Download Dear Sir/Madam - University of Glasgow

Conservation and Restrictions on Mineral Collecting:
some observations on recent developments in the Lake District
(Draft written 2001)
John W Faithfull
Hunterian Museum, University of Glasgow, Scotland G12 8QQ
Abstract
In early 2000, a new scheme was introduced for the restriction and control of mineral collecting in the Caldbeck
Fells area of the Lake District National Park in northern England. Schemes such as this, if adopted widely,
would offer a serious threat to the continued well-being of specimen-based geological science. While any
landowner can obviously impose any conditions they like on collecting, there is usually little justification for
such restrictions on geological grounds. Highly complex and restrictive schemes will certainly deter responsible
collecting, while doing little to deter the unscrupulous.
Introduction
In February 2000, the Lake District National Park Authority published a new code covering mineral collecting
on Caldbeck Common (Minerals Policy - The Caldbeck and Uldale Commons, January 2000). This is a
somewhat peripheral area of the National Park where much of the traditional visitor demand had been due to
interest in geology, and mineral collecting in particular, rather than mountain or landscape-related activity as
elsewhere in the park. In many ways, the scheme represents a significant departure in the managment of
geologically-interesting localitites in the UK.
The introduction to the article in Down to Earth (anon 1999) says "Hot on the heels of a fossil collecting code
for the Dorset Coast (Down to Earth Issue 26) comes news of a similar code covering the collection of minerals
on Caldbeck Common". Apart from both claiming to be collecting codes, there are almost no similarities
between the two documents.
The whole premise of this scheme, and indeed, of much of the conservation/collecting debate, is that there is
actually a serious general problem of overcollecting, or collecting for inappropriate purposes. This is a
commonly-held position. However, there is an almost total lack of rigorous analysis to back up such claims.
Most such rely on assumptions, hearsay, and confusion about how specimen-based geological science works. I
do not believe that any such problem is at all widespread, in the Lake District or elsewhere. Indeed, it could be
argued the past 20 years or so have been a "golden age" of topographical mineralogy, with a particularly fertile
degree of collaboration between amateur and professional mineralogists.
The work of Cooper and Stanley (1990) is cited several times by the LDNPA, implying some mineralogical
authority for this draconian code. However, this seems to be a serious distortion of their position. In their book
(P.73) it seems clear that they merely present the Lake District code as it then stood, without explicitly
endorsing or criticising it. Neither do they explicitly say that they believe that there are problems of
overcollecting: they merely say that such feelings do exist.
The impetus behind the production of collecting codes (such as this one), 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 include 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 many 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.
In any area of National Park or reserve"wild" land, it is clearly reasonable, and indeed desirable to restrict access
by cars. This is the single most effective measure in preventing overuse by large numbers of people, in terms of
pollution, path erosion, and general environmental damage, as well as in terms of restricting collecting.
Effective policing of such restrictions is essential if they are to work. Restricting use of bicycles by collectors
seems fairly pointless, unless it is part of a wider ban on off-road biking, which again, may be reasonable in
some areas.
Clearly, collectors need permission before collecting. However, the code states that "All minerals collected from
the site remain the property of the Lake District National Park Authority". This is an astonishing statement, and
one with very serious potential consequences. For example, no museum can accession material where the
ownership is held by someone else. Are dealers or buyers to be prosecuted for dealing in Caldbeck specimens?
What scientific or conservational benefit would derive from such action? To what material does this apply?
From what date does this apply? Is the onus on a collector to prove that the specimen was acquired before a
certain date? Who in the LDNPA would one consult before breaking up a specimen in a laboratory? Does this
statement have any legal basis? Clearly, any collector needs permission before collecting, but there has to be a
way of such permission being granted. This permission must include at least the possibility of transfer of
ownership.
The intention of the collecting code as presented here, seems to be that there should be no collecting! This does
not seem likely to be either desirable, or effective. All that will happen is that responsible collectors will be
prevented from working, while less scrupulous ones will continue, and become even more vague and imprecise
about where and when material was found. This "vanishing data" problem with collected material is a truly
serious problem, and it is this which needs to be addressed. Threats of this nature will not help: an approach
which encourages scientifically useful collecting is needed.
(1) What is the conservation of a geological site?
In biological terms conservation is relatively clear-cut: to manage the habitat so that desirable species can
reproduce. This usually involves an element of minimizing disturbance, and letting them get on with it. In
archaeology, the aims of conservation are again fairly clear: to minimize damage to identified sites, until they
can be the subject of a properly-conducted excavation carried out by professional archaeologists. Again, the
techniques of excavation are now pretty standard, and it is usually clear what would be done in ideal
circumstances.
Geological sites are different. Geological localities are scientifically used in a wide range of ways: by being
examined and interpreted visually (eg outcrops showing stratigraphic relationships, tectonic, sedimentary of
igneous structures) or by being the subject of cursory or detailed petrological sampling (eg most "rock"
outcrops). Much palaeontological and mineralogical work involves elaborate and careful extraction: specimens
do not exist, until they are "created" by the collector. The activity of collecting is a curious one: it requires
peculiar technical and mental skills, which are often as or more developed among amateurs as among
professionals.
Clearly, as in archaeology, some contextual data is often lost when a specimen is collected. This may especially
be the case when amateur collectors are involved. However, this is minimal in the case of loose material, or
material on mine dumps. In the case of "specimen" based geological sciences, there is usually little point in
leaving fine material exposed at the surface of the earth. . The "science" that can be done on the specimen can
only be done by removing it to a laboratory. Natural processes of weathering and vegetation growth will often
degrade such material, or it will attract the attention of poorly equipped or unskilled persons who may
deliberately or accidentally destroy it.
Geological specimens are NOT cultural artefacts, any more than is sand, limestone, road metal or iron ore.
Specimens do not "exist" until they are created during collection. Specimens are just of bits of rock which have
been "rescued" from becoming river gravel, scree, sand, soil, road aggregate, cement or ore for smelting. In the
process the focus of their usage becomes different, and they become items of evidence in interpretation of Earth
hisstory. Some may in addition, have considerable aesthetic or general intellectual interest.
The more rock is exposed and examined, the better for geological science. There may be other reasons for
preventing extraction (eg disturbance of biological habitats, landscape aesthetics) but there is usually no great
benefit to geology from such restrictions, and we should not pretend that there is.
This is not to say that restrictions on collecting are always wrong. However, for the vast majority of localities,
collecting is not a "potentially damaging operation". Most localities benefit from being worked, and if collectors
are encouraged to keep details of localitites, and to bring unusual stuff to the attention of museums and/or other
research workers, then everybody benefits.
(2) Should geological materials be kept locally?
It is almost impossible to justify this proposition, except by flabby analogy with local "cultural" remains.
Specimen-based research involves lab work by specialists, who are almost never locally-based. The care and
appreciation of specimen materials also requires a degree of specialist knowledge. If there are good local
collectors or museums who want to care for material, then well and good; otherwise any good home will do. It is
much better for material to be properly cared for and documented in a distant, or even foreign collection, than
for it to be neglected and lost locally. There is a lot of misunderstanding about the potential interest of
geological collections: only a tiny proportion of material will ever have any mass visitor appeal. The "loss" of
this material is usually the loss of something which, in practice, never existed until created by the activities of
the collector.
It is sometimes argued that, for example, Scottish fossils should stay in Scotland, or that it is undesirable for
Caldbeck specimens to go abroad. This is not a rationally-defensible viewpoint. It is clearly good if there are
good homes for specimens close to their source, but any place where the material is well documented and
looked after is fine. We need the skills of good collectors to be brought to bear on as wide a range of rocks as
possible, and this means that they should be able to keep and look after the material. Geological science, not to
mention all mining, quarrying and other extractive industry, would become impossible if this restriction was
rigorously enforced. Collecting is merely a special example of an extractive process like any other.
(3) Should collecting or research be "policed"?
It is rarely stated explicitly, but part of the motivation behind specimen-based geological collecting is
competetive. Those who are good at collecting (whether amateurs, or professional scientists) are usually keen to
obtain the best material - this is why they have developed these very skills and are driven to use them. Similarly,
museums want to have "the best" material, in order to attract visitors.
These same competitive feelings are often behind attempts to prevent export of specimens. This applies not just
to international movement, but to non-local collectors or institutions. However, these emotions have nothing to
do with good science, or responsible use of material.
It is unsatisfactory, and potentially unethical for access to scientific data to be controlled by individuals. This is,
for example, why palaeontological and biological sciences insist on the deposition of figured and cited materials
in recognised public collections. It is very easy for professional and/or amateur collectors and scientists to feel
proprietorial, about collecting and/or research in particular areas, or jealous of the success of others. In
geological terms, no individual scientists should be able to control access to field exposures. The potential exists
for personal motivation to get in the way of scientific judgement. Last, but emphatically not least, the
importance of serendipitous discovery from repeat visits in collecting is enormous. This process cannot be dealt
with using formal peer-review methods: it just requires repeated access by sharp eyes with good collecting
skills.
The important features of good collecting are:
(1) To recognise significant or worthwhile material when you see it.
(2) To carefully record where things come from, as precisely as possible.
(3) To have the technical skills to extract material to maximise its scientific value, and without physically
damaging it.
(4) To provide for important material to be accessible to science. This is
Mine dumps are perhaps a "finite resource", but they are the product of industrial extraction, and have no
scientific merit of their own. In general, important mineralogical material in mine dumps is undergoing a slow
process of decomposition. From this point of view, one could argue that the more material is swiftly removed
and incorporated into well-documented collections the better. The issue for mineralogical science is not just one
of preservation, but one of access.
The temptation to treat recent mine dumps as archaeological sites (albeit "industrial archaeological") requiring
preservation is very dubious. The benefits of such an approach seem nebulous in the extreme, while the effects
on mineralogical research would be very considerable. A very large body of published mineralogical work over
the past 20 years has been the result of amateur collectors carefully collecting from old mining sites. One could
argue that this has involved "depletion" of a resource, but as this resource only exists in terms of making
possible such work, it seems churlish to complain. Unlike archaeological sites, the general public do not have an
aesthetic or cultural attachment to excavations and dumps. More frequently, they are regarded as eyesores which
should be filled in or removed. There is a growing feeling that dumps are an aesthetic and environmental hazard,
and that the correct way to deal with them is to treat and/or landscape them. It is ironic that both the ban on
collecting, and the landscaping of dumps are a serious problem to mineralogy. Indeed, by far the greatest act of
vandalism, in terms of both industrial archaeology, and in terms of mineralogical conservation, has been the
landscaping and reseeding of the Carrock Mine dumps by the Park Authority themselves. This measure
explicitly went against the guidelines in, for example, the "Handbook of Earth Science Conservation
Techniques" published by the Nature Conservancy Council.
Another approach is to ban all collecting except for projects considered sufficiently worthy. This requires some
sort of vetting process for "research programmes". However, this is particularly inappropriate to the kind of
mineralogical interest in the Caldbeck Fells, where most interesting discoveries have been made serendipitously,
or at least, after many repeat visits carefully examining large areas of ground, rather than as they result of a
deliberate "project" to investigate something which was known to be there. What sort of body would vet such
applications? How would it be enforced? Would it actually stop anything? Or will the effect be to further drive
collecting underground (excuse the pun), so that less-than-scrupulous collectors conceal the true orgins of
material?
It is almost impossible to stop collecting. There are many amateurs (and indeed dealers) who are much better at
collecting (in terms of skill in extraction, and of care in recording data) than professional mineralogists,
palaeontologists or curators. Specimen mineralogy, and to a lesser extent palaeontology, for the past two
hundred years has been a unique collaboration between amateur enthusiasts, and professional scientists. It is
pointless to claim that this is unsatisfactory - it is the nature of the beast.
Land ownership and collecting
The real issue about specimens is seen as one of access for collecting. If good collectors are collecting good
material and looking after it - that is all that matters. Clearly however, a landowner may wish to restrict
collecting, for a number of legitimate reasons:
 they may not wish excavations, or damage to outcrops on their property, for aesthetic reasons, or because
such activity would damage biological habitats, or cause disturbance.
 they may have an interest in extracting materials themselves.
Otherwise, landowners should be encouraged to grant access to collectors.
Particular problems arise with publicly-owned land, or with land that is owned by large companies or trusts. In
many cases, such bodies have blanket legal restrictions on collecting, on the basis that they are potentially losing
money from the activities of collectors. However, there are very few people making a living purely from
collecting in the UK. There simply are no great fortunes being made or lost from the activities of collectors.
Throughout the history of geology, the comercial trade in specimens has been a major factor in the preservation
of important material. Clearly there are dealers who damage material, or who fail to record or pass on data, or
who behave in other irresponsible and scientifically unhelpful ways. However, the same could be said of most
groups involved in land use or managment, even the LDNPA itself!
(4) It is not wrong to sell specimens
There is a surprisingly common feeling, even among collectors, most of whom, at least occasionally, buy
specimens, that sale of fossils or minerals is in some way wrong.
Why is this? Material which is sold is available to museums, universities and anybody else who wants it. In
many cases, a degree of commercial interest has resulted in the recovery and preservation of a lot of material
which would otherwise have been lost. Historically, the existence of a commercial trade in mineral specimens is
almost the only reason why any material from the mines of Caldbeck, Leadhills-Wanlockhead, or Cornwall
survived to end up in museum collections. Similar consideration apply to palaeontological dealers. Mary Anning
would not have been able to operate under a scheme like this: she would have been arrested.
There is no intrinsic reason why selling specimens should be wrong, any more than selling road-aggregate or
slate is wrong. One might even envisage the encouragment of commercial specimen extraction as a small-scale
heritage/scientific business, building on the historical legacy of mining areas such as Caldbeck. It is important
that dealers are encouraged to treat material appropriately: for example, high quality locality and geological data
should accompany scientifically important material.
(5) A finite resource is being depleted
Clearly, in strict terms, there is a finite amount of rock which can be examined and/or extracted at any locality.
Hence, it is possible that collected may significantly deplete the quantity of material which remains. However,
the question is: does this matter?
A biological conservation site exists so that species can reproduce and maintain the habitat of the site. A
geological site exists only to allow geological evidence to be gathered. In many cases collecting improves or
facilitiates access to such evidence. Restrictions on collecting, such as proposed here, would in the long term, be
a serious impediment to good geological science.
A Way Forward?
(1) Cars should be kept away from sensitive wild land areas to minimize the number of people willing to make
the effort to get there, and thus to minimize habitat disturbance. This is not directly a geological conservation
issue, although it will probably reduce the quantity of material removed on a casual basis.
(2) The should be a presumption in favour of collecting at SSSIs, and other geologically-interesting localities.
Good collecting is to be encouraged. This is not to say that restrictions or bans may not occasionally be
appropriate on geological (or other) grounds, but they would be the exception rather than the rule.
(3) There should be a clear and simple way of obtaining permission to collect from public land.This could
involve either a general rule that collecting is allowed unless otherwise stated, or could involve payment of a
small fee and/or a renewable permit or licence for some localities. The granting of such permission provides an
opportunity to make clear areas where collecting is restricted or banned, and to indicate what is regarded as
good practice.
(4) It would be useful to develop a model collecting permit or agreement available for private landowners to use
when approached by collectors. Normally, there would be little reason to charge, but on occasion this might be
acceptable. An example might be the gold-panning permits issued by Buccleugh Estates at Wanlockhead. These
are modestly (and realistically) priced, yet provide simple but practical control of collecting activities.
(5) If collecting is forbidden or restricted at particular localities, this should be clearly indicated in the field. It
would often be useful to give a contact name or address for permission.
(6) If it is felt that collecting really does need to be policed, some sort of "approved collector" scheme might be
appropriate. This would be open to amateur collectors and commercial dealers. Individuals would have to show,
over a period of time, that they know how to collect good material, and how to document it and look after it, and
to show that they have good links with museums or other public collections, and are prepared to make available
appropriate material to such bodies. Such "approved collectors" could have increased rights to collect at
particular sites, but could have their status removed if they were felt to have committed serious breaches of good
practice. The administration of such a scheme would clearly be a significant amount of work, but could be at
least partly devolved to suitable individuals at local museums/geology departments. Bodies who might
administer such a scheme might include the Geologists Association, SNH/English Nature, Geological Curators
Group, or the Russell Society.
Acknowlegements
This document has been widely circulated, and has benefited from the comments of many, including Mick
Cooper, David Green, Chris Stanley, Brian Jackson, Suzanne Miller, Stephen Moreton, Gordon Todd, Roy
Starkey and Neil Hubbard, among others.
References
anon 1999 Mineral Collecting Code , Page 4, Down to Earth No. 29, March 1999 (ISSN 0969-3408)
Lake District National Park Authority Minerals Policy 2000(
Young, BR 2000, The Caldbeck Fells. Russell Society Newsletter Issue 36. P 12-20.