David Kirsh wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> Thanks for your informative run-down about the FWCC hearings. I agree it
> would be great if some of us shellers showed up at the appropriate meetings.
>
> However, that doesn't seem to be happening. I'm suggesting that COA could
> come up with some approaches beyond printing its 1995 conservation
> resolution in American Conchologist. One of those might be finding (even
> paying?) someone to go to critical hearings.

No doubt about it. Pensacola is quite a hike for me (it's exactly
half-way to Dallas) but I may try to get the proposed rules and
regulations and will comment in writing if I personally feel strongly
one way or the other.

But let me re-emphasize: it does no good to point out who the "real
culprits" are. To be effective, responses must be direct and to the
point of the proposed rules and regulations. And you must also realize
that even within our own little community, there is abuse and
disagreement: how about dredging for shells in turtle grass beds, or
taking live specimens of shells from thin populations, and where do all
those S. gigas with operculum come from?

But I agree with yer main point: it would be nice if someone kept track
of all shelling-related legislative activity, federal and all states,
and represented the COA in a single, informed, and consistant position.

And that's a full time job with lots of travel, not cheap.

m