[meteorite-list] New BLM regs: Tempest in a teacup?

From: Count Deiro <countdeiro_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 22:17:21 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
Message-ID: <27957774.1349068641436.JavaMail.root_at_wamui-june.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

Sorry Norm. Your take on the BLM being some kind of begnign overseer who will look the other way couldn't be farther from the truth. Just wait till the next highly publicized fall amd someone admits to picking up something significant from public land. The BLM will be all over him/her like white on a golf ball. What! No permit? Didn't know this land was restricted? Gimme that! Here! Take this citation!

Guido

-----Original Message-----
>From: Norm Lehrman <nlehrman at nvbell.net>
>Sent: Sep 30, 2012 8:17 PM
>To: Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>Subject: [meteorite-list] New BLM regs: Tempest in a teacup?
>
>All,
>
>I have been following this thread with great confusion, and maybe there IS
>something I don't understand.? Meteorite collecting has previously fallen under
>the general rules of rockhounding, and the new changes merely formalize a
>specific policy that is no great change from the past rules.? I am quite sure I
>will be hugey chastised for my ignorance.? Please correct me if I missed
>something.
>
>The previous rules said 25 pounds and/or ?one rock.? Now it's 10 pounds and no
>provision for the big one with respect to meteorites.? How often will that
>actually afect us?? Almost never.? The use of motorized vehicles off marked
>roads is also a general policy, not just for us.? Metal detectors are explicitly
>allowed.? Surely a magnet on a stick is also still fine.
>
>Commercial exploitation of BLM ground is subject to a long standing guideline.?
>Find a monster?? It is only fair that the land-owner (all Americans) should get
>some benefit.? This is no change.? If you want to harvest building stones or
>ornamental boulders, you pay a fee.? We will too.? No real change.
>
>I see no great disaster here.? Just a formalization of a specific policy, thanks
>(?)? to our own loud self-promotion in its various forms.? Of course they had to
>get explicit.? It is not much more than a clear, specific, restatement of the
>rules we were all subject to before now.? Or did no one understand this?? Yes,
>they may choose to make their point by prosecuting someone, but I will be amazed
>if this involves changes in the law.? Just enforcement of those already extant.?
>At worst with fairly minor changes.
>
>Have at it.? I am waiting to be reprimanded for my folly.? What am I missing?
>
>Best,
>Norm (www.tektitesource.com)
>______________________________________________
>
>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 Mon 01 Oct 2012 01:17:21 AM PDT