joecoin
Full Member
So, why is there a charge to hunt and fish?
Bad Idea Good Idea. You be the judge...
- Thread starter Hunt-A-Lot
- Start date
So, why is there a charge to hunt and fish?
- Nov 19, 2006
- 8,318
- 2,870
- Detector(s) used
- ** WHAT ONE I FEEL LIKE ON HUNTING DAY *****
- Primary Interest:
- Other
It's a bad idea ..... The best thing to do with our goverment is stay away from them as far as you can..... Give them money for a license ..no no and no..... Any time you get involved with the goverment you always get screwed....
lookindown
Gold Member
Boy you got that right...just what we need, another government fee...count me out.
hunt-a-lot, here's an idea. Figure out how many detectorists are in your county. Have a printer makeup that number of permits at
your expense to avoid red tape and take them to the county judge for him to sell to mders. Then have the judge approve an ad in the
paper at your expense to announce that permits are available for the fee he agrees to. Also ask the judge to use the proceeds to
fund free detectors for the disadvantaged. A win/win solution.
your expense to avoid red tape and take them to the county judge for him to sell to mders. Then have the judge approve an ad in the
paper at your expense to announce that permits are available for the fee he agrees to. Also ask the judge to use the proceeds to
fund free detectors for the disadvantaged. A win/win solution.
maipenrai
Bronze Member
- Nov 11, 2010
- 1,151
- 242
- Detector(s) used
- Excalibur 2 1000
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
We pay for hunting and fishing licenses because, there are expenses like restocking lakes and rivers, etc, but for metal detecting, there is no one Replacing at the tax payers expense, coins, rings, treasure or what ever, Frisbee throwing is not using up anything that needs to be replaced. If there were a permit for metal detecting, then anyone recovering junk, should also be paid for his or her work. Im sure it could be turned into a very complicated problem. Once a system of permits is started, then its an easy step to start charging for them, and once you are paying, it gets easier for us to think, "why fill my hole, the city is making money to pay someone to do it".
Tom_in_CA
Gold Member
- Mar 23, 2007
- 13,837
- 10,360
- 🥇 Banner finds
- 2
- Detector(s) used
- Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
bigscoop, you say:
" ..... you really need to do a lot more research, and a much wider scope of research on the subject....."
"Research" is exactly why I have come to the conclusions I've come to
I have given much thought to this topic, over my 35+ yrs. in this (having been a club pres. and officer, and seeing the whole evolution of this stuff), and this is EXACTLY why I come to conclusions I have.
" you are ...... focusing all of your insight on a very tiny fraction of the overall causes and reasons."
And herein is our difference: I see this grovelling as the reason for a higher percentage of the resulting laws (ie.: "no one cares till you ask" psychology). And you see grovelling as resulting in very few of the resulting laws. I gave many case-examples of the psychology actually at work, in the St. Augstine post. But I guess you would say those are the only ones, and extreme exceptions? I was prepared to list more examples. But alas, you will continue to dismiss them and say they are each the only ones, and represent only a small percent. Eg.: If I could list 100 of them, it would do no good. And mind you, often time when someone reads a rule or law, NEVER does the rule or law say something like "this is enacted/written because a bunch of people came asking for clarifications, permissions, etc...". No, of course not. It will ALWAYS say things like "because of holes" or "because of archaeology", etc... Afterall, they need to back up their new law with something to be their reasoning. But this fails to take into account: How did it come across their radar as something pressing to address .... IN THE FIRST PLACE? Timid hunters who want neon signs saying "metal detecting welcome here!" Doh!
"Your statement that there is some "goal to have a lack of rules",....? Obviously you've not been paying attention as it's actually quite the reverse of that."
Huh? I don't understand. Wouldn't all us md'rs relish lack of rules prohibiting detecting? Since when do we md'rs like rules against us? You'll need to clarify this, as I believe most md'rs wish that no such rules existed. Sorry, I lost ya there.
"... you advise people not go about seeking those rules..."
I advise that if people are curious if there's rules/laws in their area, to look them up themselves. And NOT to go asking a live person "can I metal detect?". So I'm not sure what you're saying. You can see that I do not suggest lawlessness, and tell people to look up any potential rules for themselves (city, county, and state's all have websites now, with muni. codes, etc... right there for all to see). If it is silent on the issue (ie.: nothing saying "no metal detectors"), then presto, it's not prohibited! How much more lawFUL can one be than to look things up ahead of time for themselves? So again, I've lost ya there bigscoop.
George (MN), you say:
While this might be better thread for legal issues forum, I'll answer here. Most of the bans that people report on here do not exist or are never enforced.
Agreed. I can think of a few places where that was exactly the case. Here's an actual case example of this:
http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/g...why-not-ask-innocuous-public-places-long.html
" ..... you really need to do a lot more research, and a much wider scope of research on the subject....."
"Research" is exactly why I have come to the conclusions I've come to
I have given much thought to this topic, over my 35+ yrs. in this (having been a club pres. and officer, and seeing the whole evolution of this stuff), and this is EXACTLY why I come to conclusions I have. " you are ...... focusing all of your insight on a very tiny fraction of the overall causes and reasons."
And herein is our difference: I see this grovelling as the reason for a higher percentage of the resulting laws (ie.: "no one cares till you ask" psychology). And you see grovelling as resulting in very few of the resulting laws. I gave many case-examples of the psychology actually at work, in the St. Augstine post. But I guess you would say those are the only ones, and extreme exceptions? I was prepared to list more examples. But alas, you will continue to dismiss them and say they are each the only ones, and represent only a small percent. Eg.: If I could list 100 of them, it would do no good. And mind you, often time when someone reads a rule or law, NEVER does the rule or law say something like "this is enacted/written because a bunch of people came asking for clarifications, permissions, etc...". No, of course not. It will ALWAYS say things like "because of holes" or "because of archaeology", etc... Afterall, they need to back up their new law with something to be their reasoning. But this fails to take into account: How did it come across their radar as something pressing to address .... IN THE FIRST PLACE? Timid hunters who want neon signs saying "metal detecting welcome here!" Doh!
"Your statement that there is some "goal to have a lack of rules",....? Obviously you've not been paying attention as it's actually quite the reverse of that."
Huh? I don't understand. Wouldn't all us md'rs relish lack of rules prohibiting detecting? Since when do we md'rs like rules against us? You'll need to clarify this, as I believe most md'rs wish that no such rules existed. Sorry, I lost ya there.
"... you advise people not go about seeking those rules..."
I advise that if people are curious if there's rules/laws in their area, to look them up themselves. And NOT to go asking a live person "can I metal detect?". So I'm not sure what you're saying. You can see that I do not suggest lawlessness, and tell people to look up any potential rules for themselves (city, county, and state's all have websites now, with muni. codes, etc... right there for all to see). If it is silent on the issue (ie.: nothing saying "no metal detectors"), then presto, it's not prohibited! How much more lawFUL can one be than to look things up ahead of time for themselves? So again, I've lost ya there bigscoop.
George (MN), you say:
While this might be better thread for legal issues forum, I'll answer here. Most of the bans that people report on here do not exist or are never enforced.
Agreed. I can think of a few places where that was exactly the case. Here's an actual case example of this:
http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/g...why-not-ask-innocuous-public-places-long.html
bigscoop
Gold Member
- Jun 4, 2010
- 13,373
- 8,689
- Detector(s) used
- Older blue Excal with full mods, Equinox 800.
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Tom, like I said in an earlier effort to end the redundancy, "They're your opinions and you have a right to them, just I have the right to voice my opinions." Not going to keep bantering back and forth with you. I'm an advocate for "exploring options and possible better solutions/systems before they are needed". You obviously are not and you're content to let the chips fall where they may and then hopefully deal with issues only once they've become an acting threat. That's fine. Whatever works for you. 
Tom_in_CA
Gold Member
- Mar 23, 2007
- 13,837
- 10,360
- 🥇 Banner finds
- 2
- Detector(s) used
- Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
reply
I too advocate for a solution, and the solution is as I espouse: Stop making ourselves a target for the "say-so" of bureaucrats to say "no" to. This IS pro-active and pre-emptive. This is NOT allowing the "chips to fall where they may". So as you can see, I do NOT advocate "doing nothing". The "something" I advocate is to stop the silliness which has brought about a great deal of this .... to begin with.
And yes, we're each entitled to our opinions. I hope you see by my many examples, that there are a great deal of closed sites, which would NOT have been, if people hadn't gone grovelling, begging for sanctions, permissions, permits, clarifications, etc... I don't know what you say to each of those examples d/t I haven't heard feedback from you on those. I suppose you'll say they're the only examples that exist, and don't represent any other enacted or proposed laws? And if I gave you 100 examples, you would say that those too are the only ones? At what point would you start to agree that there's a high percentage that are caused by this very psychology?
For example: what do you say to the Utah state park's example, where powers-that-be specifically outline their reason for the dept. clarification, as being the "... numerous inquires the dept. receives each year..." (I'm just curious how you would respond to that. Is it the only example of the "bullseye psychology" to have ever occured, and you say it's never occured outside of that? Just curious)
I too advocate for a solution, and the solution is as I espouse: Stop making ourselves a target for the "say-so" of bureaucrats to say "no" to. This IS pro-active and pre-emptive. This is NOT allowing the "chips to fall where they may". So as you can see, I do NOT advocate "doing nothing". The "something" I advocate is to stop the silliness which has brought about a great deal of this .... to begin with.
And yes, we're each entitled to our opinions. I hope you see by my many examples, that there are a great deal of closed sites, which would NOT have been, if people hadn't gone grovelling, begging for sanctions, permissions, permits, clarifications, etc... I don't know what you say to each of those examples d/t I haven't heard feedback from you on those. I suppose you'll say they're the only examples that exist, and don't represent any other enacted or proposed laws? And if I gave you 100 examples, you would say that those too are the only ones? At what point would you start to agree that there's a high percentage that are caused by this very psychology?
For example: what do you say to the Utah state park's example, where powers-that-be specifically outline their reason for the dept. clarification, as being the "... numerous inquires the dept. receives each year..." (I'm just curious how you would respond to that. Is it the only example of the "bullseye psychology" to have ever occured, and you say it's never occured outside of that? Just curious)
bigscoop
Gold Member
- Jun 4, 2010
- 13,373
- 8,689
- Detector(s) used
- Older blue Excal with full mods, Equinox 800.
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Tom, I posted this in another thread, but I'll post it again here for you. The difference between you and I is that you are focused on individual effects, while I am focused on the cause that brings those effects into existence. It's small picture VS big picture. I'm looking at the big picture..."The root cause of it all".
Overexposure = growth = increased regulation/restrictions
It "IS NOT" just the simple acts of a few that bring about increased regulations and restrictions. It is "the overexposure and growth" that brings all these other issues about. This has been the history of every area within our treasure hunting pursuits.
There are those who will say that you have seen it all before, but clearly you have not as the recent onslaught of TV and video productions has never taken place before. If you took all of the past treasure hunting magazines right up to today and you combined their total subscribers during their best five years, that number wouldn’t scratch the surface of the number of viewers who are seeing these TV and video productions in a single month now. And these views are growing and there’s every reason to expect that they’ll continue to grow, possibly, if not probably, even more rapidly. So the question is, at what point will all of the individual areas of our hobby become, “too overexposed?”
Excerpt from - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
“Experts attribute the hobby's dramatic growth to the skyrocketing price of gold and silver, the tough economy and the popularity of TV shows where treasure hunters using metal detectors make big discoveries.
One of the nation's top metal-detector retailers, Kellyco Inc. of Winter Springs, Fla., saw annual sales climb by 63 percent to $24.8 million from 2005 — when precious metal prices began to soar — until 2010. (and they're still seeing steady growth.)
Kellyco chief executive officer Stuart Auerbach, who founded his company after returning from World War II, in which he used metal detectors to sweep for mines, said sales of some types of treasure-hunting equipment has increased from 30 orders a month to 300 orders a week.”
BIG PICTURE VS small picture.
FYI....The effects of all this overexposure are already being felt.
PS: Continue to advocate "do nothing" if you wish...this "psychology" has worked out absolutely marvelously for us in the past.
Overexposure = growth = increased regulation/restrictions
It "IS NOT" just the simple acts of a few that bring about increased regulations and restrictions. It is "the overexposure and growth" that brings all these other issues about. This has been the history of every area within our treasure hunting pursuits.
There are those who will say that you have seen it all before, but clearly you have not as the recent onslaught of TV and video productions has never taken place before. If you took all of the past treasure hunting magazines right up to today and you combined their total subscribers during their best five years, that number wouldn’t scratch the surface of the number of viewers who are seeing these TV and video productions in a single month now. And these views are growing and there’s every reason to expect that they’ll continue to grow, possibly, if not probably, even more rapidly. So the question is, at what point will all of the individual areas of our hobby become, “too overexposed?”
Excerpt from - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
“Experts attribute the hobby's dramatic growth to the skyrocketing price of gold and silver, the tough economy and the popularity of TV shows where treasure hunters using metal detectors make big discoveries.
One of the nation's top metal-detector retailers, Kellyco Inc. of Winter Springs, Fla., saw annual sales climb by 63 percent to $24.8 million from 2005 — when precious metal prices began to soar — until 2010. (and they're still seeing steady growth.)
Kellyco chief executive officer Stuart Auerbach, who founded his company after returning from World War II, in which he used metal detectors to sweep for mines, said sales of some types of treasure-hunting equipment has increased from 30 orders a month to 300 orders a week.”
BIG PICTURE VS small picture.
FYI....The effects of all this overexposure are already being felt.
PS: Continue to advocate "do nothing" if you wish...this "psychology" has worked out absolutely marvelously for us in the past.
Last edited:
Tom_in_CA
Gold Member
- Mar 23, 2007
- 13,837
- 10,360
- 🥇 Banner finds
- 2
- Detector(s) used
- Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
Well I agree. The TV shows are not a good thing, as they draw more hobbyists (and ire from archies). More hobbyists means more scrutiny/exposure, etc.... Yes, we're agreed. But see how this is, when you think about it, exactly what I'm saying: STOP BRINGING LIGHT AND EXPOSURE. That is, afterall, what the shows are doing: making us a bullseye for scrutiny, right? And we would each agree that this is not a good thing, right? So .... duh, the solution: stop making ourselves a bullseye with visibility. And I think we could agree that the less govt. bureaucrats think of us, the better, right?
So in a way, we're agreed: let's not go making waves. That is the best "pre-empting" and "pro-active" I can think of
So in a way, we're agreed: let's not go making waves. That is the best "pre-empting" and "pro-active" I can think of
bigscoop
Gold Member
- Jun 4, 2010
- 13,373
- 8,689
- Detector(s) used
- Older blue Excal with full mods, Equinox 800.
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Well I agree. The TV shows are not a good thing, as they draw more hobbyists (and ire from archies). More hobbyists means more scrutiny/exposure, etc.... Yes, we're agreed. But see how this is, when you think about it, exactly what I'm saying: STOP BRINGING LIGHT AND EXPOSURE. That is, afterall, what the shows are doing: making us a bullseye for scrutiny, right? And we would each agree that this is not a good thing, right? So .... duh, the solution: stop making ourselves a bullseye with visibility. And I think we could agree that the less govt. bureaucrats think of us, the better, right?
So in a way, we're agreed: let's not go making waves. That is the best "pre-empting" and "pro-active" I can think of
Because of all the recent exposure, I really think permits are going to become a growing reality for many over the next few years. I don't think it's going to be an option. The issue here is, however, who is going to have the designing voices in the drawing up of these permits if we are not already prepared to address them with alternate solutions when the time comes? I don't think it's going to be a matter of "do we want permits?"....I think it's going to become a matter of "are we going to be prepared to have a voice in the designing and drafting of those permits when the time comes?" In fact, I'll even go as far to predict that many are not even going to have an option of a permit VS completely restricted. None of this can stop the exposure, but we can anticipate the fallout and make ready for it, and we should.
Tom_in_CA
Gold Member
- Mar 23, 2007
- 13,837
- 10,360
- 🥇 Banner finds
- 2
- Detector(s) used
- Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
"I really think permits are going to become a growing reality for many over the next few years. I don't think it's going to be an option."
And would you agree that we should not go seek these permits as a pro-active pre-emptive measure? And to only "seek" them, in the case of an actual proposed or in-effect law or rule? For example: in the case of the FL flap: to join in solidarity ONLY upon the actual proposal of such a measure or law. Not to join in seeking permits, reversals, love, etc... when no such proposals or laws are on the table, right?
If you can agree with that, then we're in agreement. But if you say we should all run down to city, county, state and fed. seeking "permits" now (as a pro-active pre-emptive strike), then no, we would be in dis-agreement. The latter would even MORE so make us the big -red bullseye, that we both agree is exactly exposure/visibility and attention-seeking we DON'T want.
And would you agree that we should not go seek these permits as a pro-active pre-emptive measure? And to only "seek" them, in the case of an actual proposed or in-effect law or rule? For example: in the case of the FL flap: to join in solidarity ONLY upon the actual proposal of such a measure or law. Not to join in seeking permits, reversals, love, etc... when no such proposals or laws are on the table, right?
If you can agree with that, then we're in agreement. But if you say we should all run down to city, county, state and fed. seeking "permits" now (as a pro-active pre-emptive strike), then no, we would be in dis-agreement. The latter would even MORE so make us the big -red bullseye, that we both agree is exactly exposure/visibility and attention-seeking we DON'T want.
bigscoop
Gold Member
- Jun 4, 2010
- 13,373
- 8,689
- Detector(s) used
- Older blue Excal with full mods, Equinox 800.
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
First of all, nobody has said anything about an actual effort in progress to "seek permits", only that they may be a reasonable solution to the alternative and that these possibilities need to be investigated and explored.
And No. I wish it were that simple and easy, but it's not, and here's why. Once these measures are on the table it's often impossible to turn them or to seek changes, especially true in the county and municipal regions, and as you know, not all measures are visibly placed on the table until they are already a new enforceable restriction. Unfortunately, there is no way to prepare for such things without the input of the driving, and/or opposing forces prior to the actual enacting of these restrictions.
Another thing you may not be aware of is this....in some states, park managers, even state park managers, do have the authority to set their own restrictions for that property and these restrictions are enforceable. So as you can see, sometimes you must go to the source of those restrictions in order to understand the reasons for their existence.
- Nov 19, 2006
- 8,318
- 2,870
- Detector(s) used
- ** WHAT ONE I FEEL LIKE ON HUNTING DAY *****
- Primary Interest:
- Other
Hunt-A-Lot...... sinse i see you are new to Tnet i will over look what you have said here .................. For i think you must have been drinking when you wrote this..............It's one bad idea...........
bigscoop
Gold Member
- Jun 4, 2010
- 13,373
- 8,689
- Detector(s) used
- Older blue Excal with full mods, Equinox 800.
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Right. So let's not do anything more that "put's these measures on the table". Glad you and I agree now
Agree to what...
...exactly? Personally, I'm going to keep looking into possible solutions, even possible permit solutions. And I'm going to keep discreetly talking with effected parties and the people on the other end of the existing and rising issues in a pro-active way. Glad to hear you're good with that now. 
Tom_in_CA
Gold Member
- Mar 23, 2007
- 13,837
- 10,360
- 🥇 Banner finds
- 2
- Detector(s) used
- Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
"Agree to what...
...exactly?"
Agree to do things (or the cessation of certain things) to (as you say) keep these ".... measures off the table.... ". Namely: Not do things that bring attention to ourselves, and make us a big red target/pressing issue, in need of a bureaucrat's approval. The less he/she thinks of us, the better.
Agree to do things (or the cessation of certain things) to (as you say) keep these ".... measures off the table.... ". Namely: Not do things that bring attention to ourselves, and make us a big red target/pressing issue, in need of a bureaucrat's approval. The less he/she thinks of us, the better.
bigscoop
Gold Member
- Jun 4, 2010
- 13,373
- 8,689
- Detector(s) used
- Older blue Excal with full mods, Equinox 800.
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Tom_in_CA
Gold Member
- Mar 23, 2007
- 13,837
- 10,360
- 🥇 Banner finds
- 2
- Detector(s) used
- Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
" ... Actually, I'd like them to think the better of us beforehand ...."
Which was probably the exact wish and rationale of many people who have gone before you. But who ended up only getting rules against them to "address this pressing issue". Ie.: No one cared .... Until they asked
Thus, as you said earlier: let's keep these measures "off their table". That was a brilliant stroke of genius on your part.
Which was probably the exact wish and rationale of many people who have gone before you. But who ended up only getting rules against them to "address this pressing issue". Ie.: No one cared .... Until they asked
Thus, as you said earlier: let's keep these measures "off their table". That was a brilliant stroke of genius on your part.
Last edited:
Top Member Reactions
-
2283 -
1105 -
1029 -
909 -
857 -
764 -
754 -
735 -
607 -
505 -
492 -
478 -
432 -
420 -
406 -
O
403
-
401 -
394 -
378 -
374
