Jump to content

Idea for legislation to reform the trade in Fossils of Large Vertebrates in the United States


Joseph Fossil

Recommended Posts

I've heard very recently about the upcoming sale of the Tyrannosaurus Rex Skull Maximus and I'm horrified another priceless dinosaur specimen is once again out of the hands of science and into the hands of the ultra rich. This Smithsonian article is a great summary of what's happening, though it incorrectly states the specimen's age at 76 Million years old (T-Rex lived between 68-66 Million Years ago). 

 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/a-t-rex-skull-named-maximus-could-fetch-15-to-20-million-at-auction-180981116/

 

Though the fossil trade occurs around the world, this problem seems to be most concentrated in the United States as of recent. I think it's about time that the U.S revisit its national laws and pass reform to the trade of large fossil vertebrates. For one thing, there could be a requirement that the only ones allowed to participate in auctions like the Maximus one should be Reputable Museums since this is dealing with the Earth's collective heritage and (so Museum's aren't bankrupt by paying gigantic amounts of money to buy fossils from Private landowners), the State where a large vertebrate fossil was found in should cover the full payment within a reasonable period (maybe a month to 12 months) to the landowner and give the fossil to the Museum so everyone can have a chance to study the fossilized specimens. 

 

This is just me spitballing some ideas, but what do you think? Do you think fossil auction and trade reform legislation is necessary in the United States and if so, what suggestions/reforms would you like to see implemented?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of those topics that opens up a big can of worms, and views can get fairly heated. We've had this debate a number of times here on the forum.

 

For good or ill, laws mandating how people dispose of their own private property are not going to be popular or without considerable pushback. 

  • I Agree 11

...How to Philosophize with a Hammer

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like more legislation would do more harm than good.

 

First of all, I feel that would not stop people from selling large fossils, it would just open up a black market which would make it even less likely for those fossils to get in the hands of museums. Even if its illegal, a few people would be willing to break the law for the multi-million dollars they could get with a T. rex fossil especially after the sale of Stan.

 

Also there is no clearly defined separation between a "large fossil vertebrate" and an almost large fossil vertebrate, or one important to science and one that is not, or one that is rare and one that's uncommon. It would be too hard to regulate unless they ban all vertebrate sales, which no one wants, and then my first point would really be in effect.

 

In my opinion I feel like laws greatly restricting fossil hunting access would be detrimental to the hobby, as this wouldn't only effect the fossil hunter in Montana selling the occasional Triceratops or Tyrannosaurus skeleton, but it would also effect the guy in another state just trying to sell off part of his collection to TFF. I also feel like the majority of people are willing to work with museums and professionals and vice versa and by creating restrictions, it wouldn't benefit anyone.

 

Of course this is from the perspective of someone who just likes fossils, not someone who sells large vertebrates, not someone who could buy large dinosaur skeletons, and not someone who works at a museum that feels like they can't compete with the private buyers.

  • I found this Informative 5
  • Enjoyed 1
  • I Agree 3

“If fossils are not "boggling" your mind then you are simply not doing it right” -Ken (digit)

"No fossil is garbage, it´s just not completely preserved” -Franz (FranzBernhard)

"With hammer in hand, the open horizon of time, and dear friends by my side, what can we not accomplish together?" -Kane (Kane)

"We are in a way conquering time, reuniting members of a long lost family" -Quincy (Opabinia Blues)

"I loved reading the trip reports, I loved the sharing, I loved the educational aspect, I loved the humor. It felt like home. It still does" -Mike (Pagurus)

“The best deal I ever got was getting accepted as a member on The Fossil Forum. Not only got an invaluable pool of knowledge, but gained a loving family as well.” -Doren (caldigger)

"it really is nice, to visit the oasis that is TFF" -Tim (fossildude19)

"Life's Good! -Adam (Tidgy's Dad)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might be better to increase the tax benefits for loaning/donating specimens to museums. Would have a similar effect to restrictive regulation and much easier to pass.

  • I found this Informative 2
  • I Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider talking to the billionaires that are looking to give away their money like the head of the company named after a river. This skull would make a nice donation piece.

Edited by DPS Ammonite
  • Enjoyed 1
  • I Agree 1

My goal is to leave no stone or fossil unturned.   

See my Arizona Paleontology Guide    link  The best single resource for Arizona paleontology anywhere.       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My main thought is that creating tax incentives for wealthy individuals (or corporations) to donate significant specimens to museums for display/study is a good idea.  The wealthy buyers still get the thrill of owning a "cool" dinosaur, plus keeping more money via those tax incentives, plus the public recognition and goodwill of having their name associated with making a major fossil accessible to the public.

 

Making individual states pay for fossils found within their borders has several problems that I can see.  1.  Not all land within state borders is under the control of the state government (e.g. Federal land, Tribal land), so why should a State pay for something found on land that isn't theirs?  2. Major vertebrate fossils are distributed unevenly among the states, so more fossil-rich states like Wyoming would pay out much more than their less-fossiliferous peers like Maine.  I expect the fossil-rich states would find this unfair.  3. This would create perverse incentives for the states to not have major vertebrate fossils found/excavated on their land.  If I were the official in charge of paying out state money for major fossils, I would be tempted to surreptitiously send around a crew to potential fossil sites and dynamite the hell out of them, to make sure nothing bigger than a quarter would ever be found.  Obviously, I personally would find this abhorrent, as someone who cares about fossils and about scientific discovery generally, but even if nothing this extreme happens, states would still find it in their interest to not have major fossils found (perhaps by just not allowing fossil prospecting on their land, which while less destructive would still have the same effect of preventing fossil discoveries).

  • I found this Informative 1
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, DPS Ammonite said:

Consider talking to the billionaires that are looking to give away their money like the head of the company named after a river.This skull would make a nice donation piece.

I like this idea... do you have Bezos' phone number handy? 

 

  • Enjoyed 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Parthicus said:

 

 

Making individual states pay for fossils found within their borders has several problems that I can see.  1.  Not all land within state borders is under the control of the state government (e.g. Federal land, Tribal land), so why should a State pay for something found on land that isn't theirs?  2. Major vertebrate fossils are distributed unevenly among the states, so more fossil-rich states like Wyoming would pay out much more than their less-fossiliferous peers like Maine.  I expect the fossil-rich states would find this unfair.  3. This would create perverse incentives for the states to not have major vertebrate fossils found/excavated on their land.  If I were the official in charge of paying out state money for major fossils, I would be tempted to surreptitiously send around a crew to potential fossil sites and dynamite the hell out of them, to make sure nothing bigger than a quarter would ever be found.  Obviously, I personally would find this abhorrent, as someone who cares about fossils and about scientific discovery generally, but even if nothing this extreme happens, states would still find it in their interest to not have major fossils found (perhaps by just not allowing fossil prospecting on their land, which while less destructive would still have the same effect of preventing fossil discoveries).

The state of Wyoming doesn't even allow folks to collect on state lands, with a half dozen fish quarries being the exceptions. 

And yes, places like Wyoming and other fossil rich western states have VERY strong personal property rights beliefs.  The idea of the state basically taking over anything on private land (which is what is at issue here) is a non-starter out here.  Dead in the water.

 

You folks may have seen the silly Dinosaur Hunters TV show, in which the guy from WY is selling stuff found on his land.  Before the show started, he DID approach the state legislators to fund his T rex staying in the state.  Nope said the legislators.  Last I heard, his T rex was going to Moscow.  Not in Idaho, but the other Moscow.  This was before the invasion of Urkaine, so I don't know where it stands.  (I should call him and ask).  

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, jpc said:

I like this idea... do you have Bezos' phone number handy? 

 

 

Just ask Dolly Parton.

"There is no shortage of fossils. There is only a shortage of paleontologists to study them." - Larry Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Joseph Fossil said:

For one thing, there could be a requirement that the only ones allowed to participate in auctions like the Maximus one should be Reputable Museums since this is dealing with the Earth's collective heritage

 

The "Earth" is not a single willed being with the ability to assert its ownership of anything.  The "Earth's collective heritage" is a misappropriation of concepts. The intentions may be benevolent, but an idea like this unfairly tries to justify the ultimate confiscation of private property by those that assume they have a right to take and manage that property in the unfounded name of humanity.  (Who granted them this assumed right?  Ten wolves and one sheep voting on what is for lunch?)

 

Museums in the US are funded, ultimately, by individuals.  Most individuals, in this country, own some kind of property.  Start proposing laws that could potentially result in law enforcement forcing a fossil owner to 'sell' their property or go to jail and see how that impacts the relationships in paleontology between amateurs and professionals, or the public in general.  For the most part, our laws are designed to protect the life and property of the individual from any mob deciding they know better.

 

It sounds like museums would be better off looking into effective public relations outreach (or form associations hiring good PR).  Tons of 'private' money is spent on the craziest things.  Surely someone could convince the interested 'parties' into a voluntary transaction

  • Enjoyed 2
  • I Agree 10

The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true.  -  JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • JohnJ changed the title to Idea for legislation to reform the trade in Fossils of Large Vertebrates in the United States

@Joseph Fossil

 

Please take some time to look through our Partners in Paleontology - Member Contributions to Science sub-forum and The Gallery.

There are plenty of people working with paleontologists to get the science out there. This is the direction that science and law should be leaning into.

More cooperation, between scientists and amateurs, rather than less cooperation and more laws governing what can and cannot be collected are what is needed here.

 

Putting more restrictions only guarantees that more fossils will be LOST to science, due to sweeping bans on fossil collection. 

Too Many fossils will be lost due to Natures' depredations against them. More fossils weather away to nothing,  than are stolen or collected and sold on the open markets.

 

The fact is that private citizenry have more time and money (to go out collecting) than the museums have people and budgets to do the same.

If museums were to court citizen scientists, train them to collect properly, issue permits and ID's to lawful collectors, and know that these people are willing to donate to science if their finds are of any scientific importance, then I am sure that a lot of issues that arise around these topics would become a thing of the past.

 

The bottom line is that Government should not over-reach to claim what was found on privately owned property.

Science or no, a person's right to do with what they own is a basic American right that  should trump any governmental  concern about scientific importance.

  • Thank You 1
  • I Agree 11

    Tim    -  VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER

   MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png      PaleoPartner.png.30c01982e09b0cc0b7d9d6a7a21f56c6.png.a600039856933851eeea617ca3f2d15f.png     Postmaster1.jpg.900efa599049929531fa81981f028e24.jpg    VFOTM.png.f1b09c78bf88298b009b0da14ef44cf0.png  VFOTM  --- APRIL - 2015  

__________________________________________________
"In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks."

John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~   ><))))( *>  About Me      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It occurs to me that this age old topic seems to only come up when a large popular vertebrate specimen such as a T-Rex skull or skeleton gets sold at auction to a private party. I can’t remember a time someone started this debate over a significant invertebrate getting sold or a smaller and less popular vertebrate. Size and backbone do not necessarily equal more scientific significance.

 

I wonder if the debate starts anew because the specimen is “lost to science” in a private collection or if the starters of such debates are just upset because they won’t be able to go to a museum and see a specimen made famous by Hollywood and the media. :zzzzscratchchin:
 

No offense meant to @Joseph Fossil. Just an observation from seeing this horse being brought back to life and beaten to death once more. The poor thing. 

 

Personally, I agree with what has already been said. More cooperation and less legislation. More science would be lost by stricter laws than a few specimens sold to private collectors. I’d gladly collaborate with museums and paleontologist. Etc. etc. :) 

  • Enjoyed 2
  • I Agree 8

The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.  -Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

Everyone you will ever meet knows something you don't. -Bill Nye (The Science Guy)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

glossy_blue_button_arrow_up_300_nwm.jpg

 

            THIS

  • Enjoyed 1
  • I Agree 1

    Tim    -  VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER

   MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png      PaleoPartner.png.30c01982e09b0cc0b7d9d6a7a21f56c6.png.a600039856933851eeea617ca3f2d15f.png     Postmaster1.jpg.900efa599049929531fa81981f028e24.jpg    VFOTM.png.f1b09c78bf88298b009b0da14ef44cf0.png  VFOTM  --- APRIL - 2015  

__________________________________________________
"In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks."

John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~   ><))))( *>  About Me      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of thoughtful replies above.

 

I would add that even once found, fossils and artifacts obviously require a great deal of care.  Proper preservation, identification, storage, and display take time and money, and sadly, that is time and money that many public institutions lack.    That's not to take away from the tremendous work done at those institutions.    Just a comment on the sad trend that when governments look to cut costs, museum funding goes quickly to the chopping block.

 

https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/how-museums-suffer-when-higher-education-budgets-are-cut/

 

https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education/article/Funding-cut-prompts-layoffs-at-museum-1450011.php

 

https://texomaconnect.com/the-sherman-museum-faces-possible-budget-cuts/

 

I also think there's a pretty common inaccurate public assumption that publicly funded institutions display all or most of their collections.  I know that's what I used to believe before I learned how many specimens can wait for decades to be processed due to lack of staffing.

 

In reality, amazing specimens in public hands are at risk of never making it to a display case, simply because the facility lacks the resources to process or display them.

 

https://www.keranews.org/2019-04-29/in-an-old-warehouse-in-north-austin-fossils-are-unraveling-the-mysteries-of-texas

 

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/curious-texas/2019/06/21/is-the-dallas-museum-of-natural-history-at-fair-park-open-to-the-public-curious-texas-investigates/

 

Even fossils that attract widespread fame rest on the whims of public facilities' shrinking budgets.  The Texas Memorial Museum in Austin seems to have teetered on the brink of shut-down due to lack of funding and staffing for years now.

 

https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/a-ut-museum-housing-massive-quetzalcoatlus-fossil-at-risk-from-budget-cuts/

 

I think public preservation, study, and display for fossils and artifacts is a noble goal.  Museums helped drive many of us private collectors into our love of fossils in the first place. 

 

But I also think efforts would be better spent lobbying for the funding necessary to preserve and display fossils and artifacts already in public hands.  Attempting costly and divisive legal lobbying to restrict private property rights and force specimens into facilities that may not even be adequately funded to care for them would do more harm than good.  

 

I guess that's my (kind of depressing) motivational speech to encourage us all to support our local museums today!

 

  • I found this Informative 2
  • Enjoyed 1
  • I Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, FossilNerd said:

It occurs to me that this age old topic seems to only come up when a large popular vertebrate specimen such as a T-Rex skull or skeleton gets sold at auction to a private party. I can’t remember a time someone started this debate over a significant invertebrate getting sold or a smaller and less popular vertebrate. Size and backbone do not necessarily equal more scientific significance.

 

.......

 

 

You hit the nail on the head.  Its never truly about "preserving important science".   Its only about "that person shouldnt own something I think is really cool".  So is pretty much boils down to jealousy.

  • Enjoyed 1
  • I Agree 3

"There is no shortage of fossils. There is only a shortage of paleontologists to study them." - Larry Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, FossilNerd said:

It occurs to me that this age old topic seems to only come up when a large popular vertebrate specimen such as a T-Rex skull or skeleton gets sold at auction to a private party. I can’t remember a time someone started this debate over a significant invertebrate getting sold or a smaller and less popular vertebrate. Size and backbone do not necessarily equal more scientific significance.

 

I wonder if the debate starts anew because the specimen is “lost to science” in a private collection or if the starters of such debates are just upset because they won’t be able to go to a museum and see a specimen made famous by Hollywood and the media. :zzzzscratchchin:
 

No offense meant to @Joseph Fossil. Just an observation from seeing this horse being brought back to life and beaten to death once more. The poor thing. 

 

Personally, I agree with what has already been said. More cooperation and less legislation. More science would be lost by stricter laws than a few specimens sold to private collectors. I’d gladly collaborate with museums and paleontologist. Etc. etc. :) 

 

@FossilNerd You’re absolutely correct and both Vertebrate and Invertebrate Fossils are of Equal Scientific Worth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Joseph Fossil said:

 

@FossilNerd You’re absolutely correct and both Vertebrate and Invertebrate Fossils are of Equal Scientific Worth. 

 

@FossilNerd @hadrosauridae The debate I wanted to start here is the fact there is a real threat theses specimens are getting lost to science and I couldn't care if a specimen was made famous by Hollywood or not, like the Deinonychus specimen that sold recently ($12.4 Million dollars for a dinosaur specimen...Really...That's near the definition of EXCESSIVE)!

 

Small invertebrates, since from the very beginnings of their evolutionary emergence, have been more common than Vertebrates. For any legislation, large invertebrates (since they are easier to identify and regulate based on their size such as extremely large Endoceratids such as Cameroceras) could also be included with tax incentives for donating/loaning all fossils including small invertebrates. The private collecting of invertebrates (not their sale on the International market) is where a great many Paleontologists start off and I don't want to take that away from them. Honestly, I don't want to take Private collecting of Fossils either. I'm saying it's not right that we put a monetary value on the life of a once living organism from prehistory whose remains can teach us about our past and how (in the face of the climate crisis) how we can protect our future! 

 

A person can private collect fossils as much as they want - just donate it to a reputable museum where scientists around the world can study and learn about it. You will still be credited for finding the magnificent fossil specimen in question and still retain the personal glory for finding the fossil specimen!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

@Joseph Fossil

 

Please take some time to look through our Partners in Paleontology - Member Contributions to Science sub-forum and The Gallery.

There are plenty of people working with paleontologists to get the science out there. This is the direction that science and law should be leaning into.

More cooperation, between scientists and amateurs, rather than less cooperation and more laws governing what can and cannot be collected are what is needed here.

 

Putting more restrictions only guarantees that more fossils will be LOST to science, due to sweeping bans on fossil collection. 

Too Many fossils will be lost due to Natures' depredations against them. More fossils weather away to nothing,  than are stolen or collected and sold on the open markets.

 

The fact is that private citizenry have more time and money (to go out collecting) than the museums have people and budgets to do the same.

If museums were to court citizen scientists, train them to collect properly, issue permits and ID's to lawful collectors, and know that these people are willing to donate to science if their finds are of any scientific importance, then I am sure that a lot of issues that arise around these topics would become a thing of the past.

 

The bottom line is that Government should not over-reach to claim what was found on privately owned property.

Science or no, a person's right to do with what they own is a basic American right that  should trump any governmental  concern about scientific importance.

 

@Fossildude19 I agree with you completely and Private Citizens have more time and resources to do the actual specimen finding. I even agree with you that a person should have the right to do what they want with a fossil specimen!

 

What I see as an enormous problem is the fossil market is making fossils so expensive that the incentives to sell a fossil for $10, $15, $20 million are beginning to outweigh the more honorable road of donating a specimen with no money attached to it! Either way, you still get credited for finding the specimen, the glory for finding that specimen shall and always will be yours...Shouldn’t that be enough!!!

 

The cash a Museum currently spends on buying specimens from private landowners could be better spent on funding more expeditions to find new specimens in the field!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Parthicus said:

My main thought is that creating tax incentives for wealthy individuals (or corporations) to donate significant specimens to museums for display/study is a good idea.  The wealthy buyers still get the thrill of owning a "cool" dinosaur, plus keeping more money via those tax incentives, plus the public recognition and goodwill of having their name associated with making a major fossil accessible to the public.

 

Making individual states pay for fossils found within their borders has several problems that I can see.  1.  Not all land within state borders is under the control of the state government (e.g. Federal land, Tribal land), so why should a State pay for something found on land that isn't theirs?  2. Major vertebrate fossils are distributed unevenly among the states, so more fossil-rich states like Wyoming would pay out much more than their less-fossiliferous peers like Maine.  I expect the fossil-rich states would find this unfair.  3. This would create perverse incentives for the states to not have major vertebrate fossils found/excavated on their land.  If I were the official in charge of paying out state money for major fossils, I would be tempted to surreptitiously send around a crew to potential fossil sites and dynamite the hell out of them, to make sure nothing bigger than a quarter would ever be found.  Obviously, I personally would find this abhorrent, as someone who cares about fossils and about scientific discovery generally, but even if nothing this extreme happens, states would still find it in their interest to not have major fossils found (perhaps by just not allowing fossil prospecting on their land, which while less destructive would still have the same effect of preventing fossil discoveries).

 

@Parthicus That is...Actually not a bad idea!!! :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, JBkansas said:

Might be better to increase the tax benefits for loaning/donating specimens to museums. Would have a similar effect to restrictive regulation and much easier to pass.

 

@JBkansas That is actually not a bad idea! Wouldn’t have the same strength as Federal legislation though. I also worry as new congresses begin their sessions if any fossil tax benefit regulation wouldn’t fall victim to the controversial Congressional Review Act of 1996! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see a crisis here. Many specimens are still donated. Papers are still written, new genera and species are frequently erected and formally described, museums still have plenty of material for study and display. Rather than focusing on that which makes the headlines (which is a form of heuristic media effect along the lines of reportage of shark attacks and airplane crashes as opposed to the absence of those events), note the abundant literature that is published each month. Science is not somehow deprived; in fact, there are more specimens to be studied than there are researchers to do the work. 

 

Collectors have different motivations for why they choose to collect, and what they hope to gain from it. Something deemed honourable is generally a product of choice, not compliance with legal enforcement. 

  • I Agree 5

...How to Philosophize with a Hammer

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Joseph Fossil said:

 

@JBkansas That is actually not a bad idea! Wouldn’t have the same strength as Federal legislation though. I also worry as new congresses begin their sessions if any fossil tax benefit regulation wouldn’t fall victim to the controversial Congressional Review Act of 1996! 

 

@JBkansas Though you are correct in it would be easier to do and would bring substantial benefits to the scientific community! How large of a tax benefit should it be? Would something over $10,000 in tax breaks for donating fossils to reputable museums be effective? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Joseph Fossil said:

($12.4 Million dollars for a dinosaur specimen...Really...That's near the definition of EXCESSIVE)!

 

11 minutes ago, Joseph Fossil said:

What I see as an enormous problem is the fossil market is making fossils so expensive that the incentives to sell a fossil for $10, $15, $20 million are beginning to outweigh the more honorable road of donating a specimen with no money attached to it!

 

These are subjective opinions about private property sales that do not translate well into legislation.  What group decides what is "excessive"?  What keeps that 'group' from designating other private property should be regulated the same way?

 

I think these kind of legislative ideas are fundamentally wrong on so many levels.

  • I Agree 5

The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true.  -  JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kane said:

I don't see a crisis here. Many specimens are still donated. Papers are still written, new genera and species are frequently erected and formally described, museums still have plenty of material for study and display. Rather than focusing on that which makes the headlines (which is a form of heuristic media effect along the lines of reportage of shark attacks and airplane crashes as opposed to the absence of those events), note the abundant literature that is published each month. Science is not somehow deprived; in fact, there are more specimens to be studied than there are researchers to do the work. 

 

Collectors have different motivations for why they choose to collect, and what they hope to gain from it. Something deemed honourable is generally a product of choice, not compliance with legal enforcement. 

 

@Kane Your right in it's not a full blown out of control crisis! But it could be argued it's an incoming or early crisis that's quickly becoming a medium sized crisis. The next stage is full blown crisis! You’re also correct in what is honorable for collecting is different from person to person and should be respected. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JohnJ said:

 

 

These are subjective opinions about private property sales that do not translate well into legislation.  What group decides what is "excessive"?  What keeps that 'group' from designating other private property should be regulated the same way?

 

I think these kind of legislative ideas are fundamentally wrong on so many levels.

 

@JohnJ The definition of excessive is subjective and it does depend from person to person. It's true that me saying $12.4 million dollars for a dinosaur specimen is excessive is my opinion!

 

This is simply referring to fossils and there is one thing though that I think puts fossils in a completely different category that other stuff that could be found on private property like copper or even gold. These were at one point living organisms like you and I. They may be composed of minerals and rock, but as fossils they’re more that and should be respected as such. I'm not and will certainly not advocate for jail time for fossil collectors who simply want to sell their fossils, it's just can't be at an amount that could bleed a Museum's budget dry. Maybe a $1,000,000, but that should be a cap.

 

Even then, it's a moral and ethical question on should we put a monetary value on what a once living and breathing organism from prehistory. This is a matter of opinion. In my personal opinion, I don't think we should. It's not that same, but similar to how we shouldn’t put a price on what a living species is worth, considering how interconnected life is!

 

It's also worth noting most people don't have the resources to properly care for a giant fossil skeleton like that of, say, Deinonychus, that a museum would nor have the equipment museum's have to treat stuff like Pyrite sickness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...