I didn't make my way out there because when I looked at the website it said no metal detecting in the FAQ section.
And I'll bet you dollars to donuts that this "pressing answer" to the "FAQ", predated 2012, when tmanfromtexas was there (shame on him, eh ? ) And the O.P. Donald70448 , seems to have been there quite recently, as evidenced by his post.
I have seen this phenomenon many times in my 40+ yrs. of this: Enough sincere well-meaning md'rs go asking desk-jockeys "can we metal detect ?" . It becomes, as the name suggests, a "
frequently
asked
question". And sure as heck, someone's gotta give it the "safe" answer. Since, of course, they envision geeks with shovels. It becomes part of the dusty minutia that no one ever reads. And rank and file know nothing about it as the years go on. Lo & behold someone(s) else, who simply don't know any better (didn't ask long enough and hard enough) simply goes. And discovers that no one cares less.
Hhhmmm. Not saying to throw caution to the wind. And *certainly* avoid obvious historical sensitive monuments. But other times, you have to read between the lines.
ALSO: There has been interesting md'ing forum legal debate posts about the difference between "commentary" and "law" and "rule". So for example, the FAQ there (assuming it truly exists) could be said to be "commentary". Not law or rule. Oh sure, I'm not saying it can't be enforced. Heck, they could even say that something like "alter and deface" applies. Or "harvest and remove". Or "bothering earthworms", as justification to the FAQ they just passed out. But notice, in that case, it's not codified. It's just commentary.
This type scenario came up on a local beach near me, when someone (bless their little hearts) took it upon themselves to fire off an email to Sacramento, asking if they could detect on a certain state of CA beach. Someone there sent back a "no", and chalked it up to a rule forbidding "harvest" and "take". Therefore, the person who received this answer, took exception with several of us who were detecting there. It never OCCURRED to any of us that you needed to ask. It had simply always ever been detected (in full view of passing rangers, etc...) and had never been an issue.
Ok, in a case like that: Does the screen capture of the "no" constitute "law" ? Or is it merely commentary ? See the difference ? And so too has the legal case been made about some of these wonderful FAQs.
