Not wanting to nit-pick, I think there is a fairly big difference between bike riding in the woods and metal detecting. Unless you are talking peddle bikes and not motorcycles, then my point is lost partially here.
I think you are are correct on the ATV trails I saw Duke737. They were well marked with signs and appeared to follow old roadbeds, not just random trails in the woods. Maybe they just abutted the gamelands and were not actually cutting through them.
But I've seen quad trails and remember from youth the dirt bike trails we ran. They were heavily rutted from spinning ties and do create a fair amont of damage to the trails. Plus you have the added factor of noise spooking wildlife. Even in local county parks they have reg's against anything that causes the wildlife to be harrassed. So I could see the scepticism the PGC would have allowing such activity.
Metal detecting can be demonstrated as a harmless activity in the wilds, leaving virtually no trace of anyone having removed a coin or token of some sort, when done properly. You cannot say the same thing for bikes or horses.
I don't think horses would do all that much damage either. Maybe one issue at a time needs to be presented, not multiple choices that would prohibit a blanket appeal.
If I was on the commission, I could have problems if a package was presented, horses and bikes. I'd be inlined to say yes to horses, but no to bikes. But come to me and just say horse...and explaine it's not a whole heard trompling through the woods, just a few people on a scenic ride....
Same would go for metal detecting AND prospecting.
Being someone uneducated about the hobbies, I'd have some mental picture of a guy with a dredge going after gold in some pristene stream or digging test holes to find a mine somewhere if I told them I wanted to prospect on their lands.
With prospecting, I think you'd get bogged down in a lot more regulations, what size sluice, equipment, etc...and the PGC would be more inclined to say no.
I'd say leave it at detecting with the fee.
If it is indeed true about the solvency of the PGC, we could be a partial answer to their problem with a new source of revenue. I do vaguely remember reading about the decline in license sales. It wasn't too long ago I believe the PGC was in a court battle with the Turnpike Commission over the proposed roads going through game lands and what the PGC considered a fair trade-off of land for land. I was pretty amused, one Pa entity suing another.
I don't want to sound like I'm trying to excude prospecting, but one step at a time. IF we can get through the system, successfully or not, at least we can discover the proper procedure for doing so and maybe modify some type of proposal and give it a second attempt at a later time.
Whatever is presented to the PGC, it has to be clear, concise and to the point. We CAN get change, if done in a professional mannor.
My experience lobbying the PUC, when we were up against a request by the major utility companies to disconnect customers in the winter, we were successful in stopping the proposal...based solely on our ability to acquire data from other states and present it as a whole body of organizations from across Pennsylvania.
And I can't emphasize enough, we need a clear consensus from a lot of people.
We need to present to the PGC our intentions, proof of our professionalism, and how this will benifit THEM.
Once we can get on their agenda for a proposed change, I think having a type of presentation, such as a video of exactly how metal detecting is performed and what our searching does to the area, ie: no damage when we walk out of the woods, would be extremely benificial.
Also, getting someone noteworthy to accompany a small delegation to the meeting. A formal acknowledgement from the clubs and their memberships in the state and how they too support the cause.
I hardly think we'd find anyone belonging to the detecting clubs in Pa objecting to some fee based permit system to detect on Pa. Gamelands.
Wear your permit just like the hunters, visably displayed in some holder so we can be monitored.
Hunt only in off season to prevent accidents, wear bright orange, no damage to wildlife or plants. Pretty simple I think.
Letting them know that a permit system allows those with a sense of respect would be using the lands and if they are willing to pay a fee, then they would be far less likely to be the type to sneek in undercover and do damage. We would strive to maintain the highest ethics in our field to maintain permission to detect public lands.
We have to point out we aren't the robbers of history, archeological resources,or creating hazzards for others. We're not digging craters for some animal to fall into.
We also could show them the benifits of us being there....returning lost valuables when possible, reporting major archeological finds, etc.
And Jeff's point is a good one. We need someone inside the commission. That, I think, is where we can use our state legislature. They could get us in the door.
The commission may be a seperate entity, making their own rules, but there must be a door somewhere we can use. I don't believe their system can be much different that the PaPUC's.
Wether elected or appointed, it is drawn from consensus from the Commission as a whole to who reigns over the system. We simply need to find someone on the board. How hard could that be?
I just want to point out something here, how a few people can make a significant change.
Anyone familiar with Cherry Springs State Park? Are you aware it has one of the only protected dark skies in the United States? It was astronomers, and not a whole lot of them, that showed how necessary it was to preserve a piece of Pennsylvania for viewing stars. They actually had the Govenor come up to look through a telescope to see the benifits and this is in part what became the birth of the "Pennsylvania Wild's" program. People from across the United States go to Cherry Springs to view the sky.
Because of contributions from astronomers, the park now has modern toilets, better roads and camping areas, electricity, etc. But it isn't owned by a group of astronomers...it's still state property. We just fund it and had support from the Pa. Conservation District. (It helped that a couple officers were also enthusiastic astronomers to help the cause)...we had an "in".
You see, a small, independent group can make change!
But again, it was an organized effort with support from larger organizations...but still a grass roots effort none the less.
We need some type of semiformal committee to delegate responsibility. Some to talk to the legislature, others to write a proposal, some to contact clubs and get support...and so we're not overlapping work and getting frustrated.
You see small organizations popping up all the time for various causes...we can too...give it some catchy name that makes it sound as though it encompasses the majority of detectorists in Pennsylvania.
Give it a purpose, to educate and disseminate information of Pennsylvaia rules and regulations and to enact change where ever possible...or something to that effect.
I know...I can be long winded...but if we want to do this...we have to do it right.
And we have to be patient...we're not going to get it done in a few days, weeks or even months...but I plan to live a few more years and as public parks and such get picked over more and more, it's nice to think a new resource could be opened to us in the near future.
Well...that's my two cents worth. I'm ready to go forward with this....
I just don't want to see us looking like a bunch of unorganized individuals, harassing our elected and appointed officials over and over from different parts of the state.
Al
Happy New Year all...back to a normal 40 hour week for me..woohoo!