A quiz @ the Genesis of off-limits sites:

[Tom_in_CA]

Here's a typical example of a place being added to the ever-widening list of "off-limits sites". One of those type stories that makes us all groan and get mad.

No detectors at Bluff BOC following DNR on metal detectors - Thomaston Times - thomastontimes.com

So, using this particular recent story as a case-example, what lessons do you see being played out here? What is the genesis of the reasons for this? Ie.: "who to blame", so-to-speak. What could have been done to have kept this place from becoming this way ?

Just want to see if others are reading between the lines, like I am, on this one.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[TreasurDiggrNY]

Just want to see if others are reading between the lines, like I am, on this one.

Nobody reads between the lines like you Tom
Someone asked, someone said no. Can't be simpler than that.

I've knocked on doors and got the wife or son and they said come back later when my husband/dad is here. I've gone back and sometimes dad says no and sometimes he says yes. Am I wrong for asking

Should I just walk onto property I don't own under the credo you preach of "I'm not going to ask for permission because nobody probably cares and oh my, if I do ask someone they might say....gasp, shudder, gulp.....No?"


Credo
noun
An idea or set of beliefs that guides the actions of a person or group.

 

[slink]

While my opinion is just that an opinion.I read between the lines people asking about detecting the area were not asking the correct people.It seems DNR is in charge of the property and has rule against detecting.I ask to detect any property I am not 100% sure about.I know you dont like that and think its not a good idea but if someone says no its not a big deal to me there are millions more acres left to try.Its not often I detect public land but if I do I will be 100% sure its ok.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... I've knocked on doors and got the wife or son and they said come back later when my husband/dad is here. I've gone back and sometimes dad says no and sometimes he says yes. Am I wrong for asking .....

No. Not wrong for asking on private property. But that's not what that link was about. It wasn't about private property. Read again.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

slink and treasure digger. The "take aways" (ie.: reading between the lines) that I got from that link was as follows:

1st note:

" ... At the January 13 meeting of the Upson County Commissioners, County Manager Jim Wheeless stated several citizens had inquired through both he and Commissioner Steve Hudson, about the use of metal detectors at Sprewell Bluff park. "

So those fellows then, tasked with this "pressing issue question", passed it up the chain to the DNR. WHAT ? You mean they DIDN'T know the answer ?

How all-fired important was it then, up-till-then, to them, if they didn't even know the answer to that ? I mean, you have to ask yourself: If someone doesn't even know the answer to that, then I betcha they'd have never have blinked twice if they'd just been driving past the beach, and seen an md'r.

Anyhow, the DNR answers back: "no".

2nd note:

And when questioned about that no, the DNR tells the county people:

"The only reason they could tell us is with the possibility of any artifacts in the area, they didn’t want them disturbed,” said Wheeless. “So, the use of a metal detector is prohibited.”

Notice that this is only interpretational things that can be "morphed" to apply to detecting. Ie.: it didn't specifically say "no metal detecting". NOT THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO INTERPRET THINGS IN THAT WAY, mind you. But the much bigger issue is: that you have various people here who have apparently not given the matter thought before. And have to go put it in front of meeting agendas, talk to higher ups, etc.... And ... Lo & behold, look what happened ?

And I'm betting that EVEN THE DNR's answer, was likewise one of those things where perhaps THEY TOO had to "put it through their filters" of "what applies to this question" type of thing. So again, possibly one of those things where they'd have never have given the topic a moment's thought.

So if anyone here challenges the notion that asking permission, or "inquiring about" detecting (where it's not specifically prohibited) is not a good idea, here is a case example of the way things can work out.

Read it and take to heart.

 

[TreasurDiggrNY]

No. Not wrong for asking on private property. But that's not what that link was about. It wasn't about private property. Read again.

Where did I say private property? Oh nowhere...But if you must know I was referring to property I don't own

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Hi treasure-digger NY: I'm a little confused here. In your post #2, it gives an example of knocking on doors, and talking to homeowners (eg.: wife, son, dad, etc...). So to me, that seemed to indicate you were talking about private property.

 

[TreasurDiggrNY]

slink and treasure digger. The "take aways" (ie.: reading between the lines) that I got from that link was as follows:

1st note:

" ... At the January 13 meeting of the Upson County Commissioners, County Manager Jim Wheeless stated several citizens had inquired through both he and Commissioner Steve Hudson, about the use of metal detectors at Sprewell Bluff park. "

So those fellows then, tasked with this "pressing issue question", passed it up the chain to the DNR. WHAT ? You mean they DIDN'T know the answer ?

How all-fired important was it then, up-till-then, to them, if they didn't even know the answer to that ? I mean, you have to ask yourself: If someone doesn't even know the answer to that, then I betcha they'd have never have blinked twice if they'd just been driving past the beach, and seen an md'r.

Anyhow, the DNR answers back: "no".

2nd note:

And when questioned about that no, the DNR tells the county people:

"The only reason they could tell us is with the possibility of any artifacts in the area, they didn’t want them disturbed,” said Wheeless. “So, the use of a metal detector is prohibited.”

Notice that this is only interpretational things that can be "morphed" to apply to detecting. Ie.: it didn't specifically say "no metal detecting". NOT THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO INTERPRET THINGS IN THAT WAY, mind you. But the much bigger issue is: that you have various people here who have apparently not given the matter thought before. And have to go put it in front of meeting agendas, talk to higher ups, etc.... And ... Lo & behold, look what happened ?

And I'm betting that EVEN THE DNR's answer, was likewise one of those things where perhaps THEY TOO had to "put it through their filters" of "what applies to this question" type of thing. So again, possibly one of those things where they'd have never have given the topic a moment's thought.

So if anyone here challenges the notion that asking permission, or "inquiring about" detecting (where it's not specifically prohibited) is not a good idea, here is a case example of the way things can work out.

Read it and take to heart.

Once again you're making silly assumptions and exaggerations but we all know that's your "thing". Truth is, you were not at these meetings or discussions so you have no clue, what a surprise. So what do you think Tom, they didn't say "no" to me and since I didn't ask does that "no" apply to me?

 

[TreasurDiggrNY]

Hi treasure-digger NY: I'm a little confused here. In your post #2, it gives an example of knocking on doors, and talking to homeowners (eg.: wife, son, dad, etc...). So to me, that seemed to indicate you were talking about private property.

You're a little confused everywhere Tom, Where did I say homeowner?

 

[Fletch88]

Tom, yes I read between the lines and this one hits pretty close to home for me. The more people we have going to the top bureaucrats for permission to do something that no one really cares about any more than hitting golf balls, throwing a frisbee, geocaching etc, the quicker this whole hobby will be shot to hell!!! Please anyone in Southern part of GA don't follow suit. Just go at low traffic times, leave no traces you were ever there and have fun.

 

[slink]

Understood Tom If DNR said no its logical they are in control of said property.I know here DNR has no opinion on parks they dont control.The exception to that is fish and game violations and such.

As I said in last post I know you dont agree with me and thats fine.The legal issues are certainly a hot topic and most feel very strong about their opinion.No one will say anything to make me change my point of view just the same as no one will change yours.

I feel like land is all over no need to get bent out of shape over a single place.I admit I used to hunt many places without asking even private property.No one cared......that was the 70's I was young and just didnt know any better.Things are different now in the world and in the way I think.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Once again you're making silly assumptions and exaggerations but we all know that's your "thing". Truth is, you were not at these meetings or discussions so you have no clue, what a surprise.......

But that's the marvelous thing of newspapers and news article links. They record the goings-on at the meetings. You & I can read right there what transpired. So what's to "exaggerate" about that? The article ITSELF said the reason for the county to search hither and yonder for an answer was "several citizens inquiring". What's not to understand about that? How is that an "assumption" ? They tell you RIGHT THERE what their reason was for further research into this "pressing question"

And what's to exaggerate about the eventual answer they come up with ? The article tells you right there what they rely on to develop this "no".

Yes, I admit, I am conjecturing that THOSE VERY SAME PEOPLE perhaps would never have given the matter a moment's thought. I can be fairly certain of that conjecture (I hope you can admit), when the article clearly states that the initial recipients of the question, had to look elsewhere to find out (ie.: they didn't know).

But I suppose someone could say that .... on the other hand ...... those DNR people might indeed have freaked out if they'd seen an md'r (even in the absence of the question). Thus yes, I'm doing a little more reading beyond that.

And if it's true that the DNR had a "canned answer" (and didn't dream up something to apply on the spot), then I bet you that the ONLY reason they do have a "canned answer", is that ........ going back further, the same thing has happened in the prior decades elsewhere at their sites. So ... sure, maybe it was a pre-determined response. But you have to ask yourself, "Ok, but where did THAT pre-determined answer originate from?"

 

[Tom_in_CA]

......... If DNR said no its logical they are in control of said property.........

I agree. Please don't mis-understand me. I'm not in any way saying that a governing board doesn't have the authority to say and do such things. That's not the issue. They're totally welcome to interpret their codes to results in "no detecting". A LOT of things, that exist in a LOT of places, can be morphed to conclude "no detecting".

a) artifact/cultural heritage stuff
b) prohibitions on collecting, removing, harvesting
c) prohibitions on altering, disturbing, damage, etc..

The list is endless. And I gaurantee you, that if you look long enough and hard enough, and ask enough pencil-pusher lawyer bureaucrats, you can probably also find verbage to dis-allow you from the most innocuous city sandbox in the USA.

So the question is not their authority to do that. The question is why put it on their radar, as something to get the wheels of their brain turning in that fashion, to begin with ?

 

[slink]

I do understand your point Tom the legal issues is one of the reasons I seldom detect any public places.Until about a month ago I had not detected any public property for at least 15 yrs.I recently ask park security before detecting local park.Why because I wanted to be sure it was permitted before doing so.I am just different I guess no for any or no reason is fine by me.I feel like there is so much ground available no need to get bent about any restricted area rather justifyed or not.I feel no sense of entitlement to any public land.Its really simple thought process for me I detect for pleasure and to relax if Im not 100% sure Im allowed to be there I get neither.

 

[Slingshot]

Public property - Don't ask, don't tell...

 

[diverrick]

have to agree that the "artifact rule" needs to have some historical reason for it. I mean Anyone could say there MIGHT be "artifacts" Anywhere. What is an artifact? arrowheads, grinding rocks? a coin lost last week? This is simply the powers to be bringing in a bluff rule to not have to do anything to prove the point. I mean it is easy to simply say NO when asked when you have no reason to say yes. Just make something up make it legal and there ya go. It is now banned.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

........Why because I wanted to be sure it was permitted before doing so......

Isn't that information available by looking up rules for oneself ?

...... no need to get bent about any restricted area.......

Sure. No need for any of us to get bent about an un-restricted area. HOWEVER, the issue here is, why CONTRIBUTE to an area getting restricted? If the status of "restricted" ONLY came about, because an md'r went and made it a "front and center pressing issue" in need of their "princely blessing" (hence leading the "safe" answer of "no"), then yes: I get "bent" out on that.

.....I feel no sense of entitlement to any public land...

Well, this goes back to rules of use. If something is not prohibited (specifically), then to do said-activity is not somehow presumptuous or "entitled", etc.... No more so than to claim that walking or flying a frisbee there is "entitled" (as if that's a bad word?)

..... I detect for pleasure and to relax if Im not 100% sure Im allowed to be there I get neither....

I detect for pleasure too. And enjoy it very much thank you As for the "100%" sure part, I don't think there's anywhere in the world that you can go (even the most innocuous city sand box you can think of), and be "100% sure" that someone might not gripe.

Any place at all you can name for me that you think it's ok (and perhaps you even "have permission"), I bet I can find another person in that bureaucracy that can over-turn that, and say "no". All I'd need to do is use key buzz words like "dig", "take", "remove", "holes", "liability", "indian bones", "treasure", etc... And then ask them to sign a contract authorizing me, etc... (which would then necessitate it going before a city lawyer, etc...). And then presto, I can your allowed spot, to become off limits.

The point of what I'm saying is, that nothing in life is 100% gauranteed. You can get flipped off in traffic by someone who doesn't like your lane change. You might get attacked by a bear when you leave your front door in the morning, etc....

 

[Tom_in_CA]

have to agree that the "artifact rule" needs to have some historical reason for it. I mean Anyone could say there MIGHT be "artifacts" Anywhere. What is an artifact? arrowheads, grinding rocks? a coin lost last week? This is simply the powers to be bringing in a bluff rule to not have to do anything to prove the point. I mean it is easy to simply say NO when asked when you have no reason to say yes. Just make something up make it legal and there ya go. It is now banned.

Diverrick: I call the scenario you're describing, the "Go To" reason. Here's how the psychology works: Someone asks "can I metal detect". The pencil pusher ...... inclined to give the "safe answer", says "no". Then they reach for a "go to" rationalization to justify the no they just gave you.

Hence their "go-to" answer is usually something about "holes" or "archie/artifacts/historical" concerns. Right ?

So guess what we md'rs do when we see mention of "holes" or "artifacts", as the reasons for the no's ? We say to ourselves: a) Durned those guys who must've left holes, or b) Durned those archies anyhow! But notice there was never necessarilly any case of anyone who left holes! It is just a connotation that comes to mind (when tasked with the "pressing question"). And doesn't mean there was ever actually any cases of that. And notice that there was never actually necessarily an archie who stumbled upon an md'r, and got his panties in a wad. In both cases, those are often only the "go to" reason, and didn't mean there was ever a case of holes or archies being bent.

 

[slink]

Sure. No need for any of us to get bent about an un-restricted area. HOWEVER, the issue here is, why CONTRIBUTE to an area getting restricted? If the status of "restricted" ONLY came about, because an md'r went and made it a "front and center pressing issue" in need of their "princely blessing" (hence leading the "safe" answer of "no"), then yes: I get "bent" out on that....

I am so sorry I never thought asking 1 park security guy if detecting was allowed here in my small town would be me contributing to a nationwide problem of areas being restricted.

I guess its a good thing I dont hunt public land much.If I did I would likely destroy the entire hobby for everyone on earth.

 

[TreasurDiggrNY]

To comment on the part I highlighted above-- A person should know if it is necessary to ask permission to detect a piece of property regardless of what type of property that is. If a person is not willing to research whether it is necessary or not and instead chooses to take the easy route they can hurt the hobby and the chances of someone else detecting in an area. Sorta like digging holes in the park and leaving them. Easier but not the best course of action. It's not that simple.

You don't know who these people are, what they know or what they did regarding research but you imply they are stupid and lazy people who metal detect....nice. Here's some reading between the lines that you and Tom like. "County Manager Jim Wheeless stated several citizens had inquired through both he and Commissioner Steve Hudson, about the use of metal detectors". Maybe they weren't even detectorists, maybe they were tree-hugging grass eating bird watchers who called and asked if people can be metal detecting because the crazy looking old dude creeped them out. Do you hunt here Kemper