another story akin to mdrs asking permission:

[Tom_in_CA]

another story akin to md'rs asking permission:

There was a blurb in our local newspaper, back in the earlier 2000's, about how a bunch of irate parents and their kids were set to make a beef at a city council meeting, about a proposed ordinance banning "slack-lining" in the parks here. "Slack-lining" is a hobby or exercise-sport, ....... something like tight-rope walking. Kids string up a tight rope between two adjacent trees. A foot or so off the ground, & tighten the tension down very tight. Then do stunts or practice walking the rope, do tricks, etc... An agility sport thing that was picking up popularity amongst a certain group of kids here.

The news article talked about how the city felt this was harmful to the tree bark of the trees, so they were going to make an official policy. Naturally, some parents became up in arms at how "killjoy-ish" this was, in a day & age where parents are usually QUITE HAPPY that their kids enjoy innocent sports, and stay out of trouble. In the end, the city relented on its planned policy, and came to a compromise with the parents and kids, that they could string up their tight ropes, yet had to use rubber cushion things so that the trees would not be harmed.

As slack-lining took off in popularity around the USA, sometimes my city, Salinas CA, would be cited as a win-win good policy that allowed the sport, etc.... So any other city where this issue came up, places like my city were often cited as a model of how it could work, etc...

But what those articles, and hence the future references to my city FAILED to cite, was the very genesis, of how such a thing came up for city scrutiny, TO BEGIN WITH. Since I live here, I heard the back-ground that led up to the issue: What happened was that one day, a kid came home from school, and told his mom he was going to go to the park, meet some friends for "slack-lining". The curious mom asked who these friends were and what slack-lining was. The kid did his best to explain to his mom. The cautious mom then asked "is that allowed"? The kid didn't know, but on the other hand, could see why not. As his friends had been doing it thus far, and this notion of whether it was "allowed" or not, had never crossed any of their minds. So before the mom would allow her son to partake of this, she told him she wanted to check and make sure. So she calls and goes down to the parks dept. They had no idea what "slack-lining" even was (as it was a sport/hobby still in its infancy at that time I guess). So she explained it to the park desk person. That person, in turn, when the realized the question involved "trees", passed this up the line of bureaucracy to the city "arborist" (who better to answer the question, eh?). The arborist too was initially stumped, so he too had to learn more about what this involved. After consideration, he tells the mom "no, that's not allowed".

The kid then, went and told his friends. And eventually, the other parents got wind of it, that this was "not allowed". One thing led to another, and the city decided they better make this official, since .... it was really not specifically written anywhere. At that point, is when the protests started, to protect this innocent positive hobby.

Now in that case, I suppose someone could argue "see, it was a good thing that a compromise was reached", I suppose. Or, the city could likewise have said "period end of story, no you can't". Either way, no matter how you look at it, you could ALSO look at it this way: What if that singular concerned mom had never gone asking around at city hall. Did anyone really care, or would have even taken a 2nd glance at such a thing?

So too do I think a lot of md'rs look at the end result of rules, permits, regulations, etc... And yet, don't often see that the GENESIS of such things, is not necessarily "holes" or "damaged bark on trees" or whatever, but often-time is merely the act of making ourselves the object of something needs someone else's princely sanction, when.... perhaps .... no one might have cared less (till we asked).

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[BC1969]

Think you need to think, not so deep on that tree bark thing, what they were really saying is, well that seems dangerous, and as soon as somebody gets hurt they will sue us for millions, kinda like it being legal to get drunk in a bar, but then the guy drives home, hits somebody head on and kills them, then the bar gets sued for negligence for not preventing it..same difference, they just did not want to say hey if you get killed doing that, we don't really care, we just don't want to be sued.

Mike

 

[sandy shoes]

i am with you tom if there is no sign saying no metal detecting i go . the most they can do is tell you to stop

 

[cudamark]

i don't think it was a safety issue. I mean, what's more dangerous than your standard playground equipment which they supply? I think it's more the arborist justifying his job and indeed his concern for the trees which is why he was hired. They could just as easily solved this situation by sinking a few posts to use as anchors for the "slack lining". What I like in this story is that people got up in arms about the prohibition and changed the rule. I'd like to see more of that in our hobby. If we're getting picked on for no fact based reason, get together with your friends and bend the bureaucrats ears about it. That's if there is a hard and fast rule written down. If there isn't one, leave well enough alone. Your questions will spark more questions which, if reaching the wrong ears, might prompt prohibition action from some desk-bound do-gooder.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Mark, you say the reason for the rule was: ".... the arborist justifying his job and indeed his concern for the trees which is why he was hired".

Ok, or how about this: The reason for the rule was: "someone asked". I mean, perhaps that VERY SAME ARBORIST, had he just been passing by a park and seen kids playing like that, do you think he'd have ever cared less or even noticed, or given it a 2nd thought? Perhaps not. But when it "come across his desk for approval", well gee, what's the safe answer?

"What I like in this story is that people got up in arms about the prohibition and changed the rule. I'd like to see more of that in our hobby. If we're getting picked on for no fact based reason, get together with your friends and bend the bureaucrats ears about it."

Well, sure, if we're getting a a rule or picked on, sure, join in solidarity. But I wouldn't say it's us being "picked on for no fact-based reason". There's a very good reason we're being "picked on" in a lot of those cases: And no, it's not always "holes". You know quite well what I'm gonna say

One final note: When some of those "no's" get passed out, I STILL do not take them as constituting a "rule" (like if I heard of someone else who went and asked and got a "no"). Unless I see for myself that it's an actual rule, I do not consider such things to constitute an actual rule, until truly written down as a rule that I can look at. Because it can just be one desk persons whim or opinion because they're in a bad mood that day. Or one cop who was merely responding to a complaint because a concerned person thought you were bothering her dog, or ... who knows? I mean, sure, don't flaunt a booting and merely keep on detecting, or go right back on that persons' shift the next day. I mean, sure, use some common sense

 

[cudamark]

That's pretty much what I said but maybe didn't clarify it enough. I figure someone asked, the clerk didn't know the answer so the issue bounced around the office until the arborist stepped up and puffed his chest out and declared "trees are my department and I declare them off limits" Since he has the degree and was hired for his opinion, who's going to argue with him? We just need to keep the question off his ( and everyone else's) desk. As for reasons to ban detecting.....there are all sorts of arguments made by people in positions of power but I have yet to see one of those arguments really hold water if they're applied equally. Usually there is one or more privleged few that are granted access to even the most "sensitive" sites. Even unfilled holes, as bad as they look, will fill in eventually or can be filled rather easily by the groundskeepers. If they ban detecting because of that but they don't ban various other sports that wear the grass down to the dirt, then they are picking on us. We just don't have as popular a hobby as others do but that's no reason to apply rules to one group and not another if the end result is the same. To claim that what we do is destruction but what they do is normal wear and tear is blatant bias with no facts to back it up. We've had some parks where the police were on horseback or they would drive their patrol cars on the grass but WE"RE damaging the place?? Come on now.....can they really claim that with a straight face?