West Virginia state parks, as an example of commentary vs law

Tom_in_CA

Elite Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2013
Messages
20,637
Hey guys,

Another recent thread : "Vacation detecting in W.V." brought up an issue of state parks there. And member Flies-only chimed in with a link from a popular website (a sort of laws compendium) . Here's the post:


http://metaldetectingforum.com/showthread.php?t=289381

Pay special attention to posts #9 to #15, where this unravelled.

And the link that F.O. linked :

http://www.mdhtalk.org/cf/city-regulation.cfm?st=WV

And the particular quote he culled from that link reads :


Metal detecting is not allowed in West Virginia State Parks and Forests. It is not illegal in and of itself but our regulations prohibit the disturbance or removal of any item found. ....


Sounds pretty convincing, eh ? Who can argue with that, eh ? And this particular entity "MDHtalk" has seemingly become a compendium go-to list on the web these days . Not unlike the earlier FMDAC state-by-state web list link. (which harkens back to the pre-internet book "Treasure Laws of the United States" by R. W. Grim).

And no one seems to dispute either the FMDAC or MDHtalk web-links. eh ? After all, someone's "done the homework" already for you. Eh ? After all, "google is your friend". Eh ? :?:

And as an added bonus, notice the interesting suffix to that quote that F.O. drew in :

.... Thanks, WV State Parks

A few things jumped out at me, when I read all of this :

1) Notice how, whomever is speaking .... IS ACKNOWLEDGING that it's not illegal, in-&-of-itself. Hhhhmmm....


2) And then notice that curious suffix salutation : "Thanks, WV parks" Hmmm. What does that suffix salutation tell you ? It tells you that someone (either MDHtalk, or someone whom their citing/quoting), has apparently gone , at some time in the past, to WV state parks dept. and asked about md'ing. And this is merely the reply quotation that the person(s) got back. Can we agree on this ?

Pretty hard to argue with that, eh ? An answer straight from some pencil jockey in-authority, who must've answered the "contact us" tab/button, eh ? So it makes its way onto compendiums such as this. And is forevermore never questioned. It is .... I guess .... just considered law now. As evidenced by FO's willingness to post it as a push-back to what I'd written . Hard to fault him, eh ? :roll:

But if we can all agree (by the pencil jockey's own statement) that this is not codified law (ie.: "not illegal"), that this statement (that MDHtalk was so quick to repeat) is merely commentary ? And not "law" .


To be continued :
 
Last edited:
Part II :

Here's what I'm talking about, as the difference between these terms . Read this thread CAREFULLY :

http://metaldetectingforum.com/showthread.php?t=264945

It seems to me that this current example of WV, is EXACTLY a CASE-IN-POINT of this very psychology !

I can also think of a singular case-example, where a person hit the "contact us" tab for CA state parks dept (which probably rings up some pencil jockey in Sacramento) and asked about md'ing a state beach here in CA. Someone there answered back "No". And cited boiler plate verbiage about harvest-&-remove. Not unlike the MDHtalk quotation on WV. Granted, this info never made it's way to MDHtalk for their CA section . Lest they might have concluded that state of CA beaches too, are off-limits. See how fickle and whimsical this is ? Depends on who you ask, what mood they're in, how you phrase the question, and what they envision. But ... heaven forbid any such answer gets on the compendium lists. Because then you can NEVER PUT IT TO REST !

And if anyone ever DID try to challenge the list (like the MDHtalk and their W.V. citation), guess how they'll probably try to go about "clarifying" it ? You guessed it : Ask a bored pencil pusher. Who will no doubt push the pressing question up to the desk of a purist archie. Is anyone seeing the self-fulfilling vicious loop ?

Another thread, pertinent to this subject is this one:

http://metaldetectingforum.com/showthread.php?t=278842

Although that one deals with isolated fluke "scrams", yet I do not see how isolated fluke "no's" are any different than isolated fluke "scrams".

Anyhow, sorry for the rant, but this WV just seemed to be the PERFECT EXAMPLE of the evolution BEFORE OUR VERY EYES ! :mad:
 
Last edited:
And if anyone wants to go back EVEN FURTHER in this evolution (to the source-material of the compendiums in question, which evolved out of an even earlier pre-internet book), read the "alternative view" by Tom Tanner link, on that MDHtalk top banner selection. That MDHtalk was so gracious to allow to be on their site. It explains how various books and links (including theirs) evolved.

Here's the direct link to that :

http://www.mdhtalk.org/articles/alternative-view-law/alternative-view.htm
 
Back
Top Bottom