metal-detective, a few observations here. One by one. You say:
"
I recently requested permission from a local area Township to detect their parks."
This implies that permission is needed to do this certain activity. Since when is that a given ? Would you think you need permission to fly frisbees? (afterall, you might poke someone's eye out, etc...).
They told you:
“While we don’t have rules prohibiting metal detecting, we do have rules against digging in our park sites."
Well gee, let me save you/us all some time: ALL parks across the entire United states, have rules about digging, damaging, altering, molesting, destruction, vandalism, etc.... Sure. But stop and think about it for a second: What does every one of those terms INHERENTLY have at stake ? THE END OUTCOME. Ie.: damage. Even the city's own response to you acknowledges this implicit intention of-such-rules. See? So now the only thing you've gone and done, and is cause them to give you the "safe" answer (d/t the "pressing issue" you put before them for their "princely sanction"). In fact, perhaps they'd never have even paid you a 2nd glance, nor have even thought about this before. So the only thing you've done to yourself now, is become the latest victim of "no one cared, ...
UNTIL you asked".
"
I hope this is not the future of our hobby."
It will be, if md'rs continue to make themselves a big red bullseye, in need of every bored pencil-pusher's say-so & blessing.
"I guess this also shows that you must get permission in writing (I use email ..... "
Huh? How do you figure? How does this show that? On the contrary, asking a govt. official for "something in writing", is the FASTEST way to get a yes turned to a no. The only thing THAT does, is conjur up some sort of legal implications, danger, risk, etc.....
"If I had just gone to the parks in that township without permission, I might have been kicked out or arrested...."
This is the outcome that always intrigues me. It works just like it worked with you: Someone gets a "no". So they say to themselves "see, it's a good thing I asked" [otherwise I could have been arrested]. Or conversely, if they get a "yes", they ALSO say to themselves the same thing: "see, it's a good thing I asked" [because now I 'have permission' to metal detect]. So you see then, that whether the answer was "yes" or "no", the inquirer thinks that either answer somehow implies that ..... therefore "asking was necessary". This plays on the notion that the mere fact of a yes or a no somehow means that ... therefore ... asking was necessary. Because I guess in your mind's eyes, if asking HADN'T "been necessary", then then desk-jocky would have said something like this: "
Gee that's a silly question. Why are you asking me? You don't need my permission". Right? But nneeeooohhh. Authority figures don't work like that. Instead, they will either bestow on you their princely "yes" or "no". Afterall, you asked them, so that merely implies that their permission was needed (lest why else would you be asking?). And also, the mere fact of thinking you need to ask, also subconsciously implies to them that something must be amiss or damaging about this activity (lest why else would you be asking, if it were innocuous?). This is not subconsiously lost on that person either, so ...... guess what safe direction this puts their answer towards?
"I just want to play it safe and "do the right thing".
Wait a minute, why can't "doing the right thing" be looking up the laws for oneself? I mean, how much more law-abiding can a person be, to look up the laws/rules/codes FOR HIMSELF ? And ..... if not specifically forbidden, then presto, it's not forbidden.
And no I do not take the alterations, damage, defacing, etc... clauses to automatically apply to us. Why? Because if you leave no trace, then by definition, you have not alterED, or defacED anything . In fact, I would even go so far as to say this applies to the "dig" verbage too (if such a specific word were actually used). Why? because of dIg versus dUg. Yes, I realize this is playing with semantics. And sure, I recognize that not every last archie and gardener is going to "roll out the red carpets" for you and I. Sure. Someone can still gripe. Yes. But for pete's sake, were you planning on going at high noon, waltzing over beach blankets, wearing neon orange? Can't you keep a lower-traffic-times profile, and avoid such kill-joys? If you spend your life trying to get red carpets rolled out for you, and express "yes's", all you're going to do is end up getting rules INVENTED (or policies anyhow), to "address your pressing issue". And THAT is what's going to bring an end to more spots. Because once you gather up a bunch of no's like that, guess what will happen when that desk jockey is driving past the park next week, and sees another md'r in the park? He'll remember the earlier inquiry, and think
"Aha! There's one of *them*", and start booting others. I've seen this psychology happen before, where places got routinely detected and no one cared (so long as you weren't being a nuisance). But lo & behold, some well-intentioned md'r takes it upon himself to go ask. Then the next thing you know, md'rs start getting booted. So I'm not making this up!
..In a few hours I reckon Tom_in_Ca will be along to explain in ways only he can!
Fear of arrest in our sport is an invisible fence in your own mind...nobodys gonna arrest some poor taxpayer in a public park picking up pennies...can you hear what the Judge would say?
