Traveling to Antigua or Barbuda? A MUST READ! :surrender:

[WaterWalker]

I must be on a roll to knock off places to vacation with my detector.
In August 3, 2018's Antigua Observer I read that:

"Visitors and residents in Antigua and Barbuda are being warned to stop using metal detectors to uncover artefacts on the country’s beaches.

In a press release on Wednesday, Cabinet reiterated that it is against the law for anyone to use metal detectors to unearth artefacts buried under the sand and on shorelines."

The article goes on in an interview on Antigua's reason for their law.

https://antiguaobserver.com/stop-using-metal-detectors/

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I must be on a roll to knock off places to vacation with my detector.
In August 3, 2018's Antigua Observer I read that:

"Visitors and residents in Antigua and Barbuda are being warned to stop using metal detectors to uncover artefacts on the country’s beaches.

In a press release on Wednesday, Cabinet reiterated that it is against the law for anyone to use metal detectors to unearth artefacts buried under the sand and on shorelines."

The article goes on in an interview on Antigua's reason for their law.

https://antiguaobserver.com/stop-using-metal-detectors/

water-walker, I got news for you : It is "against the law" for anyone to uncover artefacts (sic) on ANY speck of public land. Please name for me any place you currently detect here in the USA (beaches, parks, forest, school yard, desert, etc....) and, I bet, that in 10 minutes , I can find someone in-that-entity to tell you/me that there is something about cultural heritage. Or artifacts. Or treasures. Or lost & found laws. Or disturb/alter/deface. Or harvest/remove. The list is endless. If you haven't gotten a "no" yet, it merely means you didn't ask the right person with the right phrasing.

And no, that's not "law" in your link. It's commentary. Notice that they are not pointing to ANYTHING that truly says "no md'ing". Instead they refer to cultural heritage issues (which, yes, *could* be used to shut down an md'r).

And look closer at the context of your wonderful link . What is the reason this was even on someone's plate for public comment (ie.: "commentary" not "law") in the first place ? Read and weep :


".... OBSERVER media spoke with Chief of Staff, Lionel “Max” Hurst, yesterday, who explained the reason why the issue was necessary for a Cabinet discussion. .... "

See? It was "necessary to have a cabinet discussion" (which thus resulted in the "no" or dire-sounding stuff). Ok, what brought about this "cabinet discussion" (ie.: "pressing issue") in the first place ?? Answer: The Observer newspaper (bless their little hearts) needed to go swat hornet's nests.

So perhaps, prior to this "cabinet discussion", it was not an issue ? I'm not saying that it might not be something "on the radar" now. But just saying ..... for pete's sake ..... don't you see that what you're doing, is simply perpetuating the very RADAR INDUCING psychology that brings about these very "press releases" ?

What I mean is: Haven't you noticed that if someone posts a "dire-sounding no" that they found a link to . Then the "shark attack" mentality takes over. Ie.: Even though 100000 people swim daily with zero shark attacks, yet .... if a single shark attack occurs worldwide, guess what will make the headlines ? And guess what the average Joe will fear if he goes to the beach ? Never mind that it's extremely rare, blah blah

So too is it with these "dire-sounding links" that get bandied about. Someone (bless their little hearts) went and fetched a "no". That makes its way into a link. Links lead to links. And before long, just like shark attacks, every md'r feels the need to "grovel" at every desk they come to. And don't you see the vicious circle ? The more often this "pressing question" lands on pencil pusher's desks, the more often the "safe answer" gets passed back down. From persons that, quite frankly, probably didn't care less.

I saw this happen FIRST HAND, since I've been here through the whole evolution of this : In the old days (1970s), it never occurred to us that there was anything wrong with md'ing on any speck of public land. Oh sure, we had the "presence of mind" to avoid crowds, obvious sensitive monuments, etc.... But then the FMDAC was formed. Our club was on their early mailing list. Each newletter mailer was *filled* with "scary stories from far away places". Ie.: a law they were fighting, or some md'r who got hassled, blah blah.

And as you looked around the room, at the people listening to these newsletters being read out loud, it was obvious that the tone was "coming to a place near you". And "grovel lest you be arrested". So I saw, firsthand, sincere well-meaning md'rs (trying to the "right thing") go asking "Can I?" type questions (much like your link & the Observer paper). And ... oddly ...we started seeing "no's" emerge from places that .... quite frankly ... had never been a problem before. See the vicious circle ?

So when you circulate dire-sounding things like that .... I can't help but think that it just perpetuates the "sky is falling" vicious circle

 

[Champ Ferguson]

I must be on a roll to knock off places to vacation with my detector.
In August 3, 2018's Antigua Observer I read that:

"Visitors and residents in Antigua and Barbuda are being warned to stop using metal detectors to uncover artefacts on the country’s beaches.

In a press release on Wednesday, Cabinet reiterated that it is against the law for anyone to use metal detectors to unearth artefacts buried under the sand and on shorelines."

The article goes on in an interview on Antigua's reason for their law.

https://antiguaobserver.com/stop-using-metal-detectors/

water-walker, I got news for you : It is "against the law" for anyone to uncover artefacts (sic) on ANY speck of public land. Please name for me any place you currently detect here in the USA (beaches, parks, forest, school yard, desert, etc....) and, I bet, that in 10 minutes , I can find someone in-that-entity to tell you/me that there is something about cultural heritage. Or artifacts. Or treasures. Or lost & found laws. Or disturb/alter/deface. Or harvest/remove. The list is endless. If you haven't gotten a "no" yet, it merely means you didn't ask the right person with the right phrasing.

And no, that's not "law" in your link. It's commentary. Notice that they are not pointing to ANYTHING that truly says "no md'ing". Instead they refer to cultural heritage issues (which, yes, *could* be used to shut down an md'r).

And look closer at the context of your wonderful link . What is the reason this was even on someone's plate for public comment (ie.: "commentary" not "law") in the first place ? Read and weep :


".... OBSERVER media spoke with Chief of Staff, Lionel “Max” Hurst, yesterday, who explained the reason why the issue was necessary for a Cabinet discussion. .... "

See? It was "necessary to have a cabinet discussion" (which thus resulted in the "no" or dire-sounding stuff). Ok, what brought about this "cabinet discussion" (ie.: "pressing issue") in the first place ?? Answer: The Observer newspaper (bless their little hearts) needed to go swat hornet's nests.

So perhaps, prior to this "cabinet discussion", it was not an issue ? I'm not saying that it might not be something "on the radar" now. But just saying ..... for pete's sake ..... don't you see that what you're doing, is simply perpetuating the very RADAR INDUCING psychology that brings about these very "press releases" ?

What I mean is: Haven't you noticed that if someone posts a "dire-sounding no" that they found a link to . Then the "shark attack" mentality takes over. Ie.: Even though 100000 people swim daily with zero shark attacks, yet .... if a single shark attack occurs worldwide, guess what will make the headlines ? And guess what the average Joe will fear if he goes to the beach ? Never mind that it's extremely rare, blah blah

So too is it with these "dire-sounding links" that get bandied about. Someone (bless their little hearts) went and fetched a "no". That makes its way into a link. Links lead to links. And before long, just like shark attacks, every md'r feels the need to "grovel" at every desk they come to. And don't you see the vicious circle ? The more often this "pressing question" lands on pencil pusher's desks, the more often the "safe answer" gets passed back down. From persons that, quite frankly, probably didn't care less.

I saw this happen FIRST HAND, since I've been here through the whole evolution of this : In the old days (1970s), it never occurred to us that there was anything wrong with md'ing on any speck of public land. Oh sure, we had the "presence of mind" to avoid crowds, obvious sensitive monuments, etc.... But then the FMDAC was formed. Our club was on their early mailing list. Each newletter mailer was *filled* with "scary stories from far away places". Ie.: a law they were fighting, or some md'r who got hassled, blah blah.

And as you looked around the room, at the people listening to these newsletters being read out loud, it was obvious that the tone was "coming to a place near you". And "grovel lest you be arrested". So I saw, firsthand, sincere well-meaning md'rs (trying to the "right thing") go asking "Can I?" type questions (much like your link & the Observer paper). And ... oddly ...we started seeing "no's" emerge from places that .... quite frankly ... had never been a problem before. See the vicious circle ?

So when you circulate dire-sounding things like that .... I can't help but think that it just perpetuates the "sky is falling" vicious circle

Well that was quite a little journey into storybookland. I'm sure it happened exactly that way too.



WW, the rest of us appreciate the information you have posted. Its always better to make informed decisions based on facts and not conjecture.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... Its always better to make informed decisions based on facts and not conjecture.

Sure. And just ask yourself: What is the source / origin of those "facts" ? Where did they originate from ? Answer: The very conversations / links we trade back and forth, that incite the very grovelling, that brings these very things about.

 

[Dancer]

3 Years ago while detecting a town park. (Been hunting it for 14 yrs) Without incident. A young police officer marched up , he was already agitated , said I was breaking the law. Asked him when did this come about? Kid you not, he slid his hand over his pistol, and asked if I'm leaving right now. In previous year's I'd had chats with other officers & ground keepers. No problems. So a little rattled I left. Couple days later called parks manager. Asked if Mding allowed. Said he'd get back to me , didn't. Time passes. Year later, made same call. Couple months, Got e-mail stateing permission. Printed it, keep it in truck.
Nothing like that ever happened like that before. I hunt parks very early. Or on days with bad weather. People start showing up. I'm gone.

 

[dewcon4414]

What ive found happening ...... is politics the ITS EASIER TO SAY NO MORE DETECTING when one person complains than have to justify over and over to the public once the snow ball starts. Ive seen cities, parks, beaches..... all being closed to detecting for no real reason...... just that someone complained. When it comes to artifacts...... normally its the archeologists who would rather they rust away than have someone with a detect recover it....... or they are the first to want the government to step in and protect it from us.

 

[Champ Ferguson]

..... Its always better to make informed decisions based on facts and not conjecture.

Sure. And just ask yourself: What is the source / origin of those "facts" ? Where did they originate from ? Answer: The very conversations / links we trade back and forth, that incite the very grovelling, that brings these very things about.

Oh, so you know the source of all things, do you? Please provide links. Otherwise we will think you are just making it up as you go along.


dew, rem that no one but Tom has proof that the grave robbers are responsible.(and he wont share his links). Apparently that boogeyman still haunts his dreams.

 

[Champ Ferguson]

3 Years ago while detecting a town park. (Been hunting it for 14 yrs) Without incident. A young police officer marched up , he was already agitated , said I was breaking the law. Asked him when did this come about? Kid you not, he slid his hand over his pistol, and asked if I'm leaving right now. In previous year's I'd had chats with other officers & ground keepers. No problems. So a little rattled I left. Couple days later called parks manager. Asked if Mding allowed. Said he'd get back to me , didn't. Time passes. Year later, made same call. Couple months, Got e-mail stateing permission. Printed it, keep it in truck.
Nothing like that ever happened like that before. I hunt parks very early. Or on days with bad weather. People start showing up. I'm gone.

Geez, that's intense. And a good reason to turn on the GoPro for discussion with the chief later.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... Please provide links. Otherwise we will think you are just making it up as you go along. ....

Champ what's wrong ? Haven't you been reading ? IT'S IN THE VERY LINK THAT WATER WALKER PROVIDED. Did you not see it ? I pointed it out already before, in this thread. But here it is, copied and pasted, once again :

"... And look closer at the context of your wonderful link . What is the reason this was even on someone's plate for public comment (ie.: "commentary" not "law") in the first place ? Read and weep :


".... OBSERVER media spoke with Chief of Staff, Lionel “Max” Hurst, yesterday, who explained the reason why the issue was necessary for a Cabinet discussion. .... "

See? It was "necessary to have a cabinet discussion" (which thus resulted in the "no" or dire-sounding stuff). Ok, what brought about this "cabinet discussion" (ie.: "pressing issue") in the first place ?? Answer: The Observer newspaper (bless their little hearts) needed to go swat hornet's nests....."

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... (Been hunting it for 14 yrs) Without incident..... .

In my 43-ish years of md'ing, I too have had some irate people approach me. Eg.: gardener, or cop, or office-worker in adjacent building, etc.... Because, let's be dreadfully honest: A man with a detector *does* have ... uh .... "connotations". Ie.: that you might be about to leave a hole.

But no, I do not construe singular isolated "scrams", as constituting gospel law, that must now be disputed or clarified. I just avoid that singular individual in the future. Presto, problem solved.

Glad you got that "no" over-turned. But it could also have gone the other direction as well. Ie.: some pencil pusher, who might have had visions of geeks-with-shovels, could have likewise said "no". Hence , barring rare exceptions, I do not go higher up the chain seeking clarifications, lest that also just be "swatting hornet's nests". But as said: Glad it worked out otherwise, in your situation.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

What ive found happening ...... is politics the ITS EASIER TO SAY NO MORE DETECTING when one person complains than have to justify over and over to the public once the snow ball starts. Ive seen cities, parks, beaches..... all being closed to detecting for no real reason...... just that someone complained. When it comes to artifacts...... normally its the archeologists who would rather they rust away than have someone with a detect recover it....... or they are the first to want the government to step in and protect it from us.

Good post. And do you know how the "snowball starts" ? It starts with ANY conjecturing, or question, or musing, or link like water-walker has done. And then the "snowball" is, that .... if anyone else wants to "get to the bottom of this " (to find out if it's an actual rule, or merely commentary, or a fake link, or whatever), guess what they're going to do, to "get to the bottom of this ?" Drum-roll : They'll ask. Thus eliciting more "safe answers". See the vicious circle ?

 

[Champ Ferguson]

Sure. And just ask yourself: What is the source / origin of those "facts" ? Where did they originate from ? Answer: The very conversations / links we trade back and forth, that incite the very grovelling, that brings these very things about.

I am asking for those links (I note the use of the plural form in your post) you are referring to Tom. Or are you saying that your participation in these conversations are part of the problem? I would agree with that, but not regarding this particular problem.

Which reminds me, Tom, National Geographic Channel has been running a series the last couple of weeks on people that ran afoul of the law in 3rd world countries and their experiences in those lovely jails. You might want to catch that before again urging folks to flout those countries' laws.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Links like this one , that started this thread : https://antiguaobserver.com/stop-using-metal-detectors/

Ironically, it's these very threads, that only perpetuate the notion, by skittish people, that they should inquire ahead, of border consulates, lawyers, govt. officials, etc.... before detecting. Which, as shown in that link, result in "no's". Which, sure, point you to cultural heritage, etc... And the more links like this that get tossed around in forum discussions, the more it drives home fears that "we need to be asking everywhere". Feeds more links, which feeds more fears, which feeds more asking. See the vicious circle of self-fulfillment ?

 

[WaterWalker]

What happens here in the US is very different then when entering a foreign country and going through their customs. I was there, I had my detectors detained, kept for a week while I was on vacation, returned to me two hours before my departing flight, and then the bag with the detectors in them were escorted to the airline's ticket counter by two custom's agents, documented with the baggage claim number. I was not allowed to handle the suitcase until I retrieved it upon entering the US. Call it what you want, it IS THE LAW, and it was enforced. Something that had not happened in previous trips. The LAW is being more aggressively enforced. I am returning for another vacation next month, will I take a detector? NO! unless I have the correct Permit / paperwork, which is very doubtful to happen.

Tom in CA: just a bit to let you know my 36 years of detecting experience; I have detected and did abide by the local LAW as known by me at the time; in the United States from Alaska, to California to Florida, to Maine, Hawaii, Guam, Canada, Iceland, United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, many Caribbean Islands, Aruba, Curacao, Guadeloupe, Puerto Rico, Mexico, and Panama. I have been detecting since 1982 on land and in the water. I joined TheRingFinders in 2011, and have returned over 200 personal items to the rightful owners.

And I thank you for perpetuating this thread, it would not have had near as many postings without your help.

 

[WaterWalker]

-- moved topic --