Federal Fossil Laws (Proposed) Comment Period Starts December 7th

[DPS Ammonite]

On December 7th, proposed Federal fossil collecting regulations can be viewed and commented on by the fossil collecting public. Please read and give your important comments about the proposed regulations to the US Government. See below for more information.

 

Sincerely,

John

 

Scott E. Foss said:

 

"The Department of the Interior proposed regulation under the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2009 (PRPA) has been scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on Wednesday, December 7. The proposed regulation will be available for public inspection and comment until Monday, February 6, 2017. Starting on December 7, you may navigate your browser to www.blm.gov/paleontology for links to the proposed rule and other helpful documents, or navigate directly to the Federal Register at https://www.federalregister.gov/ and search for Regulation Identification Number 1093-AA16."

 

 

 

Scott E. Foss

BLM Senior Paleontologist

20 M St. SE, Suite 2134, Washington, DC 20003

sfoss@blm.gov, 202-912-7253

 

Vincent Santucci

NPS Senior Paleontologist & GRD Liaision

1201 Eye Street, Washington, DC 20005

vincent_santucci@nps.gov, 202-513-7186”

 

 

 

Helpful comments from Eleanor Gardner:

 

"I wanted to bring the following announcement from Scott Foss of the BLM and Vincent Santucci of the NPS to your attention.  Proposed regulation under the fossil law known as “PRPA” will be made available for public comment from Wednesday, Dec 7 – Monday, Feb 6.  This is a critical opportunity to carefully read the proposed regulation and thoughtfully make lawmakers aware of your viewpoint.  Don’t miss this chance to make your voice heard.

 

 

For those who attended the Dallas Mini Conference in October 2015, recall that Scott Foss kindly informed us of the following “rules” for making sure your public comments are considered by lawmakers:

• • Provide first and last name, city, state, & country. All other fields of information are optional. Keep in mind that much of this information is publicly viewable.
  • Comments may be typed in the box provided or they may be uploaded as attachments (Word docs or PDFs only).
  • Comments may be brief or in-depth/well-researched. Comments with facts to support them are much more useful (e.g., examples of overlooked scenarios). Keep comments civil and straightforward. Comments using offensive terms, threats, or other inappropriate language will be disregarded.

 

 

Club/Society officers, please spread the word to your membership via email blast, newsletter, social media, etc.  University professors, curators, and others – please share with colleagues and students.  The more people who read and consider this regulation (from a broad representation of the entire paleontological community), the better!

 

 

Thank you,

Eleanor"

 

 

Eleanor E. Gardner, M.S.

FOSSIL Project Coordinator

Florida Museum of Natural History

Website: www.myfossil.org/

[ynot]

[Bone Daddy]

So for us folk too lazy to read the text of the regulations, is this going to be a good or bad thing or amateurs?  Will these federal regs trump state regs? For example, Florida has a permitting program and I have that permit, but will the fed try to overrule that?

 

[jpc]

I plan to read this for work.. it is 28 pages of gov't legalese.  Wish me luck and I will report on what I see in there from both a professional and amateur perspective.  

[Bone Daddy]

Yes, I am keenly interested, but one look at that document made my brain hurt.

 

[calciteguy]

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/07/2016-29244/paleontological-resources-preservation

[JohnJ]

26 minutes ago, calciteguy said:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/07/2016-29244/paleontological-resources-preservation

(topics merged) 

[smt126]

I read it a few days ago. It didn't sound like much if anything different to me. You still can't hunt vertebrates on blm land.

[Mesonyx]

After reading through the proposed federal rules, I wrote this simple FAQ about the new proposal:

Frequently Asked Questions regarding the new rules and regulations.

 

1) Under the new regulations, can I collect fossils or rocks on public lands managed by the BLM?

 

The new regulations will allow families or individual parties to collect without a permit 25lbs, or 11.34 kg of rock containing fossils. The volume of rock would be limited to about 15 cm³ and can only be collected annually to a maximum of 100lbs. However, the rock cannot contain any fossil that might be considered “rare” by the government, and amounts of rock collected can be further restricted at the discretion of the government. It is best to apply for a permit if you plan to collect any rocks or fossils on BLM lands.

 

 

2) Alright can I get a permit to collect rocks and fossils on BLM land?

 

 

You are required to have a Masters or PhD in Paleontology in order to get a permit to collect rocks and fossils on public lands managed by the BLM. You will also need to work with a federal repository, such as a state or federal museum to store all rocks and fossils that you will collect, and you are responsible for all fees charged by those institutions for the care of your collections. If you do not have a Masters degree or PhD in Paleontology, you will need to work with an individual who has the educational experience and see if you can be added to their permit. The permit requires an annual report to be submitted to the federal government detailing your activity on BLM lands, and every rock and fossil removed from federal lands.

 

 

3) What happens if I were to collect a rare fossil or more then 25lbs of fossilerious rock on BLM land?

 

 

Criminal or civil penalty, including fines and prison sentences up to 2 years can be brought to individual who do not follow these rules.

 

 

4) I am a geologist or amateur scientist who works on BLM lands, but I don’t collect rocks or fossils, will I need to apply for a permit?

 

 

If you plan to publish or disseminate information regarding information on paleontological resources that reveals the geological or geographical extent of those resources, you will need to seek written permission from the Department of Interior, especially if your intentions are for education and science. However, if your intentions are in the commercial extraction or exploration of fossil fuels you will not need permission to publish or disseminate geographic information about paleontological resources.

 

 

6) Aren’t these laws and rules set up to protect paleontological resources on federal lands?

 

 

Yes, and no. The original law that was passed in 2009, prohibits the collection of fossil vertebrates without a permit to help prevent illegal trade in rare fossils like dinosaurs from public lands. The new rules however, greatly expand the definition of what can be collected on BLM lands to non-vertebrate fossils, without citing a need for this new government over reach. The new rules will actually bring harm to paleontological resources by preventing average citizens from engaging in the science of paleontology on public lands managed by the BLM, for exampling in publishing or disseminating information about their location. For example, it will prevent elementary school children lead by a high school teacher from collecting rocks and fossils on all federal public lands, restrict scientific investigations of past climate change, prevent student or restrict student research, and may prevent publication of geological research on federal lands.

 

The greater danger to paleontological resources comes from the apathy and the fear of civil and criminal penalties that will result on the restriction of the study of geology and paleontology on federal lands. The new rules and regulations do much more harm because they significantly limit the number of people who can engage in the science of paleontology on public lands.

 

A much better permitting process, in which average citizens can collect rocks and fossils on BLM lands, be able to apply to collecting permits on the day of collection at local BLM field offices, and be able to personally own rocks and invertebrate fossils and plant fossils for personal and scientific study would greatly benefit the science of paleontology. The new rules are so prohibitive that they will significantly end paleontological research by most geologists on federal owned lands managed by the BLM.

 

7) Is there anything I can do to prevent these new rules and regulations?

 

Yes, write a letter to the following address:

Regarding Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 1093-AA16.

Julia Brunner

Geologic Resources Division

National Park Service

P. O. Box 25287

Denver, CO 80225-0287

 

Urge them to change the rules and regulations to make them more sensible to the scientific and educational community of paleontologists. Submit your letter by February 7^th.

 

8) Where do I find these new rules and regulations?

 

The proposed rules and regulations can be found on this website:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/07/2016-29244/paleontological-resources-preservation

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 18, 2016 by Mesonyx

[Ludwigia]

3 hours ago, Mesonyx said:

 

 

 

4) I am a geologist or amateur scientist who works on BLM lands, but I don’t collect rocks or fossils, will I need to apply for a permit?

 

 

If you plan to publish or disseminate information regarding information on paleontological resources that reveals the geological or geographical extent of those resources, you will need to seek written permission from the Department of Interior, especially if your intentions are for education and science. However, if your intentions are in the commercial extraction or exploration of fossil fuels you will not need permission to publish or disseminate geographic information about paleontological resources.

 

 

6) Aren’t these laws and rules set up to protect paleontological resources on federal lands?

 

 

Yes, and no. The original law that was passed in 2009, prohibits the collection of fossil vertebrates without a permit to help prevent illegal trade in rare fossils like dinosaurs from public lands. The new rules however, greatly expand the definition of what can be collected on BLM lands to non-vertebrate fossils, without citing a need for this new government over reach. The new rules will actually bring harm to paleontological resources by preventing average citizens from engaging in the science of paleontology on public lands managed by the BLM, for exampling in publishing or disseminating information about their location. For example, it will prevent elementary school children lead by a high school teacher from collecting rocks and fossils on all federal public lands, restrict scientific investigations of past climate change, prevent student or restrict student research, and may prevent publication of geological research on federal lands.

 

The greater danger to paleontological resources comes from the apathy and the fear of civil and criminal penalties that will result on the restriction of the study of geology and paleontology on federal lands. The new rules and regulations do much more harm because they significantly limit the number of people who can engage in the science of paleontology on public lands.

 

A much better permitting process, in which average citizens can collect rocks and fossils on BLM lands, be able to apply to collecting permits on the day of collection at local BLM field offices, and be able to personally own rocks and invertebrate fossils and plant fossils for personal and scientific study would greatly benefit the science of paleontology. The new rules are so prohibitive that they will significantly end paleontological research by most geologists on federal owned lands managed by the BLM.

 

 

Thanks for this very informative post. It seems that there are consequences hidden in this proposed law which are perhaps not apparent at first reading. I wonder if the lawmakers themselves are aware of these consequences. It certainly appears to be the case, on the surface at any rate, that the exploration for natural resources has priority over pure scientific research. I certainly would encourage as many American collectors as possible get on the bandwagon together with professional researchers now and start voicing their objections very loudly. This tactic worked recently in Germany and managed to water down the new law enough to make it at least workable for the average collector.

 

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/58613-call-for-signing-petition-the-right-to-collect-in-germany/&page=3

 

Good luck!

 

 

 

[MarleysGh0st]

8 hours ago, Mesonyx said:

1) Under the new regulations, can I collect fossils or rocks on public lands managed by the BLM?

 

The new regulations will allow families or individual parties to collect without a permit 25lbs, or 11.34 kg of rock containing fossils. The volume of rock would be limited to about 15 cm³ and can only be collected annually to a maximum of 100lbs. However, the rock cannot contain any fossil that might be considered “rare” by the government, and amounts of rock collected can be further restricted at the discretion of the government. It is best to apply for a permit if you plan to collect any rocks or fossils on BLM lands.

 

25 lbs. is a severe enough limit; I collected ammonites in concretions, this summer, and just one of those must have been close to that weight.  But I'm really hoping that 15 cm³ is a typo, since that's about the size of a matchbox!

 

I'm also concerned about what BLM lawyers might consider "rare".  Suppose someone collects some mollusks, fossils that would be considered common on both a global basis and at that particular locality.  Suppose that, after some research, one of those specimens is designated as the holotype of a new species.  Now a holotype, being one of a kind, would have to be considered "rare" by definition.  Would the collector have been researched into a prison term?

 

Thanks for the summary, Mesonyx.  This proposal really needs closer attention.

[Bone Daddy]

They tried this same type of regulation on BLM lands regarding meteorites. Enforcement of it is non-existent and it's a mess. Most BLM land managers don't even know what a meteorite is. Enforcement varies and there is a lot of individual discretion involved on the part of the land manager of a given area. Some BLM managers don't care to enforce it and others are not fluent in the new regulations. Most don't want to be bothered. When in doubt, contact the BLM office in question and speak to them.

 

All the more reason to hunt on private property. This will just push more amateurs into criminality and further expand the black market trade. I am not endorsing that position. I am just stating what happened with meteorites as an example.

 

 

[smt126]

I don't know where the 15cm number came from. The proposition says 25lbs is about equal to 2 quarts. I know some might not like the weight restrictions but it helps preserves fossils for future generations IMO. I highly doubt this will be greatly enforced anyways. It sounds like this was always what they intended but didn't define in as much detail and thus felt the need to clarify.

[sdsnl]

16 minutes ago, smt126 said:

. I know some might not like the weight restrictions but it helps preserves fossils for future generations

It depends, in areas where erosion happen quickly, by not picking up exposed fossils you are leaving them to be destroyed. A better way might be to limit the collection to surface hunting or digging with a limit of say less than one foot of depth.

[sdsnl]

In Taiwan, many Pleistocene mammals can be exposed in mountains after earthquakes push the rocks a few feet up the surface. Fossil hunters would find huge pieces of mammoth tusk and ribs, sometimes skulls, and who knows whether a complete animal could be found if a professional excavation is carried out. But they would contact the government, museums, and universities, and no one would want the fossils. So the fossil hunters would do whatever they can to save a small number of specimens, and the rest would be left there to erode to worse conditions every year ;(

[FossilDAWG]

Digging would be restricted to what can be done with small hand tools.  A rock hammer or small pick that can be used with one hand is OK, a mattock or large pick needing 2 hands is not.  Similarly a small spade such as a garden trowel or the kind hikers use to dig a "cat hole" for burying waste is OK, a full-sized shovel is not.  Also all disturbed ground must be restored to a natural-looking condition.

 

Generally the proposed rules are quite similar to those put in place by the forest service a few years ago.  There are many (maybe all) of the same weird consequences, such as making it almost impossible to organize school field trips to collect fossils.  The teacher would have to obtain a permit, which would require them to have a PhD or MSc in paleontology and also arrange for everything the students collect to be deposited in an "official" museum; the school could not keep anything, even for teaching purposes.  It also seems odd to me that a permit and permission of the department of the interior's office is required to publish anything related to research or education that pertains to fossils from BLM land, unless you are working for a mining/oil company in which case there are no restrictions.  Sign of the times I guess.

 

I did notice one improvement over the National Forest regulations, which is how "casual collecting" defined.  The BLM regulations define "casual collecting" as any collecting with in the 25 pound/day limit, as long as it does not include vertebrate fossils or rare fossils.  The Forest Service rules define "casual collecting" as "by happenstance, without advance planning".  So if you read about a site where you can collect common invertebrate or plant fossils, under the BLM rules you can go there and collect (staying within the 25 pound limit) without a permit.  Under the National Forest rules you cannot plan ahead; if you have advance knowledge that fossils can be found at a particular site you have to get a permit, in which case you have to have a PhD, a funded research project, and arrange in advance for a recognized museum to take anything you may collect.  Of course you may have trouble finding a museum willing to devote cabinet space to extremely common shells, in which case you will not get a permit. 

 

I may be mistaken about this point, but I recall that the National Forest rules also consider conodonts to be vertebrate fossils, so any amount of rock matrix containing conodonts could put you in violation of the rules.  I do not see how that could possibly be enforced though.  On the other hand the proposed BLM rules say explicitly that conodonts are not considered to be vertebrate fossils for purposes of the regulations.  Unfortunately shark teeth still are classified as vertebrates and so they cannot be (legally) collected without a permit.

 

I suspect that enforcement will be an issue with these rules.  Collectors will be limited to some degree, in that you could find yourself in trouble if you are caught in the field with quarrying tools, or hauling off 100-pound slabs, or leaving large disturbed areas.  On the other hand you are not expected to carry a scale to weigh your loot, so as long as you are reasonable about what you have in your pack you should be OK.  I cannot see how the 100 pounds total/year limit could be enforced.

 

Don

[Brett Breakin' Rocks]

  I will pipe up here. Hasn't the 25lb per-day limit been in effect for years on BLM land .. ?? I remember coming across that in CA years ago (15 years or so) when hunting for Trilos in the desert. I don't recall the 100lb annual limit thou.  But my mind is foggy on that front, enforcement however as far as I know is as Bone Daddy says is non-existent for the casual collector. 

 

  My assumption is that those rules are for the enforcement side when those that abuse the system and make themselves known can be hauled before a judge.

 

Cheers,

Brett

[Bone Daddy]

As is the problem with most laws and regulations, the criminally-minded ignore them. Somebody who is poaching tens of thousands of dollars of dinosaur fossils is not going to care about the new regulations. These are the same people who trespass on private property, leaving gaping holes in the ground, and generally make a nuisance of themselves and give everyone else a bad name. The regulations will only restrict the law-abiding citizen, who will have more mountains of red tape to wade through to carry out their avocation. It will stifle amateur participation and science will be hurt in the process. 

 

Regulations are written by bureaucrats who usually have zero experience in the field. They may or may not consult with experts in the field before putting the regulations in the book, but it seems they often ignore any recommendations made by the experts because the resulting regulations are often problematic.  This was the case with meteorites on BLM lands. 

 

As Don said above, this will hurt teachers and kids, but help big mining companies.  Yippee!  What genius structured these regulations? Anything that hurts the ability to educate kids in the sciences is not a good thing.

 

Laws forbidding the collection of human artifacts have been on the books for years and carry severe penalties. Does that stop anybody?  No. It might make the law breakers regret their decision if they are caught and prosecuted, but it does little or nothing to deter the activity in the first place. I suspect these new regulations will be similar in effect.

I understand what the BLM is trying to do. They are trying to protect public lands from being ravaged by fools who damage the resources to the detriment of science and law-abiding collectors. That is a good thing. But, I disagree with the methods they are using. It didn't work for meteorites and it's not going to work for fossils.

I am thankful I am in Florida where there is very little BLM lands. Down here, these new regulations will have little meaning to most amateurs.

 

There has to be a better way to do this. I think a group of academics and advanced amateurs should be consulted and their recommendations be given serious consideration. Applying a blanket set of rules to everybody rarely works in any field.

 

[Ridgehiker]

Just a note on this.

 

Here in Canada, public land is owned by the province...not the federal government. Thus laws on fossils and artifacts are provincial.  This means that regional differences are considered.  In Alberta we have an official committee of professional and amateur paleontologists that come together to discuss regulations and other fossil related issues.

 

Our fossil laws are exactly as I like them.  Surface collection of fossils and artifacts is permitted on public land outside of parks... and fossils may not be sold without a permit.

Re US regulations.  The division between vertebrate and invertebrate fossils is silly to many paleontologists. Its an artificial dichotomy. Some invertebrate phyla  have more ultimate scientific value than vertebrates, especially in biostratigraphy. Also, general restrictions on volume are 'dumb' as when there are literally a billion tons of limestone matrix.

Take away the commercial aspect and a few issues go away such as quotas on  volume, collection of vertebrates on public land, etc.   Interest in paleontology here thrives just as it does in birdwatching, photography, hiking, etc.  If someone is 'poaching' fossils, then there is a stigma and its not easy to profit from this in today's Internet world. We have a lot of dino fossils and fossil enthusiasts here are vigilant in making sure that our heritage is not exploited.  Also, because fossils have no commercial value, I have never been refused access to private land to collect fossils. 

 

 

 

[FossilDAWG]

6 hours ago, Bone Daddy said:

As is the problem with most laws and regulations, the criminally-minded ignore them. Somebody who is poaching tens of thousands of dollars of dinosaur fossils is not going to care about the new regulations. These are the same people who trespass on private property, leaving gaping holes in the ground, and generally make a nuisance of themselves and give everyone else a bad name. The regulations will only restrict the law-abiding citizen, who will have more mountains of red tape to wade through to carry out their avocation. It will stifle amateur participation and science will be hurt in the process. 

 

Regulations are written by bureaucrats who usually have zero experience in the field. They may or may not consult with experts in the field before putting the regulations in the book, but it seems they often ignore any recommendations made by the experts because the resulting regulations are often problematic.  This was the case with meteorites on BLM lands. 

 

As Don said above, this will hurt teachers and kids, but help big mining companies.  Yippee!  What genius structured these regulations? Anything that hurts the ability to educate kids in the sciences is not a good thing.

 

Laws forbidding the collection of human artifacts have been on the books for years and carry severe penalties. Does that stop anybody?  No. It might make the law breakers regret their decision if they are caught and prosecuted, but it does little or nothing to deter the activity in the first place. I suspect these new regulations will be similar in effect.

I understand what the BLM is trying to do. They are trying to protect public lands from being ravaged by fools who damage the resources to the detriment of science and law-abiding collectors. That is a good thing. But, I disagree with the methods they are using. It didn't work for meteorites and it's not going to work for fossils.

I am thankful I am in Florida where there is very little BLM lands. Down here, these new regulations will have little meaning to most amateurs.

 

There has to be a better way to do this. I think a group of academics and advanced amateurs should be consulted and their recommendations be given serious consideration. Applying a blanket set of rules to everybody rarely works in any field.

 

The fact that some people will disregard rules/regulations/laws is not a strong argument to say that there should be no rules/regulations/laws.  No-one would say laws against robbery or murder are useless because some people still commit those crimes.  Deterrence is one function, but also in the absence of laws there would be no basis for punishing violators.  In the present case, the proposed rules are an attempt to strike some balance between allowing access and limiting the rate of depletion of the resource so that as many people as possible can enjoy the hobby.  The BLM is charged with managing public lands so they can be used by a broad swath of the public for a wide range of purposes, so they often have to strike balances between competing demands.  I have had the experience of driving and then hiking a long distance onto BLM land to reach a trilobite site, only to find the fossil layers reduced to long trenches, deeper than I am tall (the strata there are steeply inclined so the layers go almost straight down).  The trenches, which were left open, were an obvious hazard for cattle in the area.  I think this is the sort of behavior the proposed rules are intended to deter or punish.

 

We can (and should) make suggestions about how the goals of the legislation might be better met.  I suspect efforts to overturn the intent of the rules will not go far.  It is unlikely that the BLM will suddenly decide that the first person to get to a site can quarry out everything, so everyone else is greeted by an empty hole.  But, maybe the 25-pound limit could be adjusted some to reflect local conditions.  25 pounds of loose brachiopods is a lot, but one ammonite in a concretion could easily exceed 25 pounds (based on my experience on BLM land in New Mexico.  The 25 pound limit is itself a compromise; the initially proposed National Forest regulation limited collecting to 5 specimens of each type, but "type" was not defined.  Is that 5 brachiopods of each species, or 5 brachiopods total (i.e. does "type" refer to species or phyla or what?). 

 

Also, although "one size fits all" rules often don't fit anybody perfectly, creating a different set of rules for every group of users of BLM land is a non-starter.  It's bad enough that mining/oil companies have a different set of rules under the proposed rules.

 

We do have an opportunity to comment on the proposed rules.  It would probably be worthwhile to have a discussion about how the rules might be improved, and then we could all submit thoughtful letters.

 

Don

[FossilDAWG]

6 hours ago, Canadawest said:

Just a note on this.

 

Here in Canada, public land is owned by the province...not the federal government. Thus laws on fossils and artifacts are provincial.  This means that regional differences are considered.  In Alberta we have an official committee of professional and amateur paleontologists that come together to discuss regulations and other fossil related issues.

 

Our fossil laws are exactly as I like them.  Surface collection of fossils and artifacts is permitted on public land outside of parks... and fossils may not be sold without a permit.

Re US regulations.  The division between vertebrate and invertebrate fossils is silly to many paleontologists. Its an artificial dichotomy. Some invertebrate phyla  have more ultimate scientific value than vertebrates, especially in biostratigraphy. Also, general restrictions on volume are 'dumb' as when there are literally a billion tons of limestone matrix.

Take away the commercial aspect and a few issues go away such as quotas on  volume, collection of vertebrates on public land, etc.   Interest in paleontology here thrives just as it does in birdwatching, photography, hiking, etc.  If someone is 'poaching' fossils, then there is a stigma and its not easy to profit from this in today's Internet world. We have a lot of dino fossils and fossil enthusiasts here are vigilant in making sure that our heritage is not exploited.  Also, because fossils have no commercial value, I have never been refused access to private land to collect fossils. 

 

 

 

Land ownership by the Federal Government in the US generally reflects the history of how those lands were acquired.  Much of the West was actually purchased, from Spain or Russia, using federal funds.  The is no corresponding history in Canada.

 

I agree that Alberta has a reasonable set of regulations, as long as you live in Alberta and have no plans to ever move out of province.  I still wonder what one should do with their collection if they have to move out of province?  It would suck to be forced to choose between keeping your collection and keeping your job.  Anyway, several provinces have much more onerous rules.  Some consider all fossils, no matter how common, to be cultural property.  In Nova Scotia it is illegal to pick up the most common brachiopod, or a common seed fern frond.  Manitoba bars removing any fossil from the province, but Tyndall stone full of beautiful corals and cephalopods is exported all over Canada and parts of the US.  These seem to be useless and silly laws to me.

 

Don

[Bone Daddy]

9 hours ago, FossilDAWG said:

The fact that some people will disregard rules/regulations/laws is not a strong argument to say that there should be no rules/regulations/laws.  No-one would say laws against robbery or murder are useless because some people still commit those crimes.  Deterrence is one function, but also in the absence of laws there would be no basis for punishing violators.  In the present case, the proposed rules are an attempt to strike some balance between allowing access and limiting the rate of depletion of the resource so that as many people as possible can enjoy the hobby.  The BLM is charged with managing public lands so they can be used by a broad swath of the public for a wide range of purposes, so they often have to strike balances between competing demands.  I have had the experience of driving and then hiking a long distance onto BLM land to reach a trilobite site, only to find the fossil layers reduced to long trenches, deeper than I am tall (the strata there are steeply inclined so the layers go almost straight down).  The trenches, which were left open, were an obvious hazard for cattle in the area.  I think this is the sort of behavior the proposed rules are intended to deter or punish.

 

We can (and should) make suggestions about how the goals of the legislation might be better met.  I suspect efforts to overturn the intent of the rules will not go far.  It is unlikely that the BLM will suddenly decide that the first person to get to a site can quarry out everything, so everyone else is greeted by an empty hole.  But, maybe the 25-pound limit could be adjusted some to reflect local conditions.  25 pounds of loose brachiopods is a lot, but one ammonite in a concretion could easily exceed 25 pounds (based on my experience on BLM land in New Mexico.  The 25 pound limit is itself a compromise; the initially proposed National Forest regulation limited collecting to 5 specimens of each type, but "type" was not defined.  Is that 5 brachiopods of each species, or 5 brachiopods total (i.e. does "type" refer to species or phyla or what?). 

 

Also, although "one size fits all" rules often don't fit anybody perfectly, creating a different set of rules for every group of users of BLM land is a non-starter.  It's bad enough that mining/oil companies have a different set of rules under the proposed rules.

 

We do have an opportunity to comment on the proposed rules.  It would probably be worthwhile to have a discussion about how the rules might be improved, and then we could all submit thoughtful letters.

 

Don

 

Hi Don,

 

I do not argue with the substance of what you are saying here. But, the BLM does not have the best interests of the general public in mind. They have the best interests of mining companies and energy companies in mind. They get special treatment over school teachers, paleontologists, or the average Joe.  You or I wielding a shovel to bring out a few bucket loads of material is discouraged, while major corporations can come in and strip mine or destroy the land as they see fit for profit. Some lobbyists and several million dollars go a long way.

There are already laws and regulations on the books that address concerns such as trespassing, digging trenches, using heavy equipment, and the like. These don't stop the problems because the laws are not sufficiently enforced. Part of that is lack of budget and manpower, which new regulations will not address. If there is one BLM officer per 100 square miles, then there is little deterrent for poachers. Nobody is going to break the law if there is a real chance of a ranger or LEO coming over the hill at any moment. 

The little guy/gal makes a good target because he/she has no means to launch an effective defense of their interests. We lack teams of attorneys, lobbyists, and stacks of green to grease palms. Allowing us to "comment" on the proposed measures is a bone (pun intended) thrown our way to make us feel like we have some say in the outcome - which ultimately, we don't. 

 

As was mentioned above, the regulations are filled with arbitrary (and mostly illogical) boundaries of what is allowed or not allowed. For example, the line drawn between vertebrates and invertebrates. Some invertebrates have more scientific value than vertebrates. I have a hard time believing that any academic, scientist, or professional paleontologist had any hand in drafting such guidelines - they were likely "consulted" in much the same way we are allowed to "comment".

Call me silly, but here is what I would like to see in any proposed federal or state regulations regarding fossils :

1) preference of access is given to academics, researchers, and scientists - and not those in the employ of mining companies or other entities that want to restrict access to true science. Example - phosphate mining companies in Florida destroy human artifacts and fossils to mine their phosphate. Sure, they are supposed to halt all operations the minute a human artifact or site is found. Do they? No. They throw the bones and artifacts into the grinder and operations carry on. That happens. I have heard if firsthand numerous times from rank and file employees of these companies. These big companies ignore the regulations because they can. Nobody is going to prosecute the CEO of a major multi-national mining conglomerate that destroys resources, but somebody who picks up an arrowhead on a hiking trip is subject to jail. That is not right.

2) amateurs are encouraged to participate and contribute to science. This means allowing them, within reason, to access the resources and dispose of material that is scientifically interesting. Teams sent into the field by institutions are funded by the institution and their donors. Private individuals have to pay for their own travel expenses, food, lodging, and tools. Without a financial incentive to help offset these expenses, many amateurs must stay home for forgo field work. Australia tightly restricted private access to meteorites, removed commercial sales, and science was dealt a gut punch. Recoveries plummeted and specimens rot in the field. Scientists once had a flood of specimens for study and now that is reduced to a trickle. I have spoken to scientists who have confirmed this. Here in the US, there are many top scientists in the field of planetary science who will tell you in no uncertain terms that they welcome private participation. Sure, there are bad apples and there always will be, but the meteorite community does a good job of self policing and the problems are in the minority of overall activity. The model used for US meteorite recovery could be applied to fossils with success. Alas, I will get some rotten fruit thrown my way for this, but there is more academic snobbery in paleontology and archaeology than there is in planetary science. Amateurs are encouraged in meteoritics, to benefit of all (including science). Amateurs are largely discouraged in the fields relevant to fossils and artifacts. Again, I am not pulling this out of the air, this my conclusion reached after over a decade of interaction with scientists from multiple fields. Meteorites I have provided are sitting in several institutional and museum collections where they benefit scientific research. I can barely get a reply from archaeologists and paleontologists.

 

3) Existing laws and regulations are evenly enforced. Budgets for the relevant enforcement agencies should be increased and enough manpower put into the field to provide adequate enforcement. And the enforcement should be fair - the CEO of a billion dollar company should be prosecuted just as quickly and with the same vigor as a poacher would be. Start locking up the law breakers and make examples of them. Once Joe Blow sees some of the big players hauled off to court, they will think twice about their poaching. Is Joe Blow going to feel guilty about digging a trench and filling up his pickup truck with material if a major corporation can do the same thing on an exponentially larger scale without repercussions?

4) Discretion for field officers and managers should be codified into the regulations. Applying a blanket rule to everyone in every circumstance is rarely fair and rarely has the desired positive effect in the long run. Access and use of resources should be open to case-by-case consideration based on the merits of the individual case. Tying the hands of the people who actually have their boots on the ground is little different than mandatory sentencing guidelines that tie the hands of judges and juries - it undermines the very system the rules are designed to protect.

I share the concerns of lawful amateurs and science. Nobody wants to see abusers run roughshod over the system and our resources. But government rarely has any answers that are logical and fair. We have to ask ourselves - who do want controlling these resources? Some bureaucrat with no dog in the fight who is merely justifying his own position, or the people who really care about the science? We (amateurs) need to do a better job of policing ourselves or it will be taken out of our hands to the detriment of all.

The State of Florida's permitting system is a good one. It's not perfect, but it works. I think a similar program should be used on the federal level.




 

[Bone Daddy]

Canadian (or provincial) laws forbid the commercial sale of specimens, but what about trades that involve no exchange of monies?

 

I have done trades with Canadian collectors. Are they breaking the law?

 

 

[foxtail]

There is a reason that they do not want you and I out there on public lands. They want to get rid of the rockhounds and the fossil collectors as well as anyone else who uses the public land that they seek to seize control away from the people. They have an agenda and it does not have a place for you to be traipsing around in their secret spots out in the middle of "Usedtobeplayland". They have some sort of nefarious plans to profit off of the lands that we own without cutting the public in on the deal.

 

Here is how it is going to go down.

1. Limit amounts of minerals that can be collected.

2. Limit methods of collection.

3. Remove roads to "protect" vulnerable areas.

4. Start to make certain "vulnerable" or "experimental human free zones" off limits.

5. Start teaching propaganda in schools to indoctrinate the children to their way of thinking.

6. Expand #4 exponentially.

7. After everyone has lost access and forgotten in a decade or two, lease small parcels to their friends.

8. Expand #6 to the N'th degree.

9. Change the National Anthem to "This land ain't your land. This land is my land. Get the hell off of my land. Go find your own land.".........

[luxefaire]

Hi its been awhile since I had dealings with the BLM here in NM, but they have always been cordial and helpful.  I have owned two gemstone claims near hachita NM in the past, and it was no hassle, they even went so far as to tell me I did not need a claim as long as I kept my diggings to pick and shovel and less than one square yard of dirt per day.  Other laws I have seen allow 25 lbs per day of material to be taken from a site by the public, even on land with active claims, because claims cannot keep the casual collector off public land.  I am sure things have changed somewhat since my dealings with BLM, and yes, i have heard horror stories, but personally speaking they have always been a real asset to me and my explorations.  As far as fossils go (Excepting dino) they seemed very unconcerned with that.  I do know that certain areas have more enforcement than others, but exploitation of mineral wealth has always seemed to be their main concern.  i have used the Las Cruces NM BLM office for my queries and they have always gone above and beyond....regards....Bill