Review of the West Dorset coast fossil collecting code of conduct, and recording scheme 1999 to 2010

This is a consultation – we want your views. There is a response questionnaire within the appendices and in order to tabulate responses, we would appreciate it if you could reply through that form.

Contents Page Executive summary 2 Background 4 The need for a code and why just West Dorset? 5 The core of the code 6 The review of the code Part 1 – the quality of the site 7 Part 2 – the recording scheme 13 Has the code answered the concerns and issues raised by the code working 15 group in 1999? Criticisms of the code 16 Issues and recommendations 17 Discussion: the rationale behind the code and how the review informs it 25 Conclusions 29

Appendices Appendix 1: All specimens. Appendix 2: The re classification of specimens. Appendix 3: Category 1 specimens and where are they now. Appendix 4: Specimens acquired by the Collecting Cultures project. Appendix 5: The definitions of scientific importance. Appendix 6: Consultation list Appendix 7: Questionnaire Appendix 8: Plates

This is the first part of the review and has been undertaken by Richard Edmonds, Earth Science Manager with the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site Team, in consultation with the Science and Conservation Advisory Group (SCAG) and the West Dorset fossil collecting code group. The responses to the paper will be considered by both groups as the second stage of the review, with the third stage being the adoption of a reviewed code of conduct following that consultation.

The requirement for this review was identified in the Dorset and East Devon Coast World Heritage Site Management Plan 2009-2014 under Aim 2 ‘To conserve and enhance the Site and its setting for science, education and public enjoyment’ , policy number 2.6 (page 47) and is also discussed in the issues and opportunities section on page 26.

Date of publication: November 2010

Responses to this review must be submitted by the end of April 2011.

1 Consultation executive summary

The West Dorset fossil collecting code of conduct (the code) was developed by a working group with representation from all interests and, following a period of consultation, was adopted in the late 1990’s. It applies to the coast between Lyme Regis and Burton Bradstock or stratigraphically, the Lower and part of the Middle Jurassic. The code has been accepted by UNESCO as appropriate management for this type of site through the Dorset and East Devon Coast World Heritage Site Management Plan. This is an exceptional site; a rapidly eroding coastal section that is the source of internationally important fossils contained within an internationally significant geological section maintained by spectacular coastal processes, principally, massive landslides.

The priorities of the code are that fossils should be recovered before they are destroyed by the very processes that expose them; landslides and storms, and that everyone should have access to information about what is being found. Specimens of key scientific importance should be offered to accredited museums if they are to be donated or sold. Collecting in situ is restricted and the fossils within the foreshore ledges or cliff sections may only be removed with permission from the landowner or Natural England. That said; specimens (principally vertebrates and large crinoid slabs) at immediate risk of being destroyed by the sea or found by others may be extracted and retrospective permission sought.

The code recognises the essential role that collectors, notably local collectors, have always played in the recovery of fossils, from Joseph and Mary Anning some 200 years ago to those of today, who are still making new discoveries. However, less than 10% of the specimens defined as being of ‘key scientific importance’ have found their way into accredited museum collections. The working group knew that this would be a problem; the issues are complex and discussed in the main document. It is important to recognise that despite the high collecting effort, these specimens are rescued ‘ just in time’ as they can only be found once the process of erosion is acting upon them.

The coast, particularly around Charmouth and Lyme Regis, is a focus for major educational activities; several museums/heritage centres and individuals lead numerous guided walks for schools and the general public, throughout the year. This is an entirely sustainable activity in terms of the site in that the common fossils are regularly renewed by the massive natural erosion rates at work on the coast. Many geologists interest in the subject was sparked at a young age by a visit to this coast. The promotion of the Earth sciences to the general public, including the economic benefits that it delivers, are important to the long term profile of what many would say is an often overlooked subject. A small minority of tourists do continue to clamber up and pick away at the cliffs but the scientific interest is unlikely to be damaged by such activity which also has no significant contribution to erosion rates. The concern is much more their safety.

Two individuals have expressed, and continue to express concerns about the effectiveness of the code and the damage that they claim is being done to the coast by the current collecting effort but they offer no evidence to support their view other than a deeply flawed comparative analysis between the fossils recorded under the code and those recovered from the nearby Charmouth bypass. There are many in the academic community that support the work of collectors but there are almost certainly others that do have concerns or reservations about the level of collecting effort along this coast and aspects of the code. A key objective of this consultation is to canvass the full range of opinion, principally from within the academic community.

2 Are the priorities of the working group correct? Is it better that the specimens are recovered, even if they remain in private hands, than to seek a more restrictive approach? Is co-operation preferable to coercion? It is difficult to imagine how a more restrictive approach that might lead to loss of co-operation, good will or trust with collectors, would improve the chances of important specimens, particularly vertebrates, being rescued. Is there an alternative, more effective, practical and affordable way to achieve the objectives set out in the code or alternative objectives that you have identified?

This is a robust site subject to high erosion rates. Collecting effort of ex situ fossils is high but the site remains in ‘favourable condition’ and research can be undertaken. Would you agree or disagree with that statement? What is the evidence to support claims of damage to the scientific interest within this site?

Obviously these are potentially complex questions; the condition of the site can be interpreted very subjectively while the quality of the site is changing all the time, principally due to the time of year and weather conditions. A visit to Charmouth in the height of the summer will reveal very different numbers and types of fossils than a similar visit on or just after a major winter storm. On a longer term basis, the huge Black Ven Landslide of 1958/9 has now largely been eroded away and the numbers of fossils coming from it have greatly declined. On the other hand, the Spittles slip of May 2008 has brought down a huge volume of Shales with Beef and as a result, a different fauna is currently being uncovered and rescued. The scientific interests vary; stratigraphers are interested in examining strata and collecting specimens in situ in the field. A vertebrate palaeontologist, in contrast, will typically work on specimens held in museum collections built up over the last 200 years or more, specimens which have been recovered by academics and collectors alike and who have open access to the sites in which the fossils are found.

The main review document and appendices contain observations, issues, recommendations and discussion to inform this consultation and we welcome your views so please respond, ideally by addressing the questions in appendix 7. Please respond to Richard Edmonds, Earth Science Manager, Dorset and East Devon Coast World Heritage Site team, by the end of April 2011.

Respond to:

C/O Environmental Services, Dorset County Council, County Hall, Dorchester. E-mail: [email protected].

3 Background

The West Dorset coast between Lyme Regis and Hive Beach, Burton Bradstock, the area covered by the West Dorset coast Fossil Collecting Code of Conduct (the code), is the richest source of fossil reptiles, fish and insects of Lower Lias age anywhere in the world (Nomination of the Dorset and East Devon coast for inclusion in the World Heritage List). It also displays a spectacular sequence of rock strata which, when combined with the fossil fauna, provides a superb record through the Lower and part of the Middle Jurassic periods of time. Unsurprisingly the coast contains a rich mosaic of overlapping Geological Conservation Review (GCR) sites for stratigraphy, palaeontology and geomorphology (Table 1) and these interests are legally protected within the West Dorset Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). It mostly lies within a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) for wildlife interests under the European Habitats Regulations and forms part of the Dorset and East Devon Coast World Heritage Site (WHS).

GCR GCR Name Block Name 51 Burton Cliff & Cliff Hill Road Aalenian-Bajocian stratigraphy Section Stratigraphy 87 Pinhay Bay to Fault Corner Hettangian, Sinemurian and Pliensbachian stratigraphy 251 Seatown to Watton Cliff Toarcian stratigraphy 253 East Cliff Toarcian stratigraphy 1330 Watton Cliff Bathonian stratigraphy Palaeontology 794 Charmouth Palaeoentomology 916 Lyme Regis Jurassic-Cretaceous Reptilia 2952 Lyme Regis Mesozoic-Tertiary Fish 2901 Watton Cliff Mesozoic-Tertiary Fish/Amphibia 546 Watton Cliff Mesozoic Mammals Geomorphology 1321 Black Ven Mass Movement 1800 Chesil Beach Coastal geomorphology 2901 Golden Cap-Lyme Regis Coastal geomorphology

Table 1: The Geological Conservation Review sites within the West Dorset Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest.

The exceptional value of the coastline for stratigraphic and palaeontological studies is due to the quality of preservation of fossils, the thickness of the sequence and the very active erosional processes working on the cliffs.

The Dorset and East Devon Coast World Heritage Site (WHS) extends from Exmouth to Studland Bay. The Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the WHS is described as the completeness of the geological succession, representing a virtually unbroken sequence through the entire Mesozoic, the exceptional record of life and the superb and active coastal geomorphology acting on the cliffs and beaches. OUV is the criterion used by UNESCO to determine the significance of a site. In terms of the palaeontology, the OUV is considered as the exceptional specimens that come from it and their potential value in helping to determine the evolution of life and past environments. The fossils also form part of the stratigraphical interest, particularly those used as zonal fossils, enabling the rocks to be dated relatively and correlated with other sites.

4 The need for a code and why just West Dorset?

The West Dorset coast is a prolifically fossiliferous site. The vast majority of fossils are common and extremely well represented in museum collections across the country if not the world as a result of nearly 200 years of collecting and scientific study. But the coast also continues to yield surprises, including specimens new to science and these particularly lie within the recognised GCR interests for reptiles, fish and insects. Erosion ensures a constant supply of fossils but is highly unpredictable; storms and landslides can take place at any time. These events uncover the fossils but without regular searching and collection, they would rapidly be damaged or destroyed by the very processes that expose them. Amateur and professional collecting has been established for over two hundred years, most notably with the Anning family, and particularly Mary Anning, in Lyme Regis in the early 1800’s. Today, many collectors have moved to the area in order to be available when the storms and landslides take place. Some make a living from collecting, others remain amateurs but they all continue, ‘as citizen scientists’ to enhance the understanding of the science of the site as a result of their collecting efforts.

For the vertebrate palaeontologists, their interest has almost entirely been based on the collections of amateur and professional collectors. Many, but by no means all, of the scientifically important specimens end up in museums where they may be described and researched. In contrast, the stratigraphical and particularly the biostratigraphical study of the site is undertaken by scientists in the field. Their interest is in studying, recording and collecting specimens, particularly from in situ or where the provenance is known or can be determined. Much of the early work on the stratigraphical division of the Lower Jurassic was undertaken here by the great gentlemen scientists; Henry De la Beche, the Reverend Conybeare, William Buckland and more recently by W.D. Lang, W.J. Arkell and Michael House. The site also remains important for the study of coastal geomorphology and mass movement, but in reference to this review, that interest is unaffected, though obviously provides the processes by which the geological and palaeontological interests are maintained.

The West Dorset fossil collecting code was developed in response to concerns over excessive digging in situ within the cliffs, lack of knowledge of what was being found, and the destination of specimens of key scientific importance. It was also recognised that better communication between collectors, researchers and curators would be beneficial.

A working group of interested parties consisting of the Jurassic Coast Project (Dorset County Council), English Nature (now Natural England), The National Trust, West Dorset Heritage Coast Project, Charmouth Parish Council, Charmouth Heritage Coast Centre, Dorset and Somerset Museum Services, the British Geological Survey, the Dorset Geologists’ Association and local fossil collectors and in consultation with other organisations and individuals, drew up the code which, after a trial period, and wider consultation, was adopted in 1999. The code was included in the Management Plan submitted with the bid for World Heritage Status and was accepted by UNESCO as appropriate management of the Site. The code is essentially a refinement of national guidance on collecting provided by English Nature, as was in 1999, now Natural England.

The key issues identified by the working group were:

1. Fossil ‘heritage’ and ultimate destination of key scientifically important specimens. 2. The preparation techniques used to clean some scientifically important specimens. 3. The ownership of fossils. 4. Site management, excessive digging of fossil rich strata within the cliffs and landslides. 5. Health and Safety, the issues of public liability and public safety.

5 6. The threat of ineffective regulation or control.

Objectives of the working group were:

• promote responsible and safe fossil collecting • restrict the excessive digging or ‘prospecting’ for fossils along fossil rich strata • clarify ownership of the fossils • promote better communication between all those with an interest in fossils from the West Dorset coast • promote the acquisition of key scientifically important fossils by recognised museum collections.

The core of the code

The core of the code is very simple and the priorities are that:

• Fossils are recovered rather than destroyed by the sea. • That everyone has access to information about what is being found. • That UK accredited museums have the first opportunity to acquire specimens of ‘Key Scientific Importance’, should they be offered for donation or sale.

The requirements of the code are also very simple:

• Collectors are required not to dig in situ in the cliffs or foreshore without permission 1. • Specimens defined as of ‘Key Scientific Importance’ (Category 1 – see appendix 5) are registered in a recording scheme that is available on line. • Category 1 fossils must first be offered to a UK accredited museum for a period of at least six months, if they are to be donated or sold. • It is strongly recommended that specimens of ‘Some Scientific Importance’ (Category 2 fossils) are also recorded.

The landowners signed up to the scheme, the National Trust and Charmouth Parish Council and, less formally, the Crown Estate (who stated that they were happy with the status quo), are prepared to transfer ownership of the fossils found on their land in exchange for collectors following the code.

There is obviously a great deal more detail in the full code, in the definition of scientific importance and the record of important specimens which is available on line at: http://www.charmouth.org/heritage-coast-centre/ for the duration of the code’s operation. Rather than append these documents, we suggest you go to the web site as this forms part of the code and therefore is relevant to the review in terms of how the information is currently provided and accessed.

1 Specimens that are clearly at immediate risk of being damaged or destroyed or found by others can be excavated without permission but retrospective permission should be sought. Permission will be granted for more substantive excavations where they are deemed acceptable and can be undertaken safely. Excavations typically relate to vertebrates and large slabs of crinoid.

6 Review of the Code

The review of the code is considered in two parts; Part 1. The quality of the site in which it applies and Part 2. The quality and effectiveness of the code in recording specimens of scientific importance and fulfilling the objectives set by the working group that formulated it.

Part 1 – the quality of the site; overview

The West Dorset coast can be regarded as the most extreme type of exposure site, being subject to regular cliff falls and landslides. Black Ven is one of the largest coastal landslide complexes in Europe. The 1958/9 landslide was the largest event on this coast in living memory. More recently, 300 m of the cliff gave way in the Spittles, the western side of Black Ven, on the evening of May 6 th 2008. In the last ten years, and accelerating in the last four years, a 70m section of the cliffs just east of the River Char has retreated by over 30m, uncovering huge numbers of Flatstones (Bed 83 Lang) along with specimens from the Topstones (Bed 85 Lang) and Stellare nodules (Bed 88 Lang). The most notable find here was shortly after movement began when a large, 1.8 m long ichthyosaur skull, Temnodontosaurus platyodon , (Fossil Code record number 27) was recovered from the debris fan on the foreshore. It is now on display in the fossil shop on the sea front at Charmouth. Many tens of thousands of common fossils are eroded onto the beaches every year where they are subsequently collected by a range of people; local collectors, visitors and educational groups. The occasional large cliff falls of Bridport Sand and Inferior Oolite between Freshwater and Hive Beach, Burton Bradstock, involving many thousands of tonnes of rock with associated fossils, are mostly removed by the winter storms. Plates 1, 2 and 3 illustrate some landslides and cliff falls along the West Dorset coast and the erosional forces acting on them.

These landslides are rapidly eroded by rough seas, uncovering large numbers of fossils, mostly common, a few rare. The 2008 Spittles landslide east of Lyme Regis, for instance is revealing numerous fragmentary skeletons of ichthyosaurs (e.g. record 189), sharks and a dinosaur (record 192). It has also brought huge volumes of Lang’s Fish Bed (Bed 50/1) onto the beach and as a result a number of fish, particularly examples of Pholidophorus and Dapedium (e.g. records 181, 188 and 191) have been found. An interesting fauna of lobsters is also being collected (e.g. record no. 196). These examples, all category 2 records, may be regarded as indicative of considerably more Category 2 specimens that may not have been recorded. This landslide is almost entirely made up of the Shales with Beef which have not been exposed to this extent in living memory, hence the range of unusual specimens. Plate 2, second image, provides an indication of the volume of rock removed by the sea. Plates 4 and 5 illustrate the coast during the storm conditions that wash away the landslides and uncover the fossils.

The foreshore ledges between Lyme Regis and Seatown are extensive and can be spectacularly exposed during spring tides. In the late winter and early spring of 2007, the sea stripped away virtually all the sediment and much of the algae east of Lyme (Bread Ledge and Church Cliffs) and as a result several vertebrate specimens were recovered in a short period of time (e.g. records 130 and 132). Plate 6 illustrates the reefs and ledges.

Monitoring the quality of a geological site such as the West Dorset coast is, at one level, very simple in that the coast is subject to rapid erosion and is therefore very robust. Natural England’s site information system (ENSIS), asks a series of basic questions that apply to the full range of geological sites, not just eroding cliffs:

7

Attribute Target Exposure of features of Interest The features of interest are exposed or can practically be re-exposed if required Vegetation Vegetation is not obscuring or damaging the features of interest Tipping or landfill There is no unconsented tipping or landfill obscuring or damaging the features of interest Tree planting There is no unconsented tree planting obscuring or damaging the features of interest Engineering works There are no engineering works, including inappropriate restoration works, obscuring or damaging the features of interest Planning condition Planning conditions and restoration agreements or plans are being observed on site Geological specimen collecting There is no irresponsible or inappropriate specimen collecting

Table 2 ENSIS attributes for monitoring Earth science Sites of Special Scientific Interest

For the purposes of this review, the interest is particularly focused on the palaeontology. This cannot be assessed by annual or even more regular site visits and ENSIS does not attempt to do so. However, when considering the quality of a palaeontological site, it is reasonable to assume that it is in ‘favourable’ condition if the fossils are visible or can be accessed in a reasonably short period of time (defined as half a day of physical labour) or the processes that uncover them are continuing. One area where the fossil code has refined ENSIS is with the recording scheme which attempts to measure what rare or unusual fossils are actually being found. That is covered in Part 2 of the review.

The interests in more detail:

Black Ven, Stonebarrow, Golden Cap and Seatown; Lower Jurassic stratigraphy (GCR site 87), reptiles (GCR 916), fish (GCR 2952) and insects (GCR 794).

The interest

The full succession of Lower Jurassic, Lower Lias stratigraphy including the ammonites that allow zonational and comparative studies to other sites, together with an exceptional diversity of fossil reptiles (ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, flying reptiles and dinosaurs), fish (in excess of 40 species), insects, a wide range of other invertebrates and plants.

Condition

This is a robust site subject to very significant erosion rates that refresh the geological exposures (the cliff faces) and uncover large numbers of fossils each year. In the Blue Lias Formation of Church Cliffs and Broad Ledge, there is no evidence that collecting fossils affects the ability to undertake zonation or biostratigraphical studies. If collecting were an issue in the Blue Lias, one might expect to see ammonites broken out of the limestone or shale ledges or cliff faces or the impressions of ammonites or broken fragments from them. It is appreciated that presenting

8 ‘negative evidence’ i.e. the lack of specimens in situ , may, in areas such as this, be difficult or impossible to achieve but in contrast, positive evidence, i.e. specimens visible in situ , is available in abundance, especially after rough weather. The overlying Shales with Beef and particularly the Black Ven Marls contain nodule horizons with well preserved fossils but digging in situ has been greatly reduced while requests for scientific excavations of the strata can be, and have been made and undertaken. The 2008 landslide has uncovered parts of the old Lyme tip but this can hardly be termed ‘unconsented tipping’ while the rubbish is being dealt with by West Dorset District Council through regular clean up operations of material as it is washed onto the beach. A strategy is being prepared for the long term management of this problem. This site is in favourable condition.

Collecting

The collecting interest within the Blue Lias east of Lyme Regis is almost entirely in the form of the search for vertebrates on the foreshore ledges. These are rare finds that require excavation but the infrequency of finds, coupled with the obvious need to recover them when found, clearly has no significant impact on the other interests of the site while excavation and recovery is compatible with the fossil GCR interest.

The Charmouth Mudstone Formation contains a number of nodule horizons that contain well preserved fossils. Digging in situ in the cliffs without permission is against the wishes of the landowners involved with the code and since the code has come into force, digging has greatly decreased with the exception of two individuals consistently working along the Flatstone Bed in Stonebarrow cliff, who are now subject to an injunction preventing them from entering the cliffs owned by the National Trust and Charmouth Parish Council. Despite their activity, all strata have remained available and accessible along the section unless obscured by natural processes. Even in the centre of Black Ven it is possible to excavate the Flatsone, Woodstone, Topstone and Stellare nodules, all fossil bearing strata, within a very short period of time and well within the criteria of ‘favourability’ defined by Natural England. One request from a Portsmouth University student to acquire micropalaeontological samples from the Woodstone and topstone beds in Black Ven was received and successfully carried out in 2010.

Where unconsented digging has taken place it has been within the Stonebarrow Flatstone Bed and to a lesser extent, the Woodstone Bed within Black Ven, strata from which the fauna is well recorded in numerous museums. Monitoring of the flatstone bed close to where it meets the shore about 800 m east of Charmouth, along Stonebarrow beach, illustrates the robust nature of the site and the pattern of exposure by storms followed by some digging and burial by natural processes. (See plates 7 and 8). That does not mean that digging in situ is tolerated; it is not.

Indiscriminate and ill informed tourist digging has always taken place, particularly for a distance of about 200m east and west of Charmouth. The establishment of the Charmouth Heritage Coast Centre in 1985 was, in part, to better inform visitors about fossils and good collecting practice. Since 2007 a fossil warden has been employed seasonally by the Jurassic Coast Team and Dorset Countryside Service, to patrol the beaches and advise people of best practice. The role has been very well received although it is still not possible to stop everyone clambering up the cliff or chipping into them. However, tourist digging is not seen as damaging the scientific interest or significantly affecting erosion rates; the concern is far more for public safety. The public enquiry held in 1982 to explore possible licensing or other controls of collecting concluded that natural erosion far outstrips any digging by fossil collectors. To clarify that view, using the latest developments in technology, Bournemouth University were contracted to scan the cliffs immediately west of Charmouth in the spring of 2007, the following autumn and the next spring to establish a baseline and provide an absolute measure of change over a summer

9 and a winter. They used a state of the art ground based laser scanner (LiDAR) and the conclusions of this work are eagerly awaited.

Moving east, expressions of concern regarding indiscriminate tourist activity at Seatown have been made locally but it is impossible to quantify. It is clearly a lesser activity than at Charmouth, which is not regarded as damaging to the scientific interest. Occasionally the shingle is stripped away, exposing the Belemnite Stone Band with its rich fauna, but despite collecting interest at these times, erosion ensures that more fossils are exposed each time this occurs.

Finally, there has been a decline in fossils coming from Black Ven in recent years due to the erosion of the great slips, particularly the Black Ven 1958/9 slip which has been almost completely eroded away. The storm of the 14th/15th November 2009 did not uncover a single woodstone or flatstone nodule on Black Ven. The recent slips at the start of Stonebarrow have also been washed away and little was exposed. What is being eroded instead is the May 2008 slip which is composed almost entirely of Shales with Beef and is revealing a completely different fauna not seen in such volumes in living memory.

Seatown, Ridge Cliff and Thorncombe Beacon –Lower Jurassic stratigraphy (GCR site 87,), Toarcian stratigraphy (GCR 252)

Interest

The rocks between Seatown and Eype are largely Middle and Upper Lias with notable strata including the Starfish Bed, the Margaritatus Limestone, the Marlstone Rock Band and the Beacon Limestone Formation or Junction Bed. All of these strata are effectively inaccessible in the cliffs due to their physical location (i.e. vertical cliff exposures and/or dense undergrowth) but numerous blocks from all beds are evident on the beach.

Condition

Again, this is a robust site although erosion rates are lower than along the coast further west. With the interests being so inaccessible within the cliff, any collecting for scientific purposes is almost entirely restricted to the rough boulder beach. There is considerable collecting effort here, in the starfish bed and Margaritatus Limestone particularly but the fossils, including the ammonite zone fossils, are very evident on any visit. The starfish bed is subject to collecting and is discussed below. This site is in favourable condition.

Collecting

East of Seatown, there are no collecting issues in situ anywhere along the cliff due to the physical limitations on access but for the same reason, scientific research along this section is also limited therefore material on the beach is important. The collection of ex situ starfish from fallen blocks of the Starfish Bed is in the process of being formalised with the landowner, the National Trust. The starfish can be locally common following cliff falls or storms that uncover large blocks of starfish bed lying on the foreshore. The starfish lie on or just below the surface of the underside of the starfish blocks when in situ . This surface is often very soft. As a result, many starfish are rapidly damaged or destroyed when the sea reaches the fallen blocks. To collect the intact specimens requires the cutting of a deep channel around each specimen. In the past this was done with a hammer and chisel but increasingly stone saws have come to be used. The result is that these blocks have often been left marked with unsightly square holes.

10 Recent monitoring of a small landslide on the east side of Seatown beach between 2008 and 2009 indicates that, despite collecting, numerous weathered specimens remain at certain times and all are in the process of being destroyed by the sea. In April 2008, 5 weathered starfish were visible on loose blocks on the beach. In March 2009, 20 specimens were visible. In November 2009 only 2 specimens could be seen in the same spot with no further extractions having taken place. Clearly if no specimens were collected all would soon be completely destroyed. (See Plate 9). The National Trust agree that specimens should be collected and are prepared to issue conditional permits to collectors using stone saws. This will restrict when they can be used, requires consideration to other beach users and that collectors chisel out all cut faces to lessen the visual impact, although this does increase the chance of destroying other specimens not yet visible in the blocks.

During Easter 2009, a small group of German collectors were reported to have spent several days breaking up numerous blocks of the Margaritatus Bed between Seatown and Eype and the Inferior Oolite blocks at Burton Cliffs. They were only doing what local collectors would do in accordance with the code (the blocks are all ex situ ) but concentrated over a short period of time. One complaint was received from a resident at Eype who had challenged the group. Action from the WHS team involved contacting an individual known to lead German fossil collecting trips. He denied involvement on this occasion, despite being seen on the coast around the same time, but appeared to accept concerns regarding such intensive collecting. Only time will tell if this action has been effective.

One other notable horizon includes lenses of echinoderm rich sandstone containing a dense fauna of crinoids, starfish and occasional cushion stars and sunstars (Records 20, 25 and 26). All are collected ex situ as the bed or beds have not been located in situ but are within the Down Cliff Sands.

Watton Cliff. Mammals (GCR 546) and fish (GCR 2901).

There appear to be no collecting issues in this location. The scientific interests are the stratigraphy and a micro fauna recovered by bulk sampling. A visit to the site in November 2009 found fish teeth, fossil wood, a fauna of bivalves and brachiopods, fine examples of Apiocrinus and a multiple brittle starfish and crinoid block (record 201, illustrated in Plate 10 and on the Gigapan web site at http://www.gigapan.org/gigapans/38271/) and found by Sam Scriven of the WHS team. A large ammonite within the Wattonensis Beds, first observed by Paul Ensom in October 2008, was also collected in November 2009 by the WHS Team. (see Plate 11). Prior to the extraction of the ammonite, the only evidence of collecting was some hammering of loose blocks of the Wattonensis Beds for brachiopods.

West Bay to Hive Beach, Burton Bradstock. Aalenian stratigraphy (GCR site 51) Toarcian stratigraphy (GCR 153)

Interest

The remaining area of interest within the West Dorset code is the Inferior Oolite between West Bay and Hive Beach Burton Bradstock. The fossils are only accessible in fallen material much of which is rapidly eroded away by the sea. As with certain strata between Eype and Seatown, the stratigraphy can also only be examined in fallen blocks along the beach.

Condition

This is a robust site which is maintained by erosion. The stratigraphy and palaeontology can only be accessed through the fallen blocks on the beach. There are numerous blocks to be seen

11 and examined most of the time but the quality varies according to cliff falls, the height of beach shingle and collecting effort. The process that delivers these blocks to the beach, and sustains the interest, remains active and therefore this site is in favourable condition.

Collecting

There is considerable ex situ collecting effort here, following cliff falls or occasional temporary large scale removal of the shingle as a result of storms when many fallen blocks can become exposed. The German group that visited in the spring of 2009 also spent time here breaking up large blocks on the beach and an expression of concern was received from a local person. The famous ‘House Block’ (a very large block containing parts of the Middle and Upper Inferior Oolite sequence) that sat upright on its edge on the beach near Freshwater, was finally toppled by the sea in about 2006 and broke into smaller blocks, several of which have since been broken up by collectors. Plate 3 illustrates the nature of this site.

Conclusion – West Dorset coast site condition

This is a robust site subject to high erosion rates. Ex situ collecting effort is high but the site remains in ‘favourable condition’ and research can be undertaken. Would you agree or disagree with that statement? What is the evidence to support claims of damage to the scientific interest within this site? Statements, views or pinions will be of more value if supported by evidence.

12 Part 2: The West Dorset fossil recording scheme

The recording scheme is held on a Microsoft Access database at the Charmouth Heritage Coast Centre. It is the responsibility of the geology warden at the Centre to administer the recording scheme. A summary list of specimens is available in Appendix 1.

Appendix 2 deals with the reclassification of specimens – some have been recorded when they do not qualify, others have been placed into the incorrect category. Should these revisions be accepted, there is a need to update the database at the Centre accordingly.

Headline figures March 1999 to November 2009:

Category 1 specimens: 37 records 2

Category 2 Specimens: 130 records 3

Declassified specimens (specimens delegated out of the recording scheme): 11

Total number of records: 167 comprising 222 distinct individual specimens

Specimens by type once re-classified:

Reptiles: 43 Fish: 19 Insects: 45 records, two of which are multiple collections Others 60 Total 167 records comprising 222 specimens

Ex situ specimens: 131 In situ specimens: 32 The rest: 4 - no detail recorded

Highlights include:

• Record 4. A new species of ichthyosaur, from the cliffs at Seatown and acquired by the Royal Ontario Museum, Canada. • Record 25. A block of cushion and brittlestars from the Middle Lias. • Record 26. A sunstar, cf. Luidia murchisoni ? from the Middle Lias. • Record 27. A very large ichthyosaur skull identified as Temnodontosaurus platydon (1.8 m long) recovered over the course of a week from a landslide at the western end of Stonebarrow, Charmouth. Following the discovery of the first piece washed onto the beach, the collector probed the mudslide and dug out each block before the sea could wash them away. • Record 34. Scelidosaurus; quite possibly the best dinosaur ever found in Britain and certainly as complete as the original specimen found by James Harrison in 1858, now in the NHM. Recovered from a landslide over the course of nine years, largely due to the efforts of one collector. The specimen is currently on loan to Bristol City Museum and Art Gallery. The collector hopes that a suitable permanent home can be provided for it one day in West Dorset.

2 See Appendix 2 3 See Appendix 2

13 • Records 65, 67, 92 and 102 and others. Rare and, in some cases, unique insects mostly collected from the woodstone, flatstone and topstone nodules. • Record 75. Only the second or third possible example of the ichthyosaur Leptonectes moorei , found on the foreshore ledges below Stonebarrow. • Record 79. A very complete example of the rare Ichthyosaurus breviceps found on the ledges in front of Black Ven. • Record 131. Possibly the best example of the fish Coccolepis ever found. • Record 134 Furo sp – one of the best examples of this fish ever found. Recovered from the ledges in front of Church Cliffs, Lyme Regis. • Record 165. Almost certainly the best example of the ancient shark Palaeospinax ever found in the Lias. Recovered on the ledges in front of Church Cliffs, Lyme Regis. • Record 187 Another Scelidosaurus still being recovered from the Spittles landslip of May 2008 and contained in a number of nodules together with loose pieces found by a number of different collectors. This specimen is from a slightly different horizon than the Topstone nodules (Bed 85 Lang), where the majority of specimens have been found in the past, thereby extending knowledge of the zonal range of this dinosaur. • Record 189. Another very large ichthyosaur skull with some post cranial material, identified as Temnodontosaurus platydon , from in the Spittles landslide of May 2008, recovered by one collector painstakingly tracing the broken pieces through the landslide. • Record 196, an example of the lobster Pseudoglyphea grandis ; the only known British example with a right claw. Donated to the NHM.

In summary; a mixture of reptiles (marine and terrestrial), fish and insects, just as the GCR designation would suggest, together with other groups. Many of these specimens were rescued ‘just in time’ i.e. in the process of being damaged by the sea or landslides. Plates 12 and 13 illustrate the damage sustained to these specimens despite the current collecting effort. Not many ammonites are recorded; unless they have unusual preservation qualities or are rare or new species, there is no expectation to record ammonites. This reflects the extensive, established and representative museum collections of ammonites from Dorset . The review of Eoderoceras by Murray Edmunds and published by the Palaeontographical Society in 2009 clearly demonstrates the wealth of existing collections that enable such science to continue.

At least one Category 1 specimen was not recorded; a partial plesiosaur from the base of Golden Cap. The collector was not aware of the code or of any restrictions that might apply but he also had no reason to hide the specimen which has been acquired under the Heritage Lottery Fund Collecting Cultures project and is of interest to researchers who believe it may be a species new to science (Mark Evans pers comm., 28/11/08). One other collector is known to have a range of important specimens but he has not yet had the time to record them all.

Specimens acquired by museums

Just 19 of the 167 records (52 records from the total of 222 specimens) have found their way into museums, 4 of which are category 1. The higher proportion of specimens is due to two multiple insect records.

14

Record No. Category Description 4 1 A new species of ichthyosaur purchased by the Royal Ontario Museum, Canada 6 2 An ammonite identified as Angulaticeras dumortieri (Fucini) acquired by the National Museum of Wales as part of the Martin Foster collection 40 2 A partial ichthyosaur sold to a museum in Taiwan 59 2 A cycad or bennettitalean donated to the Natural History Museum (NHM) 60 2 A seed from a Ginkgo or cycad or bennettitalean donated to the NHM 61 2 Articulated ichthyosaur in nodule sold to a museum in Tokyo 65 1 and 2 Mixed collection of 34 insects donated to the NHM. At least 2 Category 1 Specimens, a new species identified by Dr Andrew Ross from NHM 72 2 Ammonite Galaticeras , complete with mouth border donated to the NHM 75 1 Articulated ichthyosaur (skull and abdomen), possibly from Leptonectes . Collected in the course of field work by NHM staff and donated to the museum 95 2 Arnioceras, well preserved with rostrum, assumed to be a macroconch 96 2 A partial ammonite Xipheroceras with a complete mouth border, donated to the NHM 108, 113, 1142 Partial insects donated to the NHM 111 2 Arnioceras , a perfect macroconch in body chamber of Asteroceras . Several ribs Deformed. donated to the NHM 112 2 Well defined ink sac with some soft tissue preservation, donated to the NHM 115 2 Ammonite Aptycus. In body chamber of large incomplete Xipheroceras . Donated to the NHM 185 2 Ammonite body chamber broken revealing aptychus in (probable) life position. Will be donated to the NHM 196 1 Pseudoglyphea grandis . A moult in the rare ‘butterfly position’ and the only British example with a right claw

A number of insects are available for donation to a museum if wanted. The collector of the Palaeospinax (record 165) has stated that the specimen will be donated to the Natural History Museum (NHM) at some stage in the future. Appendix 3 illustrates all Category 1 specimens and where are they now.

There is no evidence that specimens of Key Scientific Interest have been ‘improved’ when prepared and many museum curators have nothing but praise for the preparation skills of local collectors. Concerns were expressed about the setting of the tail in record 79 but this was satisfactorily explained in that some of the shale had been lost during excavation, requiring plaster to hold the piece together. Record 132 illustrates how part of the dorsal body, lost to erosion, has been painted in but clearly is not restoration in any shape or form. Collectors and preparators understand the need, and value (not necessarily commercial value) of respecting the scientific integrity of the specimens and particularly those that are category 1.

Has the code answered the concerns and issues raised by the code working group in 1999?

The findings of the working group that developed the code are outlined below together with an assessment of how the code has performed in answering concerns and issues that the code seeks to address.

15 1. Fossil ‘heritage’ and ultimate destination of key scientifically important specimens.

The acquisition of specimens of key scientific importance by accredited museums remains low, in the region of just 10% of category 1 specimens. Of the other 90% of specimens almost all remain with the original finders. Several collectors are retaining these fossils in the hope or expectation that a world class museum or exhibition will be developed on the coast. Others have stated that they will donate these specimens at some stage in the future. The first priority of the code is that the fossils are rescued and that everyone has the opportunity to know what has been found. The code is providing a record, unique in the UK, of what has been and is being found.

2. The preparation techniques used to clean some scientifically important specimens.

This related to concerns that specimens may be improved or restored to unacceptable levels by falsification but there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case, particularly amongst the category 1 specimens.

3. The ownership of fossils.

The code is working well with the landowners signed up to it. The majority of landowners not signed up own too small a holding for their involvement to be worthwhile with the exception of the historic landowners of the foreshore ledges whose relatives so far have not been traced.

4. Site management, excessive digging of fossil rich strata within the cliffs and landslides.

The vast majority of collectors have followed the code and there has been a very significant reduction of digging in situ . The notable exception is one individual and ‘persons unknown’ against whom an injunction was obtained in March 2010 against digging in situ in the cliffs. Only time will tell what impact this significant legal action will make on any other collectors considering digging in the cliffs.

5. Health and Safety, the issues of public liability and public safety.

As 4 above, the introduction of the code has been successful in managing in situ collecting. Collectors do venture out in stormy conditions or following major landslide events such as the May 2008 Spittles slip, but the code does not try to define at what point it is ‘safe’ to walk along the beach or enter a landslide complex. Tourists continue to climb into and chip away at the cliffs despite safety and advice signs. This has always happened but remains a cause for concern, not because of damage to the site but on the grounds of safety in the form of cliff falls and landslides. A summer fossil warden has been employed by the WHS Team and Dorset Countryside Service for the last four summer seasons to persuade inexperienced people away from the cliffs. He has been well received but still cannot stop everyone who wishes to climb the cliffs from doing so.

6. The threat of regulation or control.

The code provides security for the vast majority of collectors who follow it. Indeed, the legal action against one is easily isolated from the responsible actions of the majority because of the code. No practical, costed or detailed alternative approach has been proposed or put forward and there would appear to be no more effective way to manage a site such as this.

16 Criticisms of the code

Expressions of concern regarding the effectiveness of the code in protecting the scientific integrity of the coast have been received from two individuals within the research and/or geoconservation community. One of these claimed that the code was failing, based on the number of fossils which he assessed to be ‘of particular scientific importance’ recovered from the nearby Charmouth bypass construction site, compared to those recorded under the code, as he argued in the Geoconservation Working group report in the International Subcommission on Jurassic Stratigraphy (ISJS) Newsletter 33 pages 21 to 25, which is accessible on the following link:

(http://jurassic.earth.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/10245/ISJS33.pdf)

Questions and concerns over the validity of the work are put forward by Sole (pages 24 to 27) Edmonds (27 to 28) and Larwood (on page 33) of the ISJS Newsletter 34/2 in 2007,which is accessible on the following link: http://jurassic.earth.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/10376/ISJS34_2.pdf

And the response to those questions and concerns can be accessed in Newsletter 35/2 at: http://jurassic.earth.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/10614/ISJS_Newsletter_No_35_pt_2. pdf

There have also been several long e-mail exchanges but these do not warrant inclusion in this review; suffice to say there are very strong differences of opinion between these two critics of the code and members of the WHS team and its partners. Within the wider academic community it is evident that there is support for the code from many. What is not known is the full range of views across the entire community, some of whom may have reservations or concerns about the code. A key element of this review is to seek the views of the wider scientific community.

17 Issues and recommendations

Acquisition of Key Scientifically Important specimens

Without doubt, increasing the number of specimens acquired by accredited museums is the greatest challenge for the code. The chronic lack of funding for palaeontology nationally, the lack of appropriately controlled storage and display space in museums, the challenges of securing acquisition funding and perhaps, a reluctance by some to pay for specimens that can be regarded as the nation’s heritage, are the underlying barriers to acquisition. Clearly the purpose of acquiring category 1 specimens is that the rules of zoological nomenclature strongly recommend that specimens should only be described in the scientific literature if they are secured within an accredited museum collection.

A number of specimens are being held back by collectors in expectation that a world class museum or exhibition will be built on or near the West Dorset coast but very little has been done to determine if this is a viable proposition or not. The Lyme Regis Museum wishes to expand but it needs to find the funding and win over the collector’s trust that they can fulfil the expectation. It is essential that this issue is addressed one way or the other.

RECOMMENDATION 1 : Explore the opportunity for a major new exhibition or museum. Can existing local museums fulfil the role? The Lyme Regis Museum is seeking to expand and provide a larger gallery dedicated to the fossils. Some collectors wish to see a purpose built centre or museum but no one is taking a lead on this option.

The significance of some specimens has been missed and no action has been taken even when specimens are available for donation. Record 133 is a very good example, an extraordinarily well preserved leaf from the Upper Greensand, identified as category 1, available for donation, yet nothing has been done to further assess the significance of the specimen or approach the collector. The obvious thing to do is to ensure that the specimen is highlighted to the relevant expert or experts at the time it is recorded. If that specimen is of very real interest, then a statement to that effect should be placed against the record and action should be taken to acquire it immediately, particularly if the finder is prepared to donate it.

RECOMMENDATION 2 : Someone should take a lead – it is proposed that should be the geological warden at the Charmouth Heritage Coast Centre. A list of recognised experts should be established and they should be notified of each record as it is made. A statement of interest and intent should be made against any records that experts feel are truly important to acquire. If the specimen is available for donation or sale, then it should be secured as soon as possible. NOTE: this recommendation is also made under the ‘Communications’ element within this issues section, Recommendation 16.

Where specimens are acquired through purchase, the process can be quite difficult. Museum curators are restricted from valuing specimens for a number of reasons. Curators of objects in all disciplines could be put in a difficult position if valuing objects which might be put up for sale. There are also the legal implications if an object is misidentified and as a result is sold beneath its value – e.g. a misidentified Constable for example! Curators have compiled information on value based on records of sales/auctions and the like. Perhaps geological curators have disliked the implications of purchase for the very reasons already touched on – the shortage of funds – and indeed, the difficulty and time involved in raising funds. It could be argued that purchasing specimens will drive up their value. There appears to be a considerable disparity between the value put on, and paid, for art and archaeological objects compared to palaeontology. However, the fossils from the West Dorset coast do have a monetary value which reflects the time, skill and commitment to find them together with the days, weeks or even months of

18 preparation. The value may be enhanced by the scientific importance, rarity or aesthetics of the specimen which may be released through preparation. Compared to cultural objects, it could be argued that the value of most fossils is very low. Unlike many cultural objects, no fossil under the code has been ‘sold to the highest bidder’; the value of specimens purchased has been arrived at through consensus and valuations from a range of people. The issue of valuation, trade and ownership of fossils is explored by Rolfe, W.D.I., Milner, A.C. & Hay, F.G., ‘The price of fossils’, Spec. Pap. Palaeont. 40, 1988, pp.139 -171.

Collecting Cultures Jurassic Life Project – a small drop in a big ocean

Dorset County Council’s Museum Service, with the Jurassic Coast Team, successfully bid for £200,000 under the Heritage Lottery Fund ‘Collecting Cultures’, with a further £30,000 match funding from Dorset and Devon County Councils, to assist nine museums along the coast to acquire and display fossils in their collections. The acquisition rationale was simple; to build up representative collections and acquire specimens of both educational and scientific value wherever possible. Lyme Regis and Bridport museums lie within the West Dorset code area and are benefiting accordingly.

Appendix 4 details the specimens acquired and the prices paid for them (including specimens not covered by the West Dorset code), based on the Heritage Lottery funded Collecting Cultures Jurassic Life project. The plesiosaur from Golden Cap was valued by local collectors and dealers at between £4,000 and £7,000. The top valuation was accepted by the collector and subsequently paid. One of the challenges with acquisition is arriving at a valuation for the specimens, particularly those that are rare or exceptional. The large Dapedium , collected in 1986, was one such example where independent valuations ranged from £8,000 to £12,000. The owner originally valued the specimen at £18,000 but accepted an offer of £15,750. A complete juvenile ichthyosaur, 53cm long, was identified for acquisition. This specimen was rescued from Broad Ledge before the code was established. The owner offered the specimen at £20,000, less than he considered it to be worth, but other valuations suggested a maximum value of £12,000. It was not possible to agree a price and the specimen was sold to a private individual for considerably more than the offer price made to Dorset County Council. Another specimen, Ichthyosaurus breviceps was identified (record 79). The collector was asking for £15,000 and valuations suggested a value of between £10,000 and £15,000. An offer of £15,000 was accepted by the collector, subject to confirmation of title. This specimen had come from the foreshore west of Charmouth, an area identified by the Crown Estate as having been sold to a private individual in the mid Nineteenth Century. Efforts by Dorset County Council to identify any relatives of the landowner were unsuccessful but by the time this work had been completed (more than six months later), the collector withdrew the specimen. In accordance with the code, the specimen had been offered to an accredited UK museum for more than six months and therefore the collector was free to sell the specimen elsewhere and as a result a fellow collector acquired it.

Defining scientific importance

The definition of scientific importance was drawn up following consultation with the academic community and it attempts to take account that museums already hold many thousands of fossils from the West Dorset coast. Appendix 5 contains the definitions of scientific importance within the code.

There is the potential for collectors not to be aware of the categories and whether their specimens may qualify. There are also some gaps. Under the code, all identifiable fish that can be linked to a stratigraphic horizon should be recorded. (The reason being that the NHM’s collection of over 400 Liassic fish, extensive as it is, lacks stratigraphic provenance and therefore

19 any finds with such information are potentially useful in studying how fish recovered from the Triassic/Jurassic extinction event). A well preserved fish with no stratigraphical provenance does not need to be recorded. Should it? The same could apply to reptiles and lobsters for example.

RECOMMENDATION 3 : category 2 fish should include significant specimens even if their stratigraphic horizon is unknown (i.e. found ex situ ). A good example is record 125 ‘Head of large fish in limestone’ which would not necessarily qualify for recording. Linked to Recommendation 5.

RECOMMENDATION 4 : The same as above applies to crustaceans and therefore there is a need to provide better guidance on what a category 2 crustacean may be. Linked to Recommendation 5.

Several specimens have been recorded when they do not really qualify. Is there a need for a ‘Category 3’ level of specimens? The sorts of things that people might enthusiastically want to report but do not fit within the existing criteria? Examples might be records 100, 121 and possibly records 37, 42 and 43. By having this category, it might not ‘put people off’ recording future finds if they are disappointed first time round. It is probably easier to simply create a space on a web site, ideally the Charmouth Centre site, on which well preserved and/or interesting specimens can be displayed.

RECOMMENDATION 5 : Consider creating a web based gallery of well preserved and/or interesting specimens. There is a possibility here of incorporating this into a World Heritage Site wide recording scheme which is under consideration.

Fossil ‘fact sheets’ were to be produced several years ago but despite several prompts, very little information has come back from the academic community. The guide to the fossils of the Lower Lias by the Palaeontological Association has now been published. This will go quite some way towards achieving the fact sheets but it still may lack helpful guidance on identifying specimens and/or areas of specific interest for future scientific study. The guide could form a starting point for a more focused piece of work.

RECOMMENDATION 6 : The production of simple, clear guidance on the scientific interests should still be produced.

Land ownership

Two landowners have signed up to the code, the National Trust being the owner of most of the coast covered by the code and Charmouth Parish Council which owns a significant section of cliff and foreshore. At the time the code was drawn up, the Crown Estate stated that they accepted the ‘status quo’. Another 11 landowners make up the rest of the coast. Most own very small sections where collecting is unlikely to be significant.

The main areas where landowners are not ‘signed up’ are the foreshore ledges between Charmouth and Lyme Regis which are attributed to family names from the middle of the Nineteenth century. Attempts to trace the modern relatives, and therefore, presumably the current owners, have proved difficult as illustrated by the attempted acquisition of record 79, the Ichthyosaurus breviceps under the Collecting Cultures Jurassic Life project. A search by the Dorset Museum Service proved fruitless. A second potential purchase was that of a juvenile ichthyosaur (pre code) from Broad Ledge which raised interest from the Crown Estate due to the value attributed to the specimen (£20,000). Discussions are ongoing with the Estate’s land agents but no conclusion has been reached to date.

20 RECOMMENDATION 7 : Further efforts should be made to track down the remaining landowners. The actions for the acquisition of record 79 may be enough for that area of foreshore but it has been suggested that an advertisement is made to inform anyone with legal entitlement, of the code, in a similar way to the notice required prior to undertaking coastal engineering works on land with similar issues.

RECOMMENDATION 8 : Discussions should continue with the Crown Estate regarding fossils found on the foreshore in the areas of their ownership. Fossil code record 202, an ichthyosaur recovered from Broad Ledge in January 2010, will provide a useful example to work through with the Crown Estate, step by step from the process of discovery to excavation, preparation and scientific assessment.

Quality of the records

There is an issue regarding accuracy and consistency within the recording scheme as is clearly illustrated by the discounted specimens which represent approximately 5% of the records. Question: Other than that is the level of detail enough? (In order to answer this question, you need to look at the records on line at the Charmouth Heritage Coast Centre, not the appendices of this report which are highly simplified). If, based on recommendation 2 and expert opinion is more actively acquired on future finds, then data could be considerably improved.

The recording of in situ and ex situ specimens has been inconsistent and therefore, for example, it is difficult to determine what has come from the Blue Lias for purposes of comparison with the Blue Lias within the Undercliffs west of Lyme Regis.

RECOMMENDATION 9 : Update the records in accordance with this review of the code (Appendix 2) and:

RECOMMENDATION 10 : Provide better guidelines for identifying specimens to be recorded and the data related to them.

There is an issue of multiple records for pieces of the same specimen, e.g. record 34, the Scelidosaurus where records 51, 52, 56 and 94 are all part of the same find. Record 187, the second dinosaur, is going to generate similar complications. The data is important and illustrates how a number of collectors can essentially work together in the rescue of an important specimen but it leads to an increase in actual records that might be misinterpreted or counted as individual specimens in the record. In these cases, there is a need to record the specimen as one but to also capture the data on individual finds. The obvious way would be to record the finds as, for example 34 a, 34 b etc.

RECOMMENDATION 11 : Decide how best to record multiple finds belonging to one specimen.

The Charmouth Heritage Coast Centre web site contains a reasonably up to date list of specimens recorded but the individual records are hard to assess without a photograph to accompany each record. The web site does not contain photographs of all the specimens. The actual files of photographs are broken down into individual folders for each record. For ease of viewing/access it would be useful to have all the photographs under one folder, or possibly under group folders such as ‘reptiles’, ‘fish’ and ‘ammonites’ for instance with the record number and name as the file name for each image. Many photos are out of focus and next to useless and should be removed. Earlier photos are corrupted, in inappropriate file types and/or generally difficult to access. Photographs pre record number 76 are in a mess!

21 RECOMMENDATION 12 : Photographs should be re catalogued and rationalised.

Macro photography of insects is a problem as many images are out of focus or lack depth of field and or clarity.

RECOMMENDATION 13 : Undertake training and/or obtain better kit for macro photography. The new microscope acquired by the Centre may provide the answer.

Also assessing importance of a specimen from photographs is problematic. Better information is required from experts in the individual field of interest as soon as possible after the record is made.

RECOMMENDATION 14 : better guidelines and/or, if practical, more review should take place before specimens are entered onto the recording scheme. This links to Recommendation 2.

Science along the coast

The coast has long been a source of reference in the developing sciences of geology; stratigraphy, sedimentology, palaeontology and geomorphology. Indeed, many of the early principles of the Earth sciences were established here and the coast is associated with several of the ‘great names’ in the subject; William Buckland, William Conybeare, Henry De la Beche, W.D. Lang, W.J. Arkell and Michael House. That ‘tradition’ continues today.

Claims have been made suggesting that the high level of collecting effort prevents scientific study of the coast, specifically in the field of stratigraphy. These claims are hotly disputed and no evidence has been provided to support them. There may by a more widely shared view that specimens are harder to find now than thirty or forty years ago, however, this is not seen as specifically impeding scientific study . Looking at the category 1 specimens recorded over the last ten years, one can only wonder as to how many similar specimens were lost to the sea years ago when the collecting effort was less.

The West Dorset coast (and quite a large length of the rest of the coast) is at its best during and shortly after storms. These are the times when specimens are numerous or exposures not normally seen (especially foreshore outcrops) are uncovered. In reality, scientists cannot visit regularly or easily respond to storm events and universities do not appear to pay expenses for field work unless it is part of a research funded project (Page pers com., 30/09/2009). It is interesting to note that many of the great scientists listed above lived near or moved to the coast at some stage in their lives. W. D. Lang’s logs of the Lias were only completed once he had retired to Charmouth. He was so interested in the coast that he made it a part of his lifestyle choice and achieved great things as a result. The code provides a channel of communication between local collectors and ‘remote’ scientists and an opportunity to build relationships between the two.

The WHS Team has a small research fund and is more than willing to partner and/or support relevant research projects (subject to available funding) but experience shows this to be difficult and challenging. The team has been able to support small research projects such as Redcliff Point as a potential Global Stratotype, Section or Point (GSSP) and for Bournemouth University to undertake baseline studies of certain areas but larger projects such as supporting Imperial College in their bid to NERC for funding to interpret the multibeam sidescan sonar work recently collected by the Dorset Integrated Seabed Mapping project has failed.

The WHS team commissioned Plymouth University to undertake work towards a research strategy in 2008 and, useful as the work has been, it does not identify any easy or practical ways

22 to use the WHS designation to promote research. To make an impact will require a very considerable change to the current structure and focus of the work with little assurance of success. That does not mean that the WHS team are unable or unwilling to find ways to support research, it is simply seen as difficult and challenging. Collaborative ventures are more likely to be successful.

One area where the WHS team, in partnerships with local museums, is clearly able to assist research is in the acquisition of important fossils. The Collecting Cultures funding has enabled a number of specimens to be purchased that are of considerable interest, most notably a carnivorous reptile jaw from Sidmouth that may be a new species, along with the plesiosaur from Golden Cap, and the pliosaur skull from Osmington, which caught the attention of the world’s media. The latter will be a significant partnership between the WHS team and scientists in the preparation, study, display and interpretation of this huge animal.

Communications

Communications are a further key area. Collectors live locally, while others come from much further away when they can. Some have e-mail but quite a few don’t. Virtually all scientists are remote from the coast and there are very few opportunities for the two to meet. There are notable exceptions but many of the links were forged years ago between the collectors who have been around for a long time. There is a new generation of collectors for whom few opportunities are afforded to meet academics and curators. The Lyme Regis Fossil Festival goes some way to creating an opportunity for the two to meet but one problem with the festival is that the collectors are placed in one tent selling fossils, while the museum staff are run off their feet doing hands on science demonstrations to the thousands of visitors.

RECOMMENDATION 15 : There is a need for an event at the Fossil Festival that showcases the exceptional fossils and creates the opportunity for collectors and experts in the relevant fields to meet.

The principal formal method of communication with collectors is through an annual letter although this has not been sent for two years now, initially due to waiting for the outcome of the legal action against digging in the cliff, which took considerably longer than anticipated and now, on the preparation of this review. There are many occasions for informal meetings with collectors while the Charmouth Heritage Coast Centre plays an essential role.

The principal communication with the scientists is through the Science and Conservation Advisory Network (SCAN) but this rarely involves specific specimens and is much more about communicating and obtaining expert advice about specific threats or opportunities along the WHS. Some collectors, who have contacts with the relevant experts, will talk to them about interesting and important specimens but this is the exception rather than the rule. The records are available on the Charmouth Heritage Coast Centre web site but we have no idea who may or may not be accessing them. Once the specimens are recorded, they tend to be largely forgotten and the collectors, rightly or wrongly, assume that there is little or no interest from the academic community.

RECOMMENDATION 16 : Canvass the research community for experts who are willing and able to form an expert panel for identification and advice on specimens and for the communication of current scientific interest to collectors (linked to Recommendation 2).

RECOMMENDATION 17 : An annual report or summary of the code and the records should be produced for the collectors, academics and landowners.

23 Awareness of the code

There is certainly evidence that not all collectors are aware of the code. The Golden Cap plesiosaur is one example but luckily, because of the open policy of Natural England, the landowners and the code, the collector had no reason to hide the specimen and when it came to light, the Collecting Cultures funding enabled the specimen to be purchased. There are no doubt other examples but it is obviously impossible to quantify either the number of collectors or specimens.

There was also a need to prompt collectors to record specimens prior to the review. As a result of that prompt, an additional 11 specimens were recorded (about 5% of all records) over a three week period. There is a degree of scepticism amongst some collectors that no one is particularly interested or cares.

RECOMMENDATION 18 : Regularly prompt collectors to record their specimens. This could be linked to an ‘annual report’ of the code and the fossils recorded. This report could be made available to the National Trust in their reporting.

Role of the Charmouth Heritage Coast Centre

Related to both communication and awareness of the code, the Centre is well placed on the ground to act as a focal point for the code but it almost certainly needs to forge closer links with the academic community (Recommendations 2 and 16) and, to a lesser extent, collectors. It is the link between the two and therefore plays an essential role. Many of the recommendations made here will become the work list for the Centre’s geological warden.

Digging in situ in the cliff

Digging, while in general and subject to scale, causing little or no damage to the scientific interests of the site, is a challenging issue with regard to safety and in that collectors following the code are in fact losing out to those individuals who choose to ignore the code and the wishes of the landowners.

Although digging has been greatly reduced, it has continued to some extent in the flatstone bed (Lang’s Bed 83) in the cliff below Stonebarrow, east of Charmouth (see plates 7 and 8). Two individuals were repeatedly reported digging by local collectors, members of the public and a variety of professional staff, often during the peak summer period. On at least five occasions they were challenged by National Trust wardens or Charmouth Parish Council representatives or WHS team staff and asked to stop but continued regardless. As a result, the National Trust took legal steps to curtail their actions in the form of an injunction for trespass and theft. (NOTE: digging is not regarded as damaging the Site of Special Scientific Interest, which would be a criminal activity under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, as natural erosion rates are constantly refreshing the exposure). An injunction was secured in March 2010 against one individual together with a second injunction against ‘persons unknown’ for trespass, digging and removal of fossils from National Trust and Charmouth Parish Council land and explicitly the cliffs.

Digging by other collectors was reported on the 18th September 2009. Efforts were made to contact the possible offenders (identified by local collectors) but it was not possible to talk to them directly. The same two individuals were reported tooled up and heading for Stonebarrow on Saturday 12th December 2009. A member of the WHS Team responded and found the two collectors digging in the flatstone bed. A full and frank, but friendly, conversation led to an

24 assurance that these collectors would not do this again. As with the German group, only time will tell.

A small amount of in situ digging has been observed within the Black Ven/Spittles complex over the period that the code has been in operation but it has not been possible to clearly prove which individual or individuals are responsible. Since the legal action was initiated by the National Trust, this digging appears to have stopped.

Tourist digging

There have always been concerns about tourist digging in the cliffs. The 1982 public enquiry considered it and concluded that digging does not accelerate natural erosion. The Charmouth Heritage Coast Centre came about in an effort to focus interest and promote safe and successful collecting. However, ill informed tourists have continued to climb into and chip away at the soft cliffs. This is not seen as damaging the geological interests of the site, nor is it seen as significant in terms of eroding the site but it is potentially dangerous and causes objections and complaints.

Since 2007, the WHS Team and the Dorset Countryside Service have employed a summer warden whose primary objective is to patrol the beaches and persuade people off the cliffs and onto the beaches where the best fossils are to be found. The role has been seen as a very positive development but has not stopped and cannot stop everyone from clambering up the cliffs. There is very clear signage to warn people of the dangers, coupled with good advice on collecting fossils (including information about the code) but some people do not read signs or follow advice.

Discussion: the rationale behind the code and how the review informs it

The code would appear to have fulfilled the priorities identified by the Fossil collecting working group, in that fossils are recovered rather than destroyed and that everyone has an opportunity to view what has been found. Digging in the cliffs has been greatly reduced and supported by an unprecedented legal action by the landowners signed up to the code. The fossils of stratigraphic significance in situ remain exclusively reserved for scientific study. The site is in favourable condition. The record of key scientifically important fossils, while not absolutely complete, does capture the history of important finds over the last decade. There is evidence to suggest that not all fossils of scientific importance are being registered (the Golden Cap plesiosaur). It is likely to be a small number as there is no reason why collectors would not wish to register specimens.

The clear and obvious issue for the code is that less than 10% of the key scientifically important specimens have been placed in accredited museum collections. The fossil collecting working group knew that this would be a challenge but what are the obstacles and how do we improve on the acquisition rates? Clearly lack of funding for acquisition, lack of space to store, display and, in some cases, curate specimens, lack of funding for scientific research, uncertainty about the ownership of specimens from certain areas of the coast (e.g. record 79), agreeing on the value of specimens, a philosophical objection to purchasing specimens amongst some people and the desire by some collectors to either keep their fossils for the duration of their lives (e.g. record 132 or 165) or to see a world class museum/exhibition in West Dorset (e.g. records 27, 34, 99 and 141), are the factors involved. This is a complex issue but the code certainly increases the likelihood that important specimens will be acquired while the complete resolution of this issue lies outside the code and working group in that it involves museum curators, scientists and funding agencies working together with the partners of the code, particularly the statutory agencies, the landowners and, of course, the collectors.

25

Are the priorities of the working group correct? Is it better that the specimens are recovered, even if they remain in private hands, than to seek a more restrictive approach? Is co-operation preferable to coercion? There is a long history to support the former, from the days of Mary Anning, through James Harrison, Samuel Clarke, Issac Hunter, Barney Hansford, Stuart Bagnoli and Martin Foster and on to the range of collectors alive today. Their finds and contribution to the science of the Site have been celebrated by the majority in the research community, and particularly by the vertebrate community, because they know that there is no other way that specimens new to science will recovered and come to their attention.

Professional collectors can respond to the storms and landslides almost all of the time. They make very significant finds. Over the last fifteen years one collector has rescued four ichthyosaurs from Seatown, two of which are now in museum collections Leptonectes moori (pre code) now in the collections of the Natural History Museum and a second specimen (record number 4) as yet to be described, acquired by the Royal Ontario Museum. He has two other specimens that are considered to be new to science (one pre code and record 99) which he wants to see in a world class exhibition in West Dorset (hence the reason why they have not been acquired under the Collecting Cultures funding). The interesting point here is that Seatown can act as a control; it is more than reasonable to assume that these fossils have always been eroding out of the cliffs and foreshore ledges yet no one, collector or academic, has recovered them until now. The GCR interest for reptiles does not recognise the higher parts of the Lower Lias (represented at Seatown) as important but that clearly needs to be revised, based on the efforts of just one professional collector.

Amateur collectors also make important discoveries. Some of these specimens are donated (records 75 and 199) while it is the stated intention by others that their collection will be donated later in life or on their death (e.g. record 165). Several specimens have been available for donation but no effort has been made to acquire them. It is entirely possible that some collectors will change their minds, through personal circumstance, and be forced to sell their collection in order to pay the bills. Professional collectors also donate specimens, for example records 59, 60, 65, 72, 75 96, 106, 108, 109, 111, 112, 113, 114, and 115 (actually all donated by one collector). A further 8 records are available for donation from the same collector.

Many collectors that are active today, both amateur and professional, moved to West Dorset in order to be able to respond to the events that uncover the fossils; storms, landslides, spring tides. They are so interested that they have made that lifestyle choice. Very few academics do the same thing, not least of which because there is no local university within practical commuting distance of the coast. Lang was an exception, upon his retirement he moved to Charmouth and dedicated his time to logging the Lower Jurassic in detail and gained wide recognition for doing so.

People also make collections. William Willoughby Cole, the 3rd Earl of Enniskillen, built up a superb collection of marine reptiles in the early 1800’s, including specimens purchased from the Anning family that have lost their provenance. Thomas Hawkins from Street did the same thing and both collections were eventually purchased by the Natural History Museum and form the core of the national collection today. Martin Foster built up two important and celebrated collections of ammonites through collecting and purchase in the 1980’s and 90’s that were acquired by the National Museum of Wales. We cannot tell if amateur collectors or wealthy ‘gatherers’/collectors will sell or even donate their collections in years to come but they are doing the same thing as the people who formed the foundation collections for the national museums nearly two centuries ago.

26 Collections, including many natural history collections that are not fossils, have a value and are purchased by museums as a matter of course. That value may reflect the time taken to find them (an expedition for instance), or the fact that there were collected many years ago from pristine environments that are now no longer available, or that it would simply cost more to undertake a new expedition to recover such a collection than to acquire an existing collection. The value of most fossils reflects the time and skill taken to find the specimen, the time and skill to prepare it and the scientific and/or intrinsic value that may be released as a result of both of the previous. Cultural objects; art, archaeology, antiques for example, are routinely traded even though they form part of our cultural heritage and that trade is accepted and even celebrated in popular programmes such as The Antiques Road Show. Objects, declared as Treasure Trove or not, are routinely sold at the highest market value, even if museums seek to acquire the object(s) for the benefit of the Nation (the recently discovered Staffordshire Hoard or the Crosby-Garett Roman mask being very good examples). Unlike many cultural objects, no fossil collected under the code has been ‘flogged off to the highest bidder’.

The fossil collecting working group felt that it was not practical to try to restrict the value of specimens and that such practice was not found in other fields. The landowners signing up to the code felt that although the fossils come from their land and indeed belong to them, they have no value without the collector’s efforts to rescue them. The fossils are subject to a rescue operation 365 days a year, unlike many archaeological objects that will remain safe in the ground and are only found by deliberately searching for them. The landowners have essentially used their ownership, their influence, to facilitate good management practice on their land, i.e. the requirements and restrictions of the fossil code. They have been prepared to take legal action against the very small minority of collectors who have not been prepared to follow the code while the code very clearly separates responsible and irresponsible collectors.

The review of the specimens recorded clearly demonstrates that despite the high collecting effort specimens of great scientific importance are rescued just in time . Records 4, 11, 25, 26, 27, 34, 65, 75, 79, 99, 102, 130, 132, 141, 165, 192, 199; have all been rescued from active landslides or display damage caused by erosion, the very erosion that enabled the collectors to find them in the first place. Plates 12 and 13 clearly illustrate the damage to key scientifically important fossils caused by erosion despite the collecting effort.

The alternative to co-operation with the collectors (the current situation under the code), would be a range of increasing controls or restrictions perhaps starting as a minimum, with an attempt to apply restrictions on the fossils that collectors could keep or sell. The fossil code working group considered this and felt that it was impractical to attempt to try to control the destination of specimens. Should a more restrictive regime be applied, in order to be effective, it would have to be accompanied by policing of the beaches but quite how this would be undertaken and on what legal basis is difficult to determine. Without effective enforcement, collecting would be likely to continue, a situation that is reported in many countries that have a restrictive approach on sites that cannot be or are not policed. Restriction would lead to a loss of co-operation and goodwill with collectors, the people who, over the last two hundred years have demonstrated their value to the science of the coast or to a reduction in the collecting effort. Quite how the current collecting effort could be maintained under a more restrictive regime is questionable but it is clearly required in order to rescue the important specimens. The prospect of imposing either ineffective restrictions (i.e. restrictions that cannot be enforced), or restrictions that in reality cannot be paid for (i.e. policing, with dubious legal backing and/or paid collecting effort), will lead to the loss of specimens for which this coast is rightly famous. The fossils are rescued because of the efforts of collectors. Does that give them a ‘disproportionate’ say in what should happen to the fossils that they find (i.e. the current situation)? Is there a different approach that would deliver the same or better results? No practical, costed or accepted alternatives have been put forward to date.

27

It may be interpreted from the criticism developed by the Geoconservation Working Group of the International Subcommission on Jurassic Stratigraphy, (Newsletter 33) that the criteria for defining scientific interest are incorrect and have a misplaced bias towards vertebrates. This was not explicitly stated but may be inferred through an examination of the argument developed. Are the criteria within the code correct?

Only two research scientists have expressed concerns about the collecting effort and the damage that they believe it is doing to the site (including other parts of the WHS, not just West Dorset) and to their ability to use it for research. Both put considerable emphasis on the comparative analysis of the results from the Charmouth Bypass and the code which they present as precise evidence that the code is failing. Members of the fossil code working group feel that the analysis is deeply flawed. No other evidence has been put forward to support their view. Within the academic community there is almost certainly a range of opinion from highly supportive of the approach taken under the fossil code, to less certain and, no doubt, reserve about that approach. The primary purpose of this review is to capture that full range of views and therefore we urge you to comment.

In order to really understand and appreciate the nature of this coast and the processes by which the fossils and strata are exposed, one needs to spend a great deal of time on the coast and be available to respond when the weather conditions create the opportunity. The key to understanding the protection and management of palaeontological sites as a whole is to consider an approach based on all the circumstances of each invividual site and crucially the sensitivity of sites to collecting effort. A rapidly eroding coastline (an exposure site) requires a very different approach to that suitable for a disused quarry for example. A working quarry or temporary exposure requires an approach similar to that of an open coast but the important difference is that in the case of the former, access can usually be controlled and the process of exposure is predictable. A disused quarry, a cave deposit or abandoned mine tip are amongst the most sensitive of sites (integrity and finite sites), and can be easily damaged by any collecting, whether scientific, educational, amateur or professional, and require control and in some cases, complete control (where it can be achieved). This type of approach has been advocated in a consultation paper ‘A site based approach to the sustainable management of palaeontological sites’ by Edmonds, Larwood and Weighell. It is unpublished as yet but is available at; http://www.geoconservation.com/EHWH/Docs/fossil.htm.

The West Dorset coast requires a very different management approach than, say the Lesvos Petrified Forest European Geopark. The approach in Lesvos is essentially the same as at the fossil forest near Lulworth Cove on the Dorset coast (i.e. no collecting) since the sensitivities of the site in both locations are identical. However, applying the restrictive management policy of Lesvos European Geopark would be a complete disaster for the geological interests of the West Dorset coast. Similarly, we would not expect the management of the West Dorset coast to be applied to the Lesvos European Geopark or the Lulworth fossil forest for obvious reasons. There are very few sites comparable to West Dorset; in the UK the only similar sites (i.e. rapidly eroding and rich with important fossils) are the south and east coast of the Isle of Wight, the north coast of the Isle of Sheppey and the North Yorkshire coast. None of these other sites have yet attempted to develop a fossil code that aims to record what is actually being found.

Finally, the beaches around Lyme Regis and Charmouth are a superb ‘shop window’ to excite a new generation about the Earth sciences while finds such as the Osmington Pliosaur (outside the area of the code) clearly illustrate the great public interest in fossils. Our efforts to promote geology to a wider audience is entirely sustainable (in terms of the West Dorset coast), is in line

28 with UNESCO’s expectations of how a World Heritage Site should engage local communities and the public and matches the ambition of the European Geopark movement to engage people in the Earth sciences.

Conclusion

The code is not perfect but in the opinion of the Science and Conservation Advisory Group and the fossil collecting working group, it represents the most effective, pragmatic and common sense approach to the management of a rapidly eroding coastal site. The code was included in the Management Plan submitted with the bid for World Heritage status and approved by UNESCO when the Dorset and East Devon Coast was added to the World Heritage List. The code has now been in operation for 11 years and the data from it provides an opportunity to assess its effectiveness and explore the issues relating to the site.

This paper is an interpretation of the data from the code and the current state of the coast. We want the views of all those with an interest in the coast; researchers, museum curators, collectors, landowners, local people, visitors; anyone who cares about this special place. This review of the code provides data on what is being found and no doubt it can be interpreted by different people in different ways. Similarly, the experience of the coast is different for many people while variables such as the weather and the time of year effect what can, or cannot be found. With that in mind, we would appreciate submissions to be supported by sound evidence or interpretation of that evidence in response to this review.

We need to be able to reference, indeed, publish your views but if you do not want them attributed personally, please indicate accordingly. Appendix 6 is a list of organisations that we shall be directly consulting. If we have missed any, please pass this consultation on to them. Similarly, please also draw this document to the attention of anyone you feel may be interested in commenting on an individual basis.

Please respond to Richard Edmonds, Earth Science Manager, Jurassic Coast Team, C/O Environmental Services, Dorset County Council, County Hall, Dorchester. E-mail: [email protected] by the closing date stated at the start of this paper.

“The modern collectors of Lyme, like their celebrated predecessor, [Mary Anning], are exemplary of what professional fossil collecting can and should be. They spend long, tiring hours searching the rocks on a regular basis, in fair weather and foul, through the entire year. Museum curators and university researchers, in contrast, can only spend a fraction of their time in the field. Fossils are continually weathering out of the rocks, and if they are not collected they are soon lost and destroyed. It follows that if fossil collecting was the sole preserve of museums and universities, most of the fossils from the Dorset coast would be lost. The local collectors are the best guarantee against attrition, and it is no coincidence that many of the most important fossils that have ever been found were collected by locals.”

Chris McGowan, ‘The Dragon Seekers’ 2001

‘Much of the knowledge of the horizons of fossils is due to the labours of fossil collectors, especially Samuel Clarke and Robert and Issac Hunter of Charmouth, no longer living’

H.B. Woodward ‘Geology of Sidmouth and Lyme Regis’ BGS Memoir 1906

29