Tom you're (intentionally?) confusing a few very different things and calling them the same. In reality, when push comes to shove, your 'opinion' on the law doesn't carry the same legal weight as an authority's 'opinion' on the law. You seem to be saying that in areas where the legality of detecting is, on the surface, a bit gray, you will make the decision that detecting is okay because there is a chance the authorities
might also choose not to apply those laws to you (so hey, you were right!). Firstly, that's a pretty convenient assumption (100% access to everywhere) and secondly, your opinion will count for absolutely nothing when you have an officer standing over you saying "The law says no digging. You are digging and therefore doing something illegal". You really gonna say, "Well officer, I've already decided that it doesn't apply to me"?? Or your famous past-tense argument: "Give me a second here and I'll make it un-dug".
Of course not.
At this point you will say "Well they are more than welcome to boot me out" but then aren't we right back at my oft-asked-but-never-answered question of whether you would still be employing the same methods if the penalties were harsher?? I'd like your answer on that if possible (though I know it'll be hard for you to answer honestly and not look like a fool in the process).
Really though, if the fine for detecting illegally was no-questions-asked $10,000 would you still be advocating people interpret the laws for themselves in the manner you suggest and just deal with the problem if approached? I think not.
Therefore, as I've said, this has nothing to do with right/wrong, legal/illegal, it simply has to do with detecting as many places as you can, including the places where it's illegal (cuz hey, it's just a slap on the wrist anyway). Grow a set Tom and just say what you mean: Legal or illegal it doesn't really make that much difference does it?? Hey if it's legal then you're good to go, if's not, well whatever you'll just get asked to move on (and they might not even do that). So why go through the rigamarole of finding out what is allowed and what is not if you can be out there pullin' wheaties? Isn't this about it?
Secondly, all you say only makes sense if the reality out there is in fact that detecting is 100% legal everywhere and it's only through the whimsical answers of lower employees that one could ever receive a (very unfair!) "no". But isn't the reality that detecting ISN'T in fact allowed everywhere? We all know that it's a fact that two parks with the same laws can have different stances on metal detecting. So you say you never ask because you want to avoid whimsical 'nos' but what about actual 'nos'? What if it truly has been discussed and decided prior to your arrival that detecting is not allowed? Do you want to know that or do you NOT want to know that? Not every 'no' is made up on the spot by pressured, mean-spirited, hapless people trying to ruin your day...most of the time it's people simply telling you what the law (or the interpretation of the law) is in your particular area. So I half 'get' what you're saying about avoiding a 'whimsical' no but by never asking you are also trying to avoid knowing where the actual 'nos' are...again, very convenient (and probably productive)....aaaaand we're back to the lenient punishment part again....
Really though, do you count every 'no' ever given as pure whimsy, given under the horrible duress of the question "Do you allow metal detecting?" Surely not. More often than not they are simply conveying a fact to you - those no digging/removing laws really do include detecting...but I know you don't want to know about that!
In what other area of law or life is even the
possibility of a negative answer reason enough, in and of itself, to never ask in the first place and just do as you like?? I can't think of one.
But all this you know my friend....
