Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: swizz Dec 1 2015, 01:53 PM

Crusty sent me this link (below) in a PM asking if these "rules" were true. There are MANY things wrong on this page which can be found on the Colorado BLM site.
If I had to guess... I'd say that they copy & pasted this BS from one of their California BLM affiliates. California has many special "rules" which are a result of "moratoriums" to the mining law thanks to the miners vs native american disputes there.

Pop Quiz
Can you find the things wrong with this erroneous link provided by your Colorado BLM?
I'll start: They do not even specify which type of land they are declaring (publishing online) these "rules" apply to. It's almost intentionally vague (at best). That's the big one and most obvious, but there are many more nuggets of misinformation. It's just the tip of the iceberg. I have a pretty good handle on it... let's see if you can find the fallacies. Do they contradict mining laws? Are they just stretching the truth? Please tell me your thoughts, let's break it down.
LINK: http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/BLM_Programs/recreation/Recreation_Activities/rock_collecting_and.html

Posted by: nate Dec 1 2015, 03:34 PM

Well "generally" is only used 3 or 4 times too many for starters. I am quite the exceptional person, so i can surpass any generalized rules.

4 feet of excavation? I havent seen that anywhere else. That true?

Posted by: Auger Dec 1 2015, 06:34 PM

That entire page, to me, falls under the word GUIDELINES, because there are no necessary laws or regulations posted. I would think this is the product of someone in the BLM having to update information on the site and because it is government the site person who updates the information is probably not enthusiastic, creative or lacks the desire to be more detailed. I would hardly think it would be anything of malicious intent.

I say this having worked as an Asst Mgr for Information Technology with the U.S. Census Bureau. All LCO were assigned to do the local media material and we had some creative guidelines to use but the ultimate outcome was the result of people collaborating in the office. I did all the work for my office because I have a degree in Computer Graphic Design and I had all the programs, tools, training and experience to make high quality professional media. My colleagues, however, were not so creative or did not go any extra mile to offer any added information to their pamphlets. The results were highly variable.

The website was highly regulated and run by a bunch of pointyheads not even associated with the Census and were completely oblivious to anything the Cnesus does. On top of that they had terrible communication and also used the canned materials to create a mediocre site that confused and alienated users. They simply didnt have the inclination to make an exceptional site, when the gov was paying them to make a "functional" site. You know how that goes.

I feel like I went a little too in depth there but I have been working closely with people from several government sectors who are responsible for some of the wording in these types of government publications (though not BLM) and I don't feel any of these people individually want to take away anything or do anything malicious. What I do see, however, is corporate entities and people who have money to "move mountains" trying to influence these people so they can make competition easier, especially crushing any little guy. This is something throughout history that never changes though. I think contacting those in charge and telling them there is erroneous information on the site and supply them with the correct material might end up with a redaction and/or errata change.

However, if you are really really concerned about things like this, the best method is to contact the people in charge and have a respectful and well thought out conversation. You can contact regional BLM office, then National, then maybe Scott Tipton, Ken Buck, Cory Gardner, and Jared Polis if you weren't happy with those results. =)

Posted by: swizz Dec 2 2015, 07:25 AM

QUOTE (nate @ Dec 1 2015, 02:34 PM)

Posted by: MikeS Dec 2 2015, 04:34 PM

The first paragraph by the photo is short and sweet but as far as the rest of this page I can only agree with about 1 and a half sentences. The rest is garbage. The mining brochure is worse.