>>2432073Correct! I'm just saying if you don't tell researchers about them, then not only do they run the risk of getting developed after it's no longer your property (or if you find something on public land, the site being developed due to an insufficient CRM survey) but also that information being of no use to anyone if it just stays with you. Keeping something in or out of the public eye can make the difference between a site being protected, appreciated, and properly researched, and not at all.
>>2432091But it's not about the long term survival of individual artifacts. Museums and university's don't need more artifacts. As long as pictures and samples are taken, and a proper excavation/site map/catalog is done beforehand, the artifact isn't necessarily relevant beyond display. Amateur archaeology becomes a problem when it is done excessively pre-research, violates NAGPRA/graves, or hides items which are unique enough to warrant conservation and special testing. A hobbyist can't do a proper excavation/site map because they aren't accredited and don't always have the resources. Excessive collecting can also inspire others to do so. If "irl treasure hunters" aren't reminded to contact public officials and researchers (like I'm doing), it can lead to the bad habit of taking and not telling, which can snowball into looting (especially if the site is later found to be a grave/site of ritual importance) and become unethical. If the local channels don't care then by all means hold on to it and share it with others, it might get recognition later because of you! Amateur archaeology is very important, because it's how sites get found, but finds need to go through proper channels!
>I don't know anything about amateur paleontology, this only applies to anthropogenic finds 