kaufenanger
Elite Member
Permits are an easy way for the state to make more money.
__________
Oldest coin: 1880 IHP
Detectors: Garrett AT Pro
__________
Oldest coin: 1880 IHP
Detectors: Garrett AT Pro
NYC Metal Detecting Permit
- Thread starter BennyV
- Start date
Not this one. It’s FREE. For now anyway lol.
FliesOnly
Senior Member
You just can't admit that this sort of behavior plays a role in getting us banned, can you. It's all the fault of newbies who ask permission, and now..apparently..."archies" as well.
Tom_in_CA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 20,748
Stursmad did indeed show videos that (gasp) persons went to Prospect park with long-handled lesches, in violation of the rules. Granted, someone(s) therefore are breaking current rules.
But wait, the "permit" (which stipulated "short-handle only) existed BEFORE those videos were created. So if are you asking me : "Did persons with long handled shovels (the "sort of behavior") CAUSE there to be a "permit" system ?
As you can clearly see, from the time-line of rule/permit vs these videos, then no, the videos and those-persons did not bring-about those rules.
F.O.: No one in this equation is advocating for bad "sorts of behavior". If there's a rule, then BY ALL MEANS FOLLOW IT. And sure, it's *possible* that someone saw an md'r leaving holes somewhere (or using a long handled shovel) and thought to themselves "We need a rule or a permit". Granted.
But I'll bet you the lion's share of specific rules and permits were NOT caused by this. And instead came on to radars by people swatting hornet's nests.
Again: No one is advocating for bad behavior. But trust me: The mere site of a man with a detector AND SHORT HANDLED LESCHE, to merely stoop down to dig, can be an eyesore. Someone can simply assume "oh no, he might leave holes". I'm not disagreeing with you that long-handled shovels only increase that perception. But no amount of parading ourselves in front of them , asking for princely sanctions and asking "can I?" will change that. It will only accelerate it.
I don’t think even a wooden stake and silver bullet would kill this thread.
FliesOnly
Senior Member
...and posting their videos on social media…which you seemingly seem to think is some sort of secret place that no one knows about.
Seriously, this is your argument? You do see how ridiculous this defense is, yes?
Yes. Well, certainly partially “yes”, in that it’s simply one example of detectorists ignoring the rules. People that make the rules don’t get upset when they’re asked if detecting is allowed. Rather, they get upset when the see, hear, read about detectorists acting like the rules/laws don’t apply to them.
You have no idea why the rule/permit system was implemented. Was it “those” videos? Of course not, and no one suggested that those videos were the reason. But to simply dismiss their behavior and seemingly act as if it was probably the first time it had ever happened is disingenuous and silly.
That is not true. You yourself have, in the past, stated that you’re ok with trespassing. Others on this forum have stated that they would trespass if the area was remote and that the likelihood of getting caught was low.
Like maybe someone watching THOSE videos and seeing the detectorists do not respect the rules?
Requiring permits or getting banned outright is…as I have stated countless times now…a result that doesn’t address the underlying cause.
Your argument is that the cause is “asking permission”. My argument is that the “cause” is the sort of stuff “Stursmad” posted about…blatant disrespect of the rules.
Untrue.
But this is exceedingly rare, according to your own statistics, when you stated that “99.99% of people who pass by an md’r could care less, nor even notice you”. So obviously this isn’t the problem, right? Or could it perhaps be true that your “statistics” are just numbers you pulled out of thin air and that, as it turns out, people’s perceptions of us do play a role in how our hobby is sometimes regulated.
…until such time that we change the perceptions that people have about our hobby.
FliesOnly
Senior Member
Of course not...this is way too much fun.
Tom_in_CA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 20,748
F.O. : I can just grant you everything you're saying, for sake of argument. Ie.: Yes "someone that left nasty holes" caused permits or rules. And/or Yes "someone sneaking around in other off-limits spots caused the non-off-limits spot, down the road, to create their own 'no' rule ". Etc... Etc... Etc.... Let's just say, for the moment, that I grant you everything you're saying. And even go so far as to say "none of us here are advocating poor behavior" (despite the locker-room joking that tends to go on here). Ok, there. You have it all granted to you. Ok ?
Then I will ask you : What then is the solution ? Because I maintain that EVEN WHEN ALL MD'RS are "squeeky clean" (leave no marks, use short-handled diggers, don't go to parks after sunset-closing-time, etc...), then : You can STILL have a passerby or archie who "doesn't like it".
So , according to your above quote, we should/can "change their perception".
I don't disagree that we should/can change their perception that we "leave holes" IF you are accosted in-the-field, in-the-act of retrievals, and they gripe on-the-spot. I have done that personally, by having on-the-spot chats with authority types, by nicely/politely pointing around and showing them that I'm leaving no marks. Sometimes they're satisfied and thus don't scram me. So in that sense, sure, I agree with you to "change their perception".
But this "changing their perception" should NOT be some sort of preemptive move. Would you agree ? Because you yourself are on-record as agreeing that we should not show up at city halls "asking permission" or "suggesting permits", to desk-jockeys . Right ? You also agree that's merely "swatting hornet's nests" and risking "safe answers to silly questions", right ?
Then IF YOU AGREE with my "swatting hornet's nests" theory, then it sounds like you DO understand that that can be the genesis of rules/laws. Otherwise, why would you agree that it's not wise to go asking "Can I ?" questions ? The mere fact that you agree with that, seems to imply you understand the concept.
If so, we're on the same page. And I , likewise, don't disagree with you that "nasty md'rs who use long handled diggers in parks, after park-closing hours, leaving holes", can LIKEWISE "bring about a rule".
Otherwise, what the heck are we talking about ? What other "changing of their perceptions" are you thinking is possible ? Do you *really* think that we are going to "convert" purist archies to love and adore us ? Do you *really* think we can get lost & found laws changed for md'rs (ie.: we have no obligation to turn in rings over $100 value, to the police station) ? Do you *really* think we can get laws & rules to explicitly state that "alter and deface doesn't apply to md'rs, as long as they leave no trace" ?
By the time you're done preemptively fishing for all these express allowances and love-relationships , you/I/we will simply ACCELERATE the very "no's" that we're talking about. Why accelerate it ?
Of course not...this is way too much fun.
Hey, I'm only answering you, and you're only answering me
Last edited:
