CLOUDCROFT CHECKERSPOT/FRITILLARY (fwd)

[Mark Walker]

Neil,

Well, this post is definitely somewhat more controversial (at least for me)
than the previous one I responded to (incidentally, this post finally did
show up on LEPS-L at about 7:00 p.m. PST).  If you're interested, I'll
comment on a few things below:

Neil Jones wrote:

<snippage>

> 
> I do not want to see collecting banned. However I do believe that some
> things are so rare that the available population dynamic data and the
> mathematics that derive from it show that we should not place a desire
> for a specimen for what ever reason over the needs of the species long
> term survival.

We agree concerning the collecting of truly endangered and threatened bugs.
Whether or not there is agreement amongst scientists regarding the chances
of elimination solely from collecting pressure, it just doesn't make any
sense to tolerate any additional "predation" (and I agree with the use of
this term, by the way).  Habitat conservation and preservation is definitely
the principle issue, however.  Personally, I just don't have any desire to
trample and sample any population that is hanging on a shoestring, and would
prefer it if everybody shared that attitude.  

On the other hand, I do believe that there are many cases where species are
erroneously placed on protected lists based on bad information.  I would
argue that, although it's always "best to side with caution", placing too
many ill-founded restrictions is not the proper solution.  They can, and
have, interfered with science, with species conservation, and the livelihood
of many a conservation-minded insect collector.  I think it's easy for
butterfly watchers to sit back and tolerate this misuse of governmental
restrictions, because they essentially don't effect a watchers livelihood.
The same thing can be said for the tolerance of widespread hysteria and hype
based on mis-information.  Watchers generally have no reason to prevent such
propaganda, and I believe they are sometimes guilty of propagating it.  

Things might be different if the restrictions disallowed any access
whatsoever.  I believe that many of those who are content to only watch
butterflies would fight against policies that restricted humans primarily to
urban areas.  Only the purists might be tempted to sit back and tolerate
that degree of intervention.  And while I have the propensity to agree with
such ideals, I will always argue with these folks on account of the
hypocrisy of their attitudes (recall my earlier post regarding conservation
vs. consumption).  We're all consumers, and we would have to die before we
could stop.  As long as our population continues to increase, our
consumption WILL have a deleterious effect on the planets habitats as we
know them today.  As far as I can tell, there is only one non-hypocritical
purist response to this sad condition.  And personally speaking, I'm not
planning on participating in any toxic Kool-Aid parties.

As I have said before in one of the dusty archives of the past, when the day
comes when I have to put the net down, I will (sadly) comply.  That day will
not be a good day either for science or for the conservation of species
(what few may actually remain).  It will be a symptom, rather than a cure,
and one which is likely indicative of an irreversible and malignant
condition.  In the mean time, I hope I can continue to enjoy my passion for
nature and butterflies in particular.

Mark Walker
Mission Viejo, CA
>