FossilDAWG Posted November 18, 2018 Share Posted November 18, 2018 1 hour ago, SailingAlongToo said: Don, I'm happy to go with fossils being minerals. I can have multiple LLC / LLP mineral mining companies up and running in multiple states by end of the month, applying for mineral rights on federal lands. Cheers, SA2 No doubt you could. But so could any number of other people, especially commercial collectors. Every known fossil site on BLM or National Forest land would quickly become off limits to amateur collectors. Also, currently one must have a permit, available only to museum or university affiliated professional paleontologists, to collect vertebrate fossils on government-controlled land. If dinosaurs are minerals that will be the death of vertebrate paleontology as all potential vertebrate fossil sites will be claimed as mining leases by commercial collectors and after that all new specimens and species will disappear into the hands of wealthy private collectors. Don 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPS Ammonite Posted November 18, 2018 Share Posted November 18, 2018 The BLM and the Forest Service define and have rules for collecting both rocks/minerals and fossils. A court ruling should not change the rules for the BLM and the Forest Service. Also, fossils by themselves are not a locatable resource unless they are part of another locatable resource such as limestone or coal. Link to definition of locatable resources. My goal is to leave no stone or fossil unturned. See my Arizona Paleontology Guide link The best single resource for Arizona paleontology anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcoSr Posted November 18, 2018 Share Posted November 18, 2018 13 hours ago, SailingAlongToo said: Marco, My 1st thoughts were about M&M and their buddy F. All of the scenarios I can/could imagine are all very bad, expensive and frustrating. I texted them the link but please do pass it on. Cheers, Jack Jack The M&M ranch is in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals area so rulings by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals are not binding on the M&M ranch. However this ruling could spark lawsuits in the other circuits which could use this ruling as a precedent. When we bought the M&M ranch we made sure there weren't any existing mineral leases on the ranch through title and land records searches. EDIT: The below map shows what US Circuit each state is in. This decision was by only a 3 judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.. This decision could be reviewed and overturned by a full 9th Circuit panel. It could also at some point be reviewed and overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit has more decisions overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court than any other Circuit. In the end I think this decision will be overturned based upon the argument in the dissenting opinion of this case: "Because I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that dinosaur fossils fall within the ordinary and natural meaning of the word “mineral” and that they accordingly pertain to the mineral estate, I respectfully dissent." Marco Sr. 1 "Any day that you can fossil hunt is a great day." My family fossil website Some Of My Shark, Ray, Fish And Other Micros My Extant Shark Jaw Collection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doushantuo Posted November 18, 2018 Share Posted November 18, 2018 http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/11/06/16-35506.pdf 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxytropidoceras Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 This is an interesting legal battle about whether surface rights or mineral rights determines fossil ownership. Fight over dinosaur fossils comes down to what’s a mineral By Amy Beth Hanson, AP, Washington Post, November 16, 2018 https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/fight-over-dinosaur-fossils-comes-down-to-whats-a-mineral/2018/11/16/6025a23a-e9e7-11e8-8449-1ff263609a31_story.html The article states: "Ownership of two fossilized dinosaur skeletons found on a Montana ranch in 2006 are the subject of a legal battle over whether they are part of a property’s surface rights or mineral rights. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a split decision saying fossils are minerals under mineral rights laws." Yours, Paul H. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxytropidoceras Posted November 21, 2018 Share Posted November 21, 2018 In case of meteorites, would a fall found on the surface be governed by surface rights and a buried meteorite dug from the ground be governed by mineral rights? :-) :-) Yours, Paul H. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Posted November 21, 2018 Share Posted November 21, 2018 On 11/17/2018 at 7:49 PM, SailingAlongToo said: Did you change my title? Sorry, I tried to look for a prior post on this topic before I posted, but I missed yours. Thanks for catching it Tim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted November 21, 2018 Share Posted November 21, 2018 On 11/17/2018 at 7:49 PM, SailingAlongToo said: Did you change my title? I don't think so. I just merged the other two posts by Scylla and Oxytropidoceras with yours. Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM - APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DE&i Posted November 25, 2018 Share Posted November 25, 2018 (edited) Is anybody on board with news qouted below. "There has been a development in the USA where a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision in the State of Montana, has reclassified fossils as minerals which now fall under the purview of Mineral Rights, taking their legal ownership from the land or property owner and placing them under the domain of the property's "Mineral Rights" holder. This decision changes the long held legal opinion that allowed ranchers and other property holders the right to allow fossil collecting on their property. The drastic change in established law now puts academic and commercial paleontologist, as well as the casual fossil collector and museum collections, in great peril. If you don't have the permission of the owner of the mineral rights, you cannot take any fossils from privately owned land even if you have the landowner's permission. Even more importantly, if you have fossils from Montana in your possession, you may lose those fossils to the owners of the mineral rights. If this ruling stands, mineral right holders will be able to file lawsuits to take possession of any fossils collected on land that is privately held. Many museums are in jeopardy of losing important type specimens, and many wonderful fossil specimens that had been legally collected, prepared and sold could be seized and forfeited." Appeals to the decision are being drafted, and the US-based Association of Applied Paleontological Sciences, among other groups and museums want to fight this decision. Edited November 25, 2018 by Fossildude19 Remove fundraising links 1 Regards.....D&E&i The only certainty with fossil hunting is the uncertainty. https://lnk.bio/Darren.Withers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPS Ammonite Posted November 25, 2018 Share Posted November 25, 2018 Here is the information from AAPS regarding the court ruling and the fight to overturn the ruling. There is also information about how you can help overturn the court ruling: https://www.aaps.net/newsletter-index.html Here is a great article arguing why mineral rights under Federal Law have never been considered to include most fossils: https://aaps.net/documents/Fossils-are-Minerals.pdf 2 My goal is to leave no stone or fossil unturned. See my Arizona Paleontology Guide link The best single resource for Arizona paleontology anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepTimeIsotopes Posted November 25, 2018 Share Posted November 25, 2018 50 minutes ago, DPS Ammonite said: Here is the information from AAPS regarding the court ruling and the fight to overturn the ruling. There is also information about how you can help overturn the court ruling: https://www.aaps.net/newsletter-index.html Here is a great article arguing why mineral rights under Federal Law have never been considered to include most fossils: Could you post the link without the automatic paper viewer? Each dot is 50,000,000 years: Hadean............Archean..............................Proterozoic.......................................Phanerozoic........... Paleo......Meso....Ceno.. Ꞓ.OSD.C.P.Tr.J.K..Pg.NgQ< You are here Doesn't time just fly by? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted November 25, 2018 Share Posted November 25, 2018 1 hour ago, DE&i said: Is anybody on board with news qouted below. "There has been a development in the USA where a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision in the State of Montana, has reclassified fossils as minerals which now fall under the purview of Mineral Rights, taking their legal ownership from the land or property owner and placing them under the domain of the property's "Mineral Rights" holder. This decision changes the long held legal opinion that allowed ranchers and other property holders the right to allow fossil collecting on their property. The drastic change in established law now puts academic and commercial paleontologist, as well as the casual fossil collector and museum collections, in great peril. If you don't have the permission of the owner of the mineral rights, you cannot take any fossils from privately owned land even if you have the landowner's permission. Even more importantly, if you have fossils from Montana in your possession, you may lose those fossils to the owners of the mineral rights. If this ruling stands, mineral right holders will be able to file lawsuits to take possession of any fossils collected on land that is privately held. Many museums are in jeopardy of losing important type specimens, and many wonderful fossil specimens that had been legally collected, prepared and sold could be seized and forfeited." Appeals to the decision are being drafted, and the US-based Association of Applied Paleontological Sciences, among other groups and museums want to fight this decision. Darren, I have merged your topic with the previous ones already posted. Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM - APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SULLY Posted November 26, 2018 Share Posted November 26, 2018 What a fricking mess! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 Good news for Montana landowners over fossil ownership https://helenair.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/montana-house-approves-bill-to-decide-fossil-ownership/article_0b0a21b7-7aa1-56e8-b0d8-d48d0602cc19.html 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abstraktum Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 20 minutes ago, Troodon said: Good news for Montana landowners over fossil ownership https://helenair.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/montana-house-approves-bill-to-decide-fossil-ownership/article_0b0a21b7-7aa1-56e8-b0d8-d48d0602cc19.html 451: Unavailable due to legal reasons We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot be granted at this time. For any issues, call 877-509-6397. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 @Abstraktum 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abstraktum Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 Very nice! Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pemphix Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 So as i understood, in Montana everything stays as it was (until further court decisions) ? What is with others like SD, ND...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 1 hour ago, Pemphix said: So as i understood, in Montana everything stays as it was (until further court decisions) ? What is with others like SD, ND...? Yes doubt you will see much else, the initial ruling never made sense and it was not unanimous. The other states were never affected by the 9th circuit ruling 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBchiefski Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 Going to add what I know, and please understand I am not extremely well versed in the law. Just to go over the process for those not aware of the US system. Now that the bill passed the house, it is off to the Senate committee from there, if approved it will go to the full Senate for a vote, if it passes then the governor needs to sign at which point it will be finally law. The senators I have spoken with expect it to pass and the governor has not yet stated publicly if he will sign but I expect he will support it. The bill only covers fossils within the state of Montana but other states do use what is in place as potential examples. The main reason the bill was needed is that no formal law existed on the books, the prior policy was only based on common law such as the ruling by the 9th court. The bill will not necessarily challenge the 9th court but it very well could be used in a challenge. As for fossils already discovered and in museums or private collections, there was an amendment made that states the bill will be retroactive as well as proactive. This means that if the bill gets signed into law almost all fossils collected in the past will be protected but there may still be some rare exceptions. If made law, this will be a huge victory for museums in Montana and our efforts to protect natural history. Plus it helps those amateurs who have collected from land with the typical permission, but not with the additional permission from the owner of the mineral rights. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pemphix Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 18 hours ago, Troodon said: Yes doubt you will see much else, the initial ruling never made sense and it was not unanimous. The other states were never affected by the 9th circuit ruling Thank you for clarification ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pemphix Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 18 hours ago, CBchiefski said: Going to add what I know, and please understand I am not extremely well versed in the law. Just to go over the process for those not aware of the US system. Now that the bill passed the house, it is off to the Senate committee from there, if approved it will go to the full Senate for a vote, if it passes then the governor needs to sign at which point it will be finally law. The senators I have spoken with expect it to pass and the governor has not yet stated publicly if he will sign but I expect he will support it. The bill only covers fossils within the state of Montana but other states do use what is in place as potential examples. The main reason the bill was needed is that no formal law existed on the books, the prior policy was only based on common law such as the ruling by the 9th court. The bill will not necessarily challenge the 9th court but it very well could be used in a challenge. As for fossils already discovered and in museums or private collections, there was an amendment made that states the bill will be retroactive as well as proactive. This means that if the bill gets signed into law almost all fossils collected in the past will be protected but there may still be some rare exceptions. If made law, this will be a huge victory for museums in Montana and our efforts to protect natural history. Plus it helps those amateurs who have collected from land with the typical permission, but not with the additional permission from the owner of the mineral rights. Thank you for clarification ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 Great, so if I understand this correctly then fossils are fossils in all the states except the Western ones in the 9th circut where fossils are now minerals. Montana reinstated fossils as fossils but that is state law (pending). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HamptonsDoc Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 This is great news! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBchiefski Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 (edited) Was recently asked my thoughts on the "surface vs mineral rights" matter, think I have been clear but just so it is on record here is my most recent email to a Senator here in Montana. For his sake and mine, I have redacted last names plus my address. Howdy Senator [His last name], I am emailing you as bill HB229, “Clarify dinosaur bones and fossils are part of surface estate,” will shortly be reviewed by the Natural Resources Committee. I realize you are quite busy as the chair of said committee, so I will keep this brief. Currently, I am a paleontology student at Montana State University and a researcher for the Two Medicine Dinosaur Center. More than one of my active research projects is now in jeopardy due to a split decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Given the high number of rulings the Ninth Circuit has had overturned by the Supreme court, clearly the Ninth Circuit often does not accurately interpret the law. It is imperative for science and for the many small museums here in this great state that HB229 passes. Private collections are at legal risk as are vital scientific collections. A few quick examples of vital fossil collections at risk now are those at Museum of the Rockies, the Two Medicine Dinosaur Center, and the Carter County Museum. Fossil rights and ownership is indeed a complex issue and this bill alone will not solve every problem however it is a major step in the right direction. Permissions in the past were based solely on surface rights so nearly all prior legal contracts and agreements are now potentially at risk. Montana is truly a state of treasure, both in people and natural resources with one of its most significant natural resources being fossilized remains. As a citizen and scientist in this wonderful and great state, I support HB229. Thank you for your time, Eric [My last name] [My address] Edited March 6, 2019 by CBchiefski Typo 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now