The numbers, Neil, and balance

[Ron Gatrelle]

ALL,

Neil Jones wrote the following:
"I'm afraid that Leroy has made a common error of simplification in the
collection argument. It seems to me that he is repeating the common fallacy
that collecting cannot do any harm.
I made this posting some time ago, in February 1996,  and I have reposted
it
several times in various places because the same point seems to be
being made continuously. It better answers points which were made at the
time it was originally posted but much of it is valid in answer to the
general point being made here. Incidentally I discovered after mking this
posting that there is one very well documented example of an extinction
caused by collecting in the lepidoptera, that of the New Forest Burnet moth
Zygaena viciae yetenensis in the 1920s in the UK."

**********

Neil has done us collectors a great service here. This is the first time I
have seen this post but I do hope it is posted many more times - at least
annually.
How and why is that? First, how did he help collectors? He showed that we
have virtually no impact on lepidopterous populations.   Neil has just
informed us that in all his vast experience and knowledge he only has - by
his own words "ONE" documented case in the last 1,000 years where
collecting did in a lepidoptera.  And this was back in 1920 - in the United
Kingdom.
Second, why post this annually?  Because it continues to demonstrate that
there is no documented impact. For if there was, he surely would cite the
many instances that occur each year. FACT - there  are no (1?) documented
incidences of collector caused extinctions - or even "wiping" out of
colonies (which is something I could believe). ( I personally collect very
few butterflies on a yearly basis and would be in agreement with Neil that
there are definitely "unethical" collectors out there.)

Let's look at Neil's words -- "I'm afraid that Leroy has made a common
error of simplification in the collection argument. It seems to me that he
is repeating the common fallacy that collecting cannot do any harm."

Now let's apply the rule "Judged as we judge."   I'm afraid Neil has made a
common error of simplification in the collection argument. It seems to me
that he is repeating the common fallacy that collecting does enormous
harm."

Before someone misjudges what I just did in this post, let me state why I
posted this and for what reason. -- To level the playing field. -- Neil is
as much of a zealot to my left as poachers are to my right.  Zealots are
driven by their passions more than reason and believe the end justifies
their means.

I have no doubt Neil Jones is a great guy, and I would sure rather have him
to my left than to my right.  I just think he needs to come in toward  the
center a whole lot more on the collecting "argument."

Ron



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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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