How to find the Lost Dutchman mine...

[Oroblanco]

Roy,

"Very little of this territory extends into present day Wyoming. Blackfoot Indians did attend several of the fur trade rendezvous in Wyoming, but had traveled quite some distance to attend."

I have spent quite a bit of time in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. I can assure you that the Blackfeet did live there, as much as you could say they lived anywhere. As I said before, they were a nomadic tribe and Jackson Hole was one of their favorite places.

That history is pretty well known. I have looked into the history of the state, as I was born in Casper. The Teton Sioux consisted of Blackfeet (Sihasapa), Brule, Hunkpapa, Miniconjou, Sans Arc.....etc.

BB's statement could very well be true.

Take care,

Joe

I did not say that Blackfeet (or Blackfeet Sioux) never entered Wyoming, nor did I say that Blindbowman's statement about his ex-wife was not true. The Blackfeet presence on the plains of Wyoming was not on the same level as that of other tribes, their main 'homelands' areas were mostly north of Wyoming in Montana and into Canada. I don't doubt that they liked Jackson Hole at all, or that some might well reside there today; however if they do, they are probably more well heeled than I am considering the cost of living there.

For evidence, we can look at the treaties that defined the Blackfoot territory;

The Blackfoot Nation consent and agree that all that portion of the country recognized and defined by the treaty of Laramie as Blackfoot territory, lying within lines drawn from the Hell Gate or Medicine Rock Passes in the main range of the Rocky Mountains, in an easterly direction to the nearest source of the Muscle Shell River, thence to the mouth of Twenty-five Yard Creek, thence up the Yellowstone River to its northern source, and thence along the main range of the Rocky Mountains, in a northerly direction, to the point of beginning, shall be a common hunting-ground for ninety-nine years, where all the nations, tribes and bands of Indians, parties to this treaty, may enjoy equal and uninterupted privileges of hunting, fishing and gathering fruit, grazing animals, curing meat and dressing robes. They further agree that they will not establish villages, or in any other way exercise exclusive rights within ten miles of the northern line of the common hunting-ground, and that the parties to this treaty may hunt on said northern boundary line and within ten miles thereof.
Provided, That the western Indians, parties to this treaty, may hunt on the trail leading down the Muscle Shell to the Yellowstone; the Muscle Shell River being the boundary separating the Blackfoot from the Crow territory.
And provided, That no nation, band, or tribe of Indians, parties to this treaty, nor any other Indians, shall be permitted to establish permanent settlements, or in any other way exercise, during the period above mentioned, exclusive rights or privileges within the limits of the above-described hunting-ground.

<Article II, treaty of 1855 with the Blackfoot nation>

here is the description referenced above,

The territory of the Blackfoot Nation, commencing at the mouth of Muscle-shell River; thence up the Missouri River to its source; thence along the main range of the Rocky Mountains, in a southerly direction, to the head-waters of the northern source of the Yellowstone River; thence down the Yellowstone River to the mouth of Twenty-five Yard Creek; thence across to the head-waters of the Muscle-shell River, and thence down the Muscle-shell River to the place of beginning.

<treaty of 1851, Ft. Laramie>

from wiki

The Blackfoot Nation in Montana is made up of four nations. These nations include the Piegan, Siksika, Northern Piegan, and Kainai or Blood Indians. The four nations come together to make up what is known as the Blackfoot Confederacy, meaning that they have banded together to help one another. The nations have their own separate governments ruled by a head chief, but regularly come together for religious and social celebrations. Today the only nation that resides within US boundaries in Montana is the Piegan, or Pikuni.

map of modern Blackfoot reservation

Very little of this described territory extends into Wyoming.

The Jackson Hole valley and Yellowstone valley do not make up a major proportion of Wyoming landmass. I don't doubt that Blackfoot have lived in, and likely some still do reside in Wyoming, however their presence was and is limited compared with other tribes. I too have lived in Wyoming and often work there now; have hunted, fished and prospected a number of different areas in the state and have met a fair number of Indians; including Sioux, Cheyennes, Crows, Shoshones, and Arapahos as well as Navajos who work on ranches but have never met a Blackfoot there. That sure doesn't mean there are none. I don't know where you are going with this?

For any readers whom are unfamiliar with the areas we are discussing, here is a map of Wyoming; the Yellowstone valley and Jackson Hole regions are the upper left quadrant area on the map;

As for how this relates to the topic, I have no clue.

Roy

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Blindbowman]

thanks joe and Oro .. i for one found your replies very interesting .. i only knew about her tribe and people from her and she did not talk to them very much they stay to them selfs ,and she lived with a stepmother and step father ... her past is some what unknown even to me . there was no dout what so ever she is a blackfoot Indain you didnt need piece of paper to tell you that ...lol

from what i knew i did not get the idea her tribe had a strong place in wym . and your research conferm that .. i never looked into her past much . i dont think she would have respected me if i had so i never risk makeing her feel out place over it ...but i guess that would be the basic theory in both cases that her tribe did in fact live far more to the north then the small groups she was known with .i really cant say if those groups had started in that area or had move south threw the years ,


i guess you are right about it not meaning a lot to me now .. i dont see her much any more these days ..and we had a rocky split up but we are still friends ....some of the American tribes are just as much unknown to us to day as they were long ago . and faith and our modern culture has not help clear a path between us ...

 

[cactusjumper]

Good morning Roy,

Not really going anywhere with it......just want to stay away from some of the nonsense posting that is going on and keep the mental juices flowing.

Everyone have a nice Easter.

Take care,

Joe

 

[EE THr]

BB---

What are you going to say when they ask you how you got the ore sample?

scott wood has set a guide line .. what personal thing has no bearing on that evidence or its guide lines ... and if you read the fine print . you can in fact collect rock samples ...it is legal ..

Yup. And can you imagine that he will simply say, "Just because you found this lying on the surface, doesn't mean that the LDM is sitting somewhere beneath where you found it. Besides, you could have gotten this ore sample in a rock shop, for all anyone knows."

What will you say then?

 

[Oroblanco]

Blindbowman wrote

i guess you are right about it not meaning a lot to me now .

I did not mean to say anything about what your ex, or the Blackfoot tribe, should mean to you now amigo. That is purely your own personal area and (IMHO) we have no input on it nor should we. I would not expect someone to tell me how I should feel about an ex, nor accept what someone should tell me if they did. For that matter, I still don't know if you meant Blackfoot (Siksika) or Blackfoot Sioux (Sihasapa) which in the big picture does not make a big difference, but might in general terms.

Joe I was just getting mystified as to what ground we are in disagreement on, hence the reason for posting so much more to try to pick out where that disagreement is rooted.

To try to tie this back to the topic, I could ask what tribes you (all) would say were present in the Superstition mountains during the historical period? Thank you in advance, and it is not a trick question to try to bait someone into an argument, just curious to what the consensus is.

EE THr wrote

Yup. And can you imagine that he will simply say, "Just because you found this lying on the surface, doesn't mean that the LDM is sitting somewhere beneath where you found it. Besides, you could have gotten this ore sample in a rock shop, for all anyone knows."

What will you say then?

You are highlighting the standard, ready set of excuses resorted to by so many who claim to have found the Lost Dutchman mine, but don't have a speck of gold to show for it. As strict as the regulations are, enforcement does not match the impression folks might get from reading online. There are not rangers standing in a ring around the mountains stopping each individual hiker, so breaking the regulations would not be easy to catch. I am not encouraging anyone to disobey those regulations, just pointing out that it would not be so difficult to bring out a specimen; even less problematic would be photos of the ore vein, though that may not serve to prove in an absolute way, would go some way to back up a claim of having found the LDM. So far, no one has shown any such photos.

As for having obtained a gold ore specimen from a rock shop, the odds that it would match Dutchman ore are extremely low. I would go so far as to say almost impossible. Not impossible, some few pieces may have gotten into the hands of collectors and later got into the market but the odds are against it.

Oroblanco

 

[EE THr]

Oro---

Although a matching ore specimen would satisfy you or I, does anyone know what the Forest Service thinks the "original" ore characteristics were? Do they hold the same standards on that as we do?

Also, if the "mine" was covered as thoroughly as legends say, with ground fill, logs, and so forth, wouldn't that take a lot of time and make a lot of noticeable commotion?

It just seems like anything more than a short time spent would increase the risk of trouble proportionally. And lots of debris created, would also add to the risk of being noticed.

From all the descriptions of how it has been so hidden, I wouldn't think that it would be just a simple "two men and a couple shovels, in one morning," kind of an operation.

 

[Oroblanco]

Oro---

Although a matching ore specimen would satisfy you or I, does anyone know what the Forest Service thinks the "original" ore characteristics were? Do they hold the same standards on that as we do?

The Forest Service has very capable geologists on staff, perhaps not in each individual field office of course but it is reasonable to expect that their geologist will have a standard that is similar to any other professional geologist. Should a problem arise with the USFS geologist, there is the USGS and they would be well qualified.

Besides, you should probably take your specimen to a non-government geologist and pay to have the comparison done, then take his written conclusions to the Forest Service, not take a specimen to the FS and expect them to do your prospecting work for you, which an ore comparison would be. Some states used to offer free assays, ore mineral identifications etc but I don't know of any that are currently doing this. Think about what you are proposing here, this idea of taking your ore to the Forest Service is not something you would do with any other mineral deposit, and to the USFS, if the Lost Dutchman exists, it is nothing more than another mineral deposit, however infamous or rich.

EE THr also wrote

Also, if the "mine" was covered as thoroughly as legends say, with ground fill, logs, and so forth, wouldn't that take a lot of time and make a lot of noticeable commotion?

That depends on how much excavation you are talking about doing. If the mine is open to all to see, as in visible from satellite photos, then there isn't any such excavating necessary right? Taking a few photos doesn't require removal of any ore, rock, earth etc just point and snap; such photos would be a great step toward getting the permits which would make further efforts quite legal.

EE THr also wrote

It just seems like anything more than a short time spent would increase the risk of trouble proportionally. And lots of debris created, would also add to the risk of being noticed.

From all the descriptions of how it has been so hidden, I wouldn't think that it would be just a simple "two men and a couple shovels, in one morning," kind of an operation.

What makes you believe that it would require more effort/labor/manpower than what you just described? Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

 

[Blindbowman]

Oro---

Although a matching ore specimen would satisfy you or I, does anyone know what the Forest Service thinks the "original" ore characteristics were? Do they hold the same standards on that as we do?

Also, if the "mine" was covered as thoroughly as legends say, with ground fill, logs, and so forth, wouldn't that take a lot of time and make a lot of noticeable commotion?

It just seems like anything more than a short time spent would increase the risk of trouble proportionally. And lots of debris created, would also add to the risk of being noticed.

From all the descriptions of how it has been so hidden, I wouldn't think that it would be just a simple "two men and a couple shovels, in one morning," kind of an operation.

you are very correct ,, the mine was only worked aboutr 4 or 5 years off and on and very lemited resaults in hard rock mining .. the mine was 12 -14 ft deep in some accounts and other say the mine was 75 ft deep .. i beleive the two diffrent accounts reflect the hoya and the Ma mine the hoya being 75 ft deep . i am sure of this .. i wont say why ...

but you are correct .. this mine was worked very little and every time it was worked it ended in danger and death ...

 

[Blindbowman]

Oro---

Although a matching ore specimen would satisfy you or I, does anyone know what the Forest Service thinks the "original" ore characteristics were? Do they hold the same standards on that as we do?

The Forest Service has very capable geologists on staff, perhaps not in each individual field office of course but it is reasonable to expect that their geologist will have a standard that is similar to any other professional geologist. Should a problem arise with the USFS geologist, there is the USGS and they would be well qualified.

Besides, you should probably take your specimen to a non-government geologist and pay to have the comparison done, then take his written conclusions to the Forest Service, not take a specimen to the FS and expect them to do your prospecting work for you, which an ore comparison would be. Some states used to offer free assays, ore mineral identifications etc but I don't know of any that are currently doing this. Think about what you are proposing here, this idea of taking your ore to the Forest Service is not something you would do with any other mineral deposit, and to the USFS, if the Lost Dutchman exists, it is nothing more than another mineral deposit, however infamous or rich.

EE THr also wrote

Also, if the "mine" was covered as thoroughly as legends say, with ground fill, logs, and so forth, wouldn't that take a lot of time and make a lot of noticeable commotion?

That depends on how much excavation you are talking about doing. If the mine is open to all to see, as in visible from satellite photos, then there isn't any such excavating necessary right? Taking a few photos doesn't require removal of any ore, rock, earth etc just point and snap; such photos would be a great step toward getting the permits which would make further efforts quite legal.

EE THr also wrote

It just seems like anything more than a short time spent would increase the risk of trouble proportionally. And lots of debris created, would also add to the risk of being noticed.

From all the descriptions of how it has been so hidden, I wouldn't think that it would be just a simple "two men and a couple shovels, in one morning," kind of an operation.

What makes you believe that it would require more effort/labor/manpower than what you just described? Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

i got a question for you Roy ...

what would be the logic in working the mine beyoind just getting real ore samples .. the reason i ask .. is because if a person is right and has found the real Mine then he most likely has found the peralta camp site also and all the logic i could define tells me the peralta large cache is there somewhere at that camp site .. so what would be the logic in make a lot of rock pounding and motion in a area where you know the odds of recovering a large cache .. see my point .. i dont think working the mine is logical at this point .. collecting pictures and ore samples from the mine is a good idea .,.. but there is a lot more waiting with in ft away then most will ever dream of in their life times , i logically define the large cache as about 120-140 lbs . of high grade ore .. its just my opioion but 140 lbs ready to pack out vs hard work and unwanted actives ...not to say anything aboput the tunnel and trove ..

 

[EE THr]

If I remember correctly, a hoya is an air vent for a tunnel. So if the hoya is 75 feet above the tunnel, then the hoya would have to be 75 feet, right?

If the tunnel goes straight horizontally?

 

[Oroblanco]

Blindbowman wrote

i got a question for you Roy ...

what would be the logic in working the mine beyoind just getting real ore samples .. the reason i ask .. is because if a person is right and has found the real Mine then he most likely has found the peralta camp site also and all the logic i could define tells me the peralta large cache is there somewhere at that camp site .. so what would be the logic in make a lot of rock pounding and motion in a area where you know the odds of recovering a large cache .. see my point .. i dont think working the mine is logical at this point .. collecting pictures and ore samples from the mine is a good idea .,.. but there is a lot more waiting with in ft away then most will ever dream of in their life times , i logically define the large cache as about 120-140 lbs . of high grade ore .. its just my opioion but 140 lbs ready to pack out vs hard work and unwanted actives ...not to say anything aboput the tunnel and trove ..

If a person knew where a cache of Dutchman ore was concealed, obviously that would be less labor and risk than trying to extract "new" ore from a mine or vein. The trick is in knowing where the cache IS, and another key issue being that it hasn't already been cleaned out years ago.

A cache of ore might classify legally as a "treasure trove" though it is debatable; if it would legally qualify as a treasure trove, then you have to prove your case to the Forest Service in order to obtain a Treasure Trove permit. It is very difficult to obtain but not impossible. The moment you say the word "Peralta" it will likely raise red flags for the FS employee(s) and if you add on "stone maps" then your case is closed because they are locked on the only published professional opinions available on the Peralta Stones which say they are modern and false. In fact I would recommend not even mentioning Peralta, stone maps, or the Dutchman for that matter IF you actually have found the location of a cache of Dutchman ore. You can make the case to say it is Peralta or Dutchman and/or how it proves the stone maps afterward.

On the other hand, for anyone wanting to just be able to make a claim that they found the LDM, you have another ready-made set of excuses in the USFS, for you can say that you presented your evidence about the Peralta stones and how it led you to the cache and/or camp and/or mine(s) and they will almost certainly not grant you any permits. Remember that in the eyes of the Forest Service, the only information that will count is that which is well documented, and we still have no documentation that there were any Peraltas in the Superstitions wilderness area at all.

I am sure that plenty of folks do not like what I just said here, as I have not changed position, but really it is not ME that needs convincing when we start talking Peraltas. A less risky approach is to just look at this as if it were any previously unknown gold mine, without any name at all and proceed from there. Who cares what name you call it anyway, if it sets you up financially for life? That is just a personal opinion of course, but I would not care if folks called it the bunny wabbit mine and it really was the Dutchman's, if I had it.

Anyway to answer your question, that really depends on whether you have located a cache or the mine itself. There is a fair chance that the caches have been cleaned out, but the mine is not likely to have been removed.
Oroblanco

 

[EE THr]

Oro---

When I spoke of "matching ore," I wasn't referring to either handing a specimen, or an assay, or a mineralogical analysis, to the Forest service. I hadn't anything specific like that in mind. First would come the aquiring of the specimen, then talking to the FS, and finding out what they want to see, would come later.

But my point is, however you present the evidence, would they consider a "match" to his stash an indication that you found the LDM? Do they even admit that the LDM ever existed? And do they consider the existing ore, claimed to be from the LDM, to be authentic?

I see lots of possible doubt there, especially from the FS.

If you claimed to only have found a mine, is that reason for them to allow you to open it up? I thought they weren't filing any more claims in the Supers? As far as I know, they would just say, "You found an old mine? So what? Go away!"

 

[Oroblanco]

Oro---

When I spoke of "matching ore," I wasn't referring to either handing a specimen, or an assay, or a mineralogical analysis, to the Forest service. I hadn't anything specific like that in mind. First would come the aquiring of the specimen, talking to the FS, and finding out what they want to see, would come later.

But my point is, however you present the evidence, would they consider a "match" to his stash an indication that you found the LDM? Do they even admit that the LDM ever existed? And do they considet the existing ore, claimed to be from the LDM, to be authentic?

I see lots of possible doubt there, especially from the FS.

If you claimed to only have found a mine, is that reason for them to allow you to open it up? I thought they weren't filing any more claims in the Supers? As far as I know, they would just say, "You found an old mine? So what? Go away!"

I am not the spokesman for the Forest Service, but you should know that the 'official' (as in published) stance is that the Lost Dutchman mine is legendary, not a proven known mine. I would not present such evidence to the USFS to try to convince them I had found anything other than a rich gold mine that I want to pursue developing, in such a way that would still preserve the "wilderness" aspects of the area where found. Just my own opinion based on what I have seen that works, and what doesn't work. Once you start trying to prove that a legend exists, whether the LDM or the Easter Bunny they are on the same level to government officials.

From what you say, it sounds more like you are looking for excuses before even trying? Am I misunderstanding what you are trying to say? If you only need excuses for X (future use) there are plenty of them available. However once the excuses come into play, the congratulations often fly out the windows.
Oroblanco

 

[EE THr]

Oro---

When I spoke of "matching ore," I wasn't referring to either handing a specimen, or an assay, or a mineralogical analysis, to the Forest service. I hadn't anything specific like that in mind. First would come the aquiring of the specimen, talking to the FS, and finding out what they want to see, would come later.

But my point is, however you present the evidence, would they consider a "match" to his stash an indication that you found the LDM? Do they even admit that the LDM ever existed? And do they considet the existing ore, claimed to be from the LDM, to be authentic?

I see lots of possible doubt there, especially from the FS.

If you claimed to only have found a mine, is that reason for them to allow you to open it up? I thought they weren't filing any more claims in the Supers? As far as I know, they would just say, "You found an old mine? So what? Go away!"

I am not the spokesman for the Forest Service, but you should know that the 'official' (as in published) stance is that the Lost Dutchman mine is legendary, not a proven known mine. I would not present such evidence to the USFS to try to convince them I had found anything other than a rich gold mine that I want to pursue developing, in such a way that would still preserve the "wilderness" aspects of the area where found. Just my own opinion based on what I have seen that works, and what doesn't work. Once you start trying to prove that a legend exists, whether the LDM or the Easter Bunny they are on the same level to government officials.

From what you say, it sounds more like you are looking for excuses before even trying? Am I misunderstanding what you are trying to say? If you only need excuses for X (future use) there are plenty of them available. However once the excuses come into play, the congratulations often fly out the windows.
Oroblanco

Oro---

You kinda lost me on your last paragraph.

I'm doing more asking than saying.

Just tossing around some ideas, following my original question about "if someone found it, how would he go about getting it legally."

Last I heard, as I said, they aren't filing any more claims in the Supers, right? Or am I mistaken about that?

 

[EE THr]

Actually, my original question was, in essence, "How would you know you found it, unless you dig it? And how can you legally dig it?"

And I said that I thought that was half the problem of actually finding it, so it would be worth discussing. It seems to me to be a Catch-22.

But there surely must be a way of overcoming the problem.

Then I brought up some obstacles which I thought were probable. If a person knows what the obstacles are going to be, then he can prepare possible solutions, right?

And that is, at least part of, what the forum is for, isn't it?

I certainly don't mean to be stepping on anyone's toes here.

 

[Oroblanco]

EE THr wrote

Oro---

You kinda lost me on your last paragraph.

I'm doing more asking than saying.

Just tossing around some ideas, following my original question about "if someone found it, how would he go about getting it legally."

Last I heard, as I said, they aren't filing any more claims in the Supers, right? Or am I mistaken about that?

dontknow

As far as I know, the Wilderness Area is closed to mineral entry; if a person had made a genuine discovery of a rich gold mine however it would be worth the red tape to at least try to obtain legal claim.

EE THr also wrote

Actually, my original question was, in essence, "How would you know you found it, unless you dig it? And how can you legally dig it?"

And I said that I thought that was half the problem of actually finding it, so it would be worth discussing. It seems to me to be a Catch-22.

But there surely must be a way of overcoming the problem.

I can't speak for the Forest Service. If I found the LDM, I would make the effort to try to get a legal claim on it, without referring to the Dutchman, Peralta or stone maps even if I had used the stone maps and was 100% convinced it was the mine of Waltz. I am not going to suggest that you do this, but in practice most BLM offices (the BLM handles mining claims not the FS) do not even examine your mining claim forms to see if you have claimed a valid place that is open to claim, and will definitely take your money even if the claim is utterly invalid. It is indigent on the claim filer that he/she is filing a valid claim on a mineral location that is in fact legal to claim and not already claimed by someone else, but a claim filed on the Superstitions Wilderness might well be accepted without question even if later ruled invalid, and of course your fees would be lost in the process. They will generally accept a mining claim filed on a piece of land on the Moon or Sun, slip your fees into the register and you have a paper for your claim, however worthless it really is legally.

 

[EE THr]

So, it looks like the existing options are to either file a worthless mineral claim, and somehow try to fight a legal battle to get the rights to it, or apply for a treasure trove permit.

The trove permit, unlike the mineral claim, would require proof deemed adequate by the Forest Service.

Am I right so far? Or are there any other known options?

 

[Oroblanco]

Perhaps you could get the answers you seek from Ron Feldman, at least that is who I would ask.

 

[EE THr]

Perhaps you could get the answers you seek from Ron Feldman, at least that is who I would ask.

Who is that, and how is he contacted?

 

[Oroblanco]

EE THr wrote

Who is that, and how is he contacted?

I don't know him personally, other members here do and could answer any questions you have about him; I am a bit surprised that you have not heard of Ron though. He is believed by a fair number of folks to have found the LDM, and is in that small club of folks who had gold to show for their efforts.

Drawn to Arizona in 1968 by legends of lost mines and the Western mythology of Zane Grey, Ron Feldman has become an authority on lost mines and regional history. He established one of the most successful stables in the Southwest, the outfitting and guide service known as the O.K. Corral Stables.

Ron has appeared many times on national television and has been a guest lecturer at Central Arizona College. In 2004-2005, he headed an archaeological treasure-trove dig in the Superstition Wilderness, under the U.S. Forest Service.

<from http://www.okcorrals.com/crooked_mountain.php>

The Feldmans business site has a contact form page, you might try that:
http://www.okcorrals.com/contact.php

Ron is also one of the very few people to ever successfully obtain a Treasure Trove permit from the USFS, and in the Superstitions Wilderness area at that, which I have been told is "impossible" to do. Hence my suggestions.

Jim Hatt researched the matter of mining and mining claims in Wilderness Areas and has a good explanation of what is allowed and what is not (in a general way, the Superstitions has much tighter restrictions than the national standard) on the Desert USA forum. I don't have a link handy but if you just go to the forum you can find it fairly easily.

It may seem impossible to legally do anything with the Lost Dutchman mine if you did actually find it, but as Bob Corbin said "You can't legislate away mens dreams." ...and in government, special allowances are very often made when a large amount of wealth is involved. Don't kid yourself about this factor either, for the Fed stands to benefit in a big way if someone were to find a treasure trove as they get half of the value right off the top, and you pay income tax on the remainder, with a mine the percentage is not so great but still a royalty plus the income taxes on your profits. The restrictions are to prevent folks from just destroying the wilderness in a blind way, just as Celeste Jones was trying to dynamite Weavers Needle to dust in her search for Waltz's mine. People can be very destructive, and the wilderness itself has a value to the people as it is, which would be degraded if the authorities simply allowed anyone to dynamite their way across it any way they pleased.

Good luck and good hunting amigos, I hope you find the treasures that you seek.
Oroblanco