Canadian laws re. fossil collecting
Jeremy Shaw
Canada. The following message identifies a potential problem.
> Now be advised, it is technically illegal to collect and
> possess fossils in Canada. However, the law is VERY
> selectively enforced. They seem to be mostly interested
> in vertebrate fossils. I have never had any problem
> collecting, or bringing fossils over the border. But my
> last visit there was 5 years ago...
Naturally I'd want to bring specimens back into the U.S. Does
anyone have more up-to-date information and/or advice.
Thanks,
Jeremy
Joel R. Morris/darrel A. Seyler
>> possess fossils in Canada. However, the law is VERY
>> selectively enforced. They seem to be mostly interested
>> in vertebrate fossils.>
>
the province. There is a heavy fine if you get caught. On the other hand,
what you take out without getting caught is fair game -- even if illegal!
I'm not endorsing either position because I do believe there are people who
have reason to have specimens to study. By the way, the Paleontological
association of B.C. has just set rules for collecting and possessing
goodies. This will be sent to the provincial government for reference to
potentials laws to come into force in B.C.
As far as entering the U.S., I don't think that they have any national restrictions
and if you enter with specimens no one will care.
Cheers,
Joel R. Morris
Vert. Paleo. (Ret.)
Joel R. Morris/darrel A. Seyler
>
>
>
>Naturally I'd want to bring specimens back into the U.S. Does
>anyone have more up-to-date information and/or advice.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jeremy
of collecting for the sake of collecting, Which I do not. I also inferred
that If you were to get away with something illegal it OK. That also is
not true. What I really meant was that after you crossed int Intnl border
no one down there would really care one way or the other so long as it was
not collected in the U.S. If you are a serious collector, you can usually
get permission from property owners or government persons to collect. You
have the responsibility to show it to someone to find out if it is a signi-
icant find.
Hope that clears that faux pas!
Joel
Chuck Prime
: >>jeremy: It is true that in ALBERTA it is illegal to remove fossils from
: the province. There is a heavy fine if you get caught. On the other hand,
: what you take out without getting caught is fair game -- even if illegal!
: I'm not endorsing either position because I do believe there are people who
: have reason to have specimens to study. By the way, the Paleontological
: association of B.C. has just set rules for collecting and possessing
: goodies. This will be sent to the provincial government for reference to
: potentials laws to come into force in B.C.
Lordy... just what the world needs: government regulation of fossils. I'm
sure that will bring the typical improvements North Americans are generally
becoming used to. I can just see the BATF (Bureau of Acquired Terrestrial
Fossils) crashing through the windows at 3:00 am in search of "restricted
arms," semi-automatic assault airscribes, and armor-piercing theropod teeth.
After all, times have changed, there is no reason to own them, and they
should be left in the hands of trained professionals.
:-(
: As far as entering the U.S., I don't think that they have any national
: restrictions and if you enter with specimens no one will care.
I have no experience with this, but can't exactly see the border guards
detaining a southbound motorist for having "illegal saurischian metacarpals
of Late Cretaceous origin."
Jeremy Shaw
I don't know anyone who collects just for "collecting."
We do it for knowledge, to enhance our understanding. I didn't see
a post from Greg Brown. But I did/do appreciate yours. Thanks.
Jeremy
Jeff Poling
> possess fossils in Canada.
>Jeremy: Greg Brown chastised me for my reply which could infer that I approvfe
>of collecting for the sake of collecting, Which I do not.
Yes, the unwashed masses should not be permitted to own fossils. That
pleasure must be preserved only for the educated elite!!!!
** "A warp core breach is imminent? ** "Those who trade a little freedom **
** This calls for the handyman's secret ** for a little security will soon **
** weapon, duct tape." --- Red Green, ** find that they have none of **
** Chief Engineer, U.S.S. Voyager ** either." --- Jeff Poling **
Jeff Poling
brown) writes:
>Jeremy Shaw (jes...@foxy.c-mols.siu.edu) wrote:
>: No faux pas, Joel.
>: Jeremy
>See what I mean, Joel? There goes the heat!
BTW, folks, my purposely contentious post on the subject of private
ownership/collecting of fossils was NOT a shot at Gregory Brown specifically.
I just find the whole movement to ban private ownership of fossils maddening
and I just had to say something. Greg's name simply got included in the post.
I read where some twit paleontologist stated that he hoped that Larson and
the other BHI people go to jail simply because they sell fossils (in other
words, the fact that they may or may not have broken the law collecting "Sue"
was irrelevent to him. He wanted them in jail PERIOD).
<sarcasm on>
That really makes ME want to work with him.....
<sarcasm off>
gregory brown
: Jeremy: Greg Brown chastised me for my reply which could infer that I approvfe
: of collecting for the sake of collecting, Which I do not.
Yikes, Joel! No I didn't! At least that wasn't my intention. My
only concern was that your post might be construed as encouraging
people to disregard laws and collect anyway, and that that probably
wasn't a good attitude to foster in people. You have addressed that below.
And my note to you wasn't really chastisement...it was more a
"surprised rhetorical query".
: I also inferred
: that If you were to get away with something illegal it OK. That also is
: not true. What I really meant was that after you crossed int Intnl border
: no one down there would really care one way or the other so long as it was
: not collected in the U.S.
: Hope that clears that faux pas!
It does, but...it's been over 100 degrees here for a couple of
days...and you've just turned up the heat on me!
Greg
gregory brown
: No faux pas, Joel.
: I don't know anyone who collects just for "collecting."
: We do it for knowledge, to enhance our understanding. I didn't see
: a post from Greg Brown. But I did/do appreciate yours. Thanks.
: Jeremy
See what I mean, Joel? There goes the heat!
For anyone interested: My personal email to Joel just pointed out
that his original post could easily be interpreted as encouraging
people to disregard laws and collect fossils illegally; that if
they got away with it, it was OK to do. He has explained that
that was not his intent or meaning and posted a clarification. I
expressed no opinion about "collecting for the sake of collecting"
...it didn't even register in my mind that Joel's post referred to
that.
So please. This is a non-issue. Evil thoughts about me are not
justified! (at least not for this!)
Thanks,
Greg Brown
Jeremy Shaw
All that doesn't matter.
The point is that sharing a passion with people one might otherwise
not have known/met is an incredible advantage in researching a
field--it allows a honing of interest and experience.
Of course people will have different perspectives and (even financial)
interests in the paleontological record.
As far as I can tell, every last insight, whether professional,
amateur or commercial, adds eventually to that record. I haven't seen
anyone who loves something set out to destroy it.
Thank you for your responses.
Jeremy
John A. Kostecki
> I have an opportunity to collect fossils (invertebrates) in
> Canada. The following message identifies a potential problem.
>
> > selectively enforced. They seem to be mostly interested
> > collecting, or bringing fossils over the border. But my
> > last visit there was 5 years ago...
>
> anyone have more up-to-date information and/or advice.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeremy
Jeremy,
I was in Canada last fall collecting Euripterids and had no problem bringing stuff back. You might want to go with an official "trip" as I did. I went on a field trip from the Rochester Museum of Science, and the trip leader made arrangements with the quarry we visited.
John
Norm Helfand
>>>jeremy: It is true that in ALBERTA it is illegal to remove fossils from
>the province. There is a heavy fine if you get caught. On the other hand,
> what you take out without getting caught is fair game -- even if illegal!
>I'm not endorsing either position because I do believe there are people who
>have reason to have specimens to study. By the way, the Paleontological
>association of B.C. has just set rules for collecting and possessing
>goodies. This will be sent to the provincial government for reference to
>potentials laws to come into force in B.C.
>
>and if you enter with specimens no one will care.
>Joel R. Morris
>Vert. Paleo. (Ret.)
Joel,
Do you have any information on laws in Saskatchewan?
Norm Helfand
Toronto, Ontario
JHR BR
to both Dinosaur Provincial Park and the Royal Tyrrell Museum. Both were
first-rate, and I cannot recommend either one too highly.
The following is excerpted from an official publication of the Royal
Tyrrell Museum:
Palaeontological resources are irreplaceable. Alberta's palaeontological
resources were included under the protection of the Historical Resources
Act in 1978. All fossils in the province were declared the property of
the Crown in right of Alberta.
Individuals may claim ownership for fossils collected before July 5, 1978
by registering the collection with the Royal Tyrell Museum of
Palaeontology by December 31, 1993.
In 1987, an amendment to the Act established a Control List allowing
repsonsible trade of certain fossil resources. These fossils were
determined to have limited research value and were abundant within the
province.
There are two different ways to collect fossils: surface collecting and
excavating. Surface collecting refers to finding isolated fossils clearly
on the surface of the ground. Excavating refers to the dislodging, in any
manner, of fossils that are embedded or buried in the ground or rock face.
Surface collection is permitted on private land with the landowner's
permission and on Crown land. It is not permitted in Provincial or
National Parks. Collectors may keep surface finds but ownership resides
with the province of Alberta, making it illegal to sell or remove such
fossils from the province without an approved Disposition Certificate.
Offences under the Act are punishable by fines and/or prison sentences.
Fossil excavation requires a Permit to Excavate which is acquired through
the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paaeontology. Private ownership of fossils
appearing on the Control List is not automatic. An approved Disposition
Certificate must be obtained before the transfer of ownership is complete.
The Royal Tyrrell Museum Resource Planning Unit deals specifically with
issues concerning the Historical Resources Act. For further information
contact:
Royal Tyrrell Mseum of Palaeontology
Box 7500
Drumheller, Alberta T0J 0Y0
Canada
(403) 823-7707
JHR B...@AOL.COM (John H. Runnels)
Robert Pullman
>
> Individuals may claim ownership for fossils collected before July 5, 1978
> by registering the collection with the Royal Tyrell Museum of
> Palaeontology by December 31, 1993.
>
As a Canadian living in the US for the last 18 years (Kentucky, the land
of trillions upon trillions of fossils,) reading this crap from Canadian
governments makes it more and more embarassing to even mention one is
Canadian. Gee you know those fossils I picked up as a kid all over
Canada....I've still got them...and the Canadian government will never
have legal right to them..I can't believe Canadians allow politicians to
dictate such stupid legislation to the public when they can't control
their national debt, can't regulate immigration in one of their provinces,
can't deal with massive unemployment, and can't do anything about a dollar
thats worth 64 cents on the US as I write this. So for anyone who wants
fossils I'll send you some...its legal here...you pay the freight..I'll
even send to Canada..you pay the duty...oh just for the record the sin
products like Canadian Club 6$ a liter and cigs 80cents are lets see, 25%
of the Canadian price...Canadians need to dig a little of the crap off the
pile and get a life...or end up like fossils.
Chuck Prime
: My family just returned from a two-week trip to Alberta, including visits
: to both Dinosaur Provincial Park and the Royal Tyrrell Museum. Both were
: first-rate, and I cannot recommend either one too highly.
Well, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the Tyrrell has a nice
collection, since they apparently reserve the right to simply take from a
Canadian citizen anything they want to take.
: The following is excerpted from an official publication of the Royal
: Tyrrell Museum:
<snip>
: Individuals may claim ownership for fossils collected before July 5, 1978
: by registering the collection with the Royal Tyrell Museum of
: Palaeontology by December 31, 1993.
And it should be no surprise that the Tyrrell is the largest
paleontological museum in that province, since they not only can acquire
anything they want, but also can catalog everything in Alberta at
3rd-party gunpoint.
<snip>
: National Parks. Collectors may keep surface finds but ownership resides
: with the province of Alberta, making it illegal to sell or remove such
: fossils from the province without an approved Disposition Certificate.
: Offences under the Act are punishable by fines and/or prison sentences.
: Fossil excavation requires a Permit to Excavate which is acquired through
: the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paaeontology. Private ownership of fossils
: appearing on the Control List is not automatic. An approved Disposition
: Certificate must be obtained before the transfer of ownership is complete.
Any who thought my recent remark about raids by the Bureau of Acquired
Terrestrial Fossils was too flip to be considered, might reconsider, and
realize that there are people in this country, too, who seek such things.
And since the Tyrrell appears to be able to forbid "competition" from
other museums and from commercial and amateur interests, it's no surprise
that they seem to have no such "competition.
One might wonder why I am responding to these posts in this manner, when
they were simply posted as information by request of people considering
trips to Alberta. The answer is that NO science or hobby is exempt from
the basic principles of morality and of government interventionism, and
as certainly as Canada will wreck the commercial and amateur aspects of
paleontology with socialist "resource" distribution and mandatory
bureaucratic seals-of-approval, we might follow their lead with vague
public/private property boundaries and world-class fossils spending years
in crates while court cases are pending.
If you love paleontology, set it free...
Chuck Prime
: > Individuals may claim ownership for fossils collected before July 5, 1978
: > by registering the collection with the Royal Tyrell Museum of
: > Palaeontology by December 31, 1993.
: As a Canadian living in the US for the last 18 years (Kentucky, the land
: of trillions upon trillions of fossils,) reading this crap from Canadian
: governments makes it more and more embarassing to even mention one is
: Canadian. Gee you know those fossils I picked up as a kid all over
: Canada....I've still got them...and the Canadian government will never
: have legal right to them..I can't believe Canadians allow politicians to
They never had moral right to them, either. But all tyrants, whether
actualized or merely striving to be, have the same practical rationale of
"necessity," the same political rationale that rights are granted and are
not objective, the same ethical rationale of altruism, the same
intellectual rationale of unreason, and the same metaphysical rationale
that: "reality be damned--this is what I WANT!!!"
They "need" to protect "irreplaceable resources" such as fossils from
plebian little-people such as private citizens and companies; they "need"
to do this at governmental gunpoint because nobody but they support such
policies and would not obey them if not under threat of jail or death;
they have the "right" to do this because they have the MIGHT to do this,
whether that right is conferred by majoritarian mob rule (democracy) or
authoritarian oligarchic rule (most other tyrannies); they "need" to
exercise that so-called "right" because people must be forced to serve
the common good and those in government who hold title to it; people must
be forced for the sole "reason" that other people WANT them to be and
reason is an illusion but whim is an axiom; and what does it matter
because reality is an illusion either in the mind of "God" (religionism)
or of the masses (secular collectivisms such as socialism and fascism).
Why do Canadians allow this crap which would rightly get a child spanked
if he engaged in such sophistry over increasing his allowance?
They allow it for the same reasons that Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Red
China, Castro's Cuba, and all other slave pens allow it: the
intellectuals preach it, the government acts it out, and the people
swallow it hook, line and sinker because they simply don't care to know
any better.
The exact same trends are dominant here, as well. That's why I point this
out.
: dictate such stupid legislation to the public when they can't control
: their national debt, can't regulate immigration in one of their provinces,
: can't deal with massive unemployment, and can't do anything about a dollar
: thats worth 64 cents on the US as I write this. So for anyone who wants
: fossils I'll send you some...its legal here...you pay the freight..I'll
: even send to Canada..you pay the duty...oh just for the record the sin
: products like Canadian Club 6$ a liter and cigs 80cents are lets see, 25%
: of the Canadian price...Canadians need to dig a little of the crap off the
: pile and get a life...or end up like fossils.
Canada cannot manage its problems because the train of thought I just
outlined is the CAUSE of those problems, and instead of abandoning that
train, they continue to stand on the rails in self-induced blindness and
scream for the engineer to go even faster. MORE government will solve the
problems caused by last year's cry for more government; MORE altruism
will force people to serve the common good which last year's altruism
failed to do; MORE unreality will make their policies work THIS time, really
and for true, don't you know.
Oh well. Belated welcome to the States, my friend.
And I too am willing to trade fossils with Canadians and anybody else. My
collection is small and amateurish, but since I am still somewhat free,
it is growing and improving, I am learning and having fun, and children
at halloween and at local private museums are benefitting from the pieces
I do not want but donate in the occasional shopping bag load.
Only my own enjoyment motivates any of my actions--and rightly so--but
being able to donate a bag of stuff sure is a nice fringe benefit of the
rabid selfishness which gives me the means to, and which I am still
somewhat free to exercise.
I wish the same, and much more of it, on all of us.
Thomas J. Allen
In a previous article, pr...@winternet.com (Chuck Prime) says:
>Robert Pullman (pul...@iac.net) wrote:
>: In article <3u4kge$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, jh...@aol.com (JHR BR) wrote:
>: > Individuals may claim ownership for fossils collected before July 5, 1978
>: > by registering the collection with the Royal Tyrell Museum of
>: > Palaeontology by December 31, 1993.
>
>: As a Canadian living in the US for the last 18 years (Kentucky, the land
>: of trillions upon trillions of fossils,) reading this crap from Canadian
>: governments makes it more and more embarassing to even mention one is
>: Canadian. Gee you know those fossils I picked up as a kid all over
>: Canada....I've still got them...and the Canadian government will never
>: have legal right to them..I can't believe Canadians allow politicians to
>
>They never had moral right to them, either. But all tyrants, whether
>actualized or merely striving to be, have the same practical rationale of
>"necessity," the same political rationale that rights are granted and are
>not objective, the same ethical rationale of altruism, the same
>intellectual rationale of unreason, and the same metaphysical rationale
>that: "reality be damned--this is what I WANT!!!"
>
>They "need" to protect "irreplaceable resources" such as fossils from
>plebian little-people such as private citizens and companies; they "need"
>to do this at governmental gunpoint because nobody but they support such
etc. etc. etc snipped (no offense intended by snipping)
Basically, I agree with the points made above, but I need to know how to
reply to the arguments specifically made by the other side, such as:
1. Govt is protecting a Canadian common resource from non-Canadians.
2. Some of these fossils are rarer than any endangered species, and we
agree govts can protect endangered species.
3. Amateur collectors destroy or take out of circulation important
scientific resources, better left to professional interpretation.
Scientists publish their work for the good of all, amateurs only to make
money or hoard for personal satisfaction.
Consider Locke on "the commons", those bits of property unowned, (vs. owned
by all citizens collectively.) For Locke, objects in the commons become
private property by the addition of labor (if you labor to dig them up,
they become your property, like fishing in the open ocean). This is
fine if objects in the commons are unowned. But typically, govts say
these objects are owned by the people as a whole, so it is the govts
responsibility to protect them, especially rare objects, for the good of all.
A whole lot turns on who owns the natural objects of the commons.
Let me repeat, I would like to freely gather these natural objects. It's
fun, educational, fascinating, etc. But I can make good sense of some of
the above counterarguments, and want to know what to say. Any thoughts?
tja
--
tja...@prairienet.org is Thomas James Allen
UVa '83 UCSB '89 analytic philosophy, semantics, Kinko's.
Know thyself - Socrates No thyself - Wittgenstein
Robert Pullman
J. Allen) wrote:
>
> Let me repeat, I would like to freely gather these natural objects. It's
> fun, educational, fascinating, etc. But I can make good sense of some of
> the above counterarguments, and want to know what to say. Any thoughts?
>
> tja
> --
> tja...@prairienet.org is Thomas James Allen
> UVa '83 UCSB '89 analytic philosophy, semantics, Kinko's.
>
> Know thyself - Socrates No thyself - Wittgenstein
1. History is not a resource. Its a fact of life. Its not a Canadian
resource..if anything its a resource of mankind (womankind)
2.Fossils in Kentucky are no rarer than anywhere else...dinosaur bones
exist as well as sea fossils(see Bib Bone Lick, KY) These are not
endangered species. The danger point is long past. Absolutely no one on
this planet has any idea how many fossils there are lying under
strata...based on what has been exposed and the amount of "oil" one would
calculate that there are tons of fossils out there..basic statistics 101.
3.Some of the best research and discoveries in history have been made by
amateurs...not professionals...and just as well meaning professionals have
destoryed "irreplaceable " data. Most scientist think they are better
than they are (human weakness)..history shows that all well meaning
scientist have held the same viewpoint only to be proven wrong later.
Governments don't own anything...they have the sole responsibility to
manage common needs of its individuals..roads, water..etc.....the basics.
Not the basic good because we don't want those damm Americans coming up
and pillaging our country routine. The Canadian government is made up of
a pile of totally irresponsible bubble headed uneducated bigots who really
don't care about their resources...eg. clear cutting..selling oil, gas,
hydro (at any cost)...need I go on...communism and socialism have
died....its time scientist remember are few basics..the most important one
being..all knowledge is theory..if you don't believe something is accurate
then don't.
JFCO...@ukcc.uky.edu
pul...@iac.net (Robert Pullman) writes:
>2.Fossils in Kentucky are no rarer than anywhere else...dinosaur bones
>exist as well as sea fossils(see Bib Bone Lick, KY) These are not
rocks are in the Jackson Purchase region (far western Kentucky). It
would be a terrible loss if someone found dinosaur bones in the Jackson
Purchase and kept them in their private collection. The Big Bone
Lick fossils are of Pleistocene vertebrates (mostly mammals).
Dan
Dan Phelps jfco...@ukcc.uky.edu
(606) 277-3148 Ask me how to join
The Kentucky Paleontological Society!
(\__/) .~ ~. ))
/O O ./ .' DANIEL J. PHELPS
{O__, \ { JFCO...@UKCC.UKY.EDU
/ . . ) \ LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY
|-| '-' \ } ))
.( _( )_.'
'---.~_ _ _& SOMETHING SEEMS SQUIRRELLY AROUND HERE!
*****************************************************************
Jeremy Shaw
I will report on practical applications of the various official (and
unofficial) imperatives.
Had I known a little more, I would probably have picked this up from
one of several posts: the fact of the matter is that when leaving
Canada, one only passes through a U.S. checkpoint, and does not even
have to say "boo" to any Canadian official. On the way into Canada,
one speaks only to Canadians; on the way out, only to Americans.
And the American side has no interest in purloined Canadian crinoids.
So as the system is currently configured, at least from Ontario (I
have just returned), carrying fossils (or anything) across the
border is not even monitored by Canadian officialdom.
I understand that if one publishes a paper about a significant
Canadian discovery, then Canada is obliged to request the return
of the specimen involved. But there are no extradition laws in place
to put teeth into any legislative bite. Those whom I know inform
the Canadians of any significant discoveries, anyway, and are glad
to donate such specimens to the national paleontological treasury.
As for the morality of finding, extracting and cherishing an
exceptional trilobite or crinoid, and wanting to take it home,
no one can convince me that leaving it to be ground up into road
gravel, or dissolved into mud by the elements, is the better
alternative.
Darwin was an amateur, too. Try legislating his experience out of
the record (those who want to do so can find solace with the
creationists).
It is patently stupid to think the worst of people, rather than
the more common better.
I am indeed grateful for this entire discussion. With your help,
I came, I saw, and I conquered (Caesar, whom I remember, from years
of Latin, was always crossing bridges over rivers, might well have
picked up a fossil or two, too, in transit).
Thank you.
Mark Isaak
and that they would get eroded into oblivion if they are not soon removed to
protection. It seems that prohibiting the collecting of surface fossils by
amateurs is an excellent way of ensuring the fossils' destruction, not their
preservation.
--
Mark Isaak "It is impossible for anyone to learn that
is...@aurora.com which he thinks he already knows." - Plutarch
Chuck Prime
: In a previous article, pr...@winternet.com (Chuck Prime) says:
: >They never had moral right to them, either. But all tyrants, whether
: >actualized or merely striving to be, have the same practical rationale of
: >"necessity," the same political rationale that rights are granted and are
: >not objective, the same ethical rationale of altruism, the same
: >intellectual rationale of unreason, and the same metaphysical rationale
: >that: "reality be damned--this is what I WANT!!!"
: >
: >They "need" to protect "irreplaceable resources" such as fossils from
: >plebian little-people such as private citizens and companies; they "need"
: >to do this at governmental gunpoint because nobody but they support such
: Basically, I agree with the points made above, but I need to know how to
: reply to the arguments specifically made by the other side, such as:
: 1. Govt is protecting a Canadian common resource from non-Canadians.
Then it also "protects" them from Bob Bakker, Jack Horner, John Ostrom, and
all those other folks with nothing to contribute to the field. Well,
nothing which makes up for the fact that they were born in the wrong
country, at least. Since neither fossils nor knowledge of them is
actually shackled to a political border, then paleontology is being
sacrificed to nothing better than brute tribalism. And all who advocate
that sacrifice confess that they value their tribalism more than the
field in question. No field can withstand this without damage.
In terms of human rights, the Canadian government is violating them by
initiating force against innocent citizens in the name of some greater
collective good. Well, not the good of paleontology; not the good of
individual freedom; not the good of COLLECTIVE freedom; not the good of
Canadians and not the good of Americans or other foreigners. They do it
for the good of... nobody.
Under these conditions, those "resources" cannot be used to their utmost
potential, so this governmental policy sabotages the use of what it
claims to protect. A resource forbidden to use--or use in optimum
fashion--is not a resource, but the exact opposite of one: useless.
If governments would just protect individual rights, as is their only
legitimate function, then ALL businessmen and scientists would be able to
do what's best for their fields and themselves as men immersed in them.
Some might accuse Cope/Marsh of being "robber barons" of fossils, but
their contributions to the field are inarguable and perhaps inestimable.
And it's those people who move the world and history. It's those
people who invent or discover the fields which give bureaucrats
something to dispense permission about and generally get in the way
of, and which give Phil Currie something to do. (As he would probably be
one of the first to admit.)
: 2. Some of these fossils are rarer than any endangered species, and we
: agree govts can protect endangered species.
(They ought to protect endangered rights.)
You can see where your premise leads you. You either have to reject it or
live with it. You cannot accept it and then expect to counter arguments
based on it.
Unfortunately, you can reject it and still be forced at gunpoint to live
with it, but at least you'll be consistent and you'll be right.
: 3. Amateur collectors destroy or take out of circulation important
: scientific resources, better left to professional interpretation.
: Scientists publish their work for the good of all, amateurs only to make
: money or hoard for personal satisfaction.
False premise. Scientists do NOT publish "for the good of all," even if
millions of people benefit from the publication. They do it because they
love their work, they want their name in lights, they need to retain
their professorial status... they do it out of SELFISH motivation, just
as amateurs do.
False premise. Selfishness is NOT bad or destructive. It is a necessary
trait for creatures who survive by attending to their wants and needs,
and by learning how to make a hostile environment useful to them.
False premise. Knowledge, academic or otherwise, does NOT have that self-
contradictory notion called "intrinsic value," which divorces the idea of
value from valuers per se, and which sometimes demands that scientists be
given free reign to publish as they see fit at the expense of personal
freedom for those who are forbidden their own research materials and who
will likely never read the publication anyway. "Intrinsic value" says, in
this case, that what scientists do is good even if nobody benefits, and
even if everybody loses. (This is the same kind of intrinsic value
environmentalists attach to spotted owls and humanities professors attach
to "diversity" and "ethnicity" [meaning: racial tribalism and racial
tribalism].)
False premise. Amateurs do NOT do more harm than good, or even as much.
Imagine where the field would be without us.
False premise. Amateurs do NOT "remove from circulation" valuable fossils
anywhere near as much as they discover them and put them INTO
circulation. There is no more dramatic example than the lady who found
the bones Horner later named "maiasaur," or some spelling-variant
thereof.
False premise. "Circulation," meaning in this context "access to what I
want, dammit!" is not a right.
: Consider Locke on "the commons", those bits of property unowned, (vs. owned
: by all citizens collectively.) For Locke, objects in the commons become
: private property by the addition of labor (if you labor to dig them up,
: they become your property, like fishing in the open ocean). This is
: fine if objects in the commons are unowned. But typically, govts say
: these objects are owned by the people as a whole, so it is the govts
: responsibility to protect them, especially rare objects, for the good of all.
: A whole lot turns on who owns the natural objects of the commons.
Yes, governments claim this, and yes, governments enforce it. But just
because a government claims something does not make it true, and just
because they enforce it does not make it right.
"Collective ownership" is an oxymoron, invariably served up on the
platters of the government, by the government and for the government.
Which means ultimately that these things are never owned by "the people,"
but by the bureaucrats. Just whose "good" does this "protect"?
: Let me repeat, I would like to freely gather these natural objects. It's
: fun, educational, fascinating, etc. But I can make good sense of some of
: the above counterarguments, and want to know what to say. Any thoughts?
Nah. :-)
Chuck Prime
: Point taken, and I essentially agree. However, consider that scientifically
: important fossils might warrant the same governmental protection status
: as endangered species. Just because a bald eagle is nesting on your property,
: does not imply you have the right to shoot it. Analogously, if a
: rare T-rex skull is on your acre, do you have the right to sell it?
Yes, and yes.
And just watch me if opportunity ever arises! Hell, I even have the right
to shoot the T-Rex skull. And, fortunately, I also have the right not to.
My property includes its non-human (non-sentient, for exobiological
purists) contents. And surely, that skull isn't YOURS. Or anybody else's.
So if you want it, pay me money. If you want the bird, pay me money, come
and get it, or wait until it flies onto your land where you can then do
with it as you wish. Or trade me for that Styracosaur skull you just dug
out of your back 40 and which *I* have no right to just march up and take
from you. We, of course, could work something out. But LOOTING is not an
option, whether in the name of the "common good" or of Rodney King.
: BTW, bald eagles have been taken off the endangered species list as
: of a few weeks ago, thanks to government protection.
And thanks to that same kind of protection, property rights belong on
that list. If you want eagles, raise them on your own land. Hell, I'll
sell you the one which has been nesting in that T-Rex skull. Cheap.
:-)
Chuck Prime
: My understanding is that lots of fossils are uncovered yearly by erosion,
: and that they would get eroded into oblivion if they are not soon removed to
: protection. It seems that prohibiting the collecting of surface fossils by
: amateurs is an excellent way of ensuring the fossils' destruction, not their
: preservation.
Extremely good point, which I didn't think of.
And I should have, because in 4 days my girlfriend and I will journey for
a week into southwestern North Dakota--for the third time--to find more
of exactly those eroding fossils.
<slapping forehead> <slap slap slap>
Chuck Prime
: I am indeed grateful for this entire discussion. With your help,
: I came, I saw, and I conquered (Caesar, whom I remember, from years
: of Latin, was always crossing bridges over rivers, might well have
: picked up a fossil or two, too, in transit).
So you've already made the trip. Glad it worked out well.
But you forgot to report on what you found. :-)
Jeff Poling
br...@SANDBANKS.cosc.brocku.ca (Brian Ross) writes:
>Point taken, and I essentially agree. However, consider that scientifically
>important fossils might warrant the same governmental protection status
>as endangered species. Just because a bald eagle is nesting on your property,
>does not imply you have the right to shoot it. Analogously, if a
>rare T-rex skull is on your acre, do you have the right to sell it?
You know, gold is a rare, damn important metal to human lifestyle. Do you
have the right to sell it? Oil (a FOSSIL fuel) is damn important to human
lifestyle. Do you have the right to sell it? Plants grown in the soil are
ESSENTIAL to human life. Do you have the right to sell them? Certain
minerals in the ground, too, are essential to human life. Do you have the
right to sell them?
JFCO...@ukcc.uky.edu
jpo...@infinet.com (Jeff Poling) writes:
> You know, gold is a rare, damn important metal to human lifestyle. Do you
>have the right to sell it? Oil (a FOSSIL fuel) is damn important to human
>lifestyle. Do you have the right to sell it? Plants grown in the soil are
>ESSENTIAL to human life. Do you have the right to sell them? Certain
>minerals in the ground, too, are essential to human life. Do you have the
>right to sell them?
and a drilling permit is required to drill for oil and gas. Zoning laws
limit where you can have more than a simple garden. These permits are
granted by the govenment to protect the population as a whole from the
possible environmental consequences of the act in question.
Dan
Dan Phelps jfco...@ukcc.uky.edu
David Leblanc
#Brian Ross (br...@SANDBANKS.cosc.brocku.ca) wrote:
#: Point taken, and I essentially agree. However, consider that scientifically
#: important fossils might warrant the same governmental protection status
#: as endangered species. Just because a bald eagle is nesting on your property,
#: does not imply you have the right to shoot it. Analogously, if a
#: rare T-rex skull is on your acre, do you have the right to sell it?
#
#Yes, and yes.
#
#And just watch me if opportunity ever arises! Hell, I even have the right
#to shoot the T-Rex skull. And, fortunately, I also have the right not to.
#
#My property includes its non-human (non-sentient, for exobiological
#purists) contents. And surely, that skull isn't YOURS. Or anybody else's.
#
#So if you want it, pay me money. If you want the bird, pay me money, come
#and get it, or wait until it flies onto your land where you can then do
#with it as you wish. Or trade me for that Styracosaur skull you just dug
#out of your back 40 and which *I* have no right to just march up and take
#from you. We, of course, could work something out. But LOOTING is not an
#option, whether in the name of the "common good" or of Rodney King.
#
#
#: BTW, bald eagles have been taken off the endangered species list as
#: of a few weeks ago, thanks to government protection.
#
#And thanks to that same kind of protection, property rights belong on
#that list. If you want eagles, raise them on your own land. Hell, I'll
#sell you the one which has been nesting in that T-Rex skull. Cheap.
Property rights, like all rights, are not absolute. Land rights are
even less absolute than others. That's because when the government
originally gave or sold the land to its original owners, there were
all sorts of conditions placed on the sale (right of the government to
buy it back if it really needed it, right of the government to mineral
resources under it (in some countries), right of government to the
airspace over it, etc. - basically the right for the government to do
anything it wants to the land). And these convenents were tied to the
land - i.e. you can't eliminate them when you sell it on (much like
convenents in swanky subdivisions today). As the convenents are the
same for all land (as it was all originally the government's) they do
not appear in each individual contract but in general law.
And for you libertarian minded folks out there who are appalled at
this, this is straight libertarianism. The government originally owned
the land, they offered it for sale or grant with these covenents
attached, people accepted the conditions.
The basic point is this - you don't own land, you own title to land.
This allows you to do with the land whatever the government says you
can. These may not be the strictly legaleze description of the law,
but it's what it boils down to.
David LeBlanc
--
Chuck Prime
Distribution:
JFCO...@ukcc.uky.edu wrote:
: In article <jpoling.20...@infinet.com>
: jpo...@infinet.com (Jeff Poling) writes:
:
: >You know, gold is a rare, damn important metal to human lifestyle. Do you
: >have the right to sell it? Oil (a FOSSIL fuel) is damn important to human
: >lifestyle. Do you have the right to sell it? Plants grown in the soil are
: >ESSENTIAL to human life. Do you have the right to sell them? Certain
: >minerals in the ground, too, are essential to human life. Do you have the
: >right to sell them?
:
: In most of the western world a mining permit is needed to open a gold mine
: and a drilling permit is required to drill for oil and gas. Zoning laws
: limit where you can have more than a simple garden. These permits are
: granted by the govenment to protect the population as a whole from the
: possible environmental consequences of the act in question.
Such laws are not only immoral, they are sometimes unconstitutional
(Stateside) and almost always impractical.
The difference between a law which says that I may not drill on or allow my
garden to affect my neighbor's land, and a law which says that I may not
drill or have a large garden on MY land is the difference between
protection of rights and violation of rights. Constitutional issues of
states' rights (as opposed to federal control) and other such things
aside, zoning laws have been doing nothing except forbid productivity
since they were first enacted.
Jeremy Shaw
Here is it, Chuck. Thanks for asking.
Actually, our arrival on Friday coincided with the worst of the heat
wave. My companion, being more intrepid (not to mention much younger)
than me, actually scoured the bluffs that afternoon, while I waded out
into the middle of the river and just sat there. He suffered a
subsequent headache, while I remained just wet.
We didn't even know how hot it was, afterwards, because the Canadians
use that centigrade stuff, which we found useful only in trying to
judge the next day's discomfort by comparison. So many degrees
one way is so totally incomprehensible the other way that it's
pointless to try to judge what the temperature really is. Why do
they do that?
I know: My native U.K. has given in, too. Shame on them all.
The following day was approximately ten degrees (Fahrenheit, no
less) cooler, and we spent about twelve hours in the field, having
originally decided that the moment of dawn might at least be
tolerable. Numerous dippings in the same river provided
intermittent relief.
My true loves are trilobites, and I diligently searched the Widder,
the Hungry Hollow and the Arkona for signs of the ultimate specimen.
Alas, it had parked itself elsewhere, but I did retrieve a few
representative samples. Numerous tentaculites and muscrospirifer
brachiopods kept the juices flowing.
I'd rather tell you about our expedition, two weeks earlier, to
Montana, when we brought home scads of Cretaceous scaphites from
Glendive, along with Paleocene wood and pyritized gastropods
collected in the cool rain. Not only were the temperatures cool,
but the kilometers were miles, and kilograms of scaphites were
pound perfect.
I found one giant, as well as baculites and (my one) Eutrephoceras
nautiloid.
But I think it's the mark of the passionate collector that he/she
has to suffer, on occasion.
Jeremy
Chuck Prime
: Property rights, like all rights, are not absolute.
You are correct that priviledges coming from contracts are not rights.
But that does not apply here.
Rights are absolute, since they are conditions of survival required by
man, whose nature as a being who must be left free to provide for his
life is absolute. Opposing this absolute is the notion that a "right" to
violate rights exists for a chosen or self-appointed few; this notion is
a self-contradiction.
Furthermore, any contract negotiated, agreed to, and enforced
unilaterally is not a valid contract or a contract of any kind whatsoever.
It is simply a decree. Whether such decrees exist in the Netherlands I
have no idea, but I have never heard of this particular decree here in
the States. Yes, it still might be recognized--unilaterally.
: And for you libertarian minded folks out there who are appalled at
: this, this is straight libertarianism. The government originally owned
: the land, they offered it for sale or grant with these covenents
: attached, people accepted the conditions.
It is not "libertarianism." A government which derives its funds from its
citizenry--as all do--can claim ownership of nothing. Land acquired by
war or purchase is nonetheless acquired by the money (and effort to earn
that money) of those subjects who have been extorted. Any conditions
attached to the "purchase" of that land by citizens is still a unilateral
decree. That people accepted such decrees does not change them into
contracts.
This is not reconciliable until extortion has been abolished.
Chuck Prime
: JFCO...@ukcc.uky.edu wrote:
: : There are no dinosaur bones known from Kentucky. The only Mesozoic
: : rocks are in the Jackson Purchase region (far western Kentucky). It
: : would be a terrible loss if someone found dinosaur bones in the Jackson
: : Purchase and kept them in their private collection.
: Related to this is the government protection of archaeological finds.
: One only has to consider the plundering of gravesites and
: black market of antiquities to understand the need for govt protection.
Government protection against looters who do not own the land is very
legitimate. But the notion of "looting" your OWN land is an oxymoron.
Governments have no right to enforce oxymorons. Yes, they do it anyway,
but might does not make right.
Lyle Craver
What I hear from the rockhounds I know is that while initially the
rockhounds in Alberta were sympathic to the law essentially giving the
Tyrell museum right of first refusal over fossils found in Alberta, that
the museum acted in such a way as to prevent ANY private collecting.
Word in the BC rockhound community is that one rockhound found a deposit
and duly reported it - and the museum said they had enough of that
fossil but expected to need it in 10 years so they PUT A LANDFILL OVER
THE SITE. 3 guesses how eager the rockhounds are to help the museum now?
David Leblanc
#David Leblanc (dleb...@kub.nl) wrote:
#: Property rights, like all rights, are not absolute.
#
#You are correct that priviledges coming from contracts are not rights.
#But that does not apply here.
#
#Rights are absolute, since they are conditions of survival required by
#man, whose nature as a being who must be left free to provide for his
#life is absolute.
No, rights are not absolute and they never have been. Rights often
clash with one another (the "your right to swing your fist ends at my
nose" argument) and must be moderated accordingly. And of course,
there is no such thing (in law) as the human right to property
(although I've been arguing as if there were).
#Opposing this absolute is the notion that a "right" to
#violate rights exists for a chosen or self-appointed few; this notion is
#a self-contradiction.
No, it leads to established law which determines the constraints on
the rights of all people.
#Furthermore, any contract negotiated, agreed to, and enforced
#unilaterally is not a valid contract or a contract of any kind whatsoever.
#It is simply a decree.
True, but not relevent for the case under discussion. When you or I
purchase land we are doing it voluntarily under the conditions
specified - so did the original purchasers of the land (or, in the
case of much of the New World, when the original non-governmental
owners accepted a grant of the land). No one is forcing you to accept
these conditions. The fact that no land exists in the New World
that isn't subject to these conditions (outside of land controlled by
the first nations) is a factor of the marketplace.
#Whether such decrees exist in the Netherlands I
#have no idea, but I have never heard of this particular decree here in
#the States. Yes, it still might be recognized--unilaterally.
All the land in the US was originally owned by the government of the
day (again, putting aside the issue of land controlled by the native
peoples). They dictated the conditions when they offered it for sale
or (usually) grant. The persons buying or receiving this land agreed
to these conditions. No decrees, no coersion.
#: And for you libertarian minded folks out there who are appalled at
#: this, this is straight libertarianism. The government originally owned
#: the land, they offered it for sale or grant with these covenents
#: attached, people accepted the conditions.
#
#It is not "libertarianism." A government which derives its funds from its
#citizenry--as all do--can claim ownership of nothing.
You make it sound as if the government is an entity seperable from the
people. In case you didn't realize, the government is the people and
property owned by the government is owned by the people in common. So
no, strictly speaking the government doesn't own anything, the people
in common do. The people in common choose the government and dictate
its functioning, including how such common property is administered
and what conditions are attached to it when it is sold.
#Land acquired by
#war or purchase is nonetheless acquired by the money (and effort to earn
#that money) of those subjects who have been extorted.
In other words, by the people in common, for the people in common.
#Any conditions
#attached to the "purchase" of that land by citizens is still a unilateral
#decree. That people accepted such decrees does not change them into
#contracts.
Any conditions set down by any seller are 'unilateral decrees'. The
fact that the buyer (or accepter of the grant) accepted these
conditions makes it a valid contract.
#This is not reconciliable until extortion has been abolished.
The issue of taxation is seperate. I'll argue it if you wish, but it
has nothing to do with the question of land rights.
David LeBlanc
--
Jeff Poling
>In article <jpoling.20...@infinet.com>
>jpo...@infinet.com (Jeff Poling) writes:
>
>> You know, gold is a rare, damn important metal to human lifestyle. Do you
>>have the right to sell it? Oil (a FOSSIL fuel) is damn important to human
>>lifestyle. Do you have the right to sell it? Plants grown in the soil are
>>ESSENTIAL to human life. Do you have the right to sell them? Certain
>>minerals in the ground, too, are essential to human life. Do you have the
>>right to sell them?
>
>In most of the western world a mining permit is needed to open a gold mine
>and a drilling permit is required to drill for oil and gas.
This is to prevent damage to other people and other people's property
(chemical spills, contamination of groundwater, etc).
>Zoning laws
>limit where you can have more than a simple garden.
This is to prevent starting a commercial concern in a residential area, and
to prevent damage to other people and other people's property (pesticides and
stuff).
>These permits are
>granted by the govenment to protect the population as a whole from the
>possible environmental consequences of the act in question.
Yes, and NONE of them have anything to do with what I said in my original
post: do you have the RIGHT to sell them. Nothing in your post address the
issue of right to sell; it simply touched on how they are extracted.
Robert Pullman
br...@SANDBANKS.cosc.brocku.ca (Brian Ross) wrote:
> Chuck Prime (pr...@winternet.com) wrote:
> : Brian Ross (br...@SANDBANKS.cosc.brocku.ca) wrote:
> : : Point taken, and I essentially agree. However, consider that
scientifically
> : : important fossils might warrant the same governmental protection status
> : : as endangered species. Just because a bald eagle is nesting on your
property,
> : : does not imply you have the right to shoot it. Analogously, if a
> : : rare T-rex skull is on your acre, do you have the right to sell it?
> :
> : Yes, and yes.
> :
> : And just watch me if opportunity ever arises! Hell, I even have the right
> : to shoot the T-Rex skull. And, fortunately, I also have the right not to.
>
> And does this also apply to archaeological artifacts?
Ah debate....excellent...that which makes the human spirit alive....its
good to see this discussion in all its aspects. Never take anything for
granted and have a little faith in human nature. While there my be
disappointment from time to time overall its people that make the
difference..even person.....never assume government for the good of the
population...it never works.
Robert Pullman
>
And there in lies the problem...the population of Canada has been
brainwashed into accepting anything the "government" states and well as
that of so called professionals. Canadians have been indoctrinated into
believing anything thrown at them, and they exhibit such a pathetic
ability or should I say failed ability to recognize crap when its in their
face... As the largest country in the world, and a country of the free
world that can't regulate its internal affairs based on the majority of
the population, Canada cannot expect the rest of the world to allow such
absolute lack of common sense in dealing with resources that do not belong
to government but are the right of every human being on this planet! Its
incredibly sad the Canadian people accept such decrees and have lost the
ability to fight such tyranny.
Robert Pullman
Prime) wrote:
> Brian Ross (br...@SANDBANKS.cosc.brocku.ca) wrote:
> : JFCO...@ukcc.uky.edu wrote:
> : : There are no dinosaur bones known from Kentucky. The only Mesozoic
> : : rocks are in the Jackson Purchase region (far western Kentucky). It
> : : would be a terrible loss if someone found dinosaur bones in the Jackson
> : : Purchase and kept them in their private collection.
>
> Governments have no right to enforce oxymorons. Yes, they do it anyway,
> but might does not make right.
Thank you..Well said!
jgar...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
In article <pullman-2707...@pullman.iac.net>, pul...@iac.net (Robert Pullman) writes:
> That people accepted such decrees does not change them into
>> contracts.
>>
> And there in lies the problem...the population of Canada has been
> brainwashed into accepting anything the "government" states and well as
> that of so called professionals. Canadians have been indoctrinated into
> believing anything thrown at them, and they exhibit such a pathetic
> ability or should I say failed ability to recognize crap when its in their
> face...
One small point should be added to this rather peculiar "debate."
The initial premise in this whole discussion has been about "Canadian laws"
on fossil collecting. While there is some federal legislation in this
area (e.g. parks/federal lands etc.), to date all the cited examples seem to
concern _provincial_ statutes which have their counterparts in US and state
law as well to my certain knowledge in archeology and, maybe some knowledgable
soul can state one way or another, in paleontology as well. If so, then the
flame bait fest based on cultural superiority/inferiority is particularly
stupid, wouldn't you say?
In any case, let's look at the specifics where I live...
I spent yesterday collecting trilobite fossils with my 2 and 6 year old
children at a site I wouldn't have known about save for a (partially
provincial, partially federal, partially Geol. Assoc. of Can. funded) tourist
map + guide which included directions specific to the 0.1 km level.
Under Newfoundland (i.e., provincial) law, according to this source,
there are precisely 2 very delimited, barred sites: one contains (apparently...
this is not my area of expertise) some of the only known Proterzoic fossils
in the world, and the other is in the Manuals river valley portion of the
Manuals shale. In the case of the Manuals shale an alternative site
which has been quarried rather than existing in the middle of a
particularly beautiful local park is suggested. The sum total of land
barred by the province therefore ranges around some few square km.
Federal law also prohibits collecting in federal parks of which there are
presently 2. Significant land areas are involved here, but neither is
particularly sought after by fossil collectors as unique (that I know of).
(Gros Morne may be sought after by rock hounds, but I don't think it's
_that_ unique either.) There are federal historical sites as well which are
likely closed, though I lack specific knowledge. In any case, I suggest that
the US Park Service would not be all that happy if you started taking a
jackhammer to a federal park in the US, and I suggest there is specific
US federal legislation against so doing.
In Newfoundland, provincial parks are _not_ closed to collectors, though
likely are to jackhammers if I had to guess. Sources for permits to collect
scientific samples in all of the federally and provincially closed areas are
specifically cited in the tourist's guide from which I'm taking this
information. So mechanisms exist to collect there as well (though I do not
know how this works in the implementation). As the word "scientific" is
specifically used, I suggest that commercial collecting would not be
succeed in gaining a permit.
As a US citizen, I cannot say that my US-style sensibilities are offended by
the situation as it exists here. It seems rather sensible and accommodates
everyone pretty well. It is possible Alberta's regs might offend me as they
have been variously described. The one actual datum I have on Alberta is that
children, at least, are encouraged to collect pieces from some areas that are
littered with fragments in at least one of the (federal/provincial?) parks in
the good collecting areas according to some friends of mine who went there.
This may answer the erosion argument to some small degree that I've seen on
this thread. In any case, I simply do not know the implementation of the
_provincial_ regulations as they actually apply to collectors on the ground.
Neither, I suggest from the "knowledge" expressed in your posts, do you.
I also suggest you search and replace on 'Canada' and substitute 'Alberta,
other Canadian provinces, the US Park Service (I think), states and other
entities with similar legislation'.
John Garland
jgar...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
[I _can_ say that my constitutional sensibilities were once offended by your
neighbors in the Smyrna police department over in Tennessee...but that's
another story and concerns physics (kinetic energy), not paleontology...]