Unfortunately, there seems to be rather a lot of resistance in certain quarters to the idea of treating the Heritage Action Artefact Erosion Counter as a sensible and evidence-based estimate indicating the long-term effects of current policies on artefact hunting on the archaeological record in England and Wales. It is a remarkable fact: the only people who have ever said it’s nonsense are those with a vested interest in doing so and there are no exceptions to that so far as I know! The sole archaeologist who has expressed reservations (actually it was derision) was not only in the USA but was also receiving large sums of money from metal detectorists which seems rather a blatant conflict of interests. In the UK a detectorist has just said it’s “a load of tosh”, but then it turned out he had not even read the supporting material and had no idea what it was about.
Amusingly, the next day his forum colleague told him: “One wonders at the percentage of all detectorists who get the FLO to record non-treasure related finds. I’m guessing at about 15 pct” (i.e. half of what the Counter says!)