> Marlo, you go girl!
>
> I see Lynn's points too, but can't agree with the underlying premise of
> this kind of response: "We're self-destructing if we criticize ourselves
> -- after all, we're the least of many evils."  Monolithic groupthink is
> what destroys groups, not healthy debate in the spirit of
> self-improvement.
>
> Been a while since I mounted the soapbox, so here goes:
>
> Any time someone pays someone else for something, that something --
> whether it's animal, vegetable, or mineral -- becomes a commodity with
> value.  As long as the resource commodity is readily renewable, I have
> absolutely no problem with harvesting, for science or commercial sale.
> (After all, I love seafood and I do buy an occasional specimen shell!)
>
> But the situation is different where stressed ecosystems supporting
> dwindling populations are further burdened with the predation of focused
> collection by private hobbyists and profiteers.  We must reconsider what
> we (and our money) are doing, whether to exacerbate or amend such a
> situation.
>
> Whether shells are for sale in bulk or sale as specimens, the end result
> is the same -- an equal amount of habitat is impacted whether the take is
> a handful or a bagful of live creatures.  And the "slash and burn" methods
> of poor, ignorant people eager to feed their families by any means
> necessary (which we, sitting at home fat with complacency, can hardly
> fault) comprise a significant deleterious factor in concert with other
> stressors, such as pollution and coastal construction.
>
> No, we collectors are not the only problem, nor the worst.  But we ARE
> contributors, and it's time we admit it and take aggressive action to
> reduce our hobby's damage.  The question we need to ask ourselves is not
> whether we should limit collection or the shell trade, but in what ways we
> can best do so.
>
> Apologists who refuse to critically examine our culpability in
> environmental degradation are sheep, huddled together miserably against
> the wolves of shelling bans -- which legislators are increasingly seeing
> as the only "solution."
>
Many special-interest groups would LOVE to see shelling of any kind --
live-taken or dead -- become universally illegal.  I read "no-touch,
no-take" (i.e., no shelling) propaganda in my diving magazines every month.
Does anyone think PADI is preaching idly?  No -- they've mobilized a
powerful lobbying coalition and it is actively fomenting against
"harvesters" like you and me.
 
> Isn't it time we woke up and saw the writing on the wall?  Conchology is
> about ten years away from being legislated out of existence.  In some
> places it's already too late -- and that's the inevitable endstate we're
> doomed to, if we cling stubbornly to the free-take, free-trade philosophy.
>
>
We have to start self-regulating -- and I don't mean just publishing an
easily-ignored "ethics statement."  I mean consistently holding violators
accountable for their excesses by sanctions, such as suspension/expulsion
from COA.  Without enforcement, ethics guidelines are a hollow gesture,
ineffective and insincere.  And yes, we will have to decide if 1,000 of
anything is too much -- or it will be decided for us.
 
We must also start re-educating: writing one's elected representatives,
visiting public hearings, submitting pro-shelling articles and letters to
magazines and newspapers.  I think we already do many things well, like
going into schools and putting on public exhibitions -- but I also believe
that many laymen who visit shell shows aren't seeing that one can
live-collect and yet do no permanent harm.  We know, but they don't.  We
have to tell them!
 
> Criminalization of collecting -- THAT's the ultimate threat, not this
> ethical debate among ourselves.  If more effort were put into lobbying and
> less into jockeying for prizes, we might stand a chance.
>
> Refusing to go out like the dinosaurs,
>
> Jenny
>
>