Treasurepirate69, please do not grow weary in posting. I do welcome your logic, and you do a much better job that some, in support of your stance. I hope you will continue to post, to un-ravel the logic. I can tell you are being very careful reader, to try to see through any "sleight of hand" and "logic that does not logically follow". I too will/am trying to do the same, to see if I've failed some spot, given a bad reasoning, etc...
Ok, with that said:
....What's wrong and so scary about calling the parks department or town hall? You're just afraid they'll say no. So what if they say you can't hunt a certain park or piece of property big deal, hunt somewhere else....
You say no big deal, and to go just "hunt somewhere else"? Then how do you deal with this scenario: Let's say you did just that: went and asked and got a "no". Then here's what potentially happens: That same desk clerk or park dept. person, or ranger, or whomoever gave you that "no", will start booting others, whom perhaps he'd never have paid a moment's notice to. You know, the psychology of seeing an md'r, remembering the earlier inquiry, and thinking: "
hey look, there's one of THEM", and starts booting others. I've seen this happen before. So the danger then becomes, you've effectively put a place off-limits, which never actually had a problem before. I've seen this happen, and can give you examples (don't tempt me) on city, county, and state levels. Remember, this is only for places with no specific disallowance.
change the law, we did it in NY.....
For purposes of this discussion, let's assume we're not talking places with no actual rule saying such a thing as "no metal detectors". If there were such a rule, then sure, do as you did in NY and change it. Thus NY example doesn't apply to this discussion, because in that case, there
was a "specific" rule.
Throwing a Frisbee and detecting are two different animals. How do you compare throwing a Frisbee to a newbie digging up beer cans/ craters on a manicured lawn in the middle of the town park.
Do you leave craters on manicured lawns in the middle the town park? If so, then by all means ask away. But me, no, I (and I suspect most other md'rs here) don't "leave craters".
tell newbies to just go hunt if there's no sign and THAT is what gets parks shut down and laws passed banning our hobby.
Well, for starters, I have acknowledged that it can be more thorough checking that "just the wooden sign at the park entrance". I am fully aware that some things may be "on the books" down at city hall, and that the sign at the park might not have every single municipal law. But a person can avail himself of city muni rules quite easily. They're available for public viewing. Why can't a person check with those, to see if "metal detectors" are listed amongst possible prohbitions? Thus, yes I tell newbies that their obligation ends there, and that yes, they need not have to ask "can I metal detect", if there were nothing saying they couldn't. You think that leads to laws passed banning our hobby? What do you think then of the examples of "laws being passed to ban our hobby" that had their genesis in people bringing up the can I questions? Do you want me to link you with some examples of that? (I can if you like
) In a lot of cases, there were and are actually cases of laws being implemented/drafted, or at a minimum "policies made by interpretation", with a net effect of "no". And oddly, those places have often been places that never had a problem, before people(s) took it upon themselves, to go down and ask "can I?" type questions.
Treasurepirate69, I do not doubt that there have been newbies, who have dug craters, stick out like a sore thumb, and are a general pain-in-the-b*tt, which got a place "put off limits". And I have no doubt that there has even perhaps been some of those SAME persons who deduced that they could do what they did, simply because "Tom in CA made a post telling them to go ahead".
However, in each and every one of those cases, there simply had to be some mitigating circumstance. Because I've gone on record each time as saying that this does not mean we don't still need to use "due discretion" "good timing", "leave no trace", "don't stick out", "you can't go waltzing over archies beach blankets SIMPLY because there's no law saying you can't", etc.....
I have to admit, when I post my soap-box veiw, I DO INDEED have the same image that you do sometimes: geeks with shovels ruining it, because they go an inopportune times, scaring kids, sticking out like a sore thumb, spending forever at each hole because they're inexperienced with pinpointing. And continually nervously looking over their shoulder because they feel conspicuous (thus only ATTRACTING the very attention and scrutiny they wish to avoid). Those are all such things that a long-time park hunters knows how to "blend in", "not stick out", and pick the right times to hunt, be quick on retrievals at opportune times, etc.... So I do sympathize with your mental image (yes I've seen it happen) of the things that can occur.
You imply we have only two options: roll over for the bureaucrats, and their senseless laws, or we lose the sport through defiance. If those were the only two options then you might actually have a point. But those are NOT the only two options. And thus, your argument is invalid.
Hmmm, this statement assumes there is a "senseless law" saying "no metal detectors" right? Well if that's the case, then no, we do not "defy" (and simply go to places with laws saying "no metal detectors"). That's NOT what I'm saying. I'm not talking about those places. I'm talking about places with no specific verbage. Ie.: silent on the subject (barring something someone could morph to apply, if you came to them with your "pressing question"). So, no, I'm not giving those out as "2 options", because I'm not talking about places with rules that actually say "no metal detectors."