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

[EMac]

You seem to imply that Barringer met resistance to his patent application because of the nature of the identity of the meteorite material? I've never read such an implication before, it certainly isn't to be found in your link.

If this is how folks interpret the statement, I missed my intent. My knowledge here is in its infancy, but I'm not aware of any resistance Barringer encountered obtaining the patent. I intended to point out that mining the meteorite for its intrinsic value, iron, proved to be unprofitable. I postulate future miners intending to mine a meteorite's intrinsic value, (iron, nickel, gold....whatever) would be met with similar difficulties. These folks would be hard-pressed passing the prudent man test much less the economic ones.

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding of the reaction to Barringer's presentation to the Academy of Natural Sciences. Barringer theorized that the meteor buried it's bulk deep below the crater surface and that the already commonly recognized ,meteorite materials around the site were just debris from the injection of this mass into the earth. His presentation was about the crater being caused by a meteorite and the coincident burial of a large meteorite mass. There was a lot of skepticism of his theory at the time and we know today that his theory about the creation of the crater was correct and his presumption of a consequent buried mass was indeed wrong.

What that has to do with the long before verified meteorite metals found at the site and their many years of mining and sale at high prices long before Barringer bought the deposit and patented it has been mischaracterized by those who don't understand that it wasn't the meteoric origin of the metal that was challenged it was the crater theory. Meteorites and their metallic compositions have been recognized and studied by mainstream science since 1805, a century before Barringer made his presentation in 1906.

The meteoric nature and source of the mined metal wasn't in question when Barringer received his mineral patents but the crater theory was. Lucky for Barringer he didn't apply to a patent for a crater or a meteorite but for the mineral value of his meteorite metals. I'm guessing that's because he was the most respected mining law expert of his time and he didn't confuse craters or meteorites with his right to claim the valuable minerals the meteorite was composed of. The fact that the country rock that surrounds the meteoric metals deposit is barren of any related minerals or mineralization of any kind was not hidden or unrecognized by the scientific or mining community. The identity and source of the deposit was not in question before the patent was issued, in fact it was the subject of many scientific papers of the time and had been extensively investigated by the Geological Society (USGS) and others.

It's interesting to note that Berringer's mineral patents have been challenged in several courts on just the basis you propose. The Barringer family have spent many years defending their mineral patents. The most recent was by an agency of the Federal Government. The famous meteorite collector Harvey Nininger also spent considerable time (decades) and a lot of OP money trying to invalidate the claims too. In every case the patents have been upheld by the courts despite challengers claims that meteorite deposits can not be issued patents. Clearly the issue has been adjudicated long after there was any question about the meteoric origin and nature of the discovered minerals. As far as the courts are concerned this theory that meteorite deposits can't be claimed under the mining acts is a losing argument.

Do you have source material you can point me to for this history? I'm still learning the history, but impressions I've gotten were the scientific community thought the crater was a volcano, and the meteorites found there were coincidental.

I'm not sure what dinosaur bones or any other animal residues might have with locatable minerals?

Fossilized dinosaur bones are mineralized, yet they do not fall into the category of locatable minerals. I only intended to point out that it's probably not as simple as "they're minerals...we can mine 'em" since we know of at least one special category based upon the minerals' origins.

Neither one of those cases you cite had anything to do with the subject of minerals discovered on public lands.

The Old Woman case was about the right of the Secretary of the Interior to bypass normal established administrative process in awarding study materials under the Antiquities Act. No issue was raised and no decision was made regarding meteorites, meteorite ownership, public lands, valuable minerals or mining claims. The Supreme Court simply was carrying out their duty to review a challenge to an administrative decision under the Administrative Procedures Act. Although the decision was judicial it was strictly the final decision on a single administrative action and did not interpret or define anything in regards to meteorites, minerals or mining law. The Antiquities Act which is most often cited in these meteorite discussions, including the Old Woman case, deals only with human artifacts:

Sec. 470bb. Definitions
As used in this chapter -
(1) The term "archaeological resource" means any material
remains of past human life or activities which are of
archaeological interest

Rocks and minerals are not only outside of the purview of the Antiquities Act but they are specifically excluded from regulation in the Antiquities Act Savings clause.

Goddard v Winchell was a case about ownership of natural objects, including meteorites, found on private land. Once again not a case about meteorites found on public lands, valuable minerals or mining claims. This decision (and many others) made it clear that meteorite ownership was to be treated just like any other natural object found on private land.

While the Old Woman Meteorite was found on public lands, I agree with you. I offered them up as interesting reading I found, but also said they don't deal with mining claims.

So meteorites found on the land are a part of the land. With no contrary decisions relating to public lands it would be a difficult argument that different rules apply there.

Again, I don't think it's this simple: the 2012 BLM memo tells me this. If one lands in your backyard, there is precedent that the meteorite is yours. If the meteorite lands on unclaimed, public land, there is precedent. I'm still looking for any precedents dealing with claiming meteorite impact sites, or what if the meteorite falls on a current claim of any variety. My position is there would be an expensive argument laid out in court, and we'll get an answer eventually therefrom.