Tom,

I very much appreciate your thoughtful comments.  Of most of the arguments
presented, yours actually addressed the issue - on balance, do shell clubs
composed mostly of "general collectors" (see my prior definition) do more
harm than good for shell habitat and populations.

Arguments about other forces (logging, home building, food consumption,
roads, beach re-nourishment, natural catastrophe, etc.) doing more harm than
shell collectors are not valid reasons to justify collecting if it too is
destructive.  A thing is not "good" because it is less bad than others. I
acknowledged from the very start that it is these other activities that are
the principal destructive forces.  Commercial shell collecting to support
the tourist and craft industries is not a minor force.  Shell collecting for
specimen collectors and done by responsible specimen collectors for their
own use is indeed, as John Wolff wrote, "the proverbial pimple on the
elephant's rear."  My comments addressed John Varner's initial philosophic
ramble on Conch-L on Dec. 22 where he posited, "When" in shell collecting
"the desire to acquire becomes obsessive, and our pursuit leads to a
deterioration in human relations or the environment, it is certainly time to
step back and think about what we are doing."  The issue I was "stepping
back and thinking about" was the threat to shells by the greater and greater
focused collecting by "general collectors" on the ever diminishing, easily
accessible habitat (that's where all those roads, houses, etc. are), and
whether the activities of most shell clubs encouragement such collecting and
harm in these circumstances.  Tom presented arguments he believes "tips the
scales downwards from the possible harm shell collecting might cause."  Now,
if Tom's perspective and Phil Liff-Grieff's suggestion (12/26) that the
"culture of shell clubs" focus on education of "members to appreciate both
conservation and scientific collecting" and "their mission" was "both to
attract new collectors and to create new levels of sensitivity to
responsible collecting," can be accepted as the predominant balance of the
activities of today's shell clubs, then my lack of concern for the demise of
shell clubs lamented by Fabio Moretzsohn (11/9/07) may be misplaced.  I'm
not sure yet.

Marlo
merritt island, fl

-----Original Message-----
From: Conchologists List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom
Eichhorst
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 8:24 PM

Two cents worth from New Mexico:  I have enjoyed the discussion.  Marlo's
points are well taken and while I have to acknowledge that he is probably
correct in some of his assessments, I think he may be a bit pessimistic.  I
would like to point out that given the very worse one can say about a shell
club - a social group of "general collectors," collecting the biggest,
prettiest, most, etc.; I believe it is still probably a good thing on
balance. ......... In any case,
shell clubs help foster the hobby and thus the extension of some levels of
natural history knowledge into the public realm.  A little is better than
none.

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