[meteorite-list] BLM and Meteorite Recovery Policy

From: Dennis Miller <astroroks_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 11:45:33 -0600
Message-ID: <BAY174-W4426A48AF38041997DC64FB1400_at_phx.gbl>

Mike
Your description on the acquisition of the Americas is somewhat skewed.
A very large number of "Native Americans" traveled from the middle East
via the Baring strait, just shortly before the "Rednecks" arrived . Most
of the Western United States was taken from the natives (ie. Zuni and Hopi)
by these marauding invaders. Regardless, over one and a half million men
and women have fallen in two world wars to give me and the native americans
the right to wave our American Flag. Not a Swastika or Rising Sun flag.
Rant on!!
And have a Blessed Day! In the USA!
Dennis

  

 
> Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 11:18:26 -0500
> From: meteoritemike at gmail.com
> To: raremeteorites at yahoo.com
> CC: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] BLM and Meteorite Recovery Policy
>
> Every inch of BLM land and all of America was stolen from native
> American Indians - the true owners of this land. Not the government,
> not some flag-waving redneck whose ancestors butchered, lied, and
> raped their way into ownership of it. Gloss over it with history
> books all you want, but this belly-aching about our land being usurped
> by the government sounds awfully familiar to someone with Indian
> ancestry. BLM stole "your" land? Here's some smallpox-infected
> blankets to wipe your tears with.
>
> I don't like these new BLM regulations either. I think it's a
> power-grab. I think if it is enforced strictly, it will hurt science
> and all meteorite recovery.
>
> But get off this rigtheous nonsense about the land belonging to the
> people - it's nonsense. We own it because we stole it by force. How
> is that any different than what the BLM is trying to do now? Feel
> violated? Imagine. Ask an Indian about this issue, if you can find
> one.
>
> Best regards and happy hunting,
>
> MikeG
>
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Web - http://www.galactic-stone.com
> Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/galacticstone
> Twitter - http://twitter.com/GalacticStone
> Pinterest - http://pinterest.com/galacticstone
> RSS - http://www.galactic-stone.com/rss/126516
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> On 12/3/12, Adam Hupe <raremeteorites at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Jason,
> >
> >
> > I will let you have the last word after this. I believe in reality, not
> > conspiracies. The reality is that clueless people are controlling ours and
> > future generations' destinies and freedoms. You will learn this valuable
> > lesson later in life when everything you do is under the control of somebody
> > else.
> >
> > Our founding fathers would be appalled at what is going on these days,
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: jason utas <jasonutas at gmail.com>
> > To: Meteorite-list <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Monday, December 3, 2012 7:07 AM
> > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] BLM and Meteorite Recovery Policy
> >
> > Adam...with all due respect...
> >
> > You can't substantiate a single thing you say, but insist that I'm the
> > gullible one. I just told you how a system like that might operate
> > based off of logic and the structure of bureaucracies like the ones I
> > have to work with/against every day here at a huge public school.
> >
> > This isn't rubbish someone told me. It's the nature of the beast when
> > misguided attempts at efficiency are often the name of the game.
> > Sinister motives almost never come into play. Such decisions are
> > often the work of people who have worked within the bureaucracy for
> > twenty years, barely know how to use their computer, and understand
> > that the only way they'll be able to regulate the increasing
> > commercialization of meteorites found on public land isn't by
> > proposing what might be seen as a 'radical' new law, but rather by
> > amending an existing one.
> >
> > And unless you can offer some theory as to why or how a politician
> > might benefit from these new rules, it's really weird to insist upon
> > it. You're making huge negative generalizations -- and making it
> > sound like something of a conspiracy theory -- with nothing but
> > personal bias to back it up.
> >
> > Seems to me that you'd find any regulation not to your liking "crammed
> > down your throat." We live in a democracy, though. It happens. I'm
> > paying taxes for plenty of things I think are worthless, many of which
> > I voted against. C'est la vie.
> >
> > Re: Peter
> >
> >>One thing about the BLM regulations (not laws) is the prohibition on the
> > sales of meteorites found on BLM lands. That prohibition will just create a
> > black market for these meteorites that will keep them out of the hands of
> > science.
> >
> > Doubt it. The only meteorites from BLM land that are commonly sold
> > are Franconia, Gold Basin, etc. It's the odd other meteorite that
> > makes its way to the market. New falls are really what's at risk here
> > -- and possibly finds that weigh more than 10 lbs. For most dealers,
> > though, I can't see this as being an issue. Since most stones are
> > already being sold privately, it doesn't matter. If worst came to
> > worst, a finder could claim that they purchased or were given a given
> > stone in the field, and they would no longer be subject to the BLM
> > regulations that apply to finders.
> >
> > In short, there's no need for the development of a "black market,"
> > even if people wish to be unscrupulous. I think these new laws are
> > silly, but that's about it. I have the feeling that others are using
> > such strong language because they do fear later amendments that aren't
> > so easy to get around, but...I'll fight that battle if and/or when it
> > arises.
> >
> >>I believe that a ?free market? for meteorites encourages people to
> > hunt for meteorites.
> >
> > Perhaps. Most hunters in the Southwest seem to hold onto their finds,
> > by and large, but many do not. That said, this does not change the
> > free-market nature of meteorites in the US. If people follow the
> > rules, it will simply attach a nominal fee to hunting on BLM land
> > (and, theoretically, one could hold off on getting a permit until
> > after finding something in order to guarantee no unnecessary loss of
> > fees).
> >
> >>The more people hunting the more meteorites found. The
> > more meteorites found the more meteorites that can be studied by scientists.
> >
> > Right, but conjecturing that fewer meteorites will be found with the
> > new regulations seems odd to me. I'd be amazed to hear of anyone on
> > the list planning to hunt less based on the new regulations.
> >
> >>Perhaps the terms of the
> > permit could be something along the lines of a $100 onetime fee that would
> > allow the hunter to hunt on BLM managed land. If the permits require
> > environmental impact statements and/or large fees none will be sought or
> > issued.
> >
> > Of course. I'm guessing the ease of getting a permit will be along
> > the lines of a hunting permit, but there's really no way to know that
> > without trying to get one. Since the selling permit wouldn't raise
> > the collection limit or allow industrial hunting equipment, it seems
> > unlikely that they would required EOR-type material. The only likely
> > disadvantage I see is that hunters with a commercial/meteorite vending
> > permit will be more likely to have to pay taxes on their sales...if
> > they weren't already doing so.
> >
> > Jason
> >
> >
> >
> >> From: Adam Hupe <raremeteorites at yahoo.com>
> >> Date: Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 6:37 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] BLM and Meteorite Recovery Policy
> >> To: Adam <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I have never sold a single piece I have found on federal land and this
> >> is not what it is about for me. I do not see how I am being overly
> >> dramatic when our rights are being trampled by people who watch too
> >> much television, believe everything they read on the net and are
> >> clueless. You have much to learn if you think the government
> >> bureaucrats are out to protect you. It is all about careers, power
> >> and money for those who push pencils behind a desk. It is rare these
> >> days to find a bureaucrat that actually wants to serve his base
> >> without alternative motives.
> >>
> >> A very few regulations are a good thing but not when they are crammed
> >> down your throat by an uninformed bureaucrat who has not even vetted
> >> the real issues,
> >>
> >> Adam.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: jason utas <jasonutas at gmail.com>
> >> To: Meteorite-list <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> >> Cc:
> >> Sent: Monday, December 3, 2012 12:38 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] BLM and Meteorite Recovery Policy
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>
Received on Mon 03 Dec 2012 12:45:33 PM PST