NJ "list"

[Mark Walker]

Michael wrote:

> 
> Some of the issues concerned what to do with species that are or were 
> only marginal in the state.  Is there any point in worry about a 
> marginal population of a species that is common and widespread in 
> adjacent states?  I am ambivalent about this.  I think it 
> depends on the 
> nature of the local, marginal population?

I think it's totally worthwhile to monitor and even attempt to protect
species/ssp. that are marginal within some reasonable geographic boundary
(like in Los Angeles, where many species which are common elsewhere in the
state are disappearing due to habitat loss).  Certainly, this shouldn't be
done with the same degree of bureaucracy as for endangered species, but it
just makes sense to attempt to secure as much native habitat as possible.
As has been stated many times here, butterfly populations are good
indicators for the need for conservation of other local flora and fauna.  We
should be watching such things (and some of us are).  

My concern is with how this "worrying" is propagated to the world at large.
I still think that many people are misled to think that ALL butterflies are
endangered/disappearing, and that anyone stalking an empty field with a net
is therefore likely a criminal.

Mark Walker.