Bottle hunting reccomendations

[Stamos]

Hello, my girlfriend and I like to explore the Pines with our Husky/Boxer mix quite often. We particularly enjoy looking for old trash dumps to explore and hopefully find bottles to add to our collection (small, but growing).

Is it in bad taste to ask some reccomendations of legal places to look that maybe some of the more "seasoned" members here may know of? GPS coordinates will suffice in lieu of actual directions....thanks!

Jim

 

[bobpbx]

Hello, my girlfriend and I like to explore the Pines with our Husky/Boxer mix quite often. We particularly enjoy looking for old trash dumps to explore and hopefully find bottles to add to our collection (small, but growing).

Is it in bad taste to ask some reccomendations of legal places to look that maybe some of the more "seasoned" members here may know of? GPS coordinates will suffice in lieu of actual directions....thanks!

Jim

Jim, do you live on Lacey Road?

 

[Stamos]

No, we live in the Cherry Hill area.

 

[Stamos]

Callie.

 

[Boyd]

It is illegal to remove anything from state property, same for most county parks. And you would need the owner's permission to remove things from private property. So I'm wondering what would qualify as a "legal" place to hunt for bottles?

 

[Stamos]

Ok, so let's say hypothetically you were walking through state land and happened upon a beautiful cobalt blue bottle perfectly intact and clearly turn of the century or older vintage, you would admire it then leave it in place?

 

[Boyd]

Yes, I would. In fact, I know a secret location where I found a number of bottles from the early 1900's. There are many other fascinating artifacts there. This place is virtually unknown to the public. I thought it was so cool that I posted a thread here with lots of pictures. After discussing with other senior members on this site, I removed the thread and pictures.

Looking at things there, I just felt that since they have been undisturbed for almost 100 years, I certainly had no right to remove them. And it would have been illegal for me to do so as well. Now I'll admit, in my younger days I probably would have taken some of these items. But my opinion has changed over the years.

 

[Stamos]

I remember that thread. Well, kudos to you. I will keep to my pursuits and try to offend as little people as possible.

 

[bobpbx]

Ok, so let's say hypothetically you were walking through state land and happened upon a beautiful cobalt blue bottle perfectly intact and clearly turn of the century or older vintage, you would admire it then leave it in place?

I admit, I'd take it.

 

[46er]

Ok, so let's say hypothetically you were walking through state land and happened upon a beautiful cobalt blue bottle perfectly intact and clearly turn of the century or older vintage, you would admire it then leave it in place?

I doubt that temptation would present itself as someone selfish would already have taken it.

 

[Stamos]

I doubt that temptation would present itself as someone selfish would already have taken it.

If this is a thinly veiled attack to call me selfish I am not phased at all. I know that I am not alone in the fact that, yes, I would pick it up.

So you can sit up there on your high-horse and look down on me, enjoy.

 

[Boyd]

Jim, your first post started with a question.

Is it in bad taste to ask some reccomendations of legal places to look

But evidently you didn't really want an answer unless it reinforced your own belief. I don't think there are "legal places" where you can remove artifacts from the pines, unless it's private property and the owner has given you permission. But really, you weren't interested in "legal places", since you admit you would break the law and take whatever interests you from public land.

Bob, we've discussed this in a PM before and I remember your logic. But I just can't agree. If it's OK to take one bottle, is it also OK to take 10 bottles, or 1000 bottles? Is it only OK if you and Jim take a few bottles, or for thousands of people to comb through the pines and take them? And why is taking a bottle any different from taking stones?

 

[46er]

If this is a thinly veiled attack to call me selfish I am not phased at all. I know that I am not alone in the fact that, yes, I would pick it up.

So you can sit up there on your high-horse and look down on me, enjoy.

Just answering your question. Interpret is as you wish. Have a great day.

 

[Stamos]

But evidently you didn't really want an answer unless it reinforced your own belief. I don't think there are "legal places" where you can remove artifacts from the pines, unless it's private property and the owner has given you permission. But really, you weren't interested in "legal places", since you admit you would break the law and take whatever interests you from public land.

On the contrary, I did assume that there may be some bad taste in asking or else I would not have prefaced my question with such.

However, my hypothetical taking of a bottle is hardly akin to stealing stones that were put in place with a specific intent. If you want to get right down to it, an errant bottle is nothing more than old trash that was never picked up or disposed of "properly". Where do you draw the line at a bottle being an historic item? Does a Coke bottle from the 70's have historical value or is it trash? My son may find the 70's trash to hold great wonders as to whatthe 70's might have been like, I however would view it as trash.

Would you prefer a random hunter shooting it for fun thereby ruining a piece of "history" or a person picking it up, preserving it and displaying it for others to enjoy?

 

[Stamos]

46er apparently has no issues "bending the rules" when it benefits him though..

Unless someone finds you or you start a major fire, then no harm no foul. In the north country you camp where you want, and it does get crowded up there, but I never saw or heard of any problems. Just some common sense regs to keep things neat and tidy.

 

[Boyd]

Sure, if you want something it's always easy to find a way to justify doing illegal or immoral things to obtain it. I am not going to argue this any further though, I've already spoken my mind and this thread will probably end badly.

 

[46er]

46er apparently has no issues "bending the rules" when it benefits him though..

Do you have the remotest idea where I am referring too? Do as you wish wherever you go, just try not to be surprised if others find it disagreeable. Another thread destined for the slag heap, where it belongs.

 

[Stamos]

Do you have the remotest idea where I am referring too?

Yes, you were speaking to camping outside of designated campsites, someting that is technically "frowned upon".

 

[Badfish740]

Yes, you were speaking to camping outside of designated campsites, someting that is technically "frowned upon".

There's quite a difference between camping in an un-designated area (provided you leave the site as you found it) and removing artifacts from state land. Camping is a temporary use, that, when done properly, does not irrevocably change the environment. Removing an artifact from a site irrevocably changes that site. Ever hear of the expression "Take only pictures, leave only footprints?"

Furthermore, the camping regulations are largely driven by insurance and liability concerns, not concerns about historical preservation. If you want to see that as a double standard, go right ahead, but it's really an issue of ethics. Camping in an un-designated may not be able to be done legally, but it can be done ethically. Removing artifacts from a site is neither legal nor ethical.

 

[Stamos]

If you want to see that as a double standard, go right ahead

I will see the justification for what it is, breaking a law because you don't agree with it or feel that it pertains to you.

In many people's eyes doing something deemed illegal is unethical regardless of whether or not you subscribe to the genesis of the law.

You act as if I am advocating plundering Batsto for its artifacts.