ColoradoProspector   CP Club Membership Info.

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Reply to this topicStart new topic
New rules for hunting meteorites
post Oct 15 2012, 08:16 AM
Post #1

Rock Bar!

Group: Members
Posts: 560
Joined: 5-April 11
From: All of Colorado
Member No.: 15,615

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 canít go out hunting meteorites unless you buy a permit.

Proud CP Lifetime Member
(currently working hard in the procurement department)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Oct 16 2012, 08:43 AM
Post #2

Master Mucker!

Group: Admin
Posts: 3,905
Joined: 7-October 03
From: Colorado
Member No.: 3

Thanks for posting up that article Woody, that's definately something we should all be aware of. Unfortunately the reporter and or the writers of this new bill do not understand who owns the BLM and FS lands! This new restriction can not be legal nor should/will it get anywhere in court, for instance.....for current claim owners, would this mean that now the gov has some "claim" to your surface or subsurface material/deposits?
As stated in the article, it's always been that meteorites belong to the land owner where they landed. Clearly then if they gov does not own the lands (they do not!) then obviously they can not claim ownership of meteorites that landed in FS or BLM land.

This will make a great discussion point/example for the winter seminars as well. I'll definately be using this as an example along with many others to demonstrate how we need to educate ourselves at the individual level because the media, the gov and many citizens are lost concerning the leagal "ownership" of our land or even their own private lands!

What really sucks is if this new bill passes, then its yet another completely illegally written and passed "law" that will then need to abolished through court proceedings by an individual or small group who likely will not want to pay for or endure the ordeal in court!

On a side note......guess Germany is not the best fishing destination? fishing1.gif



Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Oct 17 2012, 05:41 AM
Post #3


Group: Members
Posts: 2,841
Joined: 4-December 03
From: st.louis missouri
Member No.: 43

Dan just to clarify what you commented on, there isnt ANY BLM/FS land! its public domain land. and we have a Constitutional RIGHT to prospect/mine it! like you were saying, its our land and the BLM/FS/COE/etc. just manage it for us! yes these laws are (to me) illeagle as all get out! maybe a change in our socalled "representatives" in Washington D.C. will correct this problem. there has been a big push to get all they can now before election time because "they" know itll be all they get! Ken Salazr even told these departments to do what they need to do, even bypass Congress own actions, just to get it done! so much for the will of the people!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Oct 23 2012, 11:36 AM
Post #4

Rock Bar!

Group: Members
Posts: 375
Joined: 16-October 08
From: Central Colorado
Member No.: 6,813


This matter concerns me greatly, so I've contacted the Washington Office of BLM. Here is the correspondence as it may be helpful to others that are interested...

-----Original Message-----
From: Johnny Tonko []
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 10:54 AM
To: Kuizon, Lucia
Cc: Jenks, Frank M
Subject: Collection of Meteorite Derived Minerals on Public Lands

For clarification, when a meteorite is destroyed by impact into the earth,
it is no longer considered a meteorite. Therefore, tektite gems,
fall-back breccias and impactite specimens are not subject to the
limitations put forth in the Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-182.

Please clarify this matter to your Washington Office and Field Office


Johnny Tonko
Tonko Mining Company Inc.


From: Kuizon, Lucia <>
To: Johnny Tonko <>
Cc: Jenks, Frank M <>
Subject: RE: Collection of Meteorite Derived Minerals on Public Lands
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 06:52:48 -0600

Dear Mr. Tonko.

Thank you for the information on meteorites. I agree, that if there is
absolutely no meteorite material remaining after an impact event, then the
meteorite is totally destroyed and no extraterrestrial material remains.
However, if earth materials are altered by a meteorite impact, such as the
creation of tektites and other impactites, then these materials are still
earth materials that are subject to the appropriate public land laws,
either the mineral materials or other mining laws, or the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). In that case, the casual collecting
policy under 43 CFR 8365.1-5 would still apply for hobby collecting of
common rock and mineral specimens in accordance with FLPMA. The mining and
material laws would apply for commercial collection; and the Antiquities
Act would still apply for scientific collecting of altered materials for
research purposes.

I hope this note helps clarify the status of these altered earth

Lucy Kuizon

Lucy Kuizon
BLM National Paleontologist
Retiring Nov. 1, 2012.
Future contact is your regional paleontologist at:
FedEx Address: 20 M Street SE Room 2134LM
Attn: Lucia Kuizon, WS-5241, 5th Floor
Washington, DC 20003


"Some day this crater is going to be a greatly talked about place, and if the above credit is due, as is certainly the case, I would like to have it generally known for the sake of the children." Daniel Moreau Barringer 2/1/1912 in a letter about the Barringer Meteorite Crater, Arizona USA
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Oct 25 2012, 08:40 AM
Post #5


Group: Members
Posts: 3,888
Joined: 25-August 09
From: way on up thar
Member No.: 6,983

Great letter Johnny.
The response however seems to be a continuation of misunderstanding and further justification for their "permitting" if I deciphered it correctly.
She breaks down 'collection' into three categories: "Commercial", "Scientific", and "Hobby"... stating different laws for each?
Then she uses the term "extra-terrestrial material".
She acknowledges materials altered by impact as being "earth materials" and I assume.... this is what she interpreted your letter to be in reference to.
She is stating... if the meteorite is vaporized upon impact then that's the end of it. BUT if fragments of the meteorite are present after impact... these pieces are considered a "meteorite" and subject to their new permitting attempt? You indirectly state that the fragments of the meteorite are no longer a "meteorite" after impact? Now I'm thoroughly confused.

I would have expected a more educated response from DC on this. I don't think it will fly. Last thing I want is someone with a 'meteorite permit' poking around my claim saying it is an "extraterrestrial material"... "not a mineral" and their right by Federal Permit to search my claim. Something's rotten in Denmark USA.

Curious to see where this goes.

I moved this up to "Prospecting and Mining Laws, Regulations" category, hope y'all don't mind. I think it's of great importance.


()_) ()_)--o-)_)
CP Lifetime Member

Referral Code CE213
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:


Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th July 2016 - 01:46 PM