thanx for the update. Did you, or anyone there, ever find out was precipitated all this TO BEGIN WITH ? I mean: what put in on their radar as something that should be prohibited? How did they get this notion? Oddly, the old mantra of "someone must've left holes" can not apply in this case, since .......... we're talking about forests and woods, not turfed parks ! So pray-tell, has anyone sleuthed back to the very genesis of this, to figure out why this ever got on their decision making radar, to begin with?
Now be aware, if you were to ASK them "why?", I'm sure they'll come up with something about cultural heritage, etc.... right? Ok, but what put THAT on their radar ? I mean, seriously, do you really think that some county commissioner was walking his dog out there in the forest one day, sees a metal detectorists, and thinks: "oh me oh my, that guy might find an old coin" ? So what I'm trying to say is: that things like "cultural heritage" and "holes" are often-time just the "go to" answers bureaucrat's hand out, to justify the law they just invented. But tracing back further, you have to ask yourself, "ok, but what put THAT on their radar as a supposed ill to society as something that needed to be addressed all of the sudden ?"
Now be aware, if you were to ASK them "why?", I'm sure they'll come up with something about cultural heritage, etc.... right? Ok, but what put THAT on their radar ? I mean, seriously, do you really think that some county commissioner was walking his dog out there in the forest one day, sees a metal detectorists, and thinks: "oh me oh my, that guy might find an old coin" ? So what I'm trying to say is: that things like "cultural heritage" and "holes" are often-time just the "go to" answers bureaucrat's hand out, to justify the law they just invented. But tracing back further, you have to ask yourself, "ok, but what put THAT on their radar as a supposed ill to society as something that needed to be addressed all of the sudden ?"