Ban on Louisville, ky. Detecting

[Ky Ed]

Today the New York Taskforce is starting their calling support for the right to detect in Ky. State parks Please look up the Senators in Ky. and call them and ask to get their support for changing the State Park Policy against metal detecting. There is no law prohibiting this hobby and we need your efforts. P.S. You don't need to be a resident of Kentucky to make a call.

 

[relicminer]

I'll start annoying them now, thanks for that info!!!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Ed, you say:

"There is no law prohibiting this hobby...."

Did you mean by that, that there is no laws prohibiting metal detecting in Kentucky state parks right now? If so, then what is the difference between that and a "policy against metal detecting" that they have? Ie.: "policy" vs "law"? If it's not technically against the law (If I understood you right), then what would happen if someone simply went and did it in the state parks there (not at obvious historic monuments, of course)? Couldn't they just tell any busy-bodies "there is no law prohibiting this?"

Let us know what you meant when you said there's no law prohibiting metal detecting, in the context of your post, on the topic of KY state parks.

 

[diggemall]

Tom - here in WI our DNR has the authority to make rules that carry the weight of law (i.e. fines / punishment WILL be enforced by the states District attorneys) even though there is no statute backing the rules.

Several years ago, our state Archie (who is under the employ of the DNR) mandated the prohibition of metal detecting on all state owned / managed lands and waterways............

Completely bypasses the legislative process.

Schmucks.

Diggem'

 

[Tom_in_CA]

diggem, well this is interesting. I think I know what you are talking about. Public officials (cops, gardeners, rangers, etc...) are tasked with implementing and interpretting rules/laws, so as to apply to a myriad of situations that may come up, in the field.

And for good reason: Because otherwise people would forever be arguing with public employees/authorities in the field. For example: a cop tries to arrest someone for nudity, yet the person argues "but officer, I was wearing one sock, so *technically* I wasn't nude", and so forth. Therefore laws and rules are purposefully written vague enough, so as to apply and morph to a variety of situations, as they come up, in the field.

As as aside to this, you can see therefore, with the above rationale, that individual rangers, cops, gardeners, etc... may therefore see things differently. Ie.: some cops, rangers, or gardeners could care less about someone who flies frisbees, or skips stones on the pond, right? But the NEXT cop or gardener, might tell the person "stop that, because you're disrupting the migratory flight of the endangered three toed warbler birds".

 

[diggemall]

Tom;

I suspect that the intent of setting our DNR up this way was to allow that particular agency to manage the things that are under its sphere of influence without the need for constant legislative action. Things like fish & game bag limits & size limits, hunting / fishing license fees, recreational toy registration & acceptable use on public lands, etc. Makes sense as many of these things need to be "adjusted" from year to year to properly manage the Natural Resources of the state.

Then, at some point in time, someone decided we should have a State Archaeologist. Which Dept should that position belong to ? Dept of Justice ?, No. Dept of Agriculture ? No. Dept of Transportation ? No. Etc.

Closest "fit" was probably the DNR. Once there, the regulatory powers previously granted to the Agency then applied to that position as well.

Kinda goofy, IMHO, because the things that the State Archie manages most certainly are NOT "Natural" "Resources"

Diggem'