New rules for hunting meteorites Options

[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

[Gene Kooper]

IMO your view that there is a simple distinction between placer and lode is myopic. There are several examples that don't fit conveniently in those two bins. For example, the Act of August 4, 1892 included building stone as a locatable mineral under the, "provisions governing placer mining claims". The same goes for the Act of February 11, 1897 for petroleum and other mineral oils. However, uranium in the form of roll-front deposits in sandstone was always staked as lode claims.

I don't know if you are familiar with Harvey Gardner's book, "Mining Among the Clouds: The Mosquito Range and the Origins of Colorado's Silver Boom", 2002. He discusses three iterations of staking claims on Mt. Bross, where lead-silver carbonate ore occurs in large pods within the Leadville Limestone formation. The upward movement of acidic hydrothermal fluids was stopped by the Lincoln Porphyry sill above the Leadville. Miners originally staked the area as lode claims, but the Land Office balked because the pods of carbonate ore were NOT veins. The miners hurriedly restaked the claims as placers (an example placer plat is in the thread on placer mining laws). Two placer claims were patented and then the Land Office spit the third placer patent application back and rescinded the patents for the first 2 placer claims. The reasoning, you cannot have a placer claim at 13,000 feet. The miners then restaked the area again as lode claims and patents were issued.

I say this because it is not clear to me whether the nickel-rich iron deposits within the crater should be treated as in situ lode deposits or surficial deposits. The ejecta outside the crater seem best staked as placers. I don't believe that anyone would argue that the mineral deposits of the Sudbury area in Canada would most likely have been staked as lode claims if the deposit was in the western US. Anyway, just a little omphaloskeptic musing on my part. The fact remains, they were staked and patented as placer deposits and successfully defended in court.

ETA: Here's a link to the Wiki article on the Sudbury Basin

The Sudbury Basin, also known as Sudbury Structure or the Sudbury Nickel Irruptive, is a major geological structure in Ontario, Canada. It is the second-largest known impact crater or astrobleme on Earth, as well as one of the oldest.[1]

Back to another topic I asked about, what are your thoughts in regard to mineral specimens being or not being locatable minerals under the current laws and regulations, Clay Diggins?