11.09.2026, 08:30
Following further correspondence with the Eichstätt District Office, initiated by the operator of Steinkern.de, an online community for fossil collectors, all questions and issues raised by the petition have now been satisfactorily addressed.
The relevant questions and answers can be viewed at the following website (in german language):
https://www.steinkern.de/fundorte/bayern/1531-petition-blumbenberg-nachtrag.html
The petition addressed to the Eichstätt District Office has therefore achieved its intended purpose.
The petition can therefore be considered successful and concluded with a positive outcome.
Thank you to everyone who supported this petition!
11.09.2026, 02:46
Die Laufzeit wurde geändert, da die Petition bereits erfolgreich war und die Fragen vom Landkreis beantwortet wurden.
New deadline: 09/12/2026
Signatures at the time of the change: 832 (22 in Eichstätt)
11.09.2026, 02:45
Die Laufzeit wurde geändert, da die Petition bereits erfolgreich war und die Fragen vom Landkreis beantwortet wurden.
New deadline: 10/12/2026
Signatures at the time of the change: 832 (22 in Eichstätt)
10.09.2026, 16:19
Following further correspondence with the Eichstätt District Office, initiated by the operator of Steinkern.de, an online community for fossil collectors, all questions and issues raised by the petition have now been satisfactorily addressed.
The relevant questions and answers can be viewed at the following website (in german language):
https://www.steinkern.de/fundorte/bayern/1531-petition-blumbenberg-nachtrag.html
The petition addressed to the Eichstätt District Office has therefore achieved its intended purpose.
The petition can therefore be considered successful and concluded with a positive outcome.
09.09.2026, 04:05
In the meantime, the District of Eichstätt has commented on the issues raised. It has expressly stated that the long-term operation of the visitor quarry is to be secured and that any expansion of the quarry that may become necessary in the future should remain possible.
I have also been informed that the investor is taking these points into account and that the current plans reflect these requirements accordingly.
Against this background, I would like to wait and see how the situation develops and do not wish to further pursue the discussions that have taken place so far.
I would like to make one point clear once again: the petition is not directed against the further development of the Blumenberg as a tourist destination, nor against any individual or the investor. Its sole purpose was, and remains, to ensure the long-term preservation and continued operation of the visitor quarry.
As the relevant points have now been addressed, I hope that the further development will proceed in a way that is in the interests of everyone involved. A factual and respectful discussion should remain the priority.
