Tom_in_CA
Gold Member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2007
- Messages
- 13,803
- Reaction score
- 10,339
- Golden Thread
- 2
- Location
- Salinas, CA
- 🥇 Banner finds
- 2
- Detector(s) used
- Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
- #1
Thread Owner
A realization for me, on the "alter", "deface", and "dig" type rules:
Hey gang, there are folks who will come on to that discussion , and point out that while there may not be something that specifically says "no metal detecting", yet our hobby still falls afoul of rules that disallow "digging". And on the surface, it's hard to argue with that! I mean, duh, we DO "dig" afterall. So when trying to tackle that thorny issue, I have often likened it to the words "deface", "alter", and "disturb". Because those words too are often somewhere in city muni park codes, rules, laws, etc.... And as such, you could say those imply the end result, because if you leave no trace, then you haven't disturbED or alterED anything.
Each time I've justified it in that way, I have been quick to point out that I realize that if the word "dig" is used, then it's harder to rationalize "dig" versus "dug". However, I just had a realization about this recently: The word "dig" and "digging" are present tense verbs. Right? But hold on a second: SO TOO is alter, disturb, and deface as well! They too are "present tense verbs". The only difference, is that there is no english word "diggED". And that's nothing more than a spelling exercise , and nothing to do with the fact that they are all still verbs.
The reason I bring this up, is that some persons who've chimed in on the topic, will check city codes. If they see "deface", "alter", and so forth, they will not equate those to necessarily mean "no detecting". Because in their minds, they're going to be neat and clean. HOWEVER, when/if they see the word "dig", that gives them the willies. And they will either opt not to hunt that spot, or ...... go seek permission from city employees.
But this doesn't make sense. Because in the same exact way that we "dig", it's the exact vocabulary sense: We "disturb", "deface,", and "alter" (albeit only temporarily). Thus the same logic applies to dig.
Yes I know that anyone is welcome to come up to us in a park and differ with these semantics. But just pointing out that the word "dig" is really no different than any of the other words that we don't let bother us.
Hey gang, there are folks who will come on to that discussion , and point out that while there may not be something that specifically says "no metal detecting", yet our hobby still falls afoul of rules that disallow "digging". And on the surface, it's hard to argue with that! I mean, duh, we DO "dig" afterall. So when trying to tackle that thorny issue, I have often likened it to the words "deface", "alter", and "disturb". Because those words too are often somewhere in city muni park codes, rules, laws, etc.... And as such, you could say those imply the end result, because if you leave no trace, then you haven't disturbED or alterED anything.
Each time I've justified it in that way, I have been quick to point out that I realize that if the word "dig" is used, then it's harder to rationalize "dig" versus "dug". However, I just had a realization about this recently: The word "dig" and "digging" are present tense verbs. Right? But hold on a second: SO TOO is alter, disturb, and deface as well! They too are "present tense verbs". The only difference, is that there is no english word "diggED". And that's nothing more than a spelling exercise , and nothing to do with the fact that they are all still verbs.
The reason I bring this up, is that some persons who've chimed in on the topic, will check city codes. If they see "deface", "alter", and so forth, they will not equate those to necessarily mean "no detecting". Because in their minds, they're going to be neat and clean. HOWEVER, when/if they see the word "dig", that gives them the willies. And they will either opt not to hunt that spot, or ...... go seek permission from city employees.
But this doesn't make sense. Because in the same exact way that we "dig", it's the exact vocabulary sense: We "disturb", "deface,", and "alter" (albeit only temporarily). Thus the same logic applies to dig.
Yes I know that anyone is welcome to come up to us in a park and differ with these semantics. But just pointing out that the word "dig" is really no different than any of the other words that we don't let bother us.
Last edited:
Is that defacing? 
I know, I'm disturbing! 
