This hobby...

[Twisted One]

"The commission did pass an ordinance prohibiting using a metal detector on public property without the permission of the city manager or city archaeologist."

 

[smartmoney]

For those that don't feel metal detecting is being threatened Read about the middle of this article where in St. Augustine Florida you now have to go through the city archaeologist to get a permit to metal detect.
City expands limits on performers, vendors | StAugustine.com

This hobby is definitely in danger especially in the more populated areas. Thus more and more landowners will feed into this BS that the archys are feeding them about artifacts etc. and not grant us permission to detect. More negative has happened to MDing than positve in the past 20 years. Heres a good solution, go after those selling the artifacts on Ebay, Craigslist, etc and ban the selling/trading of artifacts altogether.

 

[snakeyes]

If it wern't for posts like this one, I wouldn't have known or even had a concern about not being able to detect on any open space. If I had to get a permit to detect on city property, I would expect that anybody else that used that property would need a permit also,including the family picknickers that set up a couple of stakes an start thowing horse shoes, or the girls soccer team that sets up there nets to practice, or the kids throwing fresbess.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

"The commission did pass an ordinance prohibiting using a metal detector on public property without the permission of the city manager or city archaeologist."

Twisted One, no no no, you've got it all backwards! Your posting of such information fails to ask the key question: "How did something like that, get started, TO BEGIN WITH??" Answer: by people going in and asking for permission, clarification, and permits! Doh! Don't you see the catch 22?? The vicious circle?

Look at the immediate results of your posting the "scary story: Smart-money, snakeyes, and skittish folk think "oh no, I must go grovel at city halls". And presto, more laws, rules, and clarifications to "address the pressing questions". Sure, it ENDS UP at the desk of city managers and archies. And sure they cite cultural resources, holes, etc.... as their reasoning, but it fails to ask how it got on their radar to begin with. People asking.

 

[boris]

I will sell you a permit, what is your credit card#?

 

[boris]

I will sell you a permit, what is your credit card #?

 

[GreenMeanie]

We do not need any more permits!
What makes a rich guy and better and more responsible than a retired person on a fixed income?
We already deal with only the rich can own machine guns we don't need it in metal detecting.

 

[smartmoney]

If it wern't for posts like this one, I wouldn't have known or even had a concern about not being able to detect on any open space. If I had to get a permit to detect on city property, I would expect that anybody else that used that property would need a permit also,including the family picknickers that set up a couple of stakes an start thowing horse shoes, or the girls soccer team that sets up there nets to practice, or the kids throwing fresbess.

Well in the town where I live and the adjacent towns, you cannot use the athletic fields without a permit. So that means you couldnt just walk on the field and start playing ball. So do you think they will allow you to dig up holes in the public parks w/o getting harrassed?

 

[smartmoney]

"The commission did pass an ordinance prohibiting using a metal detector on public property without the permission of the city manager or city archaeologist."

Twisted One, no no no, you've got it all backwards! Your posting of such information fails to ask the key question: "How did something like that, get started, TO BEGIN WITH??" Answer: by people going in and asking for permission, clarification, and permits! Doh! Don't you see the catch 22?? The vicious circle?

Look at the immediate results of your posting the "scary story: Smart-money, snakeyes, and skittish folk think "oh no, I must go grovel at city halls". And presto, more laws, rules, and clarifications to "address the pressing questions". Sure, it ENDS UP at the desk of city managers and archies. And sure they cite cultural resources, holes, etc.... as their reasoning, but it fails to ask how it got on their radar to begin with. People asking.

Tom you are missing my point...if the city you lived in all of a sudden said no more detecting in public parks. Would you fight it? Then suppose some council member said we will allow MDing as long as you obtain a permit to do so, so we can monitor who is out there doing the damage. Would you object to that? My position is not a preemptive move to get a permit, but a solution to areas that do not allow MDing like state parks, federal land etc.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

This website and others like it give us the ability to spread word quickly to fight a proposed law, it has happen in the past on several occasions.....


I do not want to have to start paying a fee to each city I hunt, link binzga says, I also hunt many different cities. If they proposed a single fee for a state say $100.00, I might, and I say might consider it... The only reason I would consider it would be it might limit the number of hunters and leave more targets for me...

A permit system is not going to open up State or Federal land, anyone who believes it will is dreaming....

 

[smartmoney]

This website and others like it give us the ability to spread word quickly to fight a proposed law, it has happen in the past on several occasions.....


I do not want to have to start paying a fee to each city I hunt, link binzga says, I also hunt many different cities. If they proposed a single fee for a state say $100.00, I might, and I say might consider it... The only reason I would consider it would be it might limit the number of hunters and leave more targets for me...

A permit system is not going to open up State or Federal land, anyone who believes it will is dreaming....

Here in NY you can hunt state parks with a permit, BUT with limited areas.

 

[bigscoop]

I'll agree that it's a very tough call to make. In recent weeks I've been doing a lot of research into what typically transpires prior to the passing of a lot of new laws, regs/restrictions/etc. In nearly every case there was a defined objective and need for the change, but also in nearly every case the solutions were eventually carried out in extremes, to a point beyond meeting the original objective, i.e....they end up punishing everyone for the actions of a very few. Part of the reason for this appears to be due to a lack of voice presenting alternate solutions, and so it was easier for them if they just carried their solutions beyond the objective to meet the means. Also, once these new regs/rules/restrictions are in place they are nearly impossible to get revoked or changed. A few of the really bigger issues have been stalled because of active voice, but only stalled with no mass representation supporting alternate solutions. So I don't think there is any harm in putting together reasonable solutions and support for those alternate solutions ahead of time, as it appears it has been severely lacking in the past, just as in the present. A format for a working permit system needs to be discussed and put together now, with support, so it can be presented as an alternate solution during the addressing process, not after the process. Taking an active role in stalling proposed changes is one thing, but it's only stalling them, it is not preventing them in their basic concept and form, as has been seen many, many times in the past.

 

[smartmoney]

I'll agree that it's a very tough call to make. In recent weeks I've been doing a lot of research into what typically transpires prior to the passing of a lot of new laws, regs/restrictions/etc. In nearly every case there was a defined objective and need for the change, but also in nearly every case the solutions were eventually carried out in extremes, to a point beyond meeting the original objective, i.e....they end up punishing everyone for the actions of a very few. Part of the reason for this appears to be due to a lack of voice presenting alternate solutions, and so it was easier for them if they just carried their solutions beyond the objective to meet the means. Also, once these new regs/rules/restrictions are in place they are nearly impossible to get revoked or changed. A few of the really bigger issues have been stalled because of active voice, but only stalled with no mass representation supporting alternate solutions. So I don't think there is any harm in putting together reasonable solutions and support for those alternate solutions ahead of time, as it appears it has been severely lacking in the past, just as in the present. A format for a working permit system needs to be discussed and put together now, with support, so it can be presented as an alternate solution during the addressing process, not after the process. Taking an active role in stalling proposed changes is one thing, but it's only stalling them, it is not preventing them in their basic concept and form, as has been seen many, many times in the past.

Many of the people here seem to think that MDing is invinceable in public areas. Its so hard to convince the public that what we do is innocent and not destructible to their land. Just like asking for permission to detect a house...what will the owner gain by allowing someone to detect their property. I know it sounds harsh but its reality. I have been great at getting permission to hunt private land and I approach the owner with that mindset..."what will he gain from me detecting on his property?"