Metal Detecting Federation ?

[HaroldILL.]

What ever happened to that Metal Detecting Federation that is suppose to protect are rite's? It seems there are public places being closed to Metal Detecting at an alarming rate. I sure paid them a lot of due's through the years and have lost a lot of local area's including 68,000 acre's of Forest Preserve's. Are they still around? If so they are falling a sleep at the wheel! They need to earn there money!

 

[ironsight]

First i heard of this Federation! Apparently they did fall asleep at the wheel in your area.

 

[D&P-OR]

Haven't heard from/heard about them in years!-----Didn't Dick Stout head them up or was an officer?-----Not sure he is even in the hobby anymore.----Let us know what (if anything) you find out Harold.-----I agree with you---if they are still around--they need to "WAKE UP"!

 

[Sven]

Haven't heard from/heard about them in years!-----Didn't Dick Stout head them up or was an officer?-----Not sure he is even in the hobby anymore.----Let us know what (if anything) you find out Harold.-----I agree with you---if they are still around--they need to "WAKE UP"!

Dick Stout has his own website, blog http://www.stoutstandards.com/Latest.html

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Harold, don't we all wish it were "this easy" . You pay some "dues" to a lobbying group, and presto, you can detect nilly willy anywhere, right. And if you can't, well then "by golly, they're falling asleep at the wheel". Durned that federation anyhow, eh ? Sheesk, what do you think they are, miracle workers ? And I've got news for you: unlike the NRA, which has MILLIONS of dues paying adherents, md'ing is a small niche hobby, and ... no .... they're not raking in lots of dough to go fight against laws. Their hands are tied, their funds limited, and they can't stomp out every single fire "lest Harold get mad".

And ironically, I'm going to venture another bet that when groups like the FMDAC got started, that ... actually, their "fight" and "solidarity" often did nothing more than only PERPETUATE the rules and laws against us. Not their fault mind you. Their goal was a noble one. But the psychology of even having groups like that, had the un-intended consequence of getting legions of hunters that came afterwards to develop an "oh no, the sky is falling" fear. I saw it first hand back in the mid '80s when the FMDAC came into being. Their monthly newsletters were read outloud at our club. Each edition packed full of scary stories from far away isolated places, of bootings, laws, etc.... The goal, of course, was to raise the alarm, get solidarity (letter writing, etc....) to the cause. Ie.: a "coming to a place near you" sort of inference.

But as you looked around the room at those listening to the stories, is that their eyes became as big as silver dollars. Sky-is-falling fears took over. And .... since no one "wants to be arrested", guess what they all naturally did next ? They would start asking permission (or "inquiring of laws", etc...) wherever they went, from then on. Afterall, you "don't want to be the next statistic", do you ? And oddly, a lot of the places (city, county, etc...) fielding these "pressing questions", would often pass back down a "no". And oddly, they could be places that, prior to that, NEVER HAD A PROBLEM BEFORE (it never even occured to us you needed to "ask", doh!).

So in an odd sort of way, the groups you speak of, had the effect of subconsciously bringing about the very fears and no's (a vicious circle) that they sought to fight against, in the first place. Ie.: Raising red flags on our own behalf, is sometimes the LAST thing you want to do. Sometimes the LESS attention is better, not more attention.

So give these guys a break. Their hands are tied. If you had been there, and seen the avalanche of archaeological mindset we have to fight against (heaven forbid you might find a 1959 penny), then you too could have done no better. Sheesk.

 

[HaroldILL.]

Well they shouldn't be chargin' dues if they can't do anything. And I'm not the only one mad. Sounds like it hasn't affected you yet? Get your prime close by sites closed to detecting and you would be pissed too my Friend!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

" Get your prime close by sites closed to detecting and you would be @#$%& too my Friend! "

This fails to ask itself why sites are oft-times "closed to detecting", in the first place. Often it's the very "fight" (flag-waving, and people running around trying to "pre-empt" laws, seeking clarifications, etc...) that simply BRING about the laws/rule you lament, IN THE FIRST PLACE. Yes, as ironic as it sounds.

And re.: this:

"Well they shouldn't be chargin' dues if they can't do anything..."

Think about this statement Harold: Isn't that a bit like watching Monday morning NFL slow motion replays. And when you see an interception of fumble against your favorite team, you scream at the TV : "You dumb quarterback, you should've thrown left, not right!". Do you see how easy it is to be a "genius" quarterback, when watching it in slow-motion replay ? So too is it when someone sets out to do a venture (fighting laws/lobbying in this case). Anyone like you can sit around on Monday morning and say "they didn't do it right, because the park down the street has a law! Harrruummpph!". That's the wonder and glory of slow motion 20/20 hindsight, is anyone observing can claim "I wouldn't have done it that way ", and "I would have done it such & such way instead". You can't argue with slow motion replay. And it makes the griper an instant genius. Right ? Do you think you could have done any better ?

 

[HaroldILL.]

Tom you if want to make me the bad guy that's fine I will wear the Black Hat,But I'm sayin' what a lot of people are thinking. The fact that almost all posters on this thread never new they existed should speak volumes. NUFF SAID.

 

[chuck ky]

I'd be surprised if no one here has ever heard of them. if you want to go to their web site its fmdac.org.

 

[Elton]

Years ago the metal detecting federation took on the Government about detecting in federal parks.. They curtailed some of the restrictions, but mostly lost the battle..Over the years they became less and less active.as far as I know. I suppose like any organization you would have to belong and get news letters to see what they have been up to in the detecting world.........

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... I'm sayin' what a lot of people are thinking. ....

Yes. And a lot of people are griper whiners. It's easy human nature. Just as it's easy to groan at the NFL slow motion replays about how stupid a quarterback or coach's play-call was. All of us "can do better" than the numbskull we're watching in slow motion replay. And if you have any doubts, all you have to do is re-wind the slow-mo, and watch it again. Presto, the griper is a genius !

..... The fact that almost all posters on this thread never new they existed should speak volumes.....

The fact that most posters on this thread either never gave a dollar, or have given very few dollars to this cause. Relative to what lobbying truly takes. MD'ing is a small niche geeky hobby. So unlike the NRA (where gun buffs exists on every corner of the USA), md'ing $ revenues will never allow you or I to hunt Bodie, Ghettysburg, etc.... And as for individual little cities across the USA, (podunk city and county parks), do you really think there's an organization that can run around the continent, at everyone's beck & call, stomping out fires ?

And as I say, I bet if you looked at all the supposed places in your area that are off-limits, and were to go back in time and study the genesis of it, you would often find it's the VISIBILITY of m'ding (ie.: the making of ourselves as a giant red flag "x") that brings about rules & laws. So your desire to have some almight news-worthy powerful lobbying organization, might just back-fire and do nothing more than plant more ideas in lawmakers heads in places where no laws exist. So the solution is not "more visibility" and "more fighting", it's often just NOT BEING AN OBJECT OF ATTENTION in the first place.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Years ago the metal detecting federation took on the Government about detecting in federal parks.. They curtailed some of the restrictions, but mostly lost the battle........

I'm going to make a wager that it probably resulted in there actually being MORE specific dire wording against us. Like if someone got booted, in some faraway isolated federal place "in the old days" (or a ticket or whatever), on the grounds of cultural heritage (ARPA, etc....), then the FMDAC "goes to bat" to "re-open" and "get clarified". By the time it's all done, it'd be just as you say: lost the battle. EVEN MORE SO THAN BEFORE THEY STARTED! Because now I bet you that you've got all sorts of federal rangers types who ..... upon news of this "battle" , get the B.O.L. bulliten passed down to them, to BOL for these md'rs from then on. And what put that notion in the minds of other federal parks who ....... up till then had never had an issue or problem ? THE VERY BATTLE TO OPEN UP AND DEFEND AGAINST THE ONE JOE BLOW IN THE ONE SINGLE PLACE ELSEWHERE !

So please people, be careful what you wish for.

 

[Elton]

The archeologist then joined in with the feds, and got even more land banished from detecting..They claimed they wanted it left in the ground for future societies..Then they dug it, and it has never been seen again..or even known what happened to some of the specific items from sites they excavated..

I guess they wanted it for their selves. Private collections ....... like a lot of the civil war items have been sequestered away and not open to the public to even look at..

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Correct. And the average "archaeologist" (whose input was asked for in this "pressing battle") would likely have never ever bumped into md'rs , in the field, right ? They're 99.9% of the time locked away in their desk job, or in isolated sacred spots doing a dig (which none of us would argue that we have the right to). So honestly now, what are the odds of running into that purist archie in the field ? PRACTICALLY ZERO !

So then ask yourself: What put it on that archie's plate, as a "pressing matter" that needed his "pressing attention" ? The fight that his input was needed on. So perhaps the less that archie thinks of us, THE BETTER!

Yes I know it seems to be a catch-22. And yes I know this doesn't answer the issue of places that already do now have a true "no md'ing" rule in place. Sure we can argue about the genesis of those in-place rules, and yes I realize my stance doesn't address THOSE places. But just saying be careful how much you want to fight. Lest the cancer simply spread more to places down the street elsewhere.

Sometimes the best tactic is to use a little frickin more discretion, in the first place. If some particular archie or ranger or lawn-mower guy "gets his panties in a wad" when he sees an md'r, then perhaps it's better just to avoid that one individual! As opposed to thinking your going to get him (and every last person on earth) to "sign off on you". Kind of like nose-picking: don't we all use a little discretion in our timing, so as not to offend sensitive folk ? Sheesskk..

 

[Elton]

In one small town a no digging fire pit holes turned in to [size=x-large]No digging[/size] or metal detecting in the ordinance Geeezzzzzzzzzzzzzz.And the holes being complained of were only against fire pit holes. ................. should have left the fire pit holes alone and said NO Fires .......... if one had to complain at all ...

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I can just imagine that the reason that town's law got expanded to include ".... and metal detecting", was because some well-meaning md'r saw the "no digging" thing. Which, as you say, was meant for persons doing camp-fires. So they went to desk-bound clerks and asked "does this mean no digging for md'ing too?". Therefore the bureaucrats, faced with this "pressing question" , probably added in that no md'ing part. Well gee, aren't we all glad we asked ? Doh! If so, another example of: "the less visibility, the better".

 

[Tom_in_CA]

The FMDAC is now ...... after 3 decades, somehow seen as the "answer-all punching bag" for places that are off-limits. I've stated my thoughts below, but wanted to add a true example of how .... sometimes you DON'T want to fight isolated bootings, scrams, hassles, etc.... And that the "fighting of them" can sometimes simply lead to more restrictions, more awareness on the part of rank-&-file that didn't exist before, etc....

True example: A buddy of mine was detecting at a state beach "Seacliff State Beach", south of Santa Cruz, CA. Someone came marching down from the parking lot and proceeded to read him the riot act! At first, my friend was taken off gaurd, and didn't even know what the fuss was about. Something about how he supposedly can't be detecting there "... because it's a state beach". My friend thought this was some sort of joke, because state of CA beaches have always ever been md'd, and .... it's not an issue. So he began to challenge this stranger. Ie.: "why?" and "since when?", etc... My friend then became aware that he was talking to a state archaeologist! Turns out the archie had driven to the coast (from Sacramento or wherever) to give a lecture at a little beach-side museum that's at that beach. And as he walked from his car, to his speaking engagment appointment, he just-so-happened to glance out to the beach. And it just-so-happened my friend was down there swinging. So the archie diverted from his path, walked out on the beach, and accosted my friend.

The archie was pointing at the cement ship pier there (created in the 1920s) and talking about artifacts, or cultural heritage, or some such bologna. Which is laughable, because prior to the '20s, there was not even a road leading down into this particular stretch of beach. So in essence, it's newer (recreational-wise) that most other beaches in the state-of-CA administered beaches. Thus my friend sparred with this archie on his logic points. After the archie realized he was getting nowhere, and that this md'r wasn't budging, he marched off claiming he was going to go get an LEO or ranger etc.... So my friend continued detecting. But .... after awhile, uh ... "got the willies" and decided to call it a day. He left before anyone else came down.

He then reported the encounter to others on a Calif. md'ing forum. Naturally we all .... at first .... figured this archie is simply mistaken. Because , of course "everyone knows" you can md the state of CA beaches, RIGHT ? So we figured it would be a simple matter of "putting this archie in his place". But the more we all looked into the minutia, the more we began to realize that perhaps we'd better leave "good enough alone". Because the deeper we looked, the more we realized that there is, in fact, things about "removing", and "collecting", and "cultural heritage", etc.... Doh! For some reason, it's never applied to the beaches here. Inland parks, perhaps. But beaches? No. They've simply always ever been detected, since the dawn of detectors in the 1960s. Such that those who came after that, .... why would they question their mentors? It never occurred to anyone YOU COULDN'T, because, well, that's simply where people have always ever detected. Doh!

And I might add that this was not an isolated incident. Rare? Yes. But singular isolated? No. A few other (but counted on a single hand perhaps) incidents on state of CA beaches. Probably nothing more than "scrams". Not sure if any ever resulted in a ticket (except for one in an exposed ghost town at a state lake though).

In the end, we all decided that the LAST thing we would want to do, in a case like this, is a) fight this. b) seek clarification. c) seek permission. All such things would perhaps merely end up back on this one singular archie's desk. When ... truth be told .... the odds of him ever going to the beach again and seeing an md'r, are slim to none. So why oh why oh why would anyone "fight this" ?

This is an example of how sometimes it's better just to "give lip service" and avoid lone individuals who might care less. Does this equate to "sneaking around" ? FINE THEN: SNEAK AROUND! Sheesk, I don't know why some md'rs expect red carpets to be rolled out for them. You've got to learn you're not going to please every last person on earth.

 

[Elton]

No digging fire pits translated to no detecting .now it's on the books.. " No Digging "


Good night.Have a nice 4th all ..

 

[HaroldILL.]

That is like are Forest Preserves we lost to detecting. There was a law about digging, But you could Metal detect. But as long as you used a ''small hand trowel'' and not a shovel and didn't have 5 or 6 other clowns with you doin' the same the Forest Preserve Cop's were cool about it as I detected those for 16 years. Enter newbee yuppies with shovels and all there buddy's on a forum hunt, All of a sudden you have destruction of property. Then some of the older Cop's retired and the newbee Barney Fifes took over and noticed this and complained to there Sergent until the law was changed to NO USE OF METAL DETECTORS PERIOD. Some say it was the newer generation of Cops, But I say if everybody and there brother wasn't having there groups hunts with shovels they would still be open.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Harold, thanx for being a good sport in this conversation. As for what you've cited here:

Don't be so quick to assume that when some entity says "No because of holes", that holes were truly really the reason for the ban. Whenever we md'rs hear "no because of holes", we naturally assume, as you have: "Durned those md'rs who must've left holes!!" , right ? But actually what is often happening, is that "holes" is merely the "go-to reason" for justifying the no they just gave you.

Because, think of it: What's the knee-jerk mental image that someone often has, when tasked with thinking about md'ing ? HOLES, of course. Whether or not they actually ever saw any holes, they may still often say "no because of holes". Why? Because it's the automatic connotation that some people mentally draw.

And to the extent that someone may have indeed actually left holes, it still might not have resulted in a "No md'ing" rule. What I mean is, that someone later goes in and perhaps asks: "can I metal detect?". The person THEN thinks of a hole they saw, and says "no because of holes". So in my way of thinking: Had it not been for the well-intentioned-guy of going in and asking silly questions, then perhaps the issue might never have become front and center, IN THE FIRST PLACE.

So don't be quick to assume when "holes" are the cited reason for a no, that there was ever actually any case of it, or a case-such that it made the rule. The real reason is back to what I'm saying: That md'rs make themselves a giant bullseye in need of bored pencil pusher's sanctions and approvals.