Subject: Re: Rebuttal

From: [email-masked] (Samuel Sun)
Date: 20 Mar 1995 07:29:16 GMT

[email-masked] (Entomo) wrote:
...
> Kruze, I can understand his concern but do not agree with his logic.
> National Parks were established to "...conserve the scenery and  the
> natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for
> the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave
> them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."   This is a
> direct quote from the Park Service Mission.   If the Service were to allow
> the uncontrolled collection of any species it would greatly affect the
> balance of that particular ecosystem the area was established to protect. 

I understand this position and allow that it may be true in many cases;
however, the National Park Service and Fish & Wildlife both insist on
extending regulations designed to protect vertebrates to protect
invertebrates as well.  I find it hard to believe that a single collector or
even a group of collectors can make a significant impact on *MOST*
lepidoptera populations.  Granted, there are some that are quite restricted
in distribution or numbers, but even 100 collectors taking 5 Parnassius each
in Yellowstone N.P. would probably not even begin to affect the population,
certainly not as much as 100 hunters after 5 bison.  Most insect species, as
we know, proliferate quite readily in their habitat, with habitat
destruction being by far the greater threat compared with collecting.  

While I would not advocate completely unrestricted collecting in National
Parks and similar lands, it would seem more sensible for the NPS to grant
restricted collecting permits (i.e. 4 pair per species, or males only, etc.),
so that specimens will exist in private collections.  Papilio indra
kaibabensis is a coveted swallowtail found in the Grand Canyon area, for
which people have gotten in a great deal of trouble for collecting.  It
seems almost a shame that the only legal specimens of the butterfly reside
in the recesses of various natural history museums that may not be
especially well curated.  If the next great flood washed away the entire
population in the Grand Canyon, it seems to me that if some small number had
been collected and placed in a private collection somewhere, at least that
many more records of the butterfly would exist for later study or
observation.  This being one example, there are many others. 

As in many scientific fields, "amateurs" can often make significant 
contributions, and stifling all collecting except in the name of a large 
scientific institution can stand in the way of discoveries.  While there are
those who would abuse the priviledge, if granted, to collect in limited
numbers, I think most collectors would respect the right and everybody would
benefit from it.  Parks could rule that all permitted collectors must submit
a collecting/observation report, and use the information to learn more about
the fauna.

> to maintain the integrity of the park area.   If these regulations were
> not established then many endangered or threatened species could/would be
> collected, causing a serious decline in that particular population.   The
> regulations are note written to hinder or punish but written to protect
> and preserve the resourse.

As far as endangered or threatened species go, those would understandably be
protected against all collecting...

Just my opinion...

Sam Sun

---

From: Stuart Wilson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 21:54:19 -0800

I always find it irksome to see fishermen in National Parks catching
trout with impunity while I have to refrain from even picking a nice bug
off of my radiator grille.

---

From: [email-masked] (Samuel Sun)
Date: 21 Mar 1995 15:50:48 GMT

> off of my radiator grille.

But you see, in the interest of preserving the natural ecosystem, many 
National Parks actually stock the streams so as to provide the fish to go
fishing for.  I appreciate the intent of the National Parks (in preserving
natural beauty) but there is such a thing as taking a good thing too far,
and also such a thing as inconsistant policymaking.

Sam Sun

---

From: Benjamin A Hoteling <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 23:12:11 -0400

> off of my radiator grille.

Good point!  Maybe it's time to start prosecuting the anglers,  They're
collecting trophies.

---

From: [email-masked] (Pierre A Plauzoles)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 20:52:28 GMT

In a previous article, [email-masked] (Entomo) says:

>After reading the postings by Mr. Kruze and Mr. Philip I found it fitting
>to give a little input for the Park Service's benefit.   I would like to
>thank Mr. Philip for his statement.
[....]
>"...conserve the scenery and  the natural and historic objects and the 
>wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such 
>manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment 
>of future generations."   This is a direct quote from the Park Service 
>Mission.

Now if only the Congress would realize the real (as opposed to political) 
value of our natural heritage, we would really be ahead!  Some of the 
Senators and Representatives we have elected are so blind to it they 
should declared "mentally unfit to hold representative office" or some such 
thing.

>Yes, roads and developement do have an impact on these environements by
>as land managers with the above mission they are forced to make a balance
>to accomodate all walks of life/lifestyle/interest.   Sometimes it may not
>seem fair to a paricular group but the regulations are necessary in order

Quite true, but like I said in an earlier message, the fine should fit 
the crime: since when is a deer or other large mammal equally threatened 
by the same development or activity worth less than an insect?  Although 
I do not agree that the fine should be lowered for insect poaching, I 
think there should be some balance in the fines.  The fine should also be 
steeper for those who flagrantly collect without a permnit for their own 
private collections, particularly when those collections are not made 
accessible for researchers to consult.

-- 
Pierre Plauzoles   [email-masked]
Canoga Park, California