Permits To Collect On National Monuments?

[Brett Breakin' Rocks]

  I will say again that the 25lbs per day and 100lbs per year has been in place for as long as I've been collecting on the West coast for the BLM.  If anything has changed I'm not seeing it ??  Or are people freaked out because they are reading it for the first time ?

  Insofar as those limits are concerned they aren't new proposed limits, they have been in place since the beginning and the rules I'm assuming overall are being tweaked in other ways.

 

Cheers,

B

[Brett Breakin' Rocks]

  On top of the limits that were set in place in BLM CA. theoretically it is illegal to sell what you find for commercial purposes unless you first obtain a permit.  Which makes sense to me, and keeps folks from raping sites for their own personal gain and utterly destroying them for everyone else.

 

[FossilDAWG]

There is no such thing as a permit to sell anything collected on Federal land.  There is provision for "casual collecting" for collectors (25 lb limit/day, hand tools only, minimal surface disturbance), and collecting under permit for research and education, and that's it.  No commercial collecting.  Even trading is "sketchy" under the proposed rules, as "bartering" is mentioned along with "selling" as prohibited, though arguably that's to prevent people from trying to get around the prohibition on commercial sales by bartering goods or services instead of cash.  It's hard to imagine the BLM has the resources or interest to go after a collector for trading an ammonite for a shark tooth.

 

Don

[Brett Breakin' Rocks]

My apologies .. I was probably remembering the clause for Petrified wood not invertebrates .. which can be collected and sold commercially as a 'mineral'.

[RandyB]

I just got a package from a BLM office in Wyoming this week as I gather info for a trip I am planning this summer.  One of the places I am hoping to collect at is Big Cedar Ridge.  The gentleman I spoke to at the Worland Field Office was willing to chat and answer my questions then sent me the current BLM pamphlet on current collecting rules: Fossils on Americas Public Lands,

as well as an article on collecting at this specific location with a map to the parking area, instructions to identify the various quarry sites there as well as a how to guide for collecting at this formation.  

 

For Invertebrate Fossils (examples given: trilobites, ammonites, brachiopods, plant leaves, cones and seeds) "only reasonable amounts of specimens can be collected. Specimens are small samples that are easily transportable by hand."  There is no weight limit set for this category, it seems to have been left purposely vague.  It does spell out that fossils cannot be collected for commercial purposes. The collecting guide for Big Cedar Ridge suggests using your "rock hammer or the pick, try to lift out fairly large blocks of the fossil-rich rock.  Then split the block along the lines on its side."  A single block could exceed the 25 lb limit used for petrified wood.

 

The 25 lb limit mentioned previously in this thread is specific to Petrified Wood and is specified as "Up to 25 pounds of petrified wood, plus one piece, each day.  No more than 250 pounds in any calendar year without a permit."

 

As mentioned previously in this thread, collecting of any vertebrate fossils on public lands requires a permit.

 

The current rules also give the BLM the ability to close down any area for collecting for the preservation of potential rare and scientifically valuable fossils.  I think this is where things start to get dicey with both the current and proposed rules.  In this case the intentional vagueness enables any BLM office to arbitrarily and potentially permanently close down collecting sites with no official recourse for anyone to appeal the decision nor any rules for what constitutes rare or scientifically valuable fossils.  I am fully in favor of needing some sites preserved otherwise people will do things that defy belief, such as a local site that was shut down because people were undermining a highway bridge making it structurally unsound.  I am completely opposed to putting those decisions permanently in the hands of bureaucrats who cannot be held accountable to the public they theoretically work for.

[Wrangellian]

On 2017-01-11 at 6:46 PM, newdog65 said:

This website has been pulled together by a dedicated group of amateur paleos/collectors to provide info and encourage all to submit your comments to the proposed rules around fossil collecting on public lands. Public comment period ends on February 6.  The site is

https://www.savefossilcollecting.org

 

I am up in Canada and suspect what happens in US could eventually be implemented in my province.  what a crime it would be if collecting was effectively banned.  Amateurs have made so many discoveries that have contributed to science. In the last ten years or so, as an example, my collecting partner and I have identified over 35 new trilobites (including new species, and new occurrences of previously described species) in our area, resulting in significant donations to universities and a local museum. 

 

Encourage you you all to check out the website

That's a great website - so much is said so well. I hope they keep it up even after the review period, so that we up here can point our regulators to it if we need to.

[Scylla]

I would advise all TFF members to post a comment (I just did) and read "the death of discovery" and the highlighted comment from the southern California paleontological society on https://www.savefossilcollecting.org/contact/

[Olenoides]

The post below discusses the major issues for casual/amateur collectors.  While casual collecting is technically allowed the actual definitions are either so vaguely defined or overly restrictive that they prevent it in most cases from a practical standpoint.  

 

https://www.savefossilcollecting.org/whats-so-bad/

[Olenoides]

9 hours ago, Scylla said:

I would advise all TFF members to post a comment (I just did) and read "the death of discovery" and the highlighted comment from the southern California paleontological society on https://www.savefossilcollecting.org/contact/

 

Here are direct links to those two pieces of content.  

 

Death of Discovery

Highlighted Comment: Southern California Paleontological Society

 

I would also suggest.

 

Paleontological Resources Preservation Act And Permitting – A Misadventure

 

[FossilDAWG]

I too encourage everyone to read the proposed rules and the links people have provided, and submit comments before the deadline. 

I found the linked statement by the Southern California Paleontological Society to be very informative and well argued.  The situation described in the "Death of Discovery" link is somewhat unusual.  The article was written by Glade Gunther and deals with the forest service rules, which are a bit different from the proposed BLM rules thought there is a lot of overlap.  The Gunther family has for many years done extensive collecting, mostly of Cambrian trilobites, and they have discovered many new species and provided much material to museums.  They really have epitomized the ideal amateur/professional liaison.  After much exploration to discover productive sites in remote locations they seriously quarry those sites, using large pry bars and rock saws to remove slabs which they carry down out of the mountains.  The rules regarding weight limits and prohibitions on anything other than hand tools makes their style of collecting impossible.  To carry on collecting they would need a permit, which they could not get as they are not university researchers, and in any event if they had a permit they could not keep anything they collected, it would all have to go to a Forest Service-approved museum.  The Gunthers are, it seems to me, an example of the sort of collectors that were overlooked in the rule-making process: serious collectors who are out in the field every weekend but also act as a conduit to bring new and rare species to the attention of the paleontological research community. 

 

I found the third link ("A Misadventure") confusing, though some legitimate points are raised.  It is true that, in order to obtain a permit as an educator or researcher, you would have to identify a museum that would agree to curate everything you collect.  This may be impossible as few museums have the space and resources to accept large collections of, say, brachiopods or trilobite fragments.  I found it misleading, though, that the author spent a lot of time (or words) describing their difficulty finding a museum willing to take a piece of dinosaur bone they had collected on private property.  The Paleontological Resources Protection Act only applies to federal land, it has no impact on fossil collecting, vertebrate or invertebrate, on private land.

 

Don

[JBMugu]

I know that my local national monument doesnt allow collecting. I wanted to collect there and was told that no rocks or fossils were permitted to be removed. That being said you can still hunt there so only animals you kill can be taken, go figure.

[Wrangellian]

That's strange... You can hunt animals in a place that you can't take fossils/rocks from. It doesn't help to say you're "hunting fossils"?

 

 

I wonder if there is any point in me as a Canadian submitting a comment, or should it be kept to US citizens.

[DeepTimeIsotopes]

46 minutes ago, Wrangellian said:

That's strange... You can hunt animals in a place that you can't take fossils/rocks from. It doesn't help to say you're "hunting fossils"?

 

 

I wonder if there is any point in me as a Canadian submitting a comment, or should it be kept to US citizens.

It's nice to hear what is happening in other places so we can draw from experiences in those places as well.

[ynot]

48 minutes ago, Wrangellian said:

I wonder if there is any point in me as a Canadian submitting a comment, or should it be kept to US citizens.

You could always play up the tourist side of the restrictions. Politicians love anything to do with increases of money

[FossilDAWG]

11 hours ago, Wrangellian said:

That's strange... You can hunt animals in a place that you can't take fossils/rocks from. It doesn't help to say you're "hunting fossils"?

 

 

I wonder if there is any point in me as a Canadian submitting a comment, or should it be kept to US citizens.

It does seem strange that you can hunt live animals but not dead fossils.  Bear in mind that that is only in certain places, national parks and most national monuments do not allow hunting.  

I think that there is a perception that hunting depends on a renewable resource that can be enhanced by management, whereas fossils are not renewable, at least not at the same rate.  People will dispute the "fossils as a renewable resource" issue of course, though I would say that at most sites fossils are exposed by erosion at a rate that is slower than, say, the rate at which deer populations replenish themselves.  At any rate hunting is managed so that the "harvest" is not more than the population can tolerate (at least in principle); there are no public lands where you can, for example, "collect" as many deer or elk or moose or bear as you may want without limit.  You have to buy a "permit" (license), and that permit states the maximum you can take, when you can hunt, and what sort of tools you can use (bow, muzzle loader, and regular firearms all have specific seasons).  You can think of the proposed fossil collecting rules in a similar way.  The PRPA law requires the BLM to manage the resource (fossils) for the maximum benefit of the greatest number of people.  One can dispute whether or not the proposed rules are the best way to do that, and suggest well-reasoned alternatives or improvements.  Certainly there is room for improvement in the proposed rules.  However arguments that there should be no limits, in quantity taken, types of fossils taken (vertebrate vs invertebrate/plant), types of tools that are allowed, or amount of disturbance to the land, are not going to fly, any more than hunters could have success arguing that they should be allowed to kill as many elk as they can fit on their truck every day.

 

Don

[Ridgehiker]

I support the restriction.

 

I open up the 'Fossil Forum' and see specimen after specimen being purchased or  put in 'Collections' without even lip service to proper scientific provenance.

 

Who found it

Where specifically was it found

 

Somebody praises another poster for 'buying' a fossil that doesnt have proper provenance. Why praise a purchase of  specimen that is perpetuating this non scientific practice?

 

It is EASY to collect fossils properly and it is EASY to curate them properly.  And it is EASY not to help perpetuate bad practices by others who do not follow these procedures.  Everyone talks about how amateurs help the scientific community but many at the same time treat fossils as ornaments and not scientific specimens. If someone wants to sell or buy fossils then it should be done with complete currated info. 

 

re hunting.  There is no contradiction. Fish and wildlife management doesnt  stop at a park boundary.  Most parks are not self contained but rather part of larger ecosystems.  Park management in North America is usually inclusive of wildlife corridors that take into account natural migration, gene diversity, etc.   Predator/prey balances are sometimes controlled with hunting. Every year in the Parks throughout western Canada there are Elk, Bison, Wolf, Moose, etc. culls.

 

 

[Wrangellian]

So is it better that a rare fossil should be left on the surface to disintegrate than for a casual/amateur collector like me to pick it up, take it home, put a label on it and possibly donate it to the provincial museum someday? If you venerable members say yes, then I'm quitting.

I'm not against management if it doesn't create fossil waste, but I'm against total bans. If this management means only the pro's can have access to a site for a time, then fine - as long as they are collecting it or the fossils are not eroding out of the hillside by the bucketload and disintegrating, while obsessed amateurs are looking on from a distance, dreaming.

[ArrestedBeauty]

On 1/13/2017 at 4:53 PM, jpc said:

I certainly hope not.  Humanity is taking over the planet and we need to set aside large pieces of just plain old Earth so that the human cancer can't mess it up even more. 

 

     I cannot tell you how refreshing it is to hear someone else point this huge issue, that as it stands now...it stands more as the "elephant in the room" than anything. I believe that though this is not directly in line with this discussion thread, it does track parallel with it. The new proposal of said rules does seemingly have its merits. I have yet to read it in its entirety, but that being said, I well and truly believe that when it comes to land management and preservation, a bit of overzealousness is a much more agreeable path as opposed to the path that (in my absolutely...not so humble opinion) is taking the earth and it's inhabitants, straight into the proverbial "pooper" of a black hole!

     I believe that it was Robert Fulghum that said it best, "Everything I need to know, I learned in Kindergarten." It has been many moons since I read the essay in its entirety, but I would be surprised if the good doctor did not at least hint at the notion of moderation and respect for others somewhere in the aforementioned essay. 

     I have recently been introduced to "DE" as many (or so I'm told) people call Diatomaceous Earth. I find it absolutely appalling that any farmer worth half his "crop" as it were...to eradicate any insect or supposed "pest", given that the word biodegradable is moot in this context. DE is as biologically degraded as it will ever be. Therefore, by introducing this product into any ecosystem, we are ensuring that the human race will not only play and even larger roll in it's own extinction, but it is and will in the future, play a major roll in upsetting the homeostasis of the planet to the point the She will be unable to throw enough "Black Plagues" our way to effectively save herself. 

     Please forgive the in me, showing itself...but, if one ingests DE...one must also "send" it screaming out the back door eventually; yes? You then eventually end up with an exponentially disgusting amount of DE laying in wait to indiscriminately commit genocide on any and every creature small enough or with an exoskeleton. The same can be said for the indiscriminate collecting of fossils. There are those of us out there that are already well and truly aware of the repercussions of said act...and then there is seemingly...most of the rest of the world. 

     I unfortunately, would have to vote for the overzealous sanctioning of Federal Land use as opposed to the ever popular..."Take, take...but, don't ever, ever, ev"...well, I'm sure y'all get the idea.

 

- Julie

[JohnJ]

Let's keep this discussion on track, please.    

 

We, humans, need to figure out a reasonable solution to these proposed regulations....  I know, because I asked my three dogs and they had no answer. 

[jpc]

My cats refuse to read the document.  I am having a hard time doing it myself.  

[Fossildude19]

22 hours ago, Canadawest said:

I open up the 'Fossil Forum' and see specimen after specimen being purchased or  put in 'Collections' without even lip service to proper scientific provenance.

 

 

We would appreciate being notified of any entries into the Collections database that do not contain pertinent information - that goes directly against what we are trying to accomplish with the Collections area.  Unfortunately, we are just a handful moderating/administering the website, and any help is truly appreciated - we can't be everywhere or see everything all the time.  

Thank you. 

[JohnBrian]

18 hours ago, Wrangellian said:

So is it better that a rare fossil should be left on the surface to disintegrate than for a casual/amateur collector like me to pick it up, take it home, put a label on it and possibly donate it to the provincial museum someday? If you venerable members say yes, then I'm quitting.

I'm not against management if it doesn't create fossil waste, but I'm against total bans. If this management means only the pro's can have access to a site for a time, then fine - as long as they are collecting it or the fossils are not eroding out of the hillside by the bucketload and disintegrating, while obsessed amateurs are looking on from a distance, dreaming.

 

Couldn't have said it better ! The bolded part has been my view for many many years. But, since there are laws prohibiting the collection of vertebrate remains, I have left those items alone. 

[Ridgehiker]

7 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

 

We would appreciate being notified of any entries into the Collections database that do not contain pertinent information - that goes directly against what we are trying to accomplish with the Collections area.  Unfortunately, we are just a handful moderating/administering the website, and any help is truly appreciated - we can't be everywhere or see everything all the time.  

Thank you. 

 

Not sure what you mean.  There is no requirement as to the provenance of the specimen.  Therefore the pertinent info required by this forum doesnt meet even  minimum standards of a musum or scientific community. 'Montana' is not a geologic location. It is a state bigger than the UK. 

 

Still not sure why the reluctance to make the Collections a meaningful resource rather than just a hodgepodge of specimens that can be equally found via Google. Better to have 100 properly presented specimens than a 1000 that are not.

 

How does this pertain to this topic? It would be great if the Fossil Forum could show the regulators how the fossil community is contributing to the science of paleontology and that  that 'amateur' doesnt mean 'second best'. Instead the reluctance to embrace scientific methodology makes the case for restricting collecting to individuals who have a knowledge of proper field potocol.

 

 

[aerogrower]

Wow. You are obviously entitled to your opinion, but it is only your opinion and not necessarily the only opinion that is right. Why not try to teach us how to do it the "right way" instead of belittling people for not sharing your opinions.

 

[JohnJ]

1 hour ago, Canadawest said:

 

Not sure what you mean.  There is no requirement as to the provenance of the specimen.  Therefore the pertinent info required by this forum doesnt meet even  minimum standards of a musum or scientific community. 'Montana' is not a geologic location. It is a state bigger than the UK. 

 

Still not sure why the reluctance to make the Collections a meaningful resource rather than just a hodgepodge of specimens that can be equally found via Google. Better to have 100 properly presented specimens than a 1000 that are not.

 

How does this pertain to this topic? It would be great if the Fossil Forum could show the regulators how the fossil community is contributing to the science of paleontology and that  that 'amateur' doesnt mean 'second best'. Instead the reluctance to embrace scientific methodology makes the case for restricting collecting to individuals who have a knowledge of proper field potocol.

 

 

 

Again I'll mention, the Collections section of TFF was never intended to have the level of detailed information required by designated fossil repositories, or to pretend to substitute as a repository of that information.  It does serve a gateway to that more specific information if the current collector has it in possession.  It is also another tool to encourage the proper documentation fossils in one's collection.

 

I think we can all agree, these regulations will not be influenced one way, or another, based on the data requirements of the TFF Collections section.  On the other hand, TFF has published thousands of examples of how avocational fossil enthusiasts have cooperated and contributed to the science of paleontology.  Across the United States (and elsewhere), 'amateurs' are part of the 'lifeblood' of paleontology (professionals start somewhere  ).  Working together, we should be smart enough to figure out how to respect individual rights, protect and share the resource, and advance the science paleontology.