Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canadian Couple Charged $5k For Finding 400-Year-Old Skeleton

Posted by samzenpus on from the you-found-it-you-bought-it dept.

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."

17 of 601 comments (clear)

  1. Don't Do The Dig ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't do the dig if you can't cover the vig.

    1. Re:Don't Do The Dig ... by Picass0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nice. Your former employer filled undocumented, potentially important history (which belongs to us all) with cement. You worked for the same breed of dumbasses who tore down a Mayan temple to make road gravel.

      Is government a pain in the ass? Yes. Do the overreact? All the time. Why? Because of people doing stuff like what you just described.

    2. Re:Don't Do The Dig ... by dywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      while the project is held up they arent making money. yet they still have to pay their workers. or they can lay them off. and they (the company) has to pay the cost of the research too.

      its a double jeapardy burden on the company, effectively punishing them for "doing the right thing"... and you think that's right and fair?

      bugger off.

      its like the morons around here who all of a sudden want to "make it a law for everyone to have tornado shelters....but they have to pay for it them themselves". 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.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    3. Re:Don't Do The Dig ... by YoungManKlaus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      no, the point is, if the government wants to get archeological artefacts it should probably pay for their recovery, not make the finder pay what seems to him only as retribution (kinda like: "I order you to help me mow the lawn and then also pay for the lawnmower and fuel")

    4. Re:Don't Do The Dig ... by Imagix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your former employer filled undocumented, potentially important history (which belongs to us all)

      In which case, why didn't we "all" pay for the dig instead of shafting the finder with the bill? And, reimburse the finder for the appropriation of land and/or time? (The gov't already said go ahead and build there, now they want to change their mind. With authority should come responsibility.)

    5. Re:Don't Do The Dig ... by eth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nice. Your former employer filled undocumented, potentially important history (which belongs to us all) with cement. You worked for the same breed of dumbasses who tore down a Mayan temple to make road gravel.

      Is government a pain in the ass? Yes. Do the overreact? All the time. Why? Because of people doing stuff like what you just described.

      And once news gets around of this incident, the same thing will start happening in Canada. Most people can't afford to pour thousands of dollars down a hole - they'll get absolutely no benefit from the expenditure. If people have a choice between doing the right thing and going bankrupt, or quietly covering/disposing of the evidence, what do you think most people will do? If the state is going to require that sort of expensive investigation, then they need to pay for it.

    6. Re:Don't Do The Dig ... by FuzzNugget · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If it belongs to the public, then the public should pay for it.

    7. Re:Don't Do The Dig ... by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, I have.

      The intent of a law from the perspective of a legislator is to grant favors to people who will grant favors to them in return. The public is told, or is convieniently allowed to assume, a more benign and enlightened intent than what is actually true.

      The intent of a law from the perspective of a bueracrat is to justifiy that bueracrat's continued salary and eventual pension.

      This is the only explaination that is consistent with the evidence of how legislators and bueracrats behave. (as opposed to what they say).

    8. Re:Don't Do The Dig ... by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Construction company executives, on the other hand, have perfect judgement about what is important and what is not.

      ~s

      Idiots making decisions is inevitable. When talking about goverment regulation vs self regulation, it's question of whether you want the poor decisions to come from someone who is elected through a semi-democratic process with at least a stated goal of public interest or whether you want the poor decisions to come from someone put in place by the executive board whose stated goal is to make money.

    9. Re:Don't Do The Dig ... by Solandri · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I *slightly* disagree. It's entirely appropriate that construction companies be required to preserve historic artifacts. What's not appropriate is that *particular* construction companies be so required. That's, as mentioned, counter productive, and places the burden on those who are conscientious.

      Costs should be borne by the beneficiaries. If it's the public which is going to benefit from an archeological find, then it's the public which should bear the cost, not the construction company. It is not just inappropriate, but also immoral and dysfunctional to require a non-beneficiary to bear the costs of a situation they did not create.

      Once you start making someone other than the beneficiary bear the cost, you get into all sorts of trouble. Whether it be bailouts for bankers who took too many risks, or people living perennially on welfare. The moment cost is decoupled from benefit, you can lose all sense of scale between cost and benefit. The beneficiaries don't bear the cost so it becomes a game of seeing how much they can get away with, and those bearing the cost start to get upset at taxation without representation and threaten to revolt.

      Having the beneficiary bear the cost also makes the cost-benefit analysis crystal clear. If each discovered archeological site costs $5 million to process, but only yields $1 million worth of cultural preservation, then clearly the processing method needs to be refined to lower its cost. If it's the public footing the bill, then the government agency paying for it has an incentive to streamline the processing and their costs. If the construction companies are footing the bill, then there's no incentive for the government agency to do any streamlining.

      That said, I'm not sure it should be legal to sell or rent properties lacking a tornado shelter in areas where a tornado is likely. You may not be able to install it due to lack of finances, but this doesn't mean you should be able to transfer the problem to someone else. Perhaps sale should be allowed if the purchaser signed a clear statement in 14 point type saying (approximately) "I understand that the state believes living in this place is unsafe due to the lack of a tornado shelter.".

      Despite the recent news, tornadoes and especially injuries and deaths from tornadoes are actually pretty rare. If tornadoes kill 75 people per year on average, and you require all ~50 million residences in the tornado-prone areas to build $5000 shelters, and the average home lasts 50 years, you're mandating a cost of ($5000 per home * 50 million homes / (50 years * 75 people/year) ) = $67 million per life saved.

      Given that the lifetime productivity of an average person is only $2-$3 million, a tornado shelter requirement would result in a net decrease in the standard of living. i.e. About 22-33 lifetimes' worth of productivity is being spent to save one life, instead of being used on other things which could save a lot more lives.

      Renting is, however, a separate problem. Landlords have a long history of totally ignoring the safety of their tennants, so I don't think they should be granted ANY slack.

      If you've actually been a landlord, you would also know that it's equally true that renters have a long history of totally ignoring the integrity and safety of the landlord's property. I've seen everything from tenants painting over a mold problem caused by a leak they didn't want to bother to fix or report, to cutting structural beams and "repairing" them in an unsound manner, to adding plumbing and electrical wiring which didn't comply with code without telling the landlord, to just plain leaving a mess when they leave which costs the landlord far more than the security deposit to dispose of in a way which complies with local environmental regulations.

      Yes there are bad

  2. OH CANADA! by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
    1. Re:OH CANADA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      In this case, I am pretty sure the original killer no longer needs their help.

      The killer may have been a vampire who's still aimlessly roaming the Earth today, you insensitive clod!

  3. TFA says that they can apply for relief by Jabrwock · · Score: 5, Informative
    The Act allows for them to apply to the minister for an exemption, upon granting the state will pay the cost.

    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.
  4. Idiot lawmakers by gweihir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  5. Re:property rights and responsiblities by JMJimmy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:property rights and responsiblities by Aaden42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:typical, spoiled child attitude. by yurtinus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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