flies-only, I agree with you. You are not be "confrontational". You are totally within the purpose of a hobbyist forum like this. Which is: To discuss the pro's & con's of issues related to the hobby. There is nothing wrong or confrontational on your part. You have very valid views, good ability to challenge others to see them, and .... I appreciate it.
Thanks. I will admit to sometimes maybe taking things a step too far...but I do enjoy a spirited debate. I’m sure if we ever get a chance to meet in person, we’d get along quite nicely…provided you enjoy IPAs and /or a good single malt.
And just so you know (please don’t tell anyone else here on this forum what I’m about to tell you, most of them think I’m a confrontational jackass and I wouldn’t want to rock their World), but I wholeheartedly agree with most of what you’re saying as it relates to detecting on public lands. I agree that asking permission to hunt at schools or local parks may have detrimental effects. It wasn’t something I considered until you pointed it out. But this discussion is about removing items from PRIVATE property without permission, which is a whole different issue.
Hmmm, ok, so you're saying that the reason the photographer didn't get castigated, was because there is a difference in the level of "wrong-ness" of the differing actions.
I’m not just “saying it”…it’s a fact. The photographer took nothing more than a picture. The detectorist removed a physical object without permission. That’s stealing. It’s not just my opinion, it’s the law. If we conclude that the photographer trespassed, as did the detectorist…but then each person conducted their respective hobbies…the two ultimate crimes are not equal. Both are guilty of a trespass, but only one is additionally guilty of a theft.
Photography = innocuous, and harmless. Right ? But md'ing = theft, therefore not innocuous and not harmless.
On private property without permission...yes. It the only possible answer. Removing an object from private property without permission is stealing. Taking a picture is not stealing.
No, because you once again refuse to acknowledge that we're discussing private property. If you want to discuss public property, then that's fine...but that would be best in another thread, not this one.
Then here's my answer : If md'ing constitutes theft, then you're correct.
It's theft if you do it on private property without permission.
I'm just wondering why people don't extend this definition to public land too ?
Because it's not the same thing.
Yes, they are no long "trespassing", but yes they are still technically "removing things " (aka theft). The REASON none of us tends to think of it that way (not even the LEO's who see us on the beach or park) , is that we INTUITIVELY KNOW that there's a BIG difference between the seated dime in the city museum versus the seated dime in the park turf.
Then why do you keep bringing it up, if you know that there’s a big difference between the two? You’re essentially arguing against your own argument.
Is there a technical difference ? NO. So in that sense, you're absolutely right . But since we're going by "technical defintions" in that case, then so-too-would you need to be consistent and apply this to laws governing public land as well.
No, I don’t not have to apply laws governing actions on private lands to actions on public lands.
Oh, and by the way, it’s spelled “definitions”. (sorry, couldn't resist)
Yet as you can see, no one does. That's because we intuitively know there's a difference.
I know. So again I ask…Why do you keep bringing it up?
Let's back up to a older post (before you were on the forum)…
Wait…what!!! This Forum existed before I was here!! No way!!
…that prompted me to wonder about this : There was a post once, where a guy was hiking through the woods (walking his dog, bird-watching, or whatever). He chanced upon a cellar hole foundations in the middle of nowhere, during his hike. He stops, takes 5 or 6 pix while walking 360* around it. Then posts the pictures wondering "Can I metal detect here ?" and "How would I get permission?", etc...
Was he on public lands or private lands? If he was on private lands, did he have permission to be there? Now, based on the story, I think we can assume that if it was private land, he obviously didn’t have permission, since he then enquired about getting permission and detecting. Therefore, to have continued and actually detect and then remove items from the property would have been stealing…an additional crime tacked on to the crime of trespassing.
And it struck me as odd that the guy was clearly already there, deep in the woods, walking around doing whatever he was doing. And obviously .... that was a non-issue. So it struck me as odd that the fellow would have no problem tromping around on this land, yet .... wonders about permission.
Well, all he had done thus far was likely trespass and take some pictures. He had yet to do any metal detecting and then…and here’s a very important difference between photography and metal detecting…and then physically remove items of potential great value. Doing so would be an additional crime than simply trespassing.
And it boils down to this: All of us tend to classify whether or not our actions are harmless and innocuous (like bird-watching, photography, or hiking), versus something that's beyond-the-pale, thus "needs permission". And if we start with the premise that md'ing is inherently akin to "theft", then sure: Everything you say logically follows. And all I'm trying to do is point out that ......... to the contrary, we md'rs DON'T consider our hobby "theft". Yes it *IS* technically theft, but we are entirely inconsistent in how we apply it.
For reasons I cannot understand, you seemingly still refuse to acknowledge the difference between public and private lands. That whole concept is tantamount to this entire discussion.
If the photographer hadn't been "given a pass" , and he'd had equal castigation, I'd have never have entered into this conversation. I have always considered md'ing to be benign, harmless, inncuous, educational, nutritious , etc.... Just like photography.
And if you would have simply admitted that removing an object from private property without permission is not equivalent to taking a picture, this would have ended after one post. Oh, and it’s spelled “innocuous”, just so ya know.
I normally don’t stoop to correcting ones spelling errors. But hey, turn-about is fair play. Can we at least agree to not stoop to something this petty anymore? Surely we can agree on that, yes
Not when one is harmless and innocuous. And the other is harmful and theft. In which case, they would not be equal. Which is why I keep saying that it is apparent that you classify md'ing as "harmful" and "theft".
But I do not classify it as such…which means…well…I do not classify it as such…so quit saying that I do. I’ve never defined it in that way. I have no reason to define it in that way.
