If there is a genuine in interest in a mineral I still fail to see why anyone should want to remove it. By hacking at a wall or whatever it will destroy the working face and archaelogy in its exact sense.
If you ignore the underground side of things and look at mine tips which again forms part of the archaeolgy these too have been picked over and many sites where you could find mineral remains these too have gone.
For the record the ransacking of Mineral from Nenthead is notorious and yes there may still be remains but not as the miners left it.
Mike
"Why anyone should want to remove it"? Because one cannot appreciate, or study, mud-coated, half buried examples down a dirty, damp, dangerous hole.
"hacking at a wall" There are miles and miles and miles of walls (and roofs and floors) in old mines. 99.9 % + of them are of no merit. I can understand wanting to preserve a hand-chiselled coffin level wall, or original miners' graffitti, but an ordinary wall, showing some mineralization, is of no special historic merit, but the minerals may be. In that situation the minerals surely have priority. To demand that miles of walls of little historic import must be preserved at the expense of other interests is just unreasonable. The mines are not there for one interest group only to have as its own private playground with all other groups totally barred. And this applies to collectors as much as to heritage/history buffs. There has to be some give and take. I, for one, am happy to leave the miners' remains alone, leave the structures in place, and not pull down the arching. But in return a wall or roof, that is no different to miles of other walls or roofs, except that it happens to have a vug or two, and is not in the way of remains, should be accepted as of legitimate interest to mineralogists.
"look at mine tips". Yes look at them - while they last. As part of its Lead Rakes Project in the Peak District, English Heritage produced a report (Bulletin 42) on the state of the mine tips, or "hillocks" as they called them, in the Peak District. You can read it here: www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/peak_district.pdf By comparing Victorian maps with modern aerial photos, and on-ground footwork, the authors, two archaeologists with no interest in minerals, discovered that half, yes HALF, of the waste heaps had gone totally, and half the remainder were badly damaged. The culprits were farmers, forestry, quarrying etc. No mention of mineral collectors. The same story is repeated in most of the mining districts in the British Isles. Mine tips cleared, adits blocked, shafts filled, and collectors are NOT to blame.
English Nature once held a conference on mineral collecting and again this issue was raised. Unfortunately their link to the proceedings is not working just now but you can get a hard copy from them (English Nature. Mineral collecting and conservation – hammering out a future? Proceedings of a one-day conference in Salford, 16 April 2003 (Research Report). Unfortunately my copy has gone AWOL or I'd be quoting it for you. It covers all points of view on the subject but included some very interesting papers from degreed academics listing, amongst other things, the processes (natural or human) that degrade mineral localities with dozens of examples from all over the UK and Ireland, as well as the enormous positive contribution collectors make (new discoveries, scientific papers, 1000s of museum donations etc.). It is clear, from both these reports, that the main threats to mine sites, above or below ground, do not include collectors. They are things like agricultural practices, forestry, tips being used as aggregate, reprocessing, councils clearing "eyesores", natural weathering and erosion ... These are what destroy mine tips. Not collectors. If collectors have managed to salvage some specimens before the landowner bulldozes the site then good for them!
"the ransacking of Mineral from Nenthead" Only to those with a gripe against collectors is it "ransacking". If the mines collapsed irrecoverably tomorrow then "rescuing" might be a better adjective. As I understand it, many of those who have dug out large sections of these mines have been collectors, and their actions have made areas accessible to all including significant historic remains. I also note the frequency of visits by casual explorers, school parties etc. I wonder how much of the pulled-down deads etc. is their work rather than the actions of serious collectors? Experienced collectors are not interested in the battered bits in the deads. They want virgin vugs.
"not as the miners left it" The miners themselves did not always leave things nice and tidy. Pillar removal at the end of a mine's life has, doubtless, left many a mine sealed forever. With respect to specimens, I once found a piece wrapped in ancient newspaper (early 20th century) by a miner, and elsewhere in the same mine (Rampgill) vugs scraped clean by the miners themselves (their own rusting tools and rotten newspaper giving it away) presumably to get material for their spar boxes.
So let's put this into perspective please. The main threats to mine sites do not include collectors, and without collectors the minerals would be lost anyway when the mine falls in or the farmer removes the tip. Mines are not the exclusive preserve or one group or another. There has to be a bit of compromise on both sides. Yes leave the historic stuff and structures alone, but where these are not affected then leave the collectors alone too.