The top reasons why Laws were made to restrict or prohibit MDing are................

[Eureka!]

PROBABLE REASONS:
1. Protection of a building, monument or sites having Historical significance or Cultural Heritage;

2. Environmental Protection of an Endangered Species (plant or animal);

3. Abuse of power (because they can);

4. Poor conduct of Metal Detectorists (not filling holes, thereby causing injury to others or leaving the site in a state of blight and TV shows portraying Detectorists that lack sophisticated Archeological techniques);

5. The fact that someone ASKED if MDing was OK caused alarms to go off in some bureaucrats mind;

6. Lobbying by the Archeology Community;

7. To raise revenue by requiring the purchase of permits and imposing hefty fines for non-compliance;

8."The Peter Principle" - (read the book to learn more on what this is. It's about a "disease" that highly paid CEO's or people in a position's of authority get);

9. PREVENTION due to an Authority receiving numerous reports from onlookers or spectators whom "think" (without proof) Detectorist activity may cause harm to the environment.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

The purpose of this thread is to compile a list of VALID or INVALID reasons that may have prompted Law(s) or Statutes to be Legislated. Most of the reasons listed already were gathered from various Posts by Members here on TreasureNet. If you have one that is not on the list, then let us all know and I will update the list with your reason.

There are too many restrictions that have already placed on our pastime of MD'ing.

Lets think about this......................... What is needed now is REFORM. This list is the first step. At some point, the list will enable us to identify which Law(s) or Statutes are VALID and GOOD and which ones are BS and OPPRESSIVE.

When this is accomplished then it time to REFORM the OPPRESSIVE restrictions.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[JunkShopFiddler]

Individuals exercising freedom are the only folks who can be restricted from exercising freedom. And folks who get a power rush from restricting the freedoms of others are attracted to positions of authority by the desire to restrict the freedoms of others.

Metal detecting is only one freedom of many that attracts the attention of folks who crave the power of authority over others. Unrestricted travel, things one can freely carry on their person, owning property, the ability to protect oneself, choice of insurance plans. and many other rights that mentioned, would turn this comment into a political post are also gaining the attention of power craving, freedom-phobe authority figures.

 

[Sandman]

The archeologists are the cause of many states banning metal detection. Archeologists want to restrict our hobby so they can more or less corner the marked on history. Many areas are off limits to us as they think we will find the Holy Grail. There are no planned digs for these properties. If you research the laws in your state you will find that it is unlawful to move dirt on your own property without a permit from them or have an archeologist present to supervise.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Eureka, the top two reasons any city or county or state imposes some sort of specific "no detecting" rule, are variations of either of the following:

1) holes.

2) cultural heritage concerns.

And each of those is "noble" concerns. Right? I mean, let's face it, you have to dig to get your target, right? And while YOU may know you cover it and leave no trace, yet .... be honest: what's the connotation to a casual observer ? And as for cultural heritage: An issue for only purist archies, right? And somewhere, within each state, an archie is on the payroll and in the legislative input process, right?

But you have to go back further than this question you're asking. You have to ask yourself: "Ok, but how did either of those two issues ever get on someone's radar, TO BEGIN WITH ?" I mean, do you really think archies wander around to beaches and parks, see md'rs and think "aha! let's make a law!". There's really very archies per capita, in any given state. So the odds of any of them stumbling on to you or I at the park, is remote.

So I'm of the opinion that the way a lot of this gets on their desks for a "no", is the md'rs who go into every city and county and state park kiosk asking "can I detect?". That question filters its way up the chain of command, only to find the "safe" answer. And then ... gee, aren't you glad you asked ?

 

[cudamark]

Let's not forget the folks who will complain to the "authorities" about anything and everything they deem as odd. You know, the busybodies that have nothing better to do than try to make you conform to their way of thinking. Unfortunately, they vote too, and they can be vocal about it.

 

[Eureka!]

Tom-in_CA - while I agree with the reasons you set forth in your comment. I have to disagree that it is any ONE thing that causes law(s) to be Legislated with regard to MD'ing. It's usually a COMBINATION of reasons. I think I covered the reasons you mentioned (see the list which I am compiling). If you can think of any others to add to the list, let me know.

I just received a Permit to Detect on well patrolled NY State run beaches on Long Island NY's south shore. The cost was $40 for the MD'ing Permit BUT a permit is also needed to park or ride a vehicle on the beach (an additional $40 for an $80 total for the season). Hardly worth it if you only plan on detecting every now and then. Very crafty on their part if you ask me.

To reiterate, The purpose of this thread is to compile a list of probable reasons (valid or invalid) that MAY HAVE caused the creation of Law(s) or Statues that place restrictions or prohibitions on MD'ing. After this study, what comes next is a push for REFORM.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Let's not forget the folks who will complain to the "authorities" about anything and everything they deem as odd. You know, the busybodies that have nothing better to do than try to make you conform to their way of thinking. Unfortunately, they vote too, and they can be vocal about it.

Well, ok, then all the more reason that busy-bodies not see you or me, eh? As much as I wish I could run around the world trying to get every last person to love me (archies, gardeners, etc...) yet it simply isn't going to happen. If someone's waiting for everyone else to roll out the red-carpets for them, they've chosen the wrong hobby.

Hence, this hobby (since it's full of connotations), is going to be a little like nose-picking: Sometimes a little discretion in your timing is called for. You're not going to get everyone else to "condone" nose-picking, so.... to publicize it, nor wait for their approval. Yeah I know this sounds like "ninja" blah blah, ok, FINE THEN, let's all be ninja. The other extreme is people who want to go at high noon waltzing through busy parks and in front of archies, and then wonder "gee, why doesn't everyone love my chosen hobby?"

 

[Eureka!]

Let's not forget the folks who will complain to the "authorities" about anything and everything they deem as odd. You know, the busybodies that have nothing better to do than try to make you conform to their way of thinking. Unfortunately, they vote too, and they can be vocal about it.

cudamark - see #4 - I revised it to denote "Complaints."

 

[SkySgt]

I see this hobby going the way of one of my other hobbies ... Astronomy/Stargazing. How do they compare?

Well, any meaningful stargazing MUST be done in very dark skies (Or you see nothing but the brightest objects ... The Moon, Jupiter, Venus, Mars, and the Sun ... Possibly Saturn ... Very limited selection). Somewhere in the past, someone convinced citizens and their elected officials that bright lights shining everywhere made them safer. As such, when civilization began to creep into the suburbs, all the light pollution came with it, thus creating huge light domes over populated areas. Those of us who used to be able to simply go outside the city limits, now have to travel several hours to get away from all the light domes.

For example, as I head West from San Antonio, once I get out of the San Antonio light dome, I'm into the Boerne, TX light dome, once I get out of the Boerne, TX light dome, I'm into the Kerrville, TX light dome. As I keep going west, once I get out of the Kerrville, TX light dome, I'm into the Junction, TX light dome, I don't start getting dark skies until I'm well West of Junction. However, once I'm West of Junction, I'm now 125 miles from home. Forget about going North, East or South of San Antonio!

So, what are our viewing options? We have to rely on folks who live, or own property, in the dark areas of the state, who will allow us to practice our chosen hobby, on their property.

I see Metal Detecting going the same way. As time goes on, our only solution will be to hunt on private property, where offices of the state have little or nothing to say. What they don't know, they can't prohibit!

 

[Eureka!]

"SkySgt;3979864" said : I see Metal Detecting going the same way. As time goes on, our only solution will be to hunt on private property, where offices of the state have little or nothing to say. What they don't know, they can't prohibit!

Eureka says: Sorry, but I personally don't see it your way - We need to concentrate on REFORMING the current laws by shining a spotlight on how ridiculously convoluted the present statues are. We need to identify the authors of the CURRENT LAWS so we can COMMUNICATE and ILLUSTRATE that the law(s) or statues are unnecessarily restrictive or prohibitive to our hobby.

 

[cudamark]

cudamark - see #4 - I revised it to denote "Complaints."

Our conduct doesn't have to be poor, in fact, our conduct could be impeccable and still get complaints by those who don't think we should be doing what we do. Trying to avoid such idiots is desirable, of course, but there is no guarantee you'll be successful, regardless of the time of day or night. In areas where there is no existing ban on detecting, we should keep a low profile (as much as reasonably possible) and keep quiet about getting rules "clarified) or by seeking permission from ANYBODY. Keep an ear out for changes in the rules regarding our status, and when rules ARE changed restricting our hobby, band together and fight the restrictions with facts, not just silent outrage.

 

[McKinney_5900]

Eureka, the top two reasons any city or county or state imposes some sort of specific "no detecting" rule, are variations of either of the following:

1) holes.

2) cultural heritage concerns.

And each of those is "noble" concerns. Right? I mean, let's face it, you have to dig to get your target, right? And while YOU may know you cover it and leave no trace, yet .... be honest: what's the connotation to a casual observer ? And as for cultural heritage: An issue for only purist archies, right? And somewhere, within each state, an archie is on the payroll and in the legislative input process, right?

But you have to go back further than this question you're asking. You have to ask yourself: "Ok, but how did either of those two issues ever get on someone's radar, TO BEGIN WITH ?" I mean, do you really think archies wander around to beaches and parks, see md'rs and think "aha! let's make a law!". There's really very archies per capita, in any given state. So the odds of any of them stumbling on to you or I at the park, is remote.

So I'm of the opinion that the way a lot of this gets on their desks for a "no", is the md'rs who go into every city and county and state park kiosk asking "can I detect?". That question filters its way up the chain of command, only to find the "safe" answer. And then ... gee, aren't you glad you asked ?

So I'm of the opinion that the way a lot of this gets on their desks for a "no", is the md'rs who go into every city and county and state park kiosk asking "can I detect?". That question filters its way up the chain of command, only to find the "safe" answer.

I concur.

 

[Eureka!]

Our conduct doesn't have to be poor, in fact, our conduct could be impeccable and still get complaints by those who don't think we should be doing what we do. Trying to avoid such idiots is desirable, of course, but there is no guarantee you'll be successful, regardless of the time of day or night. In areas where there is no existing ban on detecting, we should keep a low profile (as much as reasonably possible) and keep quiet about getting rules "clarified) or by seeking permission from ANYBODY. Keep an ear out for changes in the rules regarding our status, and when rules ARE changed restricting our hobby, band together and fight the restrictions with facts, not just silent outrage.

You summed it up in a nutshell Cudamark.

*"keeping quiet about getting rules clarified" As Tom CA puts it - You can look them up yourself; you don't need to ask anyone. Research -Research - Research!!!

* "band together and fight the restrictions with facts, not just silent outrage." Who, What, When, Where, Why, How?
WHO does the law or statue apply to? -WHAT is the INTENT of it? - WHEN was it enacted? - WHERE does it apply? - WHY was it enacted? - HOW it affects my enjoyment of my Hobby?

 

[Eureka!]

So I'm of the opinion that the way a lot of this gets on their desks for a "no", is the md'rs who go into every city and county and state park kiosk asking "can I detect?". That question filters its way up the chain of command, only to find the "safe" answer. I concur.

In the beginning of this Thread is a list of reasons and "asking, "can I detect"" is #5. Have any other reasons that are not on the list?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Our conduct doesn't have to be poor, in fact, our conduct could be impeccable and still get complaints ....

Mark, exactly. The mere site of someone crouched down in a park, or poking the soil, can cause a passerby to say to themselves "gee, I think he's going to leave holes". Notice that the ACT of "leaving a hole" was not necessary for that complaint. It's merely the knee-jerk understandable connotation that our hobby has.

So I'm of the opinion that sometimes, when someone tells you "no because of holes", DOESN'T necessarily mean that anyone ever actually LEFT holes before you. It's often-time just the "go-to" reason for the "no" they just invented, since.... that's the connotation our hobby has.

Hence, the less people are allowed to draw that inference, the better. The less lookie-lous see of me, the better.

 

[Eureka!]

Mark, exactly. The mere site of someone crouched down in a park, or poking the soil, can cause a passerby to say to themselves "gee, I think he's going to leave holes". Notice that the ACT of "leaving a hole" was not necessary for that complaint. It's merely the knee-jerk understandable connotation that our hobby has. So I'm of the opinion that sometimes, when someone tells you "no because of holes", DOESN'T necessarily mean that anyone ever actually LEFT holes before you. It's often-time just the "go-to" reason for the "no" they just invented, since.... that's the connotation our hobby has. Hence, the less people are allowed to draw that inference, the better. The less lookie-lous see of me, the better.

Tom - you just gave us the #9 reason why Law(s) or Statues are passed to discourage MD'ing:

9. PREVENTION due to an Authority receiving numerous reports from onlookers or spectators whom "think" (without proof) Detectorist activity may cause harm to the environment.

 

[Sandman]

TV shows like Diggers doesn't help our hobby. Being seen in any park or tot lot with a Lesche or other digger gets peoples dander up as they don't want anyone to do something they deem improper. Its a matter of wanting control over others.

 

[Eureka!]

TV shows like Diggers doesn't help our hobby. Being seen in any park or tot lot with a Lesche or other digger gets peoples dander up as they don't want anyone to do something they deem improper. Its a matter of wanting control over others.

I agree. Also, I'm sure in some places if your wearing Camo Army pants may not go over too big either. You only get one chance to make a good "first impression."

 

[cudamark]

I agree. Even though I like the look of camo, it seems out of place in our hobby. You certainly would look odd wearing it to the beach! A park or school will usually just draw attention to yourself and questions being asked as to what the heck you're doing dressed like that. I wouldn't even wear camo in the woods or anywhere hunting is allowed. I don't want some trigger happy knucklehead mistake me for something tasty! I wear clothing that is nice and brightly colored so that there is no question about me being game.

 

[Eureka!]

I agree. Even though I like the look of camo, it seems out of place in our hobby. You certainly would look odd wearing it to the beach! A park or school will usually just draw attention to yourself and questions being asked as to what the heck you're doing dressed like that. I wouldn't even wear camo in the woods or anywhere hunting is allowed. I don't want some trigger happy knucklehead mistake me for something tasty! I wear clothing that is nice and brightly colored so that there is no question about me being game.

FUNNY! Cudamark ROTFLMBO 0-: