8 ms·

The lost saga of Fossil Cycad National Monument (2017)

93 points by robg 3y ago

throwawaysleep 3y ago
Scientists who took things to universities did the world a favour. The government had no serious plans for the fossils and over time everything would have been stolen by tourists.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  > Scientists who took things to universities did the world a favour. I want to refine that to scientists taking things to display publicly - and in the same country.
  - boondoggle16 3y ago
    >and in the same country. Today's borders aren't yesterdays borders. How should we decide what's fair? Or should relics stay with their ethnic creators, along racial lines?
    - lasc4r 3y ago
      That should probably be the default unless there's a compelling reason not to since they have the best claim to historical and cultural importance.
    - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
      > Or should relics stay with their ethnic creators, along racial lines? That works. We seem to be zeroing in.
  - throwawaysleep 3y ago
    Anyone who took anything to any kind of institution, public or private, in country or out, helped out here. Tons of these in private hands probably got thrown away as boring old rocks. And why would same country matter for something this old?
    - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
      > And why would same country matter for something this old? It would matter to the host scientists studying their regional phenomenon.
melling 3y ago
Plymouth Rock is half its original size. Tourists used to take a piece. https://www.frommers.com/destinations/plymouth-ma/attractions/plymouth-rock#:~:text=Tradition%20tells%20us%20that%20the,chipping%20away%20by%20souvenir%20hunters https://www.frommers.com/destinations/plymouth-ma/attraction.... The tourist who carved his name into the Colosseum didn’t realize how old it was? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/05/english-tourist-accused-of-carving-name-in-colosseum-says-he-did-not-realise-its-age https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/05/english-touris... Then we have someone knocking over this rock: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna56596 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna56596 It only takes a few people to ruin it. Perhaps we shouldn’t be so forgiving.
- wyre 3y ago
  >knocking over this rock 5 years of time to only few thousand dollars in fines? Infuriating
  - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
    > Infuriating Idiots together should make anyone itch.
- lfowles 3y ago
  Giving the Colosseum tourist the benefit of the doubt, maybe they thought that was a relatively "modern day" section they were carving their name on?
  - WirelessGigabit 3y ago
    I disagree. Carving your name into something is disgusting.
    - Aloha 3y ago
      Perhaps, but we study roman graffiti where people from antiquity did the same thing, like, I get that its bad and should not be condoned but tourists have been carving their name into this thing for thousands of years.
irrational 3y ago
> As scientists and NPS representatives looked on, the workers dug a half dozen pits, revealing piles upon piles of previously unexposed fossils, over one ton of material. I have to presume that there are still tons of unexposed fossils on site still today, right?
- Accujack 3y ago
  I don't know about "tons" but Wikipedia says a highway built in 1980 revealed more fossils on the site.
Xcelerate 3y ago
I think I read a comment on HN recently about people buying up land to conserve it via private organizations rather than the government. The government might sell it in times of hardship, but with multiple non-profit organizations responsible for maintaining the land, their mission would be less likely to be compromised by other national interests.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  I wonder if there's any evidence to support that. It's equally easy to imagine that a private organization is statistically much more likely to go into debt due to well-intentioned bad management decisions, go bankrupt, and have its land sold to the highest bidder. In the end, it might depend a lot on which government and which type of private org we're talking about.
  - dghlsakjg 3y ago
    I think a lot of these organizations have set themselves up in a way that if they cease to exist, the land isn’t available as an asset for private sale.
    - pavel_lishin 3y ago
      How does that work? If the organization goes bankrupt, or ceases to exist, how would the land not be treated as an asset?
      - Guvante 3y ago
        You can sell or give away the right to develop the land. Similar to HoAs you can restrict the usage of your land and as long as someone else holds the keys to unlocking that usage it will survive bankruptcy. The title would retain the restrictions. It needs to be an entity due to no rules from private entities lasting forever, by making some entity control the release it isn't you deciding to persist but them. It isn't foolproof of course but avoids the simplest failure modes.
      - 3y ago
amelius 3y ago
Was hoping to one day own a fozzilized tourist that attempted to steal a fossil.
down_vote_me 3y ago
[flagged]
Eumenes 3y ago
Fortunately, from my experience, most "visitors" to National Parks, simply drive around and take photos from scenic views. I suspect if trail and off-trail traffic increased, we'd hear alot more stories like this.
justinator 3y ago
Aren't most National Parks on stolen land?
- bshipp 3y ago
  Go back far enough and you'll discover that, at some point in the past, all land was one taken through force without compensation by one conqueror or another.
  - justinator 3y ago
    And you support this? Because we're not talking about 10,000 years ago, we're talking < 200 years ago, with our government, that were made up of people who are only 1 or 3 generations before us, which in kind, impact people you can talk to yourself, today. The same way you think could potentially also justify the history of slavery in the United States as being a historical wrinkle. And if that's what you want to do: great, but know I'm not on your side of history.
    - boondoggle16 3y ago
      who gets to keep it? who did the asians kill in america 15k years ago?
    - bshipp 3y ago
      It has nothing to do with me supporting those actions two centuries ago. I'm just describing history. Were the same tribes in charge of the same land for the past 10000 years, or did borders fluctuate depending on intertribal wars for resources? Acting like the Iroquois and Algonquins (or substitute any other aboriginal tribes with adjacent borders, for that matter) didn't spend hundreds of years slaughtering each other for territory before they were both deposed by the European invaders is a little naive. So who, precisely, is supposed to get the "stolen" land back? EDIT: just to be clear, I'm not advocating that first nation's are not due compensation or allowances for the loss of their lands, nor that slavery must be swept under a rug. On the contrary, we must look for the root causes of social unrest/upheaval and meet them head on. But you're not providing any practical courses of action that should be undertaken.
justinator 3y ago
I'm not sure this was ever a National Park, but rather a National Monument. Pedantic maybe: but National Monuments can be declared by the President under the Antiquities Act (and it seems under Trump easy to be demoted), a Park is a little harder to establish.
dang 3y ago
I replaced the baity title with a slightly less baity phrase from the article itself. If someone can come up with a better one (i.e. more accurate and neutral, and preferably using text from the article), we can change it again. (This is in the site guidelines: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait" - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
somat 3y ago
I saw the bone quarry a few years ago, it quite literally took my breath away, one of the most amazing things I have ever seen in person. I am not sure what I was expecting, but it was not that. However, it is only one quarter of what it started out as. Vast swaths of it were removed. Mainly for museums, which is.. ok, I guess. But I am a bit sad thinking about what could have been preserved. While as the same time thankful they were able to keep as much of as they did in one piece. Incidentally "The bone quarry" is on my short list for most metal place names. https://www.nps.gov/dino/planyourvisit/quarry-exhibit-hall.htm https://www.nps.gov/dino/planyourvisit/quarry-exhibit-hall.h...

93 points by robg 3y ago

Scientists who took things to universities did the world a favour. The government had no serious plans for the fossils and over time everything would have been stolen by tourists.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
> Scientists who took things to universities did the world a favour. I want to refine that to scientists taking things to display publicly - and in the same country.
- boondoggle16 3y ago
  >and in the same country. Today's borders aren't yesterdays borders. How should we decide what's fair? Or should relics stay with their ethnic creators, along racial lines?
  - lasc4r 3y ago
    That should probably be the default unless there's a compelling reason not to since they have the best claim to historical and cultural importance.
  - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
    > Or should relics stay with their ethnic creators, along racial lines? That works. We seem to be zeroing in.
- throwawaysleep 3y ago
  Anyone who took anything to any kind of institution, public or private, in country or out, helped out here. Tons of these in private hands probably got thrown away as boring old rocks. And why would same country matter for something this old?
  - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
    > And why would same country matter for something this old? It would matter to the host scientists studying their regional phenomenon.

melling 3y ago

Plymouth Rock is half its original size. Tourists used to take a piece. https://www.frommers.com/destinations/plymouth-ma/attractions/plymouth-rock#:~:text=Tradition%20tells%20us%20that%20the,chipping%20away%20by%20souvenir%20hunters https://www.frommers.com/destinations/plymouth-ma/attraction.... The tourist who carved his name into the Colosseum didn’t realize how old it was? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/05/english-tourist-accused-of-carving-name-in-colosseum-says-he-did-not-realise-its-age https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/05/english-touris... Then we have someone knocking over this rock: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna56596 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna56596 It only takes a few people to ruin it. Perhaps we shouldn’t be so forgiving.

wyre 3y ago
>knocking over this rock 5 years of time to only few thousand dollars in fines? Infuriating
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  > Infuriating Idiots together should make anyone itch.
lfowles 3y ago
Giving the Colosseum tourist the benefit of the doubt, maybe they thought that was a relatively "modern day" section they were carving their name on?
- WirelessGigabit 3y ago
  I disagree. Carving your name into something is disgusting.
  - Aloha 3y ago
    Perhaps, but we study roman graffiti where people from antiquity did the same thing, like, I get that its bad and should not be condoned but tourists have been carving their name into this thing for thousands of years.

irrational 3y ago

> As scientists and NPS representatives looked on, the workers dug a half dozen pits, revealing piles upon piles of previously unexposed fossils, over one ton of material. I have to presume that there are still tons of unexposed fossils on site still today, right?

Accujack 3y ago
I don't know about "tons" but Wikipedia says a highway built in 1980 revealed more fossils on the site.

Xcelerate 3y ago

I think I read a comment on HN recently about people buying up land to conserve it via private organizations rather than the government. The government might sell it in times of hardship, but with multiple non-profit organizations responsible for maintaining the land, their mission would be less likely to be compromised by other national interests.

crazygringo 3y ago
I wonder if there's any evidence to support that. It's equally easy to imagine that a private organization is statistically much more likely to go into debt due to well-intentioned bad management decisions, go bankrupt, and have its land sold to the highest bidder. In the end, it might depend a lot on which government and which type of private org we're talking about.
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  I think a lot of these organizations have set themselves up in a way that if they cease to exist, the land isn’t available as an asset for private sale.
  - pavel_lishin 3y ago
    How does that work? If the organization goes bankrupt, or ceases to exist, how would the land not be treated as an asset?
    - Guvante 3y ago
      You can sell or give away the right to develop the land. Similar to HoAs you can restrict the usage of your land and as long as someone else holds the keys to unlocking that usage it will survive bankruptcy. The title would retain the restrictions. It needs to be an entity due to no rules from private entities lasting forever, by making some entity control the release it isn't you deciding to persist but them. It isn't foolproof of course but avoids the simplest failure modes.
    - 3y ago

amelius 3y ago

Was hoping to one day own a fozzilized tourist that attempted to steal a fossil.

down_vote_me 3y ago

[flagged]

Eumenes 3y ago

Fortunately, from my experience, most "visitors" to National Parks, simply drive around and take photos from scenic views. I suspect if trail and off-trail traffic increased, we'd hear alot more stories like this.

justinator 3y ago

Aren't most National Parks on stolen land?

bshipp 3y ago
Go back far enough and you'll discover that, at some point in the past, all land was one taken through force without compensation by one conqueror or another.
- justinator 3y ago
  And you support this? Because we're not talking about 10,000 years ago, we're talking < 200 years ago, with our government, that were made up of people who are only 1 or 3 generations before us, which in kind, impact people you can talk to yourself, today. The same way you think could potentially also justify the history of slavery in the United States as being a historical wrinkle. And if that's what you want to do: great, but know I'm not on your side of history.
  - boondoggle16 3y ago
    who gets to keep it? who did the asians kill in america 15k years ago?
  - bshipp 3y ago
    It has nothing to do with me supporting those actions two centuries ago. I'm just describing history. Were the same tribes in charge of the same land for the past 10000 years, or did borders fluctuate depending on intertribal wars for resources? Acting like the Iroquois and Algonquins (or substitute any other aboriginal tribes with adjacent borders, for that matter) didn't spend hundreds of years slaughtering each other for territory before they were both deposed by the European invaders is a little naive. So who, precisely, is supposed to get the "stolen" land back? EDIT: just to be clear, I'm not advocating that first nation's are not due compensation or allowances for the loss of their lands, nor that slavery must be swept under a rug. On the contrary, we must look for the root causes of social unrest/upheaval and meet them head on. But you're not providing any practical courses of action that should be undertaken.

justinator 3y ago

I'm not sure this was ever a National Park, but rather a National Monument. Pedantic maybe: but National Monuments can be declared by the President under the Antiquities Act (and it seems under Trump easy to be demoted), a Park is a little harder to establish.

dang 3y ago

I replaced the baity title with a slightly less baity phrase from the article itself. If someone can come up with a better one (i.e. more accurate and neutral, and preferably using text from the article), we can change it again. (This is in the site guidelines: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait" - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

somat 3y ago

I saw the bone quarry a few years ago, it quite literally took my breath away, one of the most amazing things I have ever seen in person. I am not sure what I was expecting, but it was not that. However, it is only one quarter of what it started out as. Vast swaths of it were removed. Mainly for museums, which is.. ok, I guess. But I am a bit sad thinking about what could have been preserved. While as the same time thankful they were able to keep as much of as they did in one piece. Incidentally "The bone quarry" is on my short list for most metal place names. https://www.nps.gov/dino/planyourvisit/quarry-exhibit-hall.htm https://www.nps.gov/dino/planyourvisit/quarry-exhibit-hall.h...