SWR said:
deepbeep said:
3. There is no ordance agianst hunting easments.
There are ordinances in regards to digging/excavating/snooping-about on easements.
For some reason (well...the reason is obvious) the proponents to this type of metal detecting wish to sidestep the fact
SWR, no no one is sidestepping this fact. It has been discussed very deeeeepply on this thread, if you read s-l-o-w-l-y. The different sides may feel differently about definitions, intents-of-law, and such, but to say it hasn't been discussed is not accurate. That very point has been discussed in depth.
Let's put it this way: I'm assuming there is a law about "driving while distracted" or "erratic driving" or other such catch-all vehicle code rules, right? So that way, if you get pulled over for slight weaving, or erratic lane change, etc..., there is a catch-all that they can write that up in. But if you say to the officer: "But officer, I was eating my hamburger while driving. There's no law against eating and driving, so therefore you
can't give me a ticket". The officer will reply "maybe there's no rule about eating while driving, but I
can apply the erratic lane change rule to ticket you".
So, using the above example, we're all sitting here arguing about whether or not it's legal to eat hamburgers and drive at the same time!! While not specifically illegal, a certain OUTCOME of eating and driving could be illegal. One person can eat and drive just fine, without wiggle or drift. The
next person can't keep the car in his lane, so he's in violation of the law.
Therefore I say that if someone detects with no indication of his presence, then he's like the person who
can eat his burger and drive normally, thus not running afoul of laws (or at least, the
intent of the law, since .... yes ... we can debate that temporary 20 second probe or plug process, even though it's gonna be covered, stomped & ruffled with no trace!).
And yes, I know this would probably loose a legal argument in court. Just as in the same way, a croquette player could be convicted of "excavating" and "damaging the vegetation" if he sticks those probe loop things in the ground! But does that EVER really happen? So sometimes we gotta apply a little common sense, in addition to looking at the letter of the law. This is not to say that hunting nice green manicured curb strips in front of occupied homes is an advisable thing. It's only to comment on the automatic application of "excavations" (which to me, means "damage") & to "metal detecting". If you really think detecting = damage, then I still can't figure out where
anyone metal detects! Because NO city clerk or cop would EVER give permission to: "
sure, help yourself, go damage the park!"
Blurr, I would agree that persons who are sneaking around around, leaving messes, being a nuisance, yes: they will hurt the cause of md'ing. But don't forget, an aweful lot of places get "clarified out of existence" to md'ing, because skittish people think they need to ask permission (of places where it's never been dis-allowed, and that frankly probably never gave the matter thought before), and get "no's" where none existed before. In that case, who's doing the hobby a dis-service? Who's getting "laws created"?
