against-wind, I liked your post .
That authority's "ok" was, no doubt, based on actual law or rule, right ? Because even as you allude to: If they had said "no", then you would logically ask them to explain "why?". Right ? Like to say to them "based on what ?" To put the burden of proof on them to cite chapter and verse. To make sure their answer is not arbitrary and whimsical. Right ?
If so, then the citizen can likewise look that up for himself too, eh? To see if there's an actual rule or not that said "no md'ing". Right ?
What do you do if the mayor or whomever you're emailing answers back something like this: "No because we have verbiage that forbids alter and deface" ? Do you then debate them on how you leave no trace ? Or if they say "No because of verbiage that forbids harvest and remove". Then what do you do ? Or lost & found laws. Or "annoyances" laws, etc... I would just be afraid that the md'r might introduce a hot-button subject that it slated to receive legions of safe answers. When in fact, the busy-body who accosted them might be a fluke incident that could simply be avoided in the future.
It is always on a case by case basis. Pretty much all parks that are maintained by a municipality had an anti-digging rule. It is designed to prevent harvesting of plants, theft of topsoil, and the prevention of hazardous conditions. Those rules will also help minimize damages in the event of a lawsuit.
It was a hard fought battle to get NYC Department of Parks and Recreation to initiate a metal detecting permit. It has expanded from the initial 12 parks to 162 parks today. The largest park consists of over 2,300 acres, including a public beach. There are still some parks that are off limits, as well as rules about where you can dig in parks where metal detecting is permitted. It's give and take.
What we don't do is quote bible and verse, or try to use documentation against the municipality we are trying to get to work with us. Education instead of confrontation is the approach that has worked best.
That is not to say that confrontation was not necessary. Public protests and demonstrtions against NYC Parks were necessary to get a seat in front of the Parks Commisioner and his representatives. The Freedom of Information Act was used to shoot holes in the accusations that people with metal detectors were damaging the park grounds. Not one single summons had been issued to an MDer in the previous 10 years. I have learned that there is a difference between a confrontational approach and a diplomatic solution. Rules can be rewritten or made, "Not Applicable" providing one has a permit. The point is to try to get to a place where the powers that be,, are willing to talk about implementing a permit system.
In the beginning, before permits, I was ready for a good fight. Like you, I would challenge or try to punch holes in existing rules. I have gotten quite an education over the years.
Look up "The Task Force for Metal Detecting Rights Foundation" They have made great strides in resolving issues involving metal detecting over the years. One particular victory was in Mason City, Iowa. Did you know that the "Powers That Be" would issue an annual Bow Hunting Permit for Deer in a public park, but they have a problem with metal detecting?? There are now metal detecting permits issued for Mason City Parks.
If I can be of assistance, just let me know.
Kevin O
Now I understood where she was coming form and even appreciated that fact that she could personally care less, but still, what would her actions be if that someone complained? 
. farm fields get the 3 foot shovel-- try digging a target down over 2 feet with anything less. also works for a good smack upside the head 
if youze inclined to 
with me in da field
--
