Attention URGENT your help needed NOW to avert a parks closure

[Mark S.]

New info has come to our attention on this matter. We may have been acting on incomplete reporting. Please disregard this until we are able to clarify what is happening.


ATTENTION NEEDED IMMEDIATLEY

The Mason City, Iowa Parks Department will be meeting onTuesday October 13 at 6:00 pm. On their agenda is the banning of metaldetecting from the city parks. Why? This is being done for the heinous crime ofsomeone asking for permission. Now let’s not waste time debating the merits ofthat action. Let’s put the energy into fighting this.

I have attached a link to a news article and also to theminutes of the previous meeting. Please review them and get an email sent offto them. It is too late to depend on the mail. Let’s all get together here andget an email blitz going. The board members emails are listed below.

There are some real uninformed comments from these boardmembers. However please be polite andinformative. Educate these people.

If you are in the Mason City area then you need to attendthe meeting. Call everyone you know in the hobby and get them to the meeting.Don’t let this go without a fight.

Everyone needs to help out here. It will only take a few minutes to help save your hobby.

http://globegazette.com/news/local/man-with-metal-detector-fails-to-dig-up-mason-city/article_2c62c214-37d9-5c2a-8227-04c1d43f0808.html

http://www.masoncity.net/agendalist.aspx?cid=9257 (September minutes)

MASONCITY PARK & RECREATION BOARD MEMBERS:
Members serve for fouryears.
DonNelson, Chair - Elected 2012
Phone: 641-530-4154 Email: dnmb3653@gmail.com
KyleEasley, Vice Chair - Elected 2014
Phone: 641-430-2033 Email: kj_easley@yahoo.com
SteveDiaz - Secretary - Elected 2010, 2014
Phone: 641-420-2424 Email: rcthunder23@yahoo.com
FrankPearson - Elected 2010, 2014
Phone: 641-425-8660 Email: fjpearson@live.com
CraigBinnebose, Elected 2012 (appointed 2011)
Phone: 641-424-3316 Email: cbtrek@msn.com

Meetingsheld the 2nd Tuesday of each month


Mark Schuessler
Federation of Metal Detector and Archaeological Clubs

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[cudamark]

Since we're not a resident of your town, I'm not sure how much weight our opinions will carry, but, sure, why not!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... On their agenda is the banning of metaldetecting from the city parks. Why? This is being done for the heinous crime ofsomeone asking for permission. Now let’s not waste time debating the merits ofthat action.....

Mark, thanx for coordinating this. I'll send an email.

As for your above quote: If you read the story, the fellow didn't actually "ask permission", in the truest sense. He merely fought a "scram". Ie.: "sought clarification" and sought to overturn his scram. He had already hunted there for years up till then (according to the story) w/o issue.

However, his seeking to overturn what could otherwise have been an isolated fluke , yes, resulted in this. So in that sense, it was "asking permission".

If he'd detected there for years up til then w/o issue, then ........ IMHO, I'd have figured this was a fluke . Ie.: 1 person in 30,000 in that area, who cares less. Ie.: the only single griper. Albeit, yes, perhaps a person "in authority", but nonetheless, a fluke singular person. So instead of avoiding that one person in the future (ie.: "letting it blow over and be forgotten), he seeks to get specific allowance, over-turn, clarification, etc... And his result ? A proposed law cementing & clarifying it.

And the minutes you link: are a great insight into the "connotation in people's mind". When this pressing issue is put before them. Eg. "cultural heritage", "alter/deface", etc..... Did it ever occur to anyone else in the 30,000 around there prior to this ? Probably not. But when asked to "sign off" on it, the wheels of their minds draw all sorts of mental images.

There's nothing we can do to change the past. No amount of scolding the person for just "swatting more hornet's nests" will do any good now. So hopefully some emails will do some good

 

[Mark S.]

Unfortunately I just found out about it so we are doing it on very short notice. Normally I would send letters out but not enough time.

Yes this guy made an error but he thought he was doing the right thing so I cannot truly fault him. The real problem is the attitude of the parks board. The statements they made were so full of holes they are laughable. The biggest one is the liability issue. What liability? The city has a blanket insurance policy and it covers all activities. Metal detecting is not excluded. And if they are concerned about liability then there are many activities that should be banned before detecting (not that I am advocating that). I am willing to bet that they have had many claims for various injuries and none of them as a result of detecting.

Hopefully there will be people show up at the meeting and speak up.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Here's my email to those fellows:

Kyle, Steve, Frank, etc...

I have read, with interest, the evolution of the story concerning metal detecting in the city there. Please consider the following:

1) The gentleman "Sayles" had harmlessly detected said parks "for years" up till then. With out any issue, complaint, damage, etc... Thus hardly indicative of anything that brings "liability", eh? Ie.: No more so that someone flying a frisbee, skipping stones on a pond, etc.... Ie.: a harmless use of the park, like any other park user.

2) Any citations of existing code with terms like "alter", "deface", etc.... would not apply. Unless the hobbyist left some sort of mark or damage. Only then would it be alterED, defacED, etc.... In other words, all such terms inherently implicitly infer the END result. If someone did those things, then you ALREADY have code in place to address that. But that is not the issue here . As Mr. Sayles was not doing/leaving any harm/damage.

3) The singular park worker who objected to Mr. Sayles, was no doubt drawn in by a possible mental connotation, that need not necessarily be true: That a man with a metal detector might be about to "make craters". That would be akin to seeing a person walking a dog, and assuming they're about to leave their dog's mess there. Metal detecting is admittedly a small niche hobby (unlike dog-walkers who are a common site). So the rare site a man with the detector, probably simply draws the stares of curious on-lookers (park worker) who can draw un-necessary connections.

4) Barring some "historical sensitive monument", there is no risk of archaeological cultural heritage issues. The typical hobbyist in a run-of-mill park or beach, is plying for modern change (or change not old enough or in context of anything historical), modern jewelry, trinkets, etc.... We could understand if this were a sensitive monument (Ghettysburg, Shiloh, Bodie, etc...), but that is NOT what we're talking about here.

5) Any codes about pipes, utilities "earth movement" etc... were always ever intended for heavy-equipment construction type activities. Lest no kid could ever be allowed to dig in the sand box again ?

Please let existing laws do their job, and do not isolate metal detecting for specific prohibition. No more so than you'd prohibit dog-walkers, simply because one park worker saw (or thought) a single dog-walker was about leave their dog's mess not-picked up.

Sincerely, Tom Tanner

 

[cudamark]

Nice letter Tom!