RE. The numbers neil and balance

[Patrick Foley]

Natural habitat need not continue to decline. Human populations do not need to
grow. Even if human populations do grow, we do not need to damage as much
natural habitat as we sometimes do - consider forest succession in much of the
Eastern United States on what was for a short while farmland. Moreover, we may
need less farmland in the future if we genetically engineer our crops in a
clever, safe and open way. We may need to mine less coal if we put solar
collectors on every rooftop. If our cities are beautiful, we may feel less need
to trash the landscape with suburban development. Even in suburbia, nature can
make something of a comeback if we plant native plants and create corridors for
nature to travel. There are many intelligent paths to a sustainable, democratic
future, and it may help us find them if we think a little more clearly and stop
shouting at each other.

I have a hard time understanding the collector/noncollector debate. It seems
obvious to me that:
1) We should cultivate some respect for the natural world and its inhabitants,
and do them as little damage as possible.
2) We need to explore nature as children and as adults and at times that means
collecting creatures.
3) In places of high human density and low butterfly density, collection should
be discouraged (not forbidden!).
4) In places of high butterfly density and low human density, such
discouragement serves little purpose.
5) No one likes restrictions and no one likes maniacal exploitation, so find a
balance!
6) I cannot see any reason to attack people who discourage collecting (including
those demons of the leps list NABA and Jeffrey Glassberg) under some
circumstances.
7) I cannot see any reason to attack people who defend their right to collect
insects under appropriate circumstances.
8) There are unfortunately circumstances where it is hard for federal or state
law to find the balance. It is somewhat absurd to protect insects in national
parks, since they are killed relentlessly by human activities. But to allow
lepidopterists freedoms not given to hunters, fishers, botanists and rock
collectors would create the appearance of unfairness.
9) Since we will live in this complicated situation for the rest of our lives,
live with it!
10) Smoking, abortion, the Supreme court, the US Constitution, the God-given
right of Americans to do any stupid thing they feel like are all beside the
point. As much as I disagree politically and religiously with many leps-list
members, I am always happy to find out what they are seeing in the field, and
what they are theorizing about those sightings. It is also amusing to read these
rantings, but I am distressed by the extremism in my country (USA) which feels
like it is falling apart, and as a scientist and teacher, I am aggravated no end
by dumb interminable arguments. I prefer smart interminable arguments. Please!

Patrick Foley
patfoley at csus.edu

"Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX" wrote:

> Habitat will continue to be altered/destroyed. This is necessary for human
> survival - whether or not any of us who care about butterflies like it or
> not. The connection between this fact of human existence and the studying of
> butterflies that includes some collecting is a connection that I do not see.
> Hope this is not intended to imply that butterfly collectors endorse habitat
> destruction.  That would be pure nonsense and further villification of
> people engaged in constructive activities that contribute to our knowledge
> of biodiversity. Who knows, maybe soon collectors will be accused of
> witchcraft and every imaginable social problem :-)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Gatrelle [mailto:gatrelle at tils-ttr.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 10:18 PM
> To: Neil Jones; Leps-l; Carolina Leps
> Subject: Re: RE. The numbers neil and balance
>
> Neil Jones wrote -
> > I really wish that Ron wouldn't polarise the debate like this.
> >
>
> That is a very accurate assessment - polarize. Neil could have also added
> oversimplify and stereotype to this. I have mentioned before that I like
> hyperbole, sarcasm etc in "debate". Perhaps it is because I am not as
> smart or educated as most,  I'm not sure where it comes from. I guess I am
> more of a street fighter - let's cut the junk and get down to the
> guts of a thing.  I like cutting through the big words, subtleties,
> and subjective "facts" that are often put forth in politicized exchanges.
> Things are so much clearer at the poles and so gray in the middle.
>
> Yes, it is really easy to "get along " in the middle - I see
> your point but... or, lets agree to disagree... etc.  Bunk, I say.   If
> there is an issue "here" worth a fight then lets find it and fight it out
> and get it resolved. NOTE I said fight the issue not each other. This is
> the biggest area where folks (very understandably) get the wrong impression
> of me personally via an email debate vs. an eyeball to eyeball debate.  I
> almost never get upset with the person - though from my punchy words it may
> look that way. This current thread for example, I see it as having
> absolutely nothing to do with me or Neil as persons. It
> only has to do with the issues and debate over collecting.
>
> I think we are making some progress here. For example, Neil has now posted
> more stuff - go for the knock out Neil, if you got the stuff, kick the
> snot out of the thing. If collecting is really doing enormous harm - as
> you definitely say it does in a quote of yours below, then attack it and
> give it no mercy. I intend to counter attack and kick at every effort to
> forbid, greatly curtail and permit to death collecting.  (By the way,
> Neil's assertion that "The enormous harm that collectors often do is often
> not by collecting but by endorsing..." is a punch thrown. His statement
> that "..seen me [Neil] 'collecting'..." is a bob n weave to get the
> opponent to
> let down his guard and set him up for another punch.)
>
> Fellow collectors, don't let his bob n weave lull you into letting down
> your guard.  Make no mistake about it, Neil is not a collector, never has
> been, and never will be. Why? To qualify as a collector one has had to have
> collected (kept) something. Neil states: "I don't, and never have, kept set
> specimens of butterflies..." Non and anti-collectors, be at ease. Neil is
> still one of you - despite his being a posessor and occasional user of a
> net.
>
> > The enormous harm that collectors often do is often not by collecting
> > but by endorsing, promoting and spreading the ideology that leads to the
> > destruction of habitat. Ron Gatrelle, you may not wish to drive the
> > bulldozers that destroy the habitat but by promoting ideas that
> facilitate
> > it in a social forum you are putting gas in the tank.
> >
>
> Where it counts - habitat preservation - Neil and I are allies  marching in
> step. I am proud to have Neil as an ally in that fight - really. But we
> differ greatly on something else here.  Americans allow all sorts of things
> that might easily be misused by some individual or group. This is a risk we
> are not only willing to take, it is one we must take to remain free of
> tyranny - both political and religious. The "ideology" Neil speaks of is
> what we here in America call "freedom" - from sea to shining American sea.
> We will not erect barriers to impliment what is politically correct to some
> or religiously desired by some on the grave of personal freedom and
> responsibility. If Neil were in charge certain "ideas" would apparently not
> be allowed to be expressed "in a social forum".
>
> The number of people in the USA is rapidly increasing that wants to ban
> guns, ban pornography, ban evangelism, ban butterfly collecting,  in the
> mistaken impression that that will stop crime,  child molestation,
> religious fanatics, butterfly extinction. Reprobates and people without
> ethics are the problem - not guns, sex, faith, or nets.
>
> Recreational collecting of all insect groups is a perfectly legitimate
> hobby. The thousands of decent people in this world who "collect" do not
> need to be made to feel they have to "justify" this activity to the
> thousands
> of descent people who are watch-onlys -  any more that meat eaters have to
> justify their diet to vegetarians.  The problem here is that many
> vegetarians, watch-onlys, anti-smokers etc. live on a one way street called
> their way or else. The unethical rape of any part of nature is heinous.
> Tyranny is infinitely more heinous.
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    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
>


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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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