New rules for hunting meteorites Options Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic Download this topic Subscribe to this forum Display Modes Outline Switch to: Standard Switch to: Linear+

[Woody]

Looks like the Feds are stepping up and placing restrictions on collecting meteorites. I recognize the interest and benefit science might have but the way I interpret this means more regulations placed on our public lands and activities. This might be a bit of a rant on my part but I hate all these rules and regulations on our public lands. I am reminded about the last time I was in the California N.F. I wanted to spend a couple of days in the back country camping. I found out that I needed a permit in order to even have a campfire. Here is another extreme, I was in Germany a few years ago and got an annual fishing license. It cost about 100$. However, if you actually wanted to use it you had to go down to the county court house before the last business day, and pay an additional cost for each and every day you planned on fishing. It was about 10$ extra per day.

This kind of suggest the same thing, you can’t go out hunting meteorites unless you buy a permit.



http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/10/15/...intcmp=features

[EMac]

Keep in mind this lady was a paleontologist who was retiring 8 days after sending that email. I doubt her opinion carries much weight even if the meteorite hit some dinosaur bones.

The BLM direction came from the Assistant Director of Renewable Resources and Planning. The current position is filled by Mike Tupper. I suspect anyone wanting to refute this direction would have to take it up with him, or to court.

[Gene Kooper]

Keep in mind this lady was a paleontologist who was retiring 8 days after sending that email. I doubt her opinion carries much weight even if the meteorite hit some dinosaur bones.

The BLM direction came from the Assistant Director of Renewable Resources and Planning. The current position is filled by Mike Tupper. I suspect anyone wanting to refute this direction would have to take it up with him, or to court.

I'm surprised her answer wasn't, "Sorry, but the BLM doesn't provide legal opinions". BLM staff are usually very careful to not say anything that might be construed as legal advice, including how the BLM may classify a geologic "deposit".

Last year a client inquired about how to stake an old waste pile. He was interested in reprocessing the tailings. The question came up as to whether it should be staked as a lode (the tailings came from a nearby underground mine) or as a placer (the tailings are not longer in situ). I called the BLM and talked to a mineral examiner and the first thing they said is that they cannot provide legal advice. I told them that I wasn't interested in their opinion on how to file the claim, but rather what guidelines the BLM uses to assess various types of ore deposits as being placer or lode. They still wouldn't respond, but did provide me with contact info to a BLM geologist. That person never returned my calls.

My client decided to postpone filing a location cert. He is considering following Terry Maley's suggestion in his "Mineral Law" book to stake the tailings pile first as a lode claim and then as a placer claim.