Fossil Ownership / Commercial Sales

[ReeseF]

Hello,

Looking through old threads, I've seen the debate of private fossil ownership pop up from time to time with the conclusion that rare or scientifically significant specimens should be in proper hands but common or well known examples are fine to own. There are purportedly professional paleontologists who argue there should be no fossil ownership, which leads to one of my questions: how many scientifically significant or valuable specimens are known to have been damaged, destroyed, or unable to be accessed due to the fossil trade?

Amateur paleontologists have contributed to science, extending my question to whether the fossil trade has contributed more to paleontology than it has taken away.

I am curious what the thoughts are on "commercial" fossils, such as isolated mosasaur teeth, Keichousaurus', Cleoniceras, Elrathia trilobites, and so on. Do you view them as positive for introducing fossils affordably to many people who would otherwise not be involved in paleontology, or negative for frequent inaccurate information/restoration and fakery?

I'd love to hear opinions from both sides--I'm not quite sure about the extent for the first question, but for the second I would have to say commercial fossil pieces are overall positive for instilling interest and passion for fossils as well as cursory education/public awareness.

Reese

[MarcoSr]

First I believe that individuals should be able to own any fossil that they legally collected. I'm definitely not in favor of any laws where the government owns all the fossils like in some of the Provinces of Canada. I understand that there are many reputable dealers who make their livings selling fossils. However I am against the sale of fossils. A lot of the very restrictive state and federal laws in the US against fossil collecting are a direct result of abuses by a very limited number of commercial collectors. Science is continually advanced by the discoveries of amateurs. Opening up collecting to amateurs would increase the discoveries and not really affect the paleontologists who are very few in number compared to the amateurs and who are lead to a lot of their discoveries by the amateurs. At least this is what I have seen from my personal experience. However to open up collecting, commercial collecting would have to be ended as a few commercial collectors could and would destroy the scientific value of many sites through over-collecting for profit. Although there are some commercial collectors who do donate specimens, most don't and they are potentially lost to science.

Marco Sr.

[tmaier]

Well, this subject has been debated for more than 100 years and it rocks back and forth with incidents of abuse by government officials and abuse by commercial collectors as the driving force for each new spasm of public uproar. I don't see how I can contribute to the topic except...

I'd like people to know that what is extremely vaulable to science is very often extremely worthless on the comercial market. Science is seeking answers and collectors are seeking art. That means a beautiful "museum quality" specimen to a collector is really not desirable by a real museum of paleontology (especially if it has been "commercially prepared" for presentation).

[Brewcuse]

Except for three specific communities, nobody cares about fossils as anything except for a natural resource like native rocks.

1. Obviously the scientific community has developed paleontology into a full-fledged science in the past two centuries, and in many ways geology has equally benefitted from this knowledge.

2. Commercial fossil collectors sell fossils as specimens and decorations alike. This trade has developed over time and capitalizes on ideas of rarity/scarcity and beauty and the casual interests of the general public to own something unique or cool.

3. "Amateur" fossil collectors. There are those who thrill in the amateur scientific discovery of geologic and evolutionary evidence (This is me, though I have bought several fossils) and there are those who purchase fossils for any host of reasons (like mentioned by Tmaier and ReeseF above).

In the US, land ownership conveys the rights to the natural resources including minerals, lumber, natural gas, tillable land, and fossils. These rights can also be purchased, leased or otherwise assigned separately from land ownership (I built a house in Las Vegas on land where I did not own the mineral rights, but considering it was .15 acre in a huge development, it scarcely mattered). Given the "finders-keepers" nature of our laws, I don't see why this shouldn't be the prevailing attitude in the future. There is, here and elsewhere, a distinction between archaeology of human artifacts and paleontological remains. Culturally, this makes sense.

People have problems with the larger issue of how to keep abuses of natural resources in check. I think that environmental laws concerning mining are well-intentioned and well-regulated where I live in New York State, and the fact that "public" fossils sites like Penn-Dixie and "private" sites like Lang's quarry exist and operate in what I understand to be reasonable fashion, I see no harm in that continuing.

Though I admire, respect, and rely upon scientific knowledge in my amateur fossil hunting, I do not believe that scientists should govern the collection of fossils. Indeed, I would expect that an individual should be free to sell a specimen or donate it to science given that individual's conscience. I fully expect that in our democracy, a balance between science, commerce and individual liberty can obtain much as it is currently in my state.

Truthfully, my attitudes are shaped by my immediate circumstance. Nearly all the fossils I can collect in my region are well-dispersed and available to many people. The exceptions, in particular, Lang's Quarry and the Walcott-Rust Quarry, are places restricted by commercial and institutional interests that are accessible to those who meet the requirements only. I would hate to live in a world where I could pick up rock from the side of the road and not be able to keep it because of laws geared only to commercial and institutional interests.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Brewcuse

[Auspex]

There is no disputing the contributions of amateur collectors to Paleontology. Period.

[tmaier]

Most professional paleontologists started out as amatuer colectors when youmg. As long as you aren't a pain in the neck and out to destroy their science, the majority of them support amatuer collecting.

[ReeseF]

Thank you for the input--I am also curious where the distinction for 'scientifically significant' lies (I remember reading an article a while back about a Green River collector who saved all the pieces he found, showing the frequency of species--individually they were insignificant, but valuable as a collection).

Well, this subject has been debated for more than 100 years and it rocks back and forth with incidents of abuse by government officials and abuse by commercial collectors as the driving force for each new spasm of public uproar. I don't see how I can contribute to the topic except...

I'd like people to know that what is extremely vaulable to science is very often extremely worthless on the comercial market. Science is seeking answers and collectors are seeking art. That means a beautiful "museum quality" specimen to a collector is really not desirable by a real museum of paleontology (especially if it has been "commercially prepared" for presentation).

I'm curious about where they overlap (for example, there's currently a mounted Triceratops for sale on eBay as well as a Tenontosaurus that isn't fully prepared)--if legally collected, is it ethical to own?

Reese

[Auspex]

Thank you for the input--I am also curious where the distinction for 'scientifically significant' lies (I remember reading an article a while back about a Green River collector who saved all the pieces he found, showing the frequency of species--individually they were insignificant, but valuable as a collection).

I'm curious about where they overlap (for example, there's currently a mounted Triceratops for sale on eBay as well as a Tenontosaurus that isn't fully prepared)--if legally collected, is it ethical to own?

Reese

If they are lawfully acquired private property, yes. For an owner to donate property to an institution is a voluntary act of beneficence, and I hope I do not see the day when it is compulsory.

[tmaier]

Thank you for the input--I am also curious where the distinction for 'scientifically significant' lies (I remember reading an article a while back about a Green River collector who saved all the pieces he found, showing the frequency of species--individually they were insignificant, but valuable as a collection).

I don't see your point here. What are you expecting to happen?

I'm curious about where they overlap (for example, there's currently a mounted Triceratops for sale on eBay as well as a Tenontosaurus that isn't fully prepared)--if legally collected, is it ethical to own?

Reese

Again, not seeing the issue... a legally acquired specimen... what do you want?

It seems you are desparate to stoke the fire, where there isn't one.

[tmaier]

Here's an example of what drives paleontologists nuts:

A site is found and it looks like it will lead to something significant. The word gets out and 50 people with pickaxes and pickup trucks goes out there and start ripping up the site. It is now a useless pile of rubble.

They items the people stole were just common sharks teeth, but the significance of the site was something they didn't even feel worth stealing, no market value, not pretty. The data was all lost for some worthless teeth on ebay.

There's something to start a fire with, if you are looking for fuel.

I was a member of an archeology society and we had the same problem. A virgin site is found and by the time we get ready and get out there, the "pot hunters" have already made a crater field out of it. They stole some pots that are now on ebay. We aren't after the pots, we were after the data of how everything was laid down because that tells us how they lived. The pots were just minor data points in the whole thing, but those pots became the key to destruction of the history of those indians. Now the pots on ebay are just miscellaneous pottery with no provenace and thus useless.

The scientists aren't seeking things of beauty or of monetary value. Science is not pretty and is poor.

[ReeseF]

I don't see your point here. What are you expecting to happen?

Again, not seeing the issue... a legally acquired specimen... what do you want?

It seems you are desparate to stoke the fire, where there isn't one.

Hello,

I apologize if that came off as instigative ; I don't see private ownership of any fossil as wrong. I am more interested in the different views without starting a debate--I have only seen arguments against ownership secondhand.

I read your story of the "pot hunters" earlier--that's terrible to have happened.

Reese

[tmaier]

I collect a lot of things and sometimes I have visitors that think I shouldn't own the things I have (fossils, antiquities, artifacts). I know what you are saying... some people think all stuff should be handed over to the government. I find that the people who have this attitude don't really know anything about fossils, antiquities, or artifacts. I've never met any paleontologists with that attitude.

[JohnJ]

If they are lawfully acquired private property, yes. For an owner to donate property to an institution is a voluntary act of beneficence, and I hope I do not see the day when it is compulsory.

Agreed.

We will have much more to worry about than fossils, if private property ceases to be such.

[tmaier]

To encourage people to become amateur fossil hunters and bevome interested in paleontology, the government has put up a site showing the geological strata and what you can find.

http://www.paleoportal.org/

That was done through the University of California/Berkeley working on a federal grant from the National Science Foundation by the encouragement of paleontologists at Berkeley. They WANT you to take an interest and will show you how to do it.

There are NO plans to take anybodies fossils away unless they are stolen from government land. Stealing stuff and destroying stuff is still frowned upon by the federal government and by most state governements and will continue to be so in the future.

[jpevahouse]

This is always an emotional and sensitive issue among collectors. I live in a community and area where historic preservation is a well established part of community awareness. We try to value and protect our history here in NJ. Not true everywhere and not everyone sees history as something to be protected by law. Within my life attitudes toward historic preservation have changed greatly and I think for the better of our country.

It was a major awareness advance when national parks were created to preserve our exceptional natural resources. Same with historic sites of all kinds. They are a limited resource which will not return once people have exploited them fully. And history has proven many times given the chance people will exploit and destroy our history to their fullest. There are those who resent any restrictions. They are like little kids who haven't learned to control their impulses. If they want it, they think they have the right to take it.

Well, folks.... If we want our natural history resources to be around for future generations it takes maturity and discipline, maybe even sacrifice on our part.

[steedman]

This is a very interesting subject, and I can see why some would have collecting and owning of fossils restricted to the 'professionals', or to some national agencies. Always we as collectors are stigmatized by the unscrupulous collectors who really care nothing for a site scientifically; stratigraphy and its importance relative to specimens collected is of no importance to the collectors who simply wish to sell any finds for profit.

Now, I'm not against selling fossils...I sell them myself as a way of paying for prep' work by a world class preparator here in the UK, enabling me to have top quality specimens for my own cabinet (I know there are purists who prefer unprepared fossils, but that's another debate!). The point is though, that spares I have are readily bought by a pool of appreciative collectors world wide, who know and value the specimens they buy from me, understand the importance of the provenance, stratigrahic sequence, age, and diversity of a species from a recognized important location from which they will be unlikely to ever have the chance to collect themselves.

Unfortunately even here in Orkney, we are assailed by the unscupulous collectors: only last week the local police were asking for help trying to find the culprits who ripped stromatolites from a SSSI (site of special scientific interest) from which it is illegal to collect....the thieves are not local, most likely coming from south of the border (look out for polished stromatolites on ebay)..does this alter my view? No......because these people are NOT true collectors, and to stop true collectors from their passion/hobby/interests would be to punish the many for the vandalism of the few.

Do not underestimate the importance of the amateur collector to geology as a science; all geologists were once amateurs who happened to be wealthy enough to be able to indulge the time and cost of collecting, researching and recording their knowledge and interest for the rest of the scientific community, and I'm sure that this still happens today. Ok, rant over folks!!

[tmaier]

Yeah, it's the money behind it that makes things crazy.

I was working with a group of communist physicists from China and one of them turned to me and said "Money makes people crazy."

I replied "The lack of money does the same thing.".

So people are just crazy with or without the money, I guess.

[jpevahouse]

Here in NJ we are lucky to have a NJ State Museum curator who has a good relationship with collectors, a relationship which benefits both collectors and the state museum. Thanks to a strip of fossil bearing Cretaecous deposits which traverses the state north to south there are numerous sites available for public collecting on public nature preserves like Big Brook and similar sites. There are reasonable rules and open access. There are so many sites I will surely never see them all.

There are only two important sites restricted from public access, Ellisdale and Inversand Quarry. Otherwise, there are plenty of sites to satisfy the interest in fossil collecting here.

Edited August 15, 2014 by jpevahouse

[jpevahouse]

Yeah, it's the money behind it that makes things crazy.

I was working with a group of communist physicists from China and one of them turned to me and said "Money makes people crazy."

I replied "The lack of money does the same thing.".

So people are just crazy with or without the money, I guess.

There's definitely a treasure hunting aspect to all collecting. If all fossils were free would collectors still want them as much? I think a lot of interest would quickly disappear.

[Auspex]

Fossils are free, and this does not squelch the demand of non-commercial collectors (who constitute the majority)

[tmaier]

Out of the hundreds of fossils I have, I've only bought two. They just happen to be in shops I was in. One of them was in a pet store.

I'm not opposed to buying or selling, I prefer the chase. The morning dew in th grass, the dust on my boots, the lonely cry of the loon in the distance, the smell of napalm in the morning...

Wait... not the napalm... that was a movie.

Anyway, there are plenty of places to get them if you want them.

I always travel with some paper bags under the seat of the car and a geo hammer. Good pickins on the side of the road or in piles of construction land fill. The paper bag is so you can write where you found it and any notes about it.

[Brewcuse]

It was a major awareness advance when national parks were created to preserve our exceptional natural resources. Same with historic sites of all kinds. They are a limited resource which will not return once people have exploited them fully. And history has proven many times given the chance people will exploit and destroy our history to their fullest. There are those who resent any restrictions. They are like little kids who haven't learned to control their impulses. If they want it, they think they have the right to take it.

Well, folks.... If we want our natural history resources to be around for future generations it takes maturity and discipline, maybe even sacrifice on our part.

I respectfully disagree that fossil hunting by amateurs is an exploitation of natural resources.

There's always an element of the disingenuous in the argument against use/overuse/abuse of natural resources. For example, I have been researching fossil sites using geographical reports that are 75 or 100 years old. In these reports, the old photographs show views that are unbelievable- there are few trees! Today, photos from the same spots would have zero geographical value because the features are completely obscured by the reforestation which has occurred. Indeed, in the rural area I grew up, reforestation has happened since I graduated from high school.The fact that there are more trees now than a century ago means that logging is not destroying our forests. Sure, there are places where logging is more heavily active than in my area, but I see stacks of freshly cut logs and trucks of logs on the road all the time. Trees are renewable.

Fossils don't seem to be as renewable as trees, but technically, in geological time, they are. The truth is that there are more fossils buried "forever" inaccessible than there are exposed and accessible. And that's the problem. To dig a hole in my backyard to reach the Devonian strata is way more work than the payoff of Devonian brachiopods I may find. So I concentrate my efforts on areas where bedrock is exposed. I have within two hours drive of my house more than 100 such fossil-bearing sites. Many of these sites are celebrated here on TFF as excellent collecting areas and looking back through the archives, I can see that they've been talked about on here for five or more years in some cases. However, I have not once met another collector in the field. There is no overuse in this particular region.

Again, I will admit that I may live in a special area, where the abundant availability of fossils is such that some of my fellow forum members could only dream of. This may be true, but it is also true that 99% of the fossils that are here will continue to be here, buried under glacial till.

[siteseer]

A scientifically-significant specimen is one that adds a meaningful amount of information about a species or genus and/or the ecology of the environment of its time. It doesn't have to be a new species or genus. In the case of the Green River Formation many of the fishes (Knightia, Diplomystus) are common enough that one or fifty more specimens would not be scientifically-significant unless one or more showed some variation in its anatomy outside the understood range - a pathology or indicator of a new species. A few of the fishes are known from only a few specimens so one more is significant.

Any bird or mammal skeleton is important even if the species has been previously-described because mammals and birds are rare in the Green River Formation and it is likely that the material on which the species is based is just teeth and/or jaw sections (mammals) or a few partial bones (birds). A partial-complete skeleton tells a lot more about the species, genus, family, and maybe even the order - more about how the animal lived and its relationships to other groups. The Green River is Early Eocene-age, a time when many now-extinct bird and mammals groups were still successful and when the earliest members of many modern groups were emerging so a skeleton from that time is a big deal.

I doubt most paleontologists care about collectors taking home isolated teeth or bones especially if they are common and had been washed out of the formation ending up somewhere else. They don't really have much scientific value.

Sometimes, a significant specimen is a weird little thing that most collectors don't care about. I was on a field trip at the Haile Quarry with the Tampa Bay Fossil Club which was led by Roger Portell of the Florida Museum of Natural History. He asked everybody to keep an eye out for starfish ossicles. It's a deposit where a complete starfish is unlikely to be found. Had I found an ossicle, I would have given it to him.

Triceratops is considered common so a paleontologist might not care about one being for sale unless it was an unusually-complete skeleton. If it is from private land, it is just as ethical to sell as an Elrathia. I think if a paleontologist asked you to donate it and told you why it was significant, you should at least think about that. A paleontologist would also have to think about what he's asking a guy in a remote part of Montana or the Dakotas to give up - maybe more money than his family has seen in ten years - but then the finder could explore the tax write-off possibility as well.

Thank you for the input--I am also curious where the distinction for 'scientifically significant' lies (I remember reading an article a while back about a Green River collector who saved all the pieces he found, showing the frequency of species--individually they were insignificant, but valuable as a collection).


I'm curious about where they overlap (for example, there's currently a mounted Triceratops for sale on eBay as well as a Tenontosaurus that isn't fully prepared)--if legally collected, is it ethical to own?


Reese

[jpevahouse]

Fossils are free, and this does not squelch the demand of non-commercial collectors (who constitute the majority)

What I meant by free was no monetary value. I'll rephrase my comment: If fossils had no monetary value how much interest would there be? I've been through numerous emerging collecting interests and interest always grows in relation to monetary value.

[tmaier]

There are some people who collect things just based on value. I don't think they are a very large portion of the fossil collectors, but that tiny minority really drive up the price of the high end fossils.

I also collect antiquities. Books, coins, other stuff. The same thing happens in those items. There are "prime" collectors who absolutely show no interest in the history of the obect, they just want it because other people want it. And, they want it to be "perfect". This often leaves them open to scam artists who offer phoney fossils and antiquities that look just perfect, but are actually beatiful fakes.

One of the observable symptoms of these prime collectors is that they will have something fantastic (fake or real), and yet not know or care anything about it. Very often prime collectors of antiquarian books have never read the book.