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
another story akin to md'rs asking permission:
There was a blurb in our local newspaper, back in the earlier 2000's, about how a bunch of irate parents and their kids were set to make a beef at a city council meeting, about a proposed ordinance banning "slack-lining" in the parks here. "Slack-lining" is a hobby or exercise-sport, ....... something like tight-rope walking. Kids string up a tight rope between two adjacent trees. A foot or so off the ground, & tighten the tension down very tight. Then do stunts or practice walking the rope, do tricks, etc... An agility sport thing that was picking up popularity amongst a certain group of kids here.
The news article talked about how the city felt this was harmful to the tree bark of the trees, so they were going to make an official policy. Naturally, some parents became up in arms at how "killjoy-ish" this was, in a day & age where parents are usually QUITE HAPPY that their kids enjoy innocent sports, and stay out of trouble. In the end, the city relented on its planned policy, and came to a compromise with the parents and kids, that they could string up their tight ropes, yet had to use rubber cushion things so that the trees would not be harmed.
As slack-lining took off in popularity around the USA, sometimes my city, Salinas CA, would be cited as a win-win good policy that allowed the sport, etc.... So any other city where this issue came up, places like my city were often cited as a model of how it could work, etc...
But what those articles, and hence the future references to my city FAILED to cite, was the very genesis, of how such a thing came up for city scrutiny, TO BEGIN WITH. Since I live here, I heard the back-ground that led up to the issue: What happened was that one day, a kid came home from school, and told his mom he was going to go to the park, meet some friends for "slack-lining". The curious mom asked who these friends were and what slack-lining was. The kid did his best to explain to his mom. The cautious mom then asked "is that allowed"? The kid didn't know, but on the other hand, could see why not. As his friends had been doing it thus far, and this notion of whether it was "allowed" or not, had never crossed any of their minds. So before the mom would allow her son to partake of this, she told him she wanted to check and make sure. So she calls and goes down to the parks dept. They had no idea what "slack-lining" even was (as it was a sport/hobby still in its infancy at that time I guess). So she explained it to the park desk person. That person, in turn, when the realized the question involved "trees", passed this up the line of bureaucracy to the city "arborist" (who better to answer the question, eh?). The arborist too was initially stumped, so he too had to learn more about what this involved. After consideration, he tells the mom "no, that's not allowed".
The kid then, went and told his friends. And eventually, the other parents got wind of it, that this was "not allowed". One thing led to another, and the city decided they better make this official, since .... it was really not specifically written anywhere. At that point, is when the protests started, to protect this innocent positive hobby.
Now in that case, I suppose someone could argue "see, it was a good thing that a compromise was reached", I suppose. Or, the city could likewise have said "period end of story, no you can't". Either way, no matter how you look at it, you could ALSO look at it this way: What if that singular concerned mom had never gone asking around at city hall. Did anyone really care, or would have even taken a 2nd glance at such a thing?
So too do I think a lot of md'rs look at the end result of rules, permits, regulations, etc... And yet, don't often see that the GENESIS of such things, is not necessarily "holes" or "damaged bark on trees" or whatever, but often-time is merely the act of making ourselves the object of something needs someone else's princely sanction, when.... perhaps .... no one might have cared less (till we asked).
There was a blurb in our local newspaper, back in the earlier 2000's, about how a bunch of irate parents and their kids were set to make a beef at a city council meeting, about a proposed ordinance banning "slack-lining" in the parks here. "Slack-lining" is a hobby or exercise-sport, ....... something like tight-rope walking. Kids string up a tight rope between two adjacent trees. A foot or so off the ground, & tighten the tension down very tight. Then do stunts or practice walking the rope, do tricks, etc... An agility sport thing that was picking up popularity amongst a certain group of kids here.
The news article talked about how the city felt this was harmful to the tree bark of the trees, so they were going to make an official policy. Naturally, some parents became up in arms at how "killjoy-ish" this was, in a day & age where parents are usually QUITE HAPPY that their kids enjoy innocent sports, and stay out of trouble. In the end, the city relented on its planned policy, and came to a compromise with the parents and kids, that they could string up their tight ropes, yet had to use rubber cushion things so that the trees would not be harmed.
As slack-lining took off in popularity around the USA, sometimes my city, Salinas CA, would be cited as a win-win good policy that allowed the sport, etc.... So any other city where this issue came up, places like my city were often cited as a model of how it could work, etc...
But what those articles, and hence the future references to my city FAILED to cite, was the very genesis, of how such a thing came up for city scrutiny, TO BEGIN WITH. Since I live here, I heard the back-ground that led up to the issue: What happened was that one day, a kid came home from school, and told his mom he was going to go to the park, meet some friends for "slack-lining". The curious mom asked who these friends were and what slack-lining was. The kid did his best to explain to his mom. The cautious mom then asked "is that allowed"? The kid didn't know, but on the other hand, could see why not. As his friends had been doing it thus far, and this notion of whether it was "allowed" or not, had never crossed any of their minds. So before the mom would allow her son to partake of this, she told him she wanted to check and make sure. So she calls and goes down to the parks dept. They had no idea what "slack-lining" even was (as it was a sport/hobby still in its infancy at that time I guess). So she explained it to the park desk person. That person, in turn, when the realized the question involved "trees", passed this up the line of bureaucracy to the city "arborist" (who better to answer the question, eh?). The arborist too was initially stumped, so he too had to learn more about what this involved. After consideration, he tells the mom "no, that's not allowed".
The kid then, went and told his friends. And eventually, the other parents got wind of it, that this was "not allowed". One thing led to another, and the city decided they better make this official, since .... it was really not specifically written anywhere. At that point, is when the protests started, to protect this innocent positive hobby.
Now in that case, I suppose someone could argue "see, it was a good thing that a compromise was reached", I suppose. Or, the city could likewise have said "period end of story, no you can't". Either way, no matter how you look at it, you could ALSO look at it this way: What if that singular concerned mom had never gone asking around at city hall. Did anyone really care, or would have even taken a 2nd glance at such a thing?
So too do I think a lot of md'rs look at the end result of rules, permits, regulations, etc... And yet, don't often see that the GENESIS of such things, is not necessarily "holes" or "damaged bark on trees" or whatever, but often-time is merely the act of making ourselves the object of something needs someone else's princely sanction, when.... perhaps .... no one might have cared less (till we asked).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
