CompuServe Messages

Hi, folks– One forum member CISmailed me an opinion that mineral/fossil collecting on public lands in some sense resembles stealing from the public. He evidently felt this opinion would not be too popular here where collectors hang out, which may be true to a point, but the message in question would have been welcome here as far as I am concerned anyway. It is reasonable to discuss what the difference might be; if nothing else it gives us something to talk about, and it might keep some of us from getting too complacent in our views. Picking over the dump of a privately-owned or claimed mine without permission from the owner is indeed burglary and theft, and may get you shot at, deservedly. Public lands are a bit different. I figure if the majority of the people (the owners of the land) choose to make collecting illegal there, then it is improper. If the people do not choose to make it illegal, there is no theft. Should the people choose to forbid collecting? Since I am an amateur collector myself, no one should be surprised if I think collecting should not be banned entirely. I do prefer that there be limits. No collecting in a national park is a reasonable limit, and I observe that rule, though I have been tempted. Vertebrate fossil collecting might reasonably require licensing, to insure the site information is not lost for important finds. But the Baucus bill has language that could let a bureaucrat deny a license for no good reason, which carries it too far in my mind. But the government owns a large fraction of the western states, and there are people who would like to seal off most or all of that land to almost any use. Some of these people belabor the government so it responds without having heard from those of us with other views, and bit by bit move the law toward their end, which is why I have lately been mentioning the ALAA often – it is a voice for the collector viewpoint, taking positions not far from what I am outlining here, as near as I can tell. Conservation of lands is a worthy cause; I want future generations to have some wild places to visit. But not if I can visit none of those places myself. And I do not want to see mining shut off – the economy would go also. If my generation cannot use public lands, why should any generation be allowed to? Who, then, would we be saving it for? If I remove a specimen from a public land, everyone else had his/her chance to find it or a similar one before I got there, and will have plenty of other chances after I leave. Those specimens removed are generally not lost forever; they keep turning up in displays, estates, gifts. I was not hooked on mineralogy by something I ran across in the wild places; it was a collection of specimens given me by my grandfather, as best I recall. That collection might have been much more expensive and less inclusive had all public lands been sealed to collectors long ago; without commercial collectors, I might never have received it at all. A museum display might have done the job of capturing my attention, but most people do not visit a museum as often as a youngster might look at his/her collection. Museum displays are not as effective for everyone (kids are more likely to learn from "hands on" things, a phrase I hear mostly from educators). I want these wonders to be seen and handled by future generations, not all of them buried forever! Science owes a lot to amateur collectors, and even to commercial collectors, who may give more than they take as far as science goes. Exposed specimens will often weather away, never to be seen by anyone, if there are no legions of collectors out there looking for them. The knowledgeable collectors spot things that need attention by the scientists. Without collecting activity, there would be no opportunities to spot these things, and no knowledgeable collectors to spot them. I invite those who disagree with me, in part or in toto, to come forward and make their views more clear. This is not meant to be a collectors-only forum. –Doug