Harvest rates

[Stanley A. Gorodenski]

> In many ways, this is the invalid argument that we here over and over again with
> regard to collecting adult insects.  To me the logic (and theoretical
> underpinnings) of the argument seem invalid at best.
> 
 
I do not accept the idea that "Nature" or whatever you want to call it,
ever required the absence of Homo sapiens to "work" properly.  Mankind
(or womankind, or person kind, if you wish) is a part of this "Nature". 
I find it extremely difficult to believe that life history strategies
(such as r and K) ever evolved under the requirement of a complete
absence of Homo sapiens, perse.  If it had, this would imply a guiding
hand, or creationism.  However, biological facts do not support this
(i.e., creationism).  From an evolutionary point of view, man's
activities on the surface of this planet are just another evolutionary
force taking place.  

Of course, this should not be viewed as any kind of excuse to "plunder"
the planet, but I do think some of the thinking on this issue goes to
the opposite extreme, almost to, or at, the point of viewing "Nature" as
being "pure" only without the presence of man (or woman, or person).  A
Grizzly on its way through a meadow indiscriminately lapping up hundreds
of pounds of lep larvae and other insects, is viewed as "natural" and
okay.  However, a lepidopterist taking a butterfly is viewed as
something "unnatural" and somehow abnormally and negatively affecting
the natural balance of things.