I'm not so sure there was ever necessarily a case of someone leaving holes. And instead is merely the knee-jerk connotation our hobby carries, EVEN IF YOU NEVER LEAVE HOLES.

I have absolutely no idea what you asking me here. .....I shared everything you said to me with the Park Ranger,....

Then you didn't ask with the right combination of wording. Were you sure to mention holes, dig, artifacts, take, remove, cultural heritage, and Indian bone ? After all, you don't want to mince words, eh ? You want to give them the full implications of your question, eh ? And if you found one to tell you "yes", it merely means you didn't ask the right persons there. So again I say that : If you tell me where you detect (like which ever park it is that you're referring to), I'll bet that I can find something in the fine print that you are violating. And can find someone in authority there to agree with me. But as you yourself point out : IT'S A NON ISSUE ! Ie.: No one cares. AND THAT'S JUST THE POINT ! See ?

..... I have never made this argument.....

Sure you have. You are turning yourself into pretzels, on this very thread, asserting that we are bound to be watched . And apparently passerbys give 2 hoots about us, are offended, etc.....

 

[Tom_in_CA]

And BTW : I'm not denying that, yes, *some* passerbys *might* be offended if they see you or I, in nice manicured turf, digging our targets. There's no getting around this part of our hobby. All I'm saying is that asking or clarifying this issue ahead of time does not solve this admitted issue. It only makes it worse.


And I'm saying that it is not our obligation to please every last person at city or county hall. I don't deny that "someone might not like us" (and will disagree with my semantics of dig vs dug) . Sure. But if your objective is to have a hobby that everyone else likes, then : You've taken up the wrong hobby. A better hobby would be passing out $100 bills perhaps.


Yes it would be nice to have red-carpets and express "yes's" give to me, for every place I go to. And nice to have an express "yes" to my request to "dig holes". Sure. I don't deny that this would be nice. It's just that every time someone goes to seek those "red carpets", and "express clarifications", that it only seems to make things worse. In my nearly 50 yrs of this hobby (started in the mid 1970s), I've seen the phenomenon play out time and time again.

I don't deny that it didn't require someone "asking Can I ?" to put Shiloh, Bodie, and ghettysburg off limits. Ie.: I grant you that there are some rules against us (obvious historic sensitive monuments) that didn't start with someone going in asking "Can I" questions. But just saying that there's a lot of other instances where this is indeed to root and genesis of the problem. I can give you many many examples.

 

[FliesOnly]

F-O, I'm seeing a contradiction between this ^ ^ and this :



On the one hand, you agree with me (thank you), but then you turn around and say we should seek clarifications.

It's not always black and white, Tom. If I'm told that I'm allowed to detect as long as I have the required permit, and then when I pickup the permit, I both read and am told by someone in that office, that digging is not allowed, I'm going to seek some clarification. Especially if that someone in the office makes that statement without any inquiry from me first. I mean, if I pick up my permit and some dude goes out of his way to point out that digging is not allowed, I'm probably gonna say: "Wha?"

But sure, when you and I ask the powers-that-be "why ?", they will say "d/t holes". So you are tempted to think : "Durned that person who must have left holes" or "durned that person who didn't ask". But as I say : I'm not so sure there was ever necessarily a case of someone leaving holes. And instead is merely the knee-jerk connotation our hobby carries, EVEN IF YOU NEVER LEAVE HOLES.

"Holes" are not the issue here. "Digging" is the issue here. This is actually important...you're putting forth an argument that is not the issue at hand.

Then you didn't ask with the right combination of wording. Were you sure to mention holes, dig, artifacts, take, remove, cultural heritage, and Indian bone ?

This is off topic, but I do want to clarify a few things.
It's important to remember that I was NOT asking for any permission, nor was I seeking any clarification. I obtained the required permit and then you and I got in the discussion about permits and the words "alter, deface, remove, holes, etc, etc, etc." It was only after you brought it up and "threatened" to get me booted out of the Park that I sent her YOUR concerns. She laughed.
I asked about every issue that you continually bring up....dig, dug, remove, alter, deface, keep, return, blah, blah, blah. I copied and pasted you arguments in an email that I sent to her. She read, word for word, the arguments you love to throw out. She laughed.

After all, you don't want to mince words, eh ? You want to give them the full implications of your question, eh ?

Nope...YOU wanted me to give them full implications of YOUR questions...so I sent them to her. She laughed. I didn't have any questions or concerns, I had the required permit and was ready to go see what I could uncover.

And if you found one to tell you "yes", it merely means you didn't ask the right persons there. So again I say that : If you tell me where you detect (like which ever park it is that you're referring to), I'll bet that I can find something in the fine print that you are violating. And can find someone in authority there to agree with me.

Now why would you want to go and swat the hornets nest, Tom?

But as you yourself point out : IT'S A NON ISSUE ! Ie.: No one cares. AND THAT'S JUST THE POINT ! See ?

Actually, that's not the point. Oh, for sure you have made it your point...but if you look back to my very first post, it was explaining why Oldbill was not a member of the "No one cared until you asked " club. That is the point.

Sure you have. You are turning yourself into pretzels, on this very thread, asserting that we are bound to be watched . And apparently passerbys give 2 hoots about us, are offended, etc.....

No, I have not...I never said that we are "bound" to be watched, nor did I ever said the passerbys give 2 hoots about us. You love to take a simply statement and then turn it into a major statement that I have never made. Will most people who happen to see us give 2 hoots? No, they will not. Will the occasional person who sees us detecting jump to conclusions that we are causing problems? Yes. For you to seemingly imply that this does not happen is baffling to me...especially in light of the fact that you've made this very argument earlier in your reply to my previous post (see above).

Look, rules and regulations limiting us in the pursuit of our hobby have been implemented in many public places. On that, I think we can all agree. You argue that these rules and regulations are the direct result of people asking for permission and/or clarification. I argue that perhaps asking is the ultimate cause (final straw), but wonder WHY asking resulted in the "No" response to begin with. You seemingly don't care to address why some people (likely a small minority, who also happen to be very vocal) view us in a negative light for some reason(s). You seemingly feel that those underlying reasons are unimportant, and don't really have an impact on our hobby. To me, if we can answer those questions and perhaps address them in a positive way, the "No" response would become far less likely. We could start, perhaps, by not saying that it's OK to trespass as long as the chances of getting caught are low, as just one example. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[FliesOnly]

And BTW : I'm not denying that, yes, *some* passerbys *might* be offended if they see you or I, in nice manicured turf, digging our targets. There's no getting around this part of our hobby. All I'm saying is that asking or clarifying this issue ahead of time does not solve this admitted issue. It only makes it worse.

I agree. That's not what happened here, though.

And I'm saying that it is not our obligation to please every last person at city or county hall. I don't deny that "someone might not like us" (and will disagree with my semantics of dig vs dug) . Sure. But if your objective is to have a hobby that everyone else likes, then : You've taken up the wrong hobby. A better hobby would be passing out $100 bills perhaps.

My objective is to not have "No" be the go to response.

Yes it would be nice to have red-carpets and express "yes's" give to me, for every place I go to. And nice to have an express "yes" to my request to "dig holes". Sure. I don't deny that this would be nice. It's just that every time someone goes to seek those "red carpets", and "express clarifications", that it only seems to make things worse. In my nearly 50 yrs of this hobby (started in the mid 1970s), I've seen the phenomenon play out time and time again.

True...in most cases, reading the rules/regulations, and interpreting them in a common sense understanding is great. However, occasionally a "rule" seems a bit baffling when one takes into account the various methods and techniques commonly used as a part of our hobby. Like, for example, saying that you can detect, but you can't dig. Note that it doesn't say you cant dig holes. Nope. It says "NO Digging". That rule seems a bit strange to me.

I don't deny that it didn't require someone "asking Can I ?" to put Shiloh, Bodie, and ghettysburg off limits. Ie.: I grant you that there are some rules against us (obvious historic sensitive monuments) that didn't start with someone going in asking "Can I" questions. But just saying that there's a lot of other instances where this is indeed to root and genesis of the problem. I can give you many many examples.

Again, WHY did they say "No"?

 

[metaldetectorco]

"I am not digging! I found this hole in the ground that a mole made and so I was patching it. Just doing my part."

 

[Kansashunter]

probing is probably allowed, but who wants to do that. Dig it all!