Quote without (much) comment (amended to include a bit more commentary)

[Michael Gochfeld]

John's presentation makes good reading for a winter day. I have heard
serious people talk about creating virtual "forests" so that when they
are gone one can reconstruct (in some sense) the ecosystems.    M.
Gochfeld

John Shuey wrote:

>
>
> So, I finally read this (the first time I attempted it, it seemed like
> just so much drivel - which is actually a pretty good assessment).
>
> Two themes jump out at me:
>
> 1 - Conservation Defeatism - This usually comes out of the museum
> crowd - and it goes like this.  The world is so screwed up, that we
> are going to lose almost all of our biodiversity.  So, rather than try
> and actually conserve biodiversity, our resources (in the name of
> science) are best used to go out and catalogue it now.  That way it
> doesn't really matter if the last of the Atlantic Coastal Forest in
> Brazil is lost, because we already knew what it supported.  If we want
> to see it we can look at pictures.
>
> 2 - My group is most important.  This argument goes like this -
> Because we can't actually know everything - we need to focus on a few
> select groups that will serve as model systems.  Coincidentally, the
> group I love (and need more funding for) happens to be the best
> "model" out there.  I actually agree with the first part of the
> statement - model systems are really important in conservation
> implementation - you can't plan efforts around an entire biota, but
> you can hope to conserve an entire biota by using model systems to
> plan your effort.  As much as I love butterflies, I happen to think
> that using them as tools to monitor ecological integrity and function
> in the Neotropics is bogus (you see lots of model tools developed -
> but never see them validated because of the statistical variance in
> the data generated - in contrast - you can [if you're a good botanist]
> statistically sample woody plants in a rain forest in a couple of
> weeks - lianas included [if you're a great botanist]).These themes
> have been kicking around for years and I have certainly simplified the
> finer points for the purposes of my own sarcastic rhetoric.
> Non-the-less, it is odd to hear such a defeatist theme coming from
> Ehrlich, who once championed conservation action. Contrast this with
> another well know Lepidopterist, Dan Janzen, who is likewise panicked
> about the biodiversity crises. Janzen is similar in the view that we
> need to know what actually lives at various sites - but not because we
> will lose knowledge unless we push forward - but because we need to
> know to know about EVERYTHING that occurs at the site in order to
> adequately protect it.  (I have problems with the everything part of
> this, but the goal is laudable).  But the big difference is in
> "action".  Janzen spends much of his life's energy studying and
> PROTECTING one site - he is actually taking action to conserve the
> Area de Conservation Guanacaste.  He has raised millions of dollars to
> add to the area, is working on dry forest restoration, and most
> importantly has developed real conservation tools that others are
> using (we have  used some concepts Janzen developed relative to carbon
> sequestration throughout Latin American and even Indiana to add
> millions of acres to conservation areas [ok so the total is more like
> a thousand acres in Indiana - but these are expensive carbon credits
> here]).  If he and the Costa Rica government and the local communities
> involved are successful , an ecosystem "swath" from the Pacific Ocean
> through dry forest, rainforest, and two isolated cloud forests will be
> conserved at a scale that should protect almost "everything".  In
> support of this, Janzen has probably created the "best know
> lepiopteran fauna" in the Neotropics (see the latest issue of the Lep
> Soc Journal for an overview of 2,192 reared Pyrrhopygine skippers from
> Guanacaste - representing just 15 species - a tiny sampling of his
> rearing effort). So, with apologies to both Ehrlich and Janzen for my
> gross simplification of their views, I suggest that actions speak
> louder than words.  You can easily be dismissive of the Ehrlich
> rhetoric - or mine for that matter. Later,persona John John A. Shuey.
> Ph.D.
> Director of Conservation Science
> Indiana Office of The Nature Conservancy
> 1505 N Delaware Street, Indianapolis, IN 46202
> 317.951.8818
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-leps-l at lists.yale.edu
> [mailto:owner-leps-l at lists.yale.edu]On
> > Behalf Of Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 11:45 AM
> > To: 'drdn at mail.utexas.edu'; leps-l at lists.yale.edu
> > Subject: RE: Quote without (much) comment
> >
> >
> > Me too. I do not find anything useful in the quoted statements by
> Paul
> > Ehrlich. Of course he has the right to hold and express opinions
> > that differ
> > from others :-) Maybe too much time has been wasted on model systems
> and
> > other arcane matters that real decision makers in society are not
> able to
> > use in matters of conservation :-) Named entities that are really
> > endangered
> > are, on the other hand, something that people find useful in
> > making land use
> > and resource management decisions.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris J. Durden [mailto:drdn at mail.utexas.edu]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 6:31 AM
> > To: leps-l at lists.yale.edu
> > Subject: Re: Quote without (much) comment
> >
> >
> > Yes Ken, I read it too. I do not like it. I think this viewpoint is
> > counterproductive. I think it is a result of our recent (30+year)
> turning
> > of science into a business rather than an art. It is sad to see
> > these ideas
> > coming from a respected scientist.
> >     For a long time I have maintained that if the lawyers can index
> such
> > ephemera as our laws and the court proceedings relevant to them,
> > surely the
> > scientists can index such treasures as our species and, yes,
> subspecies,
> > and the habitats and communities relevant to them.
> > ................Chris Durden
> >
> > At 02:14 AM 1/2/2002 -0900, you wrote:
> >
> > >         Paul Ehrlich's name has come up a couple of times recently
> on
> > >Leps-L. I thought the list might be interested in three quotes from
> the
> > >Presidential Address he gave last year to the Association for
> Tropical
> > >Lepidoptera.
> > >
> > >         For those who might not know the approach to butterfly
> studies
> > >he's been advocating for the last 30 years and more--he recommends
> that
> > >people should carry out intensive work on taxonomically limited
> groups
> > >(which he calls 'model systems') rather than diluting their efforts
> by
> > >taking a "non-scientific 'shotgun' approach to nature".
> > >
> > >         Here are the three quotes I found interesting:
> > >
> > >         "Too much effort has been expended on the useless
> taxonomic des-
> > >cription of subspecies......, something with which I wasted some
> > of my own
> > >time in my youth. In the United States, subspecies are important
> > tools for
> > >preserving biodiversity, because of the structure of the nation's
> laws
> > >protecting endeangered organisms, but nobody should be deluded
> > into think-
> > >ing the naming of subspecies is of scientific significance."
> > >
> > >         "It is quite clear that the lesser interest in, and much
> greater
> > >diversity of moths gives them very few of the advantages that
> butterflies
> > >enjoy as a model group. There is little scientific reason to do
> further
> > >work on them."
> > >
> > >         "I think that it would be wonderful if _Homo sapiens_ took
> the
> > >necessary actions to preserve present day biodiversity for a
> millennium
> > >or so, to permit it to be reasonably completely described. Or,
> humanity
> > >might allocate enough resources to get a rough
> describing/cataloguing
> > >largely done in a few decades, especially since the technical
> ability to
> > >do so is increasingly in hand. That would be fine if it did not
> compete
> > >with the funding of the much more important work on model systems."
>
> > >
> > >         These quotes have been lifted out of context. Anyone
> > who wants to
> > >check context should find a copy of the ATL 'Lepidoptera News',
> June
> > >2001 #2.
> > >
> > >                                                 Ken Philip
> > >fnkwp at uaf.edu
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  ------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >    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