Was Glassberg - now it's US

[Mark Walker]

Alex wrote about how the increased listings of subspecies (and previous
subspecies who've been given full species status) have been detrimental to
the already degrading perception on the collection of butterflies.  I find
myself in great personal conflict over this issue.  

On the one hand, there is no question that there is a growing (and false)
perception by the public that ALL butterflies are disappearing or in danger
of extinction and that the perception is influenced by the increased
frequency of listed subspecies (that, interestingly, may not have even been
considered unique from a "lumpers" view).  I think Alex is correct in his
accusation that certain people who seek to add to these protected lists are
at least partially motivated by the desire to see collecting banned or
publicly challenged.  Alex is also correct that many of the increasing
numbers of people who take offense to net-wielding have been led to that
perspective by the calculated actions of certain influential people.  I was
first introduced to this shifting of perception by an increase in animosity
I experienced in the field from the gawking public.  And then, while
"lurking" myself on S.B.E.L. back in 1996, I came face to face with the ugly
shift.  I recall one young and excited novice who began to post about his
new found fascination of leps through collecting, only to be lambasted by
persons who took offense to collecting and who made a gracious plea that the
lad be liberated from his cancerous and barbaric way of thinking before it
was too late.  "Put down the net, pick up some binoculars, and find a higher
calling", or some such nonsense.  Gee, I wonder where that came from?

Speaking as a lover and passionate student of entomology, on the other hand,
I know from close inspection that there are many unique lepidopteron
entities whose very survival is hanging on a thread.  I know the principal
cause of this is because their equally unique habitat is rapidly being
devoured by a wasteful and ever increasingly consumptive human population.
Listing seems right and urgently necessary when the preservation of these
entities is at stake.

Now perhaps there is good news in all of this conflict.  I've seen some true
education taking place on this listserve over the years by both net-wielding
and non net-wielding lepidopterists alike.  I truly do believe that we are
witnessing the fruits of positive dialogue and human collaboration, and that
we are now better poised to take the correct message to the gawking public
so that habitat is preserved or restored.  I sincerely hope that the synergy
taking place in Miami and southern Florida will rise above egos and
bureaucracy and succeed in PREVENTING another listing - this is possible.
There is plenty of landmass on this planet to protect virtually every unique
habitat.  There is no reason that we have to outlaw or discourage the
collecting of invertebrates - it just doesn't have to be so.  Keep the trees
and you'll always have plenty of leaves.

Mark Walker
Oceanside, CA

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grkovich, Alex [mailto:agrkovich at tmpeng.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 10:23 AM
> To: 'Neil at NWJONES.DEMON.CO.UK'; leps-l at lists.yale.edu
> Subject: RE: Glassberg's public statement on collecting.
> 
> 
> I think you're wroing. I think there's plenty of evidence of 
> it. And look at
> the three books: The anti-collector tone is worse and worse, 
> and more and
> mroe offensive, from the first toward the last. The first 
> book really didn't
> particularly offend me, at least not as far as the author's 
> writings were
> concerned. (What was written by the two scientists that did the
> Introductions, that's another matter. These writings were extremely
> offensive, at least to me. I STILL am waiting for someone to 
> explain to me
> what it is that an ant scientist, for example, has to say 
> about collecting
> butterflies and about the study of Lepidoptera. But what the heck,
> bird-watchers, gardeners, photographers, plant 
> conservationists, botanists,
> bored and/or lonely soccer moms, everyone's got something to 
> say about the
> subject, don't they? And somehow they're ALL opposed to butterfly
> collecting. Who's working on their minds?)
> 
> And they are trying to ban it, no doubt in my mind. In a 
> sinister and covert
> sort of way: One way is very simple: By getting species after species
> "listed", state by state. Long state hearings don't stop 
> these people; many
> of them don't work or have full time jobs anyway. Do they? 
> 
> Of course, whether they CAN or not, that's another matter. 
> There seems to be
> plenty of opposition, doesn't there? 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Neil at NWJONES.DEMON.CO.UK [SMTP:Neil at NWJONES.DEMON.CO.UK]
> > Sent:	Tuesday, February 05, 2002 8:30 AM
> > To:	leps-l at lists.yale.edu
> > Subject:	Glassberg's public statement on collecting.
> > 
> > There have been a number of postings accusing Dr Jeffrey Glassberg
> > of wanting to ban collecting. The actual evidence for this 
> is sparse.
> 
>  
>  ------------------------------------------------------------ 
> 
>    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