Ontario couple finds 400-year-old skeleton, gets $5,000 bill...

Mods, if in the wrong place please feel free to move.

I don't even know how to respond to stupidity like laws such as this!!

Ontario police, who cordoned off the area, called up forensic anthropologist Michael Spence to examine the site. Spence told the Star that the skeleton is likely that of a 24-year-old aboriginal woman who died in the late 1500s or early 1600s. Spence then contacted the Registrar of Cemeteries, which told Sauve that she and Campbell would have to hire an archeologist to examine the rest of the backyard—at their expense.

According to the Star, property owners are legally responsible to pay for such an assessment "if human remains are found on their land."

At the property owners expense!!?? Who would seriously call the law if you found something like a skeleton in your backyard if you know you have to pay to have it escavated?

This is absolutely nuts!! Seems Canada has just as stupid of laws that we have in the US!

Stuck with a $5,000 bill, Sauve appealed to the mayor of Sarnia but has yet to get a clear answer about whether the government will pay. According to the Star, she might be able to make a request to the Registrar of Cemeteries to cover the costs.

This below is exactly what I am thinking also, unfortunately!!

Sauve told the Star that people have been telling her if they wind up in a similar situation, they won’t risk getting a bill by telling the authorities about their finds.


“This is awful,” said Sauve. “God forbid you have a murder victim, and you cover them up.”

What do you think about this ATS? Would you call the law if you found this in your backyard? I wouldn't want to get the government on my property to find something significant and claim it as theirs as I pay the freaking bill for them to do so!! That is my opinion on this crazy matter, how about you?


ETA: here is the link to the story.....news.yahoo.com...

eminent domain
no thanks

reply to post by Chrisfishenstein


I totally agree in Canada our laws are a stupid as yours. That goes for the rest of the world as well.
--
This is ridiculous. They should charge admittance to see the skeleton. 5$ a piece.
"Step Right up! Step right up! Get you picture taken with the amazing skeleton."
As long as chairs don't start moving around the house by themselves I think they'll be ok. Plus it's probably tax deductible so they'll most likely get a little bit of $$ back.

I read about something similar years ago.
A couple found a skeleton in their yard, and had to pay the expense for forensics and reburial.
It cost them thousands.

I knew then, that if I ever dig up a skelaton with a tractor or something, it's getting covered up quickly.
I'll say a few blessing type words, and a tree will get planted on them.....

reply to post by Chrisfishenstein


they should contact the local tribes
who'll take care of the matter

screw any archaeological value it may have

if they're interested they can deal
with the tribal elders and any expenses

Surely the word is out all over Canada about future incidents like this...

If you find bones, pull the ground back over the remains and keep silent.

Are there other counties besides Canada with laws like this?:

Sauve said others have told her that her story mean if they have a similar situation, they won't tell authorities and risk having such an expense. "God forbid you have a murder victim, and you cover them up. Never will that person be brought home; never will their family have closure," she said. www.breitbart.com...

I got an idea...

How about put the skeleton back and F off!
You want the bones and to dig up my yard, then you pay or find someone else to pay, otherwise, that s**t can go right back where it came from.

I bet if it was Spanish gold or some such artifact, the Government would confiscate it. Probably tax you for it too.

Questionable motivations here. If I were told to pay 5000$ for something like that I would make a huge mess.
I'm talking one-man protests in the middle of the highway, one-man occupation of city hall etc.

I would take this as far as I could go

They did the right thing so in return they get punished?
I would feel obligated to find a way to get 5000$ out of them back.

I learned not to call anyone if I find a skeleton.

Worse than my doctors bill.

geez.

Originally posted by snowspirit
I read about something similar years ago.
A couple found a skeleton in their yard, and had to pay the expense for forensics and reburial.
It cost them thousands.

I knew then, that if I ever dig up a skelaton with a tractor or something, it's getting covered up quickly.
I'll say a few blessing type words, and a tree will get planted on them.....

Trust me, the archaeological community is all over this. The law is set up so that developers need to pay to mitigate any potential impact upon archaeological resources...which are protected under several layers of legislation. This particular circumstance slips between some cracks that exist around at least 3 different ministries. I am pushing for change that will relieve the simple homeowner of worrying over this...let you know how it works out.

Originally posted by ShadowLink
I got an idea... that s**t can go right back where it came from.

Not everyone considers it 's**t'. The laws are in place to deal with those who do.

Body??? What body??? Never heard a one 'round here anyway.

Seriously though, let the poor woman rest in the ground. I'm guessing the folks who found her thought they were doing the right thing but this sends the wrong message: Contact the authorities and get screwed.

Question: why does it need to be examined? If it turns out to be some big time archaeological find, can the folks who found her open a museum? Charge admission? Or does it go to the state/tribe?

Originally posted by ShadowLink
I got an idea... that s**t can go right back where it came from.

Not everyone considers it 's**t'. The laws are in place to deal with those who do.



Are you saying this law is in place to entice people to do the right thing and report that they found a skeleton in their yard?

Important find or not, I'll be dammed if I'm gonna flip the bill to fund a dig in my back yard cause some archaeologists want to learn more about it.

I'm all for archeology and history, but if its in MY yard and you want to learn more about it, then YOU fund the dig.

As they say "Some things are better left unsaid/unseen". If people knew they would have to pay such a large sum for something such as this I bet 9 out of 10 people would throw it back in the hole and not say anything.

Simple, charge admission to the property and damages to the landscaping to them. Should be about $5,000 if my math is right

Originally posted by ShadowLink
Are you saying this law is in place to entice people to do the right thing and report that they found a skeleton in their yard?
Important find or not, I'll be dammed if I'm gonna flip the bill to fund a dig in my back yard cause some archaeologists want to learn more about it.

What's important is that they are human remains. First order of business is to ascertain whether they are forensic or archaeological in nature. Examinations have to be done and reports have to be written. Even if it is archaeological, the area needs to be tested further...is this a single grave or an ossuary? The First Nations need to be consulted and the extent of the site determines what further actions are taken. This is not about 'an important find.' This is about treating human remains with the dignity they deserve, and the laws apply accordingly. Protection of archaeological resources is also law in Ontario. Not to mention that you can ignore the situation, but if you sell your property and it can be shown that you were aware of, but did not report a burial on your property, you can be sued by the purchaser.

Don't forget...laws regarding burials also dictate whether or not some developer can dig up your Granny's remains all willy-nilly because they are inconveniently located where he wants to plop down a subdivision. Further, talk to any aboriginal person. There is a whole different culture around the treatment of 'the Ancestors', and the lands in which they are buried. All this needs to be taken into account in matters like this.

I fully agree that it is wrong for homeowners to be expected to pay for finding themselves in such circumstances. I have already started pushing for changes to be made to the laws. One should not be out of pocket for the crime of doing the right thing.

It's a smart tactic by the Canadian Government.....gotta hide the fact that someone else once lived in Canada and they had to be slaughtered off by the White Invaders.

Keeps all the truth out of history books. Get the public to fear announcing they found a mass grave full of Indians.....that were slaughtered off by their ancestors under the King of England.

Why do Canadian's call them "aboriginals".....they're Indians. "Aboriginals" are the native people of Australia....the other holocaust of the English Empire.

Dang....they better pay.....yep, they better just pay it....the city needs the money, obviously...the money hungry _______'s

reply to post by TheMagus


How about no? The whole concept of tribal reburial of discovered remains is absolutely repellent to me, because it leads to things of tremendous archaeological value being quite literally buried. Read up on the controversies surrounding Kennewick man and Buhl woman to see what I mean.

reply to post by Chrisfishenstein


At least I am not on my own here with my thoughts on this matter. It seems everyone agrees with how big of a joke this stupid law is in the first place!

Is there anyone out there that agrees with billing the person who owns the land? If so, why?

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
reply to post by TheMagus

 

How about no? The whole concept of tribal reburial of discovered remains is absolutely repellent to me, because it leads to things of tremendous archaeological value being quite literally buried. Read up on the controversies surrounding Kennewick man and Buhl woman to see what I mean.

then let the archaeologists pay for it, as for the concept of tribal reburial absolutely repellent, i'm sure you'd feel different if it was your grandma, funny how the tribes opinion doesn't matter. i believe pervius may have something there. the current bunch of mobsters running canada inc. seem to be of a very similar bent as those intent on cultural genocide [if not physical ]. no doubt to get their grubby,greasy hands on any recources on their lands.

when that douchebag dumped tons of rust into the sea last year [to make a bundle in carbon credits], screwing the local tribe out of their money and fishing grounds, he did so with the full cooperation and knowledge of the government.

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
The whole concept of tribal reburial of discovered remains is absolutely repellent to me, because it leads to things of tremendous archaeological value being quite literally buried. Read up on the controversies surrounding Kennewick man and Buhl woman to see what I mean.

The situations that you refer to came out of the US. They have different legal obligations under NAGPRA. Also, consultation with the First Nations is now mandatory under the standards and guidelines that govern Ontario archaeology. Not every artifact, not every burial is academically significant beyond indicating what went on where, and when. Most analysis is forensic, if further archaeological testing is desired, it is done with the permission of the FN.

There is a belief, at least among the Anishnaabe, that one spirit leaves the body upon death, and one stays with the earthly remains. Respect for that spirit is very important to them, and it is in exercising that respect that archaeologists are often allowed opportunities for further research if warranted. The remains behind this current discussion have told their story, and there is no reason for them to be kept in a box on a museum or university shelf. But it is in showing the appropriate respect as a rule that exceptions can be negotiated. These days, more FN are getting into the field, as well, so it is not so much of an 'us and them' scenario.

This is no simple topic, but what is simple is that the average Joe should not be financially crippled due to the discovery that he is not the first to use his lands.