Canadian Couple Charged $5k For Finding 400-Year-Old Skeleton 601
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."
So the correct action is... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Idiot lawmakers (Score:5, Insightful)
The next such skeleton found will just go into the trash...
Re:Come on now... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ethics and injustice tend to be topics geeks like, especially when it pertains to unusual subject matter.
Re:property rights and responsiblities (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:OH CANADA! (Score:2, Insightful)
In this case, I am pretty sure the original killer no longer needs their help.
Re:property rights and responsiblities (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.
Re:TFA says that they can apply for relief (Score:5, Insightful)
The Star is just ginning this up as their usual "GOVERNMENT BAD" drivel.
And Slashdot's happy to repeat it.
Re:TFA says that they can apply for relief (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I don't see why companies should be saddled with this cost either, unless perhaps they purchased a piece of land knowing ahead-of-time that it was likely to contain archaeological artifacts. In many cases the law already requires the owner to "stand aside" while someone digs up archeological finds. In Rome that happens in about every other construction project. That's enough of a burden. I'm all for archaeology and historical preservation, but it's absurd to stick the land owner with the cost.
OTOH I doubt one would have to pay an archaeologist (can you find them on Craig's List?). A call to your local university history or archaeology department would probably get it done for free.
Re:So the correct action is... (Score:4, Insightful)
You're missing the point.
A better analogy would be someone would like to feed a homeless person but gets a fine from the government for having a food catering business without a license.
Re:So the correct action is... (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, there is at least the upside that the poachers didn't make any money of it.
Re:property rights and responsiblities (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.
Re:property rights and responsiblities (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't Do The Dig ... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not a plausible claim.
If it was just this one example, then maybe it would be, but when you're talking about decades of examples where laws of all types achieve the exact opposite of their stated goals, and when the people enacting and enforcing laws ignore the mountains of evidence of this and continue to do what has been provably shown to accomplish the exact opposite of their stated goals, then it's more rational to assume that the stated goals of the laws have nothing whatsoever to do with the real intent of those enacting and enforcing the laws.
Re:Don't Do The Dig ... (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.
Re:Don't Do The Dig ... (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.
Re:Idiot lawmakers (Score:5, Insightful)
The next such skeleton found will just go into the trash...
Not necessarily a good idea either. In some places, trash is sorted manually, and human remains certainly will trigger police attention. Better not throw any identifiable items (envelopes...) into the same trash bag.
Better just leave it in the ground, that way you also have plausible deniability ("sorry, I just didn't notice anything weird...")
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't Do The Dig ... (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.)
Re:So the correct action is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:TFA says that they can apply for relief (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm about as liberal as they come, but in this case it's pretty easy to see why people become disillusioned with government spending.
Have you ever thought about the other explanation: They they do it cheaply and badly because everyone tries to save a few pennies on this job? I'm pretty sure had you hired a contractor, it would've been more than $800, but it would've been done properly.
Everyone always expects the government to work great, but with an absolute minimum of budget. Well, newsflash, private corporations don't manage to do that, either. Many of them just have the advantage of getting infrastructure, etc. for free from the government.
Example: The rail company in Germany was made a private company about 10 years ago. The first few years, everything looks great, just like the consultants had promised. Then things started to go downhill, and still do. Because the first thing they started to save money on was such irritable costs as maintainance. With minimal maintainance, the tracks and stations work just fine... for a few years...
Government is sometimes wasteful, but often they are just more expensive because they don't cut corners as much as private companies do and because they take risks and explore frontiers that corporations rather not.
NASA is crazy expensive, but they got a man to the moon in 8 years. And even with all the groundwork long done, private companies are still working out the details of reaching earth orbit after 11 years.
Re:Don't Do The Dig ... (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.
Re:Idiot lawmakers (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, because of muckraking reporting that neglects to mention that the couple can file for relief which will almost certainly be granted.
That doesn't mean the law is in any way just. In fact, laws that have arbitrary and selective enforcement built in are among the worst kinds.
Re:Don't Do The Dig ... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Money's nifty but it's not the only thing.
Re:Don't Do The Dig ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't Do The Dig ... (Score:3, Insightful)
You are not required to build something, thus this example is not valid.
You are not required to create garbage, thus this example is not valid.
Sorry, but if you do something that influences other people (and all three, driving, building and creating garbage do so massively), you are required to follow rules negotiated by the people (maY it be by elections, petitions and writing your member of congress, or via written or unwritten contracts) you are influencing.
If you want to drive around, build something or litter as you want without any restrictions, go, find some place where you are disturbing no one else, and do it there.
Re:Don't Do The Dig ... (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).
Re:So the correct action is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Regulations don't work if people are criminals? What a fucking surprise.
Sure they do. They just work slowly. If I break into your house and steal your TV, the odds of me getting caught are pretty low. If I break into a hundred houses and steal their TVs too... chances are good they're going to bust me. When you stop looking at police as a way to prevent crime and instead as a way to deter crime, it becomes quite a bit clearer how it all fits together.
And for people saying "gun regulation can't work! Only criminals will have guns!", (The classic contemporary anti-regulation argument) I refer them to the fact that gun regulation on the purchase of silencers has been so effective that very few people have them. Regulation does work -- it works by preventing systemic abuse or crime, in the same way that traffic signals can't stop you from driving however you want... but people mostly obey the laws anyway because (a) it actually does keep them safer, and (b) it's a big fat fine and possible loss of driving privileges if you're busted too many times breaking too many laws.
Re:Don't Do The Dig ... (Score:5, Insightful)
~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.
Re:Don't Do The Dig ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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. It needs to be a general fee levied on ALL construction companies, with a partial rebate to those that find and appropriately report them. Doing it the other way creates and adverse incentive, as stated.
So. Perhaps tornado shelters are a good idea. If so, at least a part of the construction cost should be remitted for installng one. And perhaps some sort of punishment ("You go the end of the line in case of emergency"?) should be implemented for lack of one.
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.". 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.
Re:Don't Do The Dig ... (Score:4, Insightful)
potentially important history (which belongs to us all) with cement
Here's the thing - if that important history belongs to all of us, why would the burden for extracting and preserving it fall solely on the homeowner or developer that found it? It's easy for us to say "yeah, that should be preserved" - it's entirely another thing for us to demand somebody else pay for it.
Re:TFA says that they can apply for relief (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it's TRUE.
Yes, they can apply for an exemption.
Yes they will PROBABLY get it....but not certainly.
The fact is, if a person/corporation/dog digs up something on their property that someone else thinks is important, why should that property owner pay for it EVER unless they can expect reasonable compensation to at least offset those costs?
Seriously?
The law as written is stupid. If I dig up inuit bones, it's meaningless to me. If the inuit (or more realistically, some caucasian anthropologists, right?) feel what I find is valuable, THEY can flippin' pay for it. If it's not worth them sinking $5000 into the 'site evaluation' plus whatever I want to charge for the inconvenience of delaying my project, then screw them and grind it to dust.
Re:typical, spoiled child attitude. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:TFA says that they can apply for relief (Score:4, Insightful)
That would be the way to maximize the recovery of artifacts and have them make their way to museums. Sure, in the short term private collectors might have them, but that's not a lasting problem, especially compared to the age of most interesting artifacts.
This is about the worst case for actual archaeological research. What collectors want --- a pretty looking specimen to display on the shelf --- is often the least interesting/important part for researchers. Most of the useful information from archeological digs comes from meticulous recording and analysis of all the "rubbish" at the dig site --- all the stuff that looters tear through and discard to find the shiny baubles. Little fragments of rotted wood can be just as important (or more so) than the occasional solid gold jewelery for learning about history. By the time an artifact has passed through private collector's hands, it (and the site from which it was looted) has usually been rendered nearly worthless as an object of academic historical study.
Re:Don't Do The Dig ... (Score:5, Insightful)
we're not talking about building codes
were not talking about drivers permits
we're not talking about garbage collection.
we're talking about an archeological dig, and putting an undue burden on a family, such that the law is very likely to cause the next archeological find to end up ina trash bag and never be seen again. i brought up the example of mandated storm shelters...which cost >4k$ for the "cheap" ones...as another example of the "there ought to be a law" mentality. its easy to say. but paying for it isnt.
Re:typical, spoiled child attitude. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Don't Do The Dig ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well... here are the taxpayers choices
A. Pay for it, (and the public (museums) get the artifacts)
B. Don't pay for it (and probably not get the artifacts)
Apparently the government has taken choice C.
Make one person (or household or business) who doesn't necessarily have any interest in the artifact pay for it out of their own pocket even if they cannot afford to do so.
If you can't see why C. is wrong then I sincerely hope you make a monumental discovery in your own back yard some time soon.
Re:Don't Do The Dig ... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's one thing when public safety is at stake. If the state wants stuff that's nice to have, it can bloody well pay for it.
Re:Don't Do The Dig ... (Score:2, Insightful)
You are not required to build something, thus this example is not valid.
Don't want to deal with archaeological finds at your dig? You don't have to build anything, thus this example is not valid!