Subject: Re: This Collecting Debate(?)

From: [email-masked] (Chris Raper)
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 06:40:23 GMT

Neil Jones <[email-masked]> wrote:

>This kind of behaviour puts _ALL_ lepidopterists in a bad light.
>It is unacceptable. It is this kind of obsessive hoarding that
>led to the extinction of the New Forest Burnet Moth here in the UK.

Sorry if this is a bit dim of me but _when_ did it become extinct?  
Are you sure the population wasn't under threat from other sources at
the same time?

TIA
Chris R.

------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Raper at Trio Computing Ltd.
Disclaimer:
All views are my own and not necessarily those of my employer

---

From: Thomas Kral <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 16:06:52 -0700

Gentlemen, oh and you too, Neil Jones,

     Some people would like to blame and criticize me for clogging LEPS-L
with "This Collecting Debate" - but take a good look who the people are
whom really are being belligerent (or pugnacious,etc.) in this debate; at
the top you will find Mr. Neil Jones - yes, Dr. Robert Pyle is indeed
correct in summarizing the general British "anti-collecting stance", and
it wouldn't surprise me if Pyle had Mr. Jones in mind personally when
writing his paper.

     It is indeed a shame that Mr. Jones talks so much, yet says so
little, and can't even get his facts straight.  Lets briefly review Neil
Jone's latest attacks...

Too bad Neil Jones doesn't have on file all of the NEWS OF THE
LEPIDOPTERISTS'SOCIETY from 1981 onwards, so he too can see who is really
at fault, in the context of what was seized from me.

1). The 201 CITES specimens confiscated from me, which by the way were
mostly common Parnassius apollo, sent to me in exchanges - by the way I
NEVER bought or sold any CITES specimens.  Now reference NEWS No.3,
May/June 1983, page 43, where Paul Opler (of the USFWS) states "Specimen
exchanges are not subject to the provisions of CITES" - what did I do wrong?
By the way, those specimens weren't even included in the indictment
because the USFWS also knows this wasn't illegal - I just gave up the
specimens voluntarily as part of the plea agreement (I wanted to get this
case over with, rather than a costly trial, so got rid of the worthless
bugs).

2). The seized Endangered Species, which were collected before being
listed, and exchanged for other bugs. I NEVER collected any endangered
bug once listed. Now reference NEWS No.1, Jan/Feb 1987, where Paul Opler
(of the USFWS) states "Specimens caught before the listing date are not
affected but one may have to prove they were caught by that date. Also
note that P. aristodemus ponceanus has been recl;assified from Threatened
to Endangered and collecting of adults is no loger permitted" - what did
I do wrong?  Oh and with regards to B. improba acrocnema I collected in
1986 in a National Forest, read Opler's statement in the same article
"Permits are not required to collect in National Forests" - what did I do
wrong?

In summary, ALL of the seized CITES and Endangered bugs were harmless
exchanges for other bugs with no commercial activity involved here.  Oh,
do you want a definition of "commerce" as defined by the USFWS? Now refer
to the NEWS, No. 1 Jan/Feb 1981 in describing a new license now required
by the USFWS, for people engaged in commercial activity... "this
licensing requirement does NOT apply to individuals who import specimens
for scientific or exchange purposes, or who purchase specimens for
personal use only" (by the way this is a CITES definition as well) - what
did I do wrong?

So, after all this, we arre left with about 30 specimens out of the
approx. 1,600 specimens seized from me (out of 60,000 total, or only
about 2% of my collection being illegal - few other collectors or museums
in the U.S. can claim such a small percentage of illegal booty).

   But the finale lies with PAUL OPLER (who himself is a poacher and
broke the law).  Now refer to the NEWS, No.6, Nov/Dec 1993, page 116,
where Opler, who now addresses the "Wildlife lawsthat include insects
that had never been enforced were being enforced" also tells everyone
else that "the true situation is seldom as serious as we might be led to
believe" - gosh, Opler doesn't seem to think this case is very serious...
But the crux of Oplers negligence (or entrapment by estoppel), centers
around his claim with the ESA and CITES that "both of these laws were
nicely summarized in an earlier issue of the NEWS" (Opler refers to the
1993 summaries written by USFWS personnel, but decides not to remind us
of what he told us about the laws during the 1980's).  Clearly, Opler was
trying to deflect attention away from his past misinformation - perhaps
if Opler had any ethics, he would admit his mistakes, but no, Opler is
far more irresponsible and arrogant than Mr. Kral could ever be!!!

But lets not forget Christopher Nagano (USFWS) who was a Lep. Soc. member
since 1971 (and also seen all the NEWS articles), but never told us,
until the raids began in June 1992, that what Opler told us may have been
wrong, and that we were all breaking the laws - why didn't you speak up
earlier Chris (who by the way, is subscribed to LEPS-L)?  Come on, give
us your side of the story!!!  And of course there is in infamous John
Mendoza, who was a Lep.Soc. member since since 1990, but rather than
inform us that we were actually breaking all these laws in 1990, instead
let everyone continue to break the laws until 1992, when he launched his
lethal "sting" operation - now who is being negligent here?

By the way, did you notice that it looks like John Mendoza, did indeed
"chicken out" of the OUTSIDE MAGAZINE forum, in which I'm told that
almost nobody submitted any questions, but we did find out that Mendoza,
true to his IQ, had little more to say than "Thats a fact", rather than
debate me.  I wonder if Mendoza is subscribed here as well, and will
accept my invitation to come on-line and attempt to refute my above
accusations?

But that topic aside, maybe it is time for our list-server, Larry Gall,
to step in and post some guidelines on how to conduct ourselves on
LEPS-L?  We really should avoid censorship so we can all excercise
reasonable freedom of speech, but we also have several people, like Neil
Jones (and now Pierre plauzoles), with short attention spans, but long
winded rhetoric and dogmatic comments that no longer add any substance to
any real debate.  Instead they desire to parade their dogma in front of
everyone (as if on a soapbox and making a political speech), and find it
so convenient and safe to criticize me, rather than addressing the real
problem causers like Opler, Nagano, etc.  How quickly they forget about
what I originally posted on Oct 31 - I'm not totally inocent, but I'm
also not nearly the culprit the USFWS has tried so hard to make me out to
be (and I'm far, far from being the only person to have broken any
collecting laws - which Opler himself implied "were not serious").  But
I'll also say again, that if my comments bother you, complian about it to
your Congressman or Senator and request a Congressional/Justic Dept.
investigation inbto my allegations, rather than post it on LEPS-L (or are
you AFRAID of such an investigation and what the TRUTH really is about
the USFWS - please, don't "chicken out", write your representative today).

And finally, lets see who really is the "obsessive" person, can Neil
Jones recognize this situation as it truly is, or will he (and certain
others) continue to parade their dogma and prove Dr. Pyle's ascertion
about the "anti-collectors" a solid fact?  I'll also state this fact:
people like Neil Jones, with their rhetoric, are doing much more to
destroy the environment than protect it.

Oh, one other minor thing: I am not attempting to win an essay contest or
a spelling bee when I post a message.  Unlike some of you, who appear to
live on the internet and have all the time in the world to indulge in
your fetishes, I need to budget my time.  Therefore I usually don't
bother to run a spell check - so if a criticism is a must, try to keep it
on a more substantial note, rather than a critique of grammar - get a
life!!!

Sincerely,

Tom