Mark, ouch

Sorry 'bout that

You guys are doing a great job, and any psychological effect furthering the very thing you're "going to bat against", is not your fault. I also do not see a way around this effect. That is: the minute we fight against isolated incidents (as the FMDAC has so effectively done), this requires "rallying support" which entails educating folks about the threats. That entails reporting on off-limits parks, tickets, fines, court-cases, etc.... I agree. There's no way to get around that, if there ever is to be a solidarity. The
un-intended consequence (which is no fault of the FMDAC) is what I refer to.
I still remember when the FMDAC was in its infancy, and our brick & mortor club got the early mailers, once we joined. As each issue was read outloud in our club meetings, you could literally look around the room, at folks who perhaps these things had never crossed their minds, and see the expressions of people thinking "oh no, I certainly don't want to get a ticket" Or "oh no, I certainly hope my city or county or state doesn't enact laws", etc... These are all very rationale reactions, and all very rationale reporting and solidarity rallied by the FMDAC.
So what I saw happen next, was some of these folks who probably previously never gave the matter thought before, would start checking in with park's dept's, city halls, etc...as they travelled (afterall, you can't be too safe, eh?) Or perhaps even places they'd been detecting already, but just assumed it was ok (not safe to assume things, eh?).
I know, it's a catch-22, that is not yours, or the FMDAC's fault. The more places get put off-limits (ie.: the more scary stories that circulate), the more persons in
other locales go to seek sanctions, clarifications, permissions, etc... leading to more off-limits spots, and on and on the cycle goes. :P I do not see a way around it, because we certainly can't say "let's stop reporting". The best I can think is to educate people to search rules
for themselves (rules in any city are usually available on city and park's dept. websites). If it is silent on the issue (doesn't say anything about md'ing), then so be it. Can the FMDAC make a distinction in their future literature on this? I know that ...... at present ..... the code says:
I WILL ALWAYS CHECK FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY AND LOCAL LAWS BEFORE SEARCHING. IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO “ KNOW THE LAW “
It is not a far leap from this, for persons to interpret this that they need permission. Or to the extent they may simply seek to know if there are any prohibitions (ie.: they do not walk in asking "can I metal detect?" but rather walk in asking "are there any prohibitions?" which would seem to put the burden on them to produce an actual rule), a back-fire can result: You can get a desk-clerk to say "we would prefer you didn't" (as if you had been asking permission). And if you counter "but where is that written?", you will get in to a tangle that you will probably loose. And odd thing is, at a lot of those places are places that probably no one would have ever given you second thought (till you asked, or asked for sanction, or tried to get them to sign something, etc....).