[Nhcoll-l] Dramatic change in U.S. Federal bio collection ownership claims

[Kevin Winker]

You and your institution may wish to comment on the Information Collection
Request (ICR) entitled " Documenting, Managing and Preserving DOI Museum
Property Housed in Non-Federal Repositories" (comments due 5 March).
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.reginfo.gov_public_do_PRAViewICR-3Fref-5Fnbr-3D201412-2D1084-2D001&d=AwIFaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=CLFZJ3fvGSmDp7xK1dNZfh6uGV_h-8NVlo3fXNoRNzI&m=VPze_41aJAtrjeOqnsDM4apkj2G-wDrzgjYYhIDs060&s=If15E2Iz0v9BAifuvEo9moFc10t2XcmDt3sLN3htroo&e= 

We are likely to disagree with what a Federal collection/specimen really
is. It is a change from our historic understanding here at our institution.
Here at UAM, DOI has historically claimed archaeological, paleontological,
and NPS material. It is now extended to include all specimens from all
DOI-managed lands (see excerpt below). We're opposing the ICR based on
scope (unresolved agreement on what a Federal collection is), time required
if we do agree on their scope, and reporting redundancy if we agree on
maintaining current agreements.

>From Supporting Statement A:

All museum collections recovered from public lands managed by the
Department remain Federal property—regardless of where housed or collected
by whom—and must be documented in the Interior Collection Management System
(ICMS) museum catalog database.  Permitees conducting authorized scientific
research and authorized individuals performing compliance activities on
DOI-managed lands must ensure that any retained specimens or objects
collected during a project are: 1) accessioned and cataloged in ICMS
according to DOI standards; and 2) housed in an appropriate museum
repository that meets DOI museum standards.  These requirements ensure the
collections’ long-term preservation, protection, and accessibility for
research access and use.  The majority of current scientific research
projects meet these criteria.



Many of the research and compliance projects conducted prior to the 1980s,
however, were undertaken in absence of formal research permits or other
documentation.  Likewise, there oftentimes were no loan or repository
agreements, receipts for property, memoranda of agreement, instruments of
conveyance, or other standard museum documentation prepared regarding any
objects or specimens collected during the project.  Such documentation is
vital to ensure that all parties are aware of:



1)   Permanent Federal ownership of the collections, as established in law
by the Act for the Preservation of American Antiquities of 1906
(Antiquities Act) (16 USC 431-433); National Park Service Organic Act of
1916 (16 USC 1 et. seq.); Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 USC 461-467);
Management of Museum Properties Act of 1955, as amended (16 USC 18f);
Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, as amended (16 USC
470aa-mm); Paleontological Resources Preservation Act (16 USC
470aaa-470aaa–11); and other legislation; and



2)   The mandated documentation and preservation responsibilities of the
researcher, his/her institution, and the repository where the collections
were ultimately housed.



In numerous instances, Federal collections were subsequently accessioned
into the permanent collections of the non-Federal repositories;
consequently, many of those institutions erroneously presumed ownership
rights.

Regards to all,
-- 
Kevin Winker
University of Alaska Museum
907 Yukon Drive
Fairbanks, AK 99775
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/pipermail/nhcoll-l/attachments/20150227/4fe0a20b/attachment.html