"Around 2400 finders reported their finds to the Scheme"
No mention of whether they were all detectorists. I've assumed above that they are all detectorists which makes the non-recorders look (marginally) less like brazen thieves.
If we assume that is actually all recorders and that 68% of them are detectorists (given 68% of the finds are from detectorists), then the figures get scarier.
So lets play Ballpark Mathematics.
Assumptions:
- 14000 active detectorists
- 2400*0.68 = 1632 responsible detectorists
- 30,000 * 0.68 = 20400 finds reported by detectorists.
And so
(1632 / 14000) * 100 = 11.65% of detectorists are responsible
And (14000 / 1632) * 20400 = 175,000 finds found last year that weren't reported by detectorists.
Reply | with quote | Posted by juamei 2nd August 2005ce 14:37 |
Encouraging responsible metal detecting (Jane, Jul 27, 2005, 22:13)- Re: Encouraging responsible metal detecting (Ishmael, Jul 27, 2005, 22:23)
- Re: Encouraging responsible metal detecting (Pilgrim, Jul 27, 2005, 22:59)
- Re: Encouraging responsible metal detecting (nigelswift, Jul 28, 2005, 02:24)
- Re: Encouraging responsible metal detecting (Cheshireman, Aug 01, 2005, 13:20)
- Re: Encouraging responsible metal detecting (BrigantesNation, Aug 01, 2005, 13:30)
- Re: Encouraging responsible metal detecting (nigelswift, Aug 01, 2005, 13:38)
- Re: Encouraging responsible metal detecting (FourWinds, Aug 01, 2005, 13:39)
- Re: Encouraging responsible metal detecting (juamei, Aug 01, 2005, 14:17)
- Re: Encouraging responsible metal detecting (Pilgrim, Aug 01, 2005, 19:40)
- How about this? (FourWinds, Aug 01, 2005, 18:03)
- Re: Encouraging responsible metal detecting (FourWinds, Aug 03, 2005, 22:29)
|
|