|
Hi Steve and List
Steve thats so true. But, by the same token, those
who introduce or lobby for bans on fossil or meteorite are sometimes those most
ignorant of the items themselves and are glory seekers.
Just ask Mel Fisher's family what credentials the
museum curator had who took Fisher to court forcing Florida to back him in
saying the treasures Fisher found belonged to Florida. Or, how much of a world
class paleontologist is the museum curator who started the T. Rex Sue lawsuit.
They were both out for the kudos, since they couldn't and wouldn't profit
personally from their actions, or would they?
Ask a world class expert in either field how
much they depend on the amateur collectors for new finds. Doesn't matter if that
amateur is a dealer or not. Only that they bring new material to the attention
of the scientists.
Mark
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 1:26
PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite
Collecting Ban
Hello List,
What is so hard to understand about
this?
Let's not forget that the science of meteoritics is big
business. Well, not big by Microsoft or American Airlines standards, but
compared to collecting it sure is. I was given a number a couple years
ago that $12,000,000 a year is given out in grant money to study
meteorites.
It is hard to put a handle on how many dollars of
meteorites are sold in the collecting field to the END consumer. Let's
not count the same $5 specimen over and over again as it gets sold and traded
to dealer after dealer 6 times then to ebay a few times before getting to a
collector as if it were $50 in sales. Researching meteorites pays a lot
more each year than all the dealing or field hunting pays.
The point is
that if a Canadian Meteorite crosses the border and a researcher in the US
gets it, the US institution that researcher works for gets the grant money and
NOT the Canadian Institution (or researcher who gets the pay check from said
institution).
This of course goes for any other country that
lets a meteorite get out. However, I have not heard too many complaints
from the Libyan Meteoritical Society about them losing jobs because they can't
get grant money from NASA, because a DaG SNC slipped across of their
borders.
Folks, it is always about the money.
If an
attorney is writing a paper on it, ask who is paying him to write the
paper? Or ask who is he wanting to see his "advertisement" so someone
might hire him in the future as "the foremost legal authority on
anti-collecting?" Either way, it comes back to money. I mean come
on, do we really believe that he is spending this time because he feels a
moral obligation to devote his life to correcting this major injustice is our
modern society?
I think it is politically incorrect for a scientist to
stand up and speak up for the collecting community, so it is hard to know how
many support us, and how many really don't. But I have asked around, and
I have yet to find one single researcher who bashes dealers and field
collectors for "only being in meteorites for profit" who also endorses their
paychecks each week and donates them back to the institution they work for.
Is this the kettle calling the pot black or what?
As far as I
know, Art Elhmann at T.C.U. is the only scientist that has been actively
contributing to the science who is working for free. I mean, he is
getting a pension, but I don't think he makes anything extra for doing what he
has done these last few years in helping our science. And even if he did
make more money, that is OK, the point is that he is one scientist who
supports us. Even Jeff Grossman, who most of us really appreciate what
all he does for us, is hesitant to even take a side on this issue! Can
we blame him?
It seems most researchers might only be in meteorites for
the money too. Could it be that they want as big of the $12,000,000 pie
as they can get? If they can squeeze out some their competition, and get
a monopoly on the money game of meteoritics, then maybe their jobs will be
more secure? If only they could squeeze out the collectors and also
squeeze out researchers in other countries, then they can keep more money for
themselves. But if evil field collectors, smuggle their future pay
raises out to researchers in other countries, then that is "bad for
science."
Don't get dragged off on the rabbit trail of "what is
best for science." We all KNOW what is best for science. So do
they. They are just hoping their legislators (fellow government
employees) won't look deep enough to see the greed behind their requests and
add the bill to some Farm Subsidy Bill on page 634. And if their fellow
government employees DO see through their requests, maybe a "wink and a nod"
will get it passed anyway, especially if the attorney representing the
researchers was fraternity bother, in the same law school, as the legislator
pushing the Farm Subsidy Bill. Maybe the researchers will agree to help
the same legislator in his reelection campaign so he can keep his job security
as well.
I would have to say that there are some researchers who
do care about the science, and odds are pretty good that they are the ones who
support the commercial side of the field as well. But unless there is a
way to poll the researchers, or if they would want to go on public record (but
it might cost some of them their jobs if they buck the trend) we will never
know.
Just remember the saying "follar the dollar" and things become
quite clear.
Steve Arnold
|
