Utah State Parks metal detecting info

[fish1on]

Last year I was confronted at a State park about detecting on the beach and decided that it was time to maybe elevate my on going problem with the managers not knowing the rules. Yes, I know the rules but have a hard time abiding by them when the ones that enforce them have no idea how to ensure you are in compliance. I have contacted three different park mangers about obtaining a permit and they all gave me a dear in the headlight look. So, I go detect per their instruction verbally (yes I know bad deal) but for the most part have had no issues. I hate the idea of losing out on hunting grounds (be careful what you ask for right) but this particular situation seems to be a positive way forward...I sent an email!

Absolutely awesome response and very very well written:





Mr. Quinn:


I received a copy of the email you sent to Mr. Mike Broschinsky at the Division of Administrative Rules with regard to metal detecting in State Parks. As you know, the applicable rule (R651-620-6) prohibits metal detecting without a permit. You had indicated that the parks you had contacted for "a permit" were unfamiliar with such a permit. I apologize for the inconvenience. I've cc'd our staff on this email to help put us all on the same page. We receive only a few requests for permits, and it doesn't surprise me that some of our staff are unfamiliar with your request.

There are several reasons for the existence of R651-620-6. In some cases, we manage the land but are not the owner, and thus must fall in compliance with the rules governing the use of the land. Those rules may be contractual or a element of state and/or federal law. In addition, many of our parks sit on sites of historical significance where the recovery of artifacts is again tightly regulated by federal and state law. Hence, recovered antiquities are to be surrendered to park officials. Finally, the Division of Parks and Recreation owns virtually none of the subsurface mineral rights associated with our park areas. Consequently, removal of any find involving minerals or precious metals (i.e. that gold nugget that would make your retirement complete) would be in violation of the law.

With regard to the permit needed, the permit is known as a "Special Use Permit" and can be issued by the Park Manager or his/her designee. The Special Use Permit would detail appropriate and/or prohibited areas for metal detecting, and other rules that are applicable to the individual park site. Some of our Park Managers will be in a position to issue the permit without stipulation, while others will impose significant restrictions. Yet others will decline the permit altogether. That is within their prerogative as the manager of the site, based on their knowledge of the resources.

State Parks are for the enjoyment of the visiting public, and we encourage the broadest use of our park facilities within the existing bounds that have been set. I would encourage our park managers to issue the SUP for metal detecting unless there is a significant reason not to do so.


Like all Administrative Rules regulating the use of the State Park system, this rule has been promulgated by the Board of Parks and Recreation. If you would like to see changes to that rule, you may make a recommendation to the Board at any of their public meetings. If you would like to pursue that opportunity, please let me know and I'll help you with the logistics.



Thank you for your interest in Utah's state parks.






Fred


--

Fred M. Hayes
Director
Utah Division of Parks and Recreation
1594 West North Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
801-538-7336 (Office)

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

.... So, I go detect per their instruction verbally (yes I know bad deal) but for the most part have had no issues. I hate the idea of losing out on hunting grounds (be careful what you ask for right) ...

So .... essentially.... you detected and no one seemed to care less, eh ? Yet you still worry and send more inquiries, requests, seek further clarifications, etc.... ? If I had anyone give me even a tacit "ok" or shrugged their shoulders, etc.... I would have taken that and run with it. As you say yourself, you were un-bothered. Right ?

Ok, and now to make you even sicker yet: Here is an interesting peak into the evolution of your fine state's origin of their inclusion of anything to do with md'ing in their state park's minutia: Perhaps you already know about this (and is why you're running around seeking this mysterious "permit"):

No. 27442 (Amendment): R651-620. Protection of Resources Park System Property, Utah State Bulletin

Notice in the part pertaining to metal detecting that it says:

"Parks receive numerous calls each year from people wanting to do metal detecting activities within the parks. The law is not specific enough that it addresses metal detecting"

Underlined emphasis mine. What does this tell you ? It tells me that as recently as 2004 (the date of that all-important-memo), that apparently Utah was silent on the subject. Eg. neither expressly allowing, nor expressly dis-allowing (barring something ancillary that could be morphed to apply). BUT LO & BEHOLD: D/t "numerous calls", then sure as sh%t, the powers that be must "address this pressing issue" and invent a rule. Isn't that grand ? Now we can all sit back and pat ourselves on the back for begging for another "no".

Sheesk, sometimes md'rs can be their own worst enemy

 

[cudamark]

Yeah, you can really open a can of worms by asking for clarification. At a state park where it's in writing that the individual head ranger has to give his OK or give out a permit, I would have just asked if it was ok to detect. If he said yes, I would just leave it at that and go to it. I wouldn't need any more details or clarification than that. No point in giving them any bad ideas to mull over.

 

[Indiana Bones]

That's some interesting info. Here . I have always gone under an assumption,in my state,
That metal detecting was a total "No"
I was kicked out of a state park for metal detecting back in the 1980's
Maybe i should try an aquire permission...i don't have anything to lose.
HH. :-)

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... I have always gone under an assumption,in my state, That metal detecting was a total "No"....

Do you mean just in your state parks ? Or are you thinking border-to-border all land within your state ?

... I was kicked out of a state park for metal detecting....

Not saying to "throw caution to the wind", but .... Not every time someone says "boo" or "scram" does it constitute gospel law. I have been "scrammed" from lots of places (and give lip service to the griper), but..... later on, decide it was just someone having a bad hair day. Or some authority who was just responding to a call (and had to justify his call out) . Or that you ran into the lone archie, or 1 in 10,000 rangers who "care less"

I see in the FMDAC state park list, that Indiana has a "with permit" notation. But when you go to click on the link itself, I find nothing that actually says that . Well, at least as all-encompassing anyhow. And not just for individual parks that might be historically themed with a specific expressed notation for individual parks. Maybe I just missed it.

... Maybe i should try an aquire permission...i don't have anything to lose.....

Well, if you found yourself in a "no one cares" situation, then yes, you might have "something to lose". You might bump into the "no one cared *TILL* you asked psychology. As Mark put it:

...No point in giving them any bad ideas to mull over.

 

[fish1on]

The rule is already in place, just trying to gain permission within the rule parameters....I didn't stir the pot and create the rule! In my post I had stated that I was confronted last year.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

fish1on, yes, sorry. I/we did not mean to insinuate that you brought about the rule. Yes, it already existed. And yes, then solidarity to reverse it, or attempts to abide, are in order.

I was just noting that the origins (albeit not from you) were well-meaning people who went asking "can I?" type questions in the past. And yes, I saw that you were confronted. But I also saw that you said (If I understood you correctly) that

a) You got dazed looked from indifferent rangers, who just shrugged their shoulders. So ...

b) You just went. And for the most part (barring the single "scram") were ignored.

So in-lieu of (a) and (b), if it were me, I would have been tempted to think of the individual "scram" as perhaps a fluke. But that's just me.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Also on topic: Anytime some place has the type wording, associated with a supposed available "permit", you've got to read between the lines. It might be knee-jerk to think of this "permit" as something like some cities have dreamed up, where it's like nothing more than a library card. I have heard of "permits" like this. San Jose, CA city parks has such a thing (although, humorously, no one can ever recall being asked to show it).

HOWEVER, the "permit" talked about in your text from Utah parks reeked of something different. You can tell that's talking about "permits" for credentialed archies doing some sort of sanctioned stuff. It will never be available to hobbyists.

 

[fish1on]

Tom,

No worries at all, you bring up points that are very true and I appreciate the feedback.

 

[fish1on]

I am going to continue to detect the parks but I will have a copy of the letter from the director with me. Rarely are the managers or designated employees available to issue permits that they know nothing about.....

Breaking the rules? Due diligence If confronted I will be polite and stop detecting and leave.

 

[perry2]

I drove up to the gate of a State beech and asked the "ranger" if I could MD the beech ?--Oh NO NO MDing allowed //// Aftre talking to a fellow who just did the beech I went back to the gate--Another "ranger" " Oh its ok to detect here just only after we close at 5 pm/// I plan on asking each time I go just to see how many answers I get///

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I drove up to the gate of a State beech and asked the "ranger" if I could MD the beech ?--Oh NO NO MDing allowed //// Aftre talking to a fellow who just did the beech I went back to the gate--Another "ranger" " Oh its ok to detect here just only after we close at 5 pm/// I plan on asking each time I go just to see how many answers I get///

Oh this post is OH SO TELLING. Md'rs go asking "can I metal detect?" (hey, who better to ask than a park personnel after all?). And they end up subjecting themselves to Russian roulette of mood, whim, opinion, etc.... FAR FROM BEING A CUT & DRIED answer, eh ?

And so, some md's feel they can get past this and clarify "show me where that's written" . As if to put the burden of proof on the person answering to cite chapter and verse, eh ? So the ranger whips out something about harvest & remove, or disturbing earthworms, or lost & found, or alter + deface, etc.... And do you REALLY think you're going to win that debate of semantics ? Of course not.

Then you find out detecting has gone on at wherever you're at since time immortal. And then you realize you were nothing more than the latest victim of "no one cared TILL you asked" psychology

As for experimenting with this , and seeing how many different answers you can fetch, just be aware that this could be detrimental. That same dis-interested desk-jockey might start passing your "pressing question" up the chain (till it lands on the desk of a bored archie) . Then will now start booting others (whom he never paid any-mind to previously).

I've seen this happen here in CA: There was a state park we used to always go to w/o issue. Till one day some well meaning newbie started "seeking clarifications" (their "pressing question" was passed up the chain to sacramento desk-bound pencil pushers). Guess what happened ?

 

[cudamark]

I drove up to the gate of a State beech and asked the "ranger" if I could MD the beech ?--Oh NO NO MDing allowed //// Aftre talking to a fellow who just did the beech I went back to the gate--Another "ranger" " Oh its ok to detect here just only after we close at 5 pm/// I plan on asking each time I go just to see how many answers I get///

If it's required that you ask the ranger, I'd keep asking the same one who gave you permission. As Tom mentioned, asking the wrong one can backfire on you. Who cares how many goofy or negative answers you get. You want to detect, right? Let sleeping dogs lie.

 

[LawrencetheMDer]

Regardless of preconditions (e.g., whether to ask permission), the reply is well encompassing and, at the very least, is worthy of coping and presenting if the particular need arises. You might use it to inform initial naysayers that it would be ok to MD in a particular area. It never hurts to mention all the garbage that we recover and dispose of.

 

[fish1on]

Regardless of preconditions (e.g., whether to ask permission), the reply is well encompassing and, at the very least, is worthy of coping and presenting if the particular need arises. You might use it to inform initial naysayers that it would be ok to MD in a particular area. It never hurts to mention all the garbage that we recover and dispose of.

My very plan! No problem on sharing the garbage recovery info, that's about all I find at the State Parks.

 

[fmrUSMC_0844]

What I find weird about the state parks here is one ranger says its allowed and the other says its not. Its like gold prospecting. One ranger says no sluicing but I hear from his boss that sluicing is ok. They need to get on the same page.

 

[fish1on]

What I find weird about the state parks here is one ranger says its allowed and the other says its not. Its like gold prospecting. One ranger says no sluicing but I hear from his boss that sluicing is ok. They need to get on the same page.

Exactly why I sent the email. I knew going into this that I may stir the bees nest and may risk losing out all together. This state has many issues in my opinion one being double standards or lack of knowledge on rules. I am very happy with the response I received from the parks director, to me he seemed positive about the hobby and stated that he would encourage the managers to allow the hobby. He even offered to help with the logistics to get the permit issue looked at.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

If it's required that you ask the ranger,....

cuda-mark, be careful with that supposed "premise" too ! There has been MANY citations of "with permission from ranger" or "inquire at each kiosk" type text that makes its way onto compendium rules lists (like the FMDAC's list, for example). Yet when you SLEUTH DEEPER into the actual parks rules/laws, you find NO SUCH RULE. Here's what's happened:

Back when such lists were compiled, inquiries get sent out. Saying something like "what are your rules regarding metal detectors?". And whomever's desk the "pressing question" lands on, often times just takes the easy way out and says "with permission" or "inquire at each kiosk". The logic is simple: Because, of course, the staff on duty at each location ... OF COURSE has the latitude to implement vague rules, to keep order as they see fit. So for example: 95% of the parks in a state might be innocuous, with no historically sensitive theme, right ? Yet a few others might have some historical theme, right ? So put yourself in the shoes of the person answering the letter: You just say "inquire at each" or "with permission". Instead of "yes at these 28, but not at those 4", and so forth.

Yet notice that "with permission" or "ask each ranger" was NEVER anywhere in the actual law. It's merely a cover-letter commentary accompanying someone's answer. Hmmm. Yet md'rs pick that up as gospel law, and start asking at each kiosk they come to. Then guess what happens next ? Aaaarrgghhh.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

My very plan! No problem on sharing the garbage recovery info, that's about all I find at the State Parks.

About the only place where this logic might come in handy, is sandy beaches (where bare feet can get poked). But if you dug up a sharp object from the grass, any thinking-logical busy-body will correctly surmise that it "wasn't bothering anyone so long as it was submerged and beneath the ground"

 

[Tom_in_CA]

What I find weird about the state parks here is one ranger says its allowed and the other says its not.....

Moral of the story ? Let's not ask bored rangers silly questions. Best to look things up for ourselves. If there is no specific and distinct and explicit "no detecting" rule, then presto: Not prohibited. I do not construe any other ancillary verbiage (alter, deface, take, remove, cultural heritage, etc....) to apply. If someone thinks differently, they're more than welcome to come alert me. Otherwise, no, I'm not going to go out swatting hornet's nests.