Moderator: Moderators
NZcaver wrote:FYI - that seller, fubaroo1, just ended their listing and immediately relisted the same item after removing all mention of Indian Echo Caverns.
Seems to me like they know they're guilty as sin. Well spotted, Wendy.
xcathodex wrote:after also reporting that auction, i performed the following search:
(stalactite, stalagmite)
and received the following result.
right now there are 74 auctions that hit on either of those keywords, quite a few of them based in China and showing calcite formations marked as "awesome natural calcite stalactite formation!" or the like... example here.
i don't know how to tell whether or not these are cave-related items or not, but it's fairly worrisome.
wendy wrote:The problem, i think, is if the formation is from outside the US then it is not protected by cave laws here, so I have not been reporting them. I always report the ones that say they are from a specific state or those that don't say either way.
xcathodex wrote:wendy wrote:The problem, i think, is if the formation is from outside the US then it is not protected by cave laws here, so I have not been reporting them. I always report the ones that say they are from a specific state or those that don't say either way.
well, cave laws aside, Ebay specifically prohibits the sale of these items, regardless of seller location.
Cave formations
The sale of speleothems, stalactites, and stalagmites from caves on any federal land is prohibited by federal law. See The Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988. Many states also prohibit the sale and/or removal of speleothems, stalactites, and stalagmites taken from caves. Please be sure your item complies with all applicable laws before listing it for sale.
An item lawfully removed from private land is permitted.
xcathodex wrote:ah, you are correct - i presumed that by being able to select "speleothems, etc" (i forget the exact wording) from their "prohibited items" list when reporting the auction meant a blanket ban on these items.
a closer look at their policies does indeed point out several loopholes.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users