<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">In response to my query yesterday
asking if your collection had received requests for verification
of specimens collected on public property managed by the National
Park Service, I received almost three dozen responses, most of
them private. Nearly all of them asking about the alternative
agreement I alluded to.<br>
<br>
So first - the responses about the NPS queries. Numerous
collections have received them, so far all on behalf of the
Saguaro National Park. They have been received by birds, herps,
and fishes. Probably mammals, too, then, but no mammal collections
people wrote to me.<br>
<br>
As I mentioned yesterday, I am guessing that this effort is in
response to the 2010 Inspector General report. Because the DOI is
migrating its IG (and maybe other) websites, I can't give you a
link to the report itself. However, here is a write-up by NSCA:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://nscalliance.org/?p=235">http://nscalliance.org/?p=235</a><br>
<br>
If this guess is correct, then:<br>
<br>
a) Kudos to the NPS, or at least the Saguaro NP, for getting its
house in order.*<br>
b) It is a real shame that the non-federal museum community and
the NPS have a relationship that has at least an element of ...
trying to find the right word here ... well, a relationship that
causes collections to worry about receiving a request like this.
It has happened numerous times over the past decade and each time,
the response is always one of concern: "What does the NPS really
want? Why are they doing this? Are they going to take the
specimens?" That really needs to change.<br>
c) One thing that would go a long way to making that change is
good communication. Right now, there is virtually no communication
between the non-federal museum community and the NPS except these
ad hoc communications and periodic meetings or conferences. It
would be really useful to have a NPS liaison who routinely reaches
out to SPNHC, OC, ASM, ASIH, NSCA and other organizations. <br>
<br>
* <i>Apparently, the manner in which they are seeking to do
inventory can be extremely burdensome, depending on the number
of NPS specimens and whether they have been integrated into the
collections or maintained separately. If this proves to be the
case for your collection, please notify me and/or SPNHC. </i><br>
<br>
Second, I am responding to everyone who asked about the alternate
agreement. It actually surprised me that anyone asked because the
day after the agreement was presented to the NMNH, I began hearing
about it from dozens of curators, collections managers, and
directors. I had thought that everyone had heard about it by now.
But obviously not, so let me try to present the entire thing in a
nutshell. I am of course omitting many details. <br>
<meta name="Title" content="">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1
lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-family:Wingdings;mso-fareast-font-family:Wingdings;mso-bidi-font-family:Wingdings;color:black"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">»<span style="font:7.0pt "Times
New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color:black">Pre-history
:: NPS
institutes a permit requirement for scientific research. At
some unknown time,
this standard condition is added to the permit: “Collected
specimens that are
not consumed in analysis or discarded after scientific
analysis remain federal
property.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>The NPS
reserves the right to
designate the repositories of all specimens removed from the
park and to
approve or restrict reassignment of specimens from one
repository to
another.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Because
specimens are Federal
property, they shall not be destroyed or discarded without
prior NPS
authorization.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-family:Wingdings;mso-fareast-font-family:Wingdings;mso-bidi-font-family:Wingdings;color:black"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">»<span style="font:7.0pt "Times
New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt">Early
1980s :: NPS scientists and natural resource managers realized
that valuable
baseline data and documentation on some specimens collected in
parks was being
lost. Permits were issued to a collector, the specimens went
to the collector’s
institution, and NPS had no effective way to track those
specimens.</span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><i
style="mso-bidi-font-style:
normal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> <br>
</o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1
lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;
mso-fareast-font-family:Wingdings;mso-bidi-font-family:Wingdings;color:black"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">»<span style="font:7.0pt "Times
New Roman""> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt">1984 :: The regulation (35
CFR 2.5) was
modified to require that specimens collected in parks and
retained in museum
collections bear official NPS museum labels and be catalogued
in the NPS
system. At some unknown time, the following conditions, which
fully resolve the
tracking issue, were added: </span><span
style="font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:
12.0pt;font-family:"Lucida
Grande";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><span
style="mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt">“</span><span
style="color:black">Each
specimen (or groups of specimens labeled as a group) that is
retained
permanently must bear NPS labels* and must be accessioned and
cataloged in the
NPS National Catalog.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Unless
exempted by
additional park-specific stipulations, the permittee will
complete the labels
and catalog records and will provide accession information.<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>It is the permittee’s
responsibility to
contact the park for cataloging instructions and specimen
labels as well as
instructions on repository designation for the specimens.”<br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><br>
<span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><span
style="color:black">“New specimens must be reported to the NPS
annually or more
frequently if required by the park issuing the permit.<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Minimum information for
annual reporting
includes specimen classification, number of specimens
collected, location
collected, specimen status (e.g., herbarium sheet, preserved
in
alcohol/formalin, tanned and mounted, dried and boxed, etc.),
and current
location.”<o:p></o:p></span><span
style="font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Lucida
Grande";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black"><o:p>
<br>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">* The NPS does not
provide labels
to the museums.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1
lfo2"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Lucida
Grande";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New
Roman";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span><font size="+1"><span
style="font-family: Wingdings; color: black;"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore"><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman"; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height:
normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;
-moz-font-feature-settings: normal;
-moz-font-language-override: normal;"> » </span></span></span></font><!--[endif]--><span
style="mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt">Early 1990s :: Association
of Systematics
Collections (now Natural Sciences Collections Alliance) seeks
to persuade NPS
to transfer ownership of specimens to museums.</span><span
style="font-size:
13.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Lucida
Grande";mso-bidi-font-family:
"Times New Roman";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l2 level1
lfo1;
tab-stops:list .25in left 333.0pt"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-bidi-font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;mso-fareast-font-family:Wingdings;mso-bidi-font-family:
Wingdings"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">»<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt">1993 ::
NPS museum management program drafted a regulatory revision to
allow park
superintendents to transfer ownership when a permit is issued,
provided that
the owning institution would have to maintain a retrievable
reference to
certain data fields, including the name of the NPS unit where
collected. As of
1996, the Interior Solicitor was reviewing the draft
regulation and it was
to have been published in the Federal Register for public
comment. It was never
published.<br style="mso-special-character:line-break">
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l2 level1
lfo1;
tab-stops:list .25in left 333.0pt"><span
style="mso-bidi-font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;mso-fareast-font-family:Wingdings;mso-bidi-font-family:
Wingdings"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">»<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt">2002 ::
Ornithological Council begins discussion with National Park
Service staff
(Natural Resources Stewardship and Chief Curator) about
specimen ownership
issue. It is the understanding of </span><span
class="MsoPageNumber">NPS staff </span><span
style="mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt">that the law bars transfer
of ownership.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l2 level1
lfo1;
tab-stops:list .25in left 333.0pt"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-bidi-font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;mso-fareast-font-family:Wingdings;mso-bidi-font-family:
Wingdings"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">»<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt">2003 ::
Ornithological Council requests that DOI Office of the
Solicitor look into the
legal aspects of the specimen ownership issue.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l2 level1
lfo1;
tab-stops:list .25in left 333.0pt"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-bidi-font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;mso-fareast-font-family:Wingdings;mso-bidi-font-family:
Wingdings"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">»<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt">2004 ::
Office of the Solicitor declines to respond because a draft
Environmental
Impact Statement pertaining to the benefits sharing policy is
pending.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l2 level1
lfo1;
tab-stops:list .25in left 333.0pt"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-bidi-font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;mso-fareast-font-family:Wingdings;mso-bidi-font-family:
Wingdings"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">»<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt">2006 ::
(After Draft EIS on benefits sharing was released),
Ornithological Council renewed its efforts. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l2 level1
lfo1;
tab-stops:list .25in left 333.0pt"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-bidi-font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;mso-fareast-font-family:Wingdings;mso-bidi-font-family:
Wingdings"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">»<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt">January
2008 :: National Park Service invites Ornithological Council,
NSCA, SPNHC and a
number of museums to a one-day, facilitated meeting to </span><span
style="color:black">discuss issues related to managing and
collecting
biological resources on the public lands managed by the NPS.</span><span
style="mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l2 level1
lfo1;
tab-stops:list .25in left 333.0pt"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-bidi-font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;mso-fareast-font-family:Wingdings;mso-bidi-font-family:
Wingdings"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">»<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color:black">April
2008 :: Meeting
is held, attended by Deputy Secretary of the Interior, two
attorneys from the
Office of the Solicitor, Director of the National Park
Service, several NPS
regional directors, park staff, several museums, the Natural
Sciences
Collections Alliance, the Ornithological Council, and the
Society for the
Preservation of Natural History Collections. Solicitors state
unequivocally and
for the first time that they interpret various statutes to
prohibit transfer of
ownership. Discussion shifts to alternate concepts such as
right of permanent
possession that will allow museums to continue to maintain and
curate specimens
collected on NPS property and pursue scientific research based
on those specimens
while meeting NPS stewardship concerns. <br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l2 level1
lfo1;
tab-stops:list .25in left 333.0pt">» 2008-2012 :: Follow-up by
the Ornithological Council, the Field Museum, and SPNHC on the
outcome of the 2008 meeting ensue. Gulf oil spill causes
significant delay. Meanwhile, the NPS continues a parallel
dialogue with the National Museum of Natural History that has
been underway for many years. <br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l2 level1
lfo1;
tab-stops:list .25in left 333.0pt">» April 2012 :: NPS and NMNH
negotiations succeed in reaching a "custodianship" agreement.
The terms of the agreement are reviewed by those of us who have
pursued this issue on behalf of the non-federal museum
community; we determine that it creates a legal relationship
that is beneficial to both parties and that it is far better
than the current "repository" agreement that the NPS has been
offering. <br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l2 level1
lfo1;
tab-stops:list .25in left 333.0pt">Speaking for myself only, I
feel that the custodianship agreement achieves what the parties
at the 2008 summit meeting identified as the real goals of both
parties: <br>
</p>
<ul>
<li>proper curation and management</li>
<li>deriving maximum scientific value from the specimens</li>
<li>fulfillment of the NPS stewardship responsibilities</li>
</ul>
<p>In other words, it is fair, it is good for science, it is good
for the museums, and good for the NPS. Is it perfect? If you
define a perfect agreement as a compromise that serves mutual
goals in a way that everyone can live with, then yes. In
reality, no agreement is perfect. There are things I would
rather see re-worded or made clearer. That is human nature, and
especially if the human in question was once a lawyer. But it is
good the way it is, and further negotiation might just be fatal
to the entire thing. Again, speaking for myself, enough. I've
been doing this for a long time and I would like to see a
successful resolution. Which is now within reach.<br>
</p>
<p>Which means what? Well, we have asked the NPS to offer this
custodianship agreement to the non-federal museum community. As
one would expect, in the proper exercise of their stewardship
responsibilities, they have to assess the eligibility of each
museum, much as they do with regard to the repository
agreements. And, in fact, more carefully, given that the
custodianship agreement is of essentially unlimited duration, as
opposed to repository agreements which are typically
5-year-renewable terms. <br>
</p>
Ellen<br>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l2 level1
lfo1;
tab-stops:list .25in left 333.0pt"><span style="color:black"></span><span
style="mso-bidi-font-size:
10.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Ellen Paul
Executive Director
The Ornithological Council
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ellen.paul@verizon.net">ellen.paul@verizon.net</a>
Phone (301) 986 8568
"Providing Scientific Information about Birds<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.nmnh.si.edu/BIRDNET">"
http://www.nmnh.si.edu/BIRDNET"</a>
</pre>
<br>
</div>
</body>
</html>