Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

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

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the you-found-it-you-bought-it dept.

Canada 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."

cancel ×

601 comments

Don't Do The Dig ... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029055)

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

Re:Don't Do The Dig ... (4, Interesting)

garyisabusyguy (732330) | about a year ago | (#44029405)

My first construction job was in Texas in an area where the was a lot of limestone and caves. If the construction hit a cave, they would have to stop work and hire an archaeologist to investigate for Native American artifacts, and then excavate if they found any

As a result, they would quietly fill any 'gaps' they found with concrete (sometimes truckloads) just to avoid finding any inconvenient remains

All in all, the effect of the law ran exactly opposite to the intent of the law

Re:Don't Do The Dig ... (3, Insightful)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | about a year ago | (#44029555)

All in all, the effect of the law ran exactly opposite to the intent of the law

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 ... (1)

sideslash (1865434) | about a year ago | (#44029593)

Apparently you haven't rubbed shoulders with typical legislators and bureaucrats.

OH CANADA! (5, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#44029057)

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.

Re:OH CANADA! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029161)

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

Re:OH CANADA! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029411)

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!

Re:OH CANADA! (1)

ameen.ross (2498000) | about a year ago | (#44029477)

Oh surely not, because
*WOOSH*

Re:OH CANADA! (1)

atom1c (2868995) | about a year ago | (#44029451)

This is just Ontario. They're very (different kind of) special in that province.

Re:OH CANADA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029455)

Exactly what I thought, cheaper just no not report the body.

Come on now... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029059)

...what is this, the telegraph? reddit? Not news, not for nerds, definitely doesn't matter. All the headline is missing is a punctuation mark, and a more sensationalized headline, and we could call it /r/circlejerk

Re:Come on now... (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029099)

I sometimes get annoyed when people bitch about articles being offtopic for Slashdot, but I have to agree in this case. This isn't big news, and it's not tech. Why is this here?

Wait, I know why it is here. It got voted up. Well, you can thank your fellow readers.

Re:Come on now... (4, Insightful)

JMJimmy (2036122) | about a year ago | (#44029153)

Ethics and injustice tend to be topics geeks like, especially when it pertains to unusual subject matter.

Re:Come on now... (0, Offtopic)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about a year ago | (#44029149)

...what is this, the telegraph? reddit? Not news, not for nerds, definitely doesn't matter. All the headline is missing is a punctuation mark, and a more sensationalized headline, and we could call it /r/circlejerk

I guess there's the science aspect of archaeology in there, and there are some archaeology nerds out there.

Like an A/C responded below, I usually get annoyed when people whine about Article X being posted on slashdot. Especially when there's obviously a science-angle or fuel for a techie debate within the contents.

But I have to admit... this one is kind of pushing it. It's more of like a CNN or Local-News blurb to fill in 3 minutes of air time.

So the correct action is... (4, Insightful)

BenJeremy (181303) | about a year ago | (#44029061)

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?

Re:So the correct action is... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029223)

White man steal Indian land.
White man develop Indian land and make money.
White man bitch and moan like little squaw when stumble on ancient grave.

White man exploit and develop land.
White man crowd together in big teepee with no wind or tree.
White man kill animals and fish and pollute water.
White man wonder why he sick and fat.

Re:So the correct action is... (-1, Troll)

smooth wombat (796938) | about a year ago | (#44029351)

I know what you mean. I get frustrated with all the drug dealers, thieves, tire slashers and whatnot in my area so rather than follow the law, I just go out and shoot them rather than lose my right not to be attacked or harassed when I go outside.

Same thing with my big, colorful billboard which says, "There is no God. Stop believing in myths!" which keeps getting torn down or burned. Rather than follow the law and get the police to do something, I just shoot those who try to damage it rather than lose my right to express an opinion.

Re:So the correct action is... (4, Insightful)

geoffrobinson (109879) | about a year ago | (#44029441)

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... (2)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about a year ago | (#44029363)

Yep, for a while over in Africa they cut the horns off rhino's to stop poachers. The result? The poachers still spent days tracking an animal only to find out it didn't have a horn - so they killed it anyway out of spite.

Re:So the correct action is... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029461)

Well, there is at least the upside that the poachers didn't make any money of it.

Re:So the correct action is... (1)

operagost (62405) | about a year ago | (#44029667)

Only if you objective is to be a griefer, rather than discourage rhino poaching.

Re:So the correct action is... (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#44029657)

I don't doubt that happened sometimes, but what was the net effect? No law or policy is ever perfect.

Re:So the correct action is... (4, Interesting)

PPH (736903) | about a year ago | (#44029669)

I think they are changing their tactics. They are poisoning the rhino horns in such a manner as not to harm the rhino, but to sicken* or kill the people who eventually ingest the horn products. It will only require poisoning a few of them and a few resulting deaths making the news to reduce the demand for horn.

* Its a shame they couldn't find something to render the users impotent. And spread the news that even toughing the horns makes your junk shrivel.

Re:So the correct action is... (4, Informative)

Jodka (520060) | about a year ago | (#44029641)

... 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." [wikipedia.org]

Note to all Ontario citizens (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029075)

If you dig up remains, bury them again, don't tell anyone.

That's all this idiotic law is going to make people do (unless independently wealthy and like to waste cash).

Re:Note to all Ontario citizens (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | about a year ago | (#44029331)

same over here.

I know a town where they usually do exactly that when they find another roman coin in their garden.

property rights and responsiblities (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029077)

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.

Re:property rights and responsiblities (3, Insightful)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about a year ago | (#44029157)

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...

Re:property rights and responsiblities (5, Insightful)

JMJimmy (2036122) | about a year ago | (#44029189)

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:property rights and responsiblities (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029297)

And they might also be able to sue the surveyor that didn't notice the material before they purchased the land; or the seller who didn't mention it despite knowing it was there.

What this will actually do is stop people reporting finds, and whilst this is a 400 year old burial, next time it will be a murder victim under a patio.

Although admittedly that wouldn't require the archaeological survey in reality, homeowners aren't going to risk it.

Re:property rights and responsiblities (4, Insightful)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about a year ago | (#44029539)

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).

Re:property rights and responsiblities (5, Insightful)

Aaden42 (198257) | about a year ago | (#44029495)

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.

first (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029079)

first!!

wtf is this (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029081)

Sounds about right to me. Am I supposed to be outraged enough to donate some of my buttcoins to them?

Had they discovered oil on the property... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029083)

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.

Re:Had they discovered oil on the property... (0)

LVSlushdat (854194) | about a year ago | (#44029367)

From the government's view point it's always "heads I win, tails you lose" type of deal.

You got that a bit wrong..Its "heads I win, tails I win.."

Re:Had they discovered oil on the property... (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about a year ago | (#44029465)

Do you hear that wooshing sound?

Re:Had they discovered oil on the property... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029503)

derp.

Re:Had they discovered oil on the property... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029509)

Whoosh

Re:Had they discovered oil on the property... (1)

richy freeway (623503) | about a year ago | (#44029513)

The saying is "Heads I win, tails you lose." It's meant to sound mildly confusing.

Re:Had they discovered oil on the property... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029629)

Wooooooooooosh.....

Re:Had they discovered oil on the property... (2)

esorf (1543079) | about a year ago | (#44029471)

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.

Re:Had they discovered oil on the property... (2)

afidel (530433) | about a year ago | (#44029631)

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.

Let them be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029085)

So if you find bones on your properly, just ignore them and keep putting up the fence.

Oh and Canada sucks, take it from a Cdn...

finders keepers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029109)

it was in their back yard, why not make some profit?

TFA says that they can apply for relief (5, Informative)

Jabrwock (985861) | about a year ago | (#44029115)

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.

Re:TFA says that they can apply for relief (4, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year ago | (#44029213)

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 (4, Insightful)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#44029287)

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:TFA says that they can apply for relief (4, Interesting)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#44029383)

I'm all for archaeology and historical preservation, but it's absurd to stick the land owner with the cost.

It could be handled that way, but with responsibility comes authority in a sane property rights regime. That is, the owners should be able to sell the archaeological finds to the highest bidder to recoup the dig costs or dispose of them if the costs cannot be recouped (that is, nobody finds the dig to be of value).

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.

It sounds like in Canada the owners have the responsibility but not the authority. That's just a way to socialize costs in an acute fashion and to reinforce the idea of weak property rights.

Re:TFA says that they can apply for relief (2)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#44029609)

the owners should be able to sell the archaeological finds to the highest bidder to recoup the dig costs

Are you sure that they can't? IIRC that's become an issue because dinosaur skeletons for example can be very valuable. A dino skeleton on your property can be found gold, but it makes it horrible expensive for museums and the like to purchase them. Part of me thinks "your land, your dino", just as a mineral find on your property can be literally a gold mine (assuming you have the mineral rights too). OTOH a market approach to dinos doesn't make much sense because they ain't making any more of them.

Either way the policy should be consistent. I suspect that for a minor find like this, rights to sell wouldn't outweigh dig costs (assuming you can't get your local university to do it for free). Also, there are laws regarding proper respect given to human remains. Sometimes that gets taken to ridiculous extremes, like an Indian tribe claiming rights to a 10,000 year old skeleton, but 400 years is another story. Are people permitted to purchase pre-colonial cemeteries and sell the human remains? Of course not.

Re:TFA says that they can apply for relief (1)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#44029427)

Yes, that's the European approach, which makes much more sense to me.

The North American approach, I guess in an attempt to avoid spending taxpayer money on things, instead requires landowners to pay for miscellaneous things that the state really ought to take care of. As one example, in many N.A. jurisdictions the property owner is responsible for maintaining a sidewalk in front of their house up to certain standards. Whereas in most of Europe, sidewalk maintenance is considered the state's responsibility.

Re:TFA says that they can apply for relief (2)

coinreturn (617535) | about a year ago | (#44029517)

Yes, that's the European approach, which makes much more sense to me.

The North American approach, I guess in an attempt to avoid spending taxpayer money on things, instead requires landowners to pay for miscellaneous things that the state really ought to take care of. As one example, in many N.A. jurisdictions the property owner is responsible for maintaining a sidewalk in front of their house up to certain standards. Whereas in most of Europe, sidewalk maintenance is considered the state's responsibility.

Nowhere in the USA that I've lived ever made the homeowner do anything with the sidewalk in front of their house. The city always paid for it. I have lived in DC, MD, VA, and CA.

Re:TFA says that they can apply for relief (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029599)

Nowhere in the USA that I've lived ever made the homeowner do anything with the sidewalk in front of their house.

In my state, it's the homeowner's responsibility to maintain the sidewalk.

Re:TFA says that they can apply for relief (1)

Jabrwock (985861) | about a year ago | (#44029611)

In some jurisdictions in Canada, the state will do some things to maintain the sidewalk/edges of your property (pay for repairs to concrete, maintain trees, etc) but you are still responsible for others (shovelling sidewalk, mowing grass, etc).

It depends on the local bylaws.

Re:TFA says that they can apply for relief (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029661)

Towns in South Dakota make you pay to put it in and keep it cleared of snow. Very far from "do anything" and more like "do everything". I am reasonably certain you pay to replace and fix it but I am not quite as certain.

Re:TFA says that they can apply for relief (1)

StormyWeather (543593) | about a year ago | (#44029381)

As someone who just got an IRS letter saying they owe 4500 dollars that they don't owe I don't really give a shit how I can fight to not pay it, it's something I shouldn't have to fucking fight!

Re: 5 9's perfection? (1)

Jabrwock (985861) | about a year ago | (#44029425)

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"?

Re: 5 9's perfection? (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about a year ago | (#44029501)

Ironically, if they eliminated all the bullshit that leads to that kind of mistake, we'd probably all be paying less taxes.

Re: 5 9's perfection? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029571)

In the case of the IRS specifically, 100% perfection is pretty easy to achieve: simplify the tax code. It has the result of being cheaper, too. And while they may still make a mistake, it will be easier and less costly to prove.

The problem isn't perfection, it's onerous rules that 9 times out of 10 can't achieve their desired goals in the first place, but still put the burden on the individual.

Re:TFA says that they can apply for relief (2)

tippe (1136385) | about a year ago | (#44029435)

Hopefully they got title insurance when they bought the house, which in Ontario covers this type of thing (it covers things like errors in surveys or public records, amongst other things that would affect the ability to sell or finance the property). If they didn't: sucks to be them, but I have no pity. It only costs a few hundred dollars to get title insurance when you buy a house, which you can just lump in with your mortgage if you don't want to pay outright. If they don't get an exemption for the 5k, or if it turns out that they are living on some ancient Indian burial ground, then their stinginess when buying the house is probably going to cost them a lot more than the title insurance would have...

Re:Title Insurance? (1)

Jabrwock (985861) | about a year ago | (#44029569)

I was just thinking "wouldn't insurance cover this"?

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.

Re:TFA says that they can apply for relief (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029549)

Cause - Effect

If a POOR (IE not a millionaire) person finds, a body, historic artifacts, anything other than rocks on their property. THEY HAVE TO PAY TO HAVE THE ENTIRE PROPERTY SCANNED FOR MORE. The effect is a trend to AVOID THE COST.

Result is a lose to society in general. Either a murder never solved or prosecuted or treasures from hundreds of years ago end up in a basement.

It's not GOVERNMENT BAD, IT IS LAZY LEGISLATION! Whoever wrote the bill did a half ass job!

Re:TFA says that they can apply for relief (1)

Jabrwock (985861) | about a year ago | (#44029665)

It's not GOVERNMENT BAD, IT IS LAZY LEGISLATION! Whoever wrote the bill did a half ass job!

You must pay. Unless you can demonstrate it's a financial burden. These clauses are within a few lines of each other in the legislation. How is that lazy?

FUCK that (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029123)

And, here I thought things were getting so bad in the US and that Canada seems so fair and so safe.... This is an incredibly unfair law. So, what happens if the property owner refuses to hire an archaeologist ? It's their own damn property. Unbelievable.

Idiot lawmakers (5, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | about a year ago | (#44029125)

The next such skeleton found will just go into the trash...

Re:Idiot lawmakers (4, Interesting)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about a year ago | (#44029459)

Yep, because of muckraking reporting that neglects to mention that the couple can file for relief which will almost certainly be granted.

Eh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029127)

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.

Re:Eh (1)

JMJimmy (2036122) | about a year ago | (#44029231)

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.

Any interested archaeologists? (1)

LordNimon (85072) | about a year ago | (#44029135)

Surely they could find some archeologists would be willing to pay the bill for exclusive access to the site?

Re:Any interested archaeologists? (4, Informative)

Jabrwock (985861) | about a year ago | (#44029275)

The local band is raising the money to have the skeleton re-buried at their cemetery.

The issue is that they are required to also have an archeological survey done to ensure there aren't other artifacts buried there too.

Found on the beach (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029151)

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.

Next time.. (1, Funny)

Chewbacon (797801) | about a year ago | (#44029165)

...turn it into doggy treats.

Keep your mouth shut (1)

koan (80826) | about a year ago | (#44029173)

You might find yourself surprised at how few problems you have if you do.

Carefully... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029185)

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.

blackmailed into giving up the find, too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029187)

Suave said after uncovering the remains were that of a human, she planned to keep the historical find, even naming the deceased individual “Sephira” after her granddaughter. The couple decided to relinquish the remains after they were informed that upon keeping them, their property’s deed would be reissued to state there was a cemetery on the premises.

Re:blackmailed into giving up the find, too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029507)

their property’s deed would be reissued to state there was a cemetery on the premises.

God forbid they have to tell people there's a body buried in the backyard.

similar rules elsewhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029195)

Here the initial digging to build on site that is a potential historic site requires a archeologist present to see if there is anything of interest, but if they find something you still have the option of leaving it alone so some one can escavate it later, if not you have pay to get a bunch archeologist to do if you want to go on but they have to give you a fixed budget

How t f (3, Funny)

rossdee (243626) | about a year ago | (#44029209)

"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 ?

Re:How t f (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029283)

There's a difference between aboriginal and Aboriginal.

Re: How t f (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029303)

Aboriginal doesn't mean from Australia.

Re: How t f (0)

rossdee (243626) | about a year ago | (#44029601)

It does in the Southern Hemisphere (I was born 'across the ditch' from the West Island)

I thought the the Native people of Canada were called "First Nation" (except for the Eskimos who are called Inuit )

Re:How t f (1)

EJB (9167) | about a year ago | (#44029361)

You're kidding right? Of course when you were a bit unsure about a term you found on the Internet, you used the Internet to look it up because it only takes seconds, and you're only posting this here to yank our legs right?

"1. being the first or earliest known of its kind present in a region "
( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aboriginal [merriam-webster.com] )

"1. Having existed in a region from the beginning: aboriginal forests. See Synonyms at native."
( http://www.thefreedictionary.com/aboriginal [thefreedictionary.com] )

Re:How t f (3, Informative)

CyberSlugGump (609485) | about a year ago | (#44029443)

"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 [wikipedia.org] does not just refer to people in Australia. See Aboriginal_peoples_in_Canada [wikipedia.org]

Re:How t f (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029553)

Maybe her boomerang wouldn't come back.

Re:How t f (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029563)

They mean she was an injun.

Wow (-1, Troll)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about a year ago | (#44029235)

I would push back saying no way in hell I'm going to pay for that. The land should of already been known to be "sacred" native ground, that should of been dealt with when the government "stole" the land from the native people, push back and tell them to deal with it. This couple shouldn't care about the land, the land was stolen from the native people, development by the government and then sold to the couple, if the government didn't do the work in the first place they should still be held accountable and hence this couple is off the hook. I would just refuse and give the government 6 months, after that the couple can keep building.

It's in our way...now it isn't! (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#44029241)

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...

Re:It's in our way...now it isn't! (2)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#44029389)

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.

Same USA Whackiness (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029269)

I found a Native American artifact in my back yard while digging a hole for a tree. I contacted the local archeological society about it mostly to establish its authenticity. Next thing I know they're all over me to bring it in to their meeting, register my "archelolgical site" with the state, etc.
Lucky for me I never used my real name or address. If you want your private property to remain private remember to keep yer damn yap shut about anything interesting you find there.

Re:Same USA Whackiness (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029365)

Right.

Just think of all the grief ensuing when the buyers of my old houses dig in the back yard and find the hookers. Better to just bury them again and avoid the inconvenience.

Kennewick Man (2, Informative)

PPH (736903) | about a year ago | (#44029577)

Be careful you don't find artifacts that might conflict with Native Americans assertions about their history. Kennewick Man [wikipedia.org] , 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?

ghost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029311)

ah so thats why they're fence and house were haunted. the not so free ghosts!

That's Bureaucracy for You (0)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | about a year ago | (#44029371)

The act, which requires evaluation for all properties found to house human remains, has the Canadian couple stuck with a big bill.

Gubrment needs its tax fees, you know. Fairness or competence got nothing to do with it :/

Couple Charged $5k For Finding Old Skelton (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029469)

Where's the tech angle? This headline sounds more like a National Inquirer article.

Re:Couple Charged $5k For Finding Old Skelton (1)

Jabrwock (985861) | about a year ago | (#44029579)

It was written by the Toronto Star, so you're not far off...

Re:Couple Charged $5k For Finding Old Skelton (1)

Ost99 (101831) | about a year ago | (#44029589)

It's blame the government day at slashdot today.
Been a lot of those lately.

Moral Of The Story... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44029499)

Be Evil and save $5000.

Wasting money (2)

GrahamJ (241784) | about a year ago | (#44029535)

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?

Slashdot (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#44029537)

So it's just a general "laws that seem a bit unfair" blog, now?

The curse still rings true! (0)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#44029545)

The fools built on an ancient Indian burial ground and suffered the curse - of a $5000 fine.
Wait that's not it, the curse was imposed by a stupid "user pays" idea of running a government that's not just cursing these folk. There's no point trying to get a government to act like private enterprise since you end up with automatic monopoly and plenty of casual injustice without even trying.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...