Shell collectors ?

[TMHeimer]

Thanks Wookie. Only Pacific Triton Trumpets (Charonia tritonis) eat Crown of Thorns, because Crown of Thorns is not in Atlantic Waters. I have several Atlantic Triton Trumpets (Charonia veriegata) in my collection. But admit, I would take a Pacific one if I ever had the dinero to go there.
We could argue forever (and in 2008....), but when you each conch, you're killing it anyway. If we took 50% of all the deep sea fish caught since 1900 and dumped them into a field in the middle of Kansas, the world fish population would still be somewhat GREAT.
I appreciate you saying "to each his own".

 

[uncfnp]

I am more then happy to collect a shell or two and even wrote to @TMHeimer for advise years ago. But I only take empty ones and at that have collected very few. My best shells are usually gifts from fellow divers that are locals on the boat I dive in Florida.

 

[TMHeimer]

Yes. I figure the odds of doing significant damage to endangered populations is lower buying a bunch of really small shells, instead of big ones. Shells like that big conch shell, well, could be another story. And I'm not likely to get on the Internet to research an offering when I'm standing there mulling over a spontaneous purchase decision.

That said, it's kind of a 'guess and go' matter of conscience.

Richard.

Small shells/Big Shells? PURCHASING?.... Hmmmm Richard. I'm not (much of ) an expert on species that are in danger (which to my knowledge is VERY few of them, amazingly). But you could get blasted by someone ("AWARE"?) for taking "small ones".
Not at all a criticism, but I am amazed (well, not really) at the lack of knowledge divers have about endangered shells, yet we all must not take anything alive. There are so few shells that are endangered (and that due to consumption or commercial collecting), yet if you take a "few small ones" it's a major crime. The small ones could be juveniles. BABIES!!! Just yanking your chain.
It is a matter of conscience, and I don't denounce you for BUYING shells. I just have no interest in that, as I have to find them myself. That's the only reason I got into diving in the first place.

 

[TMHeimer]

I am more then happy to collect a shell or two and even wrote to @TMHeimer for advise years ago. But I only take empty ones and at that have collected very few. My best shells are usually gifts from fellow divers that are locals on the boat I dive in Florida.

Man, I do recall. That was a long time ago. Those gifts from divers in FL--were they taken alive? Not that I care. Whereabouts in FL--the panhandle?

 

[drrich2]

My thinking goes something like this...

In a given ecosystem, there are usually far more tiny animals than large ones. To cite an extreme example, we worry about saving the whales, not the cockroaches. So if I had to guess whether harvesting a 10 inch long shell, or a quart of shells an inch or two long, was more likely to imperil a locally endangered species, my money would be on the big one.

There are exceptions, of course, People are concerned about populations of honeybees, and IIRC maybe monarch butterflies.

Richard.

 

[uncfnp]

Man, I do recall. That was a long time ago. Those gifts from divers in FL--were they taken alive? Not that I care. Whereabouts in FL--the panhandle?

Empty only and the WPB area.

 

[TMHeimer]

My thinking goes something like this...

In a given ecosystem, there are usually far more tiny animals than large ones. To cite an extreme example, we worry about saving the whales, not the cockroaches. So if I had to guess whether harvesting a 10 inch long shell, or a quart of shells an inch or two long, was more likely to imperil a locally endangered species, my money would be on the big one.

There are exceptions, of course, People are concerned about populations of honeybees, and IIRC maybe monarch butterflies.

Richard.

Makes sense to me. There are some rare small shells, but admit I'm not an expert. The ones I do collect seem plentiful--to the point where I don't bother.

 

[RyanT]

In a given ecosystem, there are usually far more tiny animals than large ones. To cite an extreme example, we worry about saving the whales, not the cockroaches. So if I had to guess whether harvesting a 10 inch long shell, or a quart of shells an inch or two long, was more likely to imperil a locally endangered species, my money would be on the big one.

In terms of ecosystem function, size is irrelevant. Some large species have a bigger influence on ecosystem function than small ones. But in many cases, the reverse is true. It depends on the animals' trophic level (e.g. herbivore versus carnivore), food availability, habitat type, whether or not the animal is a keystone species, etc., etc.

 

[drrich2]

In terms of ecosystem function, size is irrelevant. Some large species have a bigger influence on ecosystem function than small ones. But in many cases, the reverse is true.

But doesn't size tend to correlate to some extent with total population numbers, and vulnerability to harvesting? In other words, I'd tentatively speculate wolves would be outnumbered by coyotes. There are bound to be exceptions; lions are larger than leopards, but which is more populous (given that lions are social, and leopards more solitary)?

Richard.

 

[TMHeimer]

But doesn't size tend to correlate to some extent with total population numbers, and vulnerability to harvesting? In other words, I'd tentatively speculate wolves would be outnumbered by coyotes. There are bound to be exceptions; lions are larger than leopards, but which is more populous (given that lions are social, and leopards more solitary)?

Richard.

Agree. And agree with RyanT as well. But both posts point out that most people and most divers know little about molluscs--not that I'm an expert, to be honest. Knobbed Whelks are big and very plentiful from Mass. to Georgia (especially on "deserted" beaches).