Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Couple Charged $5k For Finding 400-Year-Old Skeleton
First time accepted submitter Rebecka Schumann writes "Ontario couple Ken Campbell and Nicole Sauve said a recent fence installation led them to discover what is being labeled a historical find. Sauve, who said the duo originally believed the skeleton to be from bones of an animal, called the Ontario Provincial Police to investigate; Forensic Anthropologist Michael Spence confirmed the bones were that of an aboriginal woman who died at age 24 between the late 1500s to the early 1600s. In spite of reporting their find and Spence's evaluation, Suave and Campbell were told they were required to hire an archeologist to assess their property at their own expense under Ontario's Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act. The act, which requires evaluation for all properties found to house human remains, has the Canadian couple stuck with a big bill."
Don't do the dig if you can't cover the vig.
Think you found the bones of someone who was murdered in Canada? Better be safe: Help the original killer by reburying the bones somewhere else. Thank you for your cooperation, Citizen.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
...what is this, the telegraph? reddit? Not news, not for nerds, definitely doesn't matter. All the headline is missing is a punctuation mark, and a more sensationalized headline, and we could call it /r/circlejerk
Throw the bones away in the trash.
Likewise, property owners frustrated with the US's endangered species act find it's easier to hunt and kill such species on their property, rather than lose access to that property.
Isn't it wonderful, how well all this legislation to protect historical or ecological treasure works?
If you dig up remains, bury them again, don't tell anyone.
That's all this idiotic law is going to make people do (unless independently wealthy and like to waste cash).
If the property owner were to find some sort of toxic material on their property, they'd likely be required to clean that up too and foot the bill. I don't see how this long dead body is any different. Shit happens.
first!!
the government would have seized it for pennies on the dollar under "Eminent Domain" or some equivalent bullshit law (which they do have in Canada as well). From the government's view point it's always "heads I win, tails you lose" type of deal.
So if you find bones on your properly, just ignore them and keep putting up the fence.
Oh and Canada sucks, take it from a Cdn...
it was in their back yard, why not make some profit?
The law as written was meant to ensure companies are responsible for the archaeological costs incurred from digging up their land instead of saddling the taxpayer.
The Star is just ginning this up as their usual "GOVERNMENT BAD" drivel.
Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
And, here I thought things were getting so bad in the US and that Canada seems so fair and so safe.... This is an incredibly unfair law. So, what happens if the property owner refuses to hire an archaeologist ? It's their own damn property. Unbelievable.
The next such skeleton found will just go into the trash...
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Honestly, what did this couple expect by reporting the find?
We wanna preserve our heratage or some crap... Pay us? Nope.. that's gonna cost YOU money..
We're gonna be famous? Yeah i think this is what they were betting on...
Plain ol greed is the only way i can see this happening... And.. it worked out well.
Surely they could find some archeologists would be willing to pay the bill for exclusive access to the site?
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
The Dutch solution for that problem is to find stuff of archeological value "on the beach". Or you pretend you saw nothing. Best pour concrete over it to make sure you will never accidentally find it again.
...turn it into doggy treats.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
You might find yourself surprised at how few problems you have if you do.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Using surgical gloves while handing... carefully dig up the bones, catalog their positions, and find a spot to rebury them right next to your enemy's house.
Cover with sod.
Make a call from a public payphone with a disguised voice to the authorities.
Done.
Suave said after uncovering the remains were that of a human, she planned to keep the historical find, even naming the deceased individual “Sephira” after her granddaughter. The couple decided to relinquish the remains after they were informed that upon keeping them, their property’s deed would be reissued to state there was a cemetery on the premises.
Here the initial digging to build on site that is a potential historic site requires a archeologist present to see if there is anything of interest, but if they find something you still have the option of leaving it alone so some one can escavate it later, if not you have pay to get a bunch archeologist to do if you want to go on but they have to give you a fixed budget
"an aboriginal woman who died at age 24 ;
How did an Aboriginal woman manage to travel all the way from Australia to Canada 400 years ago ?
A simple principle where The People, if they find an issue So Damned Important, should be required To Pay For Their Conceit Thru Government...
Would Be Nice.
It's supposed to be this way in the US with the prohibition against seizure without just compensation. "But that would make environmental regulations way too costly!" Well, then what in god's name is government doing ladling that on private citizens? If IT's So Damned Important To The People...
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I found a Native American artifact in my back yard while digging a hole for a tree. I contacted the local archeological society about it mostly to establish its authenticity. Next thing I know they're all over me to bring it in to their meeting, register my "archelolgical site" with the state, etc.
Lucky for me I never used my real name or address. If you want your private property to remain private remember to keep yer damn yap shut about anything interesting you find there.
ah so thats why they're fence and house were haunted. the not so free ghosts!
The act, which requires evaluation for all properties found to house human remains, has the Canadian couple stuck with a big bill.
Gubrment needs its tax fees, you know. Fairness or competence got nothing to do with it :/
Demand 100% perfection. That'll solve everything. And cost an arm and a leg. How much more in taxes are you willing to pay to never have to call them to say "hey, there's been a mistake"?
Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
Where's the tech angle? This headline sounds more like a National Inquirer article.
Be Evil and save $5000.
Ironically, if they eliminated all the bullshit that leads to that kind of mistake, we'd probably all be paying less taxes.
Whew I'm sure glad we didn't waste that $5k of taxpayer's money. So how are those F-35's coming along, Harper?
So it's just a general "laws that seem a bit unfair" blog, now?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
The fools built on an ancient Indian burial ground and suffered the curse - of a $5000 fine.
Wait that's not it, the curse was imposed by a stupid "user pays" idea of running a government that's not just cursing these folk. There's no point trying to get a government to act like private enterprise since you end up with automatic monopoly and plenty of casual injustice without even trying.
Especially in Ontario. It's a known risk. Like building your museum on a known ancient meeting place like the Forks in Winnipeg. Bound to be tons of archaeological finds every time the backhoe scoops the ground.
Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
In the case of the IRS specifically, 100% perfection is pretty easy to achieve: simplify the tax code. It has the result of being cheaper, too. And while they may still make a mistake, it will be easier and less costly to prove.
The problem isn't perfection, it's onerous rules that 9 times out of 10 can't achieve their desired goals in the first place, but still put the burden on the individual.
Be careful you don't find artifacts that might conflict with Native Americans assertions about their history. Kennewick Man, the remains of a person found in Eastern Washington State dating back over 9000 years but not anatomically similar to the natives of the time caused quite a bit of controversy. The Indian tribes of the area claimed the body as their property in spite of scientific evidence because it could conflict with their oral history. Not stated in the Wikipedia article: The site of the find was destroyed to prevent further archeological finds that could challenge tribal mythology. Where's the First Amendment when we need it?
Have gnu, will travel.
The fact that the couple is responsible for the costs makes enough sense; you're responsible for taking care of your property, not the government. If you found chemical waste hidden in some trap door in your basement, would you expect the state to foot the bill to destroy that for you? Same thing here.
But the reason most of this works the way it does in most governments is that originally, the state or university system covers the cost of the evaluation as part of the law because it's of national importance. Also, digging up the graves of people's ancestors and then throwing the remains in the trash deeply offends a majority of people, especially tribes or such that may claim that person as one of their ancestors.
Then politicians (usually on the conservative side, or the "moderate middle") decide that the government can't be "burdened" with what amounts to a trifle of spending every year (seriously, it's like the equivalent of maybe a buck in your pocket in government budget terms). A reasonable majority of average citizens can't wrap their heads around the average government budget in perspective to their own so they cheer it on, vote it through. Mostly they don't even remember or understand why their parents or grandparents passed such a law in the first place, but not unlike the politicians, feel that they need to "make their mark". So, they turn the cost over to individuals. But the law stays on the books because a lobby or two makes a really sharp point about how the end result is that individuals would end up digging up corpses of their ancestors to install swimming pools and not, you know, properly care for those remains afterward. (aka trash bin coffins)
Then years later, a story gets posted on Slashdot, and the readers are outraged that the government, with it's "highly repressive laws" would dare to impose such a cost on individual property owners without understanding the full history of said law. That their parents or they themselves may have actually been in favor of causing in the first place but they "forgot" because it was "boring".
I've heard:
Aboriginal
First Nation
Native
Indian
etc
It seems like a bit of a mess, actually, since various laws seem to use difference names depending on the era in which they were created (e.g. the "Indian Act"), and people from different generations tend to be stuck on a given word. When I was young it was "Native," but First Nations appears to be the currently correct term.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/04/19/bc-diggingbill.html
One family on Vancouver Island got charged $35,000 for archeologists to check for arrowheads. I've heard of archeologists in BC (same firm as the $35k one) who registered a site near where I live onto the archeology registry without the owner's knowledge, because they thought they found arrowheads. Later on, when the local First Nations archeologist looked at them, she said "They're just rocks", and tossed them.
The adage for ranchers when it comes to endangered species used to be (and still may be) "shoot, shovel, and shut up". Same with artifacts in Canada, if you're smart.
Slashdot - the place where you can look like a genius by restating the obvious
It is by no means clear that anyone has a fundamental right to own land. Indeed, few individuals own land outright — in common law states, real property is typically held fee simple.
If all land were owned and its use restricted to private individuals, how could one live without being a property owner, or being beholden to one? Land exists independently of human art, and our literal existence demands that we at the very least reside in it, breathe the air on it, and so forth. Morally, the private, exclusive use of land must come with an obligation that that ownership benefits our society more than a lack of ownership would — there is an obligation of stewardship, if nothing else.
The system whereby our governments enforce property ownership is almost certainly better than one where individuals maintain the exclusive use and benefit of land by force. Yet it is by no means a natural system, and those who benefit by it to the exclusion of their fellows should not be divorced from the obligations associated with it.
They think $5000 is bad? Just wait until the ancient aboriginal ghosts show up and start poltergeisting the shit out of the place. The damage done by their dishes flying all over and mirrors smashing plus professional exorcists will definitely exceed $5000.
TFA - the original one in The Star, that is - does mention the option to apply for financial relief. Helps if you read it before commenting on it.
The Star does that a lot. Gins up a headline, then reports the actual facts down at the bottom after they've finished editorializing.
Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
Or not :(
'Stupidity is an often fatal disease' - R. A. Heinlein
Don't build your house on an Indian graveyard :\
This is another classic example of how strict liability laws cause grave injustices.
Please tell me that pun was intentional...
corporations ar enot to be trusted in any way, shape or form, as they will screw over everything and everyone for a quick buck.
Hmmm, that's interesting. Well, into the trash it goes.
Because while most people want to do the right thing, they're not going to if you ensure that no good deed goes unpunished.
RTFA:
Bob Bailey, the MPP for the area, said he has spoken to the minister of consumer services (the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act falls under her purview) and her staff, and intends to make sure Sauve won’t have to pay.
This appears to be a recurring way of getting citizens involved in community issues in several countries. Charging them big time. Why don't Governments understand that citizenship must be rewarded instead of penalized? Unfortunately this is becoming the new norm.
Wait a tick, did you budget for an archeological survey the last time you dug a hole to plant a tree in your backyard? It's fine for the law to require a survey of finds of historical value, but the law must recognize that it can be a tremendous burden on the people that find it and provide support for those tasks. If you're offended at the idea of people covering up potentially significant finds, you should probably work to incentivise reporting these finds. At the moment, it sounds like you're saying "Oh, that belongs to all of humanity, but you need to pay to dig it up. Reality bites, doesn't it?"
+1 Disagree
This absurdity that the government "owns" "historical" (and they often use a very broad definition of "historical") found on your property has done much more harm than good, especially in Europe.
What this is saying to those who might find historical artifacts is to either ignore them or avoid recording them. This is counter-productive to the preservation of history. Instead, what needs to happen is we need to let the market help history. For example, a dug arrowhead is unlikely to fetch much money at market, but a dug arrowhead with a story behind it will often fetch much more, thus giving an incentive to have finds "checked out" because that means extra $$$ for you when you sell it.
Of course it also has a more outrageous claim, the claim to own things on your own property. Whatever is buried on your land, be it an Anglo-Saxon hoard, oil, or whatever is yours to do with as you wish so long as you own the land.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Maybe some insurance company would be willing to offer insurance to cover the costs of an archaeological survey should one be needed. Since it seems to be a rare yet costly problem, it would seem to be along the lines of exactly the kind of thing somebody would buy insurance for. Same as car, house, or medical insurance, one should be able purchase insurance in the event that some ancient remains are found, and cause the project to the held up
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
That's how their defending this? It was only 300 calls? Why did it cost 20 million then? You can't thwart terrorism for less than 67,000 per call? Any way you slice it it still smells bad.
Interestingly this figures into my line of work. I am a planner in Ontario who works on the development side and the municipal side.
Contractors are required - by law - to inform OPP of any human remains encountered during construction. No ifs, ands, or buts. This is so that any victims of foul play, and/or archaeologically significant finds can be documented. Canada/Ontario implements various treaties to enable the native tribes to collect their ancestors and bury them. there is no ambiguity or missing intention. The whole of Ontario used to be the territory to some tribe or another and is rife /w lands that have the potential for archaeological finds that are significant. These finds can tell us of how people lived, worked, and died. this is part of the bargain we made to purchase Ontario. the PPS covers aspects of this, so to do the ontario consulting archaeological guidelines and other MMAH internal webpages.
Ontario operates under a set of developer-pays polices. The developer, big or small, pays for all required archaeological studies. This is because they take the rewards and the risks. In this case, the couple are bitching because they took the risk of installing a fence (which would have benefited themselves), and discovered some remains. they likely made a decision to continue with the fence - which required complete excavation.
The costs identified here are pitifully small and the couple got off easy. I will guarantee that the archaeologist is not charging all of their time on the basis of the extra-ordinary nature of this find (i have seen many not fully bill huge portions of work as a loss-leader). Stage 1 (tabletop) assessments run 1.5k to maybe 5k and are paper studies only, stage 2 (test-pitting) goes up to 10-30k, stage 3-4 (grid refinement, total excavation and complete documentation) run up into the 100k's and could take years.
it is the cost of doing business. The province does not have the resources to perform archaeological investigations, they act in a QA role only. This case likely triggered a Stage 4 study over a limited geographic area - 10's of metres in either direction and 2-3 m down. the 5k likely includes contractor time to remove the body under supervision (1-5 days) and is pretty much nothing, when you consider getting a rental backhoe might be 100$/hr + the supervising archaeologist (if senior - up to 250$/hr - more likely in the 125$/hr range). It basically doubled the soft costs of the fence.
most of the public are ignorant that as individuals in canada and ontario - you do not have sovereignty over your property and the contents under the land. A number of rights were reserved to the queen and treaty nations (Indians). This 5,000 is a small price to pay for compensate the ancestral and present day indian tribes.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This issue is quite common in British Columbia. There are burial sites everywhere and god help you if its on your property. The best rule of thumb is shovel up and shut up. No good deed goes unpunished as they say.
No, you wouldn't. It would be spent on something else.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Why should this be on the insurance company. The intent of the law is the artifact is culturally important and belongs to "all", so why should its recovery only be subsidized by a small portion of the "all" (i.e. the customers of that particular insurance company)? The only thing this article has taught me to do is if I dig and find remains on my property, fill them back in and forget it ever happened. I don't have 5K lying around for this shit.
Aparently humanity needs a bailout from people who build fences? Screw the individual if it can benefit the masses?
did i say anything about bailing out?
did i say i can do whatever i want?
i said its easy to say there ought to be a law, but not so easy to pay for it. which is why the burden of cost in these kinds of laws is passed onto the "victim" in the first place: the law would never pass otherwise "because its expensive"...so they make the law "Free" by passing the buck, literally. but why should this couple be forced to pay the bill for an archeological dig on tehir own property due to completely random, unlikely and and unforseen circumstances? this is precisely why the 3S's came about.
you're an idiotic troll, and not a terribly good one.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Dear constituent,
Thank you for your generous votes during the last election. As you know the Conservative government is following through on our promise to reduce taxes, following overwhelming voter demand for more personal responsibility. We thank you for contributing to Canadian culture through your find, and congratulate you for "kicking in". Your contribution to the Department of Burials will help us attain our goals while giving you the satisfaction of taking personal responsibility for the heritage of Canada.
Sincerely,
The Conservative Government
"Sauve, who said the duo originally believed the skeleton to be from bones of an animal, called the Ontario Provincial Police to investigate;"
News flash: humans are animals too, not plants or minerals. Although when it comes to my brother-in-law you could make a good case that he's a potted plant.
Not a cynical saying, but a 'truism'. You are getting the usual shill scum defend the Canadian government- a side-effect of Canada backing every racist atrocity carried out by Israel. The Zionist crowd loves to do favours for the child-abusing horrors that run Canada (the history of state abuse of children in Canada is probably the worst in Human history).
Government is good- go back to sleep you sheeple. How many times to you see an army of posters on Slashdot pushing this position? I hope you all saw that video of the women being arrested in a family court in the USA. Her crime? A court official had just illegally taken her into a side-office and had subject her to a serious sexual assault. When she re-appeared in the main court room, she attempted to make a formal complaint of assault to the judge. The judge, a woman, turned her back to the victim, ignoring her terrified pleas, and played with the women's 2-tear old daughter.
The fat slob who sexual assaulted her ORDERED her to recant in court, promising she would be arrested and lose her child if she did not. In terror, the woman did recant, but only to escape his physical clutches so she could them move to the microphone and directly address the judge - where she repeated the claims of assault. The judge continued to ignore the victim, and the attacker, along with a marshal, physically restrained and handcuffed the woman.
Meanwhile, the 2-year-old girl had moved to the scene of the attack, and was begging the two large male thugs to leave her Mommy alone.
The video is so distressing, it is the first time I have seen 100% of the comments express outrage at the abuse of ordinary people by officials employed by Obama. The women was in court to finalise some detail of a divorce. After the arrest, she was taken to prison, and her kid taken to a juvenile facility, traumatising her for life. Internal affairs got involved, and it transpired that women have been sexually assaulted at this family court in Las Vegas on a regular basis. The judges and the sexual perverts were working as a double-team- the various male officials would abuse the victim under the pretence of carrying out an unwarranted drug search, and the various judges would ignore the pleas of the victim as the victim was warned that any official complaint would mean jail. The refusal of the judge to acknowledge or intercede on behalf of the victim ensured the victim simply gave up.
The scandal is one of the worst in American court history. Yet the shills still tell you that the government loves you.
Or you might Google "cash for kids" if you can stand having the last shred of belief in the system completely blown away.
Maybe some insurance company would be willing to offer insurance to cover the costs of an archaeological survey should one be needed. Since it seems to be a rare yet costly problem, it would seem to be along the lines of exactly the kind of thing somebody would buy insurance for. Same as car, house, or medical insurance, one should be able purchase insurance in the event that some ancient remains are found, and cause the project to the held up
average joe response: "you sound like a typical insurance salesman... i'll pass... I'm willing to take that risk"
when remains are found "I'm not willing to take that risk"
Next time, someone will just close the dig, and not report it.
Or dig around it. and find "creative" solutions. (Like a convenient pillar.)
This is another case of legislators not looking at very basic emergent effects. This article takes a big step toward making this law, and its consequences, widely known. This law, combined with widespread awareness of it, will obviously have chilling effects on archaeology in Canada. Regardless of what you think is right or wrong, or who should pay, the simple fact is that forcing the property owner to fund a proper excavation of these sorts of artifacts effectively means artifacts found by property owners during a construction project will be repeatedly reburied while no authorities are notified. If we do not want that, we have to change the law. You cannot change human nature.
--"You are your own God"--
In most common-law jurisdictions, you cannot "own" property outright. Where your deed is held fee-simple, you do not own the land at all. You merely own the right to improve upon it, generally by placing structures upon the surface of it, or to a depth reasonable, necessary, and blessed by your government overlords, as with a basement.
You don't own the land beneath the surface or any of the mineral content thereof.
You don't own the vegetation that grows in it, nor the right for your animals to eat it.
You don't own the water that falls on it, runs into it, or out of it.
You own nothing except a conceptual privilege to build your house on it, subject to the rules, regulations, and conditions set forth by your lords and their "zoning" rules.
We don't do "common sense," here at SlashDot.
You need to pull some extreme (and completely devoid of any basis in reality) rhetoric out of your bunghole.
Really? If it's buried six feet underground?
See round these here parts what I's a hailin' from, when we digs god-diggety-darn holes we starts em from the top.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Just get them to sign a cheque for it. They do this all the time.
I'm pretty sure none of the US Constitution applies, given this situation is not on American soil.
True, but Canadian law includes similar verbiage. See Your Rights Under Expropriation.
There's already a lot of fake rhino horn sold, one of my ideas was to have the government flood the market even more with convincing fakes. Using a 3D printer to make them would probably be a wash; I'm picturing something more like a mold and using bull horns as the base.
I don't read AC A human right
They should have tossed the bones into a land-fill and been done with it. It would have saved them a lot of money as well as time, and hassle.
Touche
So... Build a fence in your backyard, pull out an insurance policy on that effort? This is something that can happen on extremely common and rudimentary household tasks. Literally, digging a hole in the backyard. You expect people to take out hole digging insurance policy for that bush they want to plant? There's simply no way unless it's going to be covered as part of the homeowner's insurance plan. You're looking at putting more effort into dealing with the paperwork of digging a hole than the effort you'd put in to shoveling.
+1 Disagree
And I hope they had an alibi for the time the skeleton-owner went missing...
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
Just step over it and keep on going. Like the gas station guy during the DC shootings.
Flood the market with fake rhino horn.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Yes. Society should be renumerated for allowing you to exercise your discretion over that piece of land - remember, property is theft, sanctioned by the state.
Dig up a bag of bones, nope. Back goes the dirt.
In the UK we have something called Chancel Repair Liability insurance, designed to protect us from the incredibly unlikely event that the house you buy is on land that was once part of a rectory or glebe (land where a portion of the product of that land goes towards parish upkeep), meaning the current modern-day owner is then potentially subject to paying for the upkeep of the parish church buildings and lands. There was a case in the early 2000s of a parish claiming under this, for around £100,000 in repair bills.
Besides, an actual insurance underwriter (not a broker) will insure you against anything. Just be prepared to pay for it.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Look, I shouldn't have to worry about these things.
Maybe this is the fundamental problem: that, as a society, we have collectively decided that we shouldn't have to worry about government.
This begets two problems. First, the exact problem you're complaining about: that not enough money gets spent on things, because people don't think they should have to worry about it, but they also don't want to pay more in taxes so that the government can pay someone competent to worry about it for them.
Second, you end up with the people who have more time on their hands (generally, the people with more money), or who care significantly more (generally, the people at the various fringes), being the ones who are most involved in government. The latter of those leads to divisiveness, and the former leads to monied interests having a disproportionate say.
So, in the end, I kind of agree with you that it would be nice not to have to worry about these things. They're the sort of thing that a well-run government should take care of on its own. But the way we as a society think about and treat our government has been pushing it in a direction for a few decades that would inevitably lead to just this kind of outcome.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
As the title suggests this is a Canadian Law. A common one. One that everyone is subject to. I see this all the time (commercially at least) though my work, where companies are burdened with the cost/time of the exploration. It is the cost of doing business. If this happens on your private property you are subject to the same law.
As for those to glibly say, oh well this will just make sure the next one goes into the garbage... Well that can describe a lot of laws. That is why there are severe punishments for those that do. You could use the same example of finding an endangered species on your private property, and rather than report/protect it (or whatever is required of the landowner) you destroy it, well you face the possible legal consequences.
What are the chances of you getting caught? Probably low. However if you face large enough fines or jail time, well that is your decision to make.
Most of what I see is companies finding artifacts during excavation, arrow heads and the like. Those can prompt this kind of response. The fact that it was actual human remains, means that likely there was no way around it. Is it unlucky from a personal money sense, ya. However you don't live in Cambodia or Sudan, you live in Canada and a citizen should be expected to follow the laws, you live a pretty privileged life compared to most people in the world. If you don't like it, then feel free to move to Liberia or where ever and see how much you like the "Laws" there. There are risks involved with buying anything, including property, or construction, and sometimes you have to pay a bit more than you might have expected.
If you find a skeleton while digging, dig it up, destroy it, dispose of the pieces and never tell anyone.
Yes, that helps anthropology and advances knowledge plenty but there's zero incentive to cooperate.
"the couple has the option to file a request for the Registrar of Cemeteries to handle the unearthing if the cost would be considered an “undue financial burden,” a move that would result in the registrar reimbursing the couple in full."
This wouldn't be "on the insurance company". They would cover it in a way that made them money. Like all insurance does. It would still be "on you", you would just be able to manage the risk better.
Dig em up, don't tell anyone. Let them sit somewhere for a couple of years. Find out what they are, and if they are valuable in any way. Sell on ebay, or send to some archeology student anonymously. (i almost wrote museum. But it'd be much more fun to send them to students. Museums are already full of old crap, and students might still have passion for them)
That's a misrepresentation of insurance.
Ideally there isn't any additional burden on other insurers... I.e. the premium is the cost of the event multiplied by the probablility of the event plus some fees.
The mean balance should simply be the fees... hence the insurance company makes money.
This is true even if the insurance company only offers "archeological protection insurance".
Does the landowner/contractor get to sell the stuff that is dug up? At least attempt to offset the cost?
I tried to RTFS, but the links loaded so many ads I almost threw up. (actually my browser basically hung, yes old slow computer)
Bryan is kind of an odd choice - not a city that most people would think of unless they live there. If by chance you DO live in Bryan, howdy neighbor.
See Reversal of Freedoms Act of 1994