[meteorite-list] Man Claims Rockhaven Meteorite Find

From: Martin Altmann <altmann_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 13:45:10 +0100
Message-ID: <006e01ccf484$7b64dd50$722e97f0$_at_de>

Hi there,

we shouldn't forget to applaud the Canadians here.

While in former times they applied their laws in the strictest possible
manner, not using the flexibility the laws allow,
they meanwhile have profoundly changed the opus moderandi to a positive and
for the generation of new and old meteoritic finds fruitful and fair way.
Since then we observed a positive development - Buzzard Coulee, Springwater,
Whitecourt...

So I think one can say, that Canada acted exemplary, especially for these
countries still suffering - regarding the decline or stagnation of the
number of new finds or the volume of the tkws of old finds of national
meteorites - under too strict legislation.


Remark:

The Schmitt-paper, at least I wouldn't commend it, as it is tendentious and
contains central pieces of information, which were already at the time, when
it was written, wrong.

Especially the information about these countries are incorrect:

New Zealand.
Other than given there, meteorites are not defined as antiquities in the
1975/1990 acts.
And these acts apply only on meteorites found in New Zealand.
(That discrimination is important, as there exist countries, where
meteorites in general, not only those found in the country, are subject to
regulations and laws).

Switzerland.
There the finds are not owned by the cantons,
but there is the right of preemption by the canton in effect.

Denmark,
there I heard by pers.comm.
that the museum is deciding, whether an object is of unique scientific value
and whether it will take the object, giving the deliverer a
compensation/reward.
If the decision is negative, the finder can keep it and won't need any
permits for exportation neither.

India,
there I have no information,
but here on the list was reported a case, where a meteorite was saif to be
legally exported.


UNESCO 1970,
there the interpretation by Schmitt is legally not tenable.

Using the technique of distorting omissions Schmitt applies in quoting Art
1,
one could manage to give the impression that also farm products like bananas
and corn
would be defined as moveable cultural heritage too.

But more important UNESCO 1970 is an agreement of harmonizing national
legislation between states and does not apply to individual legal persons.

A ratification of the convention by a country and/or the building of a
national permitting agency does not set meteorites under the protection of
the convention (which by the way are not mentioned at all in the
convention's text).
Only if meteorites are explicitly added to the individual national list of
moveable heritage, which each ratifying country is obligated to set up, then
they become subject to the UNESCO convention.

Only a very few single countries of those, which have ratified the
convention, did so. E.g. Australia and South Africa.

So all in all, Chris, if already half of the essential core information of
the paper had been proven wrong,
I think it is not directly helpful to use it or to refer to it. It had
caused already enough misunderstandings, especially the short form, the
abstract of that paper, which was often referred to in media & press in
past,
when there were news about a new fall or a major find.


Best,
Martin






-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
[mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Chris
Spratt
Gesendet: Samstag, 25. Februar 2012 23:15
An: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Man Claims Rockhaven Meteorite Find

I've been questioned on my last post. My self and a fellow collector
(also a Canadian) queried about re-exporting a repatriated
Canadian meteorite and received this from Richard Herd curator of the
National Meteorite Collection in Ottawa.


"Once Canadian meteorites are repatriated, they become as they always
were: cultural property (any mass even a nanogram) and subject to the
Cultural Property Export and Import Act (1977); they need a permit to be
re-exported regardless of their provenance/collection history. There has
been debate about the so-called 35-year rule."

Chris. Spratt
Victoria, BC
Canada

______________________________________________

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 Sun 26 Feb 2012 07:45:10 AM PST