.... once they get those funds you can be sure they won't have an all out ban, because they don't want to give up the revenue!...
Shawn, oh but I wish it were that simple. This is not a true statement. If you go through past forum topics on/about "permits", you will see there is NO SHORTAGE of places that used to have "permits", that .... on day .... just yanked them altogether. Why? Because think of it Shawn: the mere fact that any place would have a "permit" to do something (as if their express "allwance" were even needed in the first place), simply means this is something always and perpetually up for their princely say-so. Eg.: annual reviews, and something perpetually on-their-radar as something they administer, allow, etc... Well, gee, think of it: It's only a matter of time before, in one of those annual meetings, that they say to themselves "gee, do we really want all these yahoos out there digging up the park, and taking park cultural resources, blah blah blah"? I mean, if the "review" falls on the archie's desk, well guess what his vote's gonna be ?
Thus , no, you don't want permits (silence on the subject is best yet). And yes, I suppose it's better than an "outright ban", but, no , don't think for a minute that they're not riddled with ridiculous qualifications (only on sandy beaches, can't detect near a tree, blah blah), and don't think for a second that this can be yanked and any time. There's hardly enough md'r hobbyists to justify the cost of printing these out, the paperwork record-keeping, blah blah . Sorry, but I wish it were that simple
