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).

I'm no expert but it seems clear that at current rates, major swathes of the Amazon rainforest will be gone in a couple of decades. Part of this is due to the drive to produce ethanol, which requires greater energy inputs than it yields (but is touted as a renewable). While I was in Brazil last year, I saw a few isolated parcels of the mata atlantica (tropical forest), a unique ecosystem. The remaining land has been clearcut to provide for cattle pastures (I like an occasional steak but it's just not a sustainable trend) and acres upon acres of Eucalyptus trees for producing paper (we're supposed to be happy because trees have been planted?). What will happen to the snail species in these regions?

Who is raising a fuss or railing about dangerous behavior when a coal company puts its coal ash behind a flimsy dam? And who pays for the medical bills from contaminated water and air and food from chemical, industrial and agricultural giants? This is all bad for molluscan livelihood and, for the tastes of certain well-heeled interests with major stakes in media, we all might as well be mollusks. Not worth mentioning compared to J-Lo's newest social event.

I liken this behavior to an individual repeatedly firing a shotgun straight up in the air in a densely populated area. If some metal fragments happen to kill someone, we call it murder. But if an industry does it with its waste, it is deemed an arcane health statistic. And I've heard the argument made that if an industrial process makes a useful product and provides jobs then what's a few deaths per ten thousand? A similar argument can be made for creating huge dead zones in the ocean from the runoff of fertilizers from millions of acres of industrial-style farmland. We're producing the high fructose corn syrup for your processed foods, what's an extinct oceanic species or three? How about hacking down mangrove forests in order to set up sleek resorts featuring sports fishing adventures and gambling casinos?

Who is counting the casualties? How are they counted? And what accountability is there?

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?

I hope I can elicit some knowledgeable comments on habitat loss...a far greater threat to our hobby than a few misguided shelling regulations.

David Kirsh
Durham, NC


"It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction.
 Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------