Connecticut detecting laws!?

[ticm]

Ok then ticm, then how do you answer this scenario:

http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/general-discussion/131345-example-why-not-ask-innocuous-public-places-long.html

If you lived here, do you stay at home, and really believe that all the other md'rs are somehow "giving the hobby a black-eye"? Or do you just go, because you see the beaches here are just routinely detected.

Or for that matter, I can't understand WHERE you (ticm) detect, at all. Unless you stick to private property that is. Because if you can give me ANY public land where you hunt, I bet I can find some law you are breaking, on some level, somewhere, somehow. All I have to do is ask the right number of bureaucrats, with the right combination of buzzwords, and can find you a "no" at any place you are currently hunting. You may answer: "But I go all the time, and no one cares, even in broad daylight in front of the mayor!! " YES!! that's exactly the point ticm! Get it?

You answered my question by asking another question.

So your advice to this guy who started this thread is to go out where ever he wants, even when he knows it's wrong to do so. Great advice dude. LO.L.

So why is this such a touch topic for you?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

Yes, answered the question with question, because it's a fitting question to answer the question. Because it shows the issue is "never-ending". That anyone who hunts public property, simply hasn't asked enough questions, and dug deeply enough into the minutia. Or they (gasp) simply go where no one cares.

"So why is this such a touch topic for you?"

Because I saw first-hand, the whole evolution of this, having started in the mid 1970s, (when things were innocent and these things never dawned on anyone of us). And then slowly saw the introduction of these things, and the resulting people who heard of some far away bootings or laws or rules, (at the advent of the FMDAC which had the scary stories, and even more pronounced at the advent of internet forums). They promptly went down to city hall, wherever they lived, and "asked" (afterall, you can't be too safe now, can you?). And then presto, the vicious circle begins, and places get "no's" (by policy implementation or outright rules to address these "pressing questions"). See how that works? Then more and more places get put off limits by actual implementation. So you see that the ones doing "damage" to the hobby (getting places put off limits), are often time the ones going and seeking sanctions, approvals, neons signs welcoming them, etc..... Ironically it's not the other way around. I can tell you story after story of this exact scenario happening. For example, in my link, you can see how it might easily happen, if enough people went and "asked", or found this minutia, and thought "oh no, we can't detect". Imagine their surprise when they show up here, and beaches are routinely detected, and no one cares (so long as you're not being a nuisance in some other way). So what would you do here?

Ok, to answer your question: "Am I promoting lawlessness?" Sure, let's go ahead and put it that way. And as I say, so too is the fellow who spits on the sidewalk in NY, and the fellow who pulls the tag off his mattress, etc... By all means, they "shouldn't be doing that" and are lawless miscreants I suppose. If someone is that concerned, then I truly think they've chosen the wrong hobby, or will need to stick to private property. Because as I say, gauranteed you too are breaking laws, on some level, unless you are not hunting any public property at all.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

And yes, by all means, none of us should hunt around obvious historic monuments, posted spots, etc...... I am not advocating "you can hunt anywhere, at any time".

Also, have you ever given thought to this technicality ticm: Anytime any of us runs up against the "you can detect, but not dig" verbage, this keys in on the words like "dig", "alter" "deface", and so forth? Right? And as I say, this verbage is at any govt. level (I mean, afterall, what govt. entity "allows defacement" of their property? doh!). But think about it logically: ALL such verbage specifically implies an END result, does it not? So by logical deduction, you have not defaced or altered or vandalized anything, if you cover your tracks and leave no trace, now have you? Sure this is a semantics issue, and sure someone might take issue with the evil temporary extraction process (if you are parading yourself in front of lookie-lous). As I say, if this bothers someone, then they're going to need to hunt objects only on the top of the ground.

 

[ticm]

And yes, by all means, none of us should hunt around obvious historic monuments, posted spots, etc...... I am not advocating "you can hunt anywhere, at any time".

Also, have you ever given thought to this technicality ticm: Anytime any of us runs up against the "you can detect, but not dig" verbage, this keys in on the words like "dig", "alter" "deface", and so forth? Right? And as I say, this verbage is at any govt. level (I mean, afterall, what govt. entity "allows defacement" of their property? doh!). But think about it logically: ALL such verbage specifically implies an END result, does it not? So by logical deduction, you have not defaced or altered or vandalized anything, if you cover your tracks and leave no trace, now have you? Sure this is a semantics issue, and sure someone might take issue with the evil temporary extraction process (if you are parading yourself in front of lookie-lous). As I say, if this bothers someone, then they're going to need to hunt objects only on the top of the ground.

You seem very passionate about this. Has it accrued to you to fight the fight in let's say your local government.

It does no good to rant and rave here on some Internet forum.

 

[deepskyal]

My issue was with stating the activity on a public forum.

I agree it's about as stupid a law as they come...but what you do outside the public forum is for you only...

Al