[meteorite-list] BLM and Meteorite Recovery Policy

From: Jodie Reynolds <spacerocks_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 01:30:38 -0800
Message-ID: <9110474193.20121203013038_at_spaceballoon.org>

Hi Jason,

The BLM's land?!?!?!

Would you explain to me how _they_ acquired such real property? How
they maintain it? How they staff their offices? How their
"employees" go about eating?

I'm clearly out of the loop - I was kinda under the impression that
the group We assigned to manage land couldn't actually _own_ any land
since buying, maintaining, staffing, enforcing, [...],
it would require your money, Adam's money, and my money. I know I
didn't authorize their actions. I suspect Adam didn't authorize
their actions. So now we need a disclosure of precisely who did, and
precisely what public hearings in the interest of the public to which they are
SERVANTS decided this would be the case.

And that's the ultimate point: The BLM doesn't OWN _any_ land. We
The People can boot the entire lot of their leech-like and utterly
worthless hineys out to the street any time
we decide to defund them. Along with the rest of our alleged
"masters" who exist only to serve us.

Please don't fall into the trap of believing our government can own
diddly-squat - that's the root of the issue here - they've
overstepped the authority that WE have given them and need to be
reminded of such. Many of the People seem to have also forgotten who
actually runs this joint. They need to be reminded of who the
masters actually are.

Warmest Regards,

--- Jodie

Monday, December 3, 2012, 12:38:53 AM, you wrote:

> Hello Adam, All,
> You're insinuating a heck of a lot with phrases like "Twisting laws to
> fit a bureaucrat's immediate needs is not the proper way to go about
> it and is unconstitutional."

> I've already clearly explained why the 1906 Antiquities Act *might*
> logically be altered to accommodate for other groups of objects. It
> shouldn't matter whether they choose to modify that set of rules
> versus making an entirely new rule(s). Calling it "twisting" is just
> misleading. I address this in my last email, which you apparently
> replied to without reading.

> Or saying anything, really. The rest of what you say seems baseless
> to someone who knows nothing about which bureaucrat you're making
> these accusations, or what his or her apparently sinister goals are.
> Or how/why these new rules somehow disagree with the constitution.

> As for your eight year old -- even children who inadvertently find
> their parents' drugs in their coat pockets aren't prosecuted.

> http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2012/09/28/sacramento-man-arrested-after-6-year-old-child-brings-meth-to-school/

> You're being a little too dramatic for my taste.

> If you adhere to the notion that meteorites belong to whoever's land
> they're found on, I don't think you can really blame the BLM for
> keeping track of *their* meteorites. This all rings too much of the
> recent "occupation" of some of Berkeley's agricultural land.

> http://www.dailycal.org/2012/05/13/gill-tract-occupiers-disregard-democratic-process/

> Just as technically state-owned (UC) land cannot be appropriated by
> citizens, public property is not inherently "yours" for the taking.

> You should read my last email. It really does address the
> "antiquities" aspect of things.

> And if people are indeed making their livings by collecting BLM
> resources....well, why not complain about hunting permits, mining
> permits, or anything else like that? If you're selling meteorites from
> BLM land, it means that you're making money from finding them. Most
> such things require permits. It does seem inconvenient to me, so I
> can understand wanting to avoid having to abide by the new rules, but
> taking it this far just seems....a bit much.

> I've still yet to see a reason that I as a recreational meteorite
> hunter should care about these laws. Apparently the limit is 10 lbs
> per year, not 25. But how much Franconia do you really want?

> Jason

>> From: Adam Hupe <raremeteorites at yahoo.com>
>> Date: Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:53 PM
>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] BLM and Meteorite Recovery Policy
>> To: Adam <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>> You have heard the saying "give an inch and they will take a mile"
>> Richard Norton tried to warn anybody who would listen a decade ago.
>> Meteorites are no more antiques than the rocks in my back yard.
>> Twisting laws to fit a bureaucrat's immediate needs is not the proper
>> way to go about it and is unconstitutional. The word meteorite
>> couldn't even be found in a BLM officer's manual a mere year ago. Now
>> this has all changed.
>> The first 8-year old kid that picks up 10.01 pound meteorite will now
>> be considered a criminal.
>> Freedom isn't for free,
>> Adam
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: jason utas <jasonutas at gmail.com>
>> To: Meteorite-list <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 9:34 PM
>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] BLM and Meteorite Recovery Policy
>> Hello All,
>> I'd like to point out a few things:
>> As an active meteorite hunter/collector, the proposed regulations do
>> not affect me. These new rules primarily affect the commercial
>> interest in meteorite hunting -- those people who regularly hunt on
>> public land and sell their finds. A precious few people publish any
>> information on their more 'important' finds. It often takes years for
>> such information to reach the public, if it does at all.
>> Most of the single-specimen 25+ lb stones found on BLM land in the
>> past two decades have been kept secret and out of the public sphere of
>> knowledge. I know of a few such stones, and have no doubt that there
>> are more. They haven't been submitted for analysis, and you can't
>> find photos online. Not for fear of the government claiming them,
>> but because the finders don't want the attention...or competition in
>> the field.
>> Sonny Clary is one of the very few people I know who publishes that
>> kind of information. And now his finds are being touted as examples
>> of why private meteorite hunters are such a boon for science, despite
>> the fact that he is a very big exception when compared to the rest of
>> us Southwest hunters. [Or maybe you think that no one else is finding
>> large meteorites? Seems unlikely, doesn't it?] That said, such a law
>> won't change this practice of keeping important* finds secret, so I'm
>> still not seeing the point of supporting either side.
>> *Perhaps "large" (>25 lbs) isn't synonymous with "importance." Seems
>> like a qualitative judgement to me.
>> Granted, we amateur hunters find meteorites. But, as a group, our
>> primary interest isn't the advancement of science. That much is very
>> clear. We're all interested in it to different extents, but we're not
>> donating our finds to science beyond what we have to (some folks give
>> a bit more, but it's almost always a fraction of a given stone).
>> With regards to recovery, we do indeed accomplish more than scientists
>> could on their own. Battle Mountain is the best example of this in
>> recent years: a new fall that would not have been recovered without
>> amateurs. But, with collectors and dealers finding rocks, scientists
>> get a much smaller cut of the material, with the majority of it going
>> to sale/into collections (and with no guarantee of the quality of
>> curatorship).
>> No one against the law has yet addressed this topic, which I think may
>> be an aspect of the problem. And
>> no one is arguing that we amateurs don't provide a valuable service by
>> bringing new meteorites to light that would otherwise not (ever?) be
>> found. Nor do the proposed regulations inhibit the right or ability
>> of most hunters to continue to do what they've been doing. You guys
>> need to look at the regulations and what they're actually going to
>> change. Permits will theoretically be required for selling meteorites
>> found on BLM land and uncommonly large finds that aren't usually
>> reported anyway are theoretically going to have to be turned in to the
>> government.
>> ----------
>> The Antiquities Act -- yes, it seems a little odd to piggy-back
>> meteorites on an antiquity law that was not intended to include
>> meteorites. On the other hand, it's probably easier to pass
>> regulations on newly considered items by folding them into existing
>> regulatory categories. Instead of a new BLM department for regulating
>> meteorites, the government officials who went after artifacts can now
>> address both groups of items (meteorites + artifacts). This doesn't
>> seem like such an insane idea to me. Good? I don't know. Since the
>> new regulations don't affect me, I don't particularly care.
>> Were these new aspects of the law intended under the original
>> legislation? Nope. But it seems that the *intent* of the people
>> changing the law is to restrict the private for-profit exploitation of
>> meteorites found on public land. So, they are passing the laws that
>> they intend to pass, which aren't the laws that someone wanted back in
>> 1906. Of course, back in 1906, we didn't know that meteorites could
>> be collected on public land and sold for considerable profit, so the
>> fact that there wasn't a law then (and *perhaps* should be one now)
>> is...kind of logical.
>> Seems a little less crazy now, doesn't it?
>> All that's left to do is debate the pros and cons of these proposed
>> regulations. I would go about it by comparing the regulations'
>> merits and drawbacks. Making this a legal argument of "but they
>> weren't intended to be covered by this law in 1906" seems odd to me.
>> With Gebel Kamil in Egypt, some academics tried to say that meteorites
>> fell under an antiquities law when no qualifying laws/regulations had
>> ever been made. That didn't cut it for me. This is going through
>> actual legislative channels.
>> Generally, I don't like regulation, but...
>> After ~10 years of free-time-hunting, the largest stone Peter and I
>> have ever found out here in California weighs a measly few kilos.
>> Maybe when I find a 200 lb iron sitting out there, I'll think
>> differently. But the Smithsonian already confiscates the big
>> meteorites when they turn up (e.g. Old Woman). So....I'm not seeing
>> the difference between then and now -- unless you sell your finds and
>> don't like the idea of getting/renewing a permit every year. Even
>> though, if you fall into that category, you're taking meteorites that
>> legally belong the the BLM off of public land and selling them for
>> your own profit.
>> If it's a counter-argument the dealer population wishes to put forth,
>> then fine. But they should at least call it what it is. Meteorite
>> dealers make money by trading in a scientifically valuable commodity,
>> and protecting their right to sell meteorites found on public land in
>> the US is of course high on their list of interests.
>> It's a special interest.
>> ----------
>> Other things -
>> ----------
>> Martin - please stop using Australia as an example. We've gone over this:
>> Primarily:
>> http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dNthXb8AJ5cJ:six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2011-January/072151.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
>> And (scroll to my message):
>> http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:UaGbL6qt2gsJ:six.pairlist.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2010-December/072063.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
>> ----------
>> Adam - ambiguously bringing up stones like Kalahari 009 as examples of
>> mismanagement (private or public mis-management?) is odd. Since the
>> stone was found by a private party, if anything, it shows that
>> individual people aren't likely to be responsible curators of
>> meteorites. Having personally seen some prime examples of personal
>> *and* institutional mistreatment of meteorites, pointing out
>> individual examples doesn't accomplish much more than pointing
>> fingers.
>> I personally don't see why it's a horrible fact that Kalahari 009
>> wasn't studied as much as it could have been *when it was found.* We
>> haven't lost any information or scientific capability. Just time.
>> Science isn't running out of time.
>> Conversely, the meteorite could have been cut up and sold, with only a
>> small portion of it going to science. Which outcome is "better" is
>> entirely a matter of opinion.
>> ----------
>> Richard brought up the 300 lb Glorietta Mountain siderite as an
>> example of a wonderful meteorite that was brought to light by the
>> private sector.
>> I believe it is a perfect example of both sides of the issue. A large
>> (historic?) meteorite of significant size was found on public land.
>> It probably would never have been found without private sector effort.
>> It was then cut (almost entirely) and sold for profit. The largest
>> known mass of a large American meteorite that theoretically belonged
>> to the American public and probably should have gone to a museum, was
>> instead...well, it's gone. I hope you enjoy the photos. The finder
>> wasn't wrong to do that -- it was entirely his prerogative. He owned
>> it. But I believe that these new laws may be partly intended to keep
>> such things from happening.
>> Whether you see that as good or bad depends on your values, but I'd
>> like to share my own.
>> Would that meteorite ever have been found without the private sector?
>> None of us can say, but it does seem unlikely that it would have
>> happened in the near future. But we do know one thing for sure --
>> that monolithic meteorite is *gone,* and you can be certain that it's
>> not coming back. Ultimately, the specimen was a source of income for
>> a meteorite hunter, and the sum of what we have to show for it now is
>> a bunch of slices scattered around the world -- that I can't tell
>> apart from Seymchan.
>> ----------
>> Most of the large American meteorites discovered on public and private
>> land in the past few decades (that have surfaced) have been cut and no
>> longer exist. They were cut for profit. There's a very long list.
>> I like to think that there's a reason we really appreciate the
>> Smithsonian and AMNH to see large rocks. We enjoy seeing photo albums
>> from various museums' collections on Facebook. Big rocks from outer
>> space are great for outreach and education. And they're intact, so if
>> anyone ever wants to do research on them in any way, shape, or form in
>> the future, they're available for that.
>> We're the reason that so few of these rocks are being preserved,
>> despite the fact that we admire them. Isn't it odd?
>> The only reason that I feel I might oppose these new regulations now
>> is because there's the chance that if they're passed, they *could* be
>> made more stringent in the future. However, since the current wording
>> doesn't affect me, I don't mind it.
>> All of this adamant nay-saying seems a bit much.
>> Jason
>>> From: Martin Altmann <altmann at meteorite-martin.de>
>>> Date: Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 4:04 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] BLM and Meteorite Recovery Policy
>>> To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>> Hi Fred,
>>> "Artifact" would imply that your legislative authorities do believe in the
>>> existence of highly developed aliens somewhere between Mars and Jupiter.
>>> Maybe we can make here on the list a little collection to donate some more
>>> modern books than those of Percival Lowell to the Library of Congress, that
>>> this assumption has turned out to be unlikely.
>>> Uh coffee was perhaps a bad example - the prices for gasoline, energy,
>>> housing, meat will bring you immediately back!
>>> Can I sign too as non-citizen?
>>> Good night,
>>> (have to take my pills, was too talkative...)
>>> Martin
>>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: hall at meteorhall.com [mailto:hall at meteorhall.com]
>>> Gesendet: Montag, 3. Dezember 2012 00:32
>>> An: Martin Altmann
>>> Cc: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>> Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] BLM and Meteorite Recovery Policy
>>> Martin, is coffee a total cost of $7 per pound or are the taxes $7 per
>>> pound? If it is ONLY $7 per pound total cost, being a coffee drinker, I may
>>> consider moving to Germany, as we pay $9 to $11 per 12 ounces, plus sales
>>> tax, in most States of the USA!
>>> A meteorite should not be considered an "artifact" unless it is found in
>>> a Native American site or early American site. They are rocks, 99%+ never
>>> used by early man. Glorious rocks, but rocks none the less. If you find a
>>> rock on BLM land, other then petrified wood or fossils, you can haul it away
>>> even if it weighs 499 pounds. The petrified wood limit is 250 pounds per
>>> year per person.
>>> As for rocks, no permit is needed on BLM land UNLESS you want to mine for
>>> minerals. Picking up a rock, by hand, on the surface is not mining.
>>> Sign me up to end this new ruling by our lord and master, the BLM.
>>> Fred Hall
>>> ______________________________________________
>>> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
>>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>> ______________________________________________
>> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>> ______________________________________________
>> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> ______________________________________________

> Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

Best regards,
 Jodie                            mailto:spacerocks at spaceballoon.org
Received on Mon 03 Dec 2012 04:30:38 AM PST

Help support this free mailing list:

Yahoo MyWeb