Chris J. Durden drdn at
Fri Jun 15 00:57:32 EDT 2001

Nothing basically wrong with the up-front agenda. If that were all I would 
be all for the agenda.
    I am waiting for the future post where you get to the "Action you can 
take". That is the lobbying I strongly disagree with. That is the primary 
reason I want to have nothing to do with NABA.
    The secondary reason is the failure of NABA to disassociate itself from 
the animal-rights activists who claim to be members of chapters of NABA. 
Some animal rights activists have engaged in activities that could be 
labelled  terrorist acts. Surely we do not want even the possibility of 
such people in a butterfly conservation organization.
    I have difficulty following the reasoning of intelligent apologists for 
NABA who do not see the implications of this fringe activity or the future 
dangers of its escalation.
    Put me on the board of directors (for a short term) and I shall help 
clean up the mission, both overt and covert.
    I have never joined NABA. I was a member (paying yearly for 40 years) 
of The Lepidopterists' Society but gave up in disgust when they showed 
little interest, perhaps no interest, in following, publicising, evaluating 
and challenging the increasing restrictions, regulations and laws that 
needlessly affect the profession of lepidoptery. I have seen at least one 
excellent field lepidopterist hounded out of the field - a great loss to 
science at all levels.
.....................Chris Durden

At 10:27 PM 6/14/2001 -0400, you wrote:
. . .
>So here is some of the text. Maybe these represent a change in position
>statements, but I don't think so.
>                     " The North American Butterfly Association, Inc.
>(NABA), a non-profit organization, was formed in 1992. NABA's
>mission is to increase public enjoyment and conservation of
>butterflies. "
>That is the stated purpose; not particularly damaging.
>  The paragraph continues.
>"NABA focuses on the joys of non-consumptive, recreational butterflying
>including listing, gardening, observation, photography, rearing and
>conservation. "
>It strikes me as pretty diverse, but some will be put off by the
>non-consumptive language.  But that is a focus, not a position.
>"Membership in NABA is open to all those   who share our purpose."
>To my mind that means that if one shares the mission of increasing
>public enjoyment and conservation of butterflies, then being a NABA
>member is a good thing.
>The choice of word  "focus" in conjunction with non-consumptive is very
>important.  And it is also very clear that nothing is said about
>opposing consumptive activities.  It just isn't a focus.
>"The present officers are President:
>                      Jeffrey Glassberg; Vice-President: Ann Swengel;
>                      Secretary/Treasurer: Jane V. Scott; Directors:
>                 Brian Cassie, Fred Heath, Paul Opler, Steven Prchal,
>Robert Robbins, Jim Springer, Patricia Sutton, Guy Tudor and the
>                      above listed officers."
>  Now Jeff Glassberg has gotten a lot of heath in recent weeks, but
>NABA's board of directors includes a number of names (Opler, Robbins)
>that will be familiar as lepidopterists who have certainly swung a net
>in their time.  Even world famous bird artist, Guy Tudor, who strongly
>opposes tampering with the natural world, has been known to encourage a
>"swish" to verify a troublesome identification.
>I'm going to stop here and wait for the response before adding
>additional material from the web page which will solidify the point that
>Fred and I and others have been making, i.e. that NABA is an excellent
>organization the purpose of which largely coincides with that of many
>lepidopterists. No organization is all things to all people.   MORE TO
>Mike Gochfeld


   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit: 

More information about the Leps-l mailing list