Subject: Silence of the Butterflies

From: Norbert Kondla <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 16:32:41 PST

To: LEPS-L1 --INTERNET [email-masked]. ENTOMO-L--INTERNET entomo-l@listserv.
cc: NKONDLA --MFOR01   Norbert Kondla

Well, maybe not so silent after all.  Some quotes in the Williams Audubon
article and the Houston Chronicle that Williams mentions are quite puzzling
>from  the perspective of what I am accustomed to in Canada.

Williams identifies Chris Nagano as an entomologist with the USFWS and quotes
him as saying that the sound of butterflies moving their legs in glassine
envelopes was like "something out of The Silence of the Lambs".  For you folks
abroad, in North America this movie is fairly widely known and the plot deals
with a psychotic murderer.  I find it surprising that a government entomologist
would conjure up a weird, creepy movie on the basis of sound that most
entomologists would find perfectly normal.  To put this in Ted Williams-speak;
what does this suggest to you about the "mind-set" of such an entomologist? and
why would a government employee make such a bizzare statement to a member of
the media?

Another USFWS employee, John Mendoza, is quoted as hoping that - what Williams
calls public squalling and bawling - is "the exception to the rule".  This
creates the impression in readers minds that a government employee is hoping
that citizens of a democratic country should not be excercising their
democratic right to raise concerns about the actions of public officials.

In the Houston Chronicle, a USFWS spokesperson (A.B.Wade) is quoted as saying
"The scientists are paranoid...their paranoia has generated a certain
hysteria."  So now people are accused by a public official of being paranoid
and hysterical because of real events??  tch! tch!  In the same article, John
Mendoza is quoted as saying "'I didn't know' is a Micky Mouse excuse".  Gee
whiz, I did not know that the inability of us mere mortals to be aware of the
tens of thousands of laws on the books makes us Mickey Mouse.

Why do I find this kind of commentary by public employees surprising?  This is
because Canada has a long history and tradition of a non-political and
objective civil service.  Public employees here are cautioned to be completely
factual but otherwise highly circumspect about what they say to media people on
matters directly related to their jobs.  They are of course free to think and
say whatever they want otherwise - with some common sense provisos thrown in.
Such comments as illustrated above, when made to a member of the media, and
especially when made by employees who are paid to work on the topic at hand,
are viewed in Canada as being most unprofessional and expose the hapless
individual to reprimand or worse.  The reason for this is that such comments in
such circumstances damage the credibility of the public service and make it
difficult for other public officials to do their jobs.

Are these kinds of comments that I see quoted in the news media an accepted
practice of public officials in the USA?  If so, what does this do to your
perception of your public service?  --- or the ability of said public service
to discharge its duties in a fair and reasoned manner that focusses on public
service ?

Not casting any mud -- just puzzled and hoping that this kind of conduct does
not find its way to the Great White North.

Cheers,
Norbert Kondla  Internet: [email-masked]
Operations Manager, Robson Valley Forest District
British Columbia Forest Service  (604) 569-3704

---

From: Susan Jane Hogarth <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 13:01:40 -0500

> why would a government employee make such a bizzare statement to a member of

Because that's what he thought? Because it sounded "cool"? Because....
It's really no big deal. Get over it.

> democratic right to raise concerns about the actions of public officials.

hehe - I didn't read the article but those "impressions created in the readers' minds" are
probably true ;-)  When have beaurocrats ever welcomed criticism?

[More "evidence" of American inferiority deleted]

> objective civil service. 

Right. Sure. and everyone there always has an orgasm during sex...

> Public employees here are cautioned to be completely

What a HOOT - "common sense provisos throw in" - I can't stop laughing!!!

This reminds me of families who don't "air their dirty laundry" - which is fine, but we have
to realize that they are just as likely (maybe more) to _have_ dirty laundry. IF (IF) Canada
has a better beauracracy than the U.S., it's not 'cause the gov't officials can't say what
they think...

> individual to reprimand or worse.

"or worse"? I'd like to hear the rest of that story...

I will say that Americans seem to have a healthy disrespect for authority - maybe that is some
of what you're talking about. _I_ view this as an asset.

> Not casting any mud 

Bullshit - I'm still scraping the stuff off my boots.

-- 

Susan Jane Hogarth

"Luck is the residue of design." -- Freddy the Fish 

"Personally, I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being
taught." -- Winston Churchill

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~sjhogart/public/home.html

       .      .-~\
           / `-'\.'    `- :
           |    /          `._
           |   |   .-.        {
            \  |   `-'         `.
          .  \ |                /
        ~-.`. \|            .-~_
           `.\-.\       .-~      \
             `-'/~~ -.~          /
           .-~/|`-._ /~~-.~ -- ~
          /  |  \    ~- . _\