New Yorker Article About Tarbosaurus Smuggler Eric Prokopi

[Terry Dactyll]

Thats an interesting read... It looks to me Eric is being made an example of....Why would he try to sell something he knows for sure is illegal in an open advertised auction sale...It doesnt add up...Whats the mineral rich deposits in Mongolia everyones after access to?...when youve finished blowing your own trumpets... read between the lines chaps ;) ....

[mikeymig]

Cris, Apples and apples. A Native American burial ground is not the same thing as a dinosaur. If it has to do with past human civilizations and cultures then rules and laws should be applied and respected for obvious reasons. Dinosaurs and fossils, I think, belong to the discover who put forth the effort, time, and money to find it. I have never stole or condone the stealing via trespassing on private property to obtain a fossil. I have permission from the landowners to collect the fossils I find and respect the land and the privilege I've been granted. I'm stating that if I find something rare (FOSSIL) and the govt. wants it and knocks on my door with armed guards, it would make me feel just a little uneasy. I'm not trying to sway anyone or start trouble, I'm just voicing my opinion on what I thought was a public forum.

Mikey

Edited January 24, 2013 by mikeymig

[FossilDAWG]

Mikey, it is a public forum and I would hope that everybody feels free to state their opinion.

Everyone on this forum, If I can summarize, are very passionate about fossils and paleontology.

I think that's certainly true!

When it comes to an ideology or what political stance you support, mine is Libertarianism. To answer your question, no, I really don't care what countries or governments have to say when it comes to fossils leaving "their" borders. If I strike a deal with a landowner whether it be here in NY, Canada, or Mongolia to collect fossils then that's it, end of story. I'm not dealing in radioactive material or minerals that are being used to make weapons so, the govt. should stay out of it.

While I understand the sentiment, I'd advise against applying it to, say, the collection of Burgess Shale fossils from Yoho National Park, or trilobites from the Grand Canyon, etc. Governments have the power to make things very unpleasant for people who decide for themselves what laws they will respect and what ones are beneath their notice. I can't imagine a fossil that would be worth the loss of my car/boat/whatever I used while collecting the fossil, plus a fine of tens of thousands of dollars, plus jail time.

I'm not sure about you, but if I found on my property a skull or the remains of an ancient alien, then it's mine. If the govt. wanted them then they can pay me or they can go to the highest bidder.

Isn't that what currently happens in the US?

As far as scientific data lost due to us amateurs, who cares if the dinosaur was lying on the right as opposed to the left. It's the specimen that most of the data comes from anyway and amateurs like the guys at the Black Hills Institute know how to extract a fossil properly.

A specimen without stratigraphic context is almost worthless. It's not a matter of "on the right vs on the left", but a matter of "is this species older or younger than others in the lineage". For example, there is a site in Virginia that has yielded numerous fossil insects. If you just had one of these specimens in front of you, you would be able to point out various differences from other species and write up a description, perhaps even name a new species. However, if you knew the site and specific layer that the specimens came out of, you would realize that these are the oldest specimens from anywhere in the world for several important orders of insects. There is more to fossils than just "this one looks different from that one"; one of the most important pieces of information that fossils can tell us is "when did things happen"? That information has been stripped and lost once the geological context is obscured. Labeling a fossil as "Central Asia" reduces it to a neat curio. For abundant species, already well understood, that's no big deal. Not every Phacops is a critical scientific data point. Horse teeth eroded out of the ground and rolling around the bottom of the Peace River have no information to offer about the history of horses. But for many vertebrate species, specimens are so rare that each one has a big part of the story to tell.

If we were talking about ancient human civilizations then yes, most of the scientific data comes when the artifacts are found and they should be safe guarded from looters.

Also true for some (not all) fossils, and a few especially critical fossil sites. I think.

Like I said before, we are all temporary custodians of the fossils we have and when we are gone, they will remain as they have for millions of years for others to enjoy. So if someone wants to own a Tarbosaurus, and it was found on someone's property that leased the land to a amateur paleontologist, then good for them. When they get tired of it or want to donate the specimen someday or resell it that's their right. Who are we to tell people what they can have and not have? As long as no one gets hurt and the item can't harm anyone, so be it.

As long as the "landowner" actually owned the land, no problem. Neil Larsen, for one, got messed over pretty badly when it turned out the guy who owned the land Sue was found on didn't actually have ownership of the land.

Anyway, in the case of the Tarbosaurus, the land where such specimens are found is not private property, it is the property of Mongolia. To say that Mongolia has no right to control their own territory is not very different, it seems to me, than my neighbor cutting down and selling off the trees on my property because they have decided that I don't really have the right to control what happens to the trees on my land.

Don

Edited January 24, 2013 by FossilDAWG

[AgrilusHunter]

Hi Don,

Excellent points and well stated.

[THobern]

...if I am not mistaken, many public schools, especially in the South, are now required to present both points of view...

Nope. It's struck down every time.

[MB]

There are different point of view regarding the fossils.

One might be from my mother, when I showed her a freshly prepared fossil crab ... "put it in the pot", she said, obviously fossils aren’t useless under her point of view, but I know that behind my back, she was very proud of my fossils and of my "knowledgement".

Another point of view might be from a geologist (who was teaching us chemistry) I met when I was a boy and so proud I showed him my box of fossils ... "fossils do not serve for anything..." he said, and I left my studies (or it was my excuse to stop them ...).

But I must say that I agree with the point of view of Don

We can talk for hours, we can speak about the laws and borders that have been violated and crossed in the case of Mongolian dinosaur... the rights that we have like: if I find it, it’s mine, about palaeontologists, amateurs, collectors ... who is better...or what is better

I think the only law that should not be violated and the only border that should never be crossed is common sense.

Paleontology is useful, and talk about fossils, keeps us funny in this forum, at least they are good for something, right?

Edited January 25, 2013 by MB

[AgrilusHunter]

This is paleontology making an active and important contribution to our current knowledge. This new research helps us to better understand how past organisms responded to a warming Earth. The author's conclusions are pretty novel and interesting. Whether you believe current warming trends are natural or man made really doesn't matter. What does matter is understanding how life on our planet will respond. This research gives us new insight into that response before it happens. Edited January 25, 2013 by AgrilusHunter

[JimB88]

Nope. It's struck down every time.

I believe he was referring to America, where teachers who teach only evolution still get censored; and the entire state of Kansas made it illegal to not present both views. Which, by the way sickens me to no end. I would love it if fossils did actually convince people that evolution is how it happens; but really, few people in the general populace actually pay any attention to it.

Keep in mind recent events where a member of the House committee on Science, Space and Technology (Paul Broun) said to a congregation in GA "All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. And its lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior."

Yeah...he's a congressman and a doctor (I would add a nutjob too!)

We have to keep in mind that in America at least, the amount of 'scientifically-illiterate' people has grown rather than shrunk. Its sad to no end...

Edited January 25, 2013 by JimB88

[RCFossils]

I finally had a chance to read the article and have enjoyed hearing everyones opinions on the subject.

For me, this is a topic which really frustrates me as someone who loves paleontology and wants the best outcome for all sides.

I have been collecting fossils for over thirty years and it seems to me stories like this pop up every few years.

These are complicated issues and there is no question that some fossils and fossil sites do require protection or at least oversight for the better good. I also know from experience that there is a lot of selective outrage from some professional paleontologists when it comes to fossils (especially dinosaur). Many important fossil sites have been neglected or lost to development and land reclamation without a peep. I think of the countless fossils worldwide that are lost to natural exposure to the elements. I do not understand the thought process of those who say that it is better to lose fossils to natural erosion then to have them end up in private collections.

It is also apparent to me that in this time of cutbacks and decreasing museum attendance that there will most likely be less funding for museums to not only collect and store fossils but also employ the paleontologists andpreparators to clean, restore and study them.

It is my belief that many of these countries that have very restrictive laws on collecting and exporting fossils are only encouraging "fossil looting" and damage to important fossils and fossil sites. You can look on Ebay or go to a fossil show like the Tucson show and find thousands of "looted fossils". The politicians that put these restrictive rules in place may be well intentioned but are only listening to a few in the academic community and not getting the big picture.

Many of these fossils are being collected in very remote areas where constant patrol is nearly impossible. The locals who are collecting these fossils have probably never been to a museum and do not no anything about the fossils that they are digging other then it is a rock that can put food on my families table.

I think a better way would be to have these governments come up with a permit system that would require some training and oversight. In my hypothetical perfect world, The individual who wants to go out and find a dinosaur or other fossil would purchase a permit from their government. They would be required to have some training in proper excavation techniques and would be required to follow them in the field. They would also be required to draw up site maps documenting the position of their find. There would need to be trained paleontologists who would inspect the finds and determine if the fossil is scientifically important. If the fossil is determined to be of scientific interest, the government would compensate the finder for their excavation costs along with a nominal finders fee. Fossils determined to be of little or no importance would be issued a certificate authorizing the fossil to be sold on the private market. I understand that this is not a perfect system but I think it would be a much better one for most of these countries.

I think this is a realistic approach that would significantly reduce the amount of sites that are destroyed by guys sneaking in at night and grabbing teeth and claws. It would also bring more quality fossils into the public domain which will bring the value down and hopefully spark interest in more people.

When you figure the cost in time to prospect for museum worthy fossils, excavate, transport, prepare and possibly mount the specimen. There is an ever more important place for private companies/ individuals like the Black Hills Institute and Triebold Paleontology (to name a few) to bring new specimens to light. I know that many professional paleontologists respect and work closely with these companies and others like them.

It all comes down to responsibility. I do not think fossils ending up in private collections are a bad thing. I know many collectors both wealthy and poor who have made significant donations both monetary and in unique fossils to public institutions. My guess is that over time most important specimens end up in public collections.

[mikeymig]

Nice read RC. You said it better then I did or could. Agree strongly!

Mikey

[AgrilusHunter]

Hi RC,

Great post! I think that is one of the best descriptions I've seen of the possible benefits of a working collaboration between amateurs, professionals, and governments. It should add much to this debate. I too wish there was a system in place to allow all parties gains during the process, clearly there is a need for a it. You mention a number of private companies that interact successfully with both governments and professionals. One of the benefits I see there is that often governments are more willing to work with a company than an individual, even if that company only has a few employees. I imagine there are a number of legal reasons for that.

A few questions. Do you know what it is that stops more of these relationships between companies and governments from developing? Are there companies like this elsewhere around the world, or are they primarily in North America?

To generate a system of oversight like you are describing would probably require international standards for both the collection and the dissemination of fossil material. That's another hornet's nest all together.

Edited January 25, 2013 by AgrilusHunter

[MB]

I finally had a chance to read the article and have enjoyed hearing everyones opinions on the subject.

For me, this is a topic which really frustrates me as someone who loves paleontology and wants the best outcome for all sides.

I have been collecting fossils for over thirty years and it seems to me stories like this pop up every few years.

These are complicated issues and there is no question that some fossils and fossil sites do require protection or at least oversight for the better good. I also know from experience that there is a lot of selective outrage from some professional paleontologists when it comes to fossils (especially dinosaur). Many important fossil sites have been neglected or lost to development and land reclamation without a peep. I think of the countless fossils worldwide that are lost to natural exposure to the elements. I do not understand the thought process of those who say that it is better to lose fossils to natural erosion then to have them end up in private collections.

It is also apparent to me that in this time of cutbacks and decreasing museum attendance that there will most likely be less funding for museums to not only collect and store fossils but also employ the paleontologists andpreparators to clean, restore and study them.

It is my belief that many of these countries that have very restrictive laws on collecting and exporting fossils are only encouraging "fossil looting" and damage to important fossils and fossil sites. You can look on Ebay or go to a fossil show like the Tucson show and find thousands of "looted fossils". The politicians that put these restrictive rules in place may be well intentioned but are only listening to a few in the academic community and not getting the big picture.

Many of these fossils are being collected in very remote areas where constant patrol is nearly impossible. The locals who are collecting these fossils have probably never been to a museum and do not no anything about the fossils that they are digging other then it is a rock that can put food on my families table.

I think a better way would be to have these governments come up with a permit system that would require some training and oversight. In my hypothetical perfect world, The individual who wants to go out and find a dinosaur or other fossil would purchase a permit from their government. They would be required to have some training in proper excavation techniques and would be required to follow them in the field. They would also be required to draw up site maps documenting the position of their find. There would need to be trained paleontologists who would inspect the finds and determine if the fossil is scientifically important. If the fossil is determined to be of scientific interest, the government would compensate the finder for their excavation costs along with a nominal finders fee. Fossils determined to be of little or no importance would be issued a certificate authorizing the fossil to be sold on the private market. I understand that this is not a perfect system but I think it would be a much better one for most of these countries.

I think this is a realistic approach that would significantly reduce the amount of sites that are destroyed by guys sneaking in at night and grabbing teeth and claws. It would also bring more quality fossils into the public domain which will bring the value down and hopefully spark interest in more people.

When you figure the cost in time to prospect for museum worthy fossils, excavate, transport, prepare and possibly mount the specimen. There is an ever more important place for private companies/ individuals like the Black Hills Institute and Triebold Paleontology (to name a few) to bring new specimens to light. I know that many professional paleontologists respect and work closely with these companies and others like them.

It all comes down to responsibility. I do not think fossils ending up in private collections are a bad thing. I know many collectors both wealthy and poor who have made significant donations both monetary and in unique fossils to public institutions. My guess is that over time most important specimens end up in public collections.

Hi, nice words and bona fide, of course, but while your hypothetical perfect world arrives, why do not use the common sense.

No offense please, but there is intelligent life out there.

Best

[Harry Pristis]

Okay, we've pretty much exhausted (again) the predictable arguments about how things should be and how there could be better cooperation between interests. Let's get back to the ideas that make people squirm and get defensive.

All of us, amateur and professional alike, study paleontology because it adds richness and texture to our lives. Professional paleontologists ("pro-pals," cause I get tired typing that out) have an economic dimension to their motivation.

There have been persuasive arguments in this thread that current paleontology is a low-impact science.

If these statements are true, or mostly-true, how is it that our pro-pals have been able to impede or block our (amateurs') enjoyment (richness and texture) in favor of their own interests? Collecting on public lands is a prominent example.

Has it occurred to us that we have been conned? . . . That our legislative and executive representatives have been duped into favoring a tiny group of professionals in a low-impact field over the well-being of the relatively much-larger group of amateurs?

Of course, the pro-pals are better organized than we, with prestigious museums to help make an impression on legislators. For those institutions, there is that economic motivational factor that involves grant money and salaries. No question that institutional paleontology is motivated and organized, while we amateurs make scattered letter-writing efforts to be heard by legislators.

Sooo, the point of this critique is that there is little payoff from current professional paleontology, while the price we amateurs pay is a restriction on our ability to add more richness and texture to our lives.

The irony here is that institutional paleontology is mostly operated on our tax dollars . . . federal and state tax dollars. In effect, we pay the pro-pals to keep us from adding more richness and texture to our lives.

[Opisthotriton]

And on what are you basing your claim that academic paleontologists are "mostly operated on our tax dollars"? My impression is that quite the opposite is true for many if not the majority of museums and universities.

[THobern]

Okay, we've pretty much exhausted (again) the predictable arguments about how things should be and how there could be better cooperation between interests. Let's get back to the ideas that make people squirm and get defensive.

All of us, amateur and professional alike, study paleontology because it adds richness and texture to our lives. Professional paleontologists ("pro-pals," cause I get tired typing that out) have an economic dimension to their motivation.

There have been persuasive arguments in this thread that current paleontology is a low-impact science.

If these statements are true, or mostly-true, how is it that our pro-pals have been able to impede or block our (amateurs') enjoyment (richness and texture) in favor of their own interests? Collecting on public lands is a prominent example.

Has it occurred to us that we have been conned? . . . That our legislative and executive representatives have been duped into favoring a tiny group of professionals in a low-impact field over the well-being of the relatively much-larger group of amateurs?

Of course, the pro-pals are better organized than we, with prestigious museums to help make an impression on legislators. For those institutions, there is that economic motivational factor that involves grant money and salaries. No question that institutional paleontology is motivated and organized, while we amateurs make scattered letter-writing efforts to be heard by legislators.

Sooo, the point of this critique is that there is little payoff from current professional paleontology, while the price we amateurs pay is a restriction on our ability to add more richness and texture to our lives.

The irony here is that institutional paleontology is mostly operated on our tax dollars . . . federal and state tax dollars. In effect, we pay the pro-pals to keep us from adding more richness and texture to our lives.

Just to clarify this; how are professional paleontologists, more economically incentivised than fossil dealers?

[AgrilusHunter]

Hi Harry,

You still have not answered my questions or addressed the data I presented, which is disappointing as I was looking forward to your opinion. The discussion here is actually doing just fine; new posts of substance were added just hours before your most recent entry and the thread has been continuously active. You seem uninterested in participating in or even continuing the debate you originally started. This seems curious unless your end goal is not to participate in said debate but instead something much less laudable.

If you really want to discuss ideas that "make people squirm and get defensive" than let us do so productively. Your most recent post is again a bit aggressive and inflammatory, especially considering that several professional paleontologists are members of this forum. It is my belief that a productive and insightful debate does not need to be inflammatory or uncomfortable. A debate is a formal argument, a civil battle of wills. An event where opposing viewpoints can be presented intelligently to intrigue, even persuade, an audience. I would prefer to have such a debate. I would prefer this to be an artful conversation.

"The real art of conversation is not only to say the right thing at the right time but also to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment." - Lady Dorothy Nevill (as quoted by Harry Pristis)

Edited January 26, 2013 by AgrilusHunter

[DeloiVarden]

Okay, we've pretty much exhausted (again) the predictable arguments about how things should be and how there could be better cooperation between interests. Let's get back to the ideas that make people squirm and get defensive.

All of us, amateur and professional alike, study paleontology because it adds richness and texture to our lives. Professional paleontologists ("pro-pals," cause I get tired typing that out) have an economic dimension to their motivation.

There have been persuasive arguments in this thread that current paleontology is a low-impact science.

If these statements are true, or mostly-true, how is it that our pro-pals have been able to impede or block our (amateurs') enjoyment (richness and texture) in favor of their own interests? Collecting on public lands is a prominent example.

Has it occurred to us that we have been conned? . . . That our legislative and executive representatives have been duped into favoring a tiny group of professionals in a low-impact field over the well-being of the relatively much-larger group of amateurs?

Of course, the pro-pals are better organized than we, with prestigious museums to help make an impression on legislators. For those institutions, there is that economic motivational factor that involves grant money and salaries. No question that institutional paleontology is motivated and organized, while we amateurs make scattered letter-writing efforts to be heard by legislators.

Sooo, the point of this critique is that there is little payoff from current professional paleontology, while the price we amateurs pay is a restriction on our ability to add more richness and texture to our lives.

The irony here is that institutional paleontology is mostly operated on our tax dollars . . . federal and state tax dollars. In effect, we pay the pro-pals to keep us from adding more richness and texture to our lives.

I am not going to add a lot to the discussion, but will say that I see where Harry is coming from and personally believe he makes a good point. Fossils are a resource, but so is the ability and freedom to hunt them. It is a balance of resources that can easily swing to either side of the argument....Now I moving on to another topic before I get cut up to pieces too.

Edited January 26, 2013 by DeloiVarden

[THobern]

I should add, Harry, that if you think that professionals are impeding the richness of your life, what do you think unfettered collecting will do? It won't just be interested dilettantes; we've seen plenty of sites gutted by just a few commercial collectors, and it would be far worse if you removed all restrictions - simply look at how quickly popular sites such as Lee Creek have been cleaned out by amateurs.

[donckey]

IS'nt it all about money en selfinterest????

I saw many opinions ventilated in this topic, and many of those I can understand.

But lets focus on the money-issue and not the value of paleontology for mankind.

Although Eric seems to be a nice guy, as many of you have said, I wonder what his true reasons are for digging up (or letting dig) dinosauriers.

Is it to make a contribution to the science of paleontology and adding knowledge for mankind? You tell me!

Selling a dino for over a million dollars has nothing to do with science. It is pure commercial trade.

I do not have a problem with commercial trade, but why does a person falsify export/importpapers? Why was the dino put for auction?

Well I can not think for another reason then to make a profit, a lot of a profit. He knew very well that it was not allowed to take the dino out of the country, but he did and only for its own benefits! Although I find that the attention for this case is exaggerated, it should not be made smaller as it is.

I noticed that most of the people on this forum, defending him, also are heavily involved in trading and selling fossils. So again selfinterest.

What really concerns me is that there are (US) people who even have the nerve to state that non-US-laws are not valid for them. I hope that is because its only selfinterest and NOT a feeling of being superior over the rest.

Money is one of the big causes why access is denied at many places. If I would own a piece of land, where nice Megaladons were to be found and I would notice that "collectors" are selling them for big money, I also would say, heyyy wait a minute friend, that is not how it works. So again money gets involved.

When I look at Discovery or National Geografic, for instance: Meteorite-man, The emphasis is not the importance of the finds and discoveries, No the emphasis is how many dollars you get for one gram. You have to hear the marketvalue every few minutes Again its a about money and selfinterest.

A even better example is Green Valley. For SCIENCE-purposes the locations are protected. For money(again) you are allowed to dig in privat quarries, but only allowed to take with you a limited number of common species. The rare species are for science. So far so good, but what is in it for science if the rare species one finds can be obtained by the finder for hunderds and thousends of dollars. Here again: Is it about science or about money?

I think that the money-issue, together with greediness and people only looking at their one selfinterest, are no good for the amateur-paleontology

Peter

Edited January 26, 2013 by donckey

[steelhead9]

IS'nt it all about money en selfinterest????

I saw many opinions ventilated in this topic, and many of those I can understand.

But lets focus on the money-issue and not the value of paleontology for mankind.

Although Eric seems to be a nice guy, as many of you have said, I wonder what his true reasons are for digging up (or letting dig) dinosauriers.

Is it to make a contribution to the science of paleontology and adding knowledge for mankind? You tell me!

Selling a dino for over a million dollars has nothing to do with science. It is pure commercial trade.

I do not have a problem with commercial trade, but why does a person falsify export/importpapers? Why was the dino put for auction?

Well I can not think for another reason then to make a profit, a lot of a profit. He knew very well that it was not allowed to take the dino out of the country, but he did and only for its own benefits! Although I find that the attention for this case is exaggerated, it should not be made smaller as it is.

I noticed that most of the people on this forum, defending him, also are heavily involved in trading and selling fossils. So again selfinterest.

What really concerns me is that there are (US) people who even have the nerve to state that non-US-laws are not valid for them. I hope that is because its only selfinterest and NOT a feeling of being superior over the rest.

Money is one of the big causes why access is denied at many places. If I would own a piece of land, where nice Megaladons were to be found and I would notice that "collectors" are selling them for big money, I also would say, heyyy wait a minute friend, that is not how it works. So again money gets involved.

When I look at Discovery or National Geografic, for instance: Meteorite-man, The emphasis is not the importance of the finds and discoveries, No the emphasis is how many dollars you get for one gram. You have to hear the marketvalue every few minutes Again its a about money and selfinterest.

A even better example is Green Valley. For SCIENCE-purposes the locations are protected. For money(again) you are allowed to dig in privat quarries, but only allowed to take with you a limited number of common species. The rare species are for science. So far so good, but what is in it for science if the rare species one finds can be obtained by the finder for hunderds and thousends of dollars. Here again: Is it about science or about money?

I think that the money-issue, together with greediness and people only looking at their one selfinterest, are no good for the amateur-paleontology

Peter

Peter: Do you not get paid for the work that you do? Why is there such a stigma attached to making money selling fossils? I am not suggesting that criminal activity should be rewarded, but what is wrong with being a fossil dealer. Many of the world's great paintings are in museums and many are in private collections, and art dealers are respected everywhere. Paleontologists make their livings through salaries and grants. Eric's case, which after all is what this thread was originally about, is a bit more involved, but does concern some of the points you have raised. You have said that US people have the nerve to state that non-US- laws are not valid for them and may display a degree of arrogance over others. I understand that Americans are not well-liked in other countries, but you have no knowledge of the laws that are being discussed in Eric's case. The US has agreements with many countries to uphold and enforce their laws concerning antiquities, fossils, etc. We DO NOT with China and Mongolia (nor, in my opinion should we, given the rampant disregard of US trade and copyright laws). China and Mongolia have their own laws banning the removal of fossils from their countries. Possession and sale of fossils from these countries are not illegal in the US (provided there was no falsification of customs forms). Certainly Eric's tarbosaurus came from Mongolia and if it came out later than 1928 as alleged, it was stolen from that country. I haven't seen a shred of evidence that Eric put the skeleton in his suitcase and carried it out of Mongolia. If Eric had tried to sell a dinosaur from Argentina, where we do have reciprocal agreements, he would have been guilty of selling stolen property in this country. I know this galls many people and they see little difference, but it really has nothing to do with arrogance. I am not naive about Eric's involvement in the falsified customs forms, but I have been curious about one thing. If someone sends you a package from another country, don't they fill out the customs forms? I understand this would be grounds (sort of) for seizing the tarbosaurus, but why was Eric charged with falsifying the documents. Oh wait, I know! Just as said Peter, money and self-interest. Self -interest on the part of a federal prosecutor and homeland security agents looking to further their careers, self- interest on the part of paleontologists looking for invites and grants and a chance to show the world what monsters fossil dealers are, self interest by the Mongolians to get back a fully mounted, million dollar skeleton, and yes, self-interest on the part of Eric to make a lot of money.

I guess we really all are just the same.

[Harry Pristis]

Well, this was a primmer in perceptual psychology: Every behavior, every human decision is predicated on the perception of what is best at the moment for the actor. There is no pure altruism. It doesn't matter which actor you examine in the tarbosaur case, everyone has acted in his own self-interest.

Most amateurs are motivated by the desire for "richness and texture" in their lives. A few have the collateral motivation of economics (money). No big deal there.

All pro-pals are motivated by the desire for richness and texture in their lives AND by economics. This is by definition. If money weren't involved, a pro-pal wouldn't be a professional.

Maybe you could think about the competition between amateur and pro-pal as a matter of unfair trade practices, where the pro-pal has unwarranted government support against the interests of the amateur.

[taj]

a member of the House committee on Science, Space and Technology (Paul Broun) said to a congregation in GA "All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. And its lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior."

This is one of the , no erase that , THE scariest thing I've read for a long long time..........

[AgrilusHunter]

Certainly this is a passionate debate with very different points of view. Good posts everyone! The issues on both sides are well stated.

Harry,

Your first post today was great. Eloquent and quite well stated, much improved. I disagree with the points you make at the end about professional paleonologists, but I'm sure others will handle those. On your point about self-interest I personally agree with you whole heartedly. All parties involved in the case were looking after their own self-interest. I think it is important to note that at the government level economics, research, and what is best for the people often intermix freely. Is it not possible the reaction by the Mongolian government was a way to protect it's national economic and scientific resources and add richness and texture to the lives of it's citizens.

Edited January 27, 2013 by AgrilusHunter

[Cris]

Maybe you could think about the competition between amateur and pro-pal as a matter of unfair trade practices, where the pro-pal has unwarranted government support against the interests of the amateur.

One of the primary purposes of this website is to help bring amateurs and professionals together..I really have to question whether this thread is helping or harming that goal. For me personally, I have benefited greatly by talking and working with professionals, even as a person who sells fossils myself. Yes, there are some out there who would like to see all amateurs stop picking up fossils, but there are a lot out there who don't agree with that, understand that amateurs are highly beneficial to paleontology and actually encourage (legal) collecting.

There are a lot of professionals on this board because they want to help out amateurs...they wouldn't be here if they were against our interests and I praise them for taking their time to help educate us. I just sincerely hope the stereotyping in this thread doesn't hinder any of their participation.

[Scylla]

Well, I read the first four pages and my head exploded Bobby, thanks for starting this thread. Harry, thanks for standing in Socrates' footsteps, I hope they don't ask you to drink the hemlock. Paleontology has many important implications for science in general, each new fossil has the potential to refine or revolutionize our understanding of life, geology, ecology, evolution, etc. No one can predict which basic discoveries will have import in 10, 100, or 1000 years. Concepts developed by paleontology in fact do support the cure of diseases, provision of mineral and energy resources, and illuminate our origins. Arbitrarily dismissing this by saying that paleontology has "matured" and no new good will come of it is a specious argument. There is no evidence that paleontologists are no longer making new discoveries.

As far as the rule of law and the professional/amateur conflict goes. Breaking a law always carries the risk of punishment. Don't take the risk. I'm sure Eric is the nicest guy in the world, so was Bernie Madoff. Professionals usually come from the ranks of amateurs, I wonder how many professional paleontologists never collected a fossil before becoming professional? Lets just outlaw all non-university sponsored fossil collecting/buying/selling for two generations and see how many new paleo students there are then. At my institution the paleo department has to teach anatomy to the medical students to keep itself going. How will it work in 10 or 20 years without new people in the field? But then again we all have a collective responsibility to preserve important finds that may advance the science. In my opinion though the scales are tipped against the amateur collector. If I own a mining company I can grind fossils up for kitty litter, or destroy whatever I want to extract phosphates, but heaven forbid I want to sell a fossil! Our lawmakers (around the world) need to be educated about what is important and what isn't and that is just too hard. It is easier to just outlaw it all.