New Federal Law!

[jgcox]

We just got home from our trip west invertebrate collecting. The forestr service very quietly passed this new regulation in April this year.

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/04/17/2015-08483/paleontological-resources-preservation

Hope the link works.

The Department considers that Federal ownership of paleontological resources is effectively severed if those resources were legally collected in accordance with provisions for casual collection. Specimens that were casually collected with the intent of personal use may be donated to a repository at a later time; however, collection with the intent to donate to a repository would not constitute casual collection and would require a permit. The Department does not expect this to be a commonplace scenario. The title of specimens that are legally collected in accordance with casual collection requirements is a matter to be decided by the parties to a transfer of ownership. It is the responsibility of the donating party to demonstrate to the receiving party that specimens were collected legally. Owners of casually collected specimens may attempt to return such specimens to the Forest Service, but the Forest Service is under no obligation to accept them.

This is dangerous toward research-oriented amateurs, as research and casual collecting are not mutually exclusive. Well over half of the time I'm collecting, I have the notion that I will donate the specimens to a research collection someday. These regulations imply that you would need a research permit for that, simply because of an ambiguously defined notion of intent. I think they'll find that enforcement of "intent to donate" to be problematic, as it comes with innumerable edge cases. However, in the cases that they do address in the comments, they seem to err on the side of impermissibility. Hypothetical examples:

Case 1: While collecting common brachiopods, you find a nice chunk of packstone with lots of brachs and a rare starfish, which is clearly an undescribed species and belongs in a museum. Your brachiopods fall under the aegis of casual collection, but the very fact that you think about donating the starfish means that it requires a research permit to pick up. They seem incredulous that this type of thing could even happen:

The respondents' suggestion that common and rare species are intermingled in many cases is conjectural and not substantiated.

Case 2: While collecting common brachiopods, you pick up a nice chunk of packstone with lots of brachs. When you get home and wash it off, you find a rare starfish, which is clearly an undescribed species and belongs in a museum. In this scenario, they explicitly state that you would need to return the specimen to the Forest Service:

Specimens that could represent new species that were inadvertently collected during casual collection should be returned to the Forest Service for appropriate disposition.

Presumably, you would not be able to donate the specimen to a museum of your choosing without first gaining federal permission.

I should also say that while the research permit rules don't prohibit amateurs in any way, they certainly make it difficult:

§ 291.14 Application process.

Applicants for permits must provide the following records and information to the Authorized Officer in support of an application.

(a) The name, titles, academic or professional affiliations, and business contact information of the applicant and all persons who would be named on the permit;

( The applicant's current resume, curriculum vita, or other documents that support an applicant's qualifications;

© A detailed scope of work or research plan for the proposed activity. This must include maps, field methods, associated records, estimated time and duration of field season, proposed field party size, and specific information regarding storage, stabilization, and curatorial arrangements for collected specimens and data;

(d) Information regarding previous or currently held Federal paleontological permits including the issuing agency, permit number, and name of the Authorized Officer;

(e) Identification of a proposed repository for collected specimens, including written verification that the proposed repository agrees to receive the collection of paleontological resources and associated records and acknowledges that all costs will be borne by the applicant and/or approved repository, unless otherwise addressed in a separate written document; and

(f) Other records or information identified by the Authorized Officer as necessary to support an application for a permit.

§ 291.15 Application qualifications and eligibility.

(a) Qualified applicant. The information submitted by applicants under § 291.14 must demonstrate qualifications for carrying out the proposed activities, as follows:

(1) The applicant has a graduate degree in paleontology or a related field of study with a major emphasis in paleontology from an accredited institution, or can demonstrate training and/or experience commensurate to the nature and scope of the proposed activities; and

(2) The applicant has experience in collecting, analyzing, summarizing, and reporting paleontological data and experience in planning, equipping, staffing, organizing, and supervising field crews on projects commensurate to the type, nature and scope of work proposed in the application; and

(3) The applicant meets any additional qualifications as may be required by the Authorized Officer that are considered necessary to undertake the proposed project in the context of the project location.

( Eligibility. The information submitted by applicants under § 291.14 must demonstrate that the proposed work is eligible for a permit in accordance with § 291.13(a)(2) through (4).

[jgcox]

The BLM is going to be considering a similar law very soon, if adopted this will essentially kill all amateur fossil collecting. We need to come together as a community of collectors and write our representatives informing them of amateur contributions to paleontology --in fact the whole branch of paleontology was started by amateurs.

[Ramo]

This kind of thing really makes me mad. I see similar things happening with wildlife conservation laws. A group of legislatures that have now clue about the resource is making laws to regulate it. I understand that their intentions may be noble, but we need "experts" in the field working on this, not lawyers!

[Auspex]

What an ill-conceived legislative morass.

[fossilized6s]

This helps no one.

[PRK]

And furthermore, while working for museums--- I've seen, many times, a museum will turn away nice fossil collections due to improper field notes

[Auspex]

And furthermore, while working for museums--- I've seen, many times, a museum will turn away nice fossil collections due to improper field notes

Well, yes. If the all-important stratigraphy and context are not recorded, the specimen has very little value (but costs just as much to curate, and takes up just as much space). This is where untrained amateurs unknowingly fail the scientific community.

[erose]

Well, yes. If the all-important stratigraphy and context are not recorded, the specimen has very little value (but costs just as much to curate, and takes up just as much space). This is where untrained amateurs unknowingly fail the scientific community.

Exactly! When I work with newbies or kids I emphasize that the most important thing they can collect is the location information.

Unfortunately the law is now in place and if the other branches like BLM follow the Forest Services lead we will not see this changed in any near future.

Recently some club members went out and collected inverts on BLM land as a group (of friends). Just being a group seems to disqualify them from "casual." And the permitted tools thing is messed up because if you read it one way just the fact that you went out with a rock hammer and a rucksack would mean you planned it and thus not "casual."

UGH, ugh, ugh.

[FossilDAWG]

...

Recently some club members went out and collected inverts on BLM land as a group (of friends). Just being a group seems to disqualify them from "casual." And the permitted tools thing is messed up because if you read it one way just the fact that you went out with a rock hammer and a rucksack would mean you planned it and thus not "casual."

UGH, ugh, ugh.

While there is a lot to dislike in the new Forest Service regulations, I think you are off the mark here. The regulations specifically allow hobby collecting; "casual" is used only in the sense of "not professional", as in not collecting for profit or research. "Casual" does not mean "accidental", as in "it's OK to collect something you stumbled on by accident, but not something you intentionally went looking for". In the regulations, it is explicitly stated that rock hammers and chisels are OK, but shovels are not. No-where is it stated that groups of people are forbidden from collecting together, as long as all the members of the group meet the definition of a "casual collector" (i.e. not collecting material for sale or for research).

Don

[Auspex]

It sounds like this is about management's interpretation and implementation of the Federal mandate. It also sounds like they are pushing the most conservative interpretation, as in "trying to not make the wrong mistake". We are talking about law enforcement people here, who are struggling with the details of some new rules that they suddenly must enforce.

[erose]

While there is a lot to dislike in the new Forest Service regulations, I think you are off the mark here. The regulations specifically allow hobby collecting; "casual" is used only in the sense of "not professional", as in not collecting for profit or research. "Casual" does not mean "accidental", as in "it's OK to collect something you stumbled on by accident, but not something you intentionally went looking for". In the regulations, it is explicitly stated that rock hammers and chisels are OK, but shovels are not. No-where is it stated that groups of people are forbidden from collecting together, as long as all the members of the group meet the definition of a "casual collector" (i.e. not collecting material for sale or for research).

Don

It sounds like this is about management's interpretation and implementation of the Federal mandate. It also sounds like they are pushing the most conservative interpretation, as in "trying to not make the wrong mistake". We are talking about law enforcement people here, who are struggling with the details of some new rules that they suddenly must enforce.

Don, I agree it can be read that way, and hopefully will be read that way, but you can also read it as I have described. And Auspex, has what I think is still the real issue nailed in that it leaves much of the decision to the local management and all that entails.

[jgcox]

UPDATE!!!-it now appears that BLM is going to accept comments in either September or October THIS year. We need to flood them with comments and facts of contributions and discoveries made by amateur fossil collectors.

[MrTrilobiteMan]

This is exactly what I have been bringing up in some of my posts. My most recent one was welcoming a new member from Florida, I believe, and finding out she needed a permit to collect fossils. The big Quarry and farmland owners in WI are denying access to their lands just because of reasons like this. Lawyers are writing laws that are changing our chances of gaining access to their land due to some Insurance company claiming they are at risk of liability or even as far as we are removing their property without justifiable compensation meanwhile significant pieces of our planets history are just going to end up laying in the ground for many more millions of years, not helping anyone. ( Some of this i hope you know i meant to be tongue in cheek) but still it just shows what a screwy world we live in that now something as simple as finding a fossil. a rock or an artifact is going to create a whole new set of rules, laws, permits and fees!

[JohnJ]

Private land owners have every right to stipulate who accesses or removes anything from their property. I hope we don't forget that and some day a bunch of people get together and decide my property is not my own.

[TyrannosaurusRex]

Good grief. Thanks for sharing, although it just makes me frustrated to know. I have found a few things I would consider donating.....but with this? No thanks. I suppose it another way to make money that will be stuck in some drawer somewhere and be forgotten about. This really doesn't help anything, in any way. And that would be one of the reasons why thousands of rare ammonites are ground into gravel for roads in South Africa. I just hope the laws don't get any worse, although it wouldn't surprise me.

[TNCollector]

UPDATE!!!-it now appears that BLM is going to accept comments in either September or October THIS year. We need to flood them with comments and facts of contributions and discoveries made by amateur fossil collectors.

We have to act on this. I just don't understand what purpose this legislation serves, except to limit scientific discovery.

[Auspex]

...a new member from Florida, I believe, and finding out she needed a permit to collect fossils...

To clarify, the Florida permit allows collecting on state lands; property owners can collect on their own land to their heart's content.

[FossilDAWG]

...My most recent one was welcoming a new member from Florida, I believe, and finding out she needed a permit to collect fossils. ...

To clarify a bit further, the Florida permit is to collect vertebrate fossils; no permit is required for invertebrates. The permit is available for a nominal cost ($5 I think) and the main "burden" is that you are supposed to report (annually) what you found and where. In principle the state has the right to ask you to donate (or to claim) specimens of exceptional scientific importance, but in practice this has been exercised only a couple of times. Really, the purpose to alert the state if any exception scientifically important vertebrate fossil sites are discovered on state land, early enough to allow researchers to capture the information that can only be obtained by properly excavating such fossils and documenting their in situ context. As you can readily see from reading posts on the Forum, amazing fossils come out of Florida rivers, streams, beaches, and (more rarely) land sites all the time, and the state has no interest in claiming those fossils. They do not need any more Peace River mammoth teeth; indeed fossils from river bed gravels are "out of context" and have no new information to convey. About the only exception would be a specimen of a species not previously known to have been present in Florida.

All in all I think the Florida system could serve as an excellent model for other states. You are not limited to 5 specimens, or 5 pounds, or any of those other silly things. The only things the state might be interested in are the same specimens/discoveries most of us would want to tell researchers about anyway.

Don

[digit]

Well summarized Don.

The only other tidbit that I'd add to your comment is that shark teeth (clearly vertebrate and not invertebrate) are also wildly more common than say--hen's teeth--and are also exempt from requiring a permit to collect. Anybody who collects fossils in Florida less casually than a vacationer sifting for shark teeth at Caspersen beach should really go to the laughably minor effort of applying for a Florida Vertebrate Fossil Permit. You'd hate to have to toss that big mammoth molar back in the river and only keep your lemon and tiger shark teeth now, wouldn't you? The reporting requirement at the end of each year to renew your permit is exceedingly simple (even by non-governmental standards). It also helps provide the scientists with an idea of what sorts of material are being found at various locations within the state.

Florida's policy on Native American artifacts found in the rivers and creeks is much more problematic now that they've done away with the isolated finds exemption. But their policy on the wealthy diversity of vertebrate fossils that may be found is not only quite fair but should serve as a model to other states. Florida--a model to other states. Yeah, I almost sniggered when I typed that. But seriously, those hunting in Florida should obtain the permit and perform the minor reporting required and those in other states should consider something similar.

[Carefully descends and stows his soapbox.]

-Ken

Edited June 4, 2015 by digit

[JimB88]

Good grief. Thanks for sharing, although it just makes me frustrated to know. I have found a few things I would consider donating.....but with this? No thanks. I suppose it another way to make money that will be stuck in some drawer somewhere and be forgotten about. This really doesn't help anything, in any way. And that would be one of the reasons why thousands of rare ammonites are ground into gravel for roads in South Africa. I just hope the laws don't get any worse, although it wouldn't surprise me.

It sounds though that you can collect it casually and still decide to donate it at a later time. Lets not panic and start to cut ourselves off from our relationship with the professionals, that would hurt both of us and the science in general.

[MrTrilobiteMan]

Thank you for all the clarification. It makes sense to me what it is they are trying to accomplish. It definitely will help if something amazing and scientifically important would be found to help preserve the area and make future recovery easier I suppose. I just fear governments always wanting to tax this or tax that, put a fee on this or pay extra for that. I use to live in Illinois, where taxes are so out of control.

[Cam28]

I'll donate when I'm dead!!

Jk but this does seem more counter intuitive than anything. Thank goodness FL law doesn't require any permits/ reporting of collecting fossil shark teeth & invertebrates to any degree & doesn't seem like it will change anytime soon.

[BobWill]

I'm a little confused about how the new laws would affect collecting on private land. Is this just a matter of landowners thinking it could apply to them when it clearly wouldn't?

[Auspex]

I'm a little confused about how the new laws would affect collecting on private land. Is this just a matter of landowners thinking it could apply to them when it clearly wouldn't?

The new laws and administrative interpretations thereof do not apply to privately owned land. Period.

(Ranch land sections that are leased from the BLM do fall under the regs, so one needs to be sure before collecting.)

[fossilmanagain]

Are we surprised by this and our government?