rights at risk

[Seamuss]

If your rights are in question, then did you really have these rights in the first place?

You have the right to drive a car. Do you have the right to go faster?

You have the right to use the park. Do you have the right to dig and leave divits?

What are the rights that we are asking about?

Rights, what rights? I know not nothing.

 

[thrillathahunt]

Do we have the right to dig and leave dibits? You are kidding, right?

Hell, if one walks in the park on a rainy day he might leave muddy footprints!

If one puts up a canopy for their family picnic, the tent stakes will leave "holes"!

If one brings their dogs, they will "disturb" the dirt and grass with their paws!

If one were to play horseshoes they might mess up the grass while they "play"!

Maybe all of these activities should be banned also!!!

How are we ever going to get anything positive accomplished in regards protecting our hobby from extinction when we can't even agree that we have a right to do what we do!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Seamus, no, of course we don't have the "right to leave divots". Do you "leave divots"? If so, I would suggest you learn how to retrieve targets properly, or take up another hobby.

 

[Seamuss]

If your rights are in question, then did you really have these rights in the first place?

You have the right to drive a car. Do you have the right to go faster?

You have the right to use the park. Do you have the right to dig and leave divits?

What are the rights that we are asking about?

Rights, what rights? I know not nothing.

Seamus, no, of course we don't have the "right to leave divots". Do you "leave divots"? If so, I would suggest you learn how to retrieve targets properly, or take up another hobby.

Look closely about leaving divots. It was a question about the right to do so, not a statement of either one of us in particular doing so.
The real question here is do we have the same right as everyone else to use the park. Or are we asking for the right to do something different like detect and retrieve after someone else didn't cover their plug.

You might have read something different then what I was saying.

My question was "what are the 'rights' that are in question" . Not that you or I did something with or without getting caught. Someone got caught somewhere and THAT is why we are are talking about "rights".

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

SWR,

To answer your request to be specific - I believe that we, as the public, have a right to use public land - we pay for it, we own it. It does not belong to the BLM, nor to the Forest Service - they are merely the PAID stewards of our public land. When the Federal government makes up their budget, they take some of OUR tax money for these public lands.

Stopping the public from using it is the equivalent of a fifth amendment taking (in my opinion).

So while metal detecting may not be a right - use of our public land - IS. Maybe not a constitutional right, per se, but does fall into the 5th amendment.

B

 

[lostcauses]

Public brings out some strange beliefs.
Individuals think they, and only they own it and any thing they want to do on it is a right instead of a privilege. They pay taxes you know, LOL

The will do on public land, stuff they would not do on there own property. They demand to be allowed to act, or do upon public property that they would not allow on their private land.

Strange thing how a lot of individuals view public property.
This is not just with THing.

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

They will do on public land, stuff they would not do on there own property

That is true.

But it is still your tax dollars at work - in fact, in many places, they take your tax dollars, and then take them again to 'enter' and to 'park' and to 'camp' and to 'hike' - etc.

They 'sell' the public land to the highest bidder (land for the rich, on your dime) - they will charge you to take pictures if they think you will make a dime on it - and will sell a wilderness for a week, or weekend or two or three, for drag races (the mojave), in places they don't allow you to bring in a wheelchair if its motorized ?

They will also trade it for other places if they see fit, they will (and do) let organizations like Greenpeace and the like decide where your boundaries are, what you can do, and who can do it.

The very point of public land is for all (let me repeat that ALL) the people of the United States have a common area in which to practice their likes and hobbies.

Frankly, I have a problem with covenants (covenants in place for YOUR protection) on private land. It is the ultimate in bias - yes, you guys can use it, but you guys cannot - because 'we' don't think you should be doing that.

What is public land for? Hey - how about, if I cannot use it, I don't help pay for it?

B

 

[Goodyguy]

As far as rights go, we have precious few. There is no right to drive a car, driving is a privilege issued by the state, in the form of a license.

We are supposed to have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and even those rights that are guaranteed by the constitution still come with many restrictions.

Sometimes civil disobedience is the only answer, but get caught and you pay the price.

If we expect our hobby to last into the future, something is going to have to be done sooner or later that will insure it's survival, most likely it will be done in the form of licensing, carrying certain restrictions. Or else it will be banned altogether.


GG~

 

[Dimeman]

There are many forms of recreation available in public areas. Skating, tennis,soccer, vollyball, football, baseball, frisbee throwing, bicycle riding, and jogging among others. Some of the people who use the areas often leave trash items on and around picnic areas, next to trash containers, and scattered all thru the area. We all have seen this.
Metel detecting is the only recreation being done in these areas that leave the grounds cleaner than before. We take out loads of metal items, in and from on top of the ground and many of us also pick up lots of other trash to remove from sight.
Because of some who don't fill the holes back up, the officials say either that, or the antiquities law as to ban US from the places.
I have seen lots more damage from dogs digging in parks, from dog poop all over green grass areas, soccer players damage to grass, baseball fields with ruts along the base line, and chunks tore out of grass fields from other people using the grounds.

I haven't heard of any of these people in the parks helping law enforcement agencies locate metal items from crimes in the area, just metal detectorists. I haven't heard any other of these park users helping archaeologists find a historical spot lost for years, just metal detectorists. I haven't heard of any of those people finding a lost ring, and if identifiable, returning it to its owner, just metal detectorists.

But they tell us we are NOT WELCOME in these public areas, because of our hobby, metal detecting??

They should prohibit ALL the other activities also, because they are more damaging to the area, than we are.

 

[Seamuss]

As far as rights go, we have precious few. There is no right to drive a car, driving is a privilege issued by the state, in the form of a license.

We are supposed to have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and even those rights that are guaranteed by the constitution still come with many restrictions.

Sometimes civil disobedience is the only answer, but get caught and you pay the price.

If we expect our hobby to last into the future, something is going to have to be done sooner or later that will insure it's survival, most likely it will be done in the form of licensing, carrying certain restrictions. Or else it will be banned altogether.


GG~

Well said. That was the response close to what I was looking for.

 

[Siegfried Schlagrule]

Mrs. O, You have in the past found sources for my vague references and
foggy memory. Please do so again. I seem to recall that there is a law
which permits the people to personally sue any federal employee or official who violates their rights for damages. If your property is seized or destroyed and the authorities tell you you won't be reimbursed you can nail them. If i remember right it is also against the law for the feds to provide them with lawyers to defend themselves. The amount of damages - legal maximum - if i remember correctly was ten times actual. I think that law could be used against the over reaching state and federal archeologists and other tyrants. A few well advertised lawsuits and the whole crew would back off. siegfried schlagrule

 

[lostcauses]

what right do folks think they are losing??

 

[Seamuss]

That was what I was trying to get them to respond to.

 

[lostcauses]

Seamuss
I doubt you get an answer:
LOL took me some time to pay attention to the title. Thanks to you.

Privileges lost yes, rights lost no.

 

[Goodyguy]

It has to do with our constitutional right to "the pursuit of happiness" that is being interfered with, the way I see it.
Also our constitutional right of "liberty" if we choose to use it to pursue our hobby according to our will.

These are the same "rights" that all of us use to enjoy our lives.

Pursuit of happiness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pursuit_of_happiness
Liberty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty


GG~

 

[lostcauses]

"It has to do with our right to the pursuit of happiness that is being interfered with, the way I see it.
Also our right of liberty to pursue our hobby according to our will."

I don't see closing public property to an act, to be interfering in your pursuit of happiness.

And you will does not constitute a right.

It is a privilege.
And yes that privilege can and may be taken away.
I suspect part of that is due to folks thinking they have a RIGHT to do what ever they want, including not filling holes, violating laws and so on.
It is so easy to show the bad, and it far out weighs the good that can be shown. This is just not in MDing. It is in ORV, and other out door recreational hobby's and sports. More people doing it, the more damage is done. Then it has to be limited or stopped (banned) altogether.

Again an interesting use of wording: that folks believe it is a right to do on public property: usually what they would not allow on there own property.

I am wondering with all I keep reading on this stuff which side I should be on. LOL
I will stick to a balance is needed, and hope one can be found.

 

[eldorado]

I have enjoyed reading all the posts. two of you I tip my hat too. very calmly expressing your opinions. sharing your experiences. helped my brain quite a bit. the first word of the post "IF"

 

[jeff of pa]

The very point of public land is for all (let me repeat that ALL) the people of the United States have a common area in which to practice their likes and hobbies.

Frankly, I have a problem with covenants (covenants in place for YOUR protection) on private land. It is the ultimate in bias - yes, you guys can use it, but you guys cannot - because 'we' don't think you should be doing that.

What is public land for? Hey - how about, if I cannot use it, I don't help pay for it?

B

I Agree But how do we get this Point accross to
those who count ?

and unfortunately some fool will liken it to drug Use,
or purse snatching;
with the Excuse some people consider that
Recreation. Should that be allowed ?

We are already Being accused of Stealing & Doing harm
by the uneducated

 

[thrillathahunt]

"It has to do with our right to the pursuit of happiness that is being interfered with, the way I see it.
Also our right of liberty to pursue our hobby according to our will."

I don't see closing public property to an act, to be interfering in your pursuit of happiness.

And you will does not constitute a right.

It is a privilege.
And yes that privilege can and may be taken away.
I suspect part of that is due to folks thinking they have a RIGHT to do what ever they want, including not filling holes, violating laws and so on.
It is so easy to show the bad, and it far out weighs the good that can be shown. This is just not in MDing. It is in ORV, and other out door recreational hobby's and sports. More people doing it, the more damage is done. Then it has to be limited or stopped (banned) altogether.

Again an interesting use of wording: that folks believe it is a right to do on public property: usually what they would not allow on there own property.

I am wondering with all I keep reading on this stuff which side I should be on. LOL
I will stick to a balance is needed, and hope one can be found.

The founding fathers of our great nation saw it important to point out that the people had "inalienable rights" that the government did not have the power to remove. It is called the "Bill of Rights".

We also have individual "civil rights" not to be discriminated against. Rights that protect us from unwarranted governmental actions, and that insure out "right" to participate in a hobby that brings us "happiness" without repression.

How about that?

 

[lostcauses]

By your argument any property, public or private (even if you do not own the private) should be allowed to do your hobby on. You are trying to say it is a right, when it is not.

"It has to do with our right to the pursuit of happiness that is being interfered with, the way I see it.
Also our right of liberty to pursue our hobby according to our will."

I don't see closing public property to an act, to be interfering in your pursuit of happiness.

And you will does not constitute a right.

It is a privilege.
And yes that privilege can and may be taken away.
I suspect part of that is due to folks thinking they have a RIGHT to do what ever they want, including not filling holes, violating laws and so on.
It is so easy to show the bad, and it far out weighs the good that can be shown. This is just not in MDing. It is in ORV, and other out door recreational hobby's and sports. More people doing it, the more damage is done. Then it has to be limited or stopped (banned) altogether.

Again an interesting use of wording: that folks believe it is a right to do on public property: usually what they would not allow on there own property.

I am wondering with all I keep reading on this stuff which side I should be on. LOL
I will stick to a balance is needed, and hope one can be found.

The founding fathers of our great nation saw it important to point out that the people had "inalienable rights" that the government did not have the power to remove. It is called the "Bill of Rights".

We also have individual "civil rights" not to be discriminated against. Rights that protect us from unwarranted governmental actions, and that insure out "right" to participate in a hobby that brings us "happiness" without repression.

How about that?