CLOUDCROFT CHECKERSPOT/FRITILLARY (fwd)

[Neil Jones]

In article <45F8A30CE009D2118F850000F805064D01AC6191 at hqmail.gensym.com>
           MWalker at gensym.com "Mark Walker" writes:

> 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). 

Well I have been posting via Sci.bio.entomology.lepidoptera lately.
I am subscribed to Leps-l as well. It is all to do with my archiving system
I use some really ancient software dating from the late 80's early 90's.
I have built other software around it which is why I still use it.
Some times things take a while to transfer between the two.
I do post via Leps-l as well.


 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.  

Fine as I thought we agree. 

> 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.

Well to many restrictions just tends to devalue the protection of
species that really need it. I don't favour blanket bans like there
are in some European countries for that reason. It is interesting that
in the UK and the Netherlands where there are strong Butterfly Conservation
organisations there aren't blanket bans. I believe that this is not a
coincidence.

> They can, and
> have, interfered with science, with species conservation, and the livelihood
> of many a conservation-minded insect collector. 

Really conservation minded insect collectors seem rather rare in this forum.
I suspect that this might not be totally representative. There are a lot
of outspoken people participating.

 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.  

I think you are falling into a trap of stereotyping "watchers". There are
all sorts of them. Myself I grew up doing what most collectors do execept
keeping a collection. Over restriction can affect what I like to do to.
I like to breed things for example. (As I have said personal living
conditions don't permit much of this at present but I can still dream.)
However I have a strong conscience about not harming endangered creatures
and like you won't harm a population that is hanging on a shoestring.
 
> 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.

That is a rather pesimistic view of the human species. Population
itself is not the whole problem. Per Capita consumption perhaps is.
Most really bad habitat destruction actually is not necessary
Take an example from your part of the world. No one will die
if Los Angeles International Airport does not build a golf course
on one of the last remaining fragments that supports the El Segundo 
Blue. Here in the UK we have a lot of habitat damage because of the
Common Agriculture Policy. It leads to the infamous wine lakes and
butter mountains. Its real purpose is to support the agricultural 
community. This money could be used in different ways that still
helped those people but was not damaging to habitats.

> 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

-- 
Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.nwjones.demon.co.uk/
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog
National Nature Reserve