Good-guy, your points to me are all "duly noted"
After citing the merits of the English system (that you're saying we could push the USA to adopt), and after citing the current worsening restrictions that some places here are encountering, you conclude:
"
With this in mind I believe we need to have a plan B in place at some point"
My answer to this is:
a) I fully agree with you, that if a place here becomes off-limits (that truly shouldn't be, if they are not hallowed historic sacred type sites), then it's a shame we can't do something about it. Agreed. The problem I have is WHAT that "plan B" should be. That is the issue, is "will good-guy's plan B work?", not: "should we do something about it?"
b) As philvis says: "
I think one of the biggest difficulties stateside is the fact that our history is not as long as europe and other places, so the archaeologists here want domain over whatever they can get..." That is what I'm trying to say too, is that the same set of circumstances politically, historically, and culturally, do not exist here, as they have evolved here. So your "plan B", would be impossible to push through, given the current fiscal crisis (higher priorities right now in govt.). You're talking govt. bureaucrats to over-see such things, depts, etc.... Laws, and explanations, as you so nicely cite in the examples of what England has written. Certainly you know that someone would have to write those things, they have to be voted on, lawyers to word them, debate to ensue over whether to enact or not, etc.... I for one would be scared to have politicians, who, as you yourself say, are at the beckoning of the archies, be voting on whether I can detect or not, simply because WE put it in front of them for a vote.
c) You have to remember, that even in England, there are scores of parks that are off-limits to detecting. I even read on English hunter say that all city parks (city squares, etc...) across England are off-limits. Of course, to them, it's no problem, as the farmer's fields are BRIMMING with history. But the reason I say this about parks is, because you think the system there is so nice, but you fail to realize that they too have restrictions for, apparently, certain public lands too. So certainly bringing their system HERE is not going to magically open up some city or state that has restrictions presently. Do you see?
d) There is a perception here, on forums, that our hunting sites in all public places are closing left and right. But I firmly believe that part of this perception is due to the wonderful jet-age of information travel, on the internet. Someone posts that their city, or their state, now has restrictions. So the REST of the hunters across the USA, thanx to the lightening fast age of the internet, read that and think "oh no, the sky is falling, I better run to city hall or start asking at each kiosk I come to" And before you know it, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Even you agree with me on this, that sometimes we md'rs bring this on ourselves, asking where no one ever cared before (or even knew about such minutia if it did exist in codes), and getting a "no", where no one cared before.
e) So it seems to me that the plan b would not be to get the English system here, because it would never fly to begin with, and it wouldn't open up more public land even if was implimented, and it would mean we'd have to go "declaring" things we found on private property with permission (if I understand their system correctly).
f) What the plan B should be, I don't know either. I mean, it's easy for me/us to tell people "don't ask stupid questions, and odds are, no one cares less", but that doesn't do a lot of good for persons in certain states that truly do have rules, that really are enforced. I guess I would tell those folks to work the city level parks, since they don't fall under state land rules. Or, like england, there's TONS of private land that has no other "rulemaker" than the owner himself. I mean, taking my area for example, I suppose there's some federal parks near me, that if I were to really look into it, might find that I can't detect there. So I just avoid those spots, and have no end of other sites. But to go fight it, I fear will just put us in the spot-light, for a never-ending stream of publicity that the archies will win, not us. So why bring myself/ourself to the spot-light?
As a side-note, I recently sold some historical buttons to a collector in Washington. As we conversed, he told me that in his state of Washington, it was forbidden, EVEN ON PRIVATE LAND, to dig for items over 50 yrs. old. Yup, coins, bottles, etc.... How did he come up with this? He read an article in the paper about a bottle digger who had gotten grief by showing off bottles he'd dug from privies. The bottle digger had been given public warning that he was breaking laws (that I guess no one ever knew, or paid attention to before, despite already being on the books). I told this Washington button buyer that I could assure him, that people are
continuting to detect and dig bottles up there. That what he'd read had no impact on reality. I personally know, for example, the past president of a Washington club. They have no trouble hunting old-town demolition sites, sidewalk strips, parks (as long as you're not leaving messes, or sticking out, etc...), yards of old homes, etc... Sure, if my friend were to take a 1936 merc. to certain archies and asked "under Washington law, was I allowed to dig this?" Sure, he'd get a "no". So you tell me, in that case, do you fight Washington's laws, or do you leave good enough alone?
and presto, getting no's where no one really cared or gave the matter thought before. There is no data or proof time-line one could come up with, to determine which came first.
