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.

You may have a better feel for this about why there's pressure to impose
bans. You seem to suggest that there are locals whose mommies never taught
them to share their shells. Well, another approach might be for COA to
figure out ways to get articles, letters and even ads in local papers to
debunk the myths about taking small numbers of live molluscs
and--yes--pointing out the real sources of shellfish decline. (I think it's
so obvious once we remind people of what's going on around them that they
will likely support our position).

There are probably some other ideas for acting on this issue of bans. But I
think it's a reasonable function of COA to do a little more advocacy not
only on behalf of its members' leisure activity but for the future existence
of the fauna.

It wouldn't be a happy outcome if we won the battle against collecting bans
only to discover that there are few live specimens to collect, mostly
increasingly-worn dead ones rolling in the coastal sludge.

It's not like I believe COA has a great deal of clout. But there could be
ways to bring about more enlightened discussion, leading to better outcomes
on these banning decisions.

Any COA officers have practical comments on how the organization might help?

David Kirsh