Correct. For example : Whenever someone says "no because of holes" , we md'rs are quick to think "Durned those md'rs who must've left holes in the past". But you're right : It doesn't necessarily mean that anyone ever truly left holes. Sometimes those things are just the "go to" reason, to justify a "no" they just whimsically decided, when the "pressing question" was on their desk.
Correct, there is a difference between an “excuse” and a “reason”…which then begs the question: “What is the REAL reason they don’t want to allow metal detecting?”…which is what I have been trying to address for several posts now. I am of the opinion that one of the reasons is because metal detectorists have a reputation of ignoring rules, regulations, and laws. Look no further than another thread currently running (Erie county parks NY) where some people are telling the OP to ignore the rule requiring a permit to detect in certain parks, and instead telling him to go when no one will notice. Yet, you seemingly believe that that behavior is not nearly as bad as is the notion of asking for permission.
And I have a sneaking suspicion of how some of those "local parks" that you speak of, got the initial idea that md'ing needed a " permit" system. Care to guess ?
Yeah…they read forums like this one and learn the many detectorists seem to think that the rules/regulations/laws don’t apply to them.
Glad you are batting 100% so far, in the 3 spots you allude to. Congratz in the Russian Roulette game. My response would be that : The fact that they said "ok", merely means that you didn't need to ask, in the first place. Ie.: the fact they say "yes", means it wasn't disallowed, and you could merely have simply gone. And thus avoid Russian Roullette. Ie.: The "yes" you get doesn't mean that "Therefore, I can now detect". It meant you could have detected anyhow.
Yes and no. Remember, at one location I knew a free permit was required to detect, so the question I asked of them was about keeping what I find. And I only asked that because you presented me with the other of your favorite arguments pertaining to wording within the rules that said I could not keep what I had found. I simply asked for clarification and the response I got was one stating that of course I can keep what I find, otherwise what would be the point of detecting to begin with? The person responding was actually surprised that I felt the need to even ask.
Well, I'm not saying that they necessarily "bolster" their "no" with ANY particular reason. Although, if you bugged them with a "why ?", then IMHO, they will probably say " ...d/t you dig", or "cultural heritage" or "harvest/remove" .
Again, they may use that as an excuse, but it is not the real reason.
And yes, I can give you account after account of places where md'ing was never a problem, until-the-day that someone went in and asked, and fetches a "no". So the md'r makes a stink, to "fight the no", going higher-up-the-chain seeking "clarifications" (Ie.: swatting hornet's nests). And ... presto, a law or policy is born.
I’m not going to say that this has never happened, but I will say that doubt that it has happened very often. I would wager that it’s actually quite rare. But again, to me, the underlying unmentioned primary factor as to WHY asking resulted in denial of access was because of a lack of respect for the rules, regulations, and laws shown by some detectorists that have “polluted” the minds of the people in charge. As such, when the opportunity presented itself, they used it to block any further access. So, in that sense, the “asking of permission” did lead to denial of access…but it was going to happen at some point regardless.
Why not look it up for yourself ? If it doesn't say "no md'ing", then .... isn't that a sufficient answer ? Why give someone the arbitrary possibility that .... in-lieu of your "pressing question", he may say "no" ? When in fact, perhaps he'd have never given the topic a moment's thought (till you came in swatting that hornet's nest ) ?
Because I know for a fact that some places do not allow detecting and some places allow detecting in certain areas, and some places allow detecting only with a permit. And all of those “other” places were within a stone’s throw of the “current” place in which I wanted to detect, but could not find a set of rules or regulations online. So, I felt the best thing to do was to ask if detecting was allowed, since I couldn’t really find any rules or regulations about activities allowed or not allowed in the park. Am I saying that no such information was available online? Nope. I’m saying I could not find the information. So I asked. She was unsure and checked. She came back saying something along the lines of “well, no once says it’s expressly forbidden, so go ahead”.
I can give you multiple examples of this exact lineage/evolution.
How would you provide those examples? Did the “powers that be” put their justification for denying access into writing, with a link I can click on and go read for myself?
In which case you didn't need to have asked. That info was available for you to have looked up. Thus avoiding Russian Roulette.
Believe it or not, sometimes the information is not available online, or sometimes it’s worded in a confusing, unclear manner (probably purposefully because the want to keep the explanation in broad-based terms).
Only cynical of asking where asking isn't necessary.
This is like a Catch-22. “Yossarian would be crazy to ask for permission if it turns out he didn’t need to ask for permission, but he’d also be crazy not to ask for permission if he was unsure if it is allowed”.
Hmmm, interesting to ponder . Since yes it is true, in human nature, that : Some people (perhaps yourself) simply have the "million dollar smile ". And others do not. Then : Let's say, for example, that someone else came in before you, to those offices where you got a "yes". And so, let's say that they (because they lacked the million dollar smile), fetched a "no".
Ah…very cleaver, dear Sir…I see what you’re trying to do here. However, it would be my contention that if someone came before me (who did not possess my unmistakable good looks and charm) and was an a-hole, then he might be the person that added that last piece of straw…but all he really did was speed up the ultimate outcome.
Ok, then that means that the park is off-limits now. Right ? In which case you'd be the first to agree that .... it was not wise for that other person to have gone in swatting hornet's nests , right ?
True, if you believe that if no one asks, then access with never be denied.
See, the thing is, is that I do not accept that premise. If all it took was the simple act of someone asking if detecting is allowed to end up getting the whole place closed off, then there were already some underlying problems, and that powers that be were simply looking for an excuse to shut it all down.
The other problem I have with your opinion that asking permission leads to denial of access is that it doesn’t hold. I mean, if they were looking for a reason to shut things down, and use the opportunity of someone asking for permission to do just that, then why didn’t they shut it down after I asked? Why doesn't it happen every time after someone asks? You admitting that maybe it’s even partly related in how the person asking for permission behaves, actually bolsters my argument and diminishes yours.
Remember, correlation does not necessarily show causation.