John Grehan jrg13 at
Thu Jun 14 23:17:38 EDT 2001

>The choice of word  "focus" in conjunction with non-consumptive is very
>important.  And it is also very clear that nothing is said about
>opposing consumptive activities.  It just isn't a focus.
>Mike Gochfeld

As someone who has no history of bashing NABA or having any involvment in 
the organization or any other in the US I do find the explicit "focus" on 
non-consumptive activities to be problematic. Agreed, it is not an explicit 
statement of opposition to those activities, but it does make those 
activities an issue with respect to NABA. I do not see how some kind of 
negative connotation is involved by separating out and excluding so-called 
"consumptive" activities such as collecting. It is evident from all the 
discussion and range of views that there is a problem, and the problem 
relates to the language and emphasis given by NABA. It seems that if NABA 
did not give exclusion to particular activities in its focus then there 
would not be an issue, and it seems to me that the issue will remain so 
long as there is this focus.

As a separate question could someone mention why it was deemed necessary to 
make 'consumptive' activities an issue. (I appreciate that the explanation 
is available and I admit to not taking the time to check the web pages and 
other literature given the likelihood that someone on the list will have 
the information on their fingertips).

John Grehan


   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit: 

More information about the Leps-l mailing list