|
Posted
June
21,
2004
Comments
on
the
Paleontological
Resources
Preservation
Act
Occasionally
there
are
bills
that
have
good
intentions
but
unintended
consequences
that
make
them
“bad
bills.”
The
Paleontological
Resources
Preservation
Act
is
one
of
these
bills.
Following
is
a
letter
sent
to
the
House
Resources
Committee
by
ICMJ’s
Prospecting
and
Mining
Journal.
If
you
agree
with
our
stance,
I
would
encourage
you
to
submit
your
own
letter
to
the
House
Resources
Committee,
and
to
your
state
representatives.
Letters
to
the
House
Resources
Committee
may
also
be
faxed:
(202)
226-4631.
June
16,
2004
House
Resources
Committee
Hon.
Chairman
Richard
W.
Pombo
1333
Longworth
House
Office
Building
Washington,
DC
20515
The
Honorable
Chairman
Richard
W.
Pombo,
The
Paleontological
Resources
Preservation
Act
aims
to
curtail
the
public
from
collecting
dinosaur
bones
and
other
ancient
artifacts,
but
will
also
snare
some
unintended
victims
like
miners,
prospectors,
rockhounds,
and
everyday
families
out
enjoying
our
National
Forests.
HR
2416
and
its
companion
bill
in
the
Senate,
S
546,
would
provide
for
civil
penalties
including
forfeiture
of
equipment
and
vehicles
used
at
the
time
of
the
offense.
The
bills
attempt
to
address
mining
by
stating,
“Nothing
in
the
Act
shall
be
construed
to
invalidate,
modify,
or
impose
any
additional
restrictions
or
permitting
requirements
on
any
activities
permitted
at
any
time
under
the
general
mining
laws…”
It
also
excludes
“casual
collecting
of
rocks
and
minerals
for
personal
use”
in
National
Forests.
There
are
unintended
consequences
that
will
become
reality
if
HR
2416
passes.
For
example,
let’s
say
a
person
is
performing
discovery
work
to
try
to
determine
whether
a
location
is
worthy
of
filing
a
mining
claim,
or
a
rockhound
is
collecting
some
interesting
specimens,
and
accidentally
uncovers
one
of
these
paleontological
resources.
An
enforcement
officer
who
discovers
this
situation,
at
his
or
her
discretion,
could
confiscate
the
equipment
and
the
vehicle
in
use
by
the
person
or
family
at
the
time
of
the
“offense.”
These
bills
would
create
a
civil
penalty.
The
government
does
not
have
to
prove
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
that
a
person
intended
to
take
a
protected
resource.
The
government
would
only
have
to
convince
a
judge
or
jury
that
it
was
more
likely
than
not
(51%)
that
a
person
intended
to
disturb
or
take
a
protected
resource
in
order
to
keep
their
possessions.
This
law
would
accidentally
snare
people
who
are
not
experts
in
identifying
these
protected
artifacts.
Even
if
a
person
eventually
prevails
in
their
case,
their
family
would
be
without
the
use
of
the
equipment
and
vehicle
until
the
case
is
adjudicated,
which
could
be
months
or
even
years,
creating
an
extreme
hardship
in
many
cases.
The
government
would
likely
try
to
obtain
a
guilty
plea
in
exchange
for
a
reduced
penalty
or
the
return
of
some
of
the
personal
property,
which
many
innocent
citizens
would
accept
to
avoid
the
cost
and
inconvenience
of
a
trial.
Some
bills
have
good
intentions
but
unacceptable
repercussions.
This
is
one
of
those
bills.
The
bill
has
already
cleared
the
Senate,
and
now
is
in
the
hands
of
the
House
of
Representatives.
I
encourage
you
to
reject
HR
2416
to
prevent
innocent
Americans
from
suffering
unintended
consequences
that
this
bill
cannot
prevent.
Thank
you,
Scott
Harn
Editor/Publisher
ICMJ’s
Prospecting
and
Mining
Journal
|
or
.