Bummer!

The S. 22, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 that contained the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act (PRPA) did not pass. From what I understand it was two votes short. Bummer!

© ReBecca K. Hunt-Foster

Tomorrow: Paleontological Resources Preservation Act taken up on the House floor

The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act (PRPA) will be taken up on the House floor tomorrow (Wednesday, March 11, 2009). Be sure to write your representative TODAY and encourage them to vote in favor of S. 22, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009! See my former post for  link to contact your Representative. 

I will update this story tomorrow as we find out what happens. Keep your fingers crossed!!

Amateur!!

Where does you mind go to when you hear someone, or yourself, called an amateur? Are you offended? Are you indifferent? Do you smile and say, "Yes I am, thank you!"?

A post tonight on the Perogative of Harlots blog got me thinking....For those of you who are members of the Vert Paleo Listserve you may have noticed the recent outburst of arguing (friendly debating?). For those of you who are not on the list, a bit of background: Post have been going back and forth recently about the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act [information at the SVP site can be found here]. Some members of the list are worried that this bill will take away the rights of "amateur" fossil collectors and/or think more trouble than good will come from it (rangers taking kids fossils away, rangers throwing people in jail/fining them for collecting fossils they will still be able to collect legally because the ranger is not properly trained on what can and can not be collected, peoples private property being seized if they are found to have illegally collected fossils in their possession, ect....).

I, personally, think some of these issues are making a mountain out of a molehill. They may spring from a misunderstanding of the bills wording, a misunderstanding or general lack of information/knowledge regarding current policies and practices, general suspicion of anyone who is a paid paleontologist, someone who may have had a bad (or many bad) experiences, others with (what appears to be) a very large chip on their shoulder.....this list could go on, and I just call it as I see it.

As much as you try to help them see the light or explain how things are now and what the bill will or will not change, it does not seem to mater. It is always something. And there are certain people you just cannot please, no mater what you say. They should, in my opinion, be sent the direct answers to their questions, without screwing with their head and creating a feeding their frenzy of back and forth emailing. Just answer them and let them go. If they keep pushing, hit delete. Let it go. Don't let it get to you. If people would stop pushing their 'buttons', they would stop pushing back. (Hopefully.)

My question is, WTF is the big deal with the whole "Amateur" vs. "Professional" crap anyway?

What defines a "Amateur?" What defines a "Professional?" Why do we even need to be classified? Why do people get so mad about being called one or the other!?

I am not going to refer to Wikipedia for my definitions. Why would you cite a source where you can go in and create the definition you want in the first place? Lets start with "Amateur," from Webster:

Amateur
One entry found.
Main Entry: am·a·teur
Pronunciation: \ˈa-mə-(ˌ)tər, -ˌtu̇r, -ˌtyu̇r, -ˌchu̇r, -chər\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from Latin amator lover, from amare to love
Date: 1784

1 : devotee , admirer
2 : one who engages in a pursuit, study, science, or sport as a pastime rather than as a profession
3 : one lacking in experience and competence in an art or science


Two of the three definitions here are positive! What is wrong with being a devotee of fossils?! An admirer of fossils?! One who engages in the pursuit, study, science, or sport of paleontology as a pastime rather than as a profession!? Sounds pretty sweet and stress free to me! No need to worry about what school you are going to/went to. No need to worry about getting that one to five jobs that come up in a year, competing against the 500 students who are currently members of SVP and will be looking for jobs in the very near future (not to mention all the un/underemployed PhD paleontologist out there looking for jobs). You could go on digs, collect fossils, research, anything you love that has to do with fossils at your leisure! Sounds pretty nice! And to quote an amateur "I consider myself to be a kind of dedicated amateur. I am here for the love of it." ~ Priscilla McKenna. I think that sums it up and is what it should all be about. What is so wrong with that!?

So why do people get all offended about being called an amateur? Why do they immediately have to zone in on the negative definition of the word?

and the next...

Professional
Main Entry: pro·fes·sion·al
Pronunciation: \prə-ˈfesh-nəl, -ˈfe-shə-nəl\
Function: noun
Date: 1811

one that is professional ; especially : one that engages in a pursuit or activity professionally

So basically a "professional" paleontologist is one that engages in the pursuit or activity of the studying fossils professionally. But what does the act of being professional include:

Function: adjective
Date: 1606

1 a: of, relating to, or characteristic of a profession b: engaged in one of the learned professions c (1): characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession (2): exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner in the workplace

2 a: participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs b: having a particular profession as a permanent career c: engaged in by persons receiving financial return

3: following a line of conduct as though it were a profession

So a professional engages in their learned profession, that is characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession (such as member of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology agreeing to uphold the ethics statement of the organization). Or paleontologist exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner in the workplace. Or "professional" paleontologist who make money being paleontologist and doing research/teaching/field work/pursuit/study...of paleontology. To me this does not imply that to be a "professional paleontologist" you need to be a professor or curator of a museum. Professional paleontologist, in my book, include those people, but also include the technicians, collections managers, preparators, grad students, post docs, researchers (federal, state and private), consultants -anyone who studies fossils and gets paid to do so.

I think this last definition is really what heats up the debate. From my perspective, some people are not happy that they either a) do not make money doing paleontology (they are possibly doing something they had not planned on doing/do not like/or are "just getting by" in order to make a livelihood?) or b) feel as though a individual or group of "professional" paleontologist are trying to keep them from making money doing paleontology. I do not understand where all the mean spiritedness and down right hatred comes out though, and why people feel the need to fight and argue about this. It is simple - if you feel the need to be defined as a "professional" paleontologist then get the training (though school, experience, whatever) and get a paying job doing paleontology. If it really bothers you that much. Otherwise, be cool with what you do and quite worrying what defines you (and you probably already know this).

When I look in the mirror, I do not know how to define myself. I am not even sure I need to be defined when it comes to being a paleontologist. I know that I am one, and that is all that should mater to me. I am not sure what others see when they look at me. A amateur paleontologist? I feel as though I am devoted to paleontology and admire fossils. I can fit that description. A professional paleontologist? I make my livelihood at the moment working with fossil. I hope to do this for the rest of my life. Do I have a Ph.D. No. Did I go to college to become trained and better educated in geology and paleontology. Yes. Do I have a degree. Yes. Does it mater? To some yes, to others no. I know several people in paleontology who have contributed greatly to the science and do not have advanced degrees. I look at the armies of volunteers that keep many museums afloat and contribute highly to the field. Without them paleontology would be years behind where we are now. They do not get enough recognition.

This is also not the first time, and sure to not be the last time, the "Amateur" vs. "Professional" debate will happen on the Vert Paleo List. Funny how these people will duke it out online, but get them together in a room and they do not talk about it. At the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology meetings I have attended, while all have been great, I have noticed a voluntary separation that seems to occur. Mammal people hang out with Mammal people. Triassic people hang out with other Triassic people. The Chicago people hang out with other people who went to school in Chicago. The paleo art people group up. The Ornithischian people form herds. The groupies flock after their lords......(generalizations of course).
You get the picture. Some of this is understandable. They may be colleagues you only see once or twice a year, people who have similar interest, school mates.... It is not that it is really a big deal. But if you want people to consider you "part of the group" and not some outlier (or "evil amateur") who no one wants to talk to, you have to jump in there. I wish people would talk about this "Amateur" vs. "Professional" bullshit at the meetings. Maybe meeting face to face and working this crap out would help people. Or lead to some interesting fights. But hopefully it would help, talking face to face. Maybe SVP should have a round table on that!

Why did I not post this on the Vert Paleo list? Because I do not want to bother everyone with my rambling rants like some others there do. If you made it this far, thanks for reading. Let me know what you think!!

(Sorry for the long rant. Thanks to Ville at Dots in Deep Time for the link to the video - a proud amateur himself!
Sorry to the light post as of recently (and in the near future). I have my hands full with my sick cat who I am still feeding through a tube. Hopefully when she is better I will have more time to post. )

© ReBecca K. Hunt-Foster

Final Push - the Paleontological Resource Protection Act needs your help!

The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology sent out this press release today (sorry I can not find a link on their site for it at this time):

"We’re very pleased to inform you that the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act (PRPA) is included as a part of S. 22, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. S. 22 has already passed the Senate and we understand that it will be taken up on the House floor this week.

It’s critical that you write your Representative today to urge that they vote in favor of S. 22, and that they vote against any move to amend or recommit S. 22. In order to expedite routing your letter to the correct staffer we have compiled a list with the e-mail addresses of the appropriate staffers. If you don’t know who your Rep is you can search for that information at the following link, which will also have a general e-mail address for your Rep in case we don’t have a staff contact name.

We have attached a model letter that you may use, or adapt to a more personal letter.

Please be sure your letter encourages your Representative to vote in favor of S. 22 and against any move to amend or recommit.

If you have any questions about the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act, or S. 22, please contact Patrick Leiggi, Chair of the SVP Government Affairs Committee ................"

Please take the time to send a letter to your representative!! YOUR letter could be the tipping point to get this bill passed! YOU can help make history! Your age matters not, but your opinion matters greatly! So send that letter!!

Keep your fingers crossed and your hopes high that this bill will pass! Thanks for the help! Now quite reading and go send that letter! ;)

Misinformation regarding the Paleontological Resources Preservation bill

Sorry for the disappearing act. I have been pretty busy with work this week. A story in my local news paper is spreading some incorrect information that I wanted to point out really fast. The story that came out on Monday is entitled "Paleontology provisions threaten bill that includes Dominguez conservation area" - big mean paleontology is picking on the poor conservation area eh? No. Not really. The story is referring to S. 22, Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009; Title IV, Subtitle D - Paleontological Resources Preservation, Sec. 6301 - 6312. The author of the story states "Salazar [Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo, the brother of our new Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar] said language restricting the recovery of arrowheads, fossils and other historical materials from public lands has deeply divided the House committee entrusted with approving the public-lands bill....He said unless the House can muster up a supermajority to suspend House rules and remove the language, the bill’s passage could be delayed or the entire bill could be left in limbo.

“It could be put on the back burner for who knows how long,” Salazar said....The provisions would require a permit to remove any fossils from public lands or Indian reservations and could, Salazar said, bar members of the public from searching for arrowheads or other items."

This is where I get upset. Obviously John Salazar has either a) not read the legislation or b) does not understand the difference between fossils and arrowheads, paleontology and archaeology. Either way, it is just flat out NOT GOOD!! Contrary to what is implied in the article, "arrowheads" and "historical materials" are not mentioned anywhere in the paleo bill. Also, permits will not be required to collect fossils on Indian lands by this act; in fact, Indian lands are specifically exempt from the act. Despite what the article states, permits are already required to remove significant fossils and the bill calls for codification of existing rules that allow for hobby collection of fossils.

It would be nice if the author of the article first read the legislation and pointed out these things himself. Just as much as it would have been nice if Rep. Salazar had read it (or understood it)….or if the editor of the paper had checked the facts of the story. Is this to much to ask??

So, instead of just bitching about this here, I decided to try and do something. I wrote the author and pointed out the mistakes/misinformation/misrepresentations, sent him a copy of the legislation, and suggested several paleontologist who are very knowledgeable about the bill that he could speak to if he would like to pursue the story. His response was “Thanks” and a ‘my bad’ on the “…Indians lands provision in the bill.” I appreciate his acknowledgment of my letter. I hope he will take the time to address these issues in print. I will also be sending a letter to the editor (since my phone call was not returned). If you would like to do the same, you can find his contact information here. [edit - the managing editor contacted me this morning (Wednesday) and we had a nice conversation about the bill, the problems with the story, ect.. and she said they would make corrections]

A lot of hard work has gone into getting this bill where it is now. It would be sad to see bad press and misinterpretations of the facts keep this bill from passing though the House. I really want to encourage anyone interested in paleo to please read this bill!! If you can not reach it at this link, please let me know and I will email a PDF of the information to you. It will be so much better if we are all informed about the facts and can tell others the details.

I hope the work of anti-paleo-bill lobbyist does not pay off. My *sources* tell me that there is a large group of paleontology enthusiast and paleontologist who (for reasons incomprehensible to me) want to keep this bill from passing. As far as I can tell from public comments, it has to do with a lack of understanding for what the bill is going to do [see my previous post on this for the details]. Lets hope that having money for heavy duty lobbying also does not derail this bill. I encourage you to write your congressperson and ask them to support this bill!

Thanks for reading!


© ReBecca K. Hunt-Foster

Paleontological Resources Preservation Act

Thinking back to last weeks news of fossil theft on public lands I want to remind everyone that the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act (HR 554 - McGovern MA) is still out in congress and needs to be address, not ignored and put off till hell freezes over.

This bill does not effect private land or private collections, as some fear. It does say that rare and scientifically important paleo resources found in the public domain should continue to be the property of all Americans. I understand that "amateur" fossil collectors are worries that it is going to take away their privileges, but it doesn't. It still allows for the collection of common fossil invertebrates and plants on public land, just like you can today. It will make the laws more clear and uniformed as to what can and can't be collected on public land. Do remember: this is not a bill to prohibit the sell of fossils. It does not say that you can not collect and/or sell fossils from private land. The bill is ensuring that fossils in the public sector will remain there for future generations to enjoy. It is trying to encourage partnership between everyone in the paleontology community.

The public opinion on this bill seems a little off to me. You can read some of the public comments here and see how people have been voting on their view of this bill (you can also vote, please see the poll to the right).

I would love to get everyone's opinions on this. What do you like about this bill? What do you dislike about the bill?

Lets dissect the bill (which you can read for yourself here; comments in green are my own. IF you do not want to wade though all this please scroll to the bottom of this post and read my final point.):

Section 2 of HR 554 offers and clarifies some definitions:

• (1) CASUAL COLLECTING- The term `casual collecting' means the collecting of a reasonable amount of common invertebrate and plant paleontological resources for non-commercial personal use, either by surface collection or the use of non-powered hand tools resulting in only negligible disturbance to the Earth's surface and other resources. As used in this paragraph, the terms `reasonable amount', `common invertebrate and plant paleontological resources' and `negligible disturbance' shall be determined by the Secretary.
• (6) PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE- The term `paleontological resource' means any fossilized remains, traces, or imprints of organisms, preserved in or on the earth's crust, that are of paleontological interest and that provide information about the history of life on earth, except that the term does not include--

(A) any materials associated with an archaeological resource (as defined in section 3(1) of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470bb(1)); or

(B) any cultural item (as defined in section 2 of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001)).

Section 3 clarifies the management issue of fossils found on federal land:

• In General- The Secretary [of the Interior] shall manage and protect paleontological resources on Federal lands using scientific principles and expertise. The Secretary shall develop appropriate plans for inventory, monitoring, and the scientific and educational use of paleontological resources, in accordance with applicable agency laws, regulations, and policies. These plans shall emphasize interagency coordination and collaborative efforts where possible with non-Federal partners, the scientific community, and the general public.

Section 4 would see the Secretary of the Interior establish a program to increase public awareness about the significance of paleontological resources. That is a great idea! Why would anyone disagree with this?

Section 5 talks about the collection of fossils on public lands:

(a) Permit Requirement -

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this Act, a paleontological resource may not be collected from Federal lands without a permit issued under this Act by the Secretary.

(2) CASUAL COLLECTING EXCEPTION- The Secretary may allow casual collecting without a permit on Federal lands controlled or administered by the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Forest Service, where such collection is consistent with the laws governing the management of those Federal lands and this Act. (So how is this different from now and why are people all worked up over it?)

(3) PREVIOUS PERMIT EXCEPTION- Nothing in this section shall affect a valid permit issued prior to the date of enactment of this Act.

(b) Criteria for Issuance of a Permit- The Secretary may issue a permit for the collection of a paleontological resource pursuant to an application if the Secretary determines that--

(1) the applicant is qualified to carry out the permitted activity;

(2) the permitted activity is undertaken for the purpose of furthering paleontological knowledge or for public education;

(3) the permitted activity is consistent with any management plan applicable to the Federal lands concerned; and

(4) the proposed methods of collecting will not threaten significant natural or cultural resources.

(c) Permit Specifications- A permit for the collection of a paleontological resource issued under this section shall contain such terms and conditions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act. Every permit shall include requirements that--

(1) the paleontological resource that is collected from Federal lands under the permit will remain the property of the United States;

(2) the paleontological resource and copies of associated records will be preserved for the public in an approved repository, to be made available for scientific research and public education; and

(3) specific locality data will not be released by the permittee or repository without the written permission of the Secretary.

(d) Modification, Suspension, and Revocation of Permits-

(1) The Secretary may modify, suspend, or revoke a permit issued under this section--

(A) for resource, safety, or other management considerations; or

(B) when there is a violation of term or condition of a permit issued pursuant to this section.

(2) The permit shall be revoked if any person working under the authority of the permit is convicted under section 7 or is assessed a civil penalty under section 8.

(e) Area Closures- In order to protect paleontological or other resources and to provide for public safety, the Secretary may restrict access to or close areas under the Secretary's jurisdiction to the collection of paleontological resources.

As far as keeping our federal resources within the country (c1), what is wrong with that? I say great! Other countries such as Argentina have these same requirements. c3 just gives more protection to the resource and its locality.

Section 6 speaks of the curation for the resources:

• Any paleontological resource, and any data and records associated with the resource, collected under a permit, shall be deposited in an approved repository. The Secretary may enter into agreements with non-Federal repositories regarding the curation of these resources, data, and records.

Is this not what we already do? This, once again, sounds like a great idea to me.

Section 7 talks about prohibited acts and the criminal penalties associated with them:

(a) In General- A person may not--

(1) excavate, remove, damage, or otherwise alter or deface or attempt to excavate, remove, damage, or otherwise alter or deface any paleontological resources located on Federal lands unless such activity is conducted in accordance with this Act;

(2) exchange, transport, export, receive, or offer to exchange, transport, export, or receive any paleontological resource if, in the exercise of due care, the person knew or should have known such resource to have been excavated or removed from Federal lands in violation of any provisions, rule, regulation, law, ordinance, or permit in effect under Federal law, including this Act; or

(3) sell or purchase or offer to sell or purchase any paleontological resource if, in the exercise of due care, the person knew or should have known such resource to have been excavated, removed, sold, purchased, exchanged, transported, or received from Federal lands.

(b) False Labeling Offenses- A person may not make or submit any false record, account, or label for, or any false identification of, any paleontological resource excavated or removed from Federal lands.

(c) Penalties- A person who knowingly violates or counsels, procures, solicits, or employs another person to violate subsection (a) or (b) shall, upon conviction, be fined in accordance with title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both; but if the sum of the commercial and paleontological value of the paleontological resources involved and the cost of restoration and repair of such resources does not exceed $500, such person shall be fined in accordance with title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(d) General Exception- Nothing in subsection (a) shall apply to any person with respect to any paleontological resource which was in the lawful possession of such person prior to the date of the enactment of this Act.

Section 7a1, is EXACTLY what happened to the Hanksville-Burpee site! Section 7b is a wonderful addition. This will get you fired in most places (or it should if you know you are doing it and it is wrong) and is known to have happened in the past*. It would be nice to have a law that would actually deal with these offenses with the appropriate penalties.

*(one well publicized case from 2005/2006 where a geology professor was alleged to be doing these types of practices comes to mind. Does anyone know if there was ever a finding in this case from the SVP ethics board or the museum in question?).

Section 8 talks about the civil penalties:
(a) In General-

(1) HEARING- A person who violates any prohibition contained in an applicable regulation or permit issued under this Act may be assessed a penalty by the Secretary after the person is given notice and opportunity for a hearing with respect to the violation. Each violation shall be considered a separate offense for purposes of this section.

(2) AMOUNT OF PENALTY- The amount of such penalty assessed under paragraph (1) shall be determined under regulations promulgated pursuant to this Act, taking into account the following factors:

(A) The scientific or fair market value, whichever is greater, of the paleontological resource involved, as determined by the Secretary.

(B) The cost of response, restoration, and repair of the resource and the paleontological site involved.

(C) Any other factors considered relevant by the Secretary assessing the penalty.

(3) MULTIPLE OFFENSES- In the case of a second or subsequent violation by the same person, the amount of a penalty assessed under paragraph (2) may be doubled.

(4) LIMITATION- The amount of any penalty assessed under this subsection for any one violation shall not exceed an amount equal to double the cost of response, restoration, and repair of resources and paleontological site damage plus double the scientific or fair market value of resources destroyed or not recovered.

(b) Petition for Judicial Review; Collection of Unpaid Assessments-

(1) JUDICIAL REVIEW- Any person against whom an order is issued assessing a penalty under subsection (a) may file a petition for judicial review of the order in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or in the district in which the violation is alleged to have occurred within the 30-day period beginning on the date the order making the assessment was issued. Upon notice of such filing, the Secretary shall promptly file such a certified copy of the record on which the order was issued. The court shall hear the action on the record made before the Secretary and shall sustain the action if it is supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.

(2) FAILURE TO PAY- If any person fails to pay a penalty under this section within 30 days--

(A) after the order making assessment has become final and the person has not filed a petition for judicial review of the order in accordance with paragraph (1); or

(B) after a court in an action brought in paragraph (1) has entered a final judgment upholding the assessment of the penalty, the Secretary may request the Attorney General to institute a civil action in a district court of the United States for any district in which the person if found, resides, or transacts business, to collect the penalty (plus interest at currently prevailing rates from the date of the final order or the date of the final judgment, as the case may be). The district court shall have jurisdiction to hear and decide any such action. In such action, the validity, amount, and appropriateness of such penalty shall not be subject to review. Any person who fails to pay on a timely basis the amount of an assessment of a civil penalty as described in the first sentence of this paragraph shall be required to pay, in addition to such amount and interest, attorneys fees and costs for collection proceedings.

(c) Hearings- Hearings held during proceedings instituted under subsection (a) shall be conducted in accordance with section 554 of title 5, United States Code.

(d) Use of Recovered Amounts- Penalties collected under this section shall be available to the Secretary and without further appropriation may be used only as follows:

(1) To protect, restore, or repair the paleontological resources and sites which were the subject of the action, or to acquire sites with equivalent resources, and to protect, monitor, and study the resources and sites. Any acquisition shall be subject to any limitations contained in the organic legislation for such Federal lands.

(2) To provide educational materials to the public about paleontological resources and sites.

(3) To provide for the payment of rewards as provided in section 9.

Once you wade through all the jargon, section 8 seems fair. Am I incorrect?

Section 9 talks about rewards and forfeiture.
Section 10 talks about confidentiality:

• Information concerning the nature and specific location of a paleontological resource the collection of which requires a permit under this Act or under any other provision of Federal law shall be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code, and any other law unless the Secretary determines that disclosure would--

(1) further the purposes of this Act;

(2) not create risk of harm to or theft or destruction of the resource or the site containing the resource; and

(3) be in accordance with other applicable laws.

Section 11 explains the regulations: "As soon as practical after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue such regulations as are appropriate to carry out this Act, providing opportunities for public notice and comment."
Section 12 gives savings provisions:

• Nothing in this Act shall be construed to--

(1) invalidate, modify, or impose any additional restrictions or permitting requirements on any activities permitted at any time under the general mining laws, the mineral or geothermal leasing laws, laws providing for minerals materials disposal, or laws providing for the management or regulation of the activities authorized by the aforementioned laws including but not limited to the Federal Land Policy Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1701-1784), Public Law 94-429 (commonly known as the `Mining in the Parks Act') (16 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.), the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201-1358), and the Organic Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 478, 482, 551);

(2) invalidate, modify, or impose any additional restrictions or permitting requirements on any activities permitted at any time under existing laws and authorities relating to reclamation and multiple uses of Federal lands;

(3) apply to, or require a permit for, casual collecting of a rock, mineral, or invertebrate or plant fossil that is not protected under this Act;

(4) affect any lands other than Federal lands or affect the lawful recovery, collection, or sale of paleontological resources from lands other than Federal lands;

(5) alter or diminish the authority of a Federal agency under any other law to provide protection for paleontological resources on Federal lands in addition to the protection provided under this Act; or

(6) create any right, privilege, benefit, or entitlement for any person who is not an officer or employee of the United States acting in that capacity. No person who is not an officer or employee of the United States acting in that capacity shall have standing to file any civil action in a court of the United States to enforce any provision or amendment made by this Act.

Aren't 3 and 4 of section 12 what some folks are worried the result of this bill will be? That any kid will not be able to collect a fossil from their land or some other private land? I would hope this would be a thing people would be happy about.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess this is the point where you make a decission. I would like to encourage you to write your representative regarding the bill so they know that folks are at least interested in it, and to try to get it moving again in congress. The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology is in support of this bill, and if you are also, you can download a model letter here to send to your Senator and Representative here.

If you are not sure who your representative is you can use the search function here (upper left hand side).