Fenced in areas

[Tom_in_CA]

Hey Tom since you jumped in this conversation with both feet without getting any facts. Now I will tell you some of the facts.
Fact no 1 I didn't say where it was.
Fact no 2 I didn't say it was personal property, school grounds or the ground that an organization owns nor did I imply that any of them own the ground.
So without knowing anything about the place that was mentioned why do you think that you can say much about it?
A wise person does not say much, a person that talks a lot knows very little.

You are right : You didn't say "public vs private". And yes : A lot of md'rs will treat a fenced PUBLIC area, with a different mindset than a fenced PRIVATE area. Eg.: school yards, for example, are merely obligatory so that no one sues the school if they fall off the swingset and injure themselves. Hence does not seem to stop anyone from shooting hoops, jogging the track, etc....

 

[graybeard]

You are right : You didn't say "public vs private". And yes : A lot of md'rs will treat a fenced PUBLIC area, with a different mindset than a fenced PRIVATE area. Eg.: school yards, for example, are merely obligatory so that no one sues the school if they fall off the swingset and injure themselves. Hence does not seem to stop anyone from shooting hoops, jogging the track, etc....

Here's something for you to think about. He who speaks does not know, he who knows does not speak.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Here's something for you to think about. He who speaks does not know, he who knows does not speak.

So then : What are we to make of your speaking in post #'s : 1, 8, 14, 17, 18 & 22 ? Since you "spoke", then you don't "know" ?

(Just taking your post for a test drive.)

 

[graybeard]

So then : What are we to make of your speaking in post #'s : 1, 8, 14, 17, 18 & 22 ? Since you "spoke", then you don't "know" ?

(Just taking your post for a test drive.)

I have told you without telling the location. All you have done is run your mouth trying to give different scenarios of where it could be. Also giving your reasons why you would sneak in there to detect. That to me defines you as a thief.

The location would be in the same line as detecting at The Little Big Horn.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

The location would be in the same line as detecting at The Little Big Horn.

And as I have repeatedly said (like in #5) : The type picture you paint leads to only one conclusion: Don't do it.

I was talking about the other type pictures that get debated here.

 

[KOB]

I Fences

 

[FliesOnly]

I guess it all depends on a person's starting presupposition of the definition of md'ing. If you consider this hobby offensive, dangerous, reviled, stealing, evil, damaging, etc..., THEN YES : Everything you're saying is entirely true. But why this starting definition ? Are you running into people who think of you in this way ? Because shucks, whenever someone stops to talk to me, it's always things like : "What's the best thing you've ever found ?", and "where can I get one of those ?", etc.... Far from the picture you paint.

And BTW : I agree with your answer about how, if the owner accosted someone taking that shortcut, and the person was obstinate and didn't leave, then yeah. This applies to the person taking the shortcut, & to the person md'ing. No argument there. Sure , I do not argue with people. I am THE FIRST to give lip service and move on.

I never supplied a definition, nor am I painting any sort of picture...but lets elaborate on this a bit, shall we. First off, I too have people come up and ask what I have found. But here's the thing, I have permission to be metal detecting at that location, so I have no concerns about an angry property owner confronting me. Also, let's say you do detect at the location of that picture (the shortcut). Let's say no one seems to give a hoot that you're detecting there...because it's not their property. Let's say you find a somewhat rare and valuable coin and decide to take it home. Explain to me why that isn't stealing, even if you do "cover, stomp and fluff you hole". I suppose that maybe one could put forth the argument that since that "shortcut" has been used for X number of years, the landowner has forfeited any claim they may have to the coin, but I'll let someone more familiar with case law answer that one.

Yes, you're right. We've covered this before. You, by definition, consider md'ing to be (and I quote) : "...physically altering....". And as I've told you before : Cover, stomp, and fluff your holes (as we all should), and PRESTO : You haven't alterED anything. Now have you ??

So if I scratch someones car in a parking lot, but just happen to have a sharpie in my car that matches the paint really well, if I cover the scratch using that marker, we're all good then, yes? I mean, since I "fixed" the issue, I haven't really "altered" anything, now have I?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I never supplied a definition, nor am I painting any sort of picture...but lets elaborate on this a bit, shall we. First off, I too have people come up and ask what I have found. But here's the thing, I have permission to be metal detecting at that location, so I have no concerns about an angry property owner confronting me. Also, let's say you do detect at the location of that picture (the shortcut). Let's say no one seems to give a hoot that you're detecting there...because it's not their property. Let's say you find a somewhat rare and valuable coin and decide to take it home. Explain to me why that isn't stealing, even if you do "cover, stomp and fluff you hole". I suppose that maybe one could put forth the argument that since that "shortcut" has been used for X number of years, the landowner has forfeited any claim they may have to the coin, but I'll let someone more familiar with case law answer that one.


So if I scratch someones car in a parking lot, but just happen to have a sharpie in my car that matches the paint really well, if I cover the scratch using that marker, we're all good then, yes? I mean, since I "fixed" the issue, I haven't really "altered" anything, now have I?

F-O : Technically, everything you're saying here ^ ^ (gathering enough lawyers into-a-room and letting them "hash it out"), is true and correct . And assuming that the trail owner is "hot and bothered" and just-so-happened to be wandering his lot that day (yes, again, technically that *can* happen).

Ok ? There, you got it. I cried uncle. Ok ?