Fossils for Sale - SVP 2019

[Troodon]

George Winters shared this link on Facebook 

"Here is Peter Larson's recent presentation at the annual SVP meeting on Commercial Paleontology and the cooperation with academic paleontology.  An interesting presentation please take some time to review it.  Thank you Peter!"

 

 

[Troodon]

In contrast to Thomas Carr's recent post on twitter

"Having learned last night of another (ugh) privately owned T. rex, prompts me to share a modified slide from my talk for the recent Judith River Formation Symposium that states my ethical position, based on the SVP ethics and JVP author guidelines & years of thought on the topic: "

 

 

[Masp]

This is an excellent video. Thanks for sharing. 

[Fossildude19]

Warning; this topic is a lightning rod for controversy that will be permitted as long as the discussions do not become heated and opinionated.

Adult discussion of the facts and how they impact Paleontology without recrimination will be educational; fightin' words will be banned. 

 

 

[JohnJ]

In other words, please avoid negative personal characterizations and divisive commentary. 

[Troodon]

Let me add that I added Tom Carr's comments so that members are aware that not every paleontologist is very sympathic with the commercial side of the business.   Let me also say that most paleontologists I've interacted with are very supportive of collectors, like those that participate on this forum.

[Randyw]

Just think how much fossil material would have weathered into dust without commercial and private collectors. Personally I think it should be a hand in hand cooperation. If I had a rare 1 of a kind new fossil discovery I’d like to think I’d offer it to a museum for study (maybe in exchange for a cast) but a fossil on the surface has a short life expectancy. So anything that preserves these rare glimpses into the past is a good thing imho.

[Shamalama]

I'm curious, why would he be upset at museums purchasing fossils for their collections. As I understand it, this has been something museums have done for a long while. Look at Art Museums and how they buy and sell Art to private collections or other museums. Should the same ideals not be extended to fossils?

 

 

[Troodon]

18 minutes ago, Shamalama said:

I'm curious, why would he be upset at museums purchasing fossils for their collections. As I understand it, this has been something museums have done for a long while. Look at Art Museums and how they buy and sell Art to private collections or other museums. Should the same ideals not be extended to fossils?

 

 

There are others not just him but he's the most outspoken.  Purist, science, full control of the specimen ?  Need to ask him.   I always see big name paleontologists at the Tucson show.   Think about what our museums would look like without commercial diggers and the loss of knowledge 

[Shamalama]

After viewing the video, I am very much in agreement with Peter, and also @Randyw , that Commercial collectors are a valuable resource. It does hurt some Paleontologists in that they aren't the ones making the discovery, or they lose the ability to gather the necessary data to add a specimen to a statistical database. However, how many species and amazing finds have been made with Commercial collectors, or private individuals that would have otherwise been lost to erosion. Paleontologists don't have the time to constantly be excavating every bone that is found. They should focus on new species or exceptionally preserved specimens which expands the knowledge base but also study the known or common species when it adds new information to the story.  To shun privately collected and held fossils from research is also short sighted, and akin to saying they don't exist while looking right at them.  

 

Not focusing on any one individual, just my opinion. Mods, please edit my comments as needed to keep the thread open.

 

 

[Troodon]

It also hurts the science in misrepresenting species,  like saying Nanotyrannus is not a valid..  The best evidence for that case happens to be in private hands or is commercially collected. 

[Bobby Rico]

This is a really interesting subject and could have a big affect on fossil collecting in the USA. I not sure I have the right information to answer this question. I think that the diggers as history provides us with this fact they have been invaluable in supporting  science. If a fossil of a scientific value is sold to a private collector it does not mean it is lost to science it just could means not a the moment . It would be sad if diggers was forced out of this work and discoveries was lost to the weather. 

1 hour ago, Shamalama said:

Look at Art Museums and how they buy and sell Art to private collections or other museums

I not sure that Museums sell Art to private collector that much . If an art work in the U.K. is in private hands and is deemed to be of some cultural significance. If it goes on the market the British government puts a temporary International  ban on it been sold. This is to give Museum time to raise money and hopefully keep it in the Uk. I think if private collectors were encouraged to form alliances with museum/science  , with say tax relief or some like this maybe a way forward. 
 
If my post offends anyone please delete and keep this interesting topic open.

[Masp]

Cooperation between collectors and paleontologists crucial as well...but on a personal note, as much as I would love to be a paleontologist, I am not one. Having been a collector for two years now I can say that it is a wonderful, and fulfilling hobby. Fossils are not baseball cards. Collectors who are passionate can also spread the knowledge of science to others. You would be surprised how many people around us know very little about prehistory and having a collection is also like owning a mini museum for the purpose of educating, not just to boast, etc. It’s a great feeling and accomplishment teaching somebody something new, especially when it’s appreciated. I have sparked interest of science in 3 other friends thanks to being a collector. In any case, like many others have noted, fossils if not found, will be destroyed. Better in somebody’s hands than nobody’s hands.

 

Also to add, people go to museums willingly. On the other hand, you have a scenario where a guest visits your home, would never go to a museum in a million years, now is curious about your collection and it begins a discussion. You added value to someone’s life, more importantly an appreciation for science. 

[Tidgy's Dad]

I can see where this could go in an unpleasant direction, but am very happy that the membership haven't taken it that way (yet) *

I have been collecting fossils for more than 50 years and have bought, sold and given away or been given (especially on this forum) hundreds and more. 

I live in Morocco where this is under discussion currently. 

There are literally billions of fossils in our world currently sitting waiting to be picked up or discovered, most of them are of no particular scientific value(though of great personal worth)  but we all know there are thousands of specimens of great use in private hands that will never see the light of day, so to speak. 

It's a hobby. For the vast majority of people in the world just a passing interest, for a few a serious thing that we can learn about on sites such as this, but the number of professionals is almost zero. 

I'm tired. 

Hopefully you get the point. 

[Wrangellian]

I wouldn't say that none of my own privately-held fossils (whether bought/traded or self-found) will ever see the light of day, meaning professionals getting to look at them and having the option of using them for research and asking me to donate them to the museum. They might have to wait for certain ones that I am rather attached to, while others I would offer up immediately just to make some room, but everything will be offered at some point. And I do try to get the full data for everything I collect including the stuff I've bought or received via trades. I suppose the chances of those being used for science are pretty small but you never know.

That said, I don't own any really expensive vertebrate skeletons or anything like that. Talk about a hot potato!

[jpc]

On 10/22/2019 at 6:00 AM, Shamalama said:

I'm curious, why would he be upset at museums purchasing fossils for their collections. As I understand it, this has been something museums have done for a long while. Look at Art Museums and how they buy and sell Art to private collections or other museums. Should the same ideals not be extended to fossils?

 

 

This is true.  The issue is that since Sue sold for incredible piles of money, the assumed value of all fossils has gone way up so sellers want a lot more and people are paying it, leaving museums, who have minimum cash flow, behind in the dust.  The Sue sale was evil.  1 million maybe, but 8.3... give e a break.   Sue's sale has also made it so that landowners with dinosaurs and other fossils want money now.  Before Sue, it was much easier to get access.  Sue is also the reason why people here are paying way too much (in this writer's opinion) for T rex teeth.  

 

That's my view of things, as a private collector and a guy who works in a museum. 

[Troodon]

Let me add to support @jpccomments is that the reason the dueling dinosaurs (Nanotyrannus) or Baby Bob (Trex) are still in private hands is that the owners just want too much money.  Museum's just cannot afford it.  However, those big ticket items are the exception.   NOT Tom's Carr's issue on why museums should not buy fossils.

[jpc]

6 hours ago, Troodon said:

Let me add to support @jpccomments is that the reason the dueling dinosaurs (Nanotyrannus) or Baby Bob (Trex) are still in private hands is that the owners just want too much money.  Museum's just cannot afford it.  However, those big ticket items are the exception.   NOT Tom's Carr's issue on why museums should not buy fossils.

good point about Tom Carr.

[Shellseeker]

First of all, I loved the video... Lost of great new finds by both the professional and commercial interests and some or many are making their way into museums and thus available to the public. Found out lots I did not know....

And the discussion covers laws, foreign lands (Montana in this case), fossils that I do not recognize and have definitely never found. I have no feeling that I even understand the issues or complexities we are dealing with here.

 

I would hope that the goal would be to "do no harm".  Make every legal decision as narrow as possible with no precedents set.  Conflating the actions and rules for the commercial hunters after $8m complete skeletons with the casual weekend fossil hunters makes no sense.

 

I do not have enough knowledge to even have an opinion on what should happen on "museum grade" fossils, which I do not find... My BEST fossils are of relatively low interest to museums because they already  have far higher quality and complete versions. I tend to be pleased when the top paleontologist in Florida asks for one of my finds.

 

The argument exist that, to satisfy the rules for pristine million $ fossils, laws should or must harm the amateur fossil community that is not particularly commercial, seems ludicrous. We should always seek laws that “fit” the situation and are deemed sensible.

[Shamalama]

20 hours ago, jpc said:

This is true.  The issue is that since Sue sold for incredible piles of money, the assumed value of all fossils has gone way up so sellers want a lot more and people are paying it, leaving museums, who have minimum cash flow, behind in the dust.  The Sue sale was evil.  1 million maybe, but 8.3... give e a break.   Sue's sale has also made it so that landowners with dinosaurs and other fossils want money now.  Before Sue, it was much easier to get access.  Sue is also the reason why people here are paying way too much (in this writer's opinion) for T rex teeth.  

 

That's my view of things, as a private collector and a guy who works in a museum. 

I see your point @jpc, and had not considered that part of the controversy.  Although I can't blame the landowners for wanting a bunch of money for something that was found on their property. Personally, if I owned land like that, I would allow easier access to Museums and Researchers vs. Commercial collectors primarily because I know the latter is out to make money and I'd want my piece.

 

Are the inflated prices of Dinosaur fossils (teeth or otherwise) more due to Sue or more due to a population that is much more aware of Dinosaurs and fossils in general thanks to movies like Jurassic Park that have done much to popularize them?

[Troodon]

30 minutes ago, Shamalama said:

Are the inflated prices of Dinosaur fossils (teeth or otherwise) more due to Sue or more due to a population that is much more aware of Dinosaurs and fossils in general thanks to movies like Jurassic Park that have done much to popularize them?

The sale of Sue changed everything, especially landowner awareness that big money can be made.   The advent of internet sales coupled with movies just continues to grow interest and valuations worldwide.  

[Troodon]

Lets not just point the finger at the landowner.  The opportunity for a Trex find encourages them to allow diggers to explore on their property.   The digger is the one who makes the majority of the profits and is the one who usually makes the discovery, digs it up, markets it and typically sets the price for what is sold.  He basically does all the work and is the "expert".  This boom in the industry has encouraged lots of new diggers who have made tons of great discoveries like the Dueling Dino's, Bambiraptor or Acheroraptor, just here in the States.  Without the profit incentive you would not have this level of exploration to make these discoveries.  

[Welsh Wizard]

Most of the issues come down to money, jealousy or control not science, this is just used as an excuse. There are collaborative answers to most of these things. That said, I have largely postive experiences of both collectors and academics. It tends to be a small minority that cause the negative attention but the majority that work in partnership get glossed over.

 

As an aside, we shouldn’t underestimate the power of this forum as a force to change attitudes. We are largely an amateur forum with some links to academia but have we thought about forging more of a partnership approach with institutions such as the SVP, museums or universities?

[Fossildude19]

1 hour ago, Welsh Wizard said:

As an aside, we shouldn’t underestimate the power of this forum as a force to change attitudes. We are largely an amateur forum with some links to academia but have we thought about forging more of a partnership approach with institutions such as the SVP, museums or universities?

   

This is beyond the scope of what the Forum was created for.  

It would require the Forum owner initiating some sort of contact with the SVP, and then some sort of agenda for how to establish a working partnership with them.

 

While I personally applaud this idea, the actual execution of it remains problematic.   

Keep in mind, this is a Forum with volunteer staff. 

 

I think individually, it is commendable for our membership to try to work closely with local museums, or paleontological societies.

Perhaps with individual partnerships, citizen scientists can make a case to, and enlist the aid of these institutions to try to get reasonable laws, procedures, training,

and permitting created in their home states.  

Showing these people/institutions/societies that we can and often do contribute to science, can only help us, as collectors.  

 

[JohnJ]

1 hour ago, Welsh Wizard said:

we shouldn’t underestimate the power of this forum as a force to change attitudes. 

 

As you are probably aware, The Fossil Forum has and still does change attitudes between professional, amateur, and commercial members.  For well over a decade, TFF members have emphasized the importance of the science and encouraged collaboration with professionals.  I would like to think that the interactions on this Forum have helped all kinds of people, interested in fossils, better understand each other.