Butterfly Questions

[Mark Walker]

John Himmelman wrote:


>Some people maintain that photography is more environmentally friendly
>than collecting, but I wonder. There is an environmental cost to both
>manufacturing and processing film, and that may not be insignificant
>compared to the modest effects of removing a few individuals from
>abundant populations. 

Oh, come on now!  I was going on sit at the side while everyone was
encouraging 
the poster to collect until that statement.  If you want to take that route,
how 
about the chemicals used to kill the butterflies?  Good healthy stuff?  

Rationalize all you want.  The bottom line for the INDIVIDUAL butterfly that
is 
being observed - not the population as a whole, because it probably won't be

affected by responsible collecting - is that it benefits less from being
killed 
than photographed. Some people, myself included, look at the individual 
butterfly (or moth) as an individual butterfly and think of it in those
terms 
instead of it being just one of thousands.  Some of us enjoy the pursuit of
this 
pasttime this way.  There is nothing wrong with that.  If we choose to 
photograph it instead of killing it, it flies off unharmed.  That makes some
us 
us happy.

-}--;--->----)--------------

Well, John, I guess I can empathize with your defensive response (seeing
that it is usually us collectors that are forced into this behavior), but I
would hardly consider Ken's remarks a rationalization (nor would I, having
seen many of Ken's photographs, consider it a call against insect
photography).  You are absolutely correct that a photograph is less
intrusive than a pair of fingers or a jar of ethyl acetate to a butterfly
under study.  But it is the ecology of the whole population, after all, that
is under scrutiny when questions of environmental impact on a species are
raised.  Such questions are always raised when someone discusses the ethics
of collecting.

I think Ken has made a valid point here, and one which shouldn't be
downplayed as merely a rationalization made by those who choose to collect.
All nature observers have a negative impact on the animals and plants they
love to study.  It is hypocritical for someone to point accusational and
condemning fingers at collectors, while blindly carrying on the many daily
activities that are just as or more detrimental.  It's the old
log-in-the-eye syndrome - we should really consider in what ways we are all
continuing to support the destruction of habitat, directly or indirectly.
I'm not convinced of the eco-friendly nature of an eco-tour of 25
photographers into ecologically sensitive areas.  

But I do appreciate their wonderful photographs!

Mark Walker
in Houston, TX (again).

<><><><><><><><><>
John Himmelman
Killingworth, CT USA
jhimmel at connix.com
<><><><><><><><><>