Neil's dissertation/Collecting Debate/etc.

[Doug Yanega]

Dave Chesmore has commented "We must find ways of objectively putting
collecting in perspective." In that vein, permit me to make one comment
about something which has appeared repeatedly in the last few messages
(including Dave's) which I think is clearly not objective.

Mark Walker, for example, said:
>There is ample scientific evidence to justify and permit the
>collecting of unlisted invertebrates.

and Dave said:
>It seems to me that collecting of non-endangered species has several
>important functions:

My problem with this line of thought is that the process by which organisms
find their way onto the endangered/threatened species lists is about as
subjective a process as one can conceive of, relative to what the
ostensible goal of listing is. How many insect ecologists would ever argue
that virtually the only insects at risk of extinction are those
butterflies, dragonflies, tiger beetles, and such which have run the
gauntlet of the listing program because they had someone pushing for it,
and lots of collecting data to back it up (the kind that comes with being
flashy, popular insects)? There are thousands upon thousands of arthropods
facing equal or greater danger than those pitiful few which are
"officially" endangered, and if we sit down and let these *lists* determine
levels of protection, then we most assuredly will fail to protect the vast
majority of the organisms that most desperately need it (and bear in mind
that I am speaking in more general terms than regulations regarding
collecting alone - obviously, if nobody collects stinkbugs for sale or
trade, collecting is not much of a threat to a rare, endemic stinkbug). If
our goal is to make objective protection policy, then it is either going to
have to be based on something *other* than these lists, or we are going to
have to revamp the listing process to make it infinitely easier to do. Of
course, considering that the US Congress has been making serious threats in
recent years as to eliminating the endangered species program altogether, I
doubt that it makes a difference what we think should be done - more than
likely future protection programs will either be habitat-based or there
won't be any protection programs at all, and all our rhetoric will be for
nothing (as it likely is, anyway). The bottom line is whether anyone here
really believes the lists represent an objective basis to determine what
can and cannot be collected? If not, then perhaps folks need to be a bit
more explicit as to what criteria they feel protection should be based
upon, and how to translate these criteria into something practical.

Along those lines Mark asked:

>(all jesting aside, and nets and bulldozers being equal, wouldn't regulation
>protecting limited populations - ground nesting bees in this case - be
>sufficient?).

To me, only if we had documented evidence stating which species were which,
easy ID guides to tell them all apart, etc. The ecological study required
to do this hasn't been done, isn't likely to ever be done, and requires
expert ID skills in any event. If I just randomly collect an insect and
show it to you, will you be able to tell me definitively whether it is or
is not a member of a limited population? This is a good criterion, sure,
but one that's *damn* hard to apply. Like I said once before, I agree with
you in principle - in this case, that protection based on actual degree of
threat is CLEARLY the most desirable thing - but I can't imagine how that
concept can ever be translated into realistic and practical regulations,
unless PhD-toting ecologists and entomologists are placed on the permanent
staff of every National Park, AND in the administration that oversees them.
I just don't see it happening, as much as I'd *like* to see it. For the
time being, the "no collecting anything without permits" policy is the most
conservative, and I consider rules that are too restrictive preferrable,
just to be on the safe side. Yes, you'd better believe I think it should be
a LOT easier to get such permits, but that's a matter of implementation,
not one of principle.

Peace,

Doug Yanega    Depto. de Biologia Geral, Instituto de Ciencias Biologicas,
Univ. Fed. de Minas Gerais, Cx.P. 486, 30.161-970 Belo Horizonte, MG   BRAZIL
phone: 031-448-1223, fax: 031-44-5481  (from U.S., prefix 011-55)
                  http://www.icb.ufmg.br/~dyanega/
  "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
        is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82