verbage re Butterfly scandal

[Ron Gatrelle]

To Neil and all,
    Impressions and opinions are subjective. However, to the person who
holds them they are absolute reality. Facts, statistics, and such are aimed
at the rational brain. We humans obviously still rely a great deal on
feelings and impressions. Strong feelings can not be fought with facts.
Why? Because the feeling is fact to the one who holds it - the Cow IS
sacred. My fact is that my impression, interpretation, application of the
logger-poison-account-facts is that they are fishy. That (my impression) is
a fact.
    Next, the below post of Neil's is the first time in my life I have ever
heard of Ron Arnold. I have no idea who he is or what he is about. I have
however, heard the phrase "Facts don't really matter, in politics
perception is the reality" or very close to it.  I have heard this reported
as the credo of US liberals and not US conservatives - I would assume
Arnold is a conservative. Regardless, as an apolitical person, my
impression is that that saying IS the motto of ALL who are in politics.
(Which, by the way, it is you, Neil, who has characterized the Monarch
situation and environmentalism in general as politicized entities.) I agree
with this. Which is why I am interested in what all sides have to say and
evidence, and why I don't automatically believe any of it.    Time out.

    Let's remember than when I sold my lucrative dental prosthetics
business and went full time into Christian ministry in the early 1980s I
basically dropped out of the world of Lepidopterology and everything
directly associated with it. Other than occasional correspondence and my
Lep Soc subscription I was Rumpelstiltskin. Any and all spare time I did
have for leps was devoted entirely to my own research. Having awakened and
returned to the Leps world in 1998 I found and am still finding things very
different then they were 15 years ago. (I am liking less and less about
what I am finding.) I was marginally aware of various iceberg tips - the
collecting vs. watcher debate, poachers, laws, etc. but that was it. Let's
also remember that I did not have email nor was I hooked up to the Web till
2000!!!!

    Moving more into editorial mode.
    Back to topic. I absolutely find Paul's posts very interesting - why
shouldn't I? I can think too. I also find Neil's interesting, and numerous
others. I do find that, as in all sided debates, some are very good at
dishing it out but they sure can't take it. Those who can't take it (on
both sides of a debate) invariably end up as whiners, sore losers, insult
throwers, but worst of all very mean spirited attackers of all who have the
gall to not agree with them. There is not even any room for an observer to
say of the other side: "Hey, they have a point there." Blasphemy! Elephants
unite, stomp the mouse! Fear the squeek! Don't listen to that man behind
the curtin (of Oz).
     Wow, I didn't say if I agreed or not with Paul. I just said his posts
interested me. To disallow not only disagreement but even interest is
Fascism. (I did not call anyone a Fascist - however Fascism is as Fascism
does. So if someone is wearing the shoe, don't blame anyone else if it
fits.) At this point I have a choice to not enter into something I am very
good at - a word fight, insult for insult. This is part of my "sinful"
underbelly I am still trying to keep in check. Thus, I will leave the US
vs. Europe bitch session alone.
    I will address one section/aspect of Neil's post where he said: "I
really don't think you [Ron] understand. People don't do it for the money
they do it for science or for the butterflies. Money is not a particular
motivator for many people. It certainly isn't for me. My work as a
conservationist costs me a small fortune and I don't seek any financial
recompense. I do this because I have always been fascintated by the way the
world works and I don't want to see the scientific wonders of nature
destroyed."
    Let me explain how well I do understand. I would have been a
millionaire several times over had I kept my dental prosthetics business. I
gave it all up to serve people full time. I have a very small home, two
modest cars, no health/medical insurance, no retirement fund, no savings
account, I currently make $300 to $600 a week gross. Isn't that where
everyone over 55 would like to be? Serving humanity is much more important
than serving bugs. However, I also serve that part of God's creation also.
I have not made a penny off of any of my research. I have put all I have
been paid by the US Forest Service, US F&W, DNR etc (about $12,000 doing
endangered and rare species surveys, training sessions etc.) into the
International Lepidoptera Survey and its research work. I have also donated
much personal funds into this research. Neil, while you can probably buy
and sell me with you assets many times over, per-capita I (and by creature
comfort depravation my family) have probably sacrificed as much or more
than you, and many others, to further the awareness of "the _scientific_
wonders of nature." (I apologize to all readers for allowing myself to get
into a beatification contest.)
    I might disagree vociferously with a lot of people about a lot of the
contemporary lepidopteran issues. But I would NEVER even insinuate (let
alone actually accuse) that someone, especially if I hardly knew them, of a
lack of passion or personal sacrifice relative to THEIR heart's desire or
resource commitment to loving, preserving, or helping Butterflies and
Moths.
    RG
    Post Script. Having said all this, I feel vented and ready for the next
goround. What's next? What is desired to be said - long or short, on
lepidoptera or lepidopterists, and by whom?
I like Neil
I like Paul
I like Jesus
Most of all.

I can measure up to Neil
I can measure up to Paul.
I don't measure up to Jesus
No, not at all.


---- Original Message -----
From: "Neil Jones" <Neil at NWJONES.DEMON.CO.UK>
To: <leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: Butterfly scandal?


> In article <001001c0b0b8$15ae7640$9b0f1218 at gscrk1.sc.home.com>
>            gatrelle at tils-ttr.org "Ron Gatrelle" writes:
>
> > To all,
> >     Actually, I find Paul's posts very interesting. If he is skewing
his
> > data, photos, etc., at least he is doing it in a believable manner with
> > outside evidence.
>
> His posts are only believable because he twists the data. You don't seem
> to have realised that he was caught out badly with the satelite data.
>
>  In other words he tries to make a case based on "facts"
> > and in an unemotional, non-knee jerk or flamboyant manner. Neil does
the
> > same in an opposite dirrection.
>
> This does not fit the facts. Mr Cherubini was caught out plain and
> simple. He had two sets of data one LESS ACCURATE and one MORE ACCURATE.
> He presented the LESS ACCURATE data because this suited the POLITICAL
line.
> He did NOT TELL us about the data source.
> When I presented my version . I presented the source of the data so that
> people could judge for themselves.
>
> I try never to post anything which is inaccurate. Everyone has their
biases
> but some people do not care about the accuracy just its POLITICAL effect.
> This is bad for science.
>
> >     Now, since Paul seems to have few supporters in his corner on this
> > venue, I can only express my observation on his detractors. They (with
the
> > exception of few) seem to often only come across as nothing more than
> > cheerleaders on the sidelines who have no real information at all -
they
> > can only yell slurs or personal insults - air ball, air ball, your
momma,
> > your momma. Or the same teasing all of us non athletic types who did
well
> > in school got from the High School jocks and (currently employed in
ditch
> > digging or working at Hooters) "in crowd".
>
> He behaves POLITICALLY so he gets treated that way. You have seen
ridiculing
> responses from Europe recently. This is because Europe doesn't have
> what we see as the perverse side of American political culture.
> We do not have the "wise use" anti-conservation movement the dogma of
which
> Mr Cherubini promotes. We do not have the militia movment, the John Birch
> Society or  tobacco funded junk (i.e. bent) science web sites. We do not
have
> Black Helicopter theorists or New World Order paranoia about the United
Nations.
>
> Being frank about it, these things are all lumped together under the
headline
> of "nutty yanks". Yes, it is a stereotype and stereotypes may not be fair
> or accurate, but when someone acts like an over the top example of a
> stereotype people think it is funny.  It is really hard to respond to
> this stuff without reflecting those feelings. Funny stereotypes are the
> mainstay of many of the best comedy writers.
>
> >     I certainly have no vested interest in any aspect of the "Monarch
> > debate." I was totally unaware there was such a big controversy at all
up
> > till about three or four months ago. I think I came into this pretty
> > neutral and thus well qualified for jury duty.
>
> I am begining to wonder if you really understand politics.
> Let me say that you are absolutely entitled to your views and
>  I am a free speech advocate. However somethings have, in all honesty, to
> be pointed out.
>
>  You claim to be sincerely interested in conservation yet you have
continually
> repeated claims and dogma which clearly come from the anti-conservation
camp.
> The  most over the top being the one about the Endangered
> Species Act being unconstitutional. Frankly this is classic "wise use"
> dogma.
>
> In essence this isn't a debate about monarchs at all. It is a political
debate.
> Putting it simply I am an advocate of conservation and Mr Cherubini is an
advocate
> for the corporate interests of the "wise use" anti-conservation movement.
>
> Mr Cherubini is following the lines of the "wise use" movment's guru, Ron
> Arnold.
>
> Ron Arnold is famed for saying,
>
>  "Facts don't really matter, in politics perception is the reality".
> AND
> "Our goal is to destroy, to eradicate the environmental movement. We want
> people to be able to exploit the environment for private gain,
ABSOLUTELY."
> (My emphasis)
>
> Since you have clearly shown a bias to the "wise use" camp how can you
possibly be
> neutral?
>
> >     Frankly, the recent flurry of posts on the crisis in Mexico looked
> > awfully disjunct, unreasonable, improbable, and contradictory without
Paul
> > having said a word or posted one picture or reference. In other words
> > "they" were discredited by their own words. The following is my
progressive
> > view on the reported events.
> >     First. "They" said there was a horrible storm of 100 mph winds and
> > torrid
> > thunderstorms. (The eye of hurricane Hugo came over my home - I have
been
> > in 100 mph winds. It is devastating - especially to 30 - 80 year old
pine
> > trees which snap like tooth picks.) "They" said the Monarch colony was
> > devastated by this storm.  Having been in such a storm - I believed
this
> > report and agreed that it would put tremendous negative pressure on the
> > Monarchs and there overwintering habitat.
> >     Second. Within just a day or so "they" posted that rogue loggers
had
> > ravaged the area AND sprayed millions of Monarchs with insecticide.
>
> I think your analysis is wrong. The logging is a CONTINUOUS problem.
> Where is your EVIDENCE that "They" said any of this in the way you
describe.
> I myself would have checked for pesticides by chemical analysis first.
> AND what is more this is what the monarch  scientists on the
> conservation side were calling for.
>
> < snipped>
>
> >     Third, was the wild conspiritorial account of how the trees were
> > logged, buterflies killed, and cover up implimented.
>
>
> Let's have some EVIDENCE please. I have not seen any of these
conspiratorial
> claims.
>
> >     These are just my observations and thoughts on what has been
posted. My
> > conclusion is that there really was a devastating storm and it is a
real
> > problem. The other is not a hoax or scandal - it is fraud - a crime. I
am
> > an environmetalist.
>
> Frankly you do not come over as one. You come over as someone who has
been
> swayed to support the  "wise use" anti-conservation movement. One of
their
> tactics has been to confuse the issue by pretending to be about
conservation.
> Their name is one such tactic. There are many phoney grassroots
> organisations set up with names sounding as if they are conservationists
when
> they are really just industry front organisations.
>
> IF you are truely interested in conservation then for goodness sake think
about
> the accuracy of your sources of information. Don't listen to the
> people who "bear false witness". IF you don't support Ron Arnold's "Wise
use"
> tactics then DON'T support his dogma.  IF you do then state so honestly
> so that we can all see it. Please don't support this "Dumbed Down"
science.
>
>
>  I, along with the vast majority of other
> > environmentalists, do not approve of the people (criminals) out there
that
> > do things like put spikes in trees to injure or kill loggers, or freely
> > employing lying - end justifies the means - under the bogus guise of
being
> > friends of the environment.
>
> I agree with you that spiking trees is wrong. I have always spoken out
against
> crooks. However, when, it seems, someone is caught "lying -ends justifies
the means" on the "Wise Use"
> side I get the impression you say "I like his posts".
>
>
>  There are liars and crooks in every level of
> > life. No occupation or endevor is so blessed to be occupied by only
saints.
> > One last point. Motive. Some people stoop to dishonest or radical
bahaviour
> > because they misguidedly, but sincelrly, just believe in a cause.
However
> > most who stoop below the law are motivated by money. There are millions
of
> > reasons (dollars) to tempt any number of people to loose their
intregrety
> > relative to the "Monarch crisis."
>
> I really don't think you understand. People don't do it for the money
> they do it for science or for the butterflies. Money is not a particular
> motivator for many people. It certainly isn't for me. My work as a
> conservationist costs me a small fortune and I don't seek any financial
> recompense. I do this because I have always been fascinated by the way
> the world works and I don't want to see the scientific wonders of nature
> destroyed.
>
>
> >     Let me also say this. I do not think the majority of those who are
> > involved with the Monarch are crooks. But one or two bad apples will
spoil
> > the
> > whole bunch. "They" need to keep the nuts and fanatics out or they will
> > bring down a legitimate work. I don't doubt there is illegal logging. I
can
> > also see the locals wanting to poison Monarchs especially since it was
> > brought out that some % of the locals have seen the Monarch's arrival
( for
> > centuries?) as an omen of bad luck or a "plague."
>
>
>  I just think the truth is
> > that the presented logging and poision propaganda was an intentional
lie.
>
> You THINK so, but I can see no EVIDENCE based reasoning. Just one based
> on your own political biases.
>
> > Ron
>
>
> --
> Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.nwjones.demon.co.uk/
> "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
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
>    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
>



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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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