A powerful group of state legislators in Washington has introduced a bill to liberalize the rules for rock collecting on state lands—including state parks—to match those on federal Bureau of Land Management lands. Senate Bill 6057 will allow the public to collect up to 250 pounds a day of rocks and minerals, or 25 pounds of petrified wood, "for personal, noncommercial use." Naturally, significant geological resources can be declared off-limits to prevent damage to them.
I like this, in principle. Public lands are not universally pristine, and many areas can sustain the harvest of personal quantities of rocks and minerals. I think that people who know that collecting is permitted in general are more likely to respect areas where it should not be allowed.
I do wonder if the limits are too high. Does any single person really need 250 pounds a day of rock, which is a ton every eight visits, or 25 pounds of fossil wood? That will enable people to landscape their yards and decorate their gardens for free. Sure, not a lot of people will do that. Wouldn't it be better not to tempt people to try?
Let me try to imagine a plausible case: an amateur flint knapper visits an obsidian flow once a year for a day, taking home a year's supply of rock to practice on. I'm OK with that. But it makes it equally easy for someone else to drive in, stay a week, and leave with a truckload of "rough" to support a club's swap meets or a professional knapping practice or a rock shop, all of which are forbidden in the law, but would be difficult to police.
There's a subtler question, too: Should state parks, fish and game lands, and Department of Natural Resources areas be made equivalent to federal BLM property? Yes, it takes the least effort for lawmakers and could make life simpler for back-country regulars, but is that what these lands were set aside for?
What do you think?
Comments
I am 99% sure those limits are far too high, but before I get worked up, I will have to read the arguments for setting them at that level. I mean, what are they thinking?
I believe the limits sound high in the aggregate over a group of days – but note that there has to be a clear way to define enforcement.
If the limit were 250 lbs / day but no more that 1000 lbs / month – there would be no way to determine what someone had taken by simply observing. That could only be managed by some burdensome administrative logging – expensive to the collectors and to the taxpayers – and the enforcers time and effort to check logs.
I think the idea would be able to stop someone by observation who is obviously commercially harvesting. Also – 250 lbs itself is not a lot if you are out for a day and get a cathedral or 4 or some material from which to extract crystals at home.
I think 250 ponds wouldn’t be too much if someone wanted interesting boulders for their yard, say to make a decorative wall or garden terrace. I’m sure the rules would be abused. The most ridiculous scenario might be someone labeling himself a recreational gold prospector and asserting himself entitled to dig “for personal, noncommercial use”.
Eric, is it part of legitimate “personal, noncommercial” rock collecting to take “interesting boulders” from a state park for your yard or to build a garden terrace? I think not. And gold panners, on the contrary, are welcome in some California parks in designated areas. If Washington were a major placer state, then I’d favor that there too.
Yes. It does seem like taking rocks for informal construction is something more than rock collecting. In the national forest district where I live people have to buy permits to take rock from river bars and other locations. If someone takes 250 pounds of rock it is probably going to be for decoration or construction. It almost seems to be Bill 6057’s intent.
As for gold panning I think the level of activity is what identifies it as recreational or commercial. The state might allow it in some places as historically meaningful, like an archaic craft. Also panning can be a method for obtaining specimens of minerals. But big excavations just shouldn’t be considered recreational. The 250 pound rule might allow limitless excavations because you’ll never take home 250 pounds of gold. I would say that, almost by definition, the acquisition of gold is a commercial activity.
There are a lot of rock collectors who will want to preserve natural resources and will respect the rules. However there is a equal amount that won`t.
I’m a WA state resident and saw this news posted on Twitter. It sounds like an attempt to open our state parks up to mining. Our state wheelers and dealers have been masters of the bait and switch for a long time, so I would not count on the 250 pounds of minerals being collected for free for long.
We residents are now being charged just to take a walk in our state parks:
http://www.wta.org/trail-news/signpost/the-final-moments-of-sb-5622
I don’t mind that and think WTA did a good job getting us this deal since the alternative was to close many of the parks. But not long after buying my pass, I saw the news below about massive layoffs of our beloved park staff:
http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/2011/12/20/details-emerge-on-parks-layoffs/
WA state paid for a survey a few years ago that demonstrated there was broad based public support for and appreciation of our state parks, yet the public wishes and good are being ignored. The impression I got from comments by legislators is that the overall goal is to privatize the parks. They want them run like a business and to be self-supporting.
Apparently the 250 pounds of rocks is scheme #1 in moving in that direction. I’m not opposed to permitting geologists and amateur rock hounds to collect some minerals, but allowing ‘the public’ to take quantities like this from state parks must have commercial intent. Building contractors will love this, but I am disgusted.
Collect one good sample and leave it at that. One good sample is enough to study and enjoy in my view.
Who’s going to carry the “scale?” Is a pound of basalt and a pound of scoria, or some other altered product the same? Weight wise yes, physical amount – much different. I believe most geologist only take what is a hand sample, seems like a good idea to me.
no – the possibilities for abuse of the rules and for leaving (more) messes are too high. Proceeds of sales of what’s found belong to all of us. New scientifically useful finds would probably not be reported. What’s next?Guided collecting ventures? Mining?
too dang hi, and yeah, when have people ever not turned a great program into a diaster! Too hi! We’ll just be turning honest people into crooks, they won’t be able to stop themselves especially the way this economy is. Don’t do before we’ve thought this out better!
I think the 250 limit is a little high but the 25lb limit may be low. I have two pieces of petried wood that easily weigh 70 pounds each. Just a single rock. I think it should be rewritten to say 25 lb or one sample not to exceed 75lbs…. or somethng like that. i do not think whole trunks should be removed but a significant pice or limb to put in a yard or nect toa fireplace shoudllnot be problem
I believe the bill is a breath of fresh air, which is what most people go out into the wilds to collect minerals.
It is a hobby that brings tourist money to regions and also is a return on our personal taxes we pay.
There will always be commercial intents and the bill precludes them. As for the amount of rock taken by most collectors, it hardly ever exceeds what will fit in a 5 gallon bucket which is extremely heavy to carry for any distance.
To open land for public use instead of saving it for the next millenium after the next killer asteroid makes sense. If the general trend continues we will be kept inside our homes paying for cable TV and not allowed out for fear of damaging something.