On 9/21/2010 12:52 AM, David Kirsh wrote:
> Dear Dennis and Rich (and all),
>
> I think we can agree that the term "environmental activist" was not the intended target of your comments. I'm glad we're in the same camp as far as wanting to protect the environment.
>
> Please bear with my rant a little:
>
> I still have a hard time understanding why such energy is expended on villains blamed for the inconvenience of not being able to collect in certain localities (or for certain species) -- while it looks like major portions of the earth's ocean environment are being made into industrial cesspools and major ecosystems are being devastated with impunity.(On this particular, I disagree with Chris Takahashi that hurricanes can do more damage than humans).
Hurricanes do great damage underwater, far more than most folks realize.
But it is a very different kind of damage than what we humans do.

Hurricanes here in SoFla scour the reefs of loose and weak organisms.
The result, long term, is a revitalized and stronger ecosystem.

We also, here in SoFla, dump a half billion gallons a day of minimally
treated sewage onto the reefs, full of nitrogen, phosphorous,
prescription drugs, discarded paint, etc etc etc etc - materials that
the reef critters have never had to deal with. The result, long term, is
a weakened and disrupted ecosystem.
> (snip)
>
> Who is counting the casualties? How are they counted? And what accountability is there?

And part of the problem is the scientists that focus on the metrics
rather than the obvious: for thousands of years we have understood that
wallowing in our own sewage is not good for us. Yet a million yankees a
year come to Florida to swim in their sewage. Are we greatly
overestimating human intelligence???
> I was utterly amazed by the Obama Administration's announcement that 75% of the BP oil spill had been either burned off or scooped up and that it is safe to eat the seafood. Amazed that they thought anyone would believe it. Some independent analysis has determined that there is plenty of oil contamination remaining. Anyone want to experiment with eating neurotoxic oysters or clams? We can trust that the food packaging or restaurants will be required to tell us if these are from the Gulf of Mexico, can't we?

We here in Florida know and understand that there are huge, miles-long,
plumes of oil that have not surfaced. We realize that the ecosystem of
the Gulf will be affected. We know that BP and our government are both
misleading us. The issue is no longer on the nightly news - out of
sight, out of mind, just like the two million tires dumped just off Ft.
Lauderdale beach.
> I hope I can elicit some knowledgeable comments on habitat loss...a far greater threat to our hobby than a few misguided shelling regulations.

Right you are - shelling regulations are just a third-hand response to
the damage we do to mollusk populations, and those regulations are
poorly, if at all, enforced.  SoFla's "beach renourishment" disasters
are conducted under permits that omit any mention of the damage to S.
gigas, for example.

Habitat will not be protected until H. sapiens comes to value the long
term preservation of the unspoiled. That's a major change in the way we
think, and may be the root of our own extinction. What goes around comes
around.

m

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
To leave this list, click on the following web link:
http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
click leave the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------