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

Ron Gatrelle gatrelle at
Tue Apr 9 03:12:55 EDT 2002

> --------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: mbpi at
> To: barb at
> Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 18:38:42 -0500
> Subject: Re: Subject: RE: lepidopterists have anything to learn from ...
> birders ?
> 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 (!)

     Actually, I think Barb has had a good bit of personal interaction with
Jeff.  Her interaction and yours have been in two different situations.  So
you are both correct.  Kind of like the current spouse and the ex-spouse in
their view of the common current.  (Note I stayed away from gender here as
it works both ways.)
There are many people who have had and continue  to have very pleasant
relationships with Jeff - but there are others to whom it has only been
bad.  I can say this for two reasons.  One is that this is the way it is
with all of us.  To some we are great to others we stink.  The other reason
is that I have been told some pretty jaw dropping stories of first person
personal conflict.  Now I do not relay specifics as it is just hearsay.  I
have never had any personal dealings, conversations, or correspondence with
Jeff at all.   We might get along great --  or not.

> 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.

I know Barb is already fully aware of the above as she is one of the first
to point out the vary same things - naba is filled with very different
types - she is one of them.  Her use of 100,000 was a total hypothetical.
There is no 100,000 nabaites.   This was simply understood by me to be a
valid straw man to line up with the 100,000 birders mentioned by Mike.
Barb was saying _if_ there 1) ended up being this many and 2) if they all
adopted Jeff's views in several areas, then it would be a messed up bunch.

> Jeff may be a "threat" (to people like you), but he is no "Svengali..."
> no "Jim Jones..." no "Hitler..." no "Charles Manson..." no "terrorist..."

    Some who known him say he is.

> indeed, he's not even "charismatic"!

    Some who know him say he is.

These two statments are meaningless as both beauthy and the beast are in
the eye of the beholder.


> I speak from experience, not "hearsay."

So is Barb. (Are we moving the two checkers back and forth in the corner

> Regardless of Jeff's pursuit to establish his eminent domain (with all
his human foibles),

So are you here admitting that from being on the inside you can attest that
he is largely motivated by ego to build and rule his own little kingdom?
That he can not be voted out as he "owns" naba.  It is his and thus he is
naba?  This is what I hear.  I wish I knew the truth on this.

> 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 (!)

First, NABA has done it -- not him.   You give no credit to the many people
(including Barb) who have worked very hard at working NABA on a daily
basis.  If he dropped out tomorrow,  NABA would not miss a beat.   Yes, he
deserves all the credit for original vision, hard work, and start up.   But
like a great quarterback, without the rest of the team, he is nothing.  For
some time NABA has been and is much greater than one person.

Second, your comments are typical of those who know nothing about Clench,
Remington, and the boys who started Lep. Soc.  This just shows how much you
are a Johnny-come-lately who doesn't know what she is talking about.  It
shows you are in fact a party liner.  Your true colors come out.  Use of
the C word for the uncaring bastards - like Klots, Clarke, Thorne, Riley,
Harris, Howe, Heitzman, the Millers, Neilson, King, the Mathers, Ehrlich,
the Emmels -- scores.

To all reading this.  MB got this in her head from someplace - she really
thinks it is true.  But it did not come from a true knowledge of the
pioneers (the collectors) who wrote the popular guides and became mentors
for 12 year old kids in Iowa like me back in the 1940's, 50's, and 60's.
Heads of museums who cared and wrote silly kids about butterflies and
moths - who mentored.  Without these men and women there would be no Jeff
Glassberg, no Pyles or Oplers. This rewriting of history was put in her
head - as it has been put in the heads of hundreds.   You tell a tree by
its fruit - not its official beat around the issues press releases.

Sorry Mary Beth, but you are way off on this one.

Ron Gatrelle


   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit: 

More information about the Leps-l mailing list