Economic interests

[Paul Cherubini]

Joel Robert Lyons, Legal Administrator
Melanie A. Leavitt, Attorney at Law wrote:

> Perhaps Mr. Cherubini
> who accuses conservationists of having an economic
> interest in habitat preservation would care to enlighten
> us of his own economic interests??

All I have done is to point out there are economic
interests on both sides of million dollar butterfly habitat 
purchase debates and other butterfly conservation issues.

For example, if one goes into Yahoo and uses 
"butterfly release" as search words, 
http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=butterfly+relea
this brings up not only butterfly supply companies, but also
NABA and it's website commentary about why releases of
the 9 federally approved species for release are:

-  "a particularly long lasting form of pollution".

-  "may spread diseases and parasites to wild populations, 
     with devastating results"

-  "results resulting in inappropriate genetic mixing of
     different populations"
                                                                                                                       
-  "confuses studies of butterfly distribution and migration"

-  "may result in deleterious changes to the local ecology"

-  may result in "tens of thousands of mixed-up Monarchs unable
    to find the way to their overwintering grounds"
                                                                
Since insect population geneticists and insect pathologists
tell us releases of these 9 federally approved species cannot
conceivably have consequences for butterfly conservation, 
why are the following five prominent authors of this NABA 
anti-release article frightening the public so bad?

1. Jeffrey Glassberg (president of NABA)
2. Dr. Paul Opler (author of Peterson Field  Guide to Eastern Butterflies)
3. Dr. Robert M. Pyle (author of Audubon Society Field
4. Dr. Robert Robbins (curator of Lepidoptera, Smithsonian
5. Dr. James Tuttle (president, (Lepidopterists' Society) 

In other words, if they are not doing this because of scientifically
valid conservation concerns, what could be the other reasons they
wrote this worry stirring emotional article? 

Is it conceivable an article like this
could attract potential members to NABA & the Lep Society, 
hence increase the paid membership base? Or that the article 
might increase author name recognition with the public,
hence sales of:

http://www.fortnet.org/~paulevi/books.htm
http://www.webaccess.net/~paulevi/classes.htm
http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=Robert+Pyle+site:www.greenleaves.com
http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=Jeffrey+Glassberg&hc=0&hs=0

> A recent post states that he
> is a pesticide salesman and/or exterminator. 

The former and part time hobby type monarch butterfly breeder.

As I've mentioned before, an irony is that I get shamed
by radical conservationists for not only killing bugs for a living, but 
also for breeding them for release. 

Paul Cherubini