Places i've hunted without permission

[Tom_in_CA]

.... an employee of a governmental agency might ask themselves, "it is awfully presumptuous for them to be doing that digging." Of course they might be very wrong...but why not SHOW the proper attitude and not only gain entry but also for them to say...wow those folks really dot their "i's" and that's what I want them to feel after dealing with me...and that trash I find is gonna be gone. I only know that this choice I have made has gotten me a TON of permissions......

Richie, a few replies IN THE CONTEXT OF GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES :

a) I do not consider "digging" to be "presumptuous". If you define our hobby to = "digging" and "presumptuous", then yes, everything you're saying does logically follow. Because I guarantee you that every single speck of public land (parks, beaches, forests , etc...) forbid "digging" is some form or fashion. ("alter", "deface", etc....). But you and I leave no trace, right ? We cover our holes, and you can't even tell we were there. Right ? Thus the only thing that "flag-waving" is going to do , is make you a giant bullseye in need of attention !

b) I consider the "proper attitude" and "dotting my I's" to be md'ing at places that do not have an express explicit "no md'ing" rule. What can be more "proper" than that ??

c) As for your "yes's" : Congratz. And I guess this implies that the permission asking was good and beneficial. Presumably because the mere fact you netted a "yes", therefore implies that : "It was good that I asked".

Heck, even a "no" answer would have netted the same implication. Because then you'd say : "It was a good thing I asked, because now I know I can't detect" . Right ?

So whether the answer is "yes" or "no", the implied conclusion is: "Therefore asking is necessary and beneficial" . Otherwise: How could they have answered the question in the first place, if their say-so wasn't necessary . Right ? Have I understood this connection of dots correctly ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Flies-only, I have been intrigued by the conversation. And I think you can agree I have not stooped to name-calling. Right ? I have attempted to keep it on-subject (although admittedly the subject is a bit elusive). And I credit you for being a good-sport and replying to me. Thankyou.

However, I see that you have resorted to what's known as : "Ad Hominems" . That would be where : One party resorts to insults, name-calling, etc.... instead of address the subject-at-hand. Lest you deny this, let's take a look at your quotes :

.... more word vomit and more lies .... I really don’t need to tell which part of my anatomy you can kiss. .... you are a piece of work ..... making up more horse poop .....

None of which addresses the subject at-hand. They are merely .... essentially ... name-calling. Ok ?

....Show me where I said that md’ing is theft? ....

I'm so glad you asked. It can be found in post # 116 of this thread. Where you said :

....and remove objects....

Ok, and what is the clear implication of this ?

[ BTW : I do not disagree that we md'rs "remove objects" (aka : steal/take/remove things) ] But if you agree with me that this is the definition of our hobby, then .... gee ... you too are likening md'ing to "theft" (aka : "removing objects" ) . If we define md'ing in-those-terms, then .... gee ... we have now defined md'ing in those terms. Right ?

Do you think it's ok to trespass..... where you do not have permission?....

Now we're back to whether or not the issue of this topic is "trespass". Vs the activity conducted thereon. Right ? Because I am of the opinion that (based on the clear evolution of yours & I's conversation) that the issue is not "trespass". It's the actions that a person does once-there . Here's what I mean:

I never said it was OK ....

Huh ? Then why are you perpetually making the distinction that md'ing is in a different class of activity ? A fellow who (gasp) stepped off the sidewalk to get closeup pictures of a cellar hole or abandoned structure, was never questioned/challenged as to his ability-to-have-even-been-there to have done that IN THE FIRST PLACE.

And so I pointed out : "Gee, why not just md then ? " Since it's apparently a non-issue-to-have-been-there in the first place? That brought out discussion of the differences of md'ing vs "photos". Right ? Remember this discussion ?

But , if I'm to understand you correctly, you are now saying that the photographer was in-the-wrong. Eh? If so, then sure: So-too would it be wrong to metal detect. Ok, are we on the same page now ?

 

[RichieSoprano]

I think maybe we're gonna have to disagree on methods of getting permission/assuming permission. But, I do understand what you are saying

 

[CarsonChris]

That's not really the issue [I'm trying to get at] though. If you know it's private property (posted or otherwise), would you take items from that location?

If it’s private property and clearly marked I won’t detect it. If it’s abandoned property and I can’t locate an owner I detect it. If property isn’t maintained, vacant, run down I detect it. Where I live there are properties that you don’t know if they are public or private. Barbed wire fences are along most rural locations regardless of private or public. Have to look for proper markings. The fence alone doesn’t mean it’s private. No markings, I hunt it!

 

[CarsonChris]

I just detected property that is abandoned. I know it’s owned and by who, a group, but they have stopped maintaining it. Stopped in 2004. It is currently covered in tagging, and bullet holes. All windows busted out, walls destroyed. It was pristine when I was young. Quite sad shape now. I think I’m going to go back and rake up all the brass casings, thousands of them, and detect again. Found out it’s full history today at the Historical Society. Am I going to hurt it by cleaning up brass and maybe finding a couple coins?

 

[Bill_Ace_350]

Simple for me.

Public property where people picnic, pound tent stakes, play sports, let their dogs !!!!, whatever, I will detect if no rules against it are posted or otherwise made known too me to exist.

I won't ask for permission on public property such as parks and schools.

Private property, whether posted or not, whether it appears abandoned whatever, I won't hunt without permission.

if hunting a permission, I will never, ever Sage Grouse.

 

[diggin4clad]

Simple for me.

Public property where people picnic, pound tent stakes, play sports, let their dogs !!!!, whatever, I will detect if no rules against it are posted or otherwise made known too me to exist.

I won't ask for permission on public property such as parks and schools.

Private property, whether posted or not, whether it appears abandoned whatever, I won't hunt without permission.

if hunting a permission, I will never, ever Sage Grouse.

I'm with you 100% Bill...……...

 

[Bill_Ace_350]

I'm with you 100% Bill...……...

Thanks.

I don't think it's a difficult concept to grasp....

...shrug....

 

[FliesOnly]

Flies-only, I have been intrigued by the conversation. And I think you can agree I have not stooped to name-calling. Right ?

You have stooped to lying about things I have said, and have completely avoiding the actual issue.

I have attempted to keep it on-subject (although admittedly the subject is a bit elusive).

You have not even come close to addressing the subject. A subject that, I might add, is not elusive in any sense of the word

However, I see that you have resorted to what's known as : "Ad Hominems . That would be where : One party resorts to insults, name-calling, etc.... instead of address the subject-at-hand.

Man, you are infuriating. You make up a bunch of stuff about what I have said, then act so innocent and surprised when I call you out on it. It’s not an “Ad Hominem” when I point out that you are lying about things I have said. It’s not an “Ad Hominem” to point out that you never address the question at hand, but instead throw out a bunch of unrelated nonsense.

None of which addresses the subject at-hand. They are merely .... essentially ... name-calling. Ok ?

No…they are not name calling…and you saying they are “essentially name calling” demonstrates that.

I'm so glad you asked. It can be found in post # 116 of this thread. Where you said :

Notice that it DOES NOT say theft. It says” remove things” and it’s meant to be taken in context with the question I have asked so many times now, I’ve lost count…and a question that you have YET to answer….so here it is once again: Would you knowingly trespass, metal detect, and remove any objects that you have found?

Ok, and what is the clear implication of this ?

The clear implication is that when we metal detect, we remove things. For the umpteenth time, STOP putting words into my mouth.

BTW : I do not disagree that we md'rs "remove objects" (aka : steal/take/remove things) ] But if you agree with me that this is the definition of our hobby, then .... gee ... you too are likening md'ing to "theft" (aka : "removing objects" ) . If we define md'ing in-those-terms, then .... gee ... we have now defined md'ing in those terms. Right ?

What in the name of Hey Zoose are you talking about? Metal detecting and removing objects is not [necessarily] theft. I’ve never said it is theft. Now, if you would ever answer the question I have asked you numerous times now, we might be able to get a handle on what would or would not be theft, but you keep avoiding the question like it has the plague.

Now we're back to whether or not the issue of this topic is "trespass". Vs the activity conducted thereon. Right ? Because I am of the opinion that (based on the clear evolution of yours & I's conversation) that the issue is not "trespass". It's the actions that a person does once-there . Here's what I mean:

I could not possibly care less about your opinion. The issue has not evolved. It was, is, and will continue to be about trespassing, detecting, and removing objects that you find as a result. Period.

Huh? Then why are you perpetually making the distinction that md'ing is in a different class of activity ?

Because it is.

A fellow who (gasp) stepped off the sidewalk to get closeup pictures of a cellar hole or abandoned structure, was never questioned/challenged as to his ability-to-have-even-been-there to have done that IN THE FIRST PLACE.

BECAUSE HE DIDN’T TAKE ANYTING!!!! My god, why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

And so I pointed out : "Gee, why not just md then ? " Since it's apparently a non-issue-to-have-been-there in the first place? That brought out discussion of the differences of md'ing vs "photos". Right ? Remember this discussion ?

Yes…in BOTH instances there may have been a trespass. But that’s not the end of the story, my good man. The photographer did not dig a hole. The photographer did not remove an object. The photographer did not then leave with that object. It’s impossible for any sane person to see those two activities as being equivalent.

But , if I'm to understand you correctly, you are now saying that the photographer was in-the-wrong. Eh? If so, then sure: So-too would it be wrong to metal detect. Ok, are we on the same page now ?

This will probably come as a surprise to you, but there are actually different levels of “wrong”. Trespassing to take a picture is wrong…yes. But trespassing, metal detecting, removing an object, and then leaving with it is...well…worse. You know that there are all kinds of laws on the books, right? Someone who maybe steals a piece of bubble gum from a candy store is not charged with 1st degree murder. You know this, yes?

 

[GKman]

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Notice that it DOES NOT say theft. It says” remove things”

In the context of our discussion, what difference is there in these semantics ? If "removing things" isn't "theft", then what is it ? If "removing things" is innocuous, harmless, and not wrong-to-do, then why are you even bringing it up in the context of this conversation ?? If it's not theft, then leave it out of the conversation entirely.

From the context, it's clear that you do indeed mean to impute some level of "wrong-ness" to the act of "removing things". I have taken that to mean that you are likening this act to "theft". You are denying that label. Fine. We'll just go with your definition of "removing things", which you clearly imply is "wrong".

Then I would suggest that you cease to metal detect on every speck of public land as well. Because I guarantee you that there are rules that forbid "removing things" (theft, or whatever you want to call it), on every speck of public land (parks, beaches, forests, etc...). Yet none of us md'rs considers the merc or buffalo nickel to fall within those parameters. Since, of course, no living person alive is aware of it or cares less.

Metal detecting and removing objects is not [necessarily] theft.

Great. Then please stop bringing it up in the context of this question of yours-to-me. Ok ? But I notice you slyly add the words "necessarily". So .... 'fess up : You DO think that md'rs actions of "removing things" is theft. Right ? C'mon, 'fess up. Confession is good for the soul flies-only !

It was, is, and will continue to be about trespassing, detecting, and removing objects that you find as a result

1) I can acknowlege/admit the trespassing, if you will agree that the photographer should equally be castigated.

2) detecting is on-par with the harmless-ness of photography, in my book.

3) we've already discussed the "removing things". On the one hand, you refuse to call it "theft" (despite the clear implications on your part). So if we define md'ing as "removing things" (which is nothing short of theft), fine then: We md'rs shall all castigate each other and hence-forth refuse to md even on public land as well. I'm willing to agree with this "removing things" element to-cause-disdain, if you will henceforth promise me to never detect on public land again. Ok ?

Because it is.

Why is photography allowed (in the sense of not-being-trespassing) but md'ing is not allowed ? And you've said it here : Because it's in a different class. Ie.: photography is harmless, but md'ing must be harmful. Right ? After all, we "remove things". But on the other hand, that's not theft, right ?

BECAUSE HE DIDN’T TAKE ANYTING!!!! My god, why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

But wait, you're the one saying that the action of taking things isn't theft. Right ? Then what's the harm ? Ie.: just like photography, nothing's being hurt, harmed, stolen, or thefted, right ? I'm just going by your own definitions.

Yes…in BOTH instances there may have been a trespass.

Ahhh, now we're getting somewhere. Ok, then just acknowledge that your disdain for the "trespass" should equally apply to the photographer. Then I too will acknowledge the disdain for the md'r on that location. Ok ?

This will probably come as a surprise to you, but there are actually different levels of “wrong”.

No. It's not a surprise to me at all. Yes it's become apparent to me that md'ing is a serious level of "wrong" to you. If we start with that premise (that md'ing is damage holes and digging and taking things [removing things, theft, or whatever a person wants to call it]), then sure: It's a higher level of "wrong".

You appear to start with that implicit premise of the definition of md'ing. Fine. I, and scores of others, happen to think that md'ing is harmless . If we start with your premise that "md'ing is intrinsically harmful and bad", then yes : Everything you're saying does indeed logically follow.

Why then did you get into the hobby ? Why not choose a less-evil hobby ?

 

[longbow62]

Tom deserves a medal for his triggering ability!

 

[FliesOnly]

In the context of our discussion, what difference is there in these semantics ? If "removing things" isn't "theft", then what is it ?

Why would you assume that removing an object always means “theft”? If I have permission to metal detect on someone’s property, why would it be considered a theft if I remove the objects I find?

If "removing things" is innocuous, harmless, and not wrong-to-do, then why are you even bringing it up in the context of this conversation ?? If it's not theft, then leave it out of the conversation entirely.

Oh dear God in Heaven, have you read anything at all that I (and others) have written? I’ll try to explain this again, using easy to understand words. Read it v e r y s l o w l y.
First, you trespass. It does not matter if you trespass to take a picture, or to metal detect. So far, the two activities are equal.

Second you either take a picture or start to metal detect. Again, at this point there is still no real difference between the two activities.

Now, if you’re the photographer, you step back onto the sidewalk and leave. Yes, you have technically trespassed and could be in some sort of legal trouble, I suppose.

However, if you’re the metal detector guy, things deviate at this point. As a detectorist, you first dig a hole, which I sure you would agree, is not the same as taking a picture. Oh, I’m sure you’ll claim it is…but we all know that you’re wrong.

Next…and this is a very important distinction between photography and metal detecting, so again, read it v e r y s l o w l y ...next you physically remove and object from private property, upon which you do not have permission to detect. That, my good man, would be theft. You stole an object from private property. It’s quite simple. You took an object from a piece of private property that you did not have permission to remove. Do you understand now? I can’t believe I had to explain this to an adult.

From the context, it's clear that you do indeed mean to impute some level of "wrong-ness" to the act of "removing things".

Yeah. I mean, if you do not have permission to remove the object, then doing so would be illegal. We call it “Theft”.

I have taken that to mean that you are likening this act to "theft". You are denying that label. Fine. We'll just go with your definition of "removing things", which you clearly imply is "wrong".

Removing things from private property, without first obtaining permission is wrong…it’s a theft…it’s a crime. This isn’t rocket science.

Then I would suggest that you cease to metal detect on every speck of public land as well. Because I guarantee you that there are rules that forbid "removing things" (theft, or whatever you want to call it), on every speck of public land (parks, beaches, forests, etc...).

This simply not true.

But I notice you slyly add the words "necessarily". So .... 'fess up : You DO think that md'rs actions of "removing things" is theft. Right ? C'mon, 'fess up. Confession is good for the soul flies-only !

The only thing I can confess to is that you really ignore context. You have your silly little phrases you desperately want to use, and you will use them regardless of the issue at hand. I use the word “necessarily” because removing objects isn’t necessarily a crime. Wow, I never thought I’d have to essentially say the same thing over and over again.

1) I can acknowlege/admit the trespassing, if you will agree that the photographer should equally be castigated.

No, I will not agree to this because it’s ridiculous. It’s not true. It only takes into account the legality of trespassing, but ignores the second part…removing an object from private property. Honestly, how can you not see a difference?

2) detecting is on-par with the harmless-ness of photography, in my book.

Your book wouldn’t mean crapolla in a Court of Law, but I’d love to see you try to explain it to a judge.

Ie.: photography is harmless, but md'ing must be harmful. Right ?

No. My God, I’ve had more intelligent conversations with my dog. You can dig all the holes you want…use a backhoe if it makes you happy…as long as you have permission. The “harm” come in when you take an object from an area where you do not have permission to remove objects. You would be stealing it. It’s a crime.

After all, we "remove things". But on the other hand, that's not theft, right ?

Not if you have permission. Seriously, go talk to a 1st grader, maybe they can explain it to you in terms you understand.

I'm just going by your own definitions.

I’ve never defined metal detecting, so once again we see that you not being truthful.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

First, you trespass. It does not matter if you trespass to take a picture, or to metal detect. So far, the two activities are equal.

Ok, agreed then. Now that we've established that the photographer gets equal castigation, then sure, I'm on board with you: Shame on the md'r who sets foot there as well.

.....next you physically remove and object .... That, my good man, would be theft.

I hope you realize that in prior statements on this thread: You adamantly denied that removing things was the same as theft. A little bit of flip-flopping there, eh ?

Do you understand now?

Yes. In-so-far as the photographer is equally guilty , then sure.

I can’t believe I had to explain this to an adult.

....I’ve had more intelligent conversations with my dog....

....go talk to a 1st grader, maybe they can explain it to you...

A bit more ad hominems there, eh Flies only ? Nice

I mean, if you do not have permission to remove the object, then doing so would be illegal. We call it “Theft”.

Do you mean the above statement literally ? Then I'm assuming you would never remove (ahem, steal) an item from public land either. Right ? Because as you know, there are laws governing every speck of public land that forbid harvest, remove, take, etc.... There is no reason (since you endeavor to be very law-abiding) that it doesn't equally apply to public property. Oh sure, you wouldn't be "trespassing", but just saying: This 3rd component of the case you build (the "removing things" component) is a slippery slope for ANY place we metal detect.

This simply not true.

Let's make a gentlemen's wager: You tell me any public place you metal detect at. Ok ? Any beach, forest, school , park, etc... And I'll make a few calls. And I'll do a few google searches for the rules/laws governing said-location. And I'll bet you that I can indeed find a rule or law that forbids harvest, remove, take, steal, theft, etc..... If you doubt me, then let's make the wager. Ok ?

Honestly, how can you not see a difference?

Because I do not see md'ing as intrinsically evil, like you do. If we start with the premise that md'ing is inherently wrong, bad, theft, etc... Then yes: Everything you're saying does indeed logically follow.

 

[SoOregonMd]

Interesting banter going back and forth..

a few observations..
1) Name calling and implying someone has a 1st grade education is really not necessary especially when it is obviously clear he is more educated than that.. but I guess it is a sign of the times.. when one side doesn't agree with something then instead of a good old fashioned debate ..they have to throw a few insults in there in order to "strengthen" their case I guess..

2) Many Tribes across the world believe that taking their photograph is stealing their souls.. so is taking a photograph of landscape or vegetation or trees or heck the guy hiding behind the bush watching you..that you didn't see.. did someone just steal their soul by taking that there "innocent" picture.

https://skepticalinquirer.org/newsl...aphy/?/sb/show/soul_theft_through_photography

My Reply here is just meant as food for thought so take it as that..

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....
2) Many Tribes across the world believe that taking their photograph is stealing their souls.. so is taking a photograph of landscape or vegetation or trees or heck the guy hiding behind the bush watching you..that you didn't see.. did someone just steal their soul...

I spewed/laughed my coffee all over my desk reading that. I lead docent tours at one of the CA missions, and ... have learned a bit about this. Ie.: You're not joking. And things like : If any of their bones gets moved from it's burial place, then the soul goes looking for eternity to find it, blah blah (hence the scrutiny over Indian bones that ... heaven-forbid you disturb).

Anyhow, now that we've established that "someone on earth" considers photography to be "stealing": We need to turn over heaven and earth to satisfy them. Right ?

 

[FliesOnly]

Ok, agreed then. Now that we've established that the photographer gets equal castigation, then sure, I'm on board with you: Shame on the md'r who sets foot there as well.

Both are a trespass. That’s where the similarities end.

I hope you realize that in prior statements on this thread: You adamantly denied that removing things was the same as theft. A little bit of flip-flopping there, eh ?

Not true. Show me where I have adamantly denied that removing things was the same as theft. And please, for once, keep my statements in context, which is something you routinely avoid.

Yes. In-so-far as the photographer is equally guilty , then sure.

Of trespass. But again, that’s not the entire story. Why do you continually avoid the other parts of the discussion?

A bit more ad hominems there, eh Flies only ? Nice

I don’t think you truly know what an “ad hominin” argument is.

Do you mean the above statement literally ? Then I'm assuming you would never remove (ahem, steal) an item from public land either. Right ?

It would depend on whether or not there were laws against it. This is simple stuff, why are you so confused?

Because as you know, there are laws governing every speck of public land that forbid harvest, remove, take, etc.... There is no reason (since you endeavor to be very law-abiding) that it doesn't equally apply to public property.

This statement makes no sense. Did you meant to say that there is no reason that it doesn’t equally apply to private property? Because otherwise the two sentences are redundant.

Oh sure, you wouldn't be "trespassing", but just saying: This 3rd component of the case you build (the "removing things" component) is a slippery slope for ANY place we metal detect.

No it isn’t. Can you justify this statement? Can you prove that what you say is true? Of course you cannot, because we all know that we are allowed to metal detect (and remove what we find) at many of the places you just mentioned.

Let's make a gentlemen's wager: You tell me any public place you metal detect at. Ok ? Any beach, forest, school , park, etc...

THIS IS ABOUT TRREPSASSING ON PRIVTE PROPERTY!! Dear god in heaven, how many time do I need to explain this to you?

And I'll make a few calls. And I'll do a few google searches for the rules/laws governing said-location. And I'll bet you that I can indeed find a rule or law that forbids harvest, remove, take, steal, theft, etc..... If you doubt me, then let's make the wager. Ok ?

I’ve addressed this as well. If there is “doubt” as to the legality of detecting and removing objects from an area (wherever that may be), then the only way to truly answer the question would be to take it to Court. Do public parks and beaches and schools have regulations with wording against the removal/harvesting/taking of objects? Perhaps. Do those words state categorically that the hobby of metal detecting would therefore be illegal? Most likely not. So I honestly have no idea what argument you're trying to set forth. We both know that it’s not illegal to metal detect and remove objects, so why are you even making this ridiculous argument? Nonetheless, if someone IS arrested or fined, then the only recourse to address the legality of the hobby at that location is a Court of law.

Because I do not see md'ing as intrinsically evil, like you do.

I do not see it as evil. I’ve never said it is evil. Stop lying about me, I’m sick of it.

If we start with the premise that md'ing is inherently wrong, bad, theft, etc... Then yes: Everything you're saying does indeed logically follow.

Well, since that’s not a premise put forth by me, then I guess we can assume that you simply refuse to answer the question...again. Wow, what a shock.

 

[FliesOnly]

Interesting banter going back and forth..

a few observations..
1) Name calling and implying someone has a 1st grade education is really not necessary especially when it is obviously clear he is more educated than that..

First of, I never called him a name. Secondly, I guess it’s not the clear to me, since I have had to explain the same thing repeatedly…over and over and over again…time after time after time.

…when one side doesn't agree with something then instead of a good old fashioned debate ..they have to throw a few insults in there in order to "strengthen" their case I guess..

Lying about what I have said and continually taking what I say out of context is not really a part of a “good old debate” either.

2) Many Tribes across the world believe that taking their photograph is stealing their souls.. so is taking a photograph of landscape or vegetation or trees or heck the guy hiding behind the bush watching you..that you didn't see.. did someone just steal their soul by taking that there "innocent" picture.

Then Tom_in_CA should put this forward as a part of his argument that taking a picture is the same as removing a valuable coin from private property.
Honestly, I’d pay good money to fly out to California just to watch Tom_in_CA explain to a judge that stealing a valuable coin from private property is the same as taking a picture of the coin…since both, “effectively” remove the coin. I’d love to see him go on to tell the judge that the guy that stepped off the sidewalk to take the picture is just as guilty of theft as he is.
That is, after all, what he seems to telling me.

 

[Waveoff]

I just love when new guys join this forum for the sole purpose of bickering and trying to tell everyone how it is...

 

[Bill_Ace_350]

I just love when new guys join this forum for the sole purpose of bickering and trying to tell everyone how it is...

Careful, you might end up on his Sh!t list!