Pyrgus centaureae wyandot

Neil Jones Neil at
Fri May 19 11:40:10 EDT 2000

In article <45F8A30CE009D2118F850000F805064D01AC63E3 at>
           MWalker at "Mark Walker" writes:

> Neil Jones wrote:
> > No Mark, the point is not that simple.
> Yikes, Neil, it was my point to begin with.  It's as simple as I want it to
> be.  Take my word for it - the point is simple.
> > Yes Mark, you are a responsible caring person who understands the need
> > for conservation. That is obvious. I do not maintain a collection of 
> > butterflies. I do occasionally kill insect specimens to study them
> >  get them identified etc. I do not want my study banned, but 
> > I am deeply
> > worried when the study of insects is defended by arguments that are so
> > transparently false. This "windshields" argument does a great 
> > disservice
> > to entomology.
> I am not using my argument to defend entomology.  I am using my argument as
> a reflection back in the face of self-righteousness.  "Those without guilt
> throw the first stone", and other stories.  We're sprawling, Neil - and
> every day that you and I take another breath, we're contributing to habitat
> destruction.  Painting the picture that "men in fields carrying nets" are
> the principal enemy while those carrying camera bags are some how purer and
> environmentally friendly is simply wrong.  One of the binocular ads in
> "American Butterflies" just slays me.  It depicts a gorilla trying to mate a
> geekoid butterfly collector wearing a pith helmet.  The image is clear -
> good guys wear white and carry a lens.  Bad guys carry a net.  All of the
> folks behind propagating this image suck - in my humble opinion.
I haven't seen the ad but the image has me laughing out loud. Incidentally
I often carry I net when I am abroad or when I am after moths.
No trouble with gorilla's yet! :-)

Well has it not occured to you that some of the people propagating the image you
describe are actually collectors. I see a distinction between guys like you
and the philatelic collectors that John Shuey describes. The ones who
gave a false location record for the St. Francis Satyr really do
fall into this camp. I have seen the indictment which led to the conviction
of one of them. They could hardly get the Latin names right at all.
My favourite has to be a Swallotail called "kiboensis" (sic) 
K.I.B.O = Knowledge In Bull Out.! :-)
These guys really do propagate this image that you say "Sucks". The problem
that  in the past (and I emphasise I am not talking about anyone in the current
debate) we have seen  such obvious Bad stamp collector types
appearing on the list and being defended.
By refusing to condemn bad behaviour and even on occasions to speak in its 
defence the image you so dislike of the bad guy with the net has been 

> BTW, the windshield argument is not transparent (especially with all of the
> splattered bugs all over it).  You certainly would agree that road kill is
> an issue with larger animals - why do you want to ignore roadkill when it
> comes to butterflies?

It is simple. Windshield (That's windscreen in the UK) kills are not deliberate
they affect mainly common species.  A guy going to Scotland and collecting  New
Forest  Burnet moths is a very different thing.

> > 
> > People do target the rare. They target the rare photograph 
> > and the rare
> > experience. I as a photographer have photographs of the Palos 
> > Verdes Blue
> > and the Quino and Bay Checkerspots. You will know just how 
> > rare these are.
> Hold on to your hat:  We agree.  People target the rare.  It's not in the
> best interest of the rare - for sure.
> >  
> > As for our lifestyles causing the distruction of habitat. 
> > Well of course
> > there are social factors. The strange thing is that eating 
> > "Muckburgers":-) or
> > having a video player etc. does not necessarily help in 
> > making people happy.
> > I don't eat at burger bars since I want to stay healthy as a matter of
> > personal choice. I don't have a video player either or a car. 
> > (I used to have a
> > car but now I find I can save the expense.) The fact is that 
> > we can have
> > a good happy lifestyle and save the environment.
> We can be environmentally conscious.  We should not be deluded into thinking
> that "we" are saving the environment.  Especially those of us who are
> enjoying a good and happy lifestyle.  A good and happy lifestyle is
> characterized by plastic, the flush toilet, and refuse collection.  We are
> not environmentally friendly.

Spoken  like a real Californian :-) Seriously happiness has nothing to
to do with possessions. I actually know perfectly happy people without
flush toilets.

We are as environmentally friendly as we collectively chose to be.
I am not advocating that we abandon modern technology, I am advocating
that we use our brains for our future needs not our future greeds.

> Mark Walker

Neil Jones- Neil at
"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

More information about the Leps-l mailing list