NY Times Butterflying Article

[Ron Gatrelle]

John
Thank you for a logical unemotional post. Mine are often filled with
blither, actually anti-blither - for every blither there is an equal but
opposite blithering idiot. Why don't they just come out and say what they
want - intimation indeed. "They" are out to get rid of collectors. Period.
That IS agenda and a conspiracy. Further, plenty of people are still using
lots of guns and killing thousands of birds - turkey, pheasant, quail,
dove, duck, geese and lots more. (I don't hunt animals, birds, or fish - I
just gather lepidopterous specimens for retention in my morgue --..  9 er.
a... repository.)

There has also been a couple thousand butterfly collectors on this planet
for a long long time. And you are on the money in po-po-ing the "hundreds
of thousands". (Pure blitherrrr). Out of 6 billion people on this rock
there are only what? - 75,001? birders (probably 1,500,003 who hunt birds).
If ya can't get more than that interested in birds how is one going to get
them interested in skippers and noctuids?!?!?   I don't even do noctuids. I
will quit before I get back down to their level of blithering.
You blithered first.
No I didn't, you did.
You did.
Did not..
Uh huh.
Did so.
Did not.
Naaah.
Naaah naaah naaah.
- Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Grehan" <jrg13 at psu.edu>
To: <LEPS-L at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 8:21 AM
Subject: Re: NY Times Butterflying Article


 The following questions were directed to another on the list, but I will
make
 my comments on some as well:

 At 01:10 PM 6/8/01 -0700, you wrote:
 >Dear Paul,
 >
 >Would you actually prefer to encourage thousands, perhaps hundreds of
 >thousands to catch & pin butterflies?

 If the activity was not detrimental to the survival of the butterflies I
 would certainly have no problem with it. We activity encourage MILLIONS of
 people to kill insects in general and outside habitat destruction or
 pollution such activities do not appear to be problematic for the insects'
 survival.


 >Do you consider that a responsible recommendation as a scientist?  As a
 >conservationist?

 Nothing irresponsible if the above applies. Regardless of any
 anti-collecting philosophy it is unlikely that it would happen (i.e.
 thousands or hundreds of thousands) even if "encouraged". There just don't
 appear to be that many butterfly collecting genes (please excuse the
 preformationism).



 >What is your problem with "recommending looking instead of catching?"
 >
 >The article simply states:   "Butterfly collecting still goes on, some
 >of it with a scientific purpose.   But for the leisurely pleasure of
 >enjoying butterflies, Dr. Glassberg recommends looking instead of
 >catching."

 There was something tricky about the nature of the commentary that
bothered
 me. There was nothing directly stated against collecting, but there was
 some intimations by association, reference to shooting birds and the
 reaction of bringing a gun today. Recommending looking INSTEAD of
 collecting itself casts an aspersion against collecting. If Glassberg was
 just recommending looking there would be no such intimation.

 John Grehan


enormous snipppppp

Ron


 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl