CompuServe Thread

Is Collecting Proper

15 messages in this thread
#125663From: Todd FrankMar 23, 1994 11:02 PM
Its not an issue of wether you are causing pain to the Earth. What is found on public land belongs to us all. This includes the people who don't have the time or the resources or the technical skill to find valuable specimens. Its is interesting to see the denial and rationalizing that goes on with this subject matter. When I was in college I knew people who went into mines in the middle of the night and blasted away until the got the valuable samples they wanted, sold them for profit from a private land or a public one. Gold in my mine is no different than you stealing the gold from my wifes jewery box. So, if you leave it unattended it is fair game, so if I come to your home when your not there it O.K. for me to "collect" your mineral specimens. Please leave name and address below, plus when you are not going to ge home, I want to start a collection to.
#125698From: SyndesisMar 24, 1994 8:44 AM
Breaking into someone's property is wrong, regardless if you go there to steal rocks or dollars. I don't know what you mean my "belongs to us all." Isn't that exactly like your description of theft? You agree there's something valuable out there, but you don't think there's someone out there who'll blast it out in the middle of the night? Who's protecting this? The mining lobby in Congress? Loggers? Someone who thinks it's better to let the fossils rot in the next storm, or better yet, to shut them up in a warehouse?
#125765From: Todd FrankMar 24, 1994 8:55 PM
I know there's people out there who blast it out in the middle of the night, thats what should stop. Did you know that people have broken into others property at night to steal specimens, got hurt, sued the owner of the property they trespassed on and won. You didn't build a high enough and strong enough fence to keep me out so your'e liable if I get hurt. Happens! Understand, I am not against collecting samples weathered out of outcrops or vissible at the surface. I do think collectors should, pay a land use fee, be tested as to competance and concern for the land and samples of over a certain value, say $100.00 should be taxed if sold. Valuable and unique specimens should have their origins acurately map and that location recorded. It should be the collectors responsibility to do so. The purpose of a forum is to bring out ideas and all sides of an issue. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, don't expect everyone to agree with you.
#125779From: SyndesisMar 24, 1994 9:19 PM
It's not as if they require competency tests of people who camp in the national parks…
#125954From: Todd FrankMar 25, 1994 8:12 PM
They, aren't taking anything out and selling it under the table.
#125701From: Nathan A. SchachtmanMar 24, 1994 8:58 AM
Todd: I don't reject the public trust concept out of hand. A trust, however, usually is defined by its purpose and the idea of incapacity. The problem, as I see it, with witholding public lands from a desired use, is that there is no well-defined common good in many instances. The trustees are thus doing nothing more than imposing their personal preferences on others. This sort of behavior is bad enough when it comes from elected officials, but surely we should not condone it from bureaucrats!! If a trustee improperly excludes the beneficiary from the enjoyment of the property held in trust, and the beneficiary manages to get access to the entrusted property, the beneficiary has not stolen anything. Sound common law reasoning, which has the advantage of according with our moral principles at that!!! The argument from a trust model also fails because it assumes the incapacity or incompetence of the beneficiary, and it implies the geater sagacity of the trustee. I prefer to think that the fossil and mineral collecting community ought to be treated with the same respect that our constitution and laws give to the criminal accused, the handicapped, the ethnic or racial minority, etc. If there needs to be reasonable use regulations or permitting, so be it. But let's not anthropomorphize the earth and fret about the "scars" that collectors might create on the face of the earth. Let's not rationalize this aesthetic Nazism by saying that collectors should be satisfied by "taking a picture." The "specimen" had no value at all, to anyone, till the collector admixed his labor and knowledge with it. John (locke) and Karl (Marx) would have even agreed on this one. Nathan
#125778From: Todd FrankMar 24, 1994 9:16 PM
Dear Nathan, I have a masters degree and alot of you arguements went over my head, you are a very articulate man. This forum seemed to have attracted only one point of view. I wanted to bring out another. Some of these arguements collectors use they seem to want to apply to American Indian artifact collection ande other activities that simply aren't not right. I am not against the collection of weathered out fossil specimens or rock samples. There is alot of collection on private and public land for no other use than monetary gain of an individual, the collector. People who can't babysit their claims often find supports and hard labor blasted to bits for someone trying to find a sample. Collectors should be certified, pay a land use fee, and be taxed on valuable finds. In addition valuable samples should be mapped accurately and the collection point made available to others. Public land means access to all, enjoyment for all, when you take something out of these lands and put it in your display cases, you get to see it and say who else does as well.
#125831From: SyndesisMar 25, 1994 12:03 AM
Hmm. I wonder if any human can "repatriate" any given chordate fossil, considering it *might* be a distant relative. 🙂 The government's lands are vast. It's on the order of 30% of this country, I think. They aren't managed as if they "belong to everyone". They're doled out as political favors. A bunch of rockhounds or long-hair dino diggers don't cut it. They certainly don't measure up for more "important" concerns involving industries with big political lobbies.
#125844From: Lanny R. ReamMar 25, 1994 12:38 AM
Todd You definitely got us going with those first couple messages, but you apparently don't really think we should be kicked off the land. I do not understand your point of comparing collecting minerals and fossils on public land with stealing from someones home, or mine. Stealing is stealing no matter where. Nathan and Doug pretty well answered things and covered most of the subject. Minerals, fossils and gems are just more resources. They belong to everyone, and thus should be accesible to everyone. If an individual has no interest in them, then fine, he/she can leave them alone, but should not restrict those of us who care and are interested from touching them. It is the same with every other resource: a non-fishe has no right or good reason to stop another from fishing; someone may not like logging but loggers don't cut down trees to be destructive they produce the the timber which becomes the lumber that people buy to build homes–the same goes for miners etc. People who don't have any interest in collecting minerals and fossils should not tell me I can't touch them, just like I have no right to order all ski resorts removed, all boat launching factilities removed, etc. Some of us look for the scientific value of minerals, fossils, etc. as much or more than the aesthetic and ownership value. I hope this country doesn't become so short sighted that we stop another group of scientific endeavors. Unfortunately, some people throw in a lot of emotional material in such discussions as these which tend to cloud the issue or cause strong emotional reactions that are not warrented, such as your reference to stealing. Collecting shouldn't be allowed everywhere, but only specific areas where there are problems should there be restrictions. Most lands seem to be getting along just fine as are. Yes, collecting sites should be documented and recorded. They should be made known to everyone interested. That is why we have several hobby magazines loaded with articles on localities and also many guidebooks. The information is being shared. But, this hobby is like everything else in life, there are people who are in it only for the money and some of them will break the law. That shouldn't mean the rest of the people should be punished. My favorite collecting locality was recently closed by the Forest Service–the Sawtooth Mountains, Idaho. One of the complaints was the commercial production (which unfortunately was way over reported. this is not an easy area to find anything in). So the Forest Service shut it down. Now best as I can determine from what I hear at gem and mineral shows, those of us who obey the laws and try to be careful, etc. are not collecting in there, but those who are trying to make money out of it and were breaking the law by attempting commercial collecting, still are. Lanny
#125904From: SyndesisMar 25, 1994 9:25 AM
Idaho doesn't have a lot of good collecting sites? At least there's mountains, right? I'm in Wisconsin. All the good stuff was scraped away by glaciers a long time ago.
#126084From: Lanny R. ReamMar 26, 1994 11:34 PM
John Yes, we have mountains, and lots of them, the entire center strip of the state from N to S. We do have collecting sites, a few fairly nice and I am trying hard, exploring, to find more. Fortunately, because of the mountains and the scenery, that is even fun when nothing collectible is found. Unfortunately, the possible collecting areas are dwindling fast. The new Wilderness proposal is for 9 million more acres locked up in Idaho! Those who are proposing it say the land belongs to everyone so they do with it as they please, not what Idahoans want to do with it. Naturally they aren't asking everyone what they want to do with it they are only asking environementalists what they want, and when they do as others, they don't give them the whole story. 9,000,000 more acres locked up and only accessible to those few healthy people who like to hike. Watch out for the big lumber shortage! We have already lost the best collecting area in Idaho because of Wilderness — Sawtooth Mountains. What's next? Lanny
#126209From: Doug MitchellMar 27, 1994 9:49 PM
Hi, Lanny– I was mainly aware of the wilderness expansion in Calif., where the Desert Protection Act (?) seeks to lock up a lot more land than BLM proposals, which at least paid some attention to how the lands are used. –Doug
#125956From: Todd FrankMar 25, 1994 8:25 PM
No everyone should not be punished collecting in of itself is not wrong. I've seen damage by people who did not know what they were doing, which I don't believe includes you. Sometimes the reason a person has a gun out there in the field is they as small operators have had their small little claim, their hold on independence, dynamited to expose what some highgraded though might have hide a good ($) specimen. They knew damn right well they were somewhere they didn't belong.
#125812From: Doug MitchellMar 24, 1994 10:57 PM
Hi, Todd– "people who don't have the time or the resources or the technical skill to find valuable specimens", if they have any interest in the specimens at all, should be pleased that commercial collectors are willing and able to do it and make specimens available for sale. The buyer is mostly paying for someone else's willingness to invest time, resources, and technical skill in finding the specimen. The buyer will also have to pay for any cost the land owner imposed on the collector; that part of the price will be nil if it was public land (unless there is some degree of investment to satisfy some tough new licensing regime, or charges are imposed for collecting on public land). In other words, people who can't or won't compete with my amateur collecting expeditions can in effect hire someone else to do it for them, by buying specimens. I will be the one at a handicap, since I have not the same expertise and resources the commercial types can bring to bear, but I can hire them also if I so choose. If anyone steals specimens from a mine you privately own, you have my permission to go steal their jewelry. But I see _no one_ here advocating plundering private property without the permission of the owner. Why do you keep talking as if someone did propose this? All of us are talking about convincing the owners of public lands (i.e., the public) to continue granting us permission to collect there. Someone has been trying to convince the stewards of the lands that they should move towards banning collecting without asking the owners (i.e., without taking a vote of all the public), so we are also talking of trying to convince the stewards not to change things without that vote of the owners. Those who are trying to lock us part-owners off the public land without the clear approval of the full ownership are the ones doing the stealing, if anyone is. –Doug
#125955From: Todd FrankMar 25, 1994 8:18 PM
That's right let the public decide what should be done with public lands. All concerned should be heard. For you info my son just purchased by mail a basic rock specimin kit. Igns, Seds and Meta's plus your basic minerals. Many people do damage or don't give a damn who's property they destroy, public or private. Collectors serve a useful purpose, should be the stewards of the land, and if they make a profit should pay for its upkeep and maintence for future generations.