More on Mr. T (bflying in parks)

[Eric or Pat Metzler]

Thank you Paul. I'm always impressed with how different things are when
one has the facts.

Cheers,

Eric

> Paul Opler wrote:
> 
>      Dear Leps-Lers,
> 
>      Re: The Mr. Teobaldi debate
> 
>      According to the incident report on the Teobaldi affair, he had
>      inquired at more than one park if he could collect specimens. Despite
>      being told that he could not except by permit but that photography was
>      allowed, he persisted in collecting anyway. When finally confronted in
>      Sequoia National Park he became violent and abusive and had to be
>      handcuffed and briefly jailed. This probably explains the extra
>      reaction by the agencies and the press. The incident report is public
>      record and could probably be obtained by those with an interest. I was
>      also told that Mr. Teobaldi, after calming down, seemed to be a very
>      nice person. I guess the morale of the story is that if you're told
>      that you may not collect, then don't persist. Like Kenelm Philip, I
>      always apply for collecting permits in national parks and have found
>      the vast majority of park rangers to be polite, professional, and
>      occasionally interested in my activities.
> 
>      Paul Opler, Biological Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey
>      [paul_opler at usgs.gov]
> 
> ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
> Subject: Re: More on Mr. T (bflying in parks)
> Author:  Neil at NWJONES.DEMON.CO.UK at NBS-Internet-Gateway
> Date:    9/3/97 8:04 AM
> 
> In message <v01530501b0327137a229@[207.158.13.60]> conlan at ADNC.COM writes:
> > Neil Jones wrote:
> >
> > >I would
> > >point out that the greater capacity for reproduction of invertebrate
> > >populations is largely a red herring in this arguement.
> >
> > I could not disagree with this more!  Ken Phillip already commented nicely
> > on this but let me just add a couple things.  The incredible reproductive
> > capacity of most invertebrates lies near the core of this argument.  It is
> > this capacity which allows rapid repopulation of areas and the large
> > population flux we often see in others.  Extreme predation/parasitization
> > in one year can often be more than compensated for in the following year.
> > I have seen populations go from virtually unseen to almost nuisance levels
> > in a single year.  Does anyone honestly think most birds or mammals could
> > do this (maybe some rodents)?  When was the last time a Condor, Eagle or
> > Moose gave birth to 200 offspring in a season!!  If you could get 200 eggs
> > out of a California Condor they could have repopulated the Western USA in
> > about two years!  Invertebrates utilize a much different strategy for
> > survival and often don't fit into the same old arguments people use for
> > birds and mammals.
> >
> > Chris Conlan
> > conlan at adnc.com
> 
> 
> I made this posting some time ago in February 1996 if I recall correctly
> and I have reposted it several times because the same point seems to be
> being made continuously. It better answers points which were made at the
> time it was originally posted but much of it is valid in answer to the
> general point being made  by several people which seems to be
> that collecting can never do any harm.
> 
> 
> 
> Subject:      Population change and collection/predation
> From:         Neil Jones <Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk>
> Date:         1996/02/05
> Message-Id:   <823548673snz at nwjones.demon.co.uk>
> Newsgroups:   sci.bio.entomology.lepidoptera
> [More Headers]
> 
> It has been asserted, but not proved that no insect has ever been extirpated
> by human beings removing individuals from a population. It has also been
> asserted that since this is the case it would be unreasonable to prevent
> human beings from doing this where the insect species is in danger of
> extinction. In order to validate the second statement it
> is necessary to examine the question of whether the first statement can be
> disproved.
> 
>  Gathering individuals from a population could be regarded as predation
> by one species on another. In this case the predator being Homo sapiens.
> It is therefore necessary to examine whether a predator can affect the
> population of a species.
> 
> There are numerous examples of this. For example it is well documented
> that the hymenopteran parasitoid Cotesia bignelii has an effect on the
> population levels of Eurodryas aurinia. There is even an example of
> an invertebrate predator foreign to an ecosystem exterminating entire species.
> This has happened with several species of Partula snails on Pacific islands
> which were exterminated by a foreign predatory snail.
> 
> Invertebrates do have a greater potential for population growth and recovery
> than mammals or birds but this does not prove that they are necessarily more
> resistant to predation. Over the long term each pair of organisms will
> produce, on average, one pair of offspring during its life time.
> Insects have just as many predators as other animals. Increasing the predation
> will put stress on the population and could, where the population is small,
> cause an extinction.
> 
> It is logical to assume, given the evidence generally available, that the
> first assertion is liable to be proved very simply by experiment. The fact
> that experimenters have failed to do so in a few examples is not conclusive.
> It merely proves that there was not sufficient stress placed on the population,
> not that it is imposible to do so.
> 
>  I myself have observed several populations of insects where due to the
> nature of the lifecycle it would be easy to remove all the individuals. I have
> not done so because it would be unethical.
> 
>  The fact that there are individuals around who will put their own
> personal desires above the right of a species to exist is further evidence
> to indicate that it is necessary, in the case of endangered species, to
> prevent human predation in addition to conserving the habitat.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk "The beauty and genius of a work of art
> may be reconceived, though its first material expression be destroyed; a
> vanished harmony may yet again inspire the composer; but when the last
> individual of a race of living things breathes no more another heaven and
> another earth must pass before such a one can be again." William Beebe
-------------- next part --------------
Eric H. Metzler
1241 Kildale Sq. N.
Columbus Ohio 43229-1306
USA

Phone:  614 888 3642
E-mail: spruance at infinet.com