reply
I actually contacted the state park first via their website to inquire as to their position on metal detecting. I had planned to take my girlfriend's son with me (trying to get him interested in something other than TV & video games) and wanted to confirm that I wasn't breaking any laws. After receiving their email, I replied back requesting documentation explaining how their position is not in direct contradiction of the Public Trust Doctrine. I don't believe the person who replied is in any position of authority, so will likely not get a response from her - which means I will have to try to find someone higher on the food chain at the state parks dept. I agree that there must be limitations as to what someone can do on public land - but since metal detecting is 100% legal on the beaches north & south of the park, and the land from the high tide line water-ward is considered by every coastal state to be part of the ocean & in the public domain - I can't see how they can legally prohibit me from detecting there...unless there is a statute on the books - and that's what I'm trying to find out.
fishbayback, thanx for answering. Is it ok if I answer back, point by point, to your answer?
For starters, I would ask you why, back when you started, you didn't merely look up to see if there were any "no detecting" rules yourself? (rather than subject yourself to the nilly willy opinions and feelings of how some desk-bound bureaucrat couches your question?)
You say:
" After receiving their email, I replied back requesting documentation explaining how their position is not in direct contradiction of the Public Trust Doctrine. I don't believe the person who replied is in any position of authority"
Dissecting that statement apart very slowly, it reveals a lot:
a) you had to explain to her how she was mistaken (whether or not you are correct in your stance, is a mute point for the moment, so bear with me for a moment). So you:
b) asked her to document (aka prove) was she was saying. Another way of putting forth this challenge to a bureuacrat is to have asked
"....but where is that written?". And that's a fair question afterall. Because if someone is going to say
"you can't do such & such", it only stands to reason that they must have some fact or law to say such a thing, in the first place! Doh
c) how did you come to the opinion that this person was mistaken? Because you got to thinking about it, looking up rules for yourself, seeing a weakness in her silly answer, and so forth. Great.
d) But that merely begs the question, that if you could do all those things after the fact (look things up for yourself, find grounds to challenge her , etc...), then why oh why oh why didn't you just look it up for yourself, to begin with? Heck, you can even print out a copy of laws for yourself if you are skittish (laws which show there is silence [ie.; no prohibitions] on the subject of metal detectors). And carry it with you. If some busy body says something, you can show them that you looked, and there's no prohibitions.
e) you say you don't think she has the authority to answer. And that might be true. But ask yourself, if that is true, then what were you doing asking someone who "has no authority", in the first place? I guess you figured that if you got a "no", you would merely go higher than them up the ladder?
The trouble is, the average desk -clerk getting such an email that asks "can I metal detect", is maybe someone to whom the thought had never occured. Perhaps they don't know, nor ever gave the matter thought before. So what do they do? They take the "safe" answer, and look for something ELSE to apply to your "pressing question", so that they can tell you "no". You know, stupid stuff like what you've already heard. Or "you can't bother the sand crabs" or "we have lost & found laws" and other such things.
Why do authorities instinctively do such things? As I say, it's the easy answer. And you have to put yourself in their shoes for a minute: If you got a question where someone asks to do something wierd like this, it only conjurs up images that something must be inherently wrong with this activity. I mean,
"why else would the person be asking if they can do it, if it were innocuous and harmless?" This inference is not lost on the person you're asking. I mean, would you think you need to ask if you can fly frisbees? No. Of course not.
So in the future, look up location rules for yourself. Don't put yourself at the mood or whims or arbitrary interpretations of a desk-bound clerk. If you see no rules that say "no metal detecting", then why go looking for someone to tell you "no"?
And what's worse yet fishbayback, is that it's inquiries like this (eliciting princely "no's") that simply lead to laws and rules that say "no detecting". Why? Because they must address this "pressing issue" from all these people are inquiring. I've actually seen this happen before! Someone goes to city hall, or a ranger kiosk, and asks "can I?". The confused bewildered desk clerk or kiosk clerk looks long and hard at their rule book, and can find nothing about. But hey, what's their knee-jerk mental connotation? HOLES! So what do you think they're going to say (even if they'd never paid you any mind)? Or the clerk passes the "pressing question" up the chain of command to various other state or city people. Well gee, now the arborist "needs to sign off on this" and the archaeologist "need to sign off on this", the lawyers "need to sign off on this" and so forth. So they come back to you and say "no". Meanwhile, the old-timers who've detected there for 30 yrs and never had a problem, are left scratching their heads saying "since when?"
So please, look it up for yourself in the future, is the best way.
