How Much Would YOU Pay

[maipenrai]

bazinga, your right, but I only used the NRA as an example of how a diversified group like the NRA could still be together.

According to your math, then do you mean that there are only 4,500 detectorest in the US? That cant be true. (also the 1b dollars is a bit off too) I know of much smaller towns with more than 30 club members. But it doesnt really matter how many detectorest there are, if most feel there is no DIRECT benefit, then they wont join. I sure dont want to join an organisation that doesnt give anything back.

 

[Dwight S]

Mr. Stout, thank you for your support of the detecting hobby through the years. I’ve read many or your articles and books through the years, and I appreciate all you’ve done.
If it could be done with true influential intentions for the hobbyist, then I’d freely pay the $25 or even $50 a year for membership. For that, I’d expect true representation for our hobby against impending legislation by archeologists and the like that look for ways to limit our hobby every chance they get. I think that most here that have jokingly commented would probably do likewise. I know some of them have commented in the past when posts have been made regarding blogs and news articles that have been written where archeologists paint detectorists in a bad light or because of such fiascos as the American Digger & Digger TV shows that came out this past spring. We have archeologists all over the country who believe that if it’s in the ground, it belongs to them and we as hobbyists have no right whatsoever to dig anything. They sit in their offices, write letters to the editors, push for protective legislation and beg for donations rather than go out and attempt to persevere America’s pre-history sites that truly need protection and study. They had rather see a developer come in and scrape the ground and develop a piece of property, losing all historical items in the process, than see any of us dig a bullet and share its significance with a group of interested kids. Whether we like it or not, our hobby is under attack and without some help, we will lose out in the end.
In my opinion, this organization would initially need to be run by the hobby’s movers and shakers, the equipment manufacturers and the hobby magazine publisher/editors. They, as hobby related businesses employ both directly and indirectly scores of people and would already yield influence if they banded together in a collective voice. Together with the hobbyists, they could possibly make a difference and open up new areas and ideas for the growth of the hobby.

 

[Dick Stout]

Thanks for all your comments, and suggestions, and Dwight thanks for your kind words. I originally thought the idea might take off, but now realize it will not happen in my lifetime. The responses (or lack of) I've received on the various forums were pretty much the same. Moving on....too old to worry anymore.

If anyone cares to comment further please do so on my blog. www.stoutstandards.wordpress.com There is a comments section there.... Thanks again.

 

[Frankn]

The NRA does offer some defense of gun owners, but it is a costly defense. They have a huge office complex in VA. They also get funds from gun manufacturers.
Here's the thing. The detector manufacturers need to get the ball rolling on such an organization. They could give a free one membership with each detector and the TH could pick it up from there. The organization should be kept small and concertrate on fighting anti detecting laws. It should be non profit in nature. How about " Treasure Hunters Association ". That name alone would attract members. We don't want an organization that is for profit like AARP that doesn't listen to it's members.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Dick, I know you mean well, and we all know that ..... as you say ..... you've had many years in this hobby (your name is seen for many years now in various periodicals, etc...). I too have been in this hobby for many years (~35), been presidents of clubs, and seen much evolution as well. Our club was amongst the first, via Jimmy Sierra's prompting, to sign up with the FMDAC, for instance.

While what you're saying sounds seeoooo good on the surface, there's major problems with some assumptions, and some un-intended consequences. For the implied assumptions part of it:

It assumes that such an organization can (by necessity) "solve" problems down to city-hall levels, across the USA. It also "assumes" that such problems exist, to begin with, everywhere we look. This merely causes skittish people (who read that the sky is falling) to rush to their city halls to seek clarifications, inquire about permits, and other such pre-emptive moves. Or, even if not "pre-emptive", they see posts like this, and think they need to "bring in the big-guns" and "fight city halls" everywhere, SIMPLY because someone gripes to them (which is going to be simply un-avoidable in a hobby like ours, that has admitted connotations, and draws the stares of curious on-lookers NO MATTER WHAT). And the vicious circle is: that such sanction-seeking and bulls-eyes to us that this creates, simply brings more "no's", in places where, quite frankly, it may not have become a problem or "official" etc.... if persons hadn't made themselves such a bulls-eye, in the first place.

And the sad fact is, that unlike the NRA muscle (there's LOTS of gun buffs out there), there simply isn't enough md'ing hobbyists to do anything, to raise the amount of money to do what you're thinking, to begin with. Believe me: the FMDAC tried, and there's simply too much apathy, and not enough hobbyists, to begin with. And as I say, even if there is, you'd be fighting a loosing battle that would simply bring about MORE of the very things you are afraid of, to begin with.

I can show you many examples of well-meaning people who got a "scram" here or there, who did exactly what you're thinking, and went to "fight" it (because they felt the laws/rules didn't explicitly say such things, etc...), ONLY to get laws WRITTEN to "address this pressing issue". And in the end, the person fighting/lobbying wished they simply left good enough alone, and avoided *just* the one person, or *just* the one park, etc....

 

[Dick Stout]

Tom, you may be right. There is indeed too much apathy out there. Have decided to move on with this.... Funny thing is I was just trying to get some discussion on it. I have no interest in getting involved with anything like this again. I have been there, done that, and I am too old. Hope you might consider sharing this post on my blog....(and the rest of you as well). Thanks again.

 

[Monty]

You guys are the most cynical and suspicious bunch I have ever seen. I have to admit I am just about as guilty as any of you however. But we are very much in danger of losing the right to detect in public places and you see every day where some good spot is put off limits. I belong to several professional organizations and never have had the feeling or any reason to believe anyone was in it just to make a buck. I would gladly join if the dues were reasonable and there was aq provision for accounting for the money taken in. That is usually written in the bylaws of any such organization. l just recently saw an article that stated that detectorists were stealing and destroying our nations history. To this I said BS! We are the only ones in the country who are recovering and restoring our national history in a manner for all to see. An art supoorted by man would be much stronger than individuals. Monty

 

[bazinga]

bazinga, your right, but I only used the NRA as an example of how a diversified group like the NRA could still be together.

According to your math, then do you mean that there are only 4,500 detectorest in the US? That cant be true. (also the 1b dollars is a bit off too) I know of much smaller towns with more than 30 club members. But it doesnt really matter how many detectorest there are, if most feel there is no DIRECT benefit, then they wont join. I sure dont want to join an organisation that doesnt give anything back.

I was using the 4,500 number as a reference for people in clubs with the potential to pay $25/year for their hobby. There are gobs more people in our area that detect. I've personally met a few dozen and told them about our club and they have never showed up. There are even other locals on this website that won't come to a club meeting or join. We've heard people say $25 is too much, too. We have had many others show up and once they learned that we aren't giving out spots to detect at, they also decided it wasn't worth it.

I do see that I got cross-eyed looking at the zeros on my computer and the actual number for NRA appears closer to 107.5 million. That's my fault there.

And if we had a hobby with enough people to actualyl be a real voting block to get the government to take notice, I wouldn't want to be a part of the hobby. That would be too many people detecting and very little left to be found.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

............... we are very much in danger of losing the right to detect in public places and you see every day where some good spot is put off limits......

Monty, what this statement fails to realize, is that the very reason there are places being "put off limits" is NOT because of a failure on our part to "have lobbying organizations". You have to ask yourself: why are those places off-limits in the first place? You'd be surprised at the # of instances where some rule coming down the pike, are people who go "fight", seek sanctions, inquire about permits, grovel, etc.... to begin with.

Let me give you a micro-example: There was a fellow who was booted from a particular state park (somewhere in the midwest, I forget which state). He'd never had a problem before at this park. All the ranger would tell him, is "it's not allowed". The md'r went home, and looked up all the state park rules for his state. He found no specific prohibitions against md'ing. So he thought about going back to the park, and showing this ranger that the ranger was mistaken.

In the meantime, while he studied the state park's rules, he happened to see that a neighboring state actually had verbage specifically ALLOWING detecting (albeit perhaps only on sandy beaches, or perhaps only at certain ones, or whatever). The md'r thought to himself: "Wouldn't it be great if OUR state had such language, so that it wasn't up to the arbitrary whims of individual rangers!". So he rallied friends in his club, and they started a letter writing campaign, made calls, and lobbied high up people in state capitol's parks headquarters offices. In the letter, he spelled out how he'd been un-justly booted, and pointed the park's people to look at the neighboring state's verbage, to see if something similar couldn't also be done for this state. The letters were never answered. No one ever returned any phone calls. Weeks went by.

In the meantime, one day, the md'r decided he'd go hunting. So he went to yet another state park near him, one where he'd also never had a problem. This time however, a ranger came up and booted him. The md'r recognized the ranger as one who previously, would pass by with nothing but a friendly wave! The md'r asked the ranger "why?". The ranger pulls a folded up paper out of his pocket, and shows the md'r. It's a memo. from state park headquarters, that had gone out to all the state parks in that state, to be passed out to all the rank-&-file rangers, to "be on the lookout for metal detectors, as this activity is not allowed". As the md'r looked over the memo that the ranger was showing him, GUESS WHO IT WAS SIGNED BY?? The VERY top official that he and his friends had been lobbying for sanctions, clarifications, petitions, etc... ! He immediately saw that his efforts had done nothing more than make this a "pressing issue" to be addressed. He'd effectively put his whole state's parks off-limits now, and wished he'd just left the earlier incident alone (ie.: avoid *just* that one ranger, or *just* that one park).

This is justs one example of many, of this vicious circle.