dglaeske at epping.ndak.net
Wed Aug 27 10:40:32 EDT 1997
Mark Walker wrote:
> The following are editorial comments on the subject of "Federal Permits" and
> the basic rules associated with "collecting" within National Parks (as recently
> summarized by our tundra-bound colleague Ken). . .
> > All specimens to remain the property of the National Park Service,
> > regardless of where they are deposited.
I agree. I don't collect butterflies as trophies but simply to learn
more about them. As long as the specimens are appropriately treated, I
don't really care where they are.
> > Specimens to be deposited in a public institution.
see above statement.
> > Collecting to be done out of sight of visitors.
I don't see why we need to be secretive. I'm only too happy to discuss
with neophytes what I am doing, observing, etc. Butterfly populations
can be used as sensitive indicators of environmental change and the more
opportunities to educate the public. Like jogging, or flower gardening,
or RC aircraft flying, or any other hobby, we don't need to be
flamboyant but we don't need to be ashamed of it, either.
> > Valid research needs for collecting (some parks may require an
> > actual research proposal).
My personal impression of most park staff is that they know very little
about the butterflies in the park. Since I have no qualms about leaving
specimens (I haven't actually collected any specimens in national or
state parks for many years), any collecting will be to the benefit of
> > Compliance with various restrictions for wilderness areas, such
> > as having to move your remote camp every few days to avoid impact on the
> > ground cover.
Preaching to the converted.
> > Providing a detailed inventory of all specimens collected, which
> > could involve a lot of paperwork.
> Most collectors I know do this anyway. But they do it for the right reasons,
> not because a hoop exists through which they must jump.
Anybody interested in the butterflies themselves (and not as simple
trophies) does this anyway. Most of the time, the notes are more
valuable than the specimens.
> > Satisfying the Resource Manager that there will no adverse impact
> > on population levels from your collecting.
Without us, I don't think they would know anything about the population
> In closing, I guess the bottom line is the Kenelm is right in saying we're
> better off not collecting in these areas. I just wish I could say that it was
> for a good reason.
>From the treatment I've received, I agree. This contrasts sharply with
the treatment I've received in Canada. I was just recently at Cypress
Hills Provincial Park in Saskatchewan. I checked in at the interpretive
center, and later had park staff talk to me about butterflies in the
park. They were only too glad to have someone knowledgeable about.
BTW, I've also run into problems on private land recently. I had one
rancher refuse to give me permission to enter his pastures. He told me
he didn't want anyone doing any research of any sort on his land just in
case she/he did find an endangered species. Others have given veiled
threats about hunters not liking people like me potentially scaring
their prey away. Maybe its just an attitude of the times.
More information about the Leps-l