Dear Shining Star :
 
Just wanted to tell you that I thought your response to Mark was so very
well done.  But then
I think everything you do is well done.  Happy Thanksgiving.
 
Your 4th @
 
 
t 06:45 AM 11/26/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Ok, Mark, now you've done it!   After reading your contention that
>collectors are responsible for the dearth (death?) of several shell species
>in and around Florida, I got all het up. (I know we have been over this
>ground before, but so long as we have new people come onto this list, or
>have the same unfounded accusations crop up against shell collectors, I
>think arguing the subject is a  worthwhile pursuit)   In defense of our
>hobby I checked out some of the older literature I could scrounge up on the
>subject ,  What I found:
>
>According to the 1954 edition of  Tucker Abbott's American Seashells,
>Terebra taurina was "Formerly considered quite rare, but now not
>infrequently dredged in the Gulf of Mexico."   Percy Morris in Field Guide
>to Shells of the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts and the West Indies (1973) says,
>"Once regarded as extremely rare, this shell has long been a collector's
>item; it is now known to be uncommon rather than rare."  Twila Bratcher in
>her Living Terebras of the World says they range from Southwest Florida and
>the Gulf of Mexico to the West Indies and Brazil and are usually in deeper
>water.   One doubts that the collector had anything to do with the scarcity
>of these mollusks.
>
>Strombus gallus in the 1954 Abbott:  "Southeast Florida (rare) and the West
>Indies. . . . This species is not at all common although it may be obtained
>in fair numbers along the north coast of Jamaica."   Morris says it is
>relatively uncommon throughout its range.  These have never been common in
>Florida, and blaming the collector for their absence is counterproductive.
>
>Mitra florida:  Abbott in 1954 says "An uncommon species considered a
>choice collector's item. "
>
>Cymatium parthenopeum is not even listed in American Seashells 1954
>edition.  Morris in 1973 lists it.  One could read this as their becoming
>more common, not less common.  And these are a species with a long-lived
>veliger stage, so what matures here might not be spawned here anyway.
>
>Cittarium pica:   Now there's an interesting case, definitely a victim of
>climate change.  This species was in Florida when the waters were warmer.
>But even in 1954, Tucker says  their range was Southeast Florida (dead) and
>the West Indies (alive).  Morris only lists it from the West Indies. It is
>known commonly as the West Indian Top. Julia Rogers' Shell Book (1908) says
>they are found  only in Charlotte Harbor. Period.  She doesn't mention
>whether they are live or dead.  Otherwise she ascribes their range to the
>West Indies. In the 1974 edition of Tucker's American Seashells, he says
>they are occasionally introduced to the Florida Keys but do not survive
>there.  It may be that man did extirpate the species from S. Florida,
>perhaps even in historic times, but I would contend that it was for food,
>not shell collections.
>
>What I concluded:
>
>I think ascribing the absence of these species in Florida to the actions of
>shell collectors is a mistake, Mark.  There are all too many people out
>there ready to believe that shell collectors wear horns and a tail and
>chase down their victims with pitchforks.   Tucker, as others have said,
>made a longtime study of the reproductive habits of mollusks and was
>extremely interested in the effects that shell collectors had on them.  He
>concluded that they were not harmful to the numbers of any species.  He
>went on national TV to tell the world that.
>
>You mention also that none of these species was commercially harvested.
>That's true.  And there's a reason for it.  Commercial harvest is not
>practical unless the species occurs in large numbers. Which would seem to
>indicate that these species were never present in "commercial" numbers in
>the first place.  Furthermore, with wise management, many species seem to
>continue to survive and sustain their numbers in the face of commercial
>harvesting.   We eat scallops with abandon, and yet they are not extirpated
>from Florida waters.  They get scarce, the fishery of their species dies
>out, and their numbers increase again, if we haven't trashed their habitat,
>that is.
>
>And speaking of collecting for food, and commercial collecting, we have a
>serious problem of definition.  The collector seems to get a black eye,
>over and over again, because we use the word "collector" indiscriminately.
>We use it to apply to the ignorant tourist with his bag full of incipient
>garden edging or souvenirs for the family back home, to the tourist boat
>skipper making an extra few bucks by stripping the reef of Cyphoma gibbosum
>and urchins, to the commercial harvesters, to the folk picking the rocks
>clean of all forms of edible life, and to the scientific collector who
>takes one or two, and maybe (such a profligate waste!) a few for trade.
>Do we belong in this assemblage?   I don't think we do.
>
> If one searches through the literature for evidence of man's collecting
>being responsible for wiping out populations  (there is, by the way, no
>evidence of man wiping out marine molluscan species)  one finds that there
>is indeed such evidence.  But when one reads the actual studies in
>question, one finds that in every case "collector" is used to mean "shell
>gatherer" or "shell harvester,"  to apply to someone who takes all he can
>find for the dinner pot that night.   We shell collectors are not food
>gatherers, yet when these studies are cited, when they are applied, those
>doing the citing seem always to include us as well, sort of by definition
>of the word "collector."
>
>What I think, for what it's worth:
>
>If we are shell collectors . . . whether believers in taking only beach
>specimens or takers of live specimens . . .we must isolate and identify the
>risks to mollusks, on Sanibel or on this planet.   And in order for us to
>become part of the solution, we need to realize that we are not part of the
>problem!   We  need to find a way to separate ourselves from the tourists
>and omnivorous harvesters. . . separate ourselves in our own minds before
>we can possibly convince the rest of the world.
>
>If we keep accepting the "lumping" and absorbing the blame (while the
>polluters and developers and tourists and reef rapers take none of it)
>we'll allow ourselves to become scapegoats, as well as focal points for the
>blame. That will do no good whatever. The powers that be will just outlaw
>our activity and feel all warm-fuzzy and virtuous about it , while they
>remain wilfully blind to the real dangers because legislating against them
>is economically distateful or politically incorrect.  And business will go
>on as usual . (After all, they've gotten rid of those lousy shell
>collectors who kill all the shells and so mollusks are now safe for
>posterity.)  And by the time the regulatory world wakes up to its mistake,
>the damage to the mollusks may indeed be too great to repair.
>
>I submit that anyone who calls himself a shell collector needs to be a
>responsible one, and that includes understanding and being accountable for
>what we do, and it includes defending our actions through a clear
>conviction that what we do is right and good.  Instead of being apologists
>for the wrongs of other groups, let's stand up for our hobby and our
>passion.  And teach others about it and the good it does.  Let's lobby for
>bag limits to prevent over-"collecting"  of mollusks and other marine life,
>and for care of the environment it inhabits.
>
>Maybe we ought to talk about the good we do for a while?  Just to get it
>straight in our own minds?
>
>In the interest of getting the turkey into the oven,  I'll yield the oyster
>crate to the next speaker.
>
>Lynn Scheu