Killing moths

[Patrick Foley]

Phil,

It is surely wise to respect the lives of any creature, butterflies and 
moths included. Nonetheless, all animals live on the lives of creatures 
they eat. Even vegetarians depend on widespread disruption of natural 
habitats (I'm talking about farms compared to forests and grasslands) 
which leads to the deaths of many insects for every meal you eat. As 
every lepster is happy to point out, cars take more leps than even the 
most diligent butterfly collectors.

It is theoretically possible to live a life where very little harm is 
done (consider the Jains of India), but impossible in practice. I would 
aim at getting the most knowledge, wisdom and experience (which is where 
humans can hope to shine) out of the tiny lives we inevitably shorten.

The reason scientific collecting may be somewhat more justifiable than 
"recreational" collecting is that the knowledge accumulated can be 
longer-lasting and more wide-spread. But there is often no clear 
distinction. Many recreational collectors pass their collections on to 
insect museums. Recreationalists pass their data and ideas on to 
scientists through forums such as this. And most insect researchers 
start off as "recreational" collectors.

Ultimately, the main reason that mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians 
are no longer automatically collected for University "ology" courses is 
the increase in human population and the heavy toll such collections 
could make on vertebrate populations (there are of course other reasons 
also: legal, financial, the satisfaction of vertebrate care and use 
protocols, and the diminished influence of taxonomists compared to 
ecologists and ethologists in academic vertebrate research).. We still 
tend to make collections in Entomology and Plant taxonomy for standard 
courses, mainly because the population sizes tend to be higher. It is 
very rare indeed that insect collectors substantially affect insect 
populations.

I don't consider this argument to be a clear and closed case. I spend 
hours each year arguing this stuff out with my children, two of whom are 
very vegetarian and with my wife who collects lots of ticks and fleas as 
a veterinary epidemiologist, but can hardly bear to see me collect a 
bumblebee (halictids don't bother her as much) or a butterfly. It is 
good that we care so much about these creatures. But it is good to get 
some perspective.

Patrick Foley
patfoley at csus.edu

Phil Cross wrote:

>I am not a lepidopterist. I joined the list to help my 7 year old
>grandson, who is a keen naturalist, and have sugared for moths, and
>enjoyed their beauty in situ and in photographs I have taken.
>
>I have read the recent correspondence with interest, and felt impelled
>to offer my opinion, for what it is worth.
>
>Killing wild creatures for a hobbyist collection is abhorrent to me; a
>frivolous waste of beautiful life. I can see scientific study may
>require dead specimens, but I can't see how otherwise it can be
>justified. Why should it be different from the study of birds, for
>example? I don't think there are any collectors of dead birds any
>longer, and egg collectors are now punished by law.
>
>Just my humble opinion, but I shall continue only to photograph and
>enjoy these wild creatures alive. 
>Regards, Phil.
>  
>

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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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