Permits To Collect On National Monuments?

[Sagebrush Steve]

Has anyone thought about proposing a licensing system for amateur collectors?  I'm not talking about something like a hunting license where you pay $50 or $100 for a permit to collect, I'm thinking of something more like a drivers license.  You would go through some instruction, pass a test, and be given a license to do more than just "casually collect" invertebrate fossils on most BLM lands.  Here's the logic behind that idea.  We know there are thousands (millions?) of invertebrate fossils eroding away out there that will never be found by a professional.  And we know that properly trained amateurs can be very helpful to the professionals if they know what to do.  So the instruction might include things like learning how to find out where it is legal to hunt for fossils, what information you should record when you are collecting, how to collect safely, how to identify the fossils you collect, what to do if you find something unusual, and what institutions nearby you could contact.  One reason the BLM and Forest Service are being so restrictive is that they want to prevent people who don't know what they are doing from destroying important locations.  It would seem a good way to improve the situation would be to let trained amateurs have more access.  You don't need a Masters or Doctoral degree in paleontology to be a good collector if you've been properly trained.  The training itself could be conducted by professionals at local colleges (a good way to supplement their income?) or even be done online similar to how on-line traffic schools are taught now.  It might be an 8 or 16 hour program, shouldn't need to be more than that.  Lots of details would need to be worked out, but I'm worried that without offering a way to show how we can improve things by better training amateurs, the bureaucratic types are likely to go with the most restrictive option.

[jpc]

A friend of mine who does falconry and fossils had threw a similar idea by me several years ago.  To be a falconer in the US you need a licence. It ensures that not any od yahoo can be responsible for the life and well being of a living falcon.  The feds know who is falconing and what birds they have. The system is controlled.  I think this would be a much better solution to fossil hunting, inverts and verts, than the current system.  As an amateur and a professional, I think a system like this would encourage people to collect responsibly and work with the academic community.  I mentioned it once to a friend who works for the BLM, and his thought was that even though he personally could see the merits of sucha system, the momentum of things right now are going in this direction and it is not easy to turn a huge ship around.  

 

Having said all of this, it might be worthwhile to comment on the bill with Sagebrush Steve's idea in mind.  Suggest it.  Go for it.  

[Olenoides]

4 hours ago, Sagebrush Steve said:

Has anyone thought about proposing a licensing system for amateur collectors?  I'm not talking about something like a hunting license where you pay $50 or $100 for a permit to collect, I'm thinking of something more like a drivers license.  You would go through some instruction, pass a test, and be given a license to do more than just "casually collect" invertebrate fossils on most BLM lands.  Here's the logic behind that idea.  We know there are thousands (millions?) of invertebrate fossils eroding away out there that will never be found by a professional.  And we know that properly trained amateurs can be very helpful to the professionals if they know what to do.  So the instruction might include things like learning how to find out where it is legal to hunt for fossils, what information you should record when you are collecting, how to collect safely, how to identify the fossils you collect, what to do if you find something unusual, and what institutions nearby you could contact.  One reason the BLM and Forest Service are being so restrictive is that they want to prevent people who don't know what they are doing from destroying important locations.  It would seem a good way to improve the situation would be to let trained amateurs have more access.  You don't need a Masters or Doctoral degree in paleontology to be a good collector if you've been properly trained.  The training itself could be conducted by professionals at local colleges (a good way to supplement their income?) or even be done online similar to how on-line traffic schools are taught now.  It might be an 8 or 16 hour program, shouldn't need to be more than that.  Lots of details would need to be worked out, but I'm worried that without offering a way to show how we can improve things by better training amateurs, the bureaucratic types are likely to go with the most restrictive option.

 

I had a long discussion the other day with Scott Foss at the BLM and that idea is under discussion as a solution to some of the issues.  We need to put out specifics of how this might work in our comments on the regulations, so they don't just run with it themselves and over complicate things like they did with the rest of the permit process.

[Sagebrush Steve]

8 minutes ago, jpc said:

A friend of mine who does falconry and fossils had threw a similar idea by me several years ago.  To be a falconer in the US you need a licence. It ensures that not any old yahoo can be responsible for the life and well being of a living falcon.  The feds know who is falconing and what birds they have. The system is controlled.  I think this would be a much better solution to fossil hunting, inverts and verts, than the current system.  As an amateur and a professional, I think a system like this would encourage people to collect responsibly and work with the academic community.  I mentioned it once to a friend who works for the BLM, and his thought was that even though he personally could see the merits of sucha system, the momentum of things right now are going in this direction and it is not easy to turn a huge ship around.  

 

Having said all of this, it might be worthwhile to comment on the bill with Sagebrush Steve's idea in mind.  Suggest it.  Go for it.  

Thanks, jpg, appreciate the feedback.  I will do a better job of writing up my comments and will submit them.  Might not make a difference but at least I will try.

[jpc]

1 minute ago, Olenoides said:

 

I had a long discussion the other day with Scott Foss at the BLM and that idea is under discussion as a solution to some of the issues.  We need to put out specifics of how this might work in our comments on the regulations, so they don't just run with it themselves and over complicate things like they did with the rest of the permit process.

Wow... that is good to know and goes against what I said in my post.   I think this comment and knowing Scott Foss said this should encourage all of us to go ahead and comment using this train of thought.  Scott is the BLM paleontologist in the DC office.  He is no small potato... and a good guy.  

[Olenoides]

3 minutes ago, jpc said:

Wow... that is good to know and goes against what I said in my post.   

 

Well that is what Scott said...  But, I think you are right that he's going to run into huge opposition within the agency because it adds costs, and maybe well outside the mandate of the PRPA.  Expect the agencies to take the path of least resistance rather than what is actually logical.  

[Sagebrush Steve]

2 minutes ago, Olenoides said:

 

I had a long discussion the other day with Scott Foss at the BLM and that idea is under discussion as a solution to some of the issues.  We need to put out specifics of how this might work in our comments on the regulations, so they don't just run with it themselves and over complicate things like they did with the rest of the permit process.

Thanks, Olenoides.  If anyone has specific ideas for how this should work, please post them in the next few days.  I will try to extract the best ideas and incorporate them into my submission.  We don't want it to be too complicated but it needs to do a good job of addressing the concerns.  Also, if anyone has ideas for how it should be administered, please let us know.  I don't think we should ask BLM to do it, they probably don't have the expertise.  Having a professional organization take the lead would probably be best.

[Sagebrush Steve]

4 minutes ago, Olenoides said:

 

Well that is what Scott said...  But, I think you are right that he's going to run into huge opposition within the agency because it adds costs, and maybe well outside the mandate of the PRPA.  Expect the agencies to take the path of least resistance rather than what is actually logical.  

Which is why we should try to get a professional organization to administer it.  The Feds would probably be happy to delegate it.  But which organization?

[Olenoides]

4 minutes ago, Sagebrush Steve said:

Thanks, Olenoides.  If anyone has specific ideas for how this should work, please post them in the next few days.  I will try to extract the best ideas and incorporate them into my submission.  We don't want it to be too complicated but it needs to do a good job of addressing the concerns.  Also, if anyone has ideas for how it should be administered, please let us know.  I don't think we should ask BLM to do it, they probably don't have the expertise.  Having a professional organization take the lead would probably be best.

 

I think the State of Florida permit system might be a good model.

 

 

[Sagebrush Steve]

31 minutes ago, Olenoides said:

 

I think the State of Florida permit system might be a good model.

 

 

Thanks.  Being from California I'm not too familiar with it.  Do you have a link?

[Search4]

Aren't Federal and State lands already off limits? Every State land I've hunted on I've been told I wasn't allowed.

[jpc]

1 hour ago, Search4 said:

Aren't Federal and State lands already off limits? Every State land I've hunted on I've been told I wasn't allowed.

I imagine there 50 different answers to this one. 

Correction... 49.  New Hampshire is afossiliferous.  

[Sagebrush Steve]

On ‎1‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 5:50 PM, Olenoides said:

 

I had a long discussion the other day with Scott Foss at the BLM and that idea is under discussion as a solution to some of the issues.  We need to put out specifics of how this might work in our comments on the regulations, so they don't just run with it themselves and over complicate things like they did with the rest of the permit process.

OK, I submitted the attached PDF to them with my comments on the proposed rule.  I read through many of the other comments (there were nearly 200) and most of them expressed similar concerns with the proposed rule.  I would encourage anyone to submit their own comments, it's pretty easy.  One word of advice.  I've been on the other side of these kinds of public comment events in the past, and comments that say something like "I don't like this rule, please delete it" don't carry as much weight as comments that are specific to where the rule is a problem and offer recommendations on how to improve it.

Comments on NPS Rule.pdf

[Fossildude19]

16 hours ago, jpc said:

Correction... 49.  New Hampshire is afossiliferous.  

 

Technically, not true.  

[jpc]

53 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

 

Technically, not true.  

Dang it... ya got me.  

[jpc]

1 hour ago, Sagebrush Steve said:

OK, I submitted the attached PDF to them with my comments on the proposed rule.  I read through many of the other comments (there were nearly 200) and most of them expressed similar concerns with the proposed rule.  I would encourage anyone to submit their own comments, it's pretty easy.  One word of advice.  I've been on the other side of these kinds of public comment events in the past, and comments that say something like "I don't like this rule, please delete it" don't carry as much weight as comments that are specific to where the rule is a problem and offer recommendations on how to improve it.

Comments on NPS Rule.pdf

Very well written, Sagebrush Steve.  Three cheers and thanks for sharing.  I recommend everyone have a look at this link.  

[Wrangellian]

Steve's ideas are a huge improvement on the proposed rules, but I would still like to quibble about the amounts, which could get onerous to calculate for math dummies like me (do I have to buy a scale and carry it with me?). And is there going to be somebody to police the amounts that each collector has accumulated in a year, or will it be on the Honour System? To me it doesn't matter who collects the fossils, as long as they get collected. The amount that one person could collect in a year without heavy machinery, haul out from the back country on his own and store in his house/shed, must have some natural limit by itself. Maybe that's around 250lbs/yr, I don't know. I probably don't collect anywhere near that much in a year myself. But why do we need to state any arbitrary limit at all, as long as all the other stipulations that Steve mentioned (about location data/etc) are followed? I still would prefer a system that allows the authorities to restrict collecting at only the sites where it is causing a problem. Maybe at a site where the collecting demand is outstripping the site's refresh rate, limits could be imposed for the sake of everyone having a chance to obtain specimens from there, or where the digging is causing some adverse effect on some other thing, or where the pro's are actively doing research.

    Also, why is it necessary to forbid sale of fossils, even ones that have been vetted by museums/academics? I can't see a museum refusing a fossil that might be of interest in future, unless they are tight on storage room..? I don't know what all is allowed on BLM land, but if for-profit companies can exploit them, then collectors should be allowed to sell their fossils if and when they need to get rid of them - recover at least some of the expense they put into collecting. But if nobody is allowed to make any money off of anything taken out of BLM lands, then you might have a case for forbidding sale of fossils collected there, but I could still see it hampering the hobby, and there again you have the question of policing. Rock- and fossil-hounds have been collecting, buying, selling, trading their finds for years, and it's only in certain spots that there are problems. I suppose that either a limit on the collecting amount per year or a ban on selling would be sufficient to check overexploitation. It is not necessary to have both. It seems to me it would be easier for the rangers/wardens(?) to police the fossil sites than the internet sites...

    Also I hope the licensing system doesn't cost too much. I could see it starting out affordable for someone of modest means like me, but then they could decide to start jacking up the price whenever they feel like it, making it unaffordable for anyone but the more well-off collectors. That would be unfair and I think counter to the spirit of the legislation whereby everyone is supposed to be able to take part.

    I don't favor any system that prevents anybody, even casual hikers, from picking up a potentially important fossil that they might stumble across, from a site that was previously unknown to anybody, and bringing it to show the specialists which would be a good requirement for anybody collecting fossils from these places. As long as it's a surface find that can be picked up intact, just because you haven't gone thru that training doesn't mean you should leave an important fossil there. It's fine if a hiker is required to leave it there and report it to the professionals, as long as the pro's are actually going to go have a look rather than ignoring the tip. (Of course if the hiker has a camera and can show them a pic, that would be easiest for everybody.) But I keep hearing about how there are too few professionals with too little funding....

 

Again that way way too long. Feel free to skip over it. 

 

 

[Sagebrush Steve]

29 minutes ago, Wrangellian said:

Steve's ideas are a huge improvement on the proposed rules, but I would still like to quibble about the amounts, which could get onerous to calculate for math dummies like me (do I have to buy a scale and carry it with me?). And is there going to be somebody to police the amounts that each collector has accumulated in a year, or will it be on the Honour System? To me it doesn't matter who collects the fossils, as long as they get collected. The amount that one person could collect in a year without heavy machinery, haul out from the back country on his own and store in his house/shed, must have some natural limit by itself. Maybe that's around 250lbs/yr, I don't know. I probably don't collect anywhere near that much in a year myself. But why do we need to state any arbitrary limit at all, as long as all the other stipulations that Steve mentioned (about location data/etc) are followed? I still would prefer a system that allows the authorities to restrict collecting at only the sites where it is causing a problem. Maybe at a site where the collecting demand is outstripping the site's refresh rate, limits could be imposed for the sake of everyone having a chance to obtain specimens from there, or where the digging is causing some adverse effect on some other thing, or where the pro's are actively doing research.

    Also, why is it necessary to forbid sale of fossils, even ones that have been vetted by museums/academics? I can't see a museum refusing a fossil that might be of interest in future, unless they are tight on storage room..? I don't know what all is allowed on BLM land, but if for-profit companies can exploit them, then collectors should be allowed to sell their fossils if and when they need to get rid of them - recover at least some of the expense they put into collecting. But if nobody is allowed to make any money off of anything taken out of BLM lands, then you might have a case for forbidding sale of fossils collected there, but I could still see it hampering the hobby, and there again you have the question of policing. Rock- and fossil-hounds have been collecting, buying, selling, trading their finds for years, and it's only in certain spots that there are problems. I suppose that either a limit on the collecting amount per year or a ban on selling would be sufficient to check overexploitation. It is not necessary to have both. It seems to me it would be easier for the rangers/wardens(?) to police the fossil sites than the internet sites...

    Also I hope the licensing system doesn't cost too much. I could see it starting out affordable for someone of modest means like me, but then they could decide to start jacking up the price whenever they feel like it, making it unaffordable for anyone but the more well-off collectors. That would be unfair and I think counter to the spirit of the legislation whereby everyone is supposed to be able to take part.

    I don't favor any system that prevents anybody, even casual hikers, from picking up a potentially important fossil that they might stumble across, from a site that was previously unknown to anybody, and bringing it to show the specialists which would be a good requirement for anybody collecting fossils from these places. As long as it's a surface find that can be picked up intact, just because you haven't gone thru that training doesn't mean you should leave an important fossil there. It's fine if a hiker is required to leave it there and report it to the professionals, as long as the pro's are actually going to go have a look rather than ignoring the tip. (Of course if the hiker has a camera and can show them a pic, that would be easiest for everybody.) But I keep hearing about how there are too few professionals with too little funding....

 

Again that way way too long. Feel free to skip over it. 

 

 

Wrangellian, you make some good points.  Regarding the weight limits, my thought was to make them the same as petrified wood, so there is no confusion about what limits apply to what types of fossils.  I agree that it is unlikely a lone collector using hand tools is going to exceed a natural limit.  You could argue that under those conditions no arbitrary limit is necessary, but I don't think you could get that approved.  Maybe you start there and let it be a negotiable.  You don't want to start with a proposal of 250 lbs per year and end up having it negotiated down to 50.  But since there is precedent with petrified wood, I think that will be a reasonable number.  As for policing, it's no different than how the petrified wood rules are policed now.  Not sure anything is being done.

 

Regarding the sale of fossils, I suspect the concern is how do you distinguish between an amateur selling an occasional piece and someone doing it as a commercial business?  If anyone has good ideas for how it could be worded to allow amateurs to sell an occasional piece and still prohibit large commercial businesses, I'd be interested in hearing it.

 

I also agree that the licensing system must be affordable.  I think there are plenty of examples to draw from--drivers licenses, the Florida fossil permitting system, hunting licenses, etc.  Although I didn't make it clear in my submission, my view is that the BLM would only be responsible for issuing the licenses.  Training would be done by others--museums, junior colleges, gem and mineral societies, etc.  What kinds of things must be covered would be spelled out by the BLM, and maybe they would approve the training venues.  But the cost of training (I'm not imagining anything more than 8-12 hours, maybe less) would be charged by the group doing the training.  I could even imagine it being free if you were a member of the gem and mineral society, museum, etc.

[Wrangellian]

I'm with you. I don't know if there is a way to separate the businesses from the casual collectors selling spares, Maybe there is no ideal solution. I'd like to know more about the Florida system. Doesn't Florida allow people to do whatever they want with their finds, including selling them, after they have been offered to museums/researchers? If there are no major problems associated with this system then I'd say look to it as a model. It shouldn't matter if a fossil is sold as long as its data is always kept with it. Is there any reason why more stringent restrictions couldn't be applied to specific sites where needed, rather than over the whole territory?

I think it should be acceptable for there to be a brochure-type handout with all the guidelines on it for any collector who wants to collect in public land. This could accompany the license and could contain all the stipulations in concise form... in lieu of a day's training course perhaps, though I like the idea of the course (or at least a short interview). It shouldn't be too complicated, but you know bureaucracies...

[Ridgehiker]

An 8 hour course? A license?  Yikes!  Washington Bureaucracy to run and administer all this and you think a license would be $50?

 

Who is paying for this course? The professionals? The material? Travel costs?  Things may be different in Canada but the licensing would be expected to pay for the program...more like $1,000 or  $5,000 a license.

 

I would advise avoiding this whole quagmire.  If you want to be credible, then a propsal should be  'do-able'  and straight forward .  Follow the Alberta model for your public lands. Surface collecting of all fossils is permitted on public land unless otherwise restricted and the sale of publicly collected fossils is not permitted.  Simple.  I also agree not to quibble about the weight of allowable collecting.  Those type of restrictions are there to be used and potentially enforced when there is abuse.

Anyways, in our province we have the most thriving Paleontological community in N America and the above model is endorsed by professionals and collectors. For the most part everyone is 'happy'. Amateurs can collect and accumulate extensive  collections and I don't know of any serious abuse.  The system has worked fine for over 30 years.

 

In the USA you still have your sale fossils as a commodity if collected on private land. 

[FossilDAWG]

On 1/22/2017 at 8:52 PM, Search4 said:

Aren't Federal and State lands already off limits? Every State land I've hunted on I've been told I wasn't allowed.

If you are talking about vertebrate fossils the answer is "yes" for Federal land and "it depends but generally yes" for State lands.  If you are talking about invertebrates and plants the answer is "no" for Federal land (with exceptions for parks/national monuments" and "it varies" for State land.

 

Don

[FossilDAWG]

5 minutes ago, Canadawest said:

An 8 hour course? A license?  Yikes!  Washington Bureaucracy to run and administer all this and you think a license would be $50?

 

Who is paying for this course? The professionals? The material? Travel costs?  Things may be different in Canada but the licensing would be expected to pay for the program...more like $1,000 or  $5,000 a license.

 

I would advise avoiding this whole quagmire.  If you want to be credible, then a propsal should be  'do-able'  and straight forward .  Follow the Alberta model for your public lands. Surface collecting of all fossils is permitted on public land unless otherwise restricted and the sale of publicly collected fossils is not permitted.  Simple.  I also agree not to quibble about the weight of allowable collecting.  Those type of restrictions are there to be used and potentially enforced when there is abuse.

Anyways, in our province we have the most thriving Paleontological community in N America and the above model is endorsed by professionals and collectors. For the most part everyone is 'happy'. Amateurs can collect and accumulate extensive  collections and I don't know of any serious abuse.  The system has worked fine for over 30 years.

 

In the USA you still have your sale fossils as a commodity if collected on private land. 

I agree with just about all of this.

 

Out of curiosity (and I asked this before but didn't get an answer) what happens if you live in Alberta and accumulate a nice collection and then your employer transfers you out of province?  I'm sure this situation comes up from time to time.  No doubt people just pack up their collection and move, but according to the law what are they supposed to do?

 

Don

[Ridgehiker]

16 minutes ago, FossilDAWG said:

Out of curiosity (and I asked this before but didn't get an answer) what happens if you live in Alberta and accumulate a nice collection and then your employer transfers you out of province?  I'm sure this situation comes up from time to time.  No doubt people just pack up their collection and move, but according to the law what are they supposed to do?

 

We apply for a certificate (need to list specimens) and it will be granted unless some specific reason to oppose it.   However, the specimens still cant be sold.

 

However, not an issue in the USA as the proposals apply to Federal land. In Canada public land (equivalent of BLM, dam sites, National Forests Service, etc.) belongs to the province. The only Federal collecting jurisdiction here is in National 

Parks and export and import across the border.

 

In Canada, like the USA, archeological heritage (First Nations) is a can of worms that nobody wants to get to embroiled in. If possible, best to separate out fossils and artifacts.  Regardless of laws and regulations, once the Courts get involved in heritage issues  then a mess can develop. 

[Sagebrush Steve]

9 minutes ago, Canadawest said:

An 8 hour course? A license?  Yikes!  Washington Bureaucracy to run and administer all this and you think a license would be $50?

 

Who is paying for this course? The professionals? The material? Travel costs?  Things may be different in Canada but the licensing would be expected to pay for the program...more like $1,000 or  $5,000 a license.

 

I would advise avoiding this whole quagmire.  If you want to be credible, then a propsal should be  'do-able'  and straight forward .  Follow the Alberta model for your public lands. Surface collecting of all fossils is permitted on public land unless otherwise restricted and the sale of publicly collected fossils is not permitted.  Simple.  I also agree not to quibble about the weight of allowable collecting.  Those type of restrictions are there to be used and potentially enforced when there is abuse.

Anyways, in our province we have the most thriving Paleontological community in N America and the above model is endorsed by professionals and collectors. For the most part everyone is 'happy'. Amateurs can collect and accumulate extensive  collections and I don't know of any serious abuse.  The system has worked fine for over 30 years.

 

In the USA you still have your sale fossils as a commodity if collected on private land. 

You might have missed it but I specifically said I didn't think BLM should administer the courses.  They should be taught by museums, fossil clubs, or even be on-line. The only thing BLM would do is issue the license.  As a similar example, the FAA charges only $5 for a drone license.  You take the required training from a licensed training center.  My proposed license should be similar. 8-12 hours was just a guess on my part.  It might be a lot less.  While I understand your point about how collecting is permitted in Alberta, we need to be realistic and propose solutions that actually have a chance of being accepted.  However, I strongly encourage you to write up your comments and submit them.  Feel free to refer to my submission and say you don't agree with it and recommend the Alberta model instead.  I am under no illusion that mine is the perfect solution.  I just want to see something enacted that is much less restrictive than the current proposal.

[Sagebrush Steve]

2 hours ago, Wrangellian said:

Steve's ideas are a huge improvement on the proposed rules, but I would still like to quibble about the amounts, which could get onerous to calculate for math dummies like me (do I have to buy a scale and carry it with me?). And is there going to be somebody to police the amounts that each collector has accumulated in a year, or will it be on the Honour System? To me it doesn't matter who collects the fossils, as long as they get collected. The amount that one person could collect in a year without heavy machinery, haul out from the back country on his own and store in his house/shed, must have some natural limit by itself. Maybe that's around 250lbs/yr, I don't know. I probably don't collect anywhere near that much in a year myself. But why do we need to state any arbitrary limit at all, as long as all the other stipulations that Steve mentioned (about location data/etc) are followed? I still would prefer a system that allows the authorities to restrict collecting at only the sites where it is causing a problem. Maybe at a site where the collecting demand is outstripping the site's refresh rate, limits could be imposed for the sake of everyone having a chance to obtain specimens from there, or where the digging is causing some adverse effect on some other thing, or where the pro's are actively doing research.

    Also, why is it necessary to forbid sale of fossils, even ones that have been vetted by museums/academics? I can't see a museum refusing a fossil that might be of interest in future, unless they are tight on storage room..? I don't know what all is allowed on BLM land, but if for-profit companies can exploit them, then collectors should be allowed to sell their fossils if and when they need to get rid of them - recover at least some of the expense they put into collecting. But if nobody is allowed to make any money off of anything taken out of BLM lands, then you might have a case for forbidding sale of fossils collected there, but I could still see it hampering the hobby, and there again you have the question of policing. Rock- and fossil-hounds have been collecting, buying, selling, trading their finds for years, and it's only in certain spots that there are problems. I suppose that either a limit on the collecting amount per year or a ban on selling would be sufficient to check overexploitation. It is not necessary to have both. It seems to me it would be easier for the rangers/wardens(?) to police the fossil sites than the internet sites...

    Also I hope the licensing system doesn't cost too much. I could see it starting out affordable for someone of modest means like me, but then they could decide to start jacking up the price whenever they feel like it, making it unaffordable for anyone but the more well-off collectors. That would be unfair and I think counter to the spirit of the legislation whereby everyone is supposed to be able to take part.

    I don't favor any system that prevents anybody, even casual hikers, from picking up a potentially important fossil that they might stumble across, from a site that was previously unknown to anybody, and bringing it to show the specialists which would be a good requirement for anybody collecting fossils from these places. As long as it's a surface find that can be picked up intact, just because you haven't gone thru that training doesn't mean you should leave an important fossil there. It's fine if a hiker is required to leave it there and report it to the professionals, as long as the pro's are actually going to go have a look rather than ignoring the tip. (Of course if the hiker has a camera and can show them a pic, that would be easiest for everybody.) But I keep hearing about how there are too few professionals with too little funding....

 

Again that way way too long. Feel free to skip over it. 

 

 

And I will encourage you to submit these comments so that the BLM takes them under consideration.  Feel free to refer to my submission and say that you wanted to offer additional points for them to consider.