Butterfly Questions

[DR. JAMES ADAMS]

John Himmelman wrote: 

>People who choose not to kill butterflies, but instead 
> photograph them, are not going to bring about the demise of their subject.  

Not necessarily.  Ken and Phil make perfectly valid points about 
numbers of people going into areas for photography.  I don't believe 
that photographers have never damaged or killed larval food plants, 
or larvae, without knowing it.  I *guarantee* you that innumerable 
photographers have brought about the demise of a number of insects, 
including larval/pupal/adult leps, even if unwittingly.  I was made 
aware of this one time when I was trying to get a good picture of 
Parnassius phoebus above treeline in Colorado.  Even though I was 
doing my best to "walk softly" across the tundra, stepping as much as 
possible on mostly bare rocks, I soon had someone yelling at me to 
get off the tundra.  (They apparently weren't thinking about the fact 
that they drove up a road that someone cut through the tundra to get 
to the spot we were at, but I needn't belabor the point . . .)

> Photography is a perfectly acceptable way of enjoying the outdoors! 

No argument there, but so is collecting.  I personally do both, 
hopefully responsibly (though apparently not always as indicated by 
the story above . . .)

> photographs are a way to share the interest with others and to encourage them to 
> open their eyes and see what is out there.

As is collecting . . .

>  When I leave a place where I have 
> photographed butterflies, the place is not harmed and all of the plants and 
> animals are intact (save a few mosquitoes). 

Good for you, but I doubt that all photographers are as careful as 
you (or, for that matter, that you haven't stepped on at least a few 
plants or small insects in the process . . .)
  
> We really are talking about the same people here - people who enjoy their 
> "quarry", want them protected, and enjoy the pursuit of new and interesting 
> species.  If this is just a hobby, the only difference between collectors and 
> non collectors lie in how the butterflies and moths are documented in our 
> collections; photographic or specimens.

I agree wholeheartedly, and see nothing wrong with doing either, as 
long as it is done responsibly -- I, too, do not want to start up 
(continue?) the collecting/non-collecting debate again.

> And it has not escaped me that you collectors are getting a kick out of putting 
> a non-collector on the defensive;) 

I do *not* get a kick out of putting a non-collector on the defensive 
-- strange you should say so since it is collectors who are 
continually put on the defensive by so many people.  This is the 
first time I have ever heard it suggested that *non-collectors* have 
been put on the defensive.

            I'd like to say I'm done, too, but I won't promise !

                    James

Dr. James K. Adams
Dept. of Natural Science and Math
Dalton State College
213 N. College Drive
Dalton, GA  30720
Phone: (706)272-4427; fax: (706)272-2533
U of Michigan's President James Angell's 
  Secret of Success: "Grow antennae, not horns"