Tom_in_CA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 20,836
My friends from the local detecting club all got cited today.
uh, can you be a little more specific than that ? What happened ? Where ?
My friends from the local detecting club all got cited today.
uh, can you be a little more specific than that ? What happened ? Where ?
.... They all got $50 tickets and .....
*********************************************************Closed beach up at Tahoe yesterday. They went down a road that said authorized vehicles only. They all got $50 tickets and photos with the sheriff.
*********************************************************
So, if they had walked in, there would be no problem?
Roger
Then she must have been writing trespassing citations, if there were more than one for the vehicle/driver.
Roger
.... People getting cited didn’t take it seriously and either did the officer. Lots of posing....
I find it somewhat odd that you claim that the reason we are losing spots to detect is because some of us actually ask permission, and yet you ignore things like this...where you are saying to go ahead and detect when you know it involves trespassing. Yep, it's those of us following the law and behaving in an ethical manner that are causing all the troubles...we're such hooligans!For $50, that's what I'd be thinking.
Example, I knew a guy who got a $150-ish ticket (for being at a place he knew he shouldn't be, btw), and .... while it wasn't "fun" at the time getting the "3rd degree", yet : Once he got the ticket in the mail, he just paid it. And as he paid the piddly $150, he thought to himself: "If this was all I ever had to pay, for all the places and antics I've done, ..... It's worth it".
Maybe not un-like the occasional obligatory speeding ticket we've all gotten a few times in our lives. People are always going to push the limit and speed, despite the every-7 or 8 yrs. speeding ticket their bound to get.
I find it somewhat odd that you claim that the reason we are losing spots to detect is because some of us actually ask permission, and yet you ignore things like this...where you are saying to go ahead and detect when you know it involves trespassing. ....
I had a similar experience this summer at the beach, I was taking my gear out of the truck and a cop passed by and then did an abrupt U turn and pulled up to me, my first thought was oh boy, here we go. But all he wanted to know was if I ever found anything of value and some other inquisitive questions, a very pleasant chat that lasted about eight minutes, he wished me luck and went about his business.
My friends from the local detecting club all got cited today.
There’s no contradiction in my statement. I mean, only in a World where you believe that the only reason that people are denied access to an area is because someone, at some point in the past, had the unmitigated gall to ask permission to detect there, would anyone see a contradiction in what I wrote. But even then, there’s no contradiction. I simply pointed out that it’s odd to say the reason we lose areas in which to detect, is because someone asked permission. Yet you ignore blatant trespassing and think it’s actually OK…and somehow think that doing so apparently carries no negative connotations towards to our hobby.Flies-only, in the discussion of how off-limits-spots evolved to become-that-way : Don't you see the inherent contradiction in what you just wrote ?
That’s true. But since it was off limits, what it does show is that apparently some detectorists seem to think it’s perfectly OK to hunt in areas that are…as you stated…off limits. It shows a disrespect for other peoples’ property, a disrespect for other peoples’ wishes, and a disrespect towards the law (in cases of trespassing). All of which, I would wager, are more detrimental to our hobby than is asking permission.If/when it's true that a spot is off-limits (a historically themed park/preserve, in my friend's case), then .... it's ALREADY "off-limits" already. His being ballsy and hunting it, did not make it "off-limits". Nor did it make it any more "off-limits". See?
Ummmmm, I’m not sure where you’re going with this. If it is not off limits and if metal detecting is allowed, then there’s no issue.And if it were-the-case that .... at one time (way-back-when) that it WASN'T "off-limits", then hunting it back then wouldn't be illegal nor off-limits. Right ? Nor would it create a situation of making it "off-limits", since the md'r wouldn't (in that case) be doing anything wrong.
How so? Wait a second. Are you seriously going to claim that simply asking permission leads to a loss of access more often than does blatant trespassing and/or other law breaking activities? Again, you making the HUGE assumption that every time an area is off limits, it is so simply because someone asked permission. You seem to think that that is the only reason.So your point doesn't logically follow through.
In some cases maybe so. But again, the underlying question is “Why do they deny permission?” You’re blanket explanation is always about the perception of doing damage and digging holes. You say it every time this issue arises. But you ignore the distinct, and very real possibility that permission is ultimately denied because of the bad reputation detectorists [may] have due to their lack of respect for other peoples’ property.But , IMHO, my point of people asking-permission-where it's not needed, does indeed end up "swatting hornet's nests" .
Good for him. My post isn’t about your friend, however. It’s about detecting, in general, in places where it is off limitsBTW: My friend wasn't "trespassing".
.... But again, the underlying question is “Why do they deny permission?” ...
.... had the unmitigated gall to ask permission to detect there ...
My friends from the local detecting club all got cited today.
You do seem a bit myopic about this particular issue, but I do feel you’re being honest in your opinion. I hope you had a great Thanksgiving.Good discussion. And I can see that you are being intellectually honest, to see from all-angles. I hope I do the same.
Yeah…cuz it was already against the law to shoplift. Society, through their elected officials, gets to decide what they want to be deemed as “Illegal activities”. So society decided at some point to make shoplifting illegal, otherwise it would be legal…correct?In short, let's use this analogy : Shoplifting is illegal. Right ? So to use that as an analogy for md'ing off-limits spots (which is also illegal), then :
When a person shoplifts (ie.: breaks the law), is it their acts of shoplifting that LED TO THOSE LAWS ? No. It didn't serve to create the laws, nor make anyone else, going forward, think: "Gee, let's make more laws for shoplifters".
You know this makes no sense whatsoever, right? I mean, if there was no law, then the activity in question wouldn't be breaking a law. You cannot break a law that does not exist.See how the act of breaking laws, doesn't lead to laws.
Seriously? I don’t think that you are really thinking this through.I can not envision some places, where detecting is acceptable (ie.: not off-limits), where someone there sees a headline of scofflaw md'rs at some un-connected distant place. And thinks to himself : "Gee, I think we should therefore make a law to forbid md'ing here as well".
First off…that’s not how a new law is born. Have you never seen “School House Rock”? They do a wonderful job of explaining it.On the other hand, I can (and have) given you scores of true-accounts of how the evolution of .... yes dreamed-up-laws, WAS IN FACT trace-able to md'rs swatting hornet's nests and putting a "pressing question" on the plate of pencil pushers, who end up passing out a "safe answer". (Presto, a law is born).
Sometimes it does. It never hurts to ask.Keep in mind, that this quote is loaded with inferences/implications :
1) It implies that our activity is something that "needs permission" (assuming we're talking about places with no rules/laws that forbid).
Because you’re going onto property that doesn’t belong to you. Do you always need permission? No, of course not. But sometimes you do. There are many activities that require permission, why do you feel that detecting should always be immune?If the inference that "md'ing needs permission" is a true premise, then yes, everything you're saying does indeed logically follow. But why do we start with that premise ? What made md'ing so evil that it "needs permission", in the first place ?
Sometimes they are. It depends on the location and/or if the detectorists follow the rules (which, as we can plainly see from just this forum alone, many feel they do not have to do).2) to say "unmitigated gal", implies that anyone NOT "asking permission", is a low down dirty-rotten selfish scoundrel. Why that starting implication ?
I’m not the one starting with that premise…as I have explained to you countless times, in many many many other threads.Again, this description of an md'r is only true, when we start with the assumption that md'ing is horrible. Thus needing other's say-so . Why that starting premise ?
Dude, do you seriously not see the irony in this statement?This quote is a case of : Assuming what one-is-trying-to-prove, as evidence of his proof for it.
....You cannot break a law that does not exist.....
....Seriously? I don’t think that you are really thinking this through......
.....First off…that’s not how a new law is born. Have you never seen “School House Rock”?....
.....it doesn’t explain the ultimate outcome (denial of access)......
.....It never hurts to ask......
......Because you’re going onto property that doesn’t belong to you. Do you always need permission? No, of course not. But sometimes you do. There are many activities that require permission, why do you feel that detecting should always be immune?.....
......I’m not the one starting with that premise...…
......Dude, do you seriously not see the irony in this statement?.....
Yes…which is why I was wondering/questioning why you were talking about breaking non-existent laws.Uhhh, correct. But in the case-at-hand, you're lamenting the breaking-of-laws that DO exist. Right ?
Yes…which is why I was wondering/questioning why you were talking about breaking non-existent laws.Uh, When anyone reads the "police-blotters", and sees of someone committing a crime, they don't conclude "let's make a law". Right ? Because the fact is: The person(s) they are reading about in the police blotter, are ALREADY "breaking a law ". Right ?
OK…but in doing so you’re essentially putting all the blame on that last piece of straw that broke to camels’ back, all while ignoring the other pieces of straw that came prior.Not talking about the bureaucratic process of getting the pen-to-the-paper. I'm talking about the "kernel of thought" that brought-it-about as an issue, that needed-addressing IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I never said is was [solely] about trespassing. What I said is that md’rs may have a bad reputation amongst the “powers that be” because of some of the stories that appear in the newspapers, or on the TV news, or right here in forums like this one.Actually .... if you study the rationales of "reasons" for md'ing laws, it will never be : "Because some yahoos were snooping around off-limits spots". (those persons were already breaking existing laws).
There’s a difference between the meanings of the words “Reason” and “Excuse”. I really do not believe that a local park will deny permission for either of those two excuses. After all, they’d know if there was the possibility of some new “historical site” being uncovered, so I doubt that they’d truly use that as justification. As for the second excuse (hole digging), well…I think that one is the one we need to address. So I will once again ask the only question that you seem to ignore, which is “Why?” Where do they come up with that excuse? There must be a reason that they feel that way, yes? I mean, they don’t just come up with it out of thin air. My hypothesis is exactly what I have said over and over. They “hear” things” from others. They read forums like this one. They see a story on the news. They read an article in a newspaper. People have a tendency to forget the good things they may read about a “group” of people, but always remember the negative things that they have seen/read/heard.Instead, any city or county or state or fed. that ever dreamed up "no md'ing" laws/rules, will always list, as the go-to reasons : 1) Cultural heritage (durned those archies) and 2) holes/digging (durned those guys that didn't cover their holes).
I’m not claiming that that is why permission gets denied. Have I not been clear? I’m pretty sure I’ve addressed why I would wager permission gets denied. It comes down to our reputation and how the “Powers that be” perceive metal detectors.If you have any citations where the go-to-reasons has ever been : "Because someone(s) violated an already existing no md'ing rule", please link me.
Ha...I added that mostly just to see how you’d respond…and it was as I envisioned. But here’s the thing…I really do not feel that asking permission is ever a bad idea. If doing so truly results in permission being denied, then I’m sure the person asking was, indeed, that last straw. In other words, “they” were just waiting and looking for any excuse to ultimately deny access.Huh ? You yourself admitted that it can "set the wheels in motion". Right ?? So ... how do you then figure that it "never hurts to ask" ? Sounds like you just contradicted yourself.
But it’s NOT your opinion that matters. You’re not the one who gets to decide where we are allowed and where we are not allowed to detect.As for "... sometimes you do..." Then: I am of the opinion that this is only true for activities which are disallowed (which we can each agree on). And/or dangerous/harmful/evil activities. Which .... of course .... need permission. I am not of the opinion that md'ing is dangerous, harmful, or evil. Is that to say that every-last person on earth (eg.: every purist archie) agrees with that ? NO !
Correct. You have to pick and choose who’s rear end you’re gonna kiss, right?But is it my/your duty to "please every last person on earth" ?
I consider metal detecting to be exactly what it is. Many…probably most…of us practice it in an ethical, friendly, safe, harmless, innocuous manner. We’re not the ones that most people remember or care about, though. It’s the bad apples that get us kicked out of places or denied access in areas…NOT the poor guy who just happened to ask for permission.Really ? You consider md'ing harmless, benign, and innocuous ? GREAT ! Then you'd be the first to agree that it doesn't need permission where not expressly forbidden ! We're getting somewhere
Not quite…I’m referring to the irony of you saying that what I was doing was…“Assuming what one-is-trying-to-prove, as evidence of his proof for it”...when that is exactly what you are doing. In the many many threads where you and I have “discussed” the notion of asking permission, you have…every single time…claimed that asking permission results in denied access. I’ve never seen any documented proof of this, but you make the claim every time. I mean, heck, I have asked permission three times now (to hunt in local parks) and have been granted access each time. I have even been given written permission to keep the items I find. I received that permission to counter your claim that "Every Park" has rules or guidelines against keeping found items, and that they use that "wording" to deny access.haha, yes, I do. You're right : I am starting with the premise (ie.: assuming my own point-of-view), that md'ing is harmless, benign, and innocuous
.... Yes…which is why I was wondering/questioning why you were talking about breaking non-existent laws ......
.....OK…but in doing so you’re essentially putting all the blame on that last piece of straw that broke to camels’ back, all while ignoring the other pieces of straw that came prior.......
....I never said is was [solely] about trespassing. ......
...... What I said is that md’rs may have a bad reputation among the “powers that be” because of some of the stories that appear in the newspapers, or on the TV news, or right here in forums like this one.......
.... I really do not believe that a local park will deny permission for either of those two excuses.......
.... they don’t just come up with it out of thin air. ......
…I really do not feel that asking permission is ever a bad idea. If doing so truly results in permission being denied, then I’m sure the person asking was, indeed, that last straw. In other words, “they” were just waiting and looking for any excuse to ultimately deny access.......
.... But it’s NOT your opinion that matters. You’re not the one who gets to decide where we are allowed and where we are not allowed to detect.......
.... you have…every single time…claimed that asking permission results in denied access. I’ve never seen any documented proof of this......
.... I have asked permission three times now (to hunt in local parks) and have been granted access each time. I have even been given written permission to keep the items I find. I received that permission to counter your claim that "Every Park" has rules or guidelines against keeping found items, and that they use that "wording" to deny access.......