use of local parks by public apparently disallowed

[caheaton]

Just looked over the rules for my local county's parks, if one interprets the rules literally, the park can't be used at all! Here are the first two rules:

"1.1 No person shall remove from a park any property, natural feature or part thereof, including but not limited to, any building, equipment, sign, rock, stone, mineral formation, earth, wood, tree, shrub, flower, plant, nut, or other seed without a permit from the Director.

1.2 No person shall injure, destroy, break, cut, chop, write upon, mutilate, set fire to, deface, dig, paint, or damage in any manner any property, natural feature or part thereof, including but not limited to, any building, equipment, sign, rock, stone, mineral formation, earth, wood, tree, shrub, flower or plant of the park."

Woe be to a child who picks up an acorn! Or steps on the grass. Using the baseball diamond, you better not scuff the dirt. Fortunately, I've metal detected in them without incident....
However, they have a tax levy on this year's ballot. I was going to vote yes on it, but after reading these rules I just may vote no (and send them a letter explaining why).

This is what happens when attorneys set park rules....they make them so broad that the parks commission can pretty much dictate what, how and when the people (who own the park) can do....

 

[bootyhoundpa]

Common catch all verbage..ive seen that general rule written into many park rules.. like you said it is designed for maximum broad interpretation. ..

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I do not construe anything in the list of rules that you cite, to mean: "No metal detecting". And if any busybodies interpret it to mean "no detecting", then I will simply choose a more opportune less-trafficked time, and avoid such persons.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Common catch all verbage..ive seen that general rule written into many park rules.. like you said it is designed for maximum broad interpretation. ..

Correct. Because afterall, laws are written broadly and vaguely FOR A PURPOSE: Example: Laws that forbid "annoyances", etc.... Reason is: Because it's obviously impossible to write a law or rule for every conceivable thing that might happen in the field. Hence broad catchall type laws like this.

And even though some of these things *could* be construed to forbid md'ing (if you asked enough bored desk-bound bureaucrats), yet I do not believe it's our obligation to go asking ahead of time. If someone thinks it applies, they're more than welcome to come alert me. But it's not my job to go ahead of time saying "yoohoo, does this apply to me?". No more so than I would seek their permission to pick my nose, for fear that it might violate the "annoyances" statutes.