Subject: Re: Here comes the TRUTH (fwd)

From: [email-masked] (Eric Weir)
Date: 2 Nov 1995 08:34:42 -0600

In <[email-masked]>, Thomas 
Kral <[email-masked]> wrote about Re: Here comes the TRUTH (fwd):

	This is an very unfortunate title.  Most people familiar with spams 
on the net would probably ignore this article.

>     An even more central issue is, do we even need these laws in the
>first place? It is an unrefuted FACT that merely collecting insects has
>no real environmental impact, instead collecting restrictions are based

	This is certainly false.  I have seen several published articles 
describing a new species, confined to a particular locality, that no one 
in the literature has seen since.  The collector, in his eagerness to 
get enough examples of a new species, probably collected it out of 
existence.  In all fairness, though, I can't recall an example of 
butterfly collecting like this.  There are other examples of collecting 
that severely depleted a local population.  This is mostly anecdotal, 
but persons who study tropical butterfly populations have to return to 
the States to dry out their socks and allow the species to recover from 
collecting pressure.  That collecting pressure is widely recognized as a 
population force gives the lie to this assertion.

>in the future, all because we are mired in fear and the red-tape of the
>present. UNREASONABLE LAWS ALSO HAVE A WAY OF BREEDING RIDICULE AND
>PUBLIC CONTEMPT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (don't believe me - just look

	Unreasonable laws should be changed.  There is nothing inherently 
unreasonable about the laws you are talking about.  They are there to 
protect the species for researchers with permits and collectors who want 
to look, take pictures or whatever.

>can in turn intelligently change them by legislation. Thus my intent is
>to work with my U.S.Congressmen and Senators in writing to the F&WL in
>order to compel them to completely inform me of all the laws relating 
to
>insect collecting and their specific regulations and above all for the
>F&WL to TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE INFORMATION THEY GIVE ME. In
>turn I will publish this information for everyone's use.

	Then we should have stiffer penalties for those who read these 
publications, have actual knowledge of the law and violate it anyway.  
Right?  No.  And you will never be able to make the F&WL responsible in 
any way.  They don't make the laws.

	There is an old maxim that says ignorance of the law is not an 
excuse.  Believe me, the light sentence was because 1) you expressed 
remorse for what you did  2) there is no mandatory sentencing in place 
for the violations you committed  3) the judge was probably not inclined 
to throw someone in jail for collecting butterflies.  Pleading that the 
law is vague (absent the assistance of counsel, lots of evidence and 
proof), enforced selectively (absent a valid discrimination claim), you 
were not informed, the F&WL keeps their policy secret, etc. was not 
likely to get you very far.  Another judge might have been disgusted by 
your admitted contempt for the laws prohibiting collection in national 
parks.

--

Eric Weir                [email-masked]                 Austin, Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Gaden Robinson)
Date: 2 Nov 1995 16:34:00 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, 
[email-masked] says...
[vast amount of text deleted}
>MUCH MORE TO COME,     Thank you for your patience,
>Thomas W. Kral       e-mail: [email-masked]

Mr Kral presumes too much. Even fanatical lepidopterists have a finite 
attention span. Further posts such as this are likely to do nothing to 
further his aims. May I suggest the full text be lodged as a file 
available by FTP, and that any future posts be restricted to providing a 
succinct summary of the "definitive document"?

I personally quail at the thought of a further 300 hours' worth of 
community service postings from this source!

Gaden

---

From: Thomas Kral <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 17:26:04 -0700

To Eric Weir,

I do acknowledge the problems with a long message though its entire
content is very important.  Future postings will be much shorter, a few
paragraphs AT MOST. I won't repeat your entire message critique of my
original posting but wish to kindly refute each and every main topic you
bring up in hopes that you and anyone else can get a better defined
position of my statements.

Yes, it is indeed an unrefuted FACT that merely collecting insects has no
real environmental impact. Your statements are vague and you need to
define them.  For example, you mention "several published articles"
without even mentioning specific reference to one and then follow it with
words regarding collecting like "probably collected it...", "mostly
anecdotal" - do you have any more concise terms.  Then you say "That
collecting pressure is widely recognized as a population force gives the
lie to this assertion" - Oh boy, people used to think that the sun spun
around the earth and the earth was flat (widely recognized in the past)
until Copernicus & Columbus proved otherwise.  Here is my position: In
_Insect Conservation_ in _Annual Review Of Entomology_ vol. 26; 1981,
p.241 states specifically that "there are no documented cases of
extinctions or even local extirpations of insect populations due to
indiscriminate collecting." Though the authors advise caution, this
statement has never been proven wrong for insects - or otherwise is
UNREFUTED.  I had a good Entomo-l & Leps-l discussion this last June
trying to get an answer and still no-one can disprove this fact.

With this fact proofed above, it follows that any law restricting
collecting of insects that are not otherwise harmed from the act of
collecting, is this type of law necessary or reasonable?  To "take
pictures or whatever" is an entirely philosophical or emotional topic
completely apart from logic.  Ask the droves of researchers who can't get
a permit or have to waste huge amounts of time to get a collecting permit
if this even "protects" a species.  The only thing protected here are the
jobs of bureaucrats whom thrive on regulations.

You are partially correct that I will "never be able to make the F&WL
responsible in any way" (a kernel of reason from you at last). But then,
you (like the F&WL) try to second guess the judge's decision - by the way
when you say "Believe me," how can I believe you? Are you even a bug
collector? Are you a criminal? I hope you are not an attorney, because
with your brand of logic your client will lose every time.  Your guess of
what the judge thought is no more valid than mine, but you state my
points "were not likely to get you very far" - you judge how far I got,
better yet look at the case of John Kemner, 1). indicted on July 20,
faces 25 years prison, etc. 2) kral sentenced on Aug 1, probation, 3)
F&WL suddenly finds no propaganda value to my "light" sentence but
instead faces critical press. 4) John Kemner a few weeks later given
petty misdemeanor and $500 fine - F&WL now wants to forget about
prosecuting bug collectors - Gosh Eric, do you think this had something
to do with MY sentencing - you have MUCH to learn, stay tuned!

I don't mean to get arrogant with you and I don't necessaily take
pleasure in making mincemeat of another's argument, but your logic was so
flawed and senseless that I would hope that if you or anyone else
attempts to approach me with an arguement in the future, please do so on
a much higher plane of intellect. - Please no senseless rambling.

Thank you,

---

From: [email-masked] (Family Law)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 1995 09:48:32 GMT

In the conclusion to his posting Thomas Kral <[email-masked]>

>a much higher plane of intellect. - Please no senseless rambling.

Let us examine his logic ( which he considers so important ) in
reaching this conclusion

Firtsly he states:

>real environmental impact.

The evidence he uses for assering this is 

> In
>indiscriminate collecting."

This is not proof that merely collecting insects has no real
environmental impact, merely that no extinctions or extirpations have
been documented.  Firstly there is a big difference between "no real
environmental impact" and "extinctions or extirpations".  It is
perfectly possible to have an impact of a lesser extent.  Secondly, on
the point of logic, lack of proof of extinctions does not prove that
they do not occur, merely that they have not been observed.  For
example, if there is no documented evidence of life on other planets
this does not prove there IS no such life, merely that if there is we
have not found it yet.  ( Dont reply to this on the subject of UFOs
please, this is only an example in the application of logic ).

Having made his logically flawed argument he then goes on to build
further assertions ..

>With this fact proofed above, it follows that any law restricting....

This is a common technique used by those with an unshakable believe in
a hypothesis that may not stand up to close examination, to push
through a flawed argument and then build a tower of conclusions on the
shakey ( or even non-existant ) foundation.

I have done my best to keep Thomas Kral happy by keeping this argument
on a "higher plane of intellect" and including "no senseless
rambling",  as he requested.

In conclusion, please note that I have NOT stated that there is any
environmental impact as I do not have sufficient facts to make an
assertion one way or the other, neither, I believe, does Thomas Kral
have sufficient facts to make such an assertion.

Colin Law              (home) [email-masked]
Brighton               (work) [email-masked]
England                +44 1273 300883

---

From: Neil Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 95 12:39:06 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>
           [email-masked] "Thomas Kral" writes:

> real environmental impact......
>                                 Here is my position: In

The authors of the above paper were obviously unaware of a documented
example. You Mr Kral, are. During the exchange which you discuss above
there was a posting about the extermination of the New Forest Burnet
Moth in England complete with the source. I do not have the reference
to hand but anyone who wishes may retrieve it from the archives that
hold this newsgroup.  

I am not saying that all collecting is bad or wrong, just that the 
justification for your argument is suspect.

Your postings are too long.I believe it was Voltaire who said,
'le secret d'ennuyer est de tout dire'(the secret of boring is to say
 everything).

Neil Jones
[email-masked]

---

From: Neil Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 95 17:52:39 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>
           [email-masked] "Neil Jones" writes:

> example. You Mr Kral, are.

During the editing process I accidentally removed part of a sentence.
The last sentence above should read.
You Mr. Kral are aware of one.

My apologies for any confusion caused.

Yours NOT in crime,

-- 
Neil Jones
[email-masked]

---

From: Thomas Kral <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 18:08:25 -0700

To Colin Law,

Not repeating your response to my critique of Eric Weir's argument I
posted earlier in consideration to save transmittal space important to
some users, I have the follwoing reply.  Please carefully understand the
definition of the word UNREFUTED as I explain the following.  Yes it is
theoretically possible to extirpate any finite population, but does that
mean that it is likely to occur in reality?  All life on earth can be
instantly wiped out in a cataclysmic event but how likely is this to
occur?  i simply state that absent of any PROOF to the contrary, an
ascerted fact stated in a paper still stands.  Yes it is possible that
overcollecting of insects does occur in a normal natural habitat, but
nobody has proven it yet - so how is my arguement flawed?

I do appreciate your direct approach to my arguement, but I do believe my
assertions are stronger than yours at present.

thank you,

Tom

---

From: Thomas Kral <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 19:19:05 -0700

Dear Neil,

Yes, I recall the discussion about the Burnet and have retrieved the
postings. Please realize that my initial posting was to question if it's
extinction was due to collecting; any real definitve evidence that
collectors were infact a real cause for extinction simply were not proven
or even reasonably indicated.  An example of a very tiny existing colony
was also sited (n=12-20) in that it would be advisable not to collect
remaining specimens in this extreme example - I agreed, but pointed out
that collecting didn't put the moth in that predicament.  If you wish to
re-open this discussion, thats OK, but please see my recent posting to
Colin Law pertaining to Eric Weir's statements to get an idea of my term
of UNREFUTED FACT.

On another note, I am doing my best to condense future articles and take
some discussions off-line. Sorry for the inconvenience to you, but many
are very interested in my postings.

Sincerely,

Tom

---

From: [email-masked] (Eric Weir)
Date: 6 Nov 1995 07:02:36 -0600

In <[email-masked]>, Thomas 
Kral <[email-masked]> wrote about Re: Here comes the TRUTH (fwd):

>Yes, it is indeed an unrefuted FACT that merely collecting insects has 

	It is your opinion.  Do you collect the freshest prettiest 
specimens or those that are aged and tattered?  Do you even know why 
that would make a difference?

>You are partially correct that I will "never be able to make the F&WL

	I am totally correct in this as in everything else I said.  You are 
wasting your time if you are trying to make me change my mind.

--

Eric Weir                [email-masked]                 Austin, Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who now favors mandatory sentencing for butterfly poachers.

---

From: Thomas Kral <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 20:16:50 -0700

Ah Eric, you do appear to be an angry young lad (or are you a rebel
without a cause? - and just found one with bugs).

Most people have been cooperative and helpful with me in my postings, but
the few such as yourself who are something else alltogether, compel me to
realize that some postings and arguements are indeed a waste of time and
bandwidth.

You can think whatever you want of me, or what my level of competence is
in Entomology. I can always tell about someone, after a few sentences,
whether they are collectors or watchers, professional or novice,
experienced or otherwise. I can also tell when someone is pouting from
realizing they lost an arguement but won't admit it. No Eric, I don't
think I could make you change your mind.

I always savor a meaningful intellectual debate (taken off-line from now
on), but I'm afraid that in your case I'll have to look elsewhere. I do
wish you the best - otherwise, go home!

Sincerely,

Tom