[meteorite-list] Secret BLM maps battle of the Smithsonian

From: Steve Dunklee <steve.dunklee_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 08:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <938530.76020.qm_at_web113920.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Might we talk to the currator of meteorites at the Smithsonian to have them issue permits for the collection of meteorites on BLM land? With the required 20 gram sample going to the smithsonian. They cant tell you no you cant look for them if you are collecting them for the Government. Might be able to use a similar ploy in Austrailia. The smithsonian might even be able to make a few bucks charging $25 a year for the permits to collect thier property. Since i think it is in an act of congress that meteorites on federal land belong to the smithsonian. It would be out of BLM hands to stop you with a scientific collection permit from the smithsonian. Cheers Steve

On Thu Nov 4th, 2010 9:35 PM EDT Adam Hupe wrote:

>Jason,
>
>I have no idea what you are getting at but simply said, I do not have to agree
>with a law in order to abide by it. Breaking laws will do no good and could
>result in all land becoming off limits which is nearly the case with treasure
>hunting. Without weight limits for rock hounds, somebody could remove an entire
>outcrop, like the Alamo breccia for instance, and build an mansion with it.
>Then they could go back and build a rock fence around the 800 acre property
>leaving very little for other hobbyists.
>
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Adam
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: Jason Utas <meteoritekid at gmail.com>
>To: Meteorite-list <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>Sent: Thu, November 4, 2010 6:04:56 PM
>Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Secret BLM maps
>
>Adam, All,
>I don't understand the hypocrisy of your agreeing to the 250 lb per
>year maximum, while crying 'foul' at stricter laws being imposed by
>different branches of our government.
>
>If you were arguing about the right and wrong of collecting meteorites
>and other rocks from a moral standpoint, the number is a purely
>arbitrary one. As a "rights" issue, the fact that the law is there in
>any way, shape, or form, inhibiting your "right" to collect rocks on
>public land, is paramount. Either you should be allowed to collect
>what you want to -- or you shouldn't.
>
>This is why:
>
>For us meteorite hunters, by and large, the law is entirely
>irrelevant. I'm probably never going to find a meteorite that weighs
>more than a few kilograms, even if I go to a known strewn field with
>large meteorites laying around. Even then, the BLM doesn't seem to
>care when meteorites like the Glorietta Mountain main mass are removed
>from federal land, so...I guess it doesn't matter either way. As long
>as you don't do something stupid like going to the Smithsonian with
>your three tonne iron, you should be fine.
>So the fact that the BLM restricts collecting more than 250 lbs of
>rocks per year means literally nothing to me.
>
>Which is why, I think, you're in favor of the 250 lb restriction that
>the BLM used to (or does still) have in place, regarding meteorites.
>
>But what if you were to happen upon the next "Old Woman," and the
>government actually pursued their rightful ownership (as per existing
>laws)? Right now, you apparently support the 250 lb BLM limit. But
>the next time either one of us goes hunting, we might have a damn good
>reason to fight that law tooth and nail.
>
>Yet there are more problems. Think about this from a scientific point
>of view; why is a 1 tonne meteorite scientifically more important than
>a ten gram one? Well, this is where meteorites start to differ from
>minerals. Generally speaking, if you find a single mineral specimen
>out in the desert, it's not going to be of great scientific interest,
>and you probably wouldn't do much damage to the surrounding terrain if
>you were to pocket it and take it home. If you were to find a deposit
>of something rare or interesting, it would be a very different matter.
>
>If you find a small meteorite out in the desert...well, take, for
>example, my tiny Acapulcoite. I don't know if one could say that it
>is "more important" than your average 250 lb meteorite, but I would
>like to point out that there have been many meteorites found in this
>country that have weighed more than 250 lbs - but there is only one
>other Acapulcoite.
>If rarity is what defines scientific importance, size is of little
>consequence. After all, Steve Arnold's 1,400 lb Brenham may be
>impressive, and a spectacular example of a pallasite/meteorite in
>general, but it has contributed next to nothing of our knowledge of
>meteorites or understanding of the solar system. The Acfer 094
>meteorite, on the other hand - that's important, primitive stuff that
>contains presolar grains, etc. It's helping us understand what was
>going on ~4.6 billion years ago.
>So, with regard to meteorites, size really isn't what makes them
>"important." Hence a "250 lb" restriction is essentially worthless
>with regards to space rocks.
>
>Now, if the law was intended to preserve the landscape by preventing
>commercial mining endeavors...that's not going to happen with
>meteorites, because that's not how they're found. Even the removal of
>a huge iron like the Old Woman...well, it returned the landscape to
>what it should have looked like before a large, alien piece of iron
>happened to fall there. So that aspect of it doesn't really apply.
>
>But along that line - "250 lb" maximum is as arbitrary as any law.
>What if they had originally stated that you could collect a tonne?
>Ten kilograms? Nothing? It's arbitrary.
>
>Based on what you've said, and I'll quote, "We have the right to
>remove 250 lbs of
>rocks a year without a permit. Anything that hinders this right goes against the
>laws our legislators set forth."
>
>If the original law had stated that you were not allowed to collect
>any rocks, I assume that you would go along with it without complaint,
>because that would be 'the law our legislators set forth.'
>
>So if you're not talking about your "right to collect anything you
>want on public land," but are rather arguing about your right to
>collect "up to 250 lbs of mineral specimens per year, as dictated by a
>law," we have to look at things differently. You seem to be
>questioning the right of the BLM to set rules and regulations
>regarding the land which it has been given to oversee.
>
>I think the BLM has that right. If you disagree, I assume that you
>would question the legitimacy of their imposing *any* regulations on
>the land they oversee, since there's no reason to single this one rule
>out...except personal interest, of course.
>
>If you think it's an issue, what I would suggest is going to
>Washington (state), finding a meteorite, and then seeing if the BLM
>will try to take it. Or better yet, if they try to give you a ticket
>or jail you, sue them and take matters to as high a court as possible.
>I'm pretty sure the ACLU would take something of an interest in the
>case, though you might have a word with someone from their group
>beforehand.
>
>We elect people to oversee and protect our nation and its resources,
>and these senators and representatives in some cases have apparently
>decided that meteorites are some of the things that need protecting
>from increasing commercialization. While you and I may not agree with
>them, you are, of course, entitled to disagree and make your opinion
>heard. You're even welcome to lobby and try to get the laws and
>regulations of whatever state you wish (Washington, by the sound of
>it) changed. Even the BLM.
>It can be done.
>
>Meanwhile, we're legally obliged to abide by such laws until they are
>changed, for better or for worse.
>
>Complaining on here doesn't do much, but I agree - it's interesting to
>hear nonetheless. I just have the feeling that these supposed BLM
>regulations that you're complaining of in Washington a) likely don't
>really exist, and b) probably wouldn't be enforced even if someone
>over there was trying to implement them. Seeing as the BLM is an
>organization which oversees land in twelve states, I very much doubt
>that they would start prohibiting the collection of meteorites from
>BLM land in a single state -- especially one in which they're not
>being found.
>
>Regards,
>Jason
>
>On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Adam Hupe <raremeteorites at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> And being that it is federal public land, we have the right to remove 250 lbs
>>of
>> rocks a year without a permit. Anything that hinders this right goes against
>>the
>> laws our legislators set forth. Requiring a permit in Washinton and Oregon is
>>a
>> clear design on our liberty.
>>
>>***********************************************************************************
>>*
>>
>>
>> Collecting Limits
>> Collecting rocks for landscaping and other personal uses is allowed without a
>> permit, as long as the use is non commercial and no mechanized equipment is
>> used (other than a car or pickup truck). A permit is not needed if you limit
>> your collecting 25 pounds plus one piece per day, not to exceed 250 pounds in
>> one calendar year, and no specimen greater than 250 pounds may be collected
>> without a special permit. The material must be for personal use only and
>shall
>>
>> not be sold or bartered to commercial dealers. Taking rock from stockpiles is
>> not allowed.
>>**********************************************************************************
>>*
>>
>>
>>
>> Link to BLM Site:
>> http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/elcentro/recreation/rocks.html
>>
>>
>> Happy hunting while you still can,
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Jeff Grossman <jgrossman at usgs.gov>
>> To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> Sent: Thu, November 4, 2010 4:24:11 PM
>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Secret BLM maps
>>
>> Although I agree that an outright ban on meteorite collecting is not the
>> best policy, I fail to see what rights you think are being violated.
>> Are you saying that people have a constitutional right to do anything
>> and everything they want on federal lands without regulation? I don't
>> think this is a civil rights issue; it is a public land-use policy issue.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> On 2010-11-04 7:05 PM, Adam Hupe wrote:
>>> I agree that these heritage sites should be protected. My only concern is
>how
>>> BLM field agents convey information. They are public servants and should
>tell
>>> the truth. If they do not know the laws, then they should simply state this
>>> instead of making things up. I get a different message from every one I have
>>> talked to in regards to meteorite hunting. Washington and Oregon are now
>>> definitely off limits and there are no permits for meteorite hunting
>> available.
>>> This is a simple way to violet somebodies rights; Tell them they need a
>permit
>>> and then don't issue any.
>>>
>>> This is a sore subject for me since I can no longer search on public lands in
>>>my
>>> ex-state of Washington Thus never achieving a goal I set. Meteorites are now
>>> considered treasure and will be protected as such in some areas.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>> Adam
>>> ______________________________________________
>>> Visit the Archives at
>>>http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Jeffrey N. Grossman phone: (703) 648-6184
>> US Geological Survey fax: (703) 648-6383
>> 954 National Center
>> Reston, VA 20192, USA
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> Visit the Archives at
>>http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> Visit the Archives at
>>http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>
>______________________________________________
>Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
>Meteorite-list mailing list
>Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>______________________________________________
>Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
>Meteorite-list mailing list
>Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list



      
Received on Fri 05 Nov 2010 11:36:45 AM PDT