Protect And Die!

[palaeopix]

I don't know whether this has already been posted here, but I thought it was very interesting.

Some good points are raised in the article and I'm sure there will be some dialog here.

Anyway give it a read and let me know what you think.

http://www.geolsoc.o.../page10692.html

Dan

[tracer]

i quit listening to talk radio years ago because i realized that the main purpose of political diatribe is to raise blood pressure.

[BisonJim]

Regarding public lands:

The author makes some good points. I've talked to underground coal miners here in the west who talk of things they see, but rip right on through. Some of the stuff is worth way more per pound than the coal is, but no one seems to care. Not everyone cares about fossils.

Maybe a compromise could be in order: You find something, document it, tell the "authorities" and they get 365 days to do something about it (extract it properly). If they don't have the funding, then that in itself is a statement of societal value placed on the resource, and they lose out. Tough. If the "authorities" have a problem with that, they need to take it up with their elected representatives and get funding, just like everyone else. They have no moral right to let a resource be destroyed just because they can't or won't save it.

There could be exceptions made for something that will obviously be destroyed in less than a year if not extracted. In that case, tell the "authorities" and if they don't do anything about it, you have an obligation to "save" it, even if you don't know what the heck you are doing in the process. There could also be exceptions to prevent "mining" for fossils (i.e. digging down, as opposed to surface finds). Kind of like gold panning versus power dredges, etc.

Again, if it's so important, then society would fund paleontology like they do the military. But they don't. So why hand cuff those who have an interest?

I'd also support limitations on commercial digging and I would support licensing. Commercial hunting wiped out many species (Carrier Pigeon, etc.), but licensed hunting actually protects them. Further, you can hunt and kill and keep Bear and Big Horn and all their parts, but you cannot *sell* the parts. Fossil hunting could be the same.

Commercial folks, if they are allowed at all, should have to be licensed and pay just like timber companies and mining companies, otherwise they would strip mine and clear cut the west.

Random thoughts in response to the article and the question. Commence firing . . . .

Edited November 8, 2011 by BisonLatifrons

[bear-dog]

I have mixed reactions from reading articles like these.I have had numerous occasions to purchase fossils from these countrys,but declined the offer as not rob these people of their fossil riches.Also on the same page watched in awe at several fossil shows,people from these countrys purchasing a truck load of fossils to send home and sell.

In my humble opinion [which usually dosen't matter] If we are not to purchase,sell,or trade in their fossils it should be the other way as well.

[Scylla]

A satellite view of Florida will show how the mining companies are destroying far more fossils in their search for phosphate than the entire population of TFF could do in 100 lifetimes. Yet you need a $5 permit to collect. You can destroy tonnes of vertabrate fossils a year for free, but can't collect them. The coal companies are similarly devastating West Virginia and Virginia with mountain top removal and again the tonnage of fossil destruction is tolerated without a blink of an eye.

On the other hand I have seen the damage to collecting areas that greedy amature or comercial collectors can do, destroying fossils with poor collection technique (I've been guilty too) or digging into stream banks or cliff faces (so far I've been able to resist the temptation).

I think sensible lawmakers would be able to craft laws that encourage slow collecting allowing us to collect within reason. I just don't know where to find sensible lawmakers. :judge: This could be done by having certain areas set aside for collection like at Big Brook, NJ. There they have a daily catch limit of 5 fossils a day and limits on the tools you can use. They also restrict the sale of those fossils. We could have a fossil season, or fossiling permits that allow collection by those that can demonstrate some knowledge of how to do it properly so as not to lose the scientifically important information, or rules that prevent use of backhoes, power tools or dynamite The benefits to society are increased popular participation in scientific endeavors, increased discovery of fossils, less video game playing. Professional paleontologists will get more people digging up cool stuff to ask them about, and more kids interested in paleontology (which will eventually translate into more grad students and more funding, duh!)

Commercial entities should have to pay like logging or mining companies (who frankly pay society a pittance for what they extract), and pay for evaluation of the fossils by paleontologists.

It goes without saying that TFF members should automatically have the right to collect in any country, any roadcuts, any mines, quarries or pits, any waterways or oceans, seas, beaches or spoil piles. Even we should have to get permission to collect on private land.

The worst thing that can happen to a fossil is for it to get destroyed by a bulldozer, rain, ice, etc. The best is for it to be properly collected, catalogued, studied and loved.

And for Tracer, just remember that Viagra started off as a blood pressure medication.

[ashcraft]

You have to make a distinction here between public and private property. If I own the land and I am mining it commercially for a substance, why should I be required to shut down for a period of time because of something found? I am not getting compensated for this stoppage, which means I cannot pay my workers, my clients don't get their product, which hurts their production, and the price of the material goes up because it becomes more scarce on the market.

If you are going to require the companies to shut down their production, compensate them for their losses. You will see a tremendous jump in the amount of fossils, etc. reported, removed, and collected. It would mean an increase in professionals who do that kind of work, because at that point their job actually makes money.

However, nothing is free. This would also mean the price of product goes up due to scarcity, and your taxes go up, to pay for this compensation.

Public property being leased is another diatribe.

Brent Ashcraft

[Scylla]

There are already laws that halt construction in cases of archeological finds. Salvage excavations are often done and they do delay projects and cost money. But in the big picture the overall economy is not hurt by this too much and priceless treasures are saved from destruction. Even on private property some rules could apply. Not every shark tooth in a phosphate mine, but maybe the state could have an in residence paleontologist around to check out rare finds?

[ashcraft]

There are already laws that halt construction in cases of archeological finds. Salvage excavations are often done and they do delay projects and cost money. But in the big picture the overall economy is not hurt by this too much and priceless treasures are saved from destruction. Even on private property some rules could apply. Not every shark tooth in a phosphate mine, but maybe the state could have an in residence paleontologist around to check out rare finds?

Hurting the overall economy is not the point, the law restricts a private entity from making a living without compensation. I personally have no problem with laws protecting potentially important finds, but the owners should be compensated for their loses. Laws dealing with archaeological finds illustrate the problem. A company is doing a project, they find something. They have two choices, stop and lose money/time, bulldoze it and keep going. I know where a Dalton campsite is. I registered the points and other artifacts I have found, and the Missouri Archaeological Society asked me to register the site. I spoke to the owner about it, and he refused. His logic was that any registration could at some point lead to restrictions on his ability to farm the property. The land cost the man over a million dollars, and missing a crop for any reason could lead to some serious financial problems. I couldn't put up a good argument, having dealt with governmental regulations in several capacities.

Just my opinion, but if you think enough about something on somebody else's property, you should pay for it, not use the government to confiscate it.

Brent Ashcraft

[Scylla]

tax break?

eminent domain?

Edited November 10, 2011 by Scylla

[bear-dog]

Scylla.On your comment on resident Paleontologist.It was preposed in Hillsborough County Florida for many years.I attended each and every meeting loosing a days work each time.Finally I realized after some time that it was just that,meetings.Nothing ever came of it and at last check the County got tired of the meetings,which sadly enough worked for me.After loosing that many workdays for nothing to come of it makes you just want to choke some one.

You may/may not be happy to learn that someone is now prepared to beat that dead horse again, but the County dosen't want to participate.

[BisonJim]

It's a two edged sword. Those same private property owners are often engaged in activities which involve massive externalization (read "socialization") of costs, including uncompensated damage to surrounding private and public property, air, water, wildlife and alternative economies like recreation, commercial fishing, tourism and etc. Not to mention the massive public subsidy and legislation favorable to farming, mining and other extractive and damaging uses of private property. The limited liability (read "responsibility") nature of the Ltd. or Corporation is another creature of the state. True capitalism demands that fossil fuel play on a level playing field with fossils, and not be assisted by favorable legislation which gives it a leg up to one side. Every time I hear a private property owner argue against government regulation I want to pull the government rug out from under him so his words have more iron. There is no greater champion of capitalism than I, but there are few who actually practice it. If a man doesn't want to stop stripping coal and destroying fossils on his own property, that is fine. But let him and his buyers internalize all their costs and do it without government subsidy or protection. We might find the value of fossils and other uses rising to meet the value of fossil fuels and other minerals. Who knows, when the truth is buried in such a longstanding status quo?

Edited November 10, 2011 by BisonLatifrons

[Scylla]

It's a two edged sword. Those same private property owners are often engaged in activities which involve massive externalization (read "socialization") of costs, including uncompensated damage to surrounding private and public property, air, water, wildlife and alternative economies like recreation, commercial fishing, tourism and etc. Not to mention the massive public subsidy and legislation favorable to farming, mining and other extractive and damaging uses of private property. The limited liability (read "responsibility") nature of the Ltd. or Corporation is another creature of the state. True capitalism demands that fossil fuel play on a level playing field with fossils, and not be assisted by favorable legislation which gives it a leg up to one side. Every time I hear a private property owner argue against government regulation I want to pull the government rug out from under him so his words have more iron. There is no greater champion of capitalism than I, but there are few who actually practice it. If a man doesn't want to stop stripping coal and destroying fossils on his own property, that is fine. But let him and his buyers internalize all their costs and do it without government subsidy or protection. We might find the value of fossils and other uses rising to meet the value of fossil fuels and other minerals. Who knows, when the truth is buried in such a longstanding status quo?

Good point, many of the great fortunes in history are made by externalizing costs, or building monopolies. But I think we (myself especially as well) are getting a bit off topic. The original acticle was about "freeing" the fossils to be studied, collected, bought/sold, etc. Bear-dog, like I said, I just have trouble finding those sensible lawmakers,but it looks like at least you got close in your county. Look, they can afford a game warden, right? If they recognised that they could get fool yankees like me to come down and spend a bunch of my money trying to find those fossils, maybe regulating and encouraging the practice would be worth it? I know the hotels and restaurants near Calvert Cliffs have gotten a decent chunk of my disposable income this year :jig: