Judge Rules In Favor Of T-rex Fossil Hunters

[Guest michael]

http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2...17243749160.txt

[CaitlinAnn]

I'm glad the court ruled in their favor.

[Guest solius symbiosus]

I'm getting a 404 error. Is there another link?

[Guest N.AL.hunter]

http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2...17243749160.txt

[Boesse]

http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2...17243749160.txt

SacredSin, Why are you glad they ruled in the collector's favor?

[Guest michael]

SacredSin, Why are you glad they ruled in the collector's favor?

im not that t-rex needs to be in museum

[Guest Cris]

I guess, rightfully, the fossils belonged to the fossil hunters.... They should have donated it, if it was that important of a find (and got an exact cast like what they found) but I don't believe anybody had the right to take it from them.

[jkfoam]

Michael,

There is no doubt in my mind that the T-Rex will wind up in a museum. It is just that the museum will have to buy the T-Rex from the collector. The county that brought the suit is ticked off because they are not the ones to be selling T-Rex to the museum. No way was the county going to give the T-Rex to a museum. It was all about the money.

JKFoam

[Harry Pristis]

I guess, rightfully, the fossils belonged to the fossil hunters.... They should have donated it, if it was that important of a find (and got an exact cast like what they found) but I don't believe anybody had the right to take it from them.

I haven't been able to read the article, but I can imagine what happened.

What I'm curious about is why Cris thinks the owners should have donated it to anyone. Are you talking about a legal obligation, Cris? . . . a moral obligation? . . . what was the basis for your "should have"??

[Guest Cris]

In my opinion, if anything significant can be learned from a specimen, it should be donated.. There's been SO many important discoveries that you and I will never know anything about because they were made by fossil hunters who would rather make money off of it than donate it in the intrests of science... Personally, I think knowing I made an important contribution to science would feel better than making money off of something.. However, I think a better arangement would be museums having more funding and they could buy important discoveries off of people.. I think a lot more people would come to the museums when they found something important, and a lot more could be learned....I just read JKFoam's reply while half way through this... Can museums buy stuff from collectors? I didn't know they had the funding to do that. Anyways, I think that legally, the collectors owned what they found and had they right to do whatever they wanted to with it. I don't know how much can be learned from T-Rex's now that they've already studied them so much... I'm very much for the idea of donating very important specimens that the experts could learn from.

[Boesse]

In my opinion, if anything significant can be learned from a specimen, it should be donated.. There's been SO many important discoveries that you and I will never know anything about because they were made by fossil hunters who would rather make money off of it than donate it in the intrests of science... Personally, I think knowing I made an important contribution to science would feel better than making money off of something.. However, I think a better arangement would be museums having more funding and they could buy important discoveries off of people.. I think a lot more people would come to the museums when they found something important, and a lot more could be learned....I just read JKFoam's reply while half way through this... Can museums buy stuff from collectors? I didn't know they had the funding to do that. Anyways, I think that legally, the collectors owned what they found and had they right to do whatever they wanted to with it. I don't know how much can be learned from T-Rex's now that they've already studied them so much... I'm very much for the idea of donating very important specimens that the experts could learn from.

Cris, I agree with you on several points.

Firstly, in this country at least, most museums cannot buy fossils from private collectors. Also, members of SVP (society of vertebrate paleontology) like myself cannot purchase vertebrate fossils.

I do not think that private collectors should be obligated (legally or morally) to donate specimens IF they were collected legally. If they were collected illegally, then the specimens should be seized by law enforcement, put in a proper repository, and the criminals prosecuted. Fortunately, T. rex skeletons are pretty common now, so at the very least it isn't a new taxon.

I do appreciate it when fossil collectors donate fossils - our good friend RJB is a prime example of a responsible collector. He has found lots of really incredible new finds, and has donated them to several different museums, and through myself (when he didn't have enough time).

However, I have met several collectors in the Santa Cruz area who are extremely greedy, and have in their collection complete skulls of new genera and species - really incredible stuff - and will not budge. Granted, this is America, and it is your right by law to sell scientifically important fossils to dealers and other collectors. However, just because its your right to do so, doesn't necessarily make it the right thing to do.

I must also state that not all paleontologists are as appreciative of private collectors as I am, and their contributions to science, and this does not necessarily make our 'guild' look good. Don't judge us by one or two bad eggs; on the flip side, I don't judge all of you by a couple of greedy schmucks.

In any event, there are plenty of attractive fossils around that are nice to look at, that don't represent new genera, or species, or preserve new anatomical information and so on - think about it this way: if you have a perfect skull on your shelf, and it represents a new genus and species, what good is it doing anyone? No one will ever know who discovered it, or even if it is a new genus and species, let alone be able to publish it and give it a name and description.

Anyway, all that paleontologists like myself ask for is a little help here and there.

[Harry Pristis]

Cris, I agree with you on several points.

Firstly, in this country at least, most museums cannot buy fossils from private collectors. Also, members of SVP (society of vertebrate paleontology) like myself cannot purchase vertebrate fossils.

I do not think that private collectors should be obligated (legally or morally) to donate specimens IF they were collected legally. If they were collected illegally, then the specimens should be seized by law enforcement, put in a proper repository, and the criminals prosecuted. Fortunately, T. rex skeletons are pretty common now, so at the very least it isn't a new taxon.

I do appreciate it when fossil collectors donate fossils - our good friend RJB is a prime example of a responsible collector. He has found lots of really incredible new finds, and has donated them to several different museums, and through myself (when he didn't have enough time).

However, I have met several collectors in the Santa Cruz area who are extremely greedy, and have in their collection complete skulls of new genera and species - really incredible stuff - and will not budge. Granted, this is America, and it is your right by law to sell scientifically important fossils to dealers and other collectors. However, just because its your right to do so, doesn't necessarily make it the right thing to do.

I must also state that not all paleontologists are as appreciative of private collectors as I am, and their contributions to science, and this does not necessarily make our 'guild' look good. Don't judge us by one or two bad eggs; on the flip side, I don't judge all of you by a couple of greedy schmucks.

In any event, there are plenty of attractive fossils around that are nice to look at, that don't represent new genera, or species, or preserve new anatomical information and so on - think about it this way: if you have a perfect skull on your shelf, and it represents a new genus and species, what good is it doing anyone? No one will ever know who discovered it, or even if it is a new genus and species, let alone be able to publish it and give it a name and description.

Anyway, all that paleontologists like myself ask for is a little help here and there.

Sorry, Bobby. I'm sure you're a prince of a fellow, and maybe you really do conduct yourself as you describe; but, that is not how it is with your "guild."

I notice that you have no qualms about labeling some collectors as "greedy." How greedy was the SVP when they voted nearly unanimously to reject the National Academy of Science 1987 recommendations for fossil collecting on public lands in favor of a campaign to all but exclude private collectors? And this campaign to influence legislation and regulation continues today at the expense of who-knows-how-many wonderful specimens weathered to gravel. The SVP policy seems to be, "If we can't collect 'em, at least private collectors (those greedy b**tards) won't get 'em."

How can the SVP policy be explained? Is it simple hypocrisy or is it something more complicated? I have a theory that may explain why vertebrate paleontologists believe they have a right, superceding any property rights and without reasonable compromise, to exclusive access to "their" fossils.

I believe that vertebrate paleontologists have become a secular "cult" whose sacred duty is to protect their exclusive access (wherever possible) to collecting fossils. Now, before you dismiss my theory, hear me out. Here's how it works.

Many professionals (I think of 'em as vertebrate "pals") have a concept of their Sacred Duty to collect, curate, and interpret any and all vertebrate fossils. This has become the equivalent of a a new secular religion--the worship of esoterica--and our professional pals are the would-be priests.

The public at large (the laity) is merely a necessary evil, and amateur paleontologists are an especially annoying subset of that public. The public should be satisfied with subsidizing our professional pals' education and field-work, paying their salaries, and building their temples. But, no! Some of the laity actually want to get their hands (those unannointed hands!) on some fossils and to put a few on their shelves (those unhallowed shelves!). Sacrilege!

Considering the tension between the public and our professional pals in this light, it is easy to understand the zealotry of the SVP. Any viable quasi-religious movement must be self-perpetuating. The priests protect their power and their perquisites in any way they can, often using government to bolster their self-erected, moral highground. They rail against the "immorality" of collecting; they make noise and sometimes make trouble for well-intentioned but naive members of the laity.

The quasi-religion attracts many who are not collectors. Collectors often learn about their pals the hard way. Young graduate students (seminarians) quickly learn that there are advantages to the new cult -- it serves the self-interests of our vertebrate pals.

So, be our pal, Bobby, but be certain that you don't live in a glass house when you are throwing stones. Some "greedy schmuck" may be inclined to throw back.

--------Harry Pristis

[Gatorman]

Harry, it seems you have a bone to pick with the system. I haven't been around long enough to understand the system but it seems there are mixed reviews. On one hand there are those that say that the whole donate for science thing is a conspiracy and does no good for science or for the donater and then the other hand says the opposite. When i have two opposing arguments in my head i tend to agree with neither and make up my own ground somewhere in the middle finding that neither side is correct and there must be struck a balance. I myself have never found anything significant to science, but imagined that i would donate any articulated finds or anything of major value such as a saber cat skull or xenosmilus, not that I will likely ever find either of those. But my enthusiasm for science has dwindled and I am not so sure that if i found an articulated mammoth I wouldn't collect it for my own interests.

[Harry Pristis]

Harry, it seems you have a bone to pick with the system. I haven't been around long enough to understand the system but it seems there are mixed reviews. On one hand there are those that say that the whole donate for science thing is a conspiracy and does no good for science or for the donater and then the other hand says the opposite. When i have two opposing arguments in my head i tend to agree with neither and make up my own ground somewhere in the middle finding that neither side is correct and there must be struck a balance. I myself have never found anything significant to science, but imagined that i would donate any articulated finds or anything of major value such as a saber cat skull or xenosmilus, not that I will likely ever find either of those. But my enthusiasm for science has dwindled and I am not so sure that if i found an articulated mammoth I wouldn't collect it for my own interests.

System? I don't know of any system, Anson. Nawww! I just don't like my pals calling collectors "greedy schmucks"!

[PrehistoricFlorida]

ditto, Harry!

[Guest Cris]

System? I don't know of any system, Anson. Nawww! I just don't like my pals calling collectors "greedy schmucks"!

Perhaps it was a poor choice of words... But doesn't it bother you to think of all the new species that you and I will never know about because of people keeping things to themselves? It does seem a bit greedy if you ask me..

[Harry Pristis]

Perhaps it was a poor choice of words... But doesn't it bother you to think of all the new species that you and I will never know about because of people keeping things to themselves? It does seem a bit greedy if you ask me..

Get real, Cris. Do you know about all the "old" species yet? . . . do you think that you'll ever know about them all? What about "all the new species" that are pounded to sand because private collectors can't legally collect them because of SVP machinations -- does that bother you?

You're thinking the way the pals want you to think, like there's something sacred involved here. Well, there's no mystery here . . . it's all about the money. If our pals can convince everyone that there's something sacred and mysterious about bones in the ground, they can get salaries, grants, and tenure when they act as the priests of the magic bones. Wake up!

[Guest Cris]

Get real, Cris. Do you know about all the "old" species yet? . . . do you think that you'll ever know about them all? What about "all the new species" that are pounded to sand because private collectors can't legally collect them because of SVP machinations -- does that bother you?

You're thinking the way the pals want you to think, like there's something sacred involved here. Well, there's no mystery here . . . it's all about the money. If our pals can convince everyone that there's something sacred and mysterious about bones in the ground, they can get salaries, grants, and tenure when they act as the priests of the magic bones. Wake up!

Of course that thought bothers me! I think it's disgusting that us collectors aren't legally allowed to hunt in certain areas. And no, I'll never know half of all the "old species". But it's not about me and what I know... What's the point of this forum? To help educate more people.. The same goes for donating a new species... It helps educate more people, perhaps on the geological time period the fossil was found in, whatever genera they're studying, etc.. And suuure, maybe there are tons of paleotologist out there that are in it for the money... I don't believe all are, however. I was the kind of kid who watched the discovery channel instead of cartoons and had a room full of books on dinosaurs and fossils.. I wanted to be a paleotologist.. And no, it wasn't about money.. It was about discovering new things.. I think there just may be a few paleontologist out there that still do it for that reason. If I would have went on with it and became one, that would be why I was doing it. You really can't judge everyone in a group just because most in that group are a certain way. I don't want you to think I'm defending the SVP, either... If what you said about them voting to make it so we couldn't collect of public lands is true, then I'm... really not happy with the group at all... Because that shows that they don't even have the best intrests of the public, or science in mind...

[Boesse]

I must apologise that I dared to call someone greedy, and schmuck.

Let me be a little specific: I was thinking of one collector in particular, the only collector I've ever met who I consider frustrating, to say the least.

Here's the story: The rock unit I work on is not very well known, and definitely not published on well. It is of an extremely important age for marine mammal evolution, so anything really (isolated ear bones, teeth, postcranial bones) are extremely important.

I can think of about a half dozen collectors who routinely find scientifically important fossils, including cetacean skulls, pinniped teeth and bones, cetacean earbones, and bird bones. Most of these guys usually consult with the local museum, and if there's anything new to science, they usually donate and receive in turn the usual tax deduction and (if requested) a cast of the specimen (sometimes painted). So, generally speaking, myself and the paleontologist at said museum keep in contact with these collectors.

One collector in particular has amassed the largest, most incredible collection of vertebrate fossils from the central California coast; he has partial skulls and skeletons and complete jaws of baleen whales, about a dozen dolphin skulls (several representing new, undescribed genera and species), dozens of pinniped bones (including extremely rare walrus tusks), hundreds of dolphin ear bones, hundreds of bird bones, and hundreds of shark teeth. He used to have the only C. megalodon tooth from this rock unit, until I found a much bigger one this winter.

I have heard about him before, and finally over winter break I met him while prospecting. Among other things, he takes no notes, which is unfortunate only because of the large size of his collection. It is clear that although he possesses thousands of scientifically important fossils, he has no intention of ever donating anything.

It can best be summed up by our conversation about my new meg tooth (the second known specimen). He told me that I should restore it, since when complete would have been about 7 inches; then I could probably fetch 3-4,000 dollars for it. When asked what I was going to do with it, I explained that since it is one of the youngest known meg teeth from the Pacific, I was going to publish it, and write a discussion of the extinction of C. megalodon in the pacific realm. He explained to me that I should not publish it, and that I should instead sell it; he did not want me to publish 'his' locality information (when in fact there are USGS publications from the 1960's and 1970's describing the locality). Then he chided me for collecting at 'his' locality (which is in fact public land), and that since I started there in the last couple of years I basically ran him out of business.

This, not what you describe, Harry, but this is what I refer to as a greedy schmuck/bad egg. I have erected no glass house nor thrown no stone - I think what I described more or less constitutes greed.

And Harry, I don't give a cr*p about the money. I'm in this because I love fossils, and I want to know more about them, and publish them so others can know more about them as well. As far as most paleontologists my age go... (at least all the other students at my college), I can say the same for them.

I do feel pretty bad for the collectors out there who do get burned by academia here and there - trust me, it happens to students as well all the time. So, just out of curiosity, it sounds like you got burned pretty bad. Care to share, so we can understand your perspective and put it into context? You can consider it advice on not how to do paleontology to an up-and-coming paleontologist.

[Guest michael]

im on the society of vertebrate paleontology email list i love the society of vertebrate paleontology some of best friends help run society of vertebrate paleontology

[Harry Pristis]

Well, Bobby . . .

I see you're back-peddling now. First you reference several greedy collectors ("several collectors in the Santa Cruz area who are extremely greedy" and "a couple of greedy schmucks.") Now, it's just one "bad egg." You have a credibility problem now; which story did you make up?

I see the code words in your posts, Bobby. "Responsible collector" is a popular term for a generous donor. "Scientifically important fossils" is a vague term that is applied broadly, but not critically examined. Scientifically important to whom?

Such fossils may have significance to you and perhaps a handful of other Priests of the Buried Bones to further your career or gain status in the priesthood. Who's to say that is more important than the significance of the fossils to the "bad egg"? The SVP has concluded that its members' interests must prevail, and it has lobbied and worked to insulate the laity from the Sacred Bones.

Significant fossils, whatever they may be, are the lifeblood of research and publication. This is how professional pals advance their careers. With advancement come money, status, and security. There is nothing wrong with that. It becomes a problem when, in the furtherance of their careers, individual pals take advantage of (defraud or otherwise deceive) other interested parties (collectors). It is a fraud on a wholesale scale when professional pals (the SVP) collectively act to prevent other interested parties from collecting the Sacred Bones.

The SVP is used here because they have been very vocal and very active in their efforts to curtail fossil collecting by other interested parties. The SVP has not only been successful in influencing federal law and regulations, it has had some success in changing the thinking of some fossil collectors (like Cris) who believe that there is something sacred about Bones in the Ground that should be left only to the Priests to interpret.

It may be that some of the forum members reading this don't know how the National Academy of Science addressed the tension between pals and collectors back in 1987. When I have time, I'll transcribe here the recommendations of the Academy. Some of you will be surprised, I think.

---------Harry Pristis

[Boesse]

Alright, fine. I backpeddled. There really is only one collector that bad that I know of in Santa Cruz. I made a vague statement, so shoot me.

Personally speaking, if a certain fossil truly presents something new to science, and its inaccessible to the scientific community and therefore study, then it is not living up to its full potential.

Additionally, I must admit (some of you might be very shocked) I was not a professional paleontologist in 1987, and I cannot be blamed for their mistakes.

Look Harry, I'm not your enemy. I certainly hope you don't perceive me as such. All I did was complain about one collector in particular (and in my original post, alluding to potential others which no doubt exist). I have not insulted you in any way, and thus should not have elicited such negative responses. Certainly it sounds like you have been burned in the past by a paleontologist, but however that may be - I am not that person, and I have done nothing malevolent to you.

I am quite optimistic about the relations between collectors and professionals, at least on the west coast, where tensions are more or less non-existent as far as I know. Isn't that what you want? Professionals to be nice and respectful toward collectors?

Because, trust me, applying broad generalizations about paleontologists to me is no way to better my optimism about these relations. You have no idea on earth who I am, save that I am a paleontologist from California.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but you do want collectors and paleontologists to be peaceful and respectful to one another? I mean, aren't I on your side, after all?

[Harry Pristis]

Alright, fine. I backpeddled. There really is only one collector that bad that I know of in Santa Cruz. I made a vague statement, so shoot me.

Personally speaking, if a certain fossil truly presents something new to science, and its inaccessible to the scientific community and therefore study, then it is not living up to its full potential.

Additionally, I must admit (some of you might be very shocked) I was not a professional paleontologist in 1987, and I cannot be blamed for their mistakes.

Look Harry, I'm not your enemy. I certainly hope you don't perceive me as such. All I did was complain about one collector in particular (and in my original post, alluding to potential others which no doubt exist). I have not insulted you in any way, and thus should not have elicited such negative responses. Certainly it sounds like you have been burned in the past by a paleontologist, but however that may be - I am not that person, and I have done nothing malevolent to you.

I am quite optimistic about the relations between collectors and professionals, at least on the west coast, where tensions are more or less non-existent as far as I know. Isn't that what you want? Professionals to be nice and respectful toward collectors?

Because, trust me, applying broad generalizations about paleontologists to me is no way to better my optimism about these relations. You have no idea on earth who I am, save that I am a paleontologist from California.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but you do want collectors and paleontologists to be peaceful and respectful to one another? I mean, aren't I on your side, after all?

LOL Bobby . . . You are not an enemy, you are a surrogate for the SVP. You talk like the SVP, you have an attitude toward (some) collectors like the SVP, you have self-serving motives like the SVP, you have the self-erected moral highground of the SVP, you are a member of the SVP -- all-in-all, a perfect surrogate.

I've seen arguments from SVP members that the authorities (read, "Priests") should have the right to seize fossils found on private property, so strongly do some of the Priests believe in the sanctity of "their" fossils! That is certainly not the public policy of the SVP, but I don't doubt that it would be SVP policy in a slightly different political system. How's it working for those of you in Canada?

I do think that individual pals can do useful work. Pals are like the rest of us, a mix of motivations with differing ethical standards. Few pals are saints; few are outright crooks. Though, when pals get together, as in the SVP, a new ethos emerges, a grabby, greedy way of looking at vertebrate paleontology.

I'm not upset with you personally. I imagine you were just repeating the "greedy schmuck" remark because that is SVP-think. Nothing irritates like SVP-think.

Maybe it's incumbent on us oldsters to educate (thanks, Cris) newer collectors. I'm gonna' pull out a copy of the 1987 Academy of Sciences/National Research Council report, PALEONTOLOGICAL COLLECTING. It occurs to me that maybe no one else here has ever seen this 243-page report.

So, we can be friends, Bobby. You should expect rebuttal when you inject SVP-think into the conversation, but don't take it personally.

---------Harry Pristis

[Boesse]

"LOL Bobby . . . You are not an enemy, you are a surrogate for the SVP. You talk like the SVP, you have an attitude toward (some) collectors like the SVP, you have self-serving motives like the SVP, you have the self-erected moral highground of the SVP, you are a member of the SVP -- all-in-all, a perfect surrogate."

If you actually knew me, you would know that these accusations are false, but you do in fact know nothing about me. So I'll tell you. I am a private collector and a researcher - thats how I operate. Basically it boils down like this: most of my fossils I collect as a private collector, and then I study and analyze what I find. You'll find that 75% of the fossils I'm studying were collected myself (the other 25% were collected by our ole friend RJB).

"I've seen arguments from SVP members that the authorities (read, "Priests") should have the right to seize fossils found on private property, so strongly do some of the Priests believe in the sanctity of "their" fossils! That is certainly not the public policy of the SVP, but I don't doubt that it would be SVP policy in a slightly different political system. How's it working for those of you in Canada?"

I highly disagree with any professionals wanting to take away fossils collected on private land. Quite frankly, I think its bullsh*t. I totally agree with you on that. I haven't been on top of whats going on in canada, but then again dominion law works a little differently. In any event, seizing fossils collected legally on private land is more or less unconstitutional.

"I'm not upset with you personally. I imagine you were just repeating the "greedy schmuck" remark because that is SVP-think. Nothing irritates like SVP-think."

No, I was repeating the "greedy schmuck" remark because that guy really is a dick. Its not a label I'd like to apply liberally - trust me.

I wasn't aware I had injected "SVP-think" into the conversation. If I do, I'll be the first to know. But if you pre-judge me again as you have, I will and do have the right to take it personally. Until then, I think we can be friends as well.

-Bobby

[Guest N.AL.hunter]

The professional paleontologists tried again in the 90s to make it against the law for most types of fossil collecting in the USA. They failed. What I cannot understand is letting fossils crumble.

When I was collecting in Wyoming, on private land, there were fossil land turtles all over falling to pieces, oroendont skulls crumbling and who knows what else just over the fence from me on Public lands (BLM). Why is it against the law for me to go over there and collect them? The professionals must have thousands of oreondont skulls and tortoise shells. They must, because they can allow them to weather and they do not care. I care. I would love to collect a couple for my collection. I would care for them and maintain them and show them. But no, I must look over the fence and see them rot.

And as far as valuable to science is concerned, most truely valuable specimens for formation identification (index fossils) are not the rare, flashy species, they are the common type that can be easily found.

Throughout the fossil collecting history, many of the important finds have been made by the amateur. Why must he 'donate' them to science? I believe he should let the scientist study the specimen and make casts of it and take pictures, but the item should belong to the collector. If he wants to donate it, then fine. But he should not be forced to turn it over.

The professionals should create a site on the net that lists all the common verts, with pics and descriptions, and say, "

We do not need any more of these specimens form these formations, so if you find one, you can keep it. But, if you find one in an unlisted formation, or you find an unlisted species, then you need to turn it over for scientific study, and then we will give it back." They already have released, for the most part, their hold on shark teeth on public lands. As this idea is not far fetched. Right now the biologist are creating an online list of all known organisms, with one page per creature or plant or algae or protists or moneran.

There, that is my two cents worth.