Fw: Re: Butterflies Behaving Badly?

[mbpi at juno.com]

Oh, for the love of butterflies, half of my commentary was "censored" by
the prevailing internet gods that wreak their techno-havoc on too-much
verbosity!  Here it is again...I hope.

--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <mbpi at juno.com>
To: gatrelle at tils-ttr.org
Cc: LEPS-L at LISTS.YALE.EDU
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 10:16:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Butterflies Behaving Badly?
Message-ID: <20010823.101626.-203437.0.mbpi at juno.com>

I'd like to respond to Ron's commentary on animal containments for public
viewing, education and "entertainment:"

I admit that I have "mixed feelings" about such contrived environments,
despite the well-intentioned trend to re-enact appropriate and
stimulating habitats, as well as establish "social groups" inherent of
species' dynamics in the wild.

The premise of large, well-subsidized wildlife containments is
conservation and breeding of endangered or threatened species in the
wild, with the intent of reintroducing these threatened species back into
the wild when conditions are favorable to do so.  Careful genetic
records, or "stud books," are kept on all the contained individuals,
affording the curators and caretakers the information necessary to keep
the gene pool diverse, as well as afford them the knowledge to maintain a
"vigorous" population of individuals.  Containments also provide the
opportunity to observe social interactions, often difficult to observe in
the wild, and constantly refine and upgrade their facilities to
facilitate the unique species' requirements of the displaced individuals
in their care.  Whether or not this is a "good thing" remains
debateable...

Many of the exhibits, such as "The Swamp," at Brookfield Zoo (here in
Chicago) are stocked with illegally obtained "pets," or previously
injured/rehabbed individuals that could not survive if released in the
wild.  This seems to be a good thing...

Now for the "butterfly houses..."  These are, for the most part,
"interactive" environments, allowing the public to get "up close and
personal" with the bugs, who are less than compliant in Nature.  The
expectation of literally EVERYONE that walks into a butterfly house is
that the butterflies are going to choose to "land on them" and commune
with their "heartfelt desire" to be a magnet for something considered
beautiful and inoffensive.  When it doesn't happen according to their
expectation, they lose control and resort to all sorts of devious
coercion and subterfuge to "get" a butterfly to "land on them..."   When
all else fails, they simply grab an unsuspecting, nectaring butterfly by
the wings and yell, "I got one to land me!!!!!"  This is NOT "a good
thing..."

Another inherant problem indigenous to butterfly containments:  the
thwarting of female egg-laying...or enforced "butterfly birth-control." 
What this does to the female's psyche and natural inclination, much less
her bodily functions, remains to be determined.  I have observed females
laying their eggs in the most bizarre places, including unemerged
chrysalides of their species, on male butterfly wings of their species,
and on people wearing magenta red clothing...  This has not happened
often, but it is disturbing, nonetheless.

What is "good" about a butterfly house?  Well, for one thing, it awakens
the need for "awareness" by a largely unobservant populace who have been
sated and overpowered by "in your face" media extravaganza that lacks
subtlety and meaning.  Even the Nature programming that is popular on the
Discovery channel and PBS, is generally forgotten or misinterpreted
without the needed positive reinforcement of actual "live" observation.