A wonderful elaboration.  Whether it's buying, trading or collecting, if
we support the market, we support the desimation of species countries are
trying to preserve.  Know the restrictions before you acquire.  Bill, do
you want to volunteer to create a list of restrictions by county on the
Jacksonville web page.  Conch-Lers from each country (or state) could
feed you the data.  It would be a wonderful addition to a super fine web
page.  (Sorry in advance for putting you on the spot.)
 
Marlo
Florida
 
Howard L. Clark or Kate Clark wrote:
 
> To all who commented on my previous message,
>
> I am sorry not to have replied more promptly, but our computer went
> down and we have only just come back on line.  There were 164
> messages piled up, a number of which pertained to my comments on
> shell purchasers.
>
> I did not say, or even mean to imply, that persons who build their
> collections by the purchase of specimens from dealers drive rare
> species to extinction while those who collect their own specimens do
> not.  I doubt that any kind of shell collecting is a prime factor in
> species loss when compared to the kinds of habitat destruction
> occurring in marine, freshwater and terrestrial environments.  What
> I said was that those who purchase shells are buffered from the
> details of the actual collecting and exportation and show little
> concern for the way these are accomplished.
>
> To clarify my previous comments, I will describe the situation in
> Ecuador,  the kind of small, tropical, developing country in which
> exotic mollusk species are found.   Anyone who has purchased
> Ecuadorian specimens  in recent years will probably think that these
> were legally collected and exported.  But this is not necessarily
> so; in fact, it is almost certain that they were illegally collected
> and exported especially if they came from the Galapagos Islands.
>
> In Ecuador, only scientific collecting permits are available (for
> shells and other fauna and flora).  There are no permits for amateur
> collectors.  Commercial permits are theoretically required for those
> engaged in harvesting edible mollusk species (chiefly Anadara) but,
> in fact, the artisanal fishermen engaged in this work do not really
> have permits and the law is not enforced.   A scientific collecting
> permit costs $300 and a good deal of red tape.  With a valid
> collecting permit, one may apply for an export permit for scientific
> specimens; each shipment requires a separate permit which costs $200.
> One cannot use a scientific permit to export shells for commercial
> purposes.
>
> These laws are difficult to enforce and, indeed, there are many ways
> around them including smuggling, bribery, or simply bypassing the
> agency charged with protection of natural resources and getting an
> export permit from the Commerce Ministry for some sort of "finished
> product."  How many shells may leave Ecuador in these ways, I could
> not say.  However, it is certain that millions of dollars worth of
> sea cucumbers are illegally harvested and exported from the Galapagos
> Marine Reserve every year.  The government simply does not have the
> capacity (and, let's face it, the will) to enforce the law. This is
> especially so when the collectors are artisanal fishermen who are
> considered poor people not required to strictly follow the laws.
> Middlemen and other wealthy persons simply bribe their way around
> the laws.
>
> The Ecuadorian laws strike me as unreasonably strict and, since they
> are largely unenforced, completely ineffective in protecting the
> country's wildlife.  The intent is to prevent anyone, especially
> foreigners, from exploiting Ecuadorian wildlife for a profit.  For
> example, my own permit allows me to take photos but not videos, on
> the theory that a colorful wildlife video could be sold.  A special
> permit is required for videos.  While the intent is to control
> profiteers (especially those who might take "genetic resources"),
> the real result is that the government comes down hard only on those
> who cannot risk running afoul of the law - namely, scientific
> collectors.
>
> I doubt that Ecuador is unique in the kinds of laws that regulate the
> collecting and exportation of animal and plant species (though the
> restrictions here are extreme).  All countries want some control
> over their natural resources and some way to extract money from
> exporters.  And I don't think it is unique in the problems it has
> enforcing its laws; there's a lot of corruption around and it's not
> all in Salt Lake City.  Do you believe, for example, that 1000
> shells, worth from $10-100,000 and obtained from Russian fishing
> trawlers working South African waters, really flowed through
> legal channels?  Not likely.  And we are told that the fishermen like
> that extra profit so they'll probably be going back to the same area
> for more.
>
> Should shell collectors out there in the real world be concerned
> about the circumstances in which shells are gathered in places like
> Ecuador?  I think so, even though the final purchaser is several
> steps removed from the actual collecting.   In the first place, the
> fees for collecting and export permits are part of the budget of the
> under-financed agency charged with protection of the flora and fauna.
> Should fishermen, middlemen, dealers, and ultimately shell
> collectors not pay something for the protection of the marine
> environment?  If shell dealers are willing to purchase from local
> operators who slip through the cracks in the law then marine
> protection is not being supported and the burden falls exclusively on
> not-for-profit scientific collectors who cannot escape the law.  If,
> as in Ecuador, the law does not permit commercial export, then
> dealers will have to go elsewhere.  Secondly, if shell dealers work
> only with licensed shell fishermen, then local governments have some
> chance of regulating the species harvested, the methods used, and the
> places where this activity is permitted because they can keep track
> of those who do operate with valid permits.  Finally, shells in
> private collections which may eventually find their way to a museum
> collection should be supported by evidence that they were legally
> collected and exported.  There are many people who are attempting to
> force the repatriation of museum specimens that, in earlier times,
> may have been collected and removed from their home country in
> some irregular way.  Museums have the obligation to show that at
> least their recent accessions were honestly acquired.
>
> kate
> ~        ~         ~         ~
> Howard L. Clark or Kate Clark /
> [log in to unmask]  /
> tel. (593-2) 224897 or 541215 /
> cellular tel. (593-9) 496593  /
> P.O. Box 17-12-379, Quito, Ecuador
> ~        ~           ~           ~