Review of the West Dorset fossil code Responses to the consultation March 2012 Background to the consultation NOTE: this may change with the revamp of the web site. Responses from the consultation These are the views received as part of the review of the West Dorset fossil collecting code in response to a consultation document We received 32 responses and of those: published in June 2011. The views have been considered by the Science and Conservation Advisory Group and Fossil Code Working Personal views: 15 Group on behalf of the Dorset and East Devon Coast World Heritage Organisational: 9 Site Steering Group. Consideration of the responses and the Academics: 13 consequent actions to improve the code are provided in a separate Geoconservation: 5 document. Landowners: 4 Collectors: 5 The consultation went out to: Others: 2 The Science and Conservation Advisory Network (31 individuals), NOTE: the totals do not add up as some people can respond Geological/Palaeontological socs/associations/societies (13), individually but be academic etc. museums curators (16), Geoconservation organisations (15), UK university Earth science departments (26), fossil collectors (30). We would like to thank all those who took the time to respond and hope that this document is both interesting and informative to those Articles about the review was publicised through: ProGEO newsletter, who read it. Geoconservation UK VOL2 NO3, BGS News, Dorset Coast Forum e- mail magazine, Shoreline (Charmouth community magazine) and Searching the consultation the Western Morning News. Presentations were made to the History Of Geology Group and the Society for Vertebrate Palaeontology & The responses are collated together under each of the questions Comparative Anatomy. asked and listed in the order that they were received so if you want to follow one response through the document, search using the The original consultation documents can be found on the Jurassic number and name with a full stop and space between them, e.g. 29. Coast web site at: http://www.jurassiccoast.com/299/managing-the- ISJS. Several responses did not follow the questionnaire and therefore site-37/whs-management-167/fossil-code-review-803.html these have been included at the back of the document. 1 Responses to the consultation, arranged question by question. Name/organisation Response Clarifications view/interest Question 1. Overall are the priorities of the code correct or flawed? 1. Ben Brookes I feel that the current priorities of the code remain valid, though I might suggest the inclusion of a Personal priority to “collect data from such finds so as to extend the scientific use/value of the specimens Vert palaeo without requiring their sale or donation.” (see my response to Q6 below). 2. Nigel Trewin Your code seems to me to cover the special needs of the Dorset Coast very well. The fact that you have Aberdeen uni lists of collected material is excellent, some material will ‘escape’, but will not be destroyed by the sea. All interests In the long run it will be available to science. 3. Paul de la Salle I think the priorities are correct and the objectives remain valid. Personal Amateur 4. Dr Paul Barrett Overall, I think that the objectives of the code and clear and appropriate. It strikes a balance between Personal the needs of amateur, professional and academic collectors and is clearly aimed at conserving the site Vert palaeo and promoting education and research. 5. Mark Bradley Responses that lie outside the questionnaire and is included at the end of this paper Land manager Question. 1 I think the objectives and priorities are basically sound and remain valid. 6. Rob Coram Personal Invert palaeo Question. 1 The overall priorities are correct. The only thing certain about fossil collecting on the Jurassic Coast is 7. Chris Paul that if specimens are not collected they will be destroyed, usually quickly. Ones collected by private Personal individuals may eventually reach recognized museums. Therefore we should encourage collecting, but Strat & invert palaeo also encourage people to report what they find. Question. 1 Valid altogether very sensible and realistic 8. Alan Saxon Amateur collector Question. 1 Priorities correct. Important to keep the Code simple and accessible 9. Alan Lord Geol Soc of London 2 Stratigraphy Question. 1 VALID? Yes. NEED REVISION? No, NEED ADDITIONS? No 10. Tony Holmes Unknown Question. 1 The fundamental priorities of the Code appear to be little changed and remain valid. Health and Safety 11. Simon Ford issues may have come further to the fore. Land manager Question. 1 Responses that lie outside the questionnaire and is included at the end of this paper 12. Jurassic Coast Museum partnership Question. 1 As one of the steering group which produced the Scottish Fossil Code I am pleased to see that the 13. Bob Davidson objectives and priorities of your document is in close alignment with ours, and has established a working arrangement that is achieving the required goals. For this reason you have my support for the document as it stands. Question. 1 The West Dorset Fossil Collecting Code review document was discussed. It was felt that the existing 14. Kelvin Huff, code of conduct was working well and we saw no need to restrict collecting by enthusiasts and Dorset GAG amateurs. Secretary Question. 1 OUGS Wessex committee have looked at the proposals you sent and the consensus view of Open 15. Sheila Alderman University Geological Society Wessex Branch of which there are 200 members in Dorset, Hampshire, Wessex OUGS South Wiltshire and South Somerset is that the current code of conduct for fossilling is fit for purpose and we see no need to change it. Question. 1 Responses that lie outside the questionnaire and is included at the end of this paper 16. Claire James Estate manager Question. 1 I think the present scheme, with a few improvements, would work well, though I must admit that I’m 17. John Wright not up to date with problems in West Dorset, as I haven’t done any collecting there for some 20 years Personal now. Strat and invert palaeo Question. 1 Responses that lie outside the questionnaire and is included at the end of this paper 18. Dr Chris King Personal 3 Strat and invert Question. 1 Provided Bristol Museums, Galleries & Archives – Acquisition & Disposal Policy 2010. 19. Roger Vaughan Bristol City Museum & Art Gallery Question. 1 [Response partially corrupted] 20. Mike Simms I think the code works pretty well within the obvious constraints. I'm sure certain aspects might be improved but as a whole I would stick with what is already there. I certainly don't think that the scientific importance of the site is compromised by commercial collecting. I think it would help enormously if there was some world-class, purpose-built museum for the WHS. Sure, it would be expensive to build but could be a real money-spinner. Question. 1 Responses that lie outside the questionnaire and is included at the end of this paper 21. Ian West Question. 1 Responses that lie outside the questionnaire and is included at the end of this paper 22. Charmouth Parish Council Question. 1 Responses that lie outside the questionnaire and is included at the end of this paper 23. Mike Taylor Question. 1 Addition could be: 24. Tim Ewin 1 Important finds are recorded with as much detail as possible: Personal 2 There needs to be some form of control making it beneficial for collectors to record their findings as All interests currently I am aware that there are numerous incidences of where important specimens are not being recorded. Both these points are, I suppose, interlinked as collections go unrecorded owing to the fact that the fossils are fragmentary and collectors do not want others finding the locality from which they came. This is understandable but has resulted in specimens not being recorded. Perhaps there could be a scheme whereby specimens are recorded but the information is not made public for a number of weeks/months/years: 3 An important addition, I feel, is that important specimens should be made available to accredited UK museums. i.e. not only given the first opportunity but that the specimens should be available. This opens a can of worms, however the treasure act has been functioning effectively for a number of years now and provides the perfect model to which the fossil code could follow. This effectively provides a fair price to the collector (if they so desire remuneration) and ensures that the specimen is displayed and properly cared for all with the close collaboration with the original discoverer. To stop people simply not declaring their finds, it should be made illegal for them to offer for sale any unrecorded type 4 1 and 2 specimens without them first being offered to a museum (for sale). I think many museums could also offer a loan back service whereby if the collector wanted to hang onto the specimen then museums should be prepared to consider owning the specimen but loaning it back to the individual (ensuring suitable provision and training is provided for the specimen’s care). This would resolve many of the issues of people wanting to hang on to their prize specimen to show friends etc. but ensuring that the specimen is available for academic study and its long term fate is ensured. This however may result in museums having to change their loans policies and will involve greater demands on their resources. However, in my experience the collectors are as responsible with collections as academics studying them: 4 All specimens recorded on the list must have location details updated if they are exchanged by the initial collector (either swapped, donated or sold).