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."
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.
The issue is that they are required to also have an archeological survey done to ensure there aren't other artifacts buried there too.
Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
"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 ?
Aborigine does not just refer to people in Australia. See Aboriginal_peoples_in_Canada
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.
... 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.
The term for this is "shoot, shovel and shut up."
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
I uhh, didn't mean for this to be 'funny'. I'm deadly serious: The law of unintended consequences is working overtime here. This is another classic example of how strict liability laws cause grave injustices. In the ideal case, nobody should ever be punished for trying to do the right think, contacting proper authorities, and generally taking personal responsibility for reporting a possible crime or public safety concern, or in cases where there is immediate threat to life, taking action -- even if such action in hindsight is later determined to have been unnecessary, incomplete, etc.
Laws like this take away a person's incentive and motivation to do good by others. To take personal responsibility. To be good citizens.
While its intent may have been to protect burial sites, etc., a noble idea... the actual effect has been to punish a living, responsible, contributing member of society for disturbing inanimate objects with no intrinsic value. It is, in effect, a form of religious bigotry -- not everyone believes that the remains of the dead have value, and nature doesn't give a damn... it recycles you when you're dead. And the judges' hands are tied on this because in strict liability cases, mens rea can't be considered -- that is, your motivation is totally irrelevant. I mean, even if it's to save lives, you're still just as guilty as if you'd done it out of pure malice and hatred.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
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.
I was there talking to the actual safari guides. It's what happens.
And the 'future revenue stream'? Seriously? They kill the rhino to get the horn in the first place...you can't exactly take it off them without doing so, or are you so dense to think the poachers would have tranquilizers and be 'nice' about it?
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
That's nonsense. There are countless examples of government simply doing the wrong thing and overreacting badly.
Of the following three scenarios, which do you think is most likely to work and which is most likely to destroy archaelogical finds?
1. The landowner must report on any archaelogical finds and pay to have the site investigated. Any items will not belong to the landowner.
2. The landowner must report on any archaelogical finds and pay to have the site investigated, but the items found will belong to the landowner, who may sell or donate, but not destroy them.
3. The landowner must report on any archaelogical finds. The government will pay to have the site investigated and will be the owner of any found items.
To me, the second option is the fairest and most likely to prevent the destruction of the items. If we make it profitable, it is not only fair, but it encourages people to find these items. The third option is less fair in that it doesn't account for the opportunity costs lost due to the investigation, but at least the landowner isn't having to foot the bill. The first option is completely unfair and leads (demonstrably) to lost artifacts.
Well, if the public wants something, it should pay for it (through taxes). It shouldn't try to stick random bystanders with the cost, not just because it's unjust, but because it doesn't work: the predictable consequence of such laws is that what you consider valuable now just quietly disappears altogether.
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.
if "the law" wants to require people to do something that costs money, then "the law" needs to pay for it. otherwise "the law" can go bugger itself.
Stupid building codes, driver's permits, garbage collection, always making ME pay for them.
Usually codes like the one the OP cited only apply to new construction, retroactively requiring a tornado shelter on an existing building is hardly ever done in the US. However, stupid shit still is done... we remodeled our house and even though we didn't change the number of plumbing fixtures we had to bring our septic system up to current code. To make matters worse, the county did not certify the old drain field because "the soils were disturbed" ... no duh, there's a SEPTIC field there. So at great expense we had to completely install a new septic field.