Re: Fossil Collecting Results . . .

From
Date
collom@geo.ucalgary.ca (Christopher Collom) writes:

> John [Moffitt] lays out a lot of details on the government raid and
> subsequent trial. Sure, these are "basic facts." But he forgot to
> mention the extended history ... [of abuse of indigenous peoples by
> the US government, etc.]

Okay...

1. Property rights and related legal issues involving American Indian
   reservation lands are extremely complex.  Many of the basic legal
   documents are ad hoc treaties made by the US government and Indian
   tribes during the previous century.

2. At the time BHI negotiated the contract with the rancher, they did
   not know how complete Sue was.  They later spent a fantastic amount
   of money on the excavation.  Had Sue not turned out so well, they
   would have lost a considerable financial investment.  All this fuss
   came about entirely because Sue is a spectacularly fine specimen.

3. BHI made a good-faith contract with the rancher (land owner).  The
   US government claimed that Sue belonged to the government, not the
   rancher, and not the rancher's tribe.  This is the entire basis of
   the initial case against the Larsons.

4. If anyone acted in bad faith, such as by not getting approval from
   a tribal council, it was the rancher, not BHI. 

5. The Larsons were exonerated on all counts in the original case.

6. Meanwhile, every aspect of the Larsons' business was gone over by
   what has been reported as a 20-man team of investigators, at a
   cost of several million dollars, in search of proof of crimes for
   which there was NO PRIOR evidence.  Have you heard of due process?

7. There is a post-WWII story about the consequences of failing to
   defend the victims of persecution, because the victims are not
   one of you:  if persecutions are allowed to go unchecked, a day
   may come when there is no one left to be persecuted, BUT YOU.

8. Lastly:  the ends do not justify the means.  So you don't like
   commercial fossil dealers?  So you think poor ranchers/Indians
   get taken advantage of?  Maybe.  But does that justify condoning
   the US government's excesses in this case?  I don't think so.

Why has the vertebrate paleontology community remained so quiet on
this issue?

	Una Smith			una.smith@yale.edu

Department of Biology, Yale University, New Haven, CT  06520-8104