2008 House Bill 295 (Increase regulations for digging up graves on private property)

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Rep. Reginald K. Meeks on January 15, 2008, to require persons excavating archaeological sites on private property to obtain a permit from the Kentucky Heritage Council.
- Referred to the House Local Government Committee on January 17, 2008.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Rep. Reginald K. Meeks on January 15, 2008. New Comment

1) excavation [by Anonymous Citizen on February 8, 2008]
There is a difference between digging outhouse areas and the farmer who wants to plow over a mound to plant his crops.

Reply New Comment

Line

2) RESPONSE [by Anonymous Citizen on February 12, 2008]
There may be a difference but....HB 295 DOES NOT make any such distinction in the penalty !!!! In fact,if there is a distinction - the outhouse is a bigger sin than the farmer making a living. One does not have to get a permit from the Ky Heritage Council to plow.

C. Wagers
Reply New Comment

Line

3) ITS JUST TRASH [by Anonymous Citizen on January 31, 2008]
WHAT I DO ON MY PROPERTY WITH AN OLD OUTHOUSE OR DUMP SHOULD BE MY BUSINESS NOT THE STATE OF KENTUCKY
Reply New Comment

Line

4) THIS IS NOT RIGHT [by Anonymous Citizen on January 31, 2008]
ANYONE TELLING A LAND OWNER THAT THEY HAVE TO OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR DIGGING UP STUFF THAT IS NOT HUMAN REMAINS IS AND WILL CONTINUE TO S.O.S STANDS FOR STUCK ON STUPID . IT IS LIKE THE COUNTY TELLING YOU WHO YOUR TRASH HAULER WILL BE . THIS TYPE OF LEGISLATION IS NOT GOOD FOR BOTTLE DIGGERS METAL DETECTORS . BESIDES IF PEOPLE LIKE ME AND MANY OTHERS WHO WANT TO DIG IN AN OLD OUTHOUSE OR DUMP. WHAT ARE WE HURTING THE CLOWN WHO IS PRESENTING THE BILL SHOULD HAVE MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO DO . MAYBE HE PLANS ON MAKING MONEY ON THIS SOMEWAY OR THINKS HE IS GOING TO BE IMPORTANT . BEING IMPORTANT MEANS MUCH MORE THEN TRYING TO BECOME IMPORTANT
Reply New Comment

Line

5) CONSTITUTIONAL??? [by Anonymous Citizen on January 30, 2008]
Many of us have been having some interesting conversations regarding HB 295. One point of view is that this law essentially grants an "easement" to private property for anyone who might claim to have an ancestor buried on that property. That violates the rights of private property owners and raises a question whether HB 295 is even constitutional or not.
Interesting point of view.
Charles Wagers P.E.
Reply New Comment

Line

6) Archeology on Private Property [by Anonymous Citizen on January 30, 2008]
This is not good proposed legislation.

Keep private property out of the debate regarding archeology.
Seems like someone wants to be the State's overseer for every "digging" opportunity so they can have first "say", create paperwork, and generate more revenue for their company.
Waste of taxpayers money!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

7) Hog wash [by Anonymous Citizen on January 30, 2008]
There are laws to protect grave sites. Don't be fooled by this. You can bet there is money involved in this deal to certain people involved if it passes. This is all about greed, and power so lets stop this once again and make sure we vote the people out of office involved in this
Reply New Comment

Line

8) Reggie's Reich [by Anonymous Citizen on January 29, 2008]
Why has this come up again? Who is funding Reggie to continue this piece of Nazi garbage? Would someone please check Reggie's bank account to find out from where the income is being received? Surely an American (particularly a Kentuckian) wouldn't allow such usurpation of power over the property owner. Lufthansa flies two ways, Reg. Try the eastern flight.
Reply New Comment

Line

9) I'D LIKE TO ASK THIS [by mistylion on January 27, 2008]
I CALLED MY CITY (THAT ANNEXED US YEARS AGO) IF WE COULD CUT OUT 1/2 ACRE FOR A FAMILY CEMETERY. JUST THE 4 OF US. WELL TO OUR DISMAY, WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH AREA PLANNING, GET AN ATTORNEY AND A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER THINGS AND THE COST WOULD PROBABLY BE OVER $5000. THIS IS OUR LAND WE PAY TAXES, SO WHY CAN'T WE DO WHAT WE WANT TO WITH IT? AS FAR AS THE BILL GOES, JUST ANOTHER WAY TO AGGREVATE THE TAXPAYER. I WONDER HOW LONG IT TAKES TO DREAM UP THESE THINGS.
Reply New Comment

Line

10) A Violation of Property Rights [by Anonymous Citizen on January 26, 2008]
I highly oppose this bill.Upon reading this bill, it is apparent that it is taking away individual rights to the governing of ones own property. It forces the landowner to put the rights of others above his own regarding his own land. Native American graves and remains are already protected under Federal Law. This bill in unnecessary and violates the individual rights of the citizens. The bill isn't addressing "modern" cemeteries, but ancient ones. Who is to decide what defines a cemetery ? One arrowhead ? A lone piece of pottery ? If it is skeletal remains they is already protected. Read the following from the bill and see if you agree with my statements:
1. establish a process by which the landowner shall provide reasonable access to the cemeteries to the descendants and relatives of those buried within;
2. place responsibility on the land owner to maintain the cemetery's integrity;
3. make denial of access to the cemetery a violation;
4. set out a process by which the state shall dispose of human remains within its custody and control;
5. permit a legally recognized tribal government to conduct reinterment ceremonies for Native Americans;
6.place responsibility of encountered or accidentally discovered human remains on the cemetery owner or the state and require responsible party to dispose of;
This bill is wrong and should not be passed in my opinion.
Reply New Comment

Line

11) ARCHAEOLOGIST?? [by Anonymous Citizen on January 25, 2008]
I find the definition of "Archaeologist" interesting in this bill. It is "an individual who has a graduate degree in anthropology and at least one full-time postgraduate experience in archaeological research,........" Other professionals, lawyers, engineers, doctors, etc. all have much more stringent requirements - college degrees, at least four years of professional practice, have to be supported by others in the profession, etc. There are also legal boards which over see these professions. An archaeologist seems to be pretty loose as defined in this bill. Also of interest... the two individuals who are the grandfathers of Kentucky archeology - Webb and Funkhouser; Webb's Phd was in physics and Funkhouser was a biologist.
Charles S. Wagers P.E.
Reply New Comment

Line

12) STILL BAD [by Anonymous Citizen on January 25, 2008]
Although I am sure his intentions are honorable, Representative Meek's bill this year looks about as anti Kentucky land owner as those he has posted the last several years. Let me begin by saying that I do not argue with any aspects of protecting human remains. No reasonable person would do so and there are already multiple statutes (both state and federal) which protect human remains. That being said, in my opinion, the "human remains" aspects of this legislation is a "SMOKE SCREEN" to mask the real intent of the bill and that intent is the agenda of the Kentucky Heritage Council to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. I present the following comments;

- I own five farms in Madison County, all of which have been in my family for generations, going back to the early 1800s. Under this bill,I would have to obtain a permit from the Ky Heritage Council to metal detect or excavate old outhouses for objects left by my MY ANCESTERS ON MY PROPERTY. That is just not right!!!!

- This bill defines "Burial object" as any item intentionally placed in a burial ground at or near the time of the burial". The bill then goes on to restrict ownership of burial objects, obtaining burial, objects, etc. It also says the bill does NOT APPLY to surface hunting. ANY ARTIFACT, the most beautiful effigy pipe to the most common flint scraper, CAN BE a burial object and CAN BE found on the surface, so what would this bill do in that case.

- As I mentioned above, I own a farming operation in Madison County. While it all sounds good on the surface, this bill just adds another burden to the Kentucky farmer with the requirements to provide access to old graveyards. There are two such graveyards on my places. I have never denied access to those graveyards to anyone and I know of no other land owner who would do so BUT I don't want a law telling me I have to. Such legislation opens the possibility of undesirable characters on my property and gives me one other thing I have to manage.

Respectfully,
Charles S. Wagers P.E.
Reply New Comment

Line

13) HB 295 [by wnewman106 on August 2, 2008]
I am a family genealogist who has been denied access to a family graveyard in Clark Co., KY. I am missing a relative who died in 1839 and I know pretty well where the cemetery must be. I think a bill that would allow me to visit the site, with the knowledge of the present landowner, would be in order and should pose no hardship on the owner.
Reply New Comment

Line

14) STILL BAD [by Anonymous Citizen on January 25, 2008]
Although I am sure his intentions are honorable, Representative Meek's bill this year looks about as anti Kentucky land owner as those he has posted the last several years. Let me begin by saying that I do not argue with any aspects of protecting human remains. No reasonable person would do so and there are already multiple statutes (both state and federal) which protect human remains. That being said, in my opinion, the "human remains" aspects of this legislation is a "SMOKE SCREEN" to mask the real intent of the bill and that intent is the agenda of the Kentucky Heritage Council to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. I present the following comments;

- I own five farms in Madison County, all of which have been in my family for generations, going back to the early 1800s. Under this bill,I would have to obtain a permit from the Ky Heritage Council to metal detect or excavate old outhouses for objects left by my MY ANCESTERS ON MY PROPERTY. That is just not right!!!!

- This bill defines "Burial object" as any item intentionally placed in a burial ground at or near the time of the burial". The bill then goes on to restrict ownership of burial objects, obtaining burial, objects, etc. It also says the bill does NOT APPLY to surface hunting. ANY ARTIFACT, the most beautiful effigy pipe to the most common flint scraper, CAN BE a burial object and CAN BE found on the surface, so what would this bill do in that case.

- As I mentioned above, I own a farming operation in Madison County. While it all sounds good on the surface, this bill just adds another burden to the Kentucky farmer with the requirements to provide access to old graveyards. There are two such graveyards on my places. I have never denied access to those graveyards to anyone and I know of no other land owner who would do so BUT I don't want a law telling me I have to. Such legislation opens the possibility of undesirable characters on my property and gives me one other thing I have to manage.

Respectfully,
Charles S. Wagers P.E.
Reply New Comment

Line

15) Acess to graveyards [by Anonymous Citizen on February 8, 2008]
Posses a risk to your liability insurance.
Reply New Comment

Line

16) Concerned citizen [by Anonymous Citizen on January 27, 2008]
If an item found in a burial becomes illegal to own what becomes of shoes, suits, ties found in modern burials? Do they also become illegal to own? Think about it!! Its a double-edged sword that cuts both ways, not just one.
Reply New Comment

Line

Home
Create an account
Legislation watch
Search Legislation
Search Voting Record
Reports
- Recent Laws
- Missed Votes Report
Links
About
Tell a friend about this site