|
|
I know a common mutual rule is to not steal from locations? I always wondered if the that rule applied to metal detecting or not. Given that its underground most of the time, I could see arguments for both sides.
| |
Hey, finally something I'm an expert on. I've probably spent more time metal detecting abandoned locations than actually going inside them. I certainly don't think it counts as stealing, unless the place has a real historical value. For example, here in NJ there is a very old house with significant history (I believe it is the oldest house in the county) that is currently abandoned. I'd avoid that, on the grounds that it has history and could be subject to archaeology in the future. There was also a relatively famous abandoned house right next to the Monmouth battlefield, and I would avoid that for the same reason. However, I have done a few abandoned houses in my hometown in broad daylight, and nobody objected. As a matter of fact, one of my high school teachers saw me at one of them, and it turns out that it was the first house she had ever lived in. Abandoned mining villages are one of my personal favorites because oftentimes nothing was removed when the mines closed and everybody simply went home and never returned. There are many abandoned mines that still have equipment and artifacts strewn around the ground from over 100 years ago.
| |
I've gotta disagree, just because it's underground doesn't mean it doesn't belong to the site/property. I (and probably the law as well) believe that if you don't have explicit permission from the property owner to both be there and remove found items from the property, then you're committing theft in addition to the trespassing we all known and love.
That said, I see no problem with metal detecting if you leave what you've unearthed behind, or contact the property owner and ask to remove it. Although they may be a bit bothered that you didn't ask permission to be there first. Remember, this is a forum for exploring, not scrapping, scavenging, or salvaging, as interesting as some finds may be.
And to be very clear, I'm arguing for the recognition that whether what you take was underground or not, it's stealing. Whether a discovered item should be stolen remains up to your own discretion - if you do, I hope you have a very good reason beyond filling up your trophy shelf.
| |
Posted by SaladKing
I've gotta disagree, just because it's underground doesn't mean it doesn't belong to the site/property. I (and probably the law as well) believe that if you don't have explicit permission from the property owner to both be there and remove found items from the property, then you're committing theft in addition to the trespassing we all known and love.
That said, I see no problem with metal detecting if you leave what you've unearthed behind, or contact the property owner and ask to remove it. Although they may be a bit bothered that you didn't ask permission to be there first. Remember, this is a forum for exploring, not scrapping, scavenging, or salvaging, as interesting as some finds may be.
And to be very clear, I'm arguing for the recognition that whether what you take was underground or not, it's stealing. Whether a discovered item should be stolen remains up to your own discretion - if you do, I hope you have a very good reason beyond filling up your trophy shelf.
|
I get what you're saying. I should probably add that all of the places that I listed were already public property or were actively being demolished+bulldozed. I think there is also significant difference between what is in the ground and what is in a building. Especially considering the best metal detecting finds come out of trash pits that have just happened to sit long enough to become treasure of some sort.
| |
Posted by EnvoyToTheMolePeople
I get what you're saying. I should probably add that all of the places that I listed were already public property or were actively being demolished+bulldozed.
|
That's fine with me then, sites undergoing active demolition are one of the very few exceptions I have in my book. A site's artifacts can't be appreciated in situ if in situ and everything in its gets bulldozed, so appreciating them somewhere else is the next best thing.
I still think underground objects deserve the same urbex treatment as those within a site's buildings though.
[last edit 5/5/2021 3:32 AM by SaladKing - edited 1 times]
|
Add a poll to this thread
This thread is one of your Favourites. Click to make normal.Click to make this thread a Favourite.
| This thread is in a public category, and can't be made private. |
Powered by AvBoard AvBoard version 1.5 alpha
Page Generated In: 62 ms
|
|
Ethics
