A quiz @ the Genesis of off-limits sites:

[Tom_in_CA]

And if control of one of the RC planes is lost and it hits someone the city is liable and open for a law suit. So point is what, be quiet and wait until there is accident and while police are investigating someone ends up being charged with trespassing on city property and or a lawsuit against the city who then drags the RC people in.

Wow, really ? So in that story, where those guys flew their model planes for a year or two without incident, you are actually supportive of the person who went down to city hall, "seeking clarifications", and ended up getting him and his buddies shut out of their spot ? Ok, just making sure I understand you correctly.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

Another feeable attempt to belittle and provoke a reaction.

Slink is right here Kemper: The subject has merits on it's own, for valid input on each end of the opinion spectrum. No need to characterize those that disagree with you as being not a TH'r, etc.... And I say this as a warning to myself too fellows: If I've come across belittling anyone for their stance, (and thus taking it off an intellectual discussion), I too apologize.

 

[bigscoop]

My two cents from experience.....DNR isn't what it use to be. Not too long ago they were simply "outdoor police" officers with a binder full of laws to uphold. Now there are so many laws on the books and they're "oversight" is so widespread it's often mind boggling. And to me here lays the problem.....too many laws on the books with many of those often being vague, at best. I think this is why we're seeing so many "blanket policies" today. The blanket policies allow the tickets to be written so the courts can figure it all out when/if challenged. It should never have been allowed to come to this. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Wow, really ? So in that story, where those guys flew their model planes for a year or two without incident, you are actually supportive of the person who went down to city hall, "seeking clarifications", and ended up getting him and his buddies shut out of their spot ? Ok, just making sure I understand you correctly.

I'm saying he was just as right to ask as those who choose not to ask.


Members have no right to attack those who choose to ask, example calling people that ask as not true treasure hunters...


Again what you or I do personally is our business, what members publicly advocate on TreasureNet is a different story when it can get new members in trouble for following advice that can get them legally in trouble.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I'm saying he was just as right to ask as those who choose not to ask....

ok, fair enough answer. Thanx T-H'r.

I guess I'm just hoping that no spots I hunt, that would fit a similar scenarios in md'ing, have that chain of events happen to them.

Just as I'm sure that in your state (city, county, etc...) that if you likewise had a spot which had never been a problem, ..... you might be a little bummed if one day it ceased to be open to md for this-type-chain-of events.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Interesting way of looking at it. I would say -
Members have no right to attack those who choose to not to ask, example calling people that don't ask an assortment of names. Just stating a fair way of looking at it not saying there is the same interest in that.

Not when they are using TreasureNet as a podium to advocate breaking the laws or regulations......

Thread is locked....