Tom_in_CA
Gold Member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2007
- Messages
- 13,803
- Reaction score
- 10,339
- Golden Thread
- 2
- Location
- Salinas, CA
- 🥇 Banner finds
- 2
- Detector(s) used
- Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
Goody, I know you are saying that the current bootings are of people who have not gone in and made themselves a target for a "no", by having asked. (ie.: guilty of failing the psychology of "no one cared till they asked" routine).
But backing up BEFORE them in time, to whenever the very first booting, (or law or whatever) occured, what was the genesis of THAT? The reason I ask is, perhaps THAT was the result, of someone earlier, going in and asking. And when their "pressing question" get bandied around through the chain, and gets a "no", and thus ... bootings started. When perhaps prior to that, it wouldn't have garnered a second look?
To put this question in perspective, an example: In the late 1980s, there was a state campground here that used to be hunted by a friend of mine for silver coins. He had never had a problem, nor had the persons in the years prior to him, who turned him on to detecting and took him there. Yup, right in front of rangers, etc... No one cared. Then one day, a newbie, who just got his first detector, went to the kiosk and asked "can I metal detect?" The confused clerk had never heard such a question, so they looked hither and yonder through various books and manuals to find any answer. Then they made a few calls to other dept's, perhaps Sacramento, etc... They return to the window and tell the fellow "no". The dejected mdr's leaves. About a week later, my friend who had routinely detected this park was detecting it, and .......... guess what? Yup, he got booted! When he asked why, it was the same song and dance as Louisville says: "cultural heritage, you can't do that, blah blah". My friend was bewildered why/how this had never been an issue. He left. Later he heard through the grapevine about the newbie at the kiosk, so my friend was able to connect the dots and the time-line.
So in the same way my friend did not generate his own "no", yet you can see that it was others who went before him who did. Thus if you were to apply this example to Louisville, do you think there were earlier incidents that brought about this policy?
But backing up BEFORE them in time, to whenever the very first booting, (or law or whatever) occured, what was the genesis of THAT? The reason I ask is, perhaps THAT was the result, of someone earlier, going in and asking. And when their "pressing question" get bandied around through the chain, and gets a "no", and thus ... bootings started. When perhaps prior to that, it wouldn't have garnered a second look?
To put this question in perspective, an example: In the late 1980s, there was a state campground here that used to be hunted by a friend of mine for silver coins. He had never had a problem, nor had the persons in the years prior to him, who turned him on to detecting and took him there. Yup, right in front of rangers, etc... No one cared. Then one day, a newbie, who just got his first detector, went to the kiosk and asked "can I metal detect?" The confused clerk had never heard such a question, so they looked hither and yonder through various books and manuals to find any answer. Then they made a few calls to other dept's, perhaps Sacramento, etc... They return to the window and tell the fellow "no". The dejected mdr's leaves. About a week later, my friend who had routinely detected this park was detecting it, and .......... guess what? Yup, he got booted! When he asked why, it was the same song and dance as Louisville says: "cultural heritage, you can't do that, blah blah". My friend was bewildered why/how this had never been an issue. He left. Later he heard through the grapevine about the newbie at the kiosk, so my friend was able to connect the dots and the time-line.
So in the same way my friend did not generate his own "no", yet you can see that it was others who went before him who did. Thus if you were to apply this example to Louisville, do you think there were earlier incidents that brought about this policy?