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
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Ethics and injustice tend to be topics geeks like, especially when it pertains to unusual subject matter.
...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.
"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 ?
Uhh, no. They wanted to keep the skeleton buried on the property, not sell it off or create some attraction out of it. At most it would have been a conversation topic for a little while then ignored.
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.
same over here.
I know a town where they usually do exactly that when they find another roman coin in their garden.
bickerdyke
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.
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.
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.
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.
It was written by the Toronto Star, so you're not far off...
Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
It's blame the government day at slashdot today.
Been a lot of those lately.
---- Sig. gone.
Honestly, what did this couple expect by reporting the find?
It's an interesting thing about Canadians: if they know they are legally required to report a human skeleton found buried on their land, they are very likely to do it just because they are supposed to. (And if they didn't know that law for a fact ahead of time, then they would probably be able to guess.) I'm not saying people follow every law in every situation, but the default course of action is generally to follow the law unless there is a good reason to do otherwise.
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".
How about just wanting to do their civic duty? Allowing historians to have a look at it (but not expecting to have to foot the bill for this...)
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.
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.
I could never live in country full of such despicable law abiders. They are getting what they deserve.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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.
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.
Party pooper. We were having fun discussing this.
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.
If $5k is such a small price to pay, why doesn't the province pay it instead of burdening the people who happened to find it, and in particular.... who aren't profiting from it?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
And the rest can eat cake, right?
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.
Since of morality?
Desire to obey the law?
Honesty?
Any number of reasons besides greed. Somebody is projecting.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
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
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
Dig up a bag of bones, nope. Back goes the dirt.
I could never live in country full of such despicable law abiders. They are getting what they deserve.
Verily. I doubt I would ever be able to fit in a culture where it is presumed that the law deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Good thing we have a border, eh? They can engage in their cultural predilections there and we can pursue ours here, without either group having to force their perspective on the other.
I just hope their perspective isn't a spreading meme. Ugh.
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.
Having observed Americans in action, I don't think we're all that different. Outside of certain select sub-populations, both countries are very law abiding.
In fact, Americans are probably the most used to being told what to do and how to do it, and being abused by law enforcement whenever they don't, of any country in the world.
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".
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.