St.Augustine Florida bans metal detectors

[Twisted One]

For all of those people saying, that metal detecting is not under threat guess what.

City expands limits on performers, vendors | StAugustine.com

According to this article you now have to get a permit through the city archaeologist to be able to metal detect in St. Augustine Florida. How long before other areas take on this same ruling?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[ivan salis]

they already tried to put "a bill on the table" per si -- florida bill S 868 which many people- some on here t net - ( myself included) rose up and howled in protest of --leading to its "death in committee" -- that bill if passed would have basically done to ALL public land in florida exactly what the st augustine law has done to st augustine * --lead to the ban on metal detecting on any publiccly owned property in florida * --note that a ban need not be "spelled out as a out right "ban"--it can come in disguse -- like say you must get a "permit" which are to be issued to you by the same folks who have publicly said in the past that if they could outlaw metal detecting they would do it gladly *-- thats like having to get a permit to live from a person that wants to see you dead. -- not a chance in hades , you will EVER get said permit --yes theres permits -and no you can not have one because your not "qualified enough" --thats right your not some degreed archie so , so sad too bad --no permit for you bye -bye now --shoo you lil maggot.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[Guadalcanal]

Last time I read one of those laws, it described artifacts as different than coins and jewelry... Could this be the case here?

 

[ivan salis]

it to me was painfully clear that S 868 if not written directly by a archie --was written by someone being told exactly what the archies wanted --total say so over all of floridas public land.

 

[ScubaFinder]

Florida describes artifacts as "Any object more than 50 years old which has been created or altered by man". So that 1961 Quarter in your change jar can make you a third degree felon the way current Florida law is written. Tom thinks we are over-reacting, I say we are getting prepared.

Tom, in Post #40 you gave us ONE example with no verifiable details, no state or city names, nothing at all that would allow anyone to check your claims. The story sounds like you made it up just to make your claims seem more legitimate. Do you have any actual, verifiable examples that support your theory?

 

[ivan salis]

THE DANGER IS VERY REAL HERE IN FLORIDA * there are ways to do a "back door" ban via" permitting" -- first you slip in the requirement for a "no cost permit' to be issued to hunt any bit of publicly owned land ( you make it "no cost' to avoid making folks buck against it) -- but of course you make sure that the local area archies are the one's who are 'empowered' to issue or not issue said permits (THUS THEY ARE LEGALLY IN "CONTROL" )--only after the "rules" are in place is the "trap' sprung --the trap is that unless your a archie (phd type -or a bonfied student archie type on a feild dig type trip ) that no permits will be forthcoming EVER --as salvors KNOW all to well - permit games are nasty lil tricks --just find out how many actual "savlage permits" have been issued by state of florida archies over the last 20 or so years * it has worked has so well for the state archies against the salvage folks --they want to use the same drity lil "trick" on dry land folks as well -- if you let them have the "power' to make you ask their "permission" via obtaining a "permit' your sunk -- once they are LEGALLY "EMPOWERED" THEY ARE IN CHARGE and let "the games begin"

 

[Bum Luck]

How many examples will I need to give you of this being "substantial", before you admit that this is an incorrect statement? Just let me know and I'll start rattling them off!

Oh, 10 would do it for me......................

We're still waiting . . . . . . . . .

 

[Tom_in_CA]

scuba, the example in #40 was what someone else related as it happened to him, on a forum thread several years ago. He recounted the blow-by-blow which was basically as I relate. He was from the mid-west, and I forget which exact midwest state now. But let me ask you a question: If I don't remember his name, the names of the parks involved, the states, the rangers, etc... then ...... you're not buying it? Or let me ask it in this way: do you disbelieve such a thing as was recounted in #40 could have happened (thus you say it sounds made up?)

Bum luck, I thought you were joking when you asked for 10. Did you see how much space it took to relay the single example given in #40? And now someone thinks that sounds made up anyhow. So seriously now, if I did give "10 examples", what's it going to do for you? Are you going to have a change-of-heart on a matter? Or will you call them into question on various achillees heels, or say they sound made up, or....? The reason I ask, is I don't want to waste a lot of typing time (and get criticized from others for taking up forum space, etc...) if it's just so you can plan to not read and/or disregard anyhow. So please clarify your intent. Because my saying "how many examples do you need" was sort of facetious. Not that I couldn't give 10 examples, but ........ are you asking because you don't believe any more examples exist? Or just to see someone else type for an hour, while you have no intention of changing your mind? or ?

 

[smartmoney]

I think what some of you are missing is the fact that you dont need a law "spelled out" saying no metal detecting. Most all towns/cities have laws that prohibit obstruction of public land, or the removal of grass, shrubs etc.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Smart money, you say:

"Most all towns/cities have laws that prohibit obstruction of public land, or the removal of grass, shrubs etc."

Your error is to assume that these type things are an automatic equivalence to metal detecting. Ie.: that the definition of metal detecting is "necessarily": Obstruction, vandalism, alteration, defacement, and so forth.

But think about it Smart-money: if you leave the area exactly as you found it (no sign of your having been there), then by mere definition: you have not "obstructed", "vandalized", "altered", or "defaced" the park now have you??

Sure there's the temporary evil process of object extraction. And sure someone else may disagree with this interpretation. But if this bothers you (and you can't stay discreetly clear of kill-joy busy-bodies like that) then stick to private property or sandboxes.

If you make the automatic equivalence definition that "Metal Detecting" = "Destruction", then sure, your goose is cooked right now. You've lost the battle already. Because I gaurantee you, that if you walk into any city in the USA, and ask "Hi, can I damage and destruct the park?", what do you think they're going to say? So do not define yourself in those terms, and avoid contact with those that do, is the easy solution (or simply pick another hobby).

 

[smartmoney]

Well since I have been MDing for over 25 years, I can see that many changes have taken place. I would never ask to detect public land. I just go and if I am unsure, ill detect for an hour or two and leave. Come back the next time for an hour or two and leave.

 

[Bum Luck]

Bum luck, I thought you were joking when you asked for 10. Did you see how much space it took to relay the single example given in #40? And now someone thinks that sounds made up anyhow. So seriously now, if I did give "10 examples", what's it going to do for you? Are you going to have a change-of-heart on a matter? Or will you call them into question on various achillees heels, or say they sound made up, or....? The reason I ask, is I don't want to waste a lot of typing time (and get criticized from others for taking up forum space, etc...) if it's just so you can plan to not read and/or disregard anyhow. So please clarify your intent. Because my saying "how many examples do you need" was sort of facetious. Not that I couldn't give 10 examples, but ........ are you asking because you don't believe any more examples exist? Or just to see someone else type for an hour, while you have no intention of changing your mind? or ?

Your premise seems to be that if we ask permission, we then put the authorities on notice that we intend to detect, so we're better off not to.

When Twisted said:
"The idea that a law came into being because of metal detectorist asking permission is pretty insubstantial. "
Here's what you said:
"How many examples will I need to give you of this being "substantial", before you admit that this is an incorrect statement? Just let me know and I'll start rattling them off!"

Just taking you at your word. If you can illustrate with verifiable examples, let's have some. I can't recall one.

I think that I have a pretty good handle on how such laws get started, and it's not like that. I've been asking permission all my detecting life (decades) and it hasn't had the effect you suggest. Archies have had that effect, among other factors. They don't like to see anyone else find anything, or to even look.

'Our' beloved state DNR archie last year just got the agency to outlaw MDing on all state controlled lands and waters (waters being virtually everything wet in the state), and it wasn't because someone asked him for permission.

 

[drewan29]

scuba, the example in #40 was what someone else related as it happened to him, on a forum thread several years ago. He recounted the blow-by-blow which was basically as I relate. He was from the mid-west, and I forget which exact midwest state now. But let me ask you a question: If I don't remember his name, the names of the parks involved, the states, the rangers, etc... then ...... you're not buying it? Or let me ask it in this way: do you disbelieve such a thing as was recounted in #40 could have happened (thus you say it sounds made up?)

Bum luck, I thought you were joking when you asked for 10. Did you see how much space it took to relay the single example given in #40? And now someone thinks that sounds made up anyhow. So seriously now, if I did give "10 examples", what's it going to do for you? Are you going to have a change-of-heart on a matter? Or will you call them into question on various achillees heels, or say they sound made up, or....? The reason I ask, is I don't want to waste a lot of typing time (and get criticized from others for taking up forum space, etc...) if it's just so you can plan to not read and/or disregard anyhow. So please clarify your intent. Because my saying "how many examples do you need" was sort of facetious. Not that I couldn't give 10 examples, but ........ are you asking because you don't believe any more examples exist? Or just to see someone else type for an hour, while you have no intention of changing your mind? or ?[/QUOTE

I've seen more flip flops from you then a crappie on the bottom of a boat the way you agree,disagree,down play and then upplay.
You say don't ask and avoid REALLY? The reason why we do ASK is that we are RESPONSIBLE,LAW ABIDDING FOLKS. I myself and many others will agree DON'T LIKE LOOKING OVER OUR SHOULDERS while detecting. These rules and laws aren't made because folks ask for permission it's the opposite they are made because of folks who AVOID RANGERS AND OTHER'S LIKE THEM. The image you are sending to the new blood is not a good one. Ignorence and arrogance is no excuse. The point is that FL one of the biggest hot spots in M.O. is cracking down on detecting and no matter how insignificant it seems to you for the rest of us we see the big picture our states can be next WHY ... because our state reps look at the bigger states like Cali,FL,NY and then they go from there. That is why we have to back our brothers and sisters in FL to stop it befor it starts else where.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Bum luck, you say:

"Just taking you at your word. If you can illustrate with verifiable examples, let's have some. I can't recall one. "

And I repeat to you: please confirm that when I list the examples, that you plan to publicly acknowledge the validity of what I'm saying? Because otherwise, I'll waste all my time typing when you had absolutely no intention of changing your views. Please confirm what your response will be. In the meantime, yes, here's another:

In my own city, I got into this hobby in the mid 1970's. At the time, the guys that got me into this, just went to the obvious spots: school yards and parks. So for me, I just went where they took me (why would I question that?). Fast forward to the early 1980s, and now we had a club in town of perhaps 25 attendees each meeting. One particular meeting, a visitor sat in the audience watching the monthly show & tell time of the meeting. One particular fellow held up an old silver coin, and said "found in central park". The visitor's hand went up. He said "I thought it was illegal to detect in the park here?". A few others of us turned around, looked at him, and said "since when?" and "who told you that?" etc... Turns out what he had done, upon just recently moving to our city, was to go down to city hall .... AND ASK! I have no idea the exact terminology he used (to "ask permission" or to ask "is there any rules forbidding" or "can I tear the place up" or what.) All I know is: someone at city hall told him "no metal detecting". So you can imagine the confusion this caused for us long-timers .... .who.... "simply had no idea". Certain guys objected to this news by saying "Nonsense, I've hunted there for 5+ yrs. now, and never had a problem. In full view of the gardeners, passing traffic, etc...., so I have no intention of stopping, since obviously, no one cares". While others in the room (the more skittish type) took the stance "oh no, we might be arrested, detecting is now illegal, oh no, blah blah".

There you go Bum Luck. Example #2 out of 10. Before I proceed, you must let me know what you intend to change, on your part, if I go to 10. Because if you are simply going to dismiss everyone, and have no intention of changing your views, then I don't want to waste either of our's time.

Now I can tell you for a fact, that there is no "specific" verbage in my town forbidding detecting. Perhaps whatever bored desk-clerk this fellow asked just had images of geeks with shovels, WHO KNOWS? The fact is: you can clearly see the danger this causes. Because let's just say for example that THIS SAME desk-clerk is driving by the park after work on their way home, and see another md'r in the park. Guess what's going to happen? They're going to see an md'r (who perhaps they'd have never paid mind to before), recall the earlier inquiry, and think "aha! There's one of them!". This is what thought occured to some people in our club meeting, that .... although it was merely an answer to someone's "pressing question", and although detecting was clearly never a problem prior to this, yet it still left lingering thoughts to everyone "oh no, detecting is now illegal" (afterall, you can't argue with a duly appointed city desk clerk NOW CAN YOU?)

That was nearly 30 years ago. To this day, I still hunt our parks occasionally, and don't have a problem.

You also say: "I've been asking permission all my detecting life (decades)". Great that you've never gotten a "No". But let me assure you: I can just as quickly go down to that SAME exact city clerk, and get your "yes" just as quickly revoked, if I wanted. Here's how: I merely say: "What if an innocent little girl trips in one of Bum Luck's holes and sues the city?" or "Is it really right that Bum Luck digs up our cultural heritage for his own fun and profit? Afterall, these things belong in a city museum!" or "what if he finds an indian bone and the city gets sued?" etc... etc.... In other words, anyone can always find themselves a "no", depending on how they ask, and who they ask. The mood of the person, the mental image that comes to their mind, etc.... So it would seem to me, the best way is to look up rules for oneself, eh?

Next you say:

"'Our' beloved state DNR archie last year just got the agency to outlaw MDing on all state controlled lands and waters (waters being virtually everything wet in the state), and it wasn't because someone asked him for permission. "

Be aware that never is an authority, or archie, etc.... ever going to say the "the reason for my edict is that someone asked". No, of course not. It will always be "because of holes", or "because of cultural heritage", etc.... But this does not address how this issue "came across their desk" to begin with. But yes Bum Luck, perhaps they were driving past the park, saw an md'r, (or watched a show on TV or whatever), and it has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO with grovelling people at city halls. Yup, that may certainly be true in some cases too. Afterall, I bet that in archie college classes, it is made very clear even then, in infant stages, to be against "pot-diggers".

drewan29, you say:

"The reason why we do ASK is that we are RESPONSIBLE,LAW ABIDDING FOLKS.
Ignorence and arrogance is no excuse. "

If you read what I have written, over and over I say the way to know the laws, is to look them up for yourself. That is not "ignorance" of laws, nor does it suggest breaking laws. And if there is nothing saying "no metal detecting" (ie.: silent on the issue), then presto, I guess there's no prohibitions for metal detecting. HOW MUCH MORE LAW ABIDING CAN YOU BE? To look up the laws for oneself is VERY law abiding, and avoids the problem of something like what happened in my example above (in my own city) from happening. And no, I don't "look over my shoulder". Well let me re-phrase that: I'm ALWAYS "conscious" that we should all use due discretion, don't go waltzing over people's beach blankets, don't be in the middle of deep holes when busy-bodies are looking, etc.... Because no matter how you slice it (even in places with express permission) you STILL have to be conscious that your "permission" will be just as quickly revoked, if someone gets their panties in a wad and says your harming earthworms or whatever.

 

[ScubaFinder]

And you accuse us of claiming "the sky is falling".....look in the mirror chicken little. I'm not saying there aren't skiddish people, but to assume the general populous is dumb enough to run to the county court-house and demand permission to the point that new laws go into effect is a bit of a conspiracy theory if you ask me. The exception rather than the rule for absolute sure. I believe we are all smart enough to discuss these issues without worry, and I believe we are all smart enough to act on the issues appropriately...you seem to have very little faith in the intelligence of your fellow treasure hunters Tom.

Jason

 

[Tom_in_CA]

scuba, yes a good percentage of md'rs KNOW enough to not phrase things in such a way to get a "no". Granted. (ie.: they know how to "play it cool", use euphamisims that distance themselves from bad words like "dig", "treasure", etc...) I mean, yes, that's granted. Sorry if I made it sound like EVERY one who asks is bound to get all "no's", because they are a geek showing up at city hall with a shovel in their hand. My bad. However, as examples show, there are also persons who ........ despite their best appearance/wording can fall prey to the psychology I'm saying.

I am including not only "new laws", but also simple "clarifications", policies-in-practice, etc... So for example, in the example I just gave about my city 30 yrs. ago, no new "law" was made (so far as I know). But ........ I don't know what you call it, but if a city person tells you "no", doesn't that carry any weight? I mean, can't you now be in trouble (I suppose), if that same person sees you out there, after they just told you "no"? So in any case, I'm including simple "no's", to mid-way clarifications (dept. memo's sent around deciding that existing verbage covers detecting too), all the way up to actual specific laws created saying "no metal detecting".

Ok, on to example #3: I can't find the links for this right now, but it circulated on T'net and various forums, about a particular eastern states city (with a lot of colonial history I think in the area), that was considering enacting a law forbidding detecting. The link got put up on one of the forums. The part of the story that was fascinating to me, was a quote that could easily have been missed. When questioned as to the origin of this proposed city law, a city clerk was quoted as saying that the city had received some inquiries in the past, asking what the laws were regarding detecting. And the part that was interesting, was that at least one such request was accompanied by something like this: " ... and if you're going to tell me 'no', be prepared to cite chapter and verse to back this up".

The end result of this particular case was, no law was made. The local museum persons (at a fort or battle site, I seem to recall) conferred with city personell, and decided that existing rules were sufficient enough to boot nusances to obvious historic monument type places. But the point is: It was being bandied around to make it official/specific!

Perhaps someone can find this link? I can't find it now, but it DID circulate on the net a year or two ago. I'm sure the caller(s) meant no ill-will or threat by asking in this fashion, but think of it: An often quoted alternative to looking up the rules for oneself (like if the city has no website, or whatever) is to ask IN THIS WAY: "Is there anything that prohibits metal detecting in the park?". See how nice that looks on the surface? Afterall: It appears to put the burden of proof on them, to produce such an actual rule/law, if one existed, RIGHT? But there has been cases of this actually back-firing too. For example: (this will be example #4), one person lamented on a post one time, that a clerk had fielded his CAREFULLY WORDED question with the following answer: "we would prefer you didn't" (as if he had been asking her "permission"). The md'r objected and said "but where is that written?" (to draw her back to his carefully worded phraseology). So she simply went through her books and cited something like "destruction of park features" or something like that. The md'r had NEVER said anything about holes, digging, etc.... But apparently had someone whose immediate knee-jerk mental image was "digging". And downwards it went from there, because you can guess who's going to win that debate!

Example #5: On our local CA forum (kinzli forum) a few years ago, there was a new person who posted that he had gone to SF city park's dept, and received a "yes" in regards to metal detecting. When he (in the context of some other post on our forum) relayed this information, it was interesting to a few of us, because .......... well .... it was just sort of "known" that there was a particular park in SF to avoid, because a single staff at that single park was a bit cranky. That had started debate over whether this particular staff person could be "over-ruled" and/or "put in his place", etc... So when this new person came onboard saying they had "received permission" it was interesting to the rest of us, because .... obviously .... this would be useful information if any busy-bodies ever gave any of us grief, right? So we asked this person "who told you that?". Trouble was, he hadn't taken the park's dept. guys name down! So he went BACK to the SF park's dept. headquarter office again, in an attempt to find out the name of the person he had spoken to earlier. Mind you this is a BIG office (d/t SF is a BIG city, as you can imagine). So when he approached the desk this time, he tried to describe the other fellow (ie.: "I was in here last week, and spoke to someone at this desk..." etc..). To no avail. The current clerk didn't know. However, the clerk asked the md'r "what was it regarding?". So the md'r started over again, and told the new desk clerk: "Well they told me it was ok to metal detect, and I wanted to get their name, or even to get that in writing." After hearing this, the person at the desk now said "sure, you can metal detect all you want. Just no digging". DOH! Do you see? There is NO way you'd want that in print (afterall, what's the point of detecting then?). So this is essentially a "no" if you ask me (albeit the earlier person had told them "yes").

 

[arizonaames]

I was metal detecting there last week and during Spring Break along with other detectorists ON THE PUBLIC BEACH. There are many local county, city workers and police that constantly patrol the beach. The Feds also have a historical site and own access to their own public beach called Matanzas Monument site and beach. They do not allow metal detecting there and the signs are posted all along the beach. One can also detect Crescent Beach, Flagler Beach, Matazas inlet on the south side, along with Marineland Beach. All are within 25 miles. There has been a no detecting law in the city limits of St Augustine for some years now.

 

[drewan29]

TominCA


"That was nearly 30 years ago. To this day, I still hunt our parks occasionally, and don't have a problem"

even though you know that it's Illegal you still do it that is called arrogance.

"Oh, and I must let you know: 99% of the time, when you ask some city (that has an actual rule or law or something) "why is this?", they will OF COURSE tell you "cultural heritage" or "holes" or something like that, right? I mean, never are they going to say "because of people coming in here and asking". No, of course not. They'll always allude to "holes" or "digging" or whatever, EVEN IF THEY NEVER EVEN SAW SOMEONE DIGGING A HOLE. Why? Because that's the natural connotation on their mind when you ask them "why?".

They'll say this because they have a reason it's not because your digging holes I know of one place that is in WI open to the public but the Native American tribes still hold ceremony's there it's not part of the tribal grounds but once was.
So when they say NO it's not because they think we're "geeks with shovels" it's because they don't want these areas disturbed hell they may even be md'rs.

"You're exactly right. Brilliantly put. And that's exactly why I say stay as far away from them as possible, off their radar. It is simply not possible to make archies "love you". The 2 endeavours are almost diametrically opposed (at least for "purist" archaeology). So it's often time best to steer clear of them. The less they see/hear from you (by requests for their sanctions crossing their desk), the better. Since it's simply not going to happen, the the unfortunate truth is, detecting is kinda like nose-picking: It requires a little .... uh ..... discreetness. If this bothers someone (that there are people out there who don't love their hobby, and aren't going to be made to love their hobby), then I fear they have chosen the wrong hobby."

This uh .... discreetness is what gets us banned from places period.

1) archies don't love us, nor can be made to love us, right? And we agree that they're on the side of govt. (as they're usually on govt. payrolls, and ..... let's face it ... their craft, to begin with, is logically opposed to "collecting", etc....).

2) going and asking for permits, permissions, sanctions, clarifications, etc... where none are needed now, can often result in the "powers that be" looking at these "pressing questions", with nothing but restrictive rules where ........ perhaps ...... none would ever have been required or thought of, till you came and asked. Because think of it: the mere fact that someone comes in and asks that their activity be "permitted" in some form or fashion (especially if pre-emptive), simply means the activity is not innocuous, and has/holds some form of "evil" (lest why would you be asking, if it were as innocent and harmless as flying frisbees? This implicit premise is not lost on the hearer!)

Where we disagree is to the imminency of this "all detecting is going to be outlawed if we don't act now" mentality. If a person starts with that premise, then sure, the "sky is falling". Go for it. But this has not been proven as a "will happen". It's only conjecture (as clear-cut as it may be in your own mind). And since it's an "un-known" (no matter how imminent you THINK it is), you risk point #2 above (with will most certainly bring about the "sky is falling" results).

I call B.S on this statement completely:
1.)I think if you were to offer your services to them they maybe very skeptical at first until you explained to them your intentions. They may say no then they maybe shocked enough they just may say yes who knows?

2.) Again asking does not bring on laws what does is being uh.... discreet and ignorant and This is NOT THE ATTITUDE WE NEED TO BE SENDING TO NEW MD'RS .
When in doubt stay out.


Hey Diver down, you want to know the quickest way to get St. Augustine Beach off-limits too? Is to go seeking clarifications, permits, sanctions, etc...... Be sure to use buzz-words like "dig" and "ARPA" and "treasure" and "cultural heritage", etc... (lest they not understand the full implications of your question).

Really?
Apparently rules,laws and regs don't apply to you.

Being up to date on the rules and regs is our responsibility it's not going to fly with the LEO, Park Rangers or Conservation officers when they stop you and you say I didn't know. Because then they'll say since you didn't know the laws you wont know that it's also a felony. So we'll be taking a trip to the cop shop and the state now owns your detector car and everything that's on,in or attached to. Ignorance is now excuse. Stay away from my state I like how things are here and your attitude will screw it up here for sure.

 

[drewan29]

And yes I have read your post's over and over and to be honest they made absolutely no sense at all.

 

[Twisted One]

Tom is a smart person, which is why I find it odd that he is not grasping at what we have tried to say here, or what the intentions were that we were talking about.
For some reason we discuss the need for the hobbyist to not just ban together when an apparent threat to the hobby comes up, but to stay together in a group ready to fight every attempt at these laws. We stated we felt there was a need to prepared an argument, for a worse case scenario, that would leave at least the ability to put together a fair permit system rather than have the hobby abolished completely <IF THIS TYPE OF CIRCUMSTANCE ARISES!>
But it seems every time these topics come up Tom is right there jumping in with the same argument that we are going to be the cause of more new laws then we fight? I understand you have seen this happen a couple of times in your long life of this hobby, but honestly, what are the chances that those people asking questions was the fuel for that fire, in reality that fire was probably started a long time ago for another reason, and worse case the person asking questions might have fanned it a little.
I would love to hear of one town that does not have a historical society, or Indian reservation, or preservation society already trying to pass these rules and regulations.

 

[Bum Luck]

Bum luck, you say:

"Just taking you at your word. If you can illustrate with verifiable examples, let's have some. I can't recall one. "

And I repeat to you: please confirm that when I list the examples, that you plan to publicly acknowledge the validity of what I'm saying? Because otherwise, I'll waste all my time typing when you had absolutely no intention of changing your views. Please confirm what your response will be.

Are you serious? I should give you prior approval of whatever you say? Let's have a show of hands who would do this on the board. I will listen to what you say, and give you an open mind, but you should see that your statement puts you off to a rocky start.

In the meantime, yes, here's another:
In my own city, I got into this hobby in the mid 1970's. At the time, the guys that got me into this, just went to the obvious spots: school yards and parks. So for me, I just went where they took me (why would I question that?). Fast forward to the early 1980s, and now we had a club in town of perhaps 25 attendees each meeting. One particular meeting, a visitor sat in the audience watching the monthly show & tell time of the meeting. One particular fellow held up an old silver coin, and said "found in central park". The visitor's hand went up. He said "I thought it was illegal to detect in the park here?". A few others of us turned around, looked at him, and said "since when?" and "who told you that?" etc... Turns out what he had done, upon just recently moving to our city, was to go down to city hall .... AND ASK! I have no idea the exact terminology he used (to "ask permission" or to ask "is there any rules forbidding" or "can I tear the place up" or what.) All I know is: someone at city hall told him "no metal detecting". So you can imagine the confusion this caused for us long-timers .... .who.... "simply had no idea". Certain guys objected to this news by saying "Nonsense, I've hunted there for 5+ yrs. now, and never had a problem. In full view of the gardeners, passing traffic, etc...., so I have no intention of stopping, since obviously, no one cares". While others in the room (the more skittish type) took the stance "oh no, we might be arrested, detecting is now illegal, oh no, blah blah".

There you go Bum Luck. Example #2 out of 10. Before I proceed, you must let me know what you intend to change, on your part, if I go to 10. Because if you are simply going to dismiss everyone, and have no intention of changing your views, then I don't want to waste either of our's time.

Tom, this is an anecdotal account of almost 40 years ago. "All I know is: someone at city hall told him "no metal detecting". So you can imagine the confusion this caused for us long-timers .... " Did you start off with your worst example? Maybe someone should have gone there to clarify the situation, eh? Maybe talk to an elected representative? How about asking what the specific ordinance is that forbids it? Even back then I doubt if a city could make up their own rules without passing them in a body. Now, continue below:

Now I can tell you for a fact, that there is no "specific" verbage in my town forbidding detecting. Perhaps whatever bored desk-clerk this fellow asked just had images of geeks with shovels, WHO KNOWS? The fact is: you can clearly see the danger this causes. Because let's just say for example that THIS SAME desk-clerk is driving by the park after work on their way home, and see another md'r in the park. Guess what's going to happen? They're going to see an md'r (who perhaps they'd have never paid mind to before), recall the earlier inquiry, and think "aha! There's one of them!". This is what thought occured to some people in our club meeting, that .... although it was merely an answer to someone's "pressing question", and although detecting was clearly never a problem prior to this, yet it still left lingering thoughts to everyone "oh no, detecting is now illegal" (afterall, you can't argue with a duly appointed city desk clerk NOW CAN YOU?)

Direct confrontation seldom works in this instance. You show up at their desk, they want to get rid of you. I repeat: Maybe talk to an elected representative? Or stew about it?

You also say: "I've been asking permission all my detecting life (decades)". Great that you've never gotten a "No". But let me assure you: I can just as quickly go down to that SAME exact city clerk, and get your "yes" just as quickly revoked, if I wanted. Here's how: I merely say: "What if an innocent little girl trips in one of Bum Luck's holes and sues the city?" or "Is it really right that Bum Luck digs up our cultural heritage for his own fun and profit? Afterall, these things belong in a city museum!" or "what if he finds an indian bone and the city gets sued?" etc... etc.... In other words, anyone can always find themselves a "no", depending on how they ask, and who they ask. The mood of the person, the mental image that comes to their mind, etc.... So it would seem to me, the best way is to look up rules for oneself, eh?

I didn't say that I've never gotten a "No". Why would you make that up?

If you do as you say, why would your fellow MDers consider you a friend? A local (liberal) county allows MDing with a permit. The rules are clear - no Native American artifacts on County parks. If a private person allowed you on their property and asked for any family heirlooms if you found them, why would that be any different? It's called Respect. Responsible MDers don't leave holes and dig up Indian bones. A little extreme, don't you think? Or are you just picking an argument, ala Monty Python?

Next you say:

"'Our' beloved state DNR archie last year just got the agency to outlaw MDing on all state controlled lands and waters (waters being virtually everything wet in the state), and it wasn't because someone asked him for permission. "

Be aware that never is an authority, or archie, etc.... ever going to say the "the reason for my edict is that someone asked". No, of course not. It will always be "because of holes", or "because of cultural heritage", etc.... But this does not address how this issue "came across their desk" to begin with. But yes Bum Luck, perhaps they were driving past the park, saw an md'r, (or watched a show on TV or whatever), and it has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO with grovelling people at city halls. Yup, that may certainly be true in some cases too. Afterall, I bet that in archie college classes, it is made very clear even then, in infant stages, to be against "pot-diggers".

I KNOW the situation here, and it is NOT that "someone asked". It's that they see artifacts on eBay and guys bragging up their finds publicly that galls them. And I think that there's a concerted effort to do this nation wide.

To suggest otherwise is to misdirect our efforts to educate the public and law makers to keep our hobby legal. I ask you to join us in this effort, not make it tougher for us all.

Done with this thread.