With respect, the comparison to restocking fish and pheasants is nonsense, these aren't put there by nationwide organisations looking to keep the natural balance of an imported non native species, (that would be pheasants), they are put there by businesses that charge people to catch them or shoot them, and organisations like BASC and the Countryside Alliance aren't contributing towards the cost of regulation, they are there to stick up for the right to continue with the country pursuits, and fight organisations that want to ban them. On our part, we have the NCMD to do this for us.jcmaloney wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 12:08 pm I`m sure Steve will correct me if I am wrong but, if PAS hadn`t been set up the hobby would have been toast under the Valletta Convention. Considering all the "old" EU Law will be shuffled onto the Statute books post Brexit the tool to do away with the hobby sits nearby for anyone wishing to pick it up.
When you consider any country pursuit (Shooting, fishing etc) they all contribute to the upkeep of their hobbies through either national organisations or licences. Fish & pheasants are re-stocked in the millions.................. anyone putting their finds back?
As previousl,y we need to be on the front foot offering an acceptable option before an unacceptable one is placed upon us.
The rod licences do help fund river bank upkeep, but try fishing on a river that's choked with weed and brambles, the upkeep is necessary to enable the hobby, and it benefits those paying for it, the existence of the PAS in no way affects whether we are able to detect, only that we are allowed to do so, this is an important distinction.
Your point about us having to accept the PAS or have detecting banned illustrates my point perfectly, it isn't there to benefit us, if it was then there would have been no need for the threat.
The PAS is a tool to regulate detectorists, not to benefit them, if it is underfunded then the people that benefit from it, researchers, museums, archaeologists, need to think about whether the benefit that they get from it is worth funding, and if they believe that the benefit they get is worth the cost then they are free to put more in.
If I contribute to a magazine the magazine will pay me, and the people that want to read it will pay to do so.
The PAS archives are free to view, they could always charge a subscription for those that want to view it, then the people that are benefiting most from it will be paying for it.
I have no problem reporting finds at all, and I'm proud to have my finds displayed in the archive, but being forced to pay extra to fund an organisation that isn't there to benefit me is not something I'll take lying down.