Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Remember This?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    CMD wrote:

    Thanks, guys. I guess if there are scientists who have seen it and he made statements to them as to where it was found, he would have a problem if he tried to sell it. Yet, the state is not making an effort to seize it from him, are they? He has it in his possession in a safe place, or even under his bed for all I know. If it does not belong to him to sell, why is he allowed to keep it at all? Sounds like the state would be content for him to own it, but would not let him transfer ownership to another private party? Just doesn't make any sense to me. Why isn't the state demanding the return of this fossil/artifact? Why can they stop it's sale, but not just claim it right now? If he has given statements to witnesses that he found it in state waters or on state land, then why no effort to take it away from him?
    The provenance is Vero Beach.The exact location might not be fully known but to me that's understandable. We have to keep in mind the finder was an amateur fossil hunter and probably has found thousands of fossils, we should also keep in mind that for him to find a vertebrate fossil was not at all unusual and I'm sure he didn't record the exact location.The finder didn't even know what he had until he decided to clean it a couple years later.We also should bear in mind how many fossils are to be had in Florida,in some places you can just walk around and pick them up.The state cant seize it because it's not there's to seize.The guy had a fossil permit so it's his to keep, again it's not illegal to hunt fossils on land owned or leased by the state of Florida.

    Comment


    • #17
      [QUOTE]Bolen Bevel 1 wrote:

      Originally posted by CMD post=99871
      Thanks, guys. I guess if there are scientists who have seen it and he made statements to them as to where it was found, he would have a problem if he tried to sell it. Yet, the state is not making an effort to seize it from him, are they? He has it in his possession in a safe place, or even under his bed for all I know. If it does not belong to him to sell, why is he allowed to keep it at all? Sounds like the state would be content for him to own it, but would not let him transfer ownership to another private party? Just doesn't make any sense to me. Why isn't the state demanding the return of this fossil/artifact? Why can they stop it's sale, but not just claim it right now? If he has given statements to witnesses that he found it in state waters or on state land, then why no effort to take it away from him?
      The provenance is Vero Beach.The exact location might not be fully known but to me that's understandable. We have to keep in mind the finder was an amateur fossil hunter and probably has found thousands of fossils, we should also keep in mind that for him to find a vertebrate fossil was not at all unusual and I'm sure he didn't record the exact location.The finder didn't even know what he had until he decided to clean it a couple years later.We also should bear in mind how many fossils are to be had in Florida,in some places you can just walk around and pick them up.The state cant seize it because it's not there's to seize.The guy had a fossil permit so it's his to keep, again it's not illegal to hunt fossils on land owned or leased by the state of Florida.
        OK, then Bill is wrong, he does not own stolen property. But, because it's a vertebrate fossil, he may not be able to sell it. I guess that's a bind as you described. Thanks....
      Rhode Island

      Comment


      • #18
        [QUOTE]CMD wrote:

        [quote=Bolen Bevel 1 post=99902]
        Originally posted by CMD post=99871
        Thanks, guys. I guess if there are scientists who have seen it and he made statements to them as to where it was found, he would have a problem if he tried to sell it. Yet, the state is not making an effort to seize it from him, are they? He has it in his possession in a safe place, or even under his bed for all I know. If it does not belong to him to sell, why is he allowed to keep it at all? Sounds like the state would be content for him to own it, but would not let him transfer ownership to another private party? Just doesn't make any sense to me. Why isn't the state demanding the return of this fossil/artifact? Why can they stop it's sale, but not just claim it right now? If he has given statements to witnesses that he found it in state waters or on state land, then why no effort to take it away from him?
        The provenance is Vero Beach.The exact location might not be fully known but to me that's understandable. We have to keep in mind the finder was an amateur fossil hunter and probably has found thousands of fossils, we should also keep in mind that for him to find a vertebrate fossil was not at all unusual and I'm sure he didn't record the exact location.The finder didn't even know what he had until he decided to clean it a couple years later.We also should bear in mind how many fossils are to be had in Florida,in some places you can just walk around and pick them up.The state cant seize it because it's not there's to seize.The guy had a fossil permit so it's his to keep, again it's not illegal to hunt fossils on land owned or leased by the state of Florida.
          OK, then Bill is wrong, he does not own stolen property. But, because it's a vertebrate fossil, he may not be able to sell it. I guess that's a bind as you described. Thanks....
        Believe me, if the state of Florida thought they had a case for it being illegally obtained they would have no problem serving him a warrant and confiscating the bone.The burden of proof that he's done anything illegal falls upon the shoulders of the state.

        Comment


        • #19
          There will be a search for more Ice Age art at the Vero Man site:
          http://www.oviasc.org/
          Rhode Island

          Comment


          • #20
            I understand Bolen's point, I also hunt for fossils here in Florida and know the rules.  I also understand why the finder might not be able to pinpoint the exact find location of an otherwise normal chuck of fossil a couple of years after finding it.
            That said, if the carving was made by man, and is as old as claimed, then it's clearly an artifact found under water within the last few years...  I'm surprised Florida hasn't made a grab for it.
            Hong Kong, but from Indiana/Florida

            Comment


            • #21
              clovisoid wrote:

              I understand Bolen's point, I also hunt for fossils here in Florida and know the rules.  I also understand why the finder might not be able to pinpoint the exact find location of an otherwise normal chuck of fossil a couple of years after finding it.
              That said, if the carving was made by man, and is as old as claimed, then it's clearly an artifact found under water within the last few years...  I'm surprised Florida hasn't made a grab for it.
              Altered by man=artifact.......Must have been found on private property.

              Comment


              • #22
                Bill is correct because it isn't not a fossil. It was inscribed by man, so it is an artifact.
                Florida owns it and Clovisoid is right!
                It is illegal to sell property an individual does not own.

                Comment


                • #23
                  clovisoid wrote:

                  I understand Bolen's point, I also hunt for fossils here in Florida and know the rules.  I also understand why the finder might not be able to pinpoint the exact find location of an otherwise normal chuck of fossil a couple of years after finding it.
                  That said, if the carving was made by man, and is as old as claimed, then it's clearly an artifact found under water within the last few years...  I'm surprised Florida hasn't made a grab for it.
                    Thanks, Joshua. I'm wondering why they haven't tried to take the 2nd one either, unless they already have. The episode of America Unearthed is to air around Christmas. I'll be curious to see if the 2nd one is shown. Under the circumstances, surprised the collector talked about it at all.
                  Keith did say:
                  "Believe me, if the state of Florida thought they had a case for it being illegally obtained they would have no problem serving him a warrant and confiscating the bone.The burden of proof that he's done anything illegal falls upon the shoulders of the state"
                    I wish he had posted a photo before he thought about it. Wish him no ill, just hope that particular fossil is OK.  It was extremely hard to see the first one, the photos made it more obvious then it really was according to the finder.  A fossil and an artifact is the best of both worlds to some collectors and that first one certainly qualified as one of the best such fossil/artifacts going.
                  Rhode Island

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Charlie,  try and remind us here when the program will be on.  I will never remember by then.
                    Gary
                    South Dakota

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Well, that does upset me some, but on a lighter note, I did find this awesome arrowhead with an engraving on it...and a picture too.... Those Indians do have humor...
                             :rolf:  :rolf:  :rolf:  :rolf:  :rolf:  :rolf:

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X