Anotehr pyramide gone due to greed

[Aepervius]

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/developers-bulldoze-ancient-pyramid-in-peru-1.1452583

Apaprentely the damage was done a few days ago on 29th june

"A statement issued by the country’s culture ministry described the attack, which occured on June 29th, as an “attack on the cultural heritage of the nation” and said the damage caused to the structure is “irreparable”."

"The destruction comes five months after archaeologists found a temple on the archaeological site, known as El Paraiso, which may be as old as Caral, a 5,000-year-old temple north of Lima discovered in 2001. "

Those responsible should go in prison, 1 year of prison per century of the artefact destroyed... Sounds fair to me.

 

[Weak Kitten]

More importantly the site should be turned into a public park to show that individual companies will not profit from this sort of behavior. "Find an archeological site and you just loose some of your land, tear down our cultural heritage and you loose all your land." That would make for a reasonable deterrent don't you think?

 

[Aepervius]

More importantly the site should be turned into a public park to show that individual companies will not profit from this sort of behavior. "Find an archeological site and you just loose some of your land, tear down our cultural heritage and you loose all your land." That would make for a reasonable deterrent don't you think?

The problem at the moment is , if you put too many deterrent, they destroy stuff they find on the spot.

I would suggest the following :
1) heavy pealty for the firm and the responsible
2) but if they willingly give back a ground where the artefact are found, they get a compensation far above market price

that way you punish the idiot AND give incencitive to protect the artefact to the land owner.

But punishment alone you risk as negative side effect that owner get an incencitive to destroy much in advance of anybody reporting the finding.

 

[Dinwar]

More importantly the site should be turned into a public park to show that individual companies will not profit from this sort of behavior. "Find an archeological site and you just loose some of your land, tear down our cultural heritage and you loose all your land." That would make for a reasonable deterrent don't you think?

Ever hear of "shoot, shovel, and shut up"?

A better option is to offer the companies enough money to make it worth them selling the archaeological sites to either the government or a private conservation agency. You'll never stop a company from trying to make money, and trying to fight that force is always a losing battle. Use that greed, though, and you'll find that they're suddenly on your side.

 

[Weak Kitten]

Ever hear of "shoot, shovel, and shut up"?

Actually, I hadn't heard that one. I guess it makes sense, I really didn't realize the lengths people might go to. That's a little scarey, has it actually happened before?

 

[Dinwar]

Actually, I hadn't heard that one. I guess it makes sense, I really didn't realize the lengths people might go to. That's a little scarey, has it actually happened before?

It's a common problem with wildlife preservation. It's so common that the BLM requires full-time biological monitoring of many construction projects on BLM land, specifically to prevent it (among other reasons; that one's specifically called out in the meetings I have with them, though). Can't do much on private land, however--after all, if you do it right, no one knows you killed and burried that golden eagle or whatever, so there's no one to report it.

The other problem with fines is that businesses will simply factor them into the cost of the project. A standard mitigation measure on BLM land is for the companies to donate a number of acres to the BLM, in exchange for the authorization to kill a certain number of endangered animals. Companies refer to their "take limit"--the number of any species that they are allowed to harass, kill, or capture. Or they'll flat-out pay the BLM and say "Look, here's the fines. Let us do whatever we want." Sort of defeats the purpose of the fines, but I've seen it happen more than once. (No, I can't name names, unfortunately.)

 

[Weak Kitten]

Yeah, I've seen whole articles in The Economist about how fines need be carefully balanced to be enough to deter corporations without being so much that more crimes are perpetrated to try to cover it up. They were talking about banks and such but I guess it applies to everything.