reply
We are good to go on the beaches and in the water. Still can NOT cut roots, even grass roots or walk on the dunes, let alone detect on them. I have not seen the printed CMR yet. A detectorist was asked to leave one beach north of Boston. I do not know the details.
The latest info from Roger is:
From: Palmer, Shaneice (DCR) (DCR) <shaneice.palmer@state.ma.us>
To: 'Roger Barbrick'
Cc: FitzPatrick, Ellen (DCR) (DCR) <ellen.fitzpatrick@state.ma.us>
Sent: Wed, Jun 18, 2014 10:19 am
Subject: RE: Metal detecting on DCR beaches
Dear Mr. Barbrick: I am sending this email on behalf of Mrs. Ellen FitzPatrick who is currently out of office. Thank you for your follow-up email. We apologize for any confusion and hope that this email can provide some clarification. After receiving your latest email, I consulted with several of my colleagues in order to better understand the intent of the latest recommendation regarding our metal detecting regulation. As it pertains to metal detecting on coastal and inland beaches, permission from the park supervisor will actually not be required. I apologize for any confusion that may have been caused by the previous email. As for other non-beach areas within DCR parks and forests – where metal detecting is not currently allowed due to potential natural, cultural, and archaeological resource protection concerns – metal detecting will be allowed when searching for specific lost personal property with verbal permission from the park supervisor. Once again, thank you for your continued interest in DCR. We hope this addresses your questions. Sincerely, DCR MassParks Team
water-walker, thanx for posting this.
I did a double-take when I read the following quote though:
"..... As for other non-beach areas within DCR parks and forests – where metal detecting is not currently allowed due to potential natural, cultural, and archaeological resource protection concerns ....."
Ok, ask yourself how "fickle" this now is. If it's only "natural, cultural, and archaeological" artifacts that differentiate the two type terrains, ask yourself "why?". In other words, why isn't there some purist archie somewhere raising the natural question of artifacts ON THE BEACH ? I mean, let's face it: a historical artifact can JUST AS WELL be found on the beach, as it can on land, right? (an old coin, etc...)
About the only counter argument that *could* be raised to counter that reason to extend the rule to the beach, is the following:
"Loss of context." Because unlike terra-firma ground, which remains fairly constant over the eons of time, yet beach sand is constantly shifting. Especially if we're talking the inter-tidal zone, where erosion and re-fill are constantly moving sands. Right? But notice that this counter-point would have zero argumentative effect, if a md'r were trying to use the same logic point to allow him to hunt in a furroughed field of a land site. Or if a tractor scrape were occuring in a state's inland park, etc... To say "but it's no problem, as context is lost", still wouldn't get you a "yes", right? Because a purist archie would simply counter that things like erosion cycles, tractor movements, etc.... can all be taken into the over-all archaeological "fingerprint" of study, blah blah blah.
Or even if not left to this cultural stuff, why isn't someone there who's in the middle of all this, raising a "no", simply by virtue of their present rules which forbid "harvesting and removal" ? You know, laws written way-back-when so-as -to-stop persons from thinking they can back up a truck and start harvesting sand. Or to think you can take home the picnic benches, etc... Technically there is no reason why such rules can't be morphed to result in "no metal detecting" .
All I can say is, I hope that this perpetual back and forth "clarifying" currently going on, and streams of md'rs going in and asking "can I metal detect yet?" etc.... don't bring un-wanted attention , to where the "pressing question" someday, somehow, finds its way into a future "no".
Anytime our hobby gets "specfically allowed" (as in here in this case, or as in the cases of places with "permits"), you will notice that ......... inevitably.... that just opens it up for perpetual review. It's simply now "always on their radar" as something that needs their princely sanction and approval. It 's something that perpetually now gets ask (as for umpteen years-to-come, there'll be no shortage of md'r questions about "this MA thing"). And sure enough, the day will come, that it will be changed back.
So it's almost as if I wish every single forum moderator would /could delete every single thread that ever had anything to do with this flap. It's good that it got resolved, but the mere presence now of these threads (which will forever be showing up on key-word searches), is that it's going to cause generations of md'rs to come, to "go seeking clarification", thus perpetually keeping it on pencil-pushers desks as something in need of their attention. And even though the threads, of course, say that the issue is gone and past, yet .... simply the titles of threads alone (for people who don't read deep and long to -the-end), is going to cause the perpetual "asking" psychology
Why do you think that of all 50 states in the USA, that only Florida gets the perpetual persons coming on to forums, asking about legalities of FL beaches? Notice you NEVER get those amounts of questions about any other state's beaches. Have you ever wondered why? It's this exact psychology at play: All it takes is one beach, or one "scram" or one shot down law, or one oddity of a shipwreck beach, or one scary story, etc... And then presto: forever more, well-meaning skittish people will have a notion that there's something illegal about some beaches there. And then , as I say, it's only a matter of time then, when it simply becomes a self-fulfilling cycle
