[meteorite-list] BLM and Meteorite Recovery Policy

From: Martin Altmann <altmann_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 23:16:04 +0100
Message-ID: <004401cdd1a3$c9738d00$5c5aa700$_at_de>

And to adress your often changing conclusions..

I think, one hardly can use it as an argument, that there would be no rush.
Academics and non-academics tend to live in the present.
Why sending all these rovers to Mars, why did we fly to the Moon,
Why spending so much money in developing nuclear fusion, genetic
engineering,
and a new generations of cellphones, where you one day will be able to do
such a crazy thing like to call a person...

when all this can be done also in 100 or in 1000 years?


The more I read your lines, I'm getting convinced,
that your ansatz (read in my dictionary that it is a good English world)
is spectacularly revolutionary:

To solve all this mess, you think, it would be best, to eliminate the
meteorites from meteoritics.

Well, that could be a way, but I fear it will relatively difficult to
convince the science side from that idea.

As long as I follow the debate,
the problem which scientists brought up and which led here and there to
"problematic" regulations, was:
We want meteorites, we want more and significant meteorites, and we want to
be able to afford them.

So for all it was the point in the debate, how their wishes can be met
better.

There, if a baseline study is made, the outcome is, that their gut feelings,
that their situation would have worsened by the commercial use of
meteorites, is unfounded.
As there are the records of the 200 years before, that science had much less
meteorites, a smaller quantity of meteorites, and that in all the time
before they had to spent more money for these fewer meteorites.

If one manages to bring these facts home to these ones , still worried,
I guess, these worries would be immediately off the stove,
Likewise we'd had no debates about necessary and unnecessary legislation
anylonger.


A little bit sad I am,
that you after all the discussions over the years still adhere to the
bone-old bugaboo,
the big and hostile antagony of dealers/hunters driven solely by their greed
on the one side
and relatively helpless victims - science and meteoricists altruistic
working for more love than money and a the greater good of knowledge on the
other side.

For that comics-like notion (remember William Barriere), it is interesting,
you'll find evidences in literature and old media only for a relatively
short span of time, as far as I can see, mainly beginning in the 1980s,
intensifying in the second half of the 1990s and on a different level in the
2000s,
But currently getting better again.

So it is likely, that the very most people, deeper in meteoritics, have long
overcome that perception and also for you, I think, that distorted image
should be not worthy to continue to stick on further.

Well dicing meteorites...
If you go to the lab at your university, there you will be told, that it is
relatively difficult to craft a complete thin section of a mass of a
hundredweight,
and that they would get difficulties with the boss, if they would try to
stuff such a chunk of rock into the microprobe.

The technical advance brought also some very trivial pros.
A department hasn't to acquire anymore meteorites by the kilo, but servings
of a few grams are often enough to do complete and comprehensive research.
And if you ask them, how they'd like to use their funds - to purchase one or
two large meteorites or rather to work on fifty or more different ones for
the same expenses,
Well... I presume, most would prefer the latter.

One thing, I admit, is my fault, a cultural oblivion: I forgot often, that
in other countries there the thinking in social categories, like e.g. a
caste of academics is still much stronger pronounced than in Western Europe.
We had here some changes caused by the 1968s movements. You can check it
best on cemeteries, already in the 1970 it was an anachronism to chisel
expressions like "widow of professor" or "councilman's wife" into the
tombstones. In scientific discourses here more the methods and results are
deemed more interesting and important than always the titles.
Btw. not only that changed then, also the position of women in science.
Note, especially in meteorites - the ratio of female and male meteoricists
is relatively even. Strangely enough not at all among the private meteorite
collectors.


Well Australia,
Australia is interesting because we have strong indications, that at least
as many meteorites of especial scientific interest could be found there like
in Oman and more than in the U.S.-dry states and on BLM land.
Simply because those rare and rarest stones were mainly already found there
before in Australia, when there hunting and searching still took place.
And I believe, many of the hunter experts would love much more to work in
Australia, than to gather together some boring remainders, pardon me, boring
in the scientific terms, cause already manifold investigated, of Glorieta or
Holbrook.
Or to hunt in Algeria. Cause you said, that there wouldn't be such laws in
place.
An Algerian meteoricist gloats in an publication, also available on web,
what for - I quote "draconian" punishments were introduced regarding
meteorites there.


Well, and that thing with the greed.
I'm not sure, whether your writings is meant to be ironical,
and whether your own steps in that direction are really an academic approach
for study purposes, when I see on your homepage stones offered, where you
paid the same lousy prices to the Moroccan colleagues,
and where you are driving artificially the prices for instance by selling
Martians, which are unclassified and not examined by a meteoricist via
selfpairing at prices of their regularly classified pairings, despite them
having a lower collectors' value and therefore a lower monetary value.

Finally, the idyllic view, that in former times the big collections obtained
their materials by altruistic donations and that the new falls felt without
any efforts automatically in their arms - is an utopia.
Most they bought from dealers and private collectors, the latter at least
two-fisted like the professionals or they swapped.

Also almost a little bit slanderous towards the curators in charge is your
opinion, that they would be really so uneducated and stupid to trade out
lumps of gold versus wrinkled apples,
And that they would be forced to do so. Ouch!

All in all, if you regard meteorites as historical collectibles
(for most meteoricists the circumstances when and under which particular
circumstances a stone felt is of secondary interest, as they are more
interested in what was going out there in space and in the history of their
formation and their parent bodies),

there I must ask you, where is the historical (and cultural) meaning of the
not yet found stone in the desert or in the unfound stone after a fall?
To me, such a stone can only acquire his cultural or historic properties,
when a basic condition is fulfilled: That it is recovered before.

And else, I think you will agree, that we can keep historical meteorites
completely out of the discussion. Firstly: They are all present already in
the institutional collections, so in case at hand for science and their
distribution is an internal affair between scientists,
Secondly their pricing is determined by their availability. And they are so
expensive, because the availability is so strongly reduced, because they are
just locked in the museums.

If we should work on that, that new meteorites newly found should gain the
same status, I think, that would be of no advance for anyone.


Well and in general,
for getting meteorites, you have to go out and to find them.
Don't you think too, that a highly trained professor isn't somewhat
over-qualified to hunt most time in the field to find like all others mostly
old W3 OCs - instead to work in research and teaching?

To send out a hunter is anyway cheaper, as he is not alimented by the state,
has to care by his own of his pension and insurances - and in case of him
finding nothing, state has to pay: nothing.

Btw. another assumption,
cause the BLM laws facilitate hobby collecting more than commercial.
I could think, that an amateur would tend much more to keep his finds for
himself, than to deliver it to science.
Furthermore a professional hunter or dealer is forced to generate his annual
turnover, therefore he has to calculate more strictly and has to ask
realistic prices,
while for an amateur it is not so crucial to get his stones sold, so that he
can better write more expensive prices on them, cause it doesn't matter, if
it remains still unsold in 10 years.
Another advantage professional dealers own towards amateurs, at least if
they are selling to national institutes is, that if we think more globally,
they automatically subsidize a good portion of the selling price.
Look, if I sell to a German university, with a tax&dues quote of larger 50%
here,
I anyway have to sent half of the money, they transfer on my account, back
to the state, which in turn equips these institutes with money.

Finally, the "disappearing" of new finds.
Please, look in the machine. The most sensational stones of the 1990s, the
first DaG lunars and Martians, even Zagami, also the larger of the rarest
types of the >10 years old Dhofars are still and readily available.
If a rare stone disappears, then anyway the tkw was so small, that only a
few labs ever would have been able to work on. In these cases, one would
have to do all, that pairings could be found, like it happened with many of
the rarest NWAs, starting from NWA 011 on.
You can't do that, if you forbid trade.

And again finally,
Why do you stick on your 20 grams.
Yuhuuuu Jason, Good morning, go to the accounting department of your
university, I guess the figures are public.
Science costs and all departments have to spend money for their research
supplies!
As well as any professor would refuse to work for an university, when he
wouldn't be paid for that. Why the heck, then meteorite hunters should not
be paid for their performance?
And btw. check it out, how much that is in other departments, compared to
the tiny niche in the Planetary and Earth department called meteoritics.

As well as any curator of any collection, let it be arts, let it be
libraries, let it be technical collections, let it be history museums have
to spend money for acquiring their objects for exposition and for the
inventory and for their research.

Why should be then meteorites the only exception?

And there the meteorite market is so comfortable, cause it is so manageably
small, that you easily can oversee it, and so comfortable, cause 95% of the
meteorites will be sold in public on internet.

Ask a curator of an antiques or arts museum,
What for a stress or work it is for them, to be at least partially informed,
which objects of their desire will be when and where and at which prices
offered for sale!
They would envy any meteorite curator, how easy accessible meteorites are.


So, but now it's time for my pills,
switching me to a mute mode.

Best wishes
Martin


 






-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
[mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von jason
utas
Gesendet: Montag, 3. Dezember 2012 18:19
An: Meteorite-list
Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] BLM and Meteorite Recovery Policy

Hello Martin,

To address your unhealthily long post...

> I see a logical inconsistency in your argumentation.
> On the one hand you mourn that due to the activities of commercially
> oriented hunters and dealers, the scientific process and the institutional
> collecting would be deprived of newly found meteoritic material,
>
> and in the next break you concede, that meteoritic material wouldn't be
> found at all, if not the commercial oriented people would search for it.

It's not a logical inconsistency. I'm just stating the facts.
Amateurs are responsible for recovering many meteorites. We're also
responsible for irreparably destroying many of the important ones that
are recovered.

> Also your opinion, that in 1906 the meteoritical world regarding the
access
> of the material would have been different is not backed historically.

Not sure what you're getting at. Back in 1906, the scientific
community had the resources to obtain nearly every meteorite that was
found, and meteorites resided almost solely with people of academic
credentials. To say nothing of the fact that no scientific minds
considered it worthwhile to waste their time looking for these 'rarest
of the rare' rocks. Times have changed in too many ways to tell, and
suggesting that people back in 1906 could have foreseen the
commercialization of meteorites from BLM land is simply ridiculous.

> How do you think, how Smithssonian, the Field musem, the ASU (and London,
> Vienna, Berlin, Paris) assembled their collections, the basics of all
> meteoritical scientific works?

A variety of means. They generally purchase specimens individually or
as collections that have historically been accumulated by academics
who worked or were somehow affiliated with the given institution.
Some specimens were donated. Only recently have institutions begun to
reply more upon 20g analytical snippets of stones to increase the
breadth of their collections.

> They purchased that material, that was the most efficient and fruitful way
> to get meteorites and a matter of course also in the 19.th century.
> Some of the annals of these museums e.g. those of Vienna you can find
> completely digitalized on web. There you can find the yearly reports,
which
> meteorites were acquired, from whom and at which prices, same one should
> find in the archives of any museum.

Mhm.

> A large problem is in my eyes, that if a state decides to annex all
> meteorites and to ban any hunting or commercial use of meteorites,
> that then those deciding to do so, have no alternative way to offer, how
the
> institutions and universities shall retrieve their meteorites then in
> future.

I don't know. Good thing that's not being suggested by anyone. Of
course, I've already illustrated that such laws were almost certainly
*not* the reason for the perceived slow-down of finds from Australia,
so I"m not even sure if this is a valid conjecture. If all hunting
were banned, sure, no finds would be made. But no nation has banned
the finding of meteorites in general, so it's kind of an odd
suggestion to make.

> If we think that practically, we don't have to discuss about the ideology
> behind, whether it is legitimate for a state or for a scientific
institution
> to override the normal civil rights of ownership of their citizens (and
that
> special-laws are for a jurist certainly a remarkable exception - note that
> btw. in more countries, which are democracies and states of law special
> meteorite legislation is in place, than in totalitarian states like China,
> former East-Germany, Russia ect.).

I can't walk onto BLM (or other public) land and take anything I want,
sans regulation. If you follow this logic, it makes sense for the BLM
to put similar limits on meteorites as it does on items like fossils
and petrified wood. Except, meteorites are of greater scientific
value than most of these items, so perhaps the logical conclusion
would be for the BLM to apply its rules for vertebrate fossils (much
more strict).

There's a reason we have the BLM to keep people from wantonly using
bulldozers and explosives to get at the veins they want or from
removing massive petrified trees from public land. Meteorites, too?
Kind of makes sense to me. I don't like the idea of additional rules
in general, but, as I've already pointed out, the proposed changes
really don't affect me.

> Where are the alternatives?
> We have the very costs-intensive Antarctic programs, no one can have
> objections against that, science costs. Though we can't blind out, that
the
> commercially used meteorites are easier accessible for the scientist,
offer
> a larger variety and quantity and are with a gigantic factor cheaper.

Well, you're talking about alternatives once *extremely stringent*
laws are in place. Since that situation is not on the table, I don't
really get the point of discussing this scenario. Alternatives would
be moonlighting, getting permits, or....who knows. It depends on the
exact wording of the laws and loopholes that would undoubtedly be
present.

> And the only other meteorite recovery program is that of the Suisse
> universities in cooperation with Oman, a couple of searchers for a few
weeks
> per year.

Of course, they *are* collecting meteorites that have spent thousands
of years on Earth and aren't going anywhere. I'm glad that the Swiss
team is going out there, and they have a few hundred years to hunt out
Oman without any appreciable change in the meteorites that are sitting
there now. Private parties could pick up many more meteorites more
quickly, but....there's no point to that. We already have more
meteorites than we can study, and still don't even understand how
chondrules formed!

> And there is the dilemma, in general most universities have neither the
> personnel nor the funding to equip and to carry out own substantial and
> permanent search activities.

I'd argue that they simply choose not to do so on such a level because
they see meteorite hunters as "recovery professionals," but that's
based on my personal experience having hunted at Sutter's Mill,
Novato, and a few other falls. Few professional academics put forth
the time or effort to excel at hunting or otherwise recovering
meteorites, because there's always a swarm of "skilled hunters"
whenever something interesting falls or is found. Up until the
1980's, this wasn't the case.

> Commercial dealers and hunters are not to blame for the underfunding of
the
> university departments, as they are not part of these public institutions.

I don't. I blame the largely social gap between academia and the rest
of us hunters/collectors/dealers.

> So, those champions of the cause, to eliminate commercialism from
> meteoritics, fail to present, how the scientists shall in future get their
> new meteorites.
> For me, such legislation is a short-circuit.

Except, you don't seem to understand the mellow nature of the laws
being proposed. The laws as they have been proposed would not have
kept me from legally having found and kept a single stone that I've
found in my past ~10 years spent hunting the Southwest.

> Also it is the question, if soberly regarded the past, hence the number
and
> kind of finds, the effective costs for the labs and institiutes, whether
> such laws are necessary at all.

That's another matter entirely. The new laws seem useless and
ineffectual to me. They don't do any good, nor do they change things
for the worse. They're just kind of there.

> Simple example - Slovakia - Lenarto, Gro?-Divina, Magura, Nagy-Borov?,
> Rumanov? - where ended up the main masses? In the Slovak National
> collection.
> Therefore, why to introduce a meteorite law?
> Obviously there it was never the case, that commercialism hindered
national
> science to get the Slovak meteorites.

Since most of those meteorites were found back in the days when
meteorites went straight to academics/institutions, your point is
moot. The regulations would be useful were a meteorite to be found in
that country today. Instead of 20 grams going to an institution, the
meteorite would go to a museum.

Which perhaps raises a good point. I'd argue that such restrictive
laws are better when placed in countries where it is impractical for
hunters to spend much time hunting (e.g. a wet climate with few
meteorites). Meteorites in such places are more likely to be found by
locals going about their business, and are more likely to be large/of
potential historic importance for the nation.

...And Magura was mostly melted for industrial purposes, if I'm not
mistaken, not that it matters.

> Take Poland, there the recent "official" meteorite retrieving action dates
> back more than 50 years. Meteorite research in our decade on universities
> doesn't take place there, all the long meteoritical tradition there is
> maintained at 98% by private collectors and dealers.
> Is therefore really an export restriction necessary, where is the public
> interest?

That's not true at all, now. I daresay a polish fellow named Thomasz
J. would have to disagree with you, as would a number of his friends
and colleagues.

> Please, can you tell me, why I shouldn't use Australia as an example
> anymore?

See the links I posted. Same information as before.

> For Nick I recommend by the way, to paint simply a graph of the published
> new finds in Australia per year from the Bulletins.
> Nothing is so striking for the eye.
> Of course you can discuss, what the reasons all could be, that the finds -
> and I knowingly say, the published finds - because that is the indicator,
> whether a meteorite really did reach "science" took such a breaking-down,
> that Australia had suddenly nowadays not more finds than in the 1850s. And
> if you reflect this numbers with the total numbers of finds before.
> Keeping in mind, that in other countries, like USA in the recent decade
and
> a little before, the number of finds were steeply climbing (not to mention
> the desert).

We've gone over this. See the links from my last email. The numbers
drop independently of the dates important for the passing of
legislation, and rise in recent years as well.

> Hence no matter, which opinion one has - the situation is for all not
> satisfying at all,
> and one can't deny, that the Australian laws of the 1970s and of the
1980s,
> yielded no improvement for the Australian meteorite science.

Laws are not likely to improve or hinder science unless they do
idiotic things like regulate the teaching of science to children.

> But seemed to be rather a step backwards.

To you, perhaps. Rather subjective, given that we disagree on this.

> Maybe also for the meteoricists too, if I remember, that now for 20 years
> 300 Australian OCs are said to be still unclassified lying in Perth.
> Obviously, there is a lack of scientific resources.

Perhaps. Yet, why is that a problem? Does it matter so long as the
stones are being safely curated? Does it hurt science in some way
that some stones will not be analyzed within weeks of being found so
that they might be cut and sold before someone else brings the same
material to the market?

I don't get it.

There's also a backlog of thousands of stones recovered by us, from
NWA, Oman, etc., that have been sold off as souvenirs, and turned into
beads and jewelry. I was amazed to see faceted CV3(?) stones in
Tucson last year from a find I did not recognize. As best I could
tell, a new carbonaceous chondrite had been turned into "gems."
That's one that will probably never be analyzed.

We're doing more harm than the scientists, even if we're also doing some
good.

> O.k., you have there the new fireball-network.
> The main point in applying for the financial funding was the chance and
the
> probability to raise the number of newly recovered meteorites remarkably.

In the short-term. In the long-term, the meteorites aren't going
anywhere. Australians have a few hundred years before any of the
meteorites sitting on the ground over there change appreciably. But
you're arguing that those stones should be picked up NOW. I don't get
why.

Well, you're saying that amateurs such as yourself who stand to gain
from collecting them and selling them should be doing the field work.
I'm betting that's the "why."

> Of course a praiseworthy project and Ansatz.
> Nevertheless again the lack of personnel and time foils that aim,
> Cause as it's given on the homepage, they do catch fireballs, their
spectra
> and calculate the point of fall - but unfortunately they have not the
means
> to search for the droppers more than a few days per year and with a small
> team.

I don't feel qualified to comment on how thorough a job they do, nor
am I so quick to criticize them without seeing the data. That said,
given the nature of Australia (size, remoteness, etc.), I highly doubt
that most fireballs they don't go after would yield commercially
viable results. Who knows. Need numbers to tell.

> Here in Europe, where the fireball network would be glad to have a
fraction
> of their funds,

So they don't have enough time in the field but have too much money
for the cameras? Now I'm confused.

> The affair depends strongly on private, voluntary helpers. As well as they
> use for hunting the help of laypeople and professional hunters - with the
> great success of my first homeland meteorite for more than 100 years.

Such a thing makes more sense in Europe where there are plenty of
people. The same isn't true for much of Australia. Which isn't to
say that they shouldn't make their data public, but if they are
expending so much in the way of resources, they should have the first
shot at the sites they've pinpointed...before private parties come in,
sweep the areas clean, and leave them with only 20 grams.

> And of course, you can say, that in Australia they could have a different
> focus on other scientific questions in meteoritics, than to analyze the
> stones. On fall dynamics, statistics ect.
> But then a private hunting would not affect them at all and the
prohibition
> is unnecessary.

Well, you're assuming quite a bit about the degree of thoroughness of
the hunters and their professionalism. I've seen a recent increase in
the number of folks on facebook posting photos of piles of meteorite
fragments collected on lakebeds without coordinates, etc. Many
amateurs keep good records. Many don't.

> These are the main difficulties.
> Take the last efforts for meteorite recovery in Europe.
> EUROMET was closed down, because it had annual running costs of 20 million
> USD (source EUROMET), while the finds were relatively modest (one year
> stones, which all in all, which one can buy at a commercial dealer at
> 15-30.000$).
> The ending of the program was a weighing up, done by administration and
> scientists,
> Again, commercialism had nothing to do with that at all.

Yes and no. If the meteorites weren't obtainable from dealers, etc.,
the program would have been worthwhile, for better or for worse. On
the other hand, we do directly control the monetary value of
meteorites (and have decided that most meteorites aren't worth $20
million).

Which is probably a good thing for science, but, as I say above, it's
not that this is a logical inconsistency. It's just two sides of the
same issue.

> Therfore, I think, the problem isn't the commercialism, but rather the
> internal structures in the science process are defective.

That's pretty harsh. Our side is the one disseminating misrepresented
meteorites, cutting historic specimens, and limiting scientific access
to some of the most interesting (and thus valuable) meteorites.

Whether 300 Australian chondrites get analyzed tomorrow or ten years
from now hurts no one. Except perhaps the finders if they wish to
sell them, but since many (most?) new Australian meteorites get
through, it seems that this sort of hold up is not the norm.

> Btw. Puff is part of the trade. Dealers and hunters are the same
lachrymose
> as curators and meteoricists.

Eh?

> Note, that if a new meteorite is sensational enough,
> many institutes don't have all but sudden no problem to acquire the stuff.
> Look, how fast we found a fat Tissint in Vienna, in London, in
Flagstaff...
> And how many dozens and dozens scientists at universities are working on
> samples.

I'm not sure what to make of falls like Tissint. We
hunters/collectors/dealers did nothing but purchase stones from
locals, and any institutions could ultimately have done the same,
obtaining stones for a fraction of the cost that they ultimately paid.
 Dealers simply used their insider-trading knowledge to get access to
stones, etc. In theory they acted as intermediaries, but when the
risks are next to nil and the work involved consists of fronting money
(perhaps) and picking a box off of one's front step, I'd hardly say
that we did science a service.

Moroccan hunters came about through our commercial demand for rocks,
but I would hesitate before taking scientific credit for their
recoveries.

> An excellent example, that your black&white painting, that there would be
a
> harmful opposition between privacy and science doesn't exist.

Depends on who you ask. I don't see such a line, and don't know why
you're suggesting that I view the world in such a manner, but I do
know some folks who do.

> In fact, just take a look on the number of papers published about
> meteorites.
> Fact is, that due to the intense private activities, the science received
> the recent years an opportunity, they never had before. A huge mass of
> scientifically uninteresting but also a huge mass of extremely intriguing
> meteorites - and that at so low costs, like never before in history. And
> that either costs-neutral via swapping, or cheap by buying.

Yep. Too many meteorites to work on, and many important meteorites
sliced and sold off, gone. I guess it's good for science? Hard to
say.

> I can't find any reason, why we should turn the wheel back in time.
> We're at number 7000 with the NWAs, at Dhofar 1800 and so on, thousands of
> unclassified ones, more new falls recovered in countries, where it else
> would have been unlikely, that after a bolide, stone would have been found
> at all, cause the hunters and collectors are going there. Due to the
higher
> number of participants we get much higher tkws as it would be else
possible.
> New main masses of old finds are found.
> 20 times or more more meteorites, then when I put my hand for the first
time
> on a meteorite in the early 1980s.

You're kind of illustrating my point when you bring up new main masses
of old finds. Those meteorites sat there for thousands of years in
most cases, and they weren't about to disappear any time soon. Even
*if* you're going to assume that regulations are going to limit
hunting (and the proposed BLM ones don't look like they will), I don't
see it hurting science in the long run. We still don't understand
many of the basic ideas behind the formation of meteorites, and more
and more new meteorites aren't likely to solve those questions.
Innovative research ideas are much more likely tools.

> And I think, your opinion, that commercialism would be the reason, that
> scientists wouldn't receive any meteorites of interest anymore or much
less
> than in former times, I guess originates from your lack of knowledge.

I didn't say that at all. Lol. I said that they receive more such
meteorites as a whole, but usually have smaller amounts of each to
work with. They're trying to get more and more information out of
smaller pieces of rock. Where before they had kilograms to study, now
they have 20 grams. Sometimes a bit more depending on the dealer.

> You should speak once with the professional dealers, hardly anyone, who
> isn't in contact with scientists and hasn't dozens and dozens of
university
> and museums addresses in his clients list, interacting regularly with them
> in selling or swapping samples.

Right. Rare bits and pieces are traded for chunks of historic stones
and irons from years past. I heard one dealer claim that he was
trading away a new find to "rescue" historic meteorites from sitting
in drawers. The trouble is that spectacular meteorites like the main
mass of Imilac are destroyed so that a dealer can get some slices to
sell. In many cases, institutions are coerced into trading older
material of scientific and historic importance in order to obtain
samples of newer 'sensational' finds, and they ultimately lose out,
disproportionately thinning their collections for greedy dealers.

> A matter of course, cause one hardly could do meteorites for a living, if
> one would solely have to rely on the purchase power of the specialized
> private collectors.

That is likely true enough.

> In fact, all inducement enough to be meteoritically extremely happy, isn't
> it?

?

> Yep, I got your point long ago, that many meteorites are lacking field
data,
> making a work on the terrestrial aspects of that part of science
impossible.
> But you can't have all, what you want.

Not if you want to collect thousands of meteorites in a few years --
so many that you can't even analyze them all.

But...what's the rush?

> To one respect, that not so fine situation is directly caused by newly
> introduced laws.
> If suddenly a country forbids ownership on meteorites, the people having
> hunted them all the time before, have two choices: to be suddenly illegal
> and to carry on, or to quit.
> In the latter case you won't have the coordinates, weights, distribution,
> population data neither, but - in my eyes worse - neither the stone
> themselves.

Again, it's a good thing that no one is suggesting such a law.

> To the other respect, it is a simple matter of costs.
> Even if it technically and legally would be possible, to enable the
> anonymous hunters in the desert to retrieve full field data - it simply
> would cost money.

And we do pay more for meteorites with coordinates, etc. We choose to.

> As well as if a country introduces cumbersome and longsome permit and
> documentary processes,
> it would be a cost factor.

Of what? If each dealer had to renew a permit once a year for $250,
it wouldn't add much to their overhead. Inconvenient, maybe. Adding
to costs? Perhaps $1 per meteorite? Not even.

> (Btw. it seems, that several countries with
> meteorite legacy haven't no practical implementation of these low, in
> existing no offices, where you could get the paperwork).

Fortunately, the US seems to do well with that sort of thing.
Reasonably so, at least.

> If nowadays, you and perhaps a few other bemoan, that meteorites are
already
> so expensive,
> what for an uproar that would be, if meteorites would get even more
> expensive,
> and that would a fortiori light that unhappy debate in the media of the
> $$$$$$ question,
> leading maybe to even more restrictions.

If Sutter's Mill were $1/g more, I don't think most people would care.
 Battle Mountain? Same thing. Gold Basin has stayed the same price
since we started collecting in 1998/9, so it has actually decreased in
monetary *value* in that time. Irons have increased in value perhaps
eight to ten times since we started collecting, and....people don't
seem to care much. Planetary meteorites have conversely decreased to
approximately 5% of their previous value -- some dealers used to
complain, but I don't hear much about it anymore.

> Be aware, and I mean, you by your own were down there,
> That this enormous boom of extremely cheap meteorites - gosh think back,
the
> times, where Western retailers sold OCs cheaper than cheese and good meat,
> R-Chondrites at 2-5$, Moon below 500$, HEDs at 1-3$,
> is solely based - and there is absolutely no difference when it comes up
> ethical discussions of consumption (see just the factory burned down in
> Bangladesh) of profiting from slavery work in buying your consumer goods
at
> discount prices -
> is solely based on the extreme poorness of the people actually finding
these
> meteorites in the desert for us and for science.

I've been there; I know. Many Moroccans are doing better now that
dealers are not tightly controlling the outflow of these stones.
Instead of purchasing rare stones for a pittance, the locals are at
least getting a fair share of the prices, which have also dropped due
to the fact that the supply of rare meteorites from places like NWA is
no longer controlled by a handful of people.

> I'm convinced, that the majority of the dealers involved would like to pay
> their sources much better - but it is a complete impossibility.

Having been in this business long enough, I wouldn't assume that
"most" dealers are so benevolent. From what I've seen, many would
just as soon cheat you.

> The dealers
> have to handle an extreme pricing pressure. The collectors are not able or
> not willing, to pay more, they would be unable to sell their goods. Put
> yourself in their places, they are acting in a stress-field, in an area of
> conflict - here they have to pay alms for stones, where they know of, that
> 10-15 years they would have been worth a fortune - there they have the
> scientist whining and haggling, that thesample of the most whack
achondrite,
> they need for thin sections and microprobing costs 200$ the piece, where
> they paid 15 years ago 4000$, if they wanted to work on that type.

They'd have needed to pay $4000 for the sample before because that's
what dealers were charging then. Lol. Circular reasoning there.

> That is by far the much darker side in that biz than any legal question.

?

> Kalahari?
> I chose that example, to demonstrate, how unfortunate it is, if meteorites
> are declared to be cultural objects. Not only for dealers and hunters, but
> in the wider perspective for science and institutional collections.

Uh. Why?

> I think, many, if not most of the famous collections wouldn't be only
able,
> but really would love to add the stones of scientific dreams the private
> harvest produced in our times to their collection.

I'll take half of Cabin Creek, if you please! And please, cut the
crust off. It tastes funny.

> From the scientific point
> of view many of them are ranking among the most important meteorites found
> so far and it is a historical bequest that these institutions are made for
> preserving and to work on the complete inventory of extraterrestrial
matters
> history has compiled.

Except...enough of Kalahari 009 was distributed for the relevant tests
to be run, and the simple fact of the matter is that the rock is so
strange that it escapes easy description. Should more work be done?
Sure? If that's the case, it should be easy enough for an academic
person to request material if the stone is being curated by an
institution. The same isn't necessarily true for rocks like NWA 482,
for which dealers have set a high price.

> Alas, many of them - as much as they would want - can't do so, due to the
> uncertainty and the obstacles the new cultural legislations on meteorites
> erects.

Many more due to private ownership.

> For me as a fiery enthusiast it is simply unbearable, that the bassinet of
> modern meteoritics, Vienna, owns till today no single reasonable lunar
rock.
> Not to mention, all the exciting new finds, from types, where before only
> 2-4 finds exsisted at all, nor those, which are truly unique.

If they choose not to own one, I assume that it is their choice, since
they apparently have the budget for such stones.

> Also hindering is, that some institutional collections (and that is more
> logical than to declare the unfound and untouched meteorite to be a
cultural
> heritage and btw. the only possibility the UN-convention prospected)
declare
> their inventory as cultural heritage, and are not allowed anymore to swap
-
> but don't get any additional funds for enlarging their collection and to
> compensate that method of acquiring.

Some institutions choose not to touch NWA's because they might be
illegal -- and you're saying that's a bad thing? I can see why you
might say such a thing when you seem to deal primarily in NWA's, but I
don't understand why anyone else would consider this odd. Just look
at the trouble that countless other institutions have had to go though
-- the ones that have recently been forced to return priceless
artifacts. Such considerations are perfectly rational.

> (Well, and not to mention, the many sighs you will hear by scientists
about
> their colleagues in several other institutions and countries, how
reluctant
> those are to swap a little sample for research).

Having volunteered many years ago at UCLA's lab, one thing I do recall
is the extensive log books used to keep track of acquisitions, the
collection, and loaned specimens. There was a seemingly constant in-
and out-flux of samples. Many samples are hard to obtain, but what I
gathered was that they are almost always accessible with the aid of a
worthwhile proposal.

> Well and Kalahari, at least, if in private possession, there is the chance
> higher that some will be distributed to science, as when the stone will be
> locked in a museum in Botswana, not a country directly known for lunar
> research, as a curio for visitors.

So long as the stone is intact, it can be used for research later.
Many rare NWA stones have been distributed and....disappeared.

> Always surprised btw. I am, that countries discover so often 10 years or
> later, that a particular meteorite was always of highest public interest
for
> them and that they want to have it back (= to have it for the first
> time)....

It depends on when someone high enough in government hears about it
and cares. Not too surprising if you think that not all people follow
the meteorite-list.

> All in all, can't prove it though, as I'm not a pensioner,
> but I would bet, that the number of meteoritical papers published, will
have
> been increased,
> if not proportionally with the new recoveries, but at least drastically in
> the last 15 years,
> so that in my opinion, the private work improved largely the delivery rate
> of meteorites to the scientific institutions,
> hence I have an opposite hypothesis than you.

Due to advances in technology, increasing numbers of advanced
technical degrees in related fields, and (maybe) the number of
meteorites. It's not as though institutions are hiring more
professionals to analyze more meteorites.

> Another such disagreement would be, that you have the opinion, that
> meteorites would find themselves if the most productive sector, the
private
> and commercial one would be eliminated.

Not in the short term. I clearly state several times that the private
sector has been instrumental in recovering an unspecified number of
meteorites (e.g. Battle Mountain, Glorietta Mountain main mass, etc.).
However, while many of these meteorites were recovered by our private
sector, many have also been destroyed by us, and the access of science
to samples of many of the rare specimens is limited and/or comes at
great cost. What I question is whether our private sector provides a
net gain to science -- and I think that one's conclusion regarding the
matter is entirely qualitative.

> I'm not that sure. The stones, laying in Sahara and Oman where already
there
> 20,30, 100 years ago, when the private hunting wasn't done to that extent
> like today.
> The Bulletin talks, we hadn't such find rates before.

Right. But why is it good that thousands of such stones be picked up
now, using poor methodology, and what is your problem with the new US
laws that do almost nothing to prohibit people from hunting?

> And finally, I guess, as perhaps the debate may incite a few to add some
> moraline.
>
> Meteorite dealer is a honorable profession.
> It is in no way different from let's say a potato-farmer.
> If that farmer invests his work, time and money in growing his potatoes,
> and in the end of the year, the outcome is, that he gained no money for
> living,
> he will quit and grow something else.

They're both honest professions if done honestly.

> Ask the dealers. How often they were thinking, when they saw on the shows
> and fairs, how great the demand for - huh, cool new word: brummagem (?) -
> is, observing the prices paid and being aware of the producing costs,
> how they said to themselves, why the heck am I addicted to meteorites,
life
> could be so much easier!?!

That's common to every business. We are somewhat limited due to our
relatively small collector community, but that's about it.

> And btw. another law, when it comes up to professions,
> something, which all public skeptics have to concede to the private
> meteorite sector:
>
> Read Article 23, 3 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

"Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration
ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human
dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social
protection."

Huh? Sounds nice, but a bit of a non-sequitur.

> Back to the BLM-rules.
> They're somewhat unfortunate. Too complicate and uncertain in practice.
> A simpler version would have been better.
> 1 permit per year for the whole state to hunt at a symbolic price (and to
> get easy online).
> 50% of the meteorite for the finder, 50% for the state.
> And all could live happily together,
> and the doubling of the dry state find prices, I guess they are bearable,
as
> most of them were likewise cheap before.

LOL. The regulations being suggested are even more simple than the
ones you suggest.

1) No permit required at all if you do not sell your finds.

2) 100% of the meteorites to the finder, up to 10 lbs per year. (Over
10 lbs goes to BLM/Smithsonian.)

3) If you plan to sell finds: 1 permit for the whole country, probably
at a symbolic price.

That is all.

> To me anyway that complex is a little bit rustic.

Your suggestions are more complex.

> Look here in Europe, whether the people have more couth, I don't know.
> Here are almost no laws; when a meteorite is found, scientists, finders
and
> collectors are in first instance and also in the second: happy,
> and so far there was still all the time a decent agreement achieved
between
> state/scientist and finder/owner without invoking any laws or courts,
where
> all parties were more than content. Let it be Maribo, Twannberg II,
> Neuschwanstein I + II, Ramsdorf and so on.

Where laws are in place to claim the meteorite for the government, but
they pay the finder a fee? What of the new Morasko finds that all
belong to the country? These laws may be simple, but they are much
more restrictive.

> And that all, where we have not at all those huge empty areas like you
over
> there, but are extremely densely settled, which, as one might think,
should
> cause a much larger potential of conflicts than if the coyote drops his
poo
> in the lonely desert.

...Places where I can still hunt unhindered by a new law that affects
me in no way whatsoever. It might affect me if I manage to find a 10+
lb meteorite on public land. I'll let you guys know if or when that
happens. I'm not holding my breath.

Regards,

Jason

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Martin Altmann <altmann at meteorite-martin.de>
> Date: Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 6:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] BLM and Meteorite Recovery Policy
> To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>
>
> Hi Jason,
>
> I see a logical inconsistency in your argumentation.
> On the one hand you mourn that due to the activities of commercially
> oriented hunters and dealers, the scientific process and the institutional
> collecting would be deprived of newly found meteoritic material,
>
> and in the next break you concede, that meteoritic material wouldn't be
> found at all, if not the commercial oriented people would search for it.
>
> Also your opinion, that in 1906 the meteoritical world regarding the
access
> of the material would have been different is not backed historically.
>
> How do you think, how Smithssonian, the Field musem, the ASU (and London,
> Vienna, Berlin, Paris) assembled their collections, the basics of all
> meteoritical scientific works?
>
> They purchased that material, that was the most efficient and fruitful way
> to get meteorites and a matter of course also in the 19.th century.
> Some of the annals of these museums e.g. those of Vienna you can find
> completely digitalized on web. There you can find the yearly reports,
which
> meteorites were acquired, from whom and at which prices, same one should
> find in the archives of any museum.
>
> A large problem is in my eyes, that if a state decides to annex all
> meteorites and to ban any hunting or commercial use of meteorites,
> that then those deciding to do so, have no alternative way to offer, how
the
> institutions and universities shall retrieve their meteorites then in
> future.
>
> If we think that practically, we don't have to discuss about the ideology
> behind, whether it is legitimate for a state or for a scientific
institution
> to override the normal civil rights of ownership of their citizens (and
that
> special-laws are for a jurist certainly a remarkable exception - note that
> btw. in more countries, which are democracies and states of law special
> meteorite legislation is in place, than in totalitarian states like China,
> former East-Germany, Russia ect.).
>
> Where are the alternatives?
> We have the very costs-intensive Antarctic programs, no one can have
> objections against that, science costs. Though we can't blind out, that
the
> commercially used meteorites are easier accessible for the scientist,
offer
> a larger variety and quantity and are with a gigantic factor cheaper.
>
> And the only other meteorite recovery program is that of the Suisse
> universities in cooperation with Oman, a couple of searchers for a few
weeks
> per year.
>
> And there is the dilemma, in general most universities have neither the
> personnel nor the funding to equip and to carry out own substantial and
> permanent search activities.
> Commercial dealers and hunters are not to blame for the underfunding of
the
> university departments, as they are not part of these public institutions.
>
> So, those champions of the cause, to eliminate commercialism from
> meteoritics, fail to present, how the scientists shall in future get their
> new meteorites.
> For me, such legislation is a short-circuit.
>
> Also it is the question, if soberly regarded the past, hence the number
and
> kind of finds, the effective costs for the labs and institiutes, whether
> such laws are necessary at all.
>
> Simple example - Slovakia - Lenarto, Gro?-Divina, Magura, Nagy-Borov?,
> Rumanov? - where ended up the main masses? In the Slovak National
> collection.
> Therefore, why to introduce a meteorite law?
> Obviously there it was never the case, that commercialism hindered
national
> science to get the Slovak meteorites.
>
> Take Poland, there the recent "official" meteorite retrieving action dates
> back more than 50 years. Meteorite research in our decade on universities
> doesn't take place there, all the long meteoritical tradition there is
> maintained at 98% by private collectors and dealers.
> Is therefore really an export restriction necessary, where is the public
> interest?
>
> Please, can you tell me, why I shouldn't use Australia as an example
> anymore?
>
> For Nick I recommend by the way, to paint simply a graph of the published
> new finds in Australia per year from the Bulletins.
> Nothing is so striking for the eye.
> Of course you can discuss, what the reasons all could be, that the finds -
> and I knowingly say, the published finds - because that is the indicator,
> whether a meteorite really did reach "science" took such a breaking-down,
> that Australia had suddenly nowadays not more finds than in the 1850s. And
> if you reflect this numbers with the total numbers of finds before.
> Keeping in mind, that in other countries, like USA in the recent decade
and
> a little before, the number of finds were steeply climbing (not to mention
> the desert).
>
> Hence no matter, which opinion one has - the situation is for all not
> satisfying at all,
> and one can't deny, that the Australian laws of the 1970s and of the
1980s,
> yielded no improvement for the Australian meteorite science.
> But seemed to be rather a step backwards.
> Maybe also for the meteoricists too, if I remember, that now for 20 years
> 300 Australian OCs are said to be still unclassified lying in Perth.
> Obviously, there is a lack of scientific resources.
>
> O.k., you have there the new fireball-network.
> The main point in applying for the financial funding was the chance and
the
> probability to raise the number of newly recovered meteorites remarkably.
>
> Of course a praiseworthy project and Ansatz.
> Nevertheless again the lack of personnel and time foils that aim,
> Cause as it's given on the homepage, they do catch fireballs, their
spectra
> and calculate the point of fall - but unfortunately they have not the
means
> to search for the droppers more than a few days per year and with a small
> team.
> Here in Europe, where the fireball network would be glad to have a
fraction
> of their funds,
> The affair depends strongly on private, voluntary helpers. As well as they
> use for hunting the help of laypeople and professional hunters - with the
> great success of my first homeland meteorite for more than 100 years.
>
> And of course, you can say, that in Australia they could have a different
> focus on other scientific questions in meteoritics, than to analyze the
> stones. On fall dynamics, statistics ect.
> But then a private hunting would not affect them at all and the
prohibition
> is unnecessary.
>
> These are the main difficulties.
> Take the last efforts for meteorite recovery in Europe.
> EUROMET was closed down, because it had annual running costs of 20 million
> USD (source EUROMET), while the finds were relatively modest (one year
> stones, which all in all, which one can buy at a commercial dealer at
> 15-30.000$).
> The ending of the program was a weighing up, done by administration and
> scientists,
> Again, commercialism had nothing to do with that at all.
>
>
> Therfore, I think, the problem isn't the commercialism, but rather the
> internal structures in the science process are defective.
>
> Btw. Puff is part of the trade. Dealers and hunters are the same
lachrymose
> as curators and meteoricists.
>
> Note, that if a new meteorite is sensational enough,
> many institutes don't have all but sudden no problem to acquire the stuff.
> Look, how fast we found a fat Tissint in Vienna, in London, in
Flagstaff...
> And how many dozens and dozens scientists at universities are working on
> samples.
>
> An excellent example, that your black&white painting, that there would be
a
> harmful opposition between privacy and science doesn't exist.
>
> In fact, just take a look on the number of papers published about
> meteorites.
> Fact is, that due to the intense private activities, the science received
> the recent years an opportunity, they never had before. A huge mass of
> scientifically uninteresting but also a huge mass of extremely intriguing
> meteorites - and that at so low costs, like never before in history. And
> that either costs-neutral via swapping, or cheap by buying.
>
> I can't find any reason, why we should turn the wheel back in time.
> We're at number 7000 with the NWAs, at Dhofar 1800 and so on, thousands of
> unclassified ones, more new falls recovered in countries, where it else
> would have been unlikely, that after a bolide, stone would have been found
> at all, cause the hunters and collectors are going there. Due to the
higher
> number of participants we get much higher tkws as it would be else
possible.
> New main masses of old finds are found.
> 20 times or more more meteorites, then when I put my hand for the first
time
> on a meteorite in the early 1980s.
>
> And I think, your opinion, that commercialism would be the reason, that
> scientists wouldn't receive any meteorites of interest anymore or much
less
> than in former times, I guess originates from your lack of knowledge.
> You should speak once with the professional dealers, hardly anyone, who
> isn't in contact with scientists and hasn't dozens and dozens of
university
> and museums addresses in his clients list, interacting regularly with them
> in selling or swapping samples.
> A matter of course, cause one hardly could do meteorites for a living, if
> one would solely have to rely on the purchase power of the specialized
> private collectors.
>
> In fact, all inducement enough to be meteoritically extremely happy, isn't
> it?
>
> Yep, I got your point long ago, that many meteorites are lacking field
data,
> making a work on the terrestrial aspects of that part of science
impossible.
> But you can't have all, what you want.
>
> To one respect, that not so fine situation is directly caused by newly
> introduced laws.
> If suddenly a country forbids ownership on meteorites, the people having
> hunted them all the time before, have two choices: to be suddenly illegal
> and to carry on, or to quit.
> In the latter case you won't have the coordinates, weights, distribution,
> population data neither, but - in my eyes worse - neither the stone
> themselves.
>
> To the other respect, it is a simple matter of costs.
> Even if it technically and legally would be possible, to enable the
> anonymous hunters in the desert to retrieve full field data - it simply
> would cost money.
> As well as if a country introduces cumbersome and longsome permit and
> documentary processes,
> it would be a cost factor. (Btw. it seems, that several countries with
> meteorite legacy haven't no practical implementation of these low, in
> existing no offices, where you could get the paperwork).
>
> If nowadays, you and perhaps a few other bemoan, that meteorites are
already
> so expensive,
> what for an uproar that would be, if meteorites would get even more
> expensive,
> and that would a fortiori light that unhappy debate in the media of the
> $$$$$$ question,
> leading maybe to even more restrictions.
>
> Be aware, and I mean, you by your own were down there,
> That this enormous boom of extremely cheap meteorites - gosh think back,
the
> times, where Western retailers sold OCs cheaper than cheese and good meat,
> R-Chondrites at 2-5$, Moon below 500$, HEDs at 1-3$,
> is solely based - and there is absolutely no difference when it comes up
> ethical discussions of consumption (see just the factory burned down in
> Bangladesh) of profiting from slavery work in buying your consumer goods
at
> discount prices -
> is solely based on the extreme poorness of the people actually finding
these
> meteorites in the desert for us and for science.
>
> I'm convinced, that the majority of the dealers involved would like to pay
> their sources much better - but it is a complete impossibility. The
dealers
> have to handle an extreme pricing pressure. The collectors are not able or
> not willing, to pay more, they would be unable to sell their goods. Put
> yourself in their places, they are acting in a stress-field, in an area of
> conflict - here they have to pay alms for stones, where they know of, that
> 10-15 years they would have been worth a fortune - there they have the
> scientist whining and haggling, that thesample of the most whack
achondrite,
> they need for thin sections and microprobing costs 200$ the piece, where
> they paid 15 years ago 4000$, if they wanted to work on that type.
>
> That is by far the much darker side in that biz than any legal question.
>
>
> Kalahari?
> I chose that example, to demonstrate, how unfortunate it is, if meteorites
> are declared to be cultural objects. Not only for dealers and hunters, but
> in the wider perspective for science and institutional collections.
>
> I think, many, if not most of the famous collections wouldn't be only
able,
> but really would love to add the stones of scientific dreams the private
> harvest produced in our times to their collection. From the scientific
point
> of view many of them are ranking among the most important meteorites found
> so far and it is a historical bequest that these institutions are made for
> preserving and to work on the complete inventory of extraterrestrial
matters
> history has compiled.
>
> Alas, many of them - as much as they would want - can't do so, due to the
> uncertainty and the obstacles the new cultural legislations on meteorites
> erects.
> For me as a fiery enthusiast it is simply unbearable, that the bassinet of
> modern meteoritics, Vienna, owns till today no single reasonable lunar
rock.
> Not to mention, all the exciting new finds, from types, where before only
> 2-4 finds exsisted at all, nor those, which are truly unique.
>
> Also hindering is, that some institutional collections (and that is more
> logical than to declare the unfound and untouched meteorite to be a
cultural
> heritage and btw. the only possibility the UN-convention prospected)
declare
> their inventory as cultural heritage, and are not allowed anymore to swap
-
> but don't get any additional funds for enlarging their collection and to
> compensate that method of acquiring.
> (Well, and not to mention, the many sighs you will hear by scientists
about
> their colleagues in several other institutions and countries, how
reluctant
> those are to swap a little sample for research).
> Well and Kalahari, at least, if in private possession, there is the chance
> higher that some will be distributed to science, as when the stone will be
> locked in a museum in Botswana, not a country directly known for lunar
> research, as a curio for visitors.
> Always surprised btw. I am, that countries discover so often 10 years or
> later, that a particular meteorite was always of highest public interest
for
> them and that they want to have it back (= to have it for the first
> time)....
>
> All in all, can't prove it though, as I'm not a pensioner,
> but I would bet, that the number of meteoritical papers published, will
have
> been increased,
> if not proportionally with the new recoveries, but at least drastically in
> the last 15 years,
> so that in my opinion, the private work improved largely the delivery rate
> of meteorites to the scientific institutions,
> hence I have an opposite hypothesis than you.
>
> Another such disagreement would be, that you have the opinion, that
> meteorites would find themselves if the most productive sector, the
private
> and commercial one would be eliminated.
> I'm not that sure. The stones, laying in Sahara and Oman where already
there
> 20,30, 100 years ago, when the private hunting wasn't done to that extent
> like today.
> The Bulletin talks, we hadn't such find rates before.
>
> And finally, I guess, as perhaps the debate may incite a few to add some
> moraline.
>
> Meteorite dealer is a honorable profession.
> It is in no way different from let's say a potato-farmer.
> If that farmer invests his work, time and money in growing his potatoes,
> and in the end of the year, the outcome is, that he gained no money for
> living,
> he will quit and grow something else.
>
> Ask the dealers. How often they were thinking, when they saw on the shows
> and fairs, how great the demand for - huh, cool new word: brummagem (?) -
> is, observing the prices paid and being aware of the producing costs,
> how they said to themselves, why the heck am I addicted to meteorites,
life
> could be so much easier!?!
>
>
> And btw. another law, when it comes up to professions,
> something, which all public skeptics have to concede to the private
> meteorite sector:
>
> Read Article 23, 3 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
>
>
> Back to the BLM-rules.
> They're somewhat unfortunate. Too complicate and uncertain in practice.
> A simpler version would have been better.
> 1 permit per year for the whole state to hunt at a symbolic price (and to
> get easy online).
> 50% of the meteorite for the finder, 50% for the state.
> And all could live happily together,
> and the doubling of the dry state find prices, I guess they are bearable,
as
> most of them were likewise cheap before.
>
> To me anyway that complex is a little bit rustic.
>
> Look here in Europe, whether the people have more couth, I don't know.
> Here are almost no laws; when a meteorite is found, scientists, finders
and
> collectors are in first instance and also in the second: happy,
> and so far there was still all the time a decent agreement achieved
between
> state/scientist and finder/owner without invoking any laws or courts,
where
> all parties were more than content. Let it be Maribo, Twannberg II,
> Neuschwanstein I + II, Ramsdorf and so on.
>
> And that all, where we have not at all those huge empty areas like you
over
> there, but are extremely densely settled, which, as one might think,
should
> cause a much larger potential of conflicts than if the coyote drops his
poo
> in the lonely desert.
>
>
> Best!
> Martin
>
> PS: Gosh, what a lengthy suada. Am I getting healthy again?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von jason
> utas
> Gesendet: Montag, 3. Dezember 2012 06:34
> An: Meteorite-list
> Betreff: 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.pairli
>
st.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.pairli
>
st.net/pipermail/meteorite-list/2010-December/072063.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=cln
> k&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
Received on Mon 03 Dec 2012 05:16:04 PM PST