Doug,
 
(Those of you who have tender ears can hit the 'delete' button, now)
 
I just read the article and I couldn't agree with you more. Passing a law to protect
anything solely on the basis of it being a State icon is the poorest form of legislation
imaginable.  If a blueberry is declared the 'state berry' does that mean a law
should be passed to prohibit eating blueberries??? What nonsense! There has to be a
grain of common sense somewhere in such proposed laws or it becomes an abuse of state
and federal legislative powers. In China, when Mao declared that sparrows were eating
too much grain in the fields, the birds were caught and killed by the millions. As a
result, the insect populations which were normally controlled by the birds exploded and
devastated the crops. Years of famine followed and thousands of people died. While this
is an extreme case, it is none-the-less an example of what happens when legislation is
based on knee-jerk emotions rather than facts.
 
Crews of fishing vessels everywhere are becoming extremely wary of retaining any
specimens for researchers and scientists for fear they may lose their license.
More than once I've approached a boat captian to save their incidental catch and they've
refused, acting as though they were being targetted for some kind of 'sting' operation.
Such paranoia is effectively breaking down what used to be a good working relationship
between fishermen and scientists and in the end we ALL lose.  It seems that a particular
element of communism which we all scorned...that of the State encouraging neighbor to
inform on neighbor...is now becoming more commonplace in what we loosely refer to as the
free societies of the world.  The shelling community (at least, in my lifetime) has
always effectively 'policed' itself.  Abusive individuals have usually been summarily
chastized by their peers with acceptable results and without interdiction by 'Big
Brother'.
 
The need to protect an individual species is dwarfed by the need to protect habitiat and
keep whole ecosystems intact. Yet, the latter is usually deferred because states (and
countries) are hungry for dollars from tourists and developers.  If you can visualize a
legislator waving the conservationist flag with one hand while their other hand (behind
their back) is being filled with development dollars, then you begin to approach the
truth. Get the picture?  The really insulting thing is that the government, both state
and federal, assumes that the public is too stupid or too ignorant to see and understand
what's going on. It's obvious from reading the comments and views of members of this
list that ignorance is the domain of the government, not the governed.
 
Protect those things which truly need protection and stop playing around the illusion of
'concerned' legislators who are only concerned with the security of their own jobs.
 
 
Kim C. Hutsell
San Diego
 
 
 
 
 
 
Douglas Nolen Shelton wrote:
>
> I have read the article regarding the proposed bill which would protect the
> Texas State Shell.  It is preposterous to consider that this species needs
> protection because of its use as a food source.  The species may indeed be
> declining as are related species off our coast, but I suggest that these
> declines are due to changing environment and not the use of the species as a
> food source.  Shrimpers typically do not retain the shells that are part of
> their bycatch.  Due to changing regulations, many shrimp boat captains require
> that all shells be thrown overboard.  Their reaction to existing regulations
> make it virtually impossible for me to persuade shrimpers to save any shells
> for my research in the Northern Gulf of Mexico.  Prior to the passage of
> recent regulations, most shrimpers were all to happy to cooperate with
> researchers and collectors.   If the state of Texas is really concerned about
> this species, the efforts would be better spent allocating money for
> researchers within the state to conduct studies to determine why the species
> is declining.   Knee jerk reactionary environmental legislation such as this
> does more to harm worthy environmental causes than they actually succeed in
> accomplishing their desired goals.  I encourage the lawmakers of the state of
> Texas to do their homework before enacting such ill-conceived legislation.  If
> the facts warrant such legislation, so be it.  If not, as it appears in this
> case, it is best that lawmakers leave well enough alone or else spend the
> money that is necessary to help ensure the survival of the species.
>
> Douglas N. Shelton
> Alabama Malacological Research Center
> 2370-G Hillcrest Road #236
> Mobile, AL 36695