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?
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.
Ethics and injustice tend to be topics geeks like, especially when it pertains to unusual subject matter.
Real estate, the only field where it's still acceptable to blame the victim. I mean they were asking for it, just look at how they painted that house...
Mostly random stuff.
True, however, one can research the recent history of a property and have an environmental assessment done before purchasing. There's no equivalent for that when it comes to 400 year old unmarked burial sites.
"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 ?
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.
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...
Whole different story. Most of the complaints about environmental regulations being "effectively a taking" are about people who buy undeveloped land as a form of speculation. That land doesn't have zoning or environmental approval for what they hope it'll be used for some day, but they get upset when such restrictions are placed on it because it kills the possibility of getting rich from their speculation. Screw 'em. Real estate speculation is an utterly unproductive activity. Existing, or even imminently planned uses are almost always grandfathered in when new restrictions are put in place.
Canada is not privatizing all natural resources. Or if they are, they're doing a poor job of it.
However, despite the paranoia of the parent comment, through taxation the government of Canada *would* enjoy some of the upside of the owner discovering oil on his land. It is only fair and reasonable that the government should also share in the downside (cost of surprise archeological survey) associated with land ownership. And apparently from another comment, there is recourse to apply to the ministry for just such compensation.
I see one pretty significant difference that underscores the abuse of government power supposedly in the name of the Public Good.
Toxic waste on land is inherently dangerous to all in the area. It leaches into surrounding water, etc., people get sick. As a property owner, your in-action in not cleaning it up has a high likelihood of causing harm to others. It's reasonable that the government would use its power to force the owner to clean it up.
History and artifacts are nice, but if they're destroyed, nobody is poisoned or gets cancer. If The People believe that preserving them and learning about the past is an important goal, The People should pay for it, not drop the entire cost on the hapless sot who bought the property where someone happened to have dropped dead a long time ago.
In the former case, the Public Good is protected. A dangerous situation which can harm others who have no control over the problem (IE I can't go on your land to clean up your mess) is rectified. In the latter case, individual property rights are trampled with at best weak justification. It seems unlikely that this find will unearth great and valuable truths about the indigenous population. If the owners wish to allow an archeologist to examine the dig at his own (or perhaps a university's) expense, that's very nice of them. They shouldn't be required to do so, and it's completely unreasonable to expect them to pay for it.
In their place, I'd be calling a lawyer to see whether the potential fines from an "accident" destroying the entire find exceed the potential cost of hiring someone to dig it up. Then I'd proceed in the most fiscally responsible manner.
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?
Yup. File a lawsuit. That's the answer for everything today. How DARE that surveyor not notice that something was buried on the property 400 years ago? The sad fact is that people like you think of solutions like that, and would have no trouble whatsoever in finding a sleazbag lawyer willing to take the case (for a percentage).
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.
Huh? Canada is like the US in that you can own both the surface rights and the mineral rights to your property, if you own the bundled rights and oil is found nobody seizes your land, you get to negotiate a lucrative rights lease to somebody who will exploit the resources (or not, but if you don't it's likely they'll put a well on your neighbors property and exploit it without compensating you so you might as well lease the rights). I know quite a few folks here in Ohio that have hunting tracts down in SE Ohio that have received checks for several times the original cost of the land for oil and gas leases.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
It's meant to sound mildly confusing.
Looks like it fulfilled its goal...
Blame the victim?
They own the body/toxic waste right?
Sounds like their problem. That is what you get when you own property. You own both the good and the bad. Don't like it? Rent.
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.
It is his property. It's certainly more his responsibility than some guy who spent a few hours surveying the property once upon a time. If the land owner found treasure buried in the back yard would he share it with the surveyor?
This is another classic example of how strict liability laws cause grave injustices.
Please tell me that pun was intentional...
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.
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?
One thing that everyone here who is making some variant of this argument is conveniently forgetting is the opposite end of what can happen. What if instead of bones his shovel had turned up gold lumps? Would the public get a cut if it was standing by with a check because of what might turn up? Is this the one man version of "socialize the cost, privatize the profit"?
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
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.
So if the homeowner finds a chest of pirate gold on the property, or a suitcase of $100 bills was hidden under the floorboards, then it belongs to the government? After all, it was "something they could not reasonably have known about before purchasing the property." How about if oil is discovered in the area? Is it the government's because they didn't know it was there when they bought the property? Or is it only COSTS that belongs to taxpayers, never BENEFITS?
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
The problem in this case is, the government wants to be able to excavate and study the remains. If that's the case, the government should have to pay for it. Requiring the homeowner to pay for it is absolutely absurd.
And yes, this will result in the next time someone finds something, it will remain unreported. All because the law was stupid enough to not provide funding for dealing with the finds.
$5000 is prohibitive for many people. I know if someone stuck me with a sudden $5000 bill I'd be in a world of hurt. If a law is going to require finds to be studied, the law should provide funding. Simple common sense.