FW: Collecting anything and future nature interest

[Mark Walker]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Walker 
> Sent: Monday, June 28, 1999 6:22 PM
> To: 'dyanega at pop.ucr.edu'
> Subject: RE: Collecting anything and future nature interest
> 
> 
> Doug wrote:
> 
> > 
> > This is straying close to matters of legality. We're actually 
> > dealing with
> > two very different issues here, and it's one I'm not sure 
> > people in the
> > discussion have taken into account; there's *public* perception of
> > collecting, and then there's the *legal* aspects. Griping 
> > about the former
> > is one thing, but let's be careful about confusing it with 
> > the latter, as
> > that is something pretty much unavoidable until and unless we get
> > legislators who are willing to undertake the drafting of a 
> > separate set of
> > rules to deal with invertebrates. At present, we have *no* 
> > option other
> > than regulating collecting of insects by applying the rules 
> > that control
> > the catching and killing of vertebrates. No one is now or is 
> > ever likely to
> > be willing to undertake the effort and expense of drafting a 
> > parallel set
> > of regulations, so we're stuck with blanket rules. Given that 
> > we have to
> > make due with those laws, the anti-collecting bias is 
> > built-in, even if
> > everyone knows and acknowledges its shortcomings as applied 
> > to insects.
> > We've been over this before here, and I still don't believe 
> > we will ever
> > have the luxury of custom-made legislation that is 
> appropriate to our
> > purposes.
> 
> If I've confused the issue, then I am not aware of it.  I was 
> (and still am) discussing public perception.  Much of what is 
> law is shaped by what is first public perception.  My point 
> was that both the media and the schools are helping to shape 
> a negative public perception about collecting.  I also 
> mentioned that these are originally being propagated by 
> another source.  It is not the law I was referring to, but 
> rather the scientific and conservation communities themselves.
> 
> The scenario goes something like this:
> 
> Someone writes a book that says that you can enjoy 
> butterflies non-consumptively with the implication that if 
> you do, you are a higher-evolved creature than those who 
> would do otherwise.  Someone else writes a paper which claims 
> that butterflies are rapidly disappearing off the face of the 
> earth.  Someone else creates an episode of Gilligan's Island 
> that portrays an uncompassionate butterfly collector whose 
> only interest is in capturing some rare specimen.  Someone 
> else creates a video with beautiful images of fluttering 
> butterflies that suggests that if we don't do something 
> immediately, human intervention will destroy butterflies all 
> over the world.  Someone else creates a web-site that 
> documents how collecting has detrimentally and unethically 
> impacted numerous populations of butterflies.  Someone else 
> writes a cartoon (Rescue Rangers) whose bad-guy character is 
> a psycho egg-collector, while another writes about (Timon and 
> Poomba) an evil, crazy, salivating butterfly collector who is 
> portrayed as the enemy of the world (in this episode, the 
> collector is ultimately chased away while Poomba eats a 
> handful of cockroaches).  Someone else writes a new butterfly 
> field guide, with no mention of collecting and photos only of 
> "live" butterflies, and none of pinned specimens.  Meanwhile, 
> in the 4th grade classroom, little Johnny is discouraged by 
> the teacher (who is an avid Nature subscriber), that his 
> tendency to capture and kill insects is not politically correct.
> 
> Now in all fairness, somewhere in here there's one idiot 
> person who is caught capturing endangered butterflies for 
> profit.  This is picked up by all, and enjoys much media 
> coverage.  The result is what we have today and independent 
> of the ludicrous limitations created by blanket legislation.
> 
> Now that should create a nice forest fire.  All that, and 
> born again to boot.  And thank God for that, because my 
> wisdom is the king of foolishness...
> 
> Mark Walker.
>