[Rockhounds] Court Rules Fossils are Minerals

Fri Nov 30 11:47:33 PST 2018

My responses (as I see it) are below. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rockhounds [mailto:rockhounds-bounces at rockhounds.drizzle.com] On
Behalf Of Stephen Shimatzki
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2018 4:55 AM
To: Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list for rock and gem collectors
Subject: Re: [Rockhounds] Court Rules Fossils are Minerals

I am not a fossil guy, so i dont know what I'm talking about, but I'm
confused as to the problem with this change.   Feel free to educate me in a
polite manner with polite discussing if my questions are "dumb" or opinions
contrast to your own...

First, Wouldn't a court rule somewhere along the lines that fossils
collected before this change would be lawful to those that already own them
under old laws?

   I think not, I can't imagine that anyone could apply this ruling
retroactively. Then again I'm not a lawyer.

 I guess i just don't understand how the change puts established collections
at risk.

   I can't imagine a situation where that was the issue standing up in
court. Then again the govt. has done stupider things.

And like wise, wouldn't it Now be easier to secure "fossil rights" by
purchase from said mineral owners be it fee dig style or exclusive dig
rights?

   Not necessarily, the ruling specifically applies to an instance where the
mineral rights are not held by the landowner. In many cases the mineral
rights are owned by no one, the state, etc., or the owner will never be
located. That would be a regulatory and legal morass (which I think would be
a major contention of any appeal).

I would assume by making it a mineral, that more fossils would be recovered
to be sold to museums and collectors?

   I don't think so. If it was legally collected the discoverer could sell
it, donate it, keep it, or smash it to bits. I can't see where calling
fossils "minerals" would substantially change that.

Or is it just because museums would now have to compete for purchasing
"fossil rights"?

   That's an interesting one, there is competition to some extent already,
on private as well as public land. It's very outdated but the Marsh & Cope
"Bone Wars" are a case where the competition for museum displays (and
research) was so fierce that the two camps often snuck into each other's dig
sites at night and stole fossils from each other.

And when mineral rights are bought/sold, can they be separated out? (ie,
only oil or coal rights vs gold or fossil  rights, etc)

   Yes at least in the western states I am familiar with. They don't
automatically transfer with the sale, and I'm quite sure that many people
involved in the sale of property are dimly or not at all aware of mineral
rights. I know of specific cases where mineral rights were asserted on
common "minerals" (agate, jasper, petrified wood) by former property owners
who didn't specifically turn over the rights, and won the argument.

Again,  I'm asking for polite discussion, not hammer attacks.  :)

   Except for a rock hammer :D

- Steve

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018, 10:50 PM Kreigh Tomaszewski <kreigh at gmail.com wrote:

> I got this from a local geology professor tonight who asked me to 
> share it...
>
> I'm sure you heard of this already, the 9th circuit court ruled that 
> all fossils in Montana are now minerals. The AAAPS is working with 
> Peter Larson and an attorney to file an Amicus Brief. The goal being 
> to ask the court for an en banc hearing by a larger panel of judges 
> and get this decision overturned.
>
> I added a little pop up on my webpage for the next 20 days, linking to 
> the main article which has thee gofundme page from the AAAPS.
>
> I'm not sure if you want to do an email blast to membership, but if 
> so, I clipped some info from the main article:
>
>
> ________________
>
> A recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision reclassified fossils 
> as minerals.
> Fossils now fall under the purview of Mineral Rights, taking their 
> legal ownership from the land or property owner and placing them under 
> the domain of the property's "Mineral Rights" holder.
>
> This ruling applies to all fossils; vertebrates, invertebrates and plants.
> The
> drastic change in established law now puts academic and commercial 
> paleontologist as well as the casual fossil collector and museum 
> collections in great peril.
>
> If this ruling stands, mineral right holders will be able to file 
> lawsuits to take possession of any fossils collected on land that is 
> privately held. Many museums are in jeopardy of losing important type 
> specimens, and many wonderful fossil specimens that had been legally 
> collected, prepared and sold could be seized and forfeited.
>
> A court ruling like this can easily spill from Montana to rest of the 
> states.
>
> There are appeals to the decision being drafted, and AAPS, among other 
> groups and museums want to fight this decision. AAPS has created a Go 
> Fund Me page to raise funds to have an attorney produce and file an 
> Amicus Brief. The goal being to ask the court for an en banc hearing 
> by a larger panel of judges and get this decision overturned.
>
> To read more about this and help donate to the cause to save fossils 
> and preserve land owners rights, follow this link:
>
> https://www.aaps.net/newsletter-index.html
>
> I would note that...
>
> *Mineral* - *Wikipedia* <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral>
> https://*en.wikipedia.org <http://en.wikipedia.org>*/wiki/*Mineral*
> <
> https://www.bing.com/search?q=mineral&form=EDGTCT&qs=PF&cvid=a11a590c7
> bcd4037afec42d6420726ac&refig=ed86998bcbc34fb48696e01094d66fee&cc=US&s
> etlang=en-US&PC=MSE1#
> >
>
> A *mineral* is a naturally occurring chemical compound, usually of 
> crystalline form and not produced by life processes.A *mineral* has 
> one specific chemical composition, whereas a rock can be an aggregate 
> of different minerals or mineraloids.The study of minerals is called 
> mineralogy.. Minerals are classified by variety, species, series and 
> group, in order of increasing generality.
>
> If you have any interest in fossils you should be concerned about this 
> ruling. If you have any interest in science you should be concerned 
> about this ruling. Fossils are not minerals by scientific definition. 
> Just saying.
>
> You might want to speak up appropriately and become politically active 
> on this issue that threatens our hobby. As List Owner I don't like 
> politics, but when politics threaten the hobby it is a valid topic. 
> And I hope some of you can find a way to weigh in on the topic 
> effectively with your elected officials and the courts.
>
> Fossils are not minerals.
>
> Kreigh
> _______________________________________________
> Rockhounds mailing list
> Subscription Services:
> http://rockhounds.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds_rockhounds.d
> rizzle.com
> List Usage Policy:
> http://Tomaszewski.net/Kreigh/Rockhounds/Rockhounds.shtml
>
_______________________________________________
Rockhounds mailing list
Subscription Services:
http://rockhounds.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds_rockhounds.drizzle
.com
List Usage Policy: http://Tomaszewski.net/Kreigh/Rockhounds/Rockhounds.shtml