ATTN: METEORITE HUNTERS - New BLM Rules!

[Terry Soloman]

Can you say, "Doh!"

IM 2012-182, Collection of Meteorites on Public Land

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[ticm]

Can you say, "Doh!"

IM 2012-182, Collection of Meteorites on Public Land

"Doh!"

 

[hvacker]

It reads as if someone in the bureaucracy is adding to and reinterpreting the Antiquities Act. Never mind that the BLM allows corporates to ravage the lands and wants to pick a fight with collectors. Why stop with meteorites? Go with rocks, recreational prospectors, and anyone else on public lands. Meteorites would not be found or even recognized if the bureaucrats had their way. Blame that TV show.
BTW reading the Act is worth the time. Real strange that meteorites are singled out because they "Aren't natural. The ACT doesn't do that.
So how do you feel about rules that seek to single out certain people while allowing others to have their way. Ranchers, mining corporates, foreign companies seem to do what they want. Strange the BLM would pick on meteorite hunters.

 

[jeff of pa]

I just read the first section but apparently someone saw "Meteorite Men" on Science Channel & greed set in

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Is anyone actually surprised at this?

 

[hvacker]

Yes, I am. It's a fairly recent thing with some people in an official capacity to create more rules to restrict others. Most can deal with the Antiquities Act as it makes sense in terms of preservation as it was intended. I think we are now dealing with bureaucrats stretching their authority by modifying the Act. Metal prospectors in California are being restricted with out scientific reasoning. A knee jerk reaction. Kind of like "First the sentence then the trial".
I live in New Mexico where there are miles on miles of BLM lands. For the most part the rule was "Please close the cattle gate". The ranchers have always thought it's theirs. So do the corporates. They have their way with the BLM. I guess we are chopped liver. I'd like to see some political action like the metal prospectors are doing in Cal. Nothing says any official can rewrite law. It's hard to imagine even why they did considering the few collectors there are. I've never seen one.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Yes, I am. It's a fairly recent thing with some people in an official capacity to create more rules to restrict others. Most can deal with the Antiquities Act as it makes sense in terms of preservation as it was intended. I think we are now dealing with bureaucrats stretching their authority by modifying the Act. Metal prospectors in California are being restricted with out scientific reasoning. A knee jerk reaction. Kind of like "First the sentence then the trial".
I live in New Mexico where there are miles on miles of BLM lands. For the most part the rule was "Please close the cattle gate". The ranchers have always thought it's theirs. So do the corporates. They have their way with the BLM. I guess we are chopped liver. I'd like to see some political action like the metal prospectors are doing in Cal. Nothing says any official can rewrite law. It's hard to imagine even why they did considering the few collectors there are. I've never seen one.

Of course bureaucrats are stretching their authority, that's what they do. You really shouldn't be surprised.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

reply

Can you say, "Doh!"

IM 2012-182, Collection of Meteorites on Public Land

Read carefully (and between the lines) of the "background" portion of this. Here's a line I find interesting:


" ..... Previously, the BLM has not formally addressed rules regarding collection of meteorites on public lands. However, recent media attention has increased public interest in meteorites as well as confusion about the legality of and limits to .... "

Notice two things we can infer from this statement:

1) that prior to anyone giving much thought to the issue, it was simply an un-addressed arena. Ie.: nothing prohibiting this, etc...

2) When you read "confusion about legality of ..." Ask yourself: Who was confused? Persons sitting in desks in Washington, fretting over this? Heck no. I bet you $100 it was people who wanted to take a try at it, who sent letters to Washington, (or inquired at kiosks at various BLM land entry points, etc....) asking "can I?"

So you see then, prior to the asking "can we?", it was apparently an-addressed, and you could go knock yourself out. But given enough "pressing questions", well gee, I guess they have to address this "pressing issue" with dire sounding restrictions. Afterall, you asked! See the point?? It's as if we can be our own worst enemy. Those persons who brought about this attention to this, should simply looked it up for themselves. And once they saw that it was "not addressed" (as the BLM themselves admits), then presto, go knock yourself silly.

 

[Red James Cash]

A politician smelled money in it and a domino effect took place.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Read carefully (and between the lines) of the "background" portion of this. Here's a line I find interesting:


" ..... Previously, the BLM has not formally addressed rules regarding collection of meteorites on public lands. However, recent media attention has increased public interest in meteorites as well as confusion about the legality of and limits to .... "

Notice two things we can infer from this statement:

1) that prior to anyone giving much thought to the issue, it was simply an un-addressed arena. Ie.: nothing prohibiting this, etc...

2) When you read "confusion about legality of ..." Ask yourself: Who was confused? Persons sitting in desks in Washington, fretting over this? Heck no. I bet you $100 it was people who wanted to take a try at it, who sent letters to Washington, (or inquired at kiosks at various BLM land entry points, etc....) asking "can I?"

So you see then, prior to the asking "can we?", it was apparently an-addressed, and you could go knock yourself out. But given enough "pressing questions", well gee, I guess they have to address this "pressing issue" with dire sounding restrictions. Afterall, you asked! See the point?? It's as if we can be our own worst enemy. Those persons who brought about this attention to this, should simply looked it up for themselves. And once they saw that it was "not addressed" (as the BLM themselves admits), then presto, go knock yourself silly.

Maybe, but you also have to consider what archaeologists have done/are doing, trying to keep us away from everything in the ground. I know meteorites are not necessarily historical, but if they hadn't made rules as they are, then there would be no problem. All those people calling in asking permission wouldn't be such a bad thing if there was no agency controlling everything. It's about control.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

" ...... you also have to consider what archaeologists have done/are doing, trying to keep us away from everything in the ground. "

Sure, but ask yourself: How do the archies get involved in matters like this .... TO BEGIN WITH ? When some "pressing issue" comes across a bureaucrats desk in Washington. Well gee, he has to "pass it by various other desks for legal consultation", and so forth. Well OF COURSE once these type questions reach archie's desks (again because well-meaning people ASK), then duh, you're right, they need to justify their jobs, and hand out dire answers (the meteorite *might* be historical, blah blah blah).

But again, why did some st*pid question like reach an archie's desk to begin with? Because skittish people grovel and ask, when there was really no restrictions in the first place! They just "wanted to be safe" and were "asking to be sure" (sounds innocent enough, right? afterall, you "can't be too safe", right? ) But sure as h*ck get this cr*p written to "address their pressing issue. So the point remains the same, no matter which governmental office-holder you want to trace it back to, the point still remains that the only reason they're commenting on it, and issuing dept. memo's and clarifications, is .......... doh .... you asked!

 

[Kentucky Kache]

" ...... you also have to consider what archaeologists have done/are doing, trying to keep us away from everything in the ground. "

Sure, but ask yourself: How do the archies get involved in matters like this .... TO BEGIN WITH ? When some "pressing issue" comes across a bureaucrats desk in Washington. Well gee, he has to "pass it by various other desks for legal consultation", and so forth. Well OF COURSE once these type questions reach archie's desks (again because well-meaning people ASK), then duh, you're right, they need to justify their jobs, and hand out dire answers (the meteorite *might* be historical, blah blah blah).

But again, why did some st*pid question like reach an archie's desk to begin with? Because skittish people grovel and ask, when there was really no restrictions in the first place! They just "wanted to be safe" and were "asking to be sure" (sounds innocent enough, right? afterall, you "can't be too safe", right? ) But sure as h*ck get this cr*p written to "address their pressing issue. So the point remains the same, no matter which governmental office-holder you want to trace it back to, the point still remains that the only reason they're commenting on it, and issuing dept. memo's and clarifications, is .......... doh .... you asked!

They would say it's because of grave robbers, such as those who stole items from the Great Pyramid many years ago. That's the way they see us. I don't think asking permission has cause all the problems.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

"They would say it's because of grave robbers, such as those who stole items from the Great Pyramid many years ago ...."

Oh sure that's what they'd say. I don't dispute that. But ask yourself: why was it put in front of them for a "say so", to begin with?

For example, we had a micro-example of this psychology here in my town, a few years back: There was a group of kids who had taken up a hobby called "slack-lining". It has something to do with putting up a tight-rope between two trees, and doing some sort of tight-rope walking or something. Just some silly kids game physical fitness thing. Well I read in the newspaper one day, that this issue had come up before our local city counsel, as to whether it was "allowed" or not. Apparently (tracing it back through the evolution of it in our town), a parent had called the city hall, (parks dept or whatever) to "make sure it was ok to do it". Afterall she probably reasoned: it involves putting a rope, a foot or so off the ground, between two trees. And .... afterall .... she wanted to make sure her son was doing something that was legal. Apparently her question got passed back and forth between multiple desks at the city (first to a clerk at the front counter. Who must pass it by legal dept. Who must pass it past the city arborist. Who must pass it back to city counsel to take up at a meeting. Who put it through a sub-committee parks advisory counsel, and .... so on and so forth. Well gee, I guess the end result was the answer was, that it might cause rope burns to the tree trunk, so .... no .... you couldn't do it. Nevermind that it had simply gone on, and no one had ever cared less (till someone "asked").

So to apply that micro-example to the subject of this thread, sure: the only reason it gets to an archie's desk for comment, (which leads to his saying it was d/t pyramaids many years ago), was because ......... doh, you asked! Would the archie have ever been in field, or given the matter any thought otherwise? Probably not.

So yes, the asking permission (where there's no specific rules saying you can't) does indeed end up in "no's", where no one might ever have cared less.

 

[bigscoop]

A) Overexposure.
B) The scientific community protecting "their" valuable resources, or as they would probably state, "protecting your resources for you".

I'm with KK, not a bit surprised, and even expected. Anything that gets overexposed, especially where $$$ come into play, is going to attract change. Always has, always will. Expect more of the same in the future.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

"They would say it's because of grave robbers, such as those who stole items from the Great Pyramid many years ago ...."

Oh sure that's what they'd say. I don't dispute that. But ask yourself: why was it put in front of them for a "say so", to begin with?

For example, we had a micro-example of this psychology here in my town, a few years back: There was a group of kids who had taken up a hobby called "slack-lining". It has something to do with putting up a tight-rope between two trees, and doing some sort of tight-rope walking or something. Just some silly kids game physical fitness thing. Well I read in the newspaper one day, that this issue had come up before our local city counsel, as to whether it was "allowed" or not. Apparently (tracing it back through the evolution of it in our town), a parent had called the city hall, (parks dept or whatever) to "make sure it was ok to do it". Afterall she probably reasoned: it involves putting a rope, a foot or so off the ground, between two trees. And .... afterall .... she wanted to make sure her son was doing something that was legal. Apparently her question got passed back and forth between multiple desks at the city (first to a clerk at the front counter. Who must pass it by legal dept. Who must pass it past the city arborist. Who must pass it back to city counsel to take up at a meeting. Who put it through a sub-committee parks advisory counsel, and .... so on and so forth. Well gee, I guess the end result was the answer was, that it might cause rope burns to the tree trunk, so .... no .... you couldn't do it. Nevermind that it had simply gone on, and no one had ever cared less (till someone "asked").

So to apply that micro-example to the subject of this thread, sure: the only reason it gets to an archie's desk for comment, (which leads to his saying it was d/t pyramaids many years ago), was because ......... doh, you asked! Would the archie have ever been in field, or given the matter any thought otherwise? Probably not.

So yes, the asking permission (where there's no specific rules saying you can't) does indeed end up in "no's", where no one might ever have cared less.

I'm sure there are examples where you're right about this, but there are also examples where people get in trouble if they detect in certain places. Sometimes you really do need to ask.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

" .....but there are also examples where people get in trouble if they detect in certain places."

Yes, but why are they "getting trouble" at certain places? Whomever came by to give them the boot, might be persons "appraised" of how "you shouldn't be doing this", because of the rabbit trail of evolution I speak of. So you have to go back further, and ask "how did it start" (in other words, why is someone being booted, to begin with?).

For example: there was a booting in a state campground in my area, where, previously, detecting had simply gone on, and no one cared (as long as you weren't being some sort of nuisance). However, this changed one day, when a friend of mine got booted by a ranger he'd seen before, where nothing but a passing friendly wave had ever been exchanged. Later, this friend of mine found out that a week before that occurance, a newbie had taken it upon himself to ask at the kiosk "can I metal detect here?". The clerk was confused, and had never given this matter any thought before. It was a question they simply didn't know anything about. But no problem, they pick up the phone, call various other supervisors, consult their books, and apparently find something to morph to apply to this "pressing question". (cultural heritage stuff, or whatever). They tell the fellow "no". Well gee, then guess what happens when this same clerk sees another md'r out there (whom perhaps he previously would have have given a moment's thought to?). He'll remember the earlier inquiry, and start booting others! This is just one example. These type "BOL's" and "memo's" to rank and file, DO happen, following such well-meaning inquiries.

Sure, I realize it sounds like a "catch 22". Because, how is someone supposed to know if it's allowed or not UNLESS they ask? Right? The answer is simple: look it up for yourself. If there's nothing specifically there saying "no metal detecting", then presto, there's your answer That way you don't kick a hornet's nest t make yourself a bullesye for scrutiny. If someone still comes up and says something, you merely tell them you read the rules, and saw nothing that said "no metal detectors". If they still want to push the issue, so be it. If this really bothers someone (that not everyone will love their chosen hobby), then I suggest to that person that perhaps they've chosen the wrong hobby. Because let's face it: we're in an odd hobby that has connotations, draws lookie-lous, etc.... There's no getting around that. But I maintain that you and I will only make it worse for ourselves, by going around grovelling, asking for sanctions, blessings, etc....

 

[Kentucky Kache]

" .....but there are also examples where people get in trouble if they detect in certain places."

Yes, but why are they "getting trouble" at certain places? Whomever came by to give them the boot, might be persons "appraised" of how "you shouldn't be doing this", because of the rabbit trail of evolution I speak of. So you have to go back further, and ask "how did it start" (in other words, why is someone being booted, to begin with?).

For example: there was a booting in a state campground in my area, where, previously, detecting had simply gone on, and no one cared (as long as you weren't being some sort of nuisance). However, this changed one day, when a friend of mine got booted by a ranger he'd seen before, where nothing but a passing friendly wave had ever been exchanged. Later, this friend of mine found out that a week before that occurance, a newbie had taken it upon himself to ask at the kiosk "can I metal detect here?". The clerk was confused, and had never given this matter any thought before. It was a question they simply didn't know anything about. But no problem, they pick up the phone, call various other supervisors, consult their books, and apparently find something to morph to apply to this "pressing question". (cultural heritage stuff, or whatever). They tell the fellow "no". Well gee, then guess what happens when this same clerk sees another md'r out there (whom perhaps he previously would have have given a moment's thought to?). He'll remember the earlier inquiry, and start booting others! This is just one example. These type "BOL's" and "memo's" to rank and file, DO happen, following such well-meaning inquiries.

Sure, I realize it sounds like a "catch 22". Because, how is someone supposed to know if it's allowed or not UNLESS they ask? Right? The answer is simple: look it up for yourself. If there's nothing specifically there saying "no metal detecting", then presto, there's your answer That way you don't kick a hornet's nest t make yourself a bullesye for scrutiny. If someone still comes up and says something, you merely tell them you read the rules, and saw nothing that said "no metal detectors". If they still want to push the issue, so be it. If this really bothers someone (that not everyone will love their chosen hobby), then I suggest to that person that perhaps they've chosen the wrong hobby. Because let's face it: we're in an odd hobby that has connotations, draws lookie-lous, etc.... There's no getting around that. But I maintain that you and I will only make it worse for ourselves, by going around grovelling, asking for sanctions, blessings, etc....

Look at what you typed: "cultural heritage stuff." Do you really think these government agencies were created from people asking permission?

 

[Carson Coin Master]

Boy our government is just having a hay day! Cant even pick up a rock anymore. Apparently its property of the US government. Whats next will it be illegal to allow rain water to fall on your plants at home?

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Boy our government is just having a hay day! Cant even pick up a rock anymore. Apparently its property of the US government. Whats next will it be illegal to allow rain water to fall on your plants at home?

You're not far from right. As I understand it, there are places where it's illegal to catch rain water. And I don't think anyone called in to ask about that.

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

Maybe, but you also have to consider what archaeologists have done/are doing, trying to keep us away from everything in the ground. I know meteorites are not necessarily historical, but if they hadn't made rules as they are, then there would be no problem. All those people calling in asking permission wouldn't be such a bad thing if there was no agency controlling everything. It's about control.

I was talking to the Mass State Archaeologist about a ghost town in western Mass, I was going to take pictures and metal detecting came up and she said that no one is allowed to metal detect on any known sites, that even though the state was NOT interested in the site, they MIGHT be in an FUTURE GENERATION, as if everything will not have rusted away!