Butterfly Questions

[Kenelm Philip]

> This started with a single person asking if people are still collecting.
> It turned into a shot (actually, more of a little dig) being taken at
> those who choose not to.

If John was referring to my posting, then I should clarify a bit. I was
not taking a 'dig' at non-collectors per se. My approach to the vexed
topic of collecting vs watching/photographing has always been to let
people do whichever they prefer. I think there are good reasons for
collecting, but I don't urge non-collectors to go out and collect. And
I take lots of photographs in addition to collecting.

The point I was trying to make is, basically, summed up in Heinlein's
acronym TANSTAAFL (there ain't no such thing as a free lunch). _Any_
interaction with butterflies has an environmental cost. Even staying at
home and having nothing whatsoever to do with butterflies has an environ-
mental cost and will affect butterflies. What I object to is having
non-collectors claim the high moral ground and claim that _they_ don't
do any harm to butterflies. That, in my estimation, is not correct. We are
all, directly or indirectly, responsible for immense harm to butterflies
merely by existing.

	If people who do not collect choose to regard the above as an
attack specifically aimed at them, what can I say? "The wicked flee
when no man pursueth?" :-)  There really is no need for a debate on
this topic--there are valid reasons for watching, photographing, and
collecting butterflies and other insects--and all these activities
should be carried out in a responsible manner, without trying to put
down those who choose a different one from the one that _you_ prefer.

							Ken Philip
fnkwp at uaf.edu