Government Agencies Know Best (paging George Orwell)

pageclan at msn.com pageclan at msn.com
Mon Sep 29 09:51:30 EDT 1997


Apology beforehand:

If I'm not posting properly, someone please tell me.

Neil made some great points.  I only want to address  two now -
government heavy-handedness and 'disrupting the ecology of a site'.

I'm not convinced that any govt. authority was mislead about the event.
This implies some kind of intent to deceive on the part of 'releaser'.
Notwithstanding, the 'govt.-guy' who perceives that 'his' authority has
been challenged WILL come down harder on future events, releases and
transports.  This 'govt.-guy' has too much power, is one of my points.

Disrupting the ecology of a site is quickly becoming sacreligous (sp?).
To disrupt the ecology of a site is seen as a moral problem with all
those nasty overtones.

Disrupting the ecology of a site implies:
-we understand completely the site,
-the site is in stasis,
-change is bad,
-the site cannot be disrupted,
-a small, elite group of persons gets to control the ecology of the site,
-no one really owns the site (anti-private ownership here)


I'm not just talking bulldozers here because lots of people want to
improve the ecology of many sites.

> I do not want to see the trading of butterflies banned, but as usual the
> actions of irresponsible people mean that greater regulation is being seen
> to be necessary.
>
> The only way to conserve a species is to conserve its habitat. Private
breeders
> are not "ensuring the survival of" many species. The available
> scientific evidence indicates that releasing of butterflies into the wild
> does nothing to help their populations. A colony will hold the number
> of individuals dictated by ecology of a site. Releasing further individuals
> does nothing to increase the population. This can only be increased over
> the long term by improving the quality or quantity of the habitat.
>
> Research published in the UK has shown that for the vast majority of UK
> butterfly species introductions to new sites do not work.
> This may be found in the excellent chapter on "The Conservation of British
> Butterflies" by M.S Warren in "The Ecology of Butterflies in Britain" edited
> by Roger L.H. Dennis 1992 and published by Oxford University Press.
> I would be most interested to know of any American work on the success
> of introductions.
>
> The monarch is a migratory species but what is being attacked is not
> someone rearing a few butterflies and releasing them, but taking butterflies
> from one place to another in numbers and releasing them.
> This is then being presented as being good for conservation when in fact
> it is disrupting the proper study of the creatures concerned. This is
inhibiting
> everyone's ability to conserve them, since good conservation has to be based
> on a good knowledge of the ecology and  behaviour of the animals concerned
>
> What is more it appears that the authorities were mislead over the true
> nature of the event, This means that in future the authorities will
inevitably
> be more cautious.
> Yet again we find people defending those who bring
> their hobbies into disrepute, instead of attacking them.
>
> --
> Neil Jones-

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet


More information about the Leps-l mailing list