Subject: Collectors and NABA 4th of July Counts?

From: [email-masked] (Carol Witham)
Date: 29 Mar 1996 06:02:13 GMT

Now that the annual 4th of July count is being run by the NABA, how many 
butterfly collectors are contributing time, data and money to this 
anti-collecting organization?

Carol Witham  --->  [email-masked]

---

From: Henry Brodkin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 19:48:57 -0800

> anti-collecting organization?

Carol-
Just because NABA was formed for those who enjoy non-consumptive
"butterflying" does not mean that NABA as an organization is
anti-collecting.  For example, I do not collect butterflies.  However, I
am not anti-collecting even though I am a NABA member.  It is just an
activity I do not choose to indulge in - for many reasons.
I am also a member of the American Birding Association and the Audubon
Association, neither of which are anti-collecting  - though certainly
members of these groups are entitled to hold their own positions.  Some
members of these groups are against museums collecting birds.  Some are
not.
Ted Williams, who wrote the article that, thanks, in part, to the
statements of a convicted felon, has sent a wave of paranoia through the
insect collecting community, has in the past written articles about
hunting and hunters in Audubon Magazine.  He did receive a measure of
abuse from anti-hunting Audubon members.  He is still writing for
Audubon Magazine.

Most of the butterfly collectors I know are interested in conservation.
With good reason.  If there are no butterflies - there would be no
butterflies to collect.  Also they are extremely interested in these
organisms - and pass on what they learn to the scientific community.

So, collectors, please do join in the July 4 butterfly count and other
conservation oriented activities.  The butterfly you save may be your
own some day!

--
               Hank Brodkin, Marina Del Rey, CA
                  33.58'24"N  118.27'39"W
             For Info on the Calbird-L Mail List
               Send mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: Thomas Kral <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 18:47:03 -0700

I agree with Henry Brodkin's comments that not all NABA members are
anti-collecting.  Infact, at least 3 of the 7 NABA board of directors
were bona-fide butterfly poachers, with one particular board member being
so notorious that his extensive poaching and smuggling activities caused
him run-ins with the law in the past (and I challenge Mr. Brodkin to
refute this true statement!!!).

     Now Mr. Brodkin tries to simplify matters by claiming that "Ted
Williams, who wrote the article that, thanks, in part, to the statements
of a convicted felon"  would try (again) to push the blame or otherwise
scapegoat this whole unfortunate situation on just one person.  Of course
there were 40 other unconvicted felons, and so many more other
"criminals" including the Smithsonian curators who Ted William's
criticizes, but my point is that folks like Ted Williams are
trouble-makers, and would have publishes his article regardless of
whether Thomas Kral and others posted stuff on the internet or not.
Judging by Hank Brodkin's comments, I would classify him as a trouble
maker as well. My point is that people like Jeffrey Glassberg, will
continue to push these issues because Glassberg indeed desires a TOTAL
BAN on collecting (come on Hank, try and argue this one as well).

    Hank Brodkin is off in fantasy land if he thinks that NABA, which
Glassberg totally runs, isn't anti-collecting.  I make it clear that a
total ban on collecting is not the objective of every NABA member, but I
have no doubts whatsoever that Glassberg founded NABA with the intent of
an eventual total ban on butterfly collecting directly in mind.  Glassberg's
comments in that article were more than just a coincidence.  Hey NABA
folks, why not try and prove me wrong by forcing Glassberg (and the rest
of NABA) to explicitly state in whatever codified by-laws or charter NABA
has that "NABA, or anyone acting on behalf of NABA, will NEVER originate
or support ANY measures to restrict or ban butterfly collecting in any
way."

     Though Glassberg may have some intelligence, he is very lacking in
wisdom or reasoning ablilities (intelligence and wisdom are two very
different abilities).  Glassberg cliams "Unlike birds, butterflies can be
easily reared and released (but never collected - caption mine).
Butterfly photography is much easier than bird photography..."  - A very
false group of statements!  I would like to see some "butterfly watcher"
attempt to photograph a _Papilio indra martini_ (let alone ever see one),
or try to find or rear the larvae - good luck!  I can think of hundreds
of other N.A. Butterflies that are virtually impossible to photograph in
the wild, and impossible to rear, even by the experts!  You all should
realize that many of the butterfly photos you see are net collected
specimens, slightly anethetized, and then in their stupor, placed and
posed on some flower and them photographed, often dead specimens are even
used.  I've talked to enough bird watchers to know that butterfly
watching is something very different from "birding" and far too difficult
an endeavor to be trusted to casual observations because most specimens
cannot be CORRECTLY identified by amateurs without voucher specimens, and
even the experts cannot identify many butterflies in the field.  Of
course butterfly watching indeed has a purpose, but it should COMPLIMENT
careful field collecting and research, not oppose it!

     I often wonder what fantasy world that folks like Glassberg, and
Hank Brodkin live in, in that they somehow think that NABA is the new
solution and substitution for important entomological and biodiversity
research involving butterflies (why not cockroaches, lice, and mosquitoes
- they are insects too). Say, tell us Hank, how can the rest of us
envision your "idealistic" world?  Tell us what kind of trip you are on -
"WOW, the colors, the colors, Groovy"....  somehow I think that Ted
Williams sees the same "colors" that Brodkin and Glassberg do - I supsect
that we can "look forward" to more abuses from these characters.

---

From: Henry Brodkin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 19:40:55 -0800

> refute this true statement!!!).

I have no idea what you are talking about.  Who are these evil people?

> scapegoat this whole unfortunate situation on just one person.

If you knew how to read - you would see that I did not say that all.

> BAN on collecting (come on Hank, try and argue this one as well).

Who am I making trouble for? Not the Lorquin Entomological Society to
which I belong, nor the Xerxes Society.  Are you daft, man?
Jeff can speak for himself - he does not speak for me.

> or support ANY measures to restrict or ban butterfly collecting in any

You are welcome to join NABA - then you can tell them what to say.  The
only fact is this:  There is no anti-collecting statement in the
by-laws- and collectors are welcome to join - as I believe many have (am
I right about this  Any of you collectors belong to NABA?).

> that we can "look forward" to more abuses from these characters.

Hey man, the colors are groovy!  And identification of butterflies is a
challenge I enjoy.  I will net them from time to time for a closer look.
I do this because that is what I enjoy - not to proove anything to you
or anyone else.  And there is only one person here in a fantasy world.
If you feel I am abusing you - perhaps we all, collectors and watchers,
and evil photographers, would be better off if you take your paranoid
delusions elsewhere.

I started the orignal Leps Mail list  for folks interested in Leps -
students, researchers, collectors and non-collectors, and I really hate
to see it used by a convicted criminal to justify his illegal actions
and to try to sow seeds of devisevness at a time when we should all be
pulling together to save what is left of our environment.

And I am really ashamed of myself, Mr. Kral, for having succumbed to the
urge to reply to you at all.  So spew forth - I learned my lesson.  As
far as I am concerned you are now and forever deleted.