Quino checkerspot butterfly

[Mark Walker]

Fred brings up a very good point.  Just like making the blanket statement
that _all butterflies are disappearing_ has caused unjustified prejudice
against those of us who capture and (gulp) kill certain specimens, becoming
a perpetual nuisance to all development in the name of saving a bug will
undoubtedly create intolerance for those who support butterfly habitat
preservation.

This represents the worst nightmare for people like me - who are hated both
because we are heartless enough to murder innocent living creatures, and
also because we're sick enough to love the same creatures so much that we
place their needs above the needs of human beings.

I hope there are butterflies in heaven.  I'm pretty sure there will be.

Mark Walker

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	fred_heath at power-one.com [SMTP:fred_heath at power-one.com]
> Sent:	Monday, March 22, 1999 1:16 PM
> To:	leps-l at lists.yale.edu; Cicndela at aol.com
> Subject:	Re: Quino checkerspot butterfly 
> 
>         To answer Neil Jone's earlier question, this article says that all
> 
>      pending development from San Diego to Ventura County (just north and 
>      east of L.A.) needs to show that there are no Quino Checkerspots on 
>      the land before development can proceed. Although a number of
> survey's 
>      were done last year in reasonable habitat (many came up negative 
>      except in a few places in Riverside and San Diego counties). 
>         I almost feel sorry for the developers because any surveys done 
>      this year (a relative drought year with few of any species flying)
> may 
>      not be acceptable even if no evidence is found of the butterflies 
>      presence. 
>         The article mentions (and I can not vouch for the accuracy of this
> 
>      article or even, for that matter, my interpretation of the material 
>      presented) that Rudi Mattoni feels that the focus should be on 
>      protecting and enhancing habitat which we know is prime for the 
>      butterfly (either because butterflies have been noted there or there 
>      is much of the foodplant (a plantain)) and not tying up every 
>      development in S.Calif. At first this sounds maybe a touch 
>      pro-development, but understand that the backlash from an
> unreasonable 
>      holding up of all development might be far worse in the long run. 
>      
>                                                            ----Fred
> 
>