Review of the West Dorset coast fossil collecting code of conduct, and recording scheme 1999 to 2011

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.

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

Publication date: June 2011

Published by: Richard Edmonds, Earth Science Manager, World Heritage Site Team, c/o Dorset County Council, County Hall, Dorchester DT1 1XJ. E: mail: [email protected] Credits: to the SCAG and Keith Hackett in preparing the document.

Members of the Science and Conservation Advisory Group: Vince May (Bournemouth University), (Chair), Elaine Burt (British Geological Survey), Peter Chamberlain (Devon County Council), Keith Cole (Coastal Group/Shoreline Management Plan), Richard Edmonds (WHS Team), Andy Fleet (Natural History Museum), Malcolm Hart (Plymouth University), Jonathan Larwood (Natural England), Sam Rose (WHS Team), Sam Scriven (WHS Team), Dave Sole (fossil collecting interest).

The membership of the fossil code working group is outlined in section 2

1 CONTENTS

Page

1. Executive summary 3 2. Background 5 3. The need for a code and why just West Dorset? 5 4. The core of the code 6 5. The review of the code 7 5.1 – the quality of the West Dorset coast 7 5.2 – the recording scheme 13 . Specimens acquired by museums 14 7. Discussion: the rationale behind the code and how the review informs it 17 8. Conclusions 20

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: Defining scientific importance. Appendix 6: Consultation list Appendix 7: Questionnaire Appendix 8: Plates Appendix 9. Issues and recommendations already identified by the review

2 1. Consultation - Executive Summary

The West Dorset fossil collecting code of conduct (the code) was developed by a working group with representation from the conservation agencies, landowners, the scientific community, including museums and collectors and, following consultation and a trial period, 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. The code continues to be administered through the fossil code working group.

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; including episodic massive landslides and storms.

The priorities of the code are twofold. First; that fossils should be recovered before they are destroyed by the very processes that expose them; landslides and storms, and second; that everyone should have access to information about what is being found.

The Code then outlines responsibilities amongst collectors. Specimens of key scientific importance should be offered first to accredited museums if they are to be donated or sold. Collecting in situ is restricted and the fossils within the cliff sections may only be removed with permission from the landowner unless these are specimens (principally vertebrates and large crinoid slabs) at immediate risk of being damaged or destroyed by the sea or found by others, where these may be extracted immediately and retrospective permission sought.

The code recognises the essential and demonstrable 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 continue to make new discoveries. However, the Code review identifies a number of key issues and challenges associated with the ongoing collection of the fossils. These centre upon the following:

The numbers of specimens under public control: Less than 15% of the specimens recorded and defined as being of ‘key scientific importance’ have so far found their way into accredited museum collections. The Coast as a science resource: Collecting effort is high along parts of the site, leading to the recovery of many common forms of fossils that are well represented in museum collections together with occasional, rare and highly significant specimens that are new to science. Despite this high collecting effort, fossils of great scientific interest are typically rescued ‘just in the nick of time’. The coast remains in ‘favourable condition’ and fossils in situ remain reserved principally for scientific study that can and does continue. The educational parties using 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 is important to the long term profile of what many would say is an often overlooked subject. 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 coast in that the common fossils are abundant and renewed by the natural erosion rates at work on the cliffs. This activity delivers significant economic benefits to the local area, manifested by the number of fossil shops and guided walks. Leisure visitor collectors and their safety: 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

3 which also makes no significant contribution to erosion rates. The concern is much more for their safety. Current views amongst academics of the Code: The view of the academic community to collecting is almost certainly mixed. Many we know are highly supportive of collecting while some have expressed concerns or reservations about the level of collecting effort along this coast.

A key objective of this consultation is therefore to canvass and record the full range of opinion, particularly from within the academic community. We would like you to consider the following issues. Does the site remain in good condition and are the priorities of the fossil code working group correct? Can scientific investigation be undertaken? Is it better that the specimens are recovered, even if they remain in private hands, where they may be kept, swapped, sold or donated, than to seek a more restrictive approach that essentially attempts to control the destiny of important fossils? 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?

The review has already led to the recognition of a number of issues and made a series of recommendations but these involve discussion on some issues and the identification of relatively minor and/or detailed areas or aspects of the code in others. These are included in Appendix 9.

We are very keen that your views help us to take this process forward, and encourage you to examine the evidence, issues, recommendations and discussion that are contained within this consultation. We would be grateful if you could respond using the questions below, which are also available as a separate Word document (Appendix 7). Please respond by the end of September 2011. The responses will be reviewed by the Science and Conservation Advisory Group and the fossil code working group and incorporated into the review of the code where appropriate.

Question 1. Are the priorities of the code correct or flawed? In your view do the objectives that the working group adopted at the time remain valid? Need revision? Need additions? Question 2. What are the barriers and issues relating to acquisition and how can they be overcome? The West Dorset coast is a robust site subject to high erosion rates. Ex situ collecting effort is high but the coast remains in ‘favourable condition’ and research can be undertaken. Question 3. Do 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 opinions will be of more value if supported by evidence. Question 4. 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? Question 5. Defining scientific importance. Are the categories defining scientific importance correct and if not why not? What is missing? Question 6: Quality of the records. Is the level of detail enough? Question 7. Awareness of the code. Have you used the recording scheme? Are you aware of it? Please respond either on paper or by email, using Appendix 7, to Richard Edmonds, Earth

Science Manager, Dorset and East Devon Coast World Heritage Site team c/o Environmental Services, Dorset County Council, County Hall, Dorchester DT1 1XJ. E-mail: [email protected]

The closing date for comments will be the end of September 2011

4 2. Background to the code area

The coast between Lyme Regis and Hive Beach, Burton Bradstock, (hereafter referred to as the West Dorset coast), is the area covered by the West Dorset coast Fossil Collecting Code of Conduct (the code), and 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).

The exceptional value of the coastl for stratigraphic and palaeontological studies is due to the quality of preservation of fossils, their diversity, the thickness of the sequence and the very active erosional processes working on the cliffs. It is further enhanced as part of the Dorset and East Devon Coast World Heritage Site (WHS) which 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.

3. 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. Historically, erosion has ensured a constant supply of fossils but it 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; the sea.

The West Dorset fossil collecting code was developed in the late 1990’s 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 museum curators would be beneficial. A working group of interested parties was established 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, this group 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 (now Natural England).

5

Objectives of the working group were to implement a Code that:

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

4. 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, although that is now under review), 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.

Question 1. Overall are the objectives and priorities of the code correct or flawed? IN YOUR VIEW DO THE OBJECTIVES THAT THE WORKING GROUP ADOPTED AT THE TIME, REMAIN VALID? NEED REVISION? NEED ADDITIONS?

Question 2. What are the barriers and issues relating to acquisition and how can they be overcome?

1 Specimens that are clearly at immediate risk of being damaged or destroyed or found by others can be excavated 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 5. Review of the Code

The review of the code is considered in two parts: Part 1. The quality of the coast to 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.

5.1 – the quality of the coast; an overview

The West Dorset coast can be regarded as the most extreme type of geological 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, releasing huge volumes of the Shales with Beef onto the beach. 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 (record 205) 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 fishes, 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). 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 (Broad 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 zonal 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 zonal 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 ‘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 or when the ledges are stripped of sediment. 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

8 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, has no significant impact on the other interests of the coast 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 who were consistently working along the Flatstone Bed in Stonebarrow cliff. These individuals are now subject to an injunction preventing them from entering the cliffs owned by the National Trust and Charmouth Parish Council. The injunction was on the grounds of trespass and theft and not damage to the SSSI which would be a criminal offence under the Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act (2000). Some limited digging has continued along Stonebarrow and this is being challenged when possible. Despite digging, all strata have remained available and accessible along the section unless obscured by natural processes. Even in the centre of Black Ven, where little digging takes place and landslides are active, it is possible to excavate the Flatsone, Woodstone, Topstone and Stellare nodules, all fossil bearing strata, 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 nearby nodule horizons 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 800m 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 cliffs 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 and that therefore controls were not necessary. 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 and a winter. They used a state of the art ground based laser scanner (LiDAR) and the conclusions of this work are eagerly awaited.

9 Moving east, expressions of concern regarding indiscriminate tourist activity at Seatown have been made locally but are not possible 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 (mainly ‘tourist’ collecting) 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 landslips, particularly the toe of the Black Ven 1958/9 slip, within which the particularly fossil rich strata (the Black Ven Marl) have been almost completely eroded away. 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 coast 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 and therefore material on the beach is important. The procedure for the collection of ex situ starfish from fallen blocks of the Starfish Bed is currently 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.

Monitoring of a small landslide on the east side of Seatown beach between 2008 and 2009 indicated that, despite clear signs of 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

10 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. The system 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 was 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 but no further reports have been received to date.

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, 26 and 200). 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 and September 2010 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: 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 and examined most of the time but the quality varies according to cliff falls, the height of beach

11 shingle and collecting effort. The process that delivers these blocks to the beach, and sustains the interest, remains active and therefore this coast 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

The West Dorset coast is a robust site subject to high erosion rates. Ex situ collecting effort is high but the coast remains in ‘favourable condition’ and research can be undertaken.

Question 3. 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 opinions will be of more value if supported by evidence.

Question 4. 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?

12 5.2 - 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 March 2011:

TOTAL SUMMARY 2

Category 1 records: 51 (37 specimens) Category 2 records: 173 (228 specimens) Declassified records: 11 TOTAL 235 (265 specimens)

Records by type once adjusted:

Reptiles: 51 (37 specimens) Fish: 27 Insects: 58 records (115 specimens) Others : 86 Total: 235 records/265 specimens

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. 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.

2 See Appendix 2 for more detail on adjustments

13 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 higher 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. Record 206, Single wing (part and counterpart) identified by Dr Andrew Ross as a possible new species. 218/19/20, 3 individual Scelidosaur vertebra with good definition and very little damage from the sea, from Stonebarrow beach.

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 available for study.

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. At least one Category 2 specimen was not recorded, one of the rarer varieties of Dapedium , also acquired by the HLF Collecting Cultures programme.

6. Specimens acquired by museums

Just 34 of the 235 records (~15%) have found their way into museums, 6 of which are category 1, representing, again, approximately 15% of those specimens.

Record Category Description Present location number 4 1 Ichthyosaur. Maybe new species. Sold to the Royal Ontario Complete apart from tail, skin very Museum, Canada through well preserved in places Chris MoGowan. 6 1 Angulaticeras dumortieri (Fucini) An Cardiff Museum via Martin ammonite not found on this coast Foster collection before? 40 2 Ichthyosaur skull and paddles Sold to a museum in Tiawan (through Tucson fair) 58 1 Surface burrows in wood (Lias) Donated to the NHM 59 2 cycad or Bennettitalean Donated to the Natural History Museum, March 2003 60 2 Seed: Carpolithus from Ginkgo or Donated to the Natural

14 cycad or bennettitalean History Museum 61 2 Articulated ichthyosaur in nodule Sold to a museum in Tokyo 65 1 Mixed collection of 34 insect Donated to the NHM via specimens from a number of years. Andrew Ross At least 2 Cat 1 specimens, one a new species identified by Dr Andrew Ross from the Natural History Museum 72 2 Galaticeras ammonite complete with Donated to the Natural mouth border History Museum 75 1 Articulated ichthyosaur (skull and Collected in the course of abdomen), possibly from field work by NHM staff and Leptonectes . donated to the museum 95 2 Arnioceras . Perfect example with Acquired for Lyme Regis complete rostrum Museum through HLF Collecting Cultures. 96 2 Xiphoceras . Macroconch, 'mouth Donated to Natural History border' complete Museum, London 102 1 Potential new species of insect Donated to NHM via Andrew Ross 108 2 Very clear small wing in limestone Donated to NHM via Andrew Ross 109 2 Section of mature Xipheroceras with Charmouth Heritage Coast complete aperture Centre 3 (CHCC) 111 2 Arnioceras ammonite. Perfect Donated to NHM macroconch in body chamber of Asteroceras . Several ribs deformed. 112 2 Well defined ink sac with some soft Donated to NHM tissue preservation 113 2 Insect wing, very fine definition Donated to NHM 114 2 Insect wing. Part only of large Donated to NHM specimen 115 2 Ammonite aptycus in body chamber Donated to NHM of large incomplete Xipheroceras 119 2 Asteroceras obtusum. Centre of a Donated to the CHCC large (20cm+) mud-filled specimen showing external shell preservation. 121 2 Hoploparia longimana . Upper Donated to Charmouth Greensand nodule with tail and part Heritage Coast Centre of head of small lobster 129 2 Crushed cuttle bone with possible Donated to the CHCC ink sack or intestinal tract preserved in shale and beef 131 2 2cm insect wing and counterpart Donated to the CHCC impression in small limestone pebble 185 2 Ammonite body chamber broken With collector but will be revealing aptychus in (probable) life donated to the NHM in the position following months 196 1 Pseudoglyphea grandis . Almost Donated to the NHM

3 The Centre is not a registered museum but the specimens, one donated to the centre, could easily be donated in turn to a museum should there be any specific scientific interest.

15 complete lobster moult in 'butterfly position’ 197 2 Nodule containing partial Donated to Belfast Museum phragmocome and clearly visible hooklets 200 2 Multiple starfish and crinoid block Donated to the Dorset Museum Service 201 1 Ammonite ( Procerites ) Donated to Kevin Page for further assessment 206 1 Single insect wing (part and Donated to NHM counterpart) identified by Dr Andrew Ross as a possible new species 211 2 Single beetle with thorax and Donated to the CHCC abdomen clearly visable 222 2 Coleia brodei . Well preserved lobster Donated to NHM in shale, missing one claw (cheliped) 223 2 Hybodus shark with two articulated Donated to CHCC 'teeth batteries' one with 6 teeth, the other with 7 teeth. 224 1 Partial plesiosaur skeleton. Acquired by HLF Collecting Cultures for Lyme Regis Museum. 229 2 Two well preserved single elytra and Donated to CHCC another possible insect on separate pieces of Flatstone 235 2 Well preserved echinoid with Donated to the NHM bryozoans from the Inferior Oolite, Burton Bradstock

A number of records, notably 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.

Question 5. Defining scientific importance. Are the categories defining scientific importance correct and if not why not? What is missing?

Question 6: Quality of the records. Is the level of detail enough?

Question 7. Awareness of the code. Have you used the recording scheme? Are you aware of it?

16 7. 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 most of 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 reserved for scientific study where they can be and have been accessed for study. The earth science interests of the West Dorset coast are 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 but 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 15% of the key scientifically important specimens have so far 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 the acquisition rates? Clearly lack of funding for acquisition, lack of space to store, display and, in some cases, curate specimens, uncertainty about the ownership of specimens from certain areas of the coast (e.g. record 79), agreeing on the value of specimens, perhaps a philosophical objection to purchasing specimens amongst some 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. The Lyme Regis Museum is seeking funding for a major expansion to provide a fossil gallery but this is an expensive project on a difficult site while most collectors would rather see a new build centre or museum in a less expensive location and where the same funding could provide a bigger space. 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.

Are the priorities of the working group correct? Is it better that the specimens are recovered, even if they remain in private hands, where they may be kept by the collector, sold or donated, 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 Joseph and Mary Anning, through James Harrison, Samuel Clarke, Robert and Issac Hunter, James Jackson, 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 are clearly demonstrable and are celebrated by many in the scientific community.

Professional collectors are available to respond to the storms and landslides at any time. They make very significant finds; Ichthyosaurus solei, Excalibosaurus costini, Bagnolites stuarti and Stokesosaurus langhami being just a few examples. Over the last fifteen years one collector has rescued two new species of ichthyosaur from Seatown; Leptonectes moorei (pre code) now in the collections of the Natural History Museum and a second specimen (record number 4) 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

17 Seatown) as important but that surely now warrants revision, based on the efforts of just one collector.

Amateur collectors also make important discoveries. Some 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 and 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 with an Earth science department within practical commuting distance of the coast. W.D.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. James Jackson collected and donated some 5,500 specimens, mostly ammonites, during the 1950’s and 60’s and donated them to the National Museum of Wales. Martin Foster built up two important and celebrated collections of ammonites, 1,700 specimens, 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.

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 monetary 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 all of the above. Cultural objects; art, archaeological artefacts and antiques are routinely traded even though they may form part of our cultural heritage and that trade is accepted and even celebrated in popular programmes such as The Antiques Road Show. Objects, whether declared as Treasure Trove or not, are routinely sold at market value, even if museums seek to acquire them for the benefit of the Nation (the recently discovered Staffordshire Hoard or the Crosby-Garett Roman mask being very good examples).

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 4. The fossils are subject to a rescue operation 365 days a year, unlike many archaeological objects that will remain safe in the

4 That said, the Crown Estate is currently re-evaluating their position

18 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 and 199, hugely significant finds, have all been rescued from active landslides or wave cut platforms and 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 when drawing up the code but 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 could not be enforced), or restrictions that in reality could not be afforded (i.e. policing, with dubious legal backing and/or paid collecting effort), would 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? Is there a different approach that would deliver the same or better results? No practical, costed and viable alternatives that address the challenges outlined above have been put forward to date.

Setting the West Dorset coast into a wider framework; the key to understanding the protection and management of palaeontological sites is to consider their individual sensitivity to collecting effort. A rapidly eroding coastline (an ‘exposure’ site) requires collecting in order to rescue fossils. Access to an open coast cannot be controlled. A working quarry or temporary exposure requires an approach similar to that of an open coast but the important difference is that access can usually be controlled in a working quarry and the process of exposure is predictable. In contrast, a disused quarry may be far more sensitive to collecting while 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 common sense 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.

19 8. In 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 practical 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 12 years and the data from it provides an opportunity to assess its effectiveness and explore the issues relating to the site.

This paper provides 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. That said, we are particularly seeking the views of the academic community. This review of the code provides data on what is being found which no doubt 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 affect 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.

- End -

“ 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

20