list of state parks regs

You do realize how lists like this came into being, don't you ? The first attempt at such an undertaking was back in the mid 1980s. When an author named Doc R. Grimm made the book: "Treasure Laws of the United States". This was in an era before internet, so the way he compiled his state by state listing, was simple:

He xeroxed off 50 copies of a letter, that was sent to the each state park's headquarters. It asked "What are the laws regarding the use of metal detectors in your state's parks?". And once he received 50 replies, he merely put them in his book, in alphabetic order. In the exact letter-head format that the state's replied with. So that you could show any busy-body who hassled you.

Genius idea, right ? And now travelers could roam state to state, and never have to wonder, right ? And who better to ask, than the states themselves , right ? And subsequent lists ever since them (like this FMDAC one) either drew from such already-existing lists, or sought added info. from the powers-that-be, in the same fashion/method that Grimm did.

Admittedly, some of the states that had a "no" in their column, did, in fact, have specific verbiage in their codes to that effect. But oddly, some of the states that had dire sounding verbiage (or out-right no's), had never been a problem before. Nor did they have any *specific* language that prohibited md'ing. Thus if you click through the list on the "no's" (or "ask at each kiosk", or "with permission only" or any other such dire restrictions), you will often see nothing that actually says those things. Instead, whoever answers the "pressing question" draws on ancillary verbiage they think applies. Eg.: "alter and deface" or "harvest and remove", or "cultural heritage", et... Yet nowhere was it written that permission was needed from each kiosk. And nowhere written "with permission", and so forth. Thus obviously a lot of those answers were just "safe" answers, from some pencil-pusher who probably passed this question in front of a bored purist archie, or someone who envisions geeks with shovels, etc... Hence the "safe" answer type of psychology.

So when that book came out, old-timers were left scratching their heads thinking "since when?". And to this day, there are several of the states with dire wording where, it's not an issue. Hence I put very little stock in those lists, unless there is actual specific wording they can cite that truly says whatever the single-words answer was.

As you can envision, any state parks list of parks will probably contain several that are admittedly sensitive historic themed, right ? While perhaps the vast majority are just run-of-the-mill parks, beaches, etc.... But when answering such a question, it's impossible to split hairs over innocuous vs sensitive monuments. So the easy answer was just "no to all". Even though it had never been an issue prior to this (barring someone snooping at obvious historical monuments).

Also bear in mind that this list only applies to state parks. Not city parks, county, federal, etc...

I see too that the list you link has a preface page that highly suggests anyone heading to any of these parks, perpetually check in, ask if things are still current, seek permission anyhow, etc.... And , while that seems logical, this too just furthers the self-fulfilling cycle. I don't know why people can't just look things up for themselves, rather than thinking they need to grovel. The mere fact that md'rs keep showing up "checking on the legality", just seems to put us in some sort of arena as if we're intrinsically harmful, dangerous, etc... (lest why else would you be asking their permission if it were innocuous?) This is not subconsciously lost on the person you're asking, and so they reach for the "safe" answer . Aarrrgghhh

So in effect, what such efforts at compendiums like this did, was single-handedly get entire states parks put off limits, where they never had been. A sort of self-fulfilling vicious circle.

I looked up Texas on your post and it "officially said" no, noting this is from a third party source and not any affiliation to the actual state or state parks. Now that being said, keep in mind this only regards "official state parks", the likes of camping and stuff that you pay an entrance fee to enter. This is not your run of the mill city parks, county parks, public areas, etc.

Also, I doubt if I was detecting "designated swimming areas" or "kids playgrounds" even within the state park (that this 3rd party website says is strictly banned) or somewhere of VERY COMMON USE by the public there and pulling out can slaw, thumb tacks and razor blades...that a Park Ranger would tell me to drop it all and leave it on the ground where it was. It might be likely (especially in the friendly state of Texas) that he would cite the regulation and ask me to please stop and put away my equipment.

While the law is the LAW -and I don't advise anyone to break it, it is one thing to start digging 3ft holes on state trails within the state park looking for buried chests of gold, and another helping to clean a very public spot within such an area that is often used by kids playing baseball, soccer, or making sand castles, etc.

Many state parks here in Texas have Junior Ranger type "classes" or "groups" or "workshops" where young people comb through the "rougher" areas of the state park and can pick up trash and turn those filled up trash bags in for Junior Ranger badges and hats, etc, to the Park Ranger Headquarters themselves. I used to do it when I was a kid and my kids have done it. It all depends on your motivation for doing so, how you present your side (if even needed) and how you go about your hunting (retreiving and leaving no trace?). The immediate authority could even be willing to grant you exculsively "special permission" based on your skills.

So I wouldn't neccesarily assume that all closed doors mean "no". Sometimes even in the event that there is a very specific ban on metal detecting, the "autorities" in charge can be convinced that your services are of great benefit to them and could possibly give you exception.

Having worked with the state park service in the past, I can say that in Ca it depends on two things: the ranger and the location. For instance, you can pretty much count on a no if you ask about mding at a state historical park. A state beach on the other hand is much more likely to be a yes. Even detecting along a lake or river beach could be a yes.

Midknight said:

Having worked with the state park service in the past, I can say that in Ca it depends on two things: the ranger and the location. ...

Click to expand...

Sounds pretty arbitrary and whimsical. Ie.: FAR from being a cut & dried rule that you can just ask "what are the rules regarding such and such". Instead, as you indicate, you will be up to the mood and interpretation of whomever Barney fife you ask. I will NOT subject myself to that capricious system therefore. And will look it up for myself, if I were skittish (but I'm not skittish, haha).

Midknight said:

.... A state beach on the other hand is much more likely to be a yes. Even detecting along a lake or river beach could be a yes.

Click to expand...

Perhaps. But the moment you get a "yes", I bet I could find a different CA state ranger or archie the very next day to say "no".

And notice that the state of CA beaches are administered by the VERY SAME STATE PARKS DEPT. that administers the inland parks. Hence *technically* there's no reason that whatever rules they can cite to say "no" to inland parks, would technically apply to the beaches too. Hence if it's a "cultural heritage" issue (like at obvious historic sensitive spots), then so-too might you find an old coin on the beach (heaven forbid, eh ? )

But the fact of the matter is, that state of CA beaches have been detected since the dawn of detector technology. And it's simply never been an issue. But if went & asked enough state ranger pencil pushers, I bet you could find ones that will most certainly tell you "no". And then perhaps they'd issue a "BOL" to rank and file rangers to start booting md'rs. And then we could all sit around and lament the restrictive rules, and pat ourselves on the back for asking all the "let's make sure" type questions .

Thank you Frenchyfrs! I'm sure some members here will find this very useful!
Welcome to the Forum!
Mud