I believe that generally  these worries are unfounded, and that law-makers, conservation bodies and land managers need to be made more aware of other aspects of these issues before enmeshing geology in very damaging and pointless legal framework.

Thou Shalt not Collect

Obviously, any landowner (at least if they hold mineral rights!) has the right to decide whether somebody should collect. However most, landowners don't have strong views on this: they just want to act responsibly.  Increasingly, they are getting the impression that this must involve restrictions on collecting.

The impetus behind collecting restrictions is complex, and is clearly, in part motivated by the need to address real problems at one or two localities. However, there are often a range of unquestioned assumptions underlying  this kind of approach. These may inlcude some or all of the following:
 

•  responsible conservation must involve stopping people doing things.
• "outsiders" should not take things away from the area.
• it is wrong for specimens to be sold.
• only "properly" qualified people should collect.
• a finite resource is being depleted.
• important material is being "lost to science"

The validity of  these assumptions is often much less than might at first appear. In many cases, the motivation behind restrictions and bans on collecting arises from these type of assumptions, rather than from clearly defined issues of geological science.
 

Geology vs Archaeology

Other very serious problems for mineralogy arise from recent changes in the way mine dumps are viewed in the UK. These have been a very significant source of otherwise unaccessible material for mineralogical research for a very long time. However this is now under serious threat from two views:
 

• all mine dumps are toxic eyesores which should be removed, treated, and landscaped.
• all mine dumps are archaeological sites which must only be accessible to professional archaeologists.

Clearly these views are not compatible, with each other, let alone with mineralogical use. There has been some debate about the first of these, but the second has scarcely had any serious attention. In view of the strong legal framework governing archaeological sites, this potentially poses a very serious, and probably irreversible restriction on good mineralogical science.
 

So what?

At the very least, those with responsibility for law-making, conservation and land-managment need to appreciate that there is a diversity of views in the geological community, and that some rigorous fact-finding and debate needs to take place before bad regulations are enacted. The assumption that archaeological, biological and geological good ethical and scientific practice are the same, or even similar is very dangerous. Yet, this assumption underpins much of the current way in which regulatory frameworks are being set up.
 

Here you can download an RTF (very) draft document looking at these issues in the Caldbeck Fells. Note that this was written in 2001, and may not reflect the current situation.

I'd greatly appreciate any comments you might have on this document or on related issues. You can email me at:

J.Faithfull@museum.gla.ac.uk

Back to John's home page