Jump to content

Fossil Hunters Damage Rare Sites.


Guest Nicholas

Recommended Posts

One of the oft voiced allegations is that "pros" will do a better job of recording salient information than committed amateurs, and that "pros" are better able to understand the clues the rocks offer.

This kind of stereotyping is a very broad brush, assumes facts not in evidence, and thus should be excluded (by the press particularly) from the debate. To repeat this unfounded idea in print is de facto bias.

"There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant

“Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley

>Paleontology is an evolving science.

>May your wonders never cease!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid to stick my nose any further into this, but, is it not true that amateurs who collect don't take all the data that could/should be taken for science? I agree that amateurs should be allowed to collect at sites like this, at least the stuff the professionals dont want, but it seems that any time commercial interests get into something, other things are adversely affected. I'm appreciative of Dave for allowing me to collect there on different occasions, but I can't say that I have recorded all the data that a scientist could use with my specimens, likewise for every other specimen I see distributed far and wide via ebay etc. And I wonder how much was lost when the access road up to the site was bulldozed.

It should not be forgotten that, as you say John, amateurs have made a large contribution to science just by showing their specimens to the right people, and should not be treated as nobodies in return, and collectable fossils should never be left to disintegrate in the field. I like the idea of a permanent professional on site to supervise the amateurs collecting.

There must be a solution that works for everybody... maybe we'll never know what that is until it goes before a judge, because apparently nobody currently involved is capable of coming to an agreement on their own.

I would like to address a couple of points in a open discussion format and welcome a response in the same vein. There have been two major studies done on the chemical make-up of the beds (hilss and Basgrad, Mustoe), and one looking at the variance in strata through a depth of 1 or 2m (Archibald), and 2 studies on the pollen from 3 locations on the site (Dillhoff, Manchester,). I have dug with the scientists when they visited: Basinger and Greenwood (1 visit- 1st and only time)- they dug in the scree slope and pulled some slabs out of the wall I was working on: Archibald: (2 visits- has made numerous other ones with Dave and unaccompanied): slabs pulled out of the wall in several locations: the Dillhoffs (several visits- many more with Dave: pieces from the scree piles and slabs they and Dave pulled out or specimens Dave and I gave them, and digging in Dave's hole: I have also been at the site when Manchester, Stockey, and several other paleobotanists visited. The only information recorded for the collecting of all these specimens was 'McAbee' with a gps reading that comes from left of centre of the claim. No one recorded height from the road, exactly which exposure on the 400m road they came from, or any other data. They collected the same way we do and were like kids in the candy store. One of a scientist's cute arguments is that being a fossil, when it is first opened, it is new to science. Therefore all new specimens should belong to science. This person is also trying to argue that Mcabee is so special that the current legal lease holders should be removed. That is the equivalent of a mineralologist upon the discovery of several rare minerals at Highland Valley Copper demanding that the mine operators lose their claim. McAbee is a legal mining claim. The Ministry of Mines oversees operations there. The Ministry of Agriculture and Lands got involved because Dave wanted to offer these digs to the public. Should they take away the right for the digs to take place, the claim owners still have the mineral rights. And with the MOU in place, the process to redraft that document will have to take place first before any court is involved. Dave and Robert have bent over backward to accomodate the various bodies that have expressed an opinion on what is going on on their claim. It is certain individuals who are expressing their greivances. They are a small part of the groups that signed the MOU originally. When the road was originally put in, it cut through an approximately 35m stretch of prime fossil layers about 1 to 2m high (keep in mind that this was the outside edge of the face at that time and as such was at a slant. The reason we can say it was prime layers is because of the stuff found in it and from that face today. Nobody knew that at that time. Dave fully supported a paleontologist being on the hill to inspect customers and our own finds. The problem was two fold: McAbee could not pay his/her salary as that would be fraught with claims of self serving, and no one paleontologist could reasonably be an expert on all the fauna we find there. If the person was a fish expert then... The kicker was though that whoever they appointed, myself and Dave were to train them in what was common and what was significant. It came down to trust. A certain scientist is arguing that because we are amateurs selling dig tours we can not be trusted to hand over significant specimens to science. And then the government spending train went off the rails and they failed to fund the position, the BCPA withdrew its support of the MOU when they were asked to fund the position, but Dave still had agreed to oversight on his collecting on his claim. He did everything he could to make all sides happy. And for a while all sides were. I am passionately involved in this. I have spent hours making my collection available to science. But Dave and I have been accused of raping and pillaging, ransacking a great library, and illegaly selling fossils. Dave simply smiled inwardly and carried on being happy sharing his love of fossils and McAbee in particular with anyone who showed the least amount of interest. I hope to be able to continue to do the same.

"Blimey! Would you look at the size of that!"
McAbee is the other woman!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you 100% as would most others here. The larger problem is the folks who do not agree. You would think that with such a deficit of scientific knowledge and resource to collect that an amicable solution would be on the horizon. The absurdity is not dissimilar from other regions here in North America or anywhere else that academics and amateurs have occasion to clash. My blood boils as well but I certainly cannot imagine anytime soon where we all universally coexist happily ever after. Too many competing interests at stake and the moment a federal governing body becomes interested ALL bets are off. If the tricky language does not preexist to remove your group rest assured it will be created out of thin air to suit their fancy - although much like the USA that is not even needed when the term "Eminent Domain" can be invoked at will. I would imagine your MOU is not even worth the paper it is printed on if the powers that be are convinced otherwise.

Hopefully you can mend the fence rather than win the battle and lose the war. Good Luck !!

image.png.a84de26dad44fb03836a743755df237c.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a more positive less defensive position: I just finished filling in the Temporary Export Permit for Cultural Property under the Canadian Federal Government Statutes for seven McAbee flower specimens that are currently being studied at the Royal BC Museum by Dr Hebda who is extracting pollen among other things, but will need to go to Arizona for Dr Pigg to do her analysis. They beleive this will be another new species. And I am proud to say that all 7 specimens were found by Dave and myself. We had just recently donated them to the Thompson Rivers University collection. Dave packaged them up himself and paid for the postage for them to get to Victoria. I hope Dave's role in this is acknowledged. Unfortunately, I can not post my pictures of them until the paper is written.

"Blimey! Would you look at the size of that!"
McAbee is the other woman!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me that Mr. Archibald has a great command of politics on this issue, and is utilizing the media to his advantage. He has, in the past, been given numerous specimens by the folks at MacAbee, and he has made his career with some of his studies and observations.

He has influenced the BCPA to lobby against the MacAbee site, to the point where Mr. Leahy was asked to resign from his position with the BCPA, as he was part of "a fossil selling operation". He was there working in the capacity of a guide and interpreter.

The are other operations in this province that make money from selling fossil tours, cases in point, the Courtenay and District Museum, and the Qualicum Museum, both offering guided fossil digging tours, neither offers a guide that is a degreed professional paleontologist. Both are members of the BCPA.

I am guessing that with the untimely and premature passing of Dave Langevin, the MacAbee site will once again come under fire. We, as collectors, will be the poorer for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My main point was that I am pessimistic that all the sides in the debate will ever converge on a mutually acceptable regulation until a higher authority comes in.. Not that I am proposing that. (I too would rather we sort things out on our own, otherwise, as Scott says, "all bets are off" and we end up with a Burgess Shale situation where only the ROM gets to collect there and the stuff they don't take must stay there and disintegrate). I dont know much about law, but I wonder if one side were to take the other to court, would the judge not look at all that has transpired, with the MOU and all, and decide things are OK as they are, perhaps with only a little tweaking, as opposed to a completely one-sided decision (ie. either a commercial free-for-all or a complete restriction to the professionals)? I dont know all the ins and outs of the issue so I dont know the answer, just asking honestly.

About the exposure itself, I could have told you where the fossiliferous layer was, I saw it in 1992 before it was bulldozed, but whatever, I don't want to dwell on that - what's done is done.

I'm curious if the lack of thoroughness you point out from the professionals is due to negligence or to lack of funding. If lack of funding, I could see their concern about the site being depleted before they get a chance to examine it thoroughly. But since you guys are keeping track of all the important specimens and donating them to the Uni or whoever is doing the work on them, then I don't see a problem and don't think they can complain. They can't have everything!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My main point was that I am pessimistic that all the sides in the debate will ever converge on a mutually acceptable regulation until a higher authority comes in.. Not that I am proposing that. (I too would rather we sort things out on our own, otherwise, as Scott says, "all bets are off" and we end up with a Burgess Shale situation where only the ROM gets to collect there and the stuff they don't take must stay there and disintegrate). I dont know much about law, but I wonder if one side were to take the other to court, would the judge not look at all that has transpired, with the MOU and all, and decide things are OK as they are, perhaps with only a little tweaking, as opposed to a completely one-sided decision (ie. either a commercial free-for-all or a complete restriction to the professionals)? I dont know all the ins and outs of the issue so I dont know the answer, just asking honestly.

About the exposure itself, I could have told you where the fossiliferous layer was, I saw it in 1992 before it was bulldozed, but whatever, I don't want to dwell on that - what's done is done.

I'm curious if the lack of thoroughness you point out from the professionals is due to negligence or to lack of funding. If lack of funding, I could see their concern about the site being depleted before they get a chance to examine it thoroughly. But since you guys are keeping track of all the important specimens and donating them to the Uni or whoever is doing the work on them, then I don't see a problem and don't think they can complain. They can't have everything!

I am just wondering which fossil layer you saw in 1992. Was it the one at the top of the narrow little trail you scurried up or the one over farther to the left? The reason I ask is that since the road was put in, we have 10 distinct dig areas. 4 have been uncovered after the road went in because the road gave us better safer access.

"Blimey! Would you look at the size of that!"
McAbee is the other woman!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont know exactly which exposures I was at by your description, I think we just collected from the 2 most prominent exposures that existed at the time, esp. the one on the left (there was kind of a gully between them. Maybe I'll annotate that photo I posted but I believe it was right in the upper middle of the photo). How much of the fossiliferous layers were removed by the bulldozer, or was it primarily overburden that was removed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly don't know as it was done before my fulltime involvement with the site. There is a fair bit of overburden that has to be removed before we can start digging in a new location though.

"Blimey! Would you look at the size of that!"
McAbee is the other woman!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are the spots we collected from.. mainly the larger star.

The small star on the right is where we find the best gingkos. It is also where I found my bird evidence and the 47.5cm salmon. The large star is the area where I first collected also. It is where a scientist found nine orders of insects in the one day, where the first complete crayfish was found, and where the really good crane flies come from. If you look at the brown ridge just to the left of the larger star, that is my hole that I have dug consistently at for about 4 years. It is where the majority of my finds come from and about 95% of my insects. What is not exposed in this pic are the areas way over to the left that were exposed when the road was put in. The 35m of fossils complained about being destroyed were from the area way over to the left. The two areas with the stars were all dug through before the road was extended that way. My favourite area for insects at present is way over to the left. We also have two sites we dig in way over to the right, but it took a few years before the road made it all the way over there. Hope this helps:

"Blimey! Would you look at the size of that!"
McAbee is the other woman!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that's interesting.. I dont think I was able to pinpoint the original exposures the 2nd time we went up when things had changed so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding events/new stories such as this...everyone will always have their own opinion and at times fight deeply for it.

My view on this type of thing...as long it isn't 'for profit' persay. Keep areas such as this open...that is FREELY open...again persay. I think someone with 'vision' is needed to set up an interpretive center, perhaps not as large as Tyrell but still to keep it a place of learning. As I'm sure the owners still want to make profit...then have proper, knowledgeable diggers be the only people allowed to extract. Then what the diggers find...can be sold for profit in the interpretive center. Tourists can be up and close to the diggers and watch but just not grab a hammer themselves. I read too much of...hand over $20...here is a hammer and bag...go nutz.

But wait ckmullin...you've just said you want it not for profit...want it freely open...then also say tourists can purchase fossils. What gives?!

Yes, I did say all those things. My main point is to create a place of learning. While not having the area butchered. If these beds were setup such as I described...I'd have no problems handing over a few bucks to purchase decent fossils.

I've never been there...I want to go quite bad however I won't...because I don't like what I've seen it become!

my 2c

Dig prices

Adults $20.00

Children (5-14 yrs) $10.00

Family (2 adults and children 14 and under) $50.00

Educational price:

K-12 School groups

1 adult per 10 students $5.00/person

free

University groups:

Please call ahead as price depends on purpose of visit.

Please note that each person will be limited to 1 bag per person.

Bags are provided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding events/new stories such as this...everyone will always have their own opinion and at times fight deeply for it.

My view on this type of thing...as long it isn't 'for profit' persay. Keep areas such as this open...that is FREELY open...again persay. I think someone with 'vision' is needed to set up an interpretive center, perhaps not as large as Tyrell but still to keep it a place of learning. As I'm sure the owners still want to make profit...then have proper, knowledgeable diggers be the only people allowed to extract. Then what the diggers find...can be sold for profit in the interpretive center. Tourists can be up and close to the diggers and watch but just not grab a hammer themselves. I read too much of...hand over $20...here is a hammer and bag...go nutz.

But wait ckmullin...you've just said you want it not for profit...want it freely open...then also say tourists can purchase fossils. What gives?!

Yes, I did say all those things. My main point is to create a place of learning. While not having the area butchered. If these beds were setup such as I described...I'd have no problems handing over a few bucks to purchase decent fossils.

I've never been there...I want to go quite bad however I won't...because I don't like what I've seen it become!

my 2c

Dig prices

Adults $20.00

Children (5-14 yrs) $10.00

Family (2 adults and children 14 and under) $50.00

Educational price:

K-12 School groups

1 adult per 10 students $5.00/person

free

University groups:

Please call ahead as price depends on purpose of visit.

Please note that each person will be limited to 1 bag per person.

Bags are provided.

You don't get it. The whole idea behind what we are doing is to give the average person the experience of finding your own fossil. It is the only one in Canada. Look at the regulations in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. From what you are saying, if you had the opportunity to stake a fossil claim, you would spend over $70,000 to make it accessible to the regular joe, and not charge people to dig there. That is philanthropic. If you just want to buy some of our nicer fossils it will cost you a lot more than $20. Why not just go to any of the other 12 sites in the local area that is from the same lake bed deposit with the same material. There you can dig for free. And if you know of any rich person looking for an interprative centre named after them, please put them in contact with the website.

"Blimey! Would you look at the size of that!"
McAbee is the other woman!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well...I do get it but I also respect your view as we live in a democracy.

cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it looks like the press is biased, and big government is a pain it the anterior region. Are you sure this is happening in Canada and not (as you northerners call it ) "The States"?

For one species to mourn the death of another is a new thing under the sun.
-Aldo Leopold
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it seems to happen everywhere.. The trick is that we need some regulation, but not too much. Where to find that balance, between overprotection and overexploitation - between having sites available for amateurs to collect (at a price they can afford), and having the site managed properly so that science can be done there...

I think the guys at McAbee are doing a decent job of trying to satisfy everybody, considering it doesnt seem possible to satisfy EVERYBODY. It could be worse.

The situation at Burgess, as I have opined elsewhere, is too protected, such that decent collectible fossils are left there to disintegrate - Even if regular people should not be allowed to dig there themselves, I have always thought those 'extras' that the experts don't need (but have to be taken out of the ground anyway) could be sold, perhaps to offset the costs to taxpayers of the ROM research.

On the other hand I can think of sites with no regulation or oversight at all, and I hate to see rare fossils collected by amateurs who don't know to record all the pertinent data with them, so they end up scientifically devalued. Paperweights. There should always be experts available at popular sites where new things are being found... but if the gov't can't see fit to fund this, then it falls to amateurs by default.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...