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

[mbpi at juno.com]

Drat!  I always forget to "cc:" the list!  My apology for bringing up
"Glassberg" again... I'm pretty darned sick of "defending" him, even
though I'm not particulary "fond" of him myself (!)

--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: mbpi at juno.com
To: barb at birdnut.obtuse.com
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 18:38:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ...
birders ?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Sorry, Barb, but you really don't KNOW the "100,000" NABA members
(including me), or Jeff Glassberg and his "minions."  You speak with a
"forked and biased tongue," and your ignorance on the subject is apparent
from your verbose posting (!)

Perhaps you should do a little more research on the "100,000" and
determine where exactly their interests and allegiance lie!  I think
you'd be surprised that the "100,000" are as diverse in their pursuit and
interest in butterflies, as the individuals that subscribe to this
listserv.  They run the gamut:  from collectors to net-swingers; from
watchers to habitat trouncers; from gardners to habitat restorers; from
extremists to fringe dwellers; from professionals to amateurs.  It is a
broad group that defies being "pigeonholed," regardless of its leader's
beliefs.

Jeff may be a "threat" (to people like you), but he is no "Svengali..."
no "Jim Jones..." no "Hitler..." no "Charles Manson..." no "terrorist..."
indeed, he's not even "charismatic"!  He hasn't even managed to set up a
NABA Chapter here in Chicago (!)  Obviously, his influence doesn't have
the extensive grasp that one would surmise from the "fearful posts" one
often reads on this listserv.  

I speak from experience, not "hearsay."  Regardless of Jeff's pursuit to
establish his eminent domain (with all his human foibles), he HAS
definitely opened up for the mainstream public, an interest in
butterflies and their dominion that no "collector" has ever achieved, or
for that matter, CARED to SHARE with the "non-scientific" community (!)

I rest my case...

M.B. Prondzinski

Mary Beth Prondzinski
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002 13:10:45 -0600 "Barb Beck" <barb at birdnut.obtuse.com>
writes:
> 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 
>  
> 
> 

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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