[meteorite-list] Oregon / Washington Meteorite hunting regulationson BLM Land

From: Martin Altmann <altmann_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 13:58:35 +0100
Message-ID: <001b01cb800d$d1fb7940$75f26bc0$_at_de>

Hello there,

as unsatisfying the legal status and incertitude for a finder or hunter
always is,
with such laws, which allow an arbitrary interpretation in case or with such
hysteric laws, created especially for meteorites due to a lack of competence
and due to a methodical ignorance about how meteorites are found and which
conditions have to be granted that meteorites will be found,

I think, one should keep things in perspective.

So far as I see, worldwide, there were really only a very single few court
procedures about meteorites.
And in almost all cases, it was a conflict about ownership between private
parties, hence a greed-thing a la Lorton.

I doubt, that "They" - i.e. government, states, officials et al. do want
your finds and would take it away from you.
See the absurd odyssey Elton reported us about one of his finds.

In the recent decades I can't remember any case, where a curator or a
meteoricist brought a finder to court, because of a find, claiming the
ownership.
(well, not directly, I know of an exception - currently pending - but
without any legal base and under somewhat dishonorable circumstances).

And I'm quite sure, that with such finds, it won't happen in future neither.
The meteorite scientists and curators are the very only ones interested at
all in such finds, they know that they are dependent on the work of the
private hunters and collectors and do appreciate it - or if not, at least
tolerate it.

And also it would be regarded in the circles of the researchers themselves
certainly as an obscenity if a meteoricist would let sue a finder of a
meteorite - that would be certainly mean a huge loss of reputation,
and honestly, just regarding the human side, who would like to work together
with such a fellow still then in future?

So all in all, I think, one has to see that more reasonable.

Just look, cause we had it yesterday. Kosice - fine fall. The local
universities hunted it, they found, and after some weeks they decided, we
found enough, our work is fully done, more hunt would be too much
unnecessary spent time and they left.
 
So, the rest of the stones lies around in the forests, exposed to weathering
and soon they will merge into the humus layer, will be covered with
greenery, earth - where they can't be recovered anymore.

Therefore I can't imagine that anybody has any objections, if private
searchers are going there to try to find a stone more.

Nor do I think, that any expert, scientist, curator would ever state, that
these, who are trying still to secure a stone, would be criminals.
Common sense is here ruling - and not the oddity of a stone-old Stalinist
relic law, all had forgotten about long ago.

Or if so? He shall do it here, the list is the right place for that.

You must see,
these laws are in general made - either from methodical dinosaurs still
adhering to a position of the 1960ies, which already then was an anachronism
and an extremist position
or from very young over-alerted meteoricists, who own not yet the experience
and the knowledge about the history of their branch of science, the
statistics, neither the practical knowledge, how meteorites are found at
all,

or clerks, absolute meteoritic laymen.

E.g. for the latter case Poland, Poland has one of the longest traditions in
meteoritics, but has lost its expert elite of meteorite scientists during
the last two generations - I guess, the last "official" activities date back
into the 1950ies - the knowledge and meteoritic activities went completely
over to the private experts - who do all the popular outreach, publications,
recoveries, books, meetings, expositions ect.

So it's evident, that the new regulations were made without any reason and
without any necessity by people having not even a vague idea, what they were
talking at all about.

And this we see in recent times very often. That the laymen in the
legislation don't seek expert advice, but lump meteorites together in such
categories like artifacts, precious stones, vertebrate fossils, resources.
Not knowing, how few there are, how they are found, how negligible their
economical value is.

So it is well understandable and welcome, that you have standing around the
rangers, protecting certain areas from collectors of artifacts - artifacts
are testimonies of the historic identity of a country, vertebrate fossils,
which belong into the geological history of the country, minerals, gold,
precious stones, which mean an economic value - and also protecting the
environment from too strong infractions of searchers.

Meteorites, implanted from space, don't belong into these categories. They
lack any cultural and historical properties, nor do they own all in all any
economical value - but often a scientific value, so it's a blessing that
someone tries to find them at all.
And of course, meteorite hunting, the dimensions - compared to artifacts
looting, gold-washing, fossils digging - are fully negligible. We're talking
about a handful of people worldwide and - it lies in the nature of the
meteorites - one or two handful of finds compared to the other complexes.

Well - and you saw it, in Elton's case.
After he tried to make everything correctly, and it turned out, that no
"official" side or the "They"s from MikeG.'s post felt to be in charge and
no institute etc. showed any interest,

he certainly would have had the full moral right, to take that stone, to had
let it classified, to care that a sample will thus be incorporated for free
into a renown US-collection - and then to do with the stone, whatever he
wants.

Btw. I don't know the legal system in USA.
But I guess in many countries about such things never a court procedure
would be opened, because of insignificance.


Nevertheless - of course it's unbearable, that those, who generate the
meteorite finds for the good of all,
don't have a legal certainty or, like it happens in recent times, shall be
pushed in the criminal corner.

There remedial action should and can be taken.
In most cases, only two single words would have to be deleted again from the
texts of the regulations ("and meteorites").

Qualified to take care for and to incite such a revision are the
meteoricists of the respective countries, as they are the official and also
formal experts for that topic.

And if I look in the constitution of the Meteoritical Society and the goals
given there, I think, it is a task for MetSoc too.
In fact, from the reports I read, that the Meteoritical Society has
installed an ethics commission, which is delegated to develop suggestions,
how meteorites regarding their legal status should be handled by MetSoc.

We fully should rely in the members of the commission, that their work will
end also in results, which could serve as commendations, that the individual
nations should regard meteorites in a more reasonable and for the science
more conducive way, and that no artificial obstacles shall be created, which
endanger new finds and the continuity of that niche of science (Australia is
warning example enough),
shouldn't we?

Common sense alone is not enough, legal certainty would be required.

Thoughts only, no advice, my private opinion.
Happy findings!
Martin



  
Received on Tue 09 Nov 2010 07:58:35 AM PST