Killing butterflies and habitat destruction

[Kenelm Philip]

> If we are to achieve the conservation of _any_ species it is necessary to
> convince the people of the area where it occurs to look after it.
> You cannot do this if you also argue that it is permissable to kill it for
> fun.

Society has produced another model for preserving species, which violates
Neil's rule: hunting. Here various animals are indeed preserved, yet people
regularly kill them for fun. Not that I think most lepidopterists would
enjoy having to pay for and take out a hunting license in each state they
planned to collect--but it is clearly possible to preserve habitat and
its occupants while allowing killing of some of those occupants.

	The U.S., however, seems to be travelling along Neil's road. Allow
unrestricted destruction of habitat (and collecting) until the species
involved is endangered--then declare it endangered and ban collecting as
well as (hopefully) further habitat destruction. (Not that I mean Neil
approves of the first part of this scenario!) With suficient, and well-
informed, public interest, I see no reason why we cannot have both habitat
preservation _and_ reasonably unrestricted collecting. Neil remarks that
some collectors will overcollect rare species--but the means to protect
these is available provided that society will preserve their _habitat_
rather then simply banning collecting and then looking the other way.

							Ken Philip
fnkwp at uaf.edu