Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ... birders ?

[Barb Beck]

Well Mike I do not know about the lepidopterists but I am sure the butterfly
watchers following Glassberg could learn a heqq of a lot from birders.  A
large number of birdwatchers are not lapping up the anti-scientific,
pseudoscientific statements expressed by the head of NABA.  Birders have
several scientifically responsible organizations.

There is a tiny radical wacko faction centered in the eastern US which cut
mist nets but most bird watchers are not running around chanting "Nets are
shotguns"  We use mist nets, other types of nets to trap birds as well as
giant fish landing nets with padded rims to catch the Great Gray Owls (Strix
nebulosa) and sometimes Northern Hawk Owls (Surninia ulula) that come to our
feet after mice... just like we net butterflies.  In this case we are
catching them not to id them but to band them, take measurements on them,
age and sex them by size and feather characteristics so we can better
understand these birds and their population dynamics.

Most Birding databases and scientific butterfly databases keep the data to
the precision in which it can be recorded - be it species or subspecies
particularly where we have overlapping subspecies as with Myrtle and Audubon
Warblers and several other east west pairs.  There is not a significant
faction among birdwatchers who disapprove of this and certainly there is NO
case where a species which the naming group admits is a good species is left
as a subspecies AND data for it is not kept separate.  The leader of the
antiscientific wing of the butterfly watchers even though he knows the
overlapping ranges of several species which he has lumped still flatly
declares that keeping the stuff by species will not hurt because it can
always be separated later by range. (He is not easily confused by facts)
Not only are some species entered in our birding databases by ssp some are
also aged when they are entered...keeping the data at the precision at which
it was recorded.  The common names we used are not set by one person or a
couple people apparently willy nilly changing some Sulphurs to yellows and
giving other species names which are not common or useful.  The AOU naming
committee runs by far different rules.

There is still some work that needs to be done on birds which require
specimens.  We do not have a leader of a major birding group standing up and
declaring that everything is known about birds and we need no more
collecting.  Often, however, collecting is unnecessary because tiny blood or
feather samples work.  There are also lots of birds which are turned in
after being killed hitting windows, tall buildings or being electrocuted on
our power lines.

There are a lot of Glassberg's butterfly watchers that need to learn a few
things from birders.  They blame collectors for the demise of their
favourite bugs while completely ignoring the fact that to have the bugs you
must have the proper habitat.  Their leader trashes habitat for two days to
get his perfect trophy photo of a rare Satyr with about 9 other people when
simply netting and cooling it, photographing it and releasing it unharmed
would saved a lot of habitat and who knows how many immature and eggs which
were trampled in the quest.  In the same issue he divulges the whereabouts
of an other endangered species supposedly so his minions could rush to the
site and get their trophy photos while trashing that habitat.

Birders are encouraged by their peers and books to identify as precisely as
possible and to only report to the precision of that identification.  They
are not taught to identify every Epidnoax flycatcher as a Least Flycatcher
much as the NABA minions identify any Azure sp as a Spring Azure. If they
have a difficult group such as the Emidonox Flycatchers they are taught to
merely put down Epidonax sp.

Birders try to work with ornithologists.  Naba members tend to want to tie
the hands of Lepidopterists... calling those who do scientific collecting
"immoral collectors".  They are swallowing the rhetoric of their leader that
"no more collection is necessary".  We have a whole NE corner of this
province that has just gotten any access - a huge area larger than several
of your NE states.  We have nothing from this and other areas here and the
butterfly watchers here as well as the scientific collectors are not happy
to just sit back and say "we already know everything so nothing new can be
there"

The butterfly watchers we have here in Alberta are not afraid to carefully
use nets to identify and release - They can differentiate a net from a
shotgun. They realize that the wild stories about butterflies having their
legs ripped off by netting in nonsense and wacko rhetoric spread on the
internet by the anti science wackos in some areas of the eastern US.  Our
counts are all run with nets even though they were airbrushed out of the
photo of our students on the Cardinal River Divide count last year in the
NABA mag.  Contrary to what Glassberg says we obviously are not discouraging
people by having them use nets because with a population less that 1 percent
of the US we hold almost 10 percent of the NABA counts.  We use binoculars
where we can and nets where necessary to take a closer look. If a group
finds a butterfly of which it is not certain about the id the butterfly is
cooled in a vial and taken to the expert who can ascertain its proper id
before letting it loose in the same place where it was caught. Some but not
all of us also collect specimens for scientist who have requested them
because most importantly we realize that there is a lot still to learn about
our butterflies. Those who do not collect specimens respect the decision of
those who do. I really hate to kill a butterfly but do it so send things in
to be studied  There are people willing to do the studies if we get the
samples to them. The notion spread by the leader of the NABA that every
butterfly netted on counts that use nets is killed is absolute nonsense.
Alberta butterfly watchers realize that if we do not know what we have and
what habitat they use they cannot get protected.  They have not had their
attention diverted away from the need to protect habitat by the
pseudoscientific rantings of some that it is collectors who are driving
butterflies to extinction.  The cars driven by your nice little NABA members
as they go to their beautiful non violent butterfly watching sessions
probably killed more butterflies than if they had nuked every butterfly they
saw through their glasses. An if they ventured off the path to get a closer
look more killed there as well as trampled habitat.  We are very very
fortunate here because Glassberg does not understand how to identify our
butterflies (his book is essentially worthless for the colias and speyeria)
and we have good books written by people who do.  His wacko antiscientific
philosophy has not taken hold here.

As I have said often ornithology has a lot of support and funding because
there are a lot of birders out there concerned about birds AND THE SCIENCE.
A group of people who want to see butterflies and think they are only
endangerd by collectors and are not worried enough about whether they are
looking at a Spring Azure or some other Azure not are NOT going to support
research to find out what we have and how to protect it.  They are already
being told by a pseudoscientist that we know everything there is about
butterflies and no more should be collected. They need to learn that that is
untrue to encourage scientific collection by those willing to do it.

I fully agree with the need to discourage trophy and unnecessary collection.
In the past there has been some terrible cases of trophy collection by
museums.  BUT there is a big difference between trophy collection and
scientific collection.  They must realize the validity of the latter.

If a good portion of the butterfly watchers are going to be lead by
antiscientific radical philosophy they are going to do more to help
butterflies than they will to help mussels.  Pseudo scientific naming scheme
and pseudo scientific data storing scheme which does not record the species
which are present is not going to help matters.

The butterfly watchers need to take a look at the birders and adopt a more
scientific view or at least appreciate the work that the scientists working
with butterflies are doing.  They need to appreciate the fact that
butterflies must at times still be netted to be accurately identified on
some counts. They need to appreciate that in some parts of the continent the
mix of butterflies is much more complicated and less known that what they
have in the eastern US They need to appreciate that everything that we need
to know about butterflies to protect them is not known and that hindering
those who are trying to learn what we have and what habitat they use is only
going to doom species and ssp.

Finally note Glassbergs antiscientific approach to the Miami Blue.  He is
clued out that others have formed a group to attempt to learn to raise them,
what their food plant is, planting the things which they think is the food
plant, in general doing something to restore the butterfly.  Glassberg is
announcing the location to his minions in his magazine so they can all go
trample habitat like he illustrates in the same issue if the magazine to get
their perfect trophy photo.  It never occurs to the guy to try to find out
what is going on.

100,000 NABA butterfly watchers who do not see any need for science are not
going to support butterfly research at all - they are only going to suppress
it.


Barb Beck
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada


Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ... birders ?
From: "Mike Quinn" <ento at satx.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 17:21:19 -0500

There is one tidbit of knowledge to be gleaned from 100 years of birding,
and that is without the 100,000+ birders there would only be a few 100
ornithologists.

Take away the birders and there would be very little public support or
funding for ornithological research and conservation.

If funds were commiserate with need (instead of with popular appeal) then
North American freshwater mussels would get the lions share of research
funding, not birds.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mike Quinn
New Braunfels, TX
ento at satx.rr.com



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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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