we give them a reason.....
The devil is in the details. Everything you're writing is only true, if the place(s) you're thinking of truly have a rule that says "no md'ing".
But the problem is (ie.: the "devil in the details") is that scores of people reading what you've written, tend to think that the list of places that are "off-limits" is any place than anyone has ever reported a "scram" from. Which isn't conclusive, since it could simply be someone having a bad hair day, and hence an isolated fluke.
Or any place where a "no" has been issued from (even if from an official pen) , yet no specific rule exists . And the desk-jockey figured you'd harm earthworms , so now his answer has made its way onto an official compendium list that md'rs compiled.
And even the MERE SUGGESTION of permits (like your post does) sends newbies scurrying to inquire if such a thing exists where they're at (after all, can't be too safe), thus leading to "safe answers" , thus simply being a vicious circle of self-fulfillment safe answers. Aaarrgghh.
And once we've reduced the notion to the places which are TRULY currently "off-limits", where it TRULY can't be be any worse, thus you TRULY have nothing to lose with officials to put forward the notion : I still think you are going to be banging your head into a brick wall. NO AMOUNT OF MONEY is going to change their minds. ESPECIALLY if the question ever has to cross an archaeologist's desk. Even if you wave $1,000,000 in front of an archaeologist's nose, there is No way in heck they'd ever sign off on the prospect of you or I ever (gasp) removing a 1944 mercury dime from a Yellowstone campground. Or any such place , on any level, where "cultural heritage" has become the "go-to" reason for any supposed rule.
And most of the rules can be traced back to that. But let's say that "holes" were a reason that some lesser entity (county or city park) had a true and actual rule. And ... sure ... that's less ominous than cultural heritage. Because, sure, holes (turf) can be repaired. And is actually a silly reason in the first place, since we cover our holes, stomp, and fluff anyhow RIGHT ? But let's be dreadfully honest: Do you think they care ? It's almost like saying : "We don't intend to cover them. But don't worry, we'll pay extra". Do you really think they care ?
And do you really think our #'s are enough to raise $$ enough to sway them to allow us (as if they were really allowing us in the first place) to "make holes" ??
If anything, the mere BEING ON THEIR RADAR (as something they have to think of, sanction, collect $$ on, etc...) simply brings ALL THE MORE RULES.
Lest you think I'm dreaming this up: All you need to do is merely look at any place that's ever had a "permit system". And you see that A) It's riddled with sillyness . Eg.: you can't keep anything you find. Or you can't hunt within 20 ft. of any tree. Or your digger shall not exceed 3" length. Or you can only hunt on sandy beaches only, and turn in all old coins, blah blah blah. B) Worse yet, it's rescinded and made off-limits in a few years. Why ? Because it's perpetually on their radar as something they have to handle and think of. Then sure as heck: One year, at their annual board meeting, someone says "Gee, do we really want all these yahoos stealing our past and leaving holes?"
Hence rather than the "more attention" being the better, I'm afraid that with md'ing: The LESS attention the better.
I feel your pain in the areas that have true & current rules. To think that the rules could be over-turned with greenbacks. But it's just that the devil is in the details, and there's no amount of $$ that will get an archie to change his mind. Thus: The less that archies in other places think of you & me, the better.