A head scratcher...

[HuntNdig]

So i just found out about Corp of Engineer parks allowing metal detector on beaches and other disturbed areas...Well, here in Texas a Corp of Engineers lake just so happens to be in the center of a state park. Now, you cannot consume alcohol publicly on state park property BUT if you are in the lake, even just a foot, you are considered on the corp of engineers property and thus allowed to consume alcohol...SOOOO, would it be unreasonable to think that you could metal detect the beaches of the state park as long as you are in the water which belongs to the CoE. I called the state park today and ask if you could metal detect their beaches and the lady blatantly said NO. Hmmm, i just wonder if this could be some kind of over riding loop hole or something. There is a place people call "party cove" for lack of a better term, where everyone ties their boats up and drinks. I'm sure the water is loaded with all kinds of jewelry and stuff...just gotta get out there...what do you think about this, is it just a broken system?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[savant365]

You may get away with it eventually but is it really worth the hassle. If you do get arrested you will spend a lot of time and money on court and lawyers to get off.

 

[liftloop]

At lest, if they took your detector you would not be out much.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Just curious: If you a) *already knew* that you could metal detect in CoE locations, .... and b) you already *knew* that drinking (which can't be done in Texas state parks) could be done even within state parks, so long as it was within the CoE waters, ...... and c) you already knew that passed legal muster, then, praytell, why do you ask?

Seems to me, that if you ask enough persons ANY question, you will eventually find someone to tell you "no". Deskbound bureaucrats to pass out the easy answers, when in fact, perhaps they're just telling you their personal opinion, simply because they heard a certain buzzword.

If you already knew you legally could, then why keep asking around for something to tell you that you can't? And no, there's no arrests, jail, etc... for this, if all the information is as you gave, so I don't quite understand the fears that savant and lift-loop warn you about, when the very facts of the question (if they are correct assumptions, which appears to be logically sound, based upon the example of the drinking thing) are taken as premises.

And sure: this doesn't mean that some mis-informed busy-body might not come up to say something while you are out in that knee-deep water. So what? You just inform them otherwise of your data, and I bet they move on. I just don't get it.

HuntNdig, here's another post on your topic and specific locale:

http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,418723.0.html

 

[HuntNdig]

Thanks tom for the information and opinion, Lift loop....if you are trying to troll, you are horrible at it and savant, its not about the hassle, if i have the right to hunt it why would i not? I'm not worried about legal obligation i just wanted to see if anyone understood my point of view as Tom apparently does.

 

[Dimeman]

Thanks tom for the information and opinion, Lift loop....if you are trying to troll, you are horrible at it and savant, its not about the hassle, if i have the right to hunt it why would i not? I'm not worried about legal obligation i just wanted to see if anyone understood my point of view as Tom apparently does.

That would be a touchy location---State Parks are a definate NO, and C of E is YES.....
..most Texas park areas--city state and county--- no alchohol is allowed....If you can go there by boat as those "party cove" people do and try the shallow water not the land, I'm sure the drinkers won't complain.....

 

[baywalker]

I don't under stand is the lake surrounded by the park ? if you can get to it by boat from out side the park I would think you would be good .

Jonnie

 

[lostcauses]

Hmm the point of view is good, but as one already said-- what will it cost you to take such a view and argue it in court.

 

[Dimeman]

Hmm the point of view is good, but as one already said-- what will it cost you to take such a view and argue it in court.

The State Park Rangers would have to catch him metal detecting, if there are 4-5 boats also there with people drinking--that should be the park rangers 1st priority.

 

[HuntNdig]

I don't under stand is the lake surrounded by the park ? if you can get to it by boat from out side the park I would think you would be good .

Jonnie

This is a good point, the lake is infact not completely surrounded by the state park.

 

[N.J.THer]

I don't under stand is the lake surrounded by the park ? if you can get to it by boat from out side the park I would think you would be good .

Jonnie

This is a good point, the lake is infact not completely surrounded by the state park.

There is your out.

If the lake was land locked by the State Park I was going to play devils advocate and ask is it illegal to metal detect in the park or illegal to have a metal detector in the park. If the later then you would not be able to get the metal detector to the lake. I heard there are some places you could get in trouble just having the detector in your car...I think Gettysburg is one but I could be wrong.

NJ

 

[bigscoop]

Truth be told, most often the people you see ask in the field or behind that desk or at the end of the phone line simply don't know all the ins & out of the various laws that may effect your inquiry. It is a huge mess that needs addressed because often times you'll find that the DNR isn't even clear about some of laws, and some of them will admit that to you. Part of the problem is that the DNR is spread really thin and there's simply too many laws on the books that they've really never dealt with before, so usually these situations are left to interpretation, which may or may not be accurate. So, if you really want to know the answer to your question it's pretty much up to you to investigate those laws and then, if you feel it's required, to track those final decision makers down.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

lost-causes, you say:

"what will it cost you to take such a view and argue it in court."

The premise of such a question, is: You will go to court for this. Why do you assume such things? Where are all these people getting taken to court for such innocuous non-illegal things? I just don't see it happening. I go to parks, schools, beaches, etc.... all the time, as so long as it's not illegal (which is the whole point of HuntNdig's post), then why would someone "go to court" over it?

Big scoop, you say: "It is a huge mess that needs addressed": I'd be careful in thinking that un-clear things like this "need to be cleared up". Because wierd things happen when you/we go seeking "clarifications". Often it can back-fire, and you end up getting rules and "no's", to address your "pressing issue", where quite frankly, no one probably cared less (till you started asking for sanctions, clarifications, permission, approvals, etc....). So if there's no prohibitions, and it's legal as in HuntNdig's case, then no need to ask for it to be addressed any further. If I get a "yes" on any level, I do NOT seek further up the ladder of command for more info.

Most often I find people, passerbys, beach rangers, etc.... pay you no mind. In fact, contrary to this "everyone hates us" image that some people try to paint when these questions come up, I find it quite the opposite. There is no shortage of people who come up to you and ask you questions, are intrigued, find it interesting, etc....

 

[HuntNdig]

thank you Tom, i don't understand what the problem is either...it was a simple matter... I did read in the Texas section that someone posted that it is "illegal to hunt State Park property inside Corp of Engineer lakes". There was no further backing of the post with legitimate documentation to support the claim so i am doing more research on the subject over the internet to find out a little more. It doesn't make sense for jurisdiction to change for alcohol consumption and not something so simple as MDing. I'll let you know more when i figure it out.

 

[bigscoop]

Tom,
Obviously, "if it's legal", then no need to ask much of anything, go do your thing, enjoy. But how do you find out if it's legal? You find out by asking, or investigating. I've watched a lot of your post, and while I respect and agree with a geat deal of what you say, I simply don't believe it's in the hunter's best interest, or the hobby's best interest, to advise people to pursue their MDing with a, "don't ask attitude." HuntNdig asked, they said "no",...so he can either live with that answer or investigate the laws on his own just to make sure that information was correct. But advising people to become advocates of a "don't ask" policy is simply bad for the hobby, especially on a public forum. Just the way I fell about it.

 

[HuntNdig]

There is a conflict of interest as far as the rules go. The Corp of Engineers allows metal detecting on beaches and other disturbed sites as stated here in the rules PDF http://www.swf.usace.army.mil/pubdata/ops/recnres/title36.pdf

and the TPWD states it is illegal to hunt anywhere in a state park unless permitted to do so as defined here
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/spdest/parkinfo/rules_and_regulations/#5cd

and like i said earlier, it says according to the CoE the consumption or display of alcohol MAY be prohibited, but in the TPWD it say the display and consumption of alcohol IS prohibited.

so, would it or would it not be logical to think that metal detecting these beaches is legal. I don't see an issue on how they can discriminate one set of rules and not the other.

 

[HuntNdig]

so i guess the true question to ask is where the jurisdiction lay. The laws are clear as day, so instead of asking to MD the real question is who controls what. I'll find out.

 

[bigscoop]

HuntNdig,
You're on the right track, and this is the "mess" I was referring to earlier. Entirely different sets of rules and language on each side of the boundaries. Often times, as in parks, these boundaries overlap, such as at the beach, so “everyone” takes for granted that the water is governed by the park rules, when in fact it may not be. You’ll also find that the definition of “beach” seldom includes the water beyond the “beach”. So when you ask, “can I detect the beach” everyone associates the water to be part of the beach, when in many cases, it isn’t part of the beach, or even a part of the park. Heck, in most cases, the park personnel aren’t even aware there’s a difference.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Big-scoop, thanx for considering my stance. You ask:

"But how do you find out if it's legal? You find out by asking, or investigating."

My answer to that, is you find out "if it's legal" by looking it up yourself. Not asking some kiosk clerk, or shooting off letters to state capitol, or whatever. In today's world, rules and codes are usually always available on-line. There's almost no city, county, or state type entity that doesn't have their codes, laws, rules, etc... on-line nowadays. If not on-line, then entities like city halls in any incorporated city, the codes, law, charter, etc.... are available for public viewing, on the front desk (a throw-back from pre-internet days, but is probably still true for smaller cities who are not on-line with a web-site still).

You may ask yourself "well why not get the same information, by simply asking a live person? Ie.: what's the difference?" The answer is that you risk getting someone's personal opinion, rather than a technical answer. For example: I have heard of persons asking a desk-bound city clerk "is there anything that prohibits metal detecting in the park?" (as if to put the burden on them, to produce an actual specific rule). And the clerk might answer something like "we would prefer you didn't" (as if he had been asking "permission" rather than for an actual citation of law). And when the confused md'r asks "but where it that written?" guess who will win that debate? The clerk might merely cite something else to morph to apply (like don't disturb the earthworms, or damage and destruction, or "collecting" or whatever she thinks applies to your question). And mind you, this could all be happening in a location where detecting has simply gone on, and no one's ever cared (till someone came in and started asking permission type questions, as if it was needed).

So the answer is: look it up for oneself. No need to go asking live persons. If there's no specific prohibitions specifically saying "metal detectors" or if it's silent on the issue, well then ......... so be it.

This would not be "wreckless" or "bad for the hobby". If you've looked it up for yourself, then how is that bad for the hobby? You've done your due dilegence. And if someone has an issue, you merely tell them you looked it up, and no prohibitions existed. Presto, no bad image.

 

[HuntNdig]

In the final part of your post Tom, it could actually create positive responses in which we do our homework and obide by the laws, which is part of our code anyways!