Subject: The Smoking Butterfly

From: Norbert Kondla <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 13:43:03 PST

To: LEPS-L1 --INTERNET [email-masked].

*** Resending note of 03/24/96 13:36
To: NKONDLA --MFOR01   Norbert Kondla

I am, of course, referring to the infamous Audubon magazine article by Ted
Williams that others have also commented on.  THIS IS AN AMAZING PIECE OF
LITERATURE !  It should be required reading by every entomologist and hobby
insect collector  in the world.

I have to give credit where credit is due.  Williams skillfully paints a vivid
picture of entomologists generally and butterfly collectors especially as being
weird, creepy people bent on collecting "things", with no regard for life and
in the same stone-age league as ravening big game hunters out for trophies.
The article is an artfully woven blend of innuendo, analogy and image building,
craftily designed to make butterfly watchers and enforcement officials the
'good guys with white hats' and entomologists and hobby collectors the 'bad
guys with black hats'.

Through judicious use of emotive words and phrases as well as the careful
sequencing of material (and of course the usual selected quotes) ; Williams
takes the unwary reader on a dead end roller coaster ride of emotion to the
obvious conclusion that people who collect butterflies are sick people who can
only be cured by putting away their nets and taking up binoculars to treat
butterflies like birds.  As well, he makes it clear that we should be thankful
for having aggressive public employees around to save the wildlife from people
like you and me.  Does anyone know a propaganda expert that could thoroughly
analyze this fine example of the art for us???  It is apparent that Williams is
very good at his craft and that we could learn some valuable lessons from his
approach to the issues - including how to fabricate issues in peoples minds
where none exist in reality.

Williams' article reads more like an opinionated editorial in a cheap tabloid
newspaper than anything else.  It certainly is not a balanced report on a
serious situation and is not fit for a mainstream magazine.  Williams attempts
to provide the illusion of balance in the article by quoting from written
sources that hold different points of view but then is clever enough to present
the views in a way that plays them down as unworthy ranting.  It is most
interesting that Williams appears to have only communicated directly with those
people whose views and comments could be used to support his own.

It is not clear whether Williams was duped by unscrupulous others to construct
this fable or if he really believes what he presents.  Anybody have an address
for Williams so that I can ask him that question?

It has been many years since I was an active bird watcher and had access to
Audubon magazine.  But until now I viewed this magazine and the society as
credible, mainstream natural history and conservation forums.  I hope the
propaganda put forward by Williams was an unfortunate oversight by an otherwise
vigilent editor and not indicative of any kind of trend.  Nonetheless, the
damage has been done.  By design or by accident the public image of thousands
of people around the world who contribute to our knowledge of biodiversity has
been badly tarnished.  It would be appropriate to do some detective work to
find out who is behind these attacks on entomologists and hobby insect
collectors.  Given the very large circulation of Audubon magazine, I am very
concerned that the many readers who are not aware of the differences between
bird and butterfly biology nor the real facts behind the great bug bust, will
accept the image that Williams has conjured up; and then cause increasing
difficulty for both amateur and professional entomologists without any
substantive conservation benefit.

I believe that it is appropriate for both individuals and societies with
entomological interests to make their concerns with the Williams article known
to the head of the Audubon society.  It would be reasonable to expect space for
a rebuttal to his article or at least a balanced protrayal of the situation
that is carefully editted for blatant bias by the writer.  If any of you would
be so kind as to post the name and address of the head of the Audubon society,
I will be able to make my concerns known directly.

Finally, I am saddened to see that Williams brought Jeff Glassberg and NABA
into this sordid affair.  I say this as a member of NABA who supports butterfly
watching and is fully supportive of the positive results that can flow from
heightened public awareness of butterflies through butterfly watching.  I say
this because NABA had nothing to do with the great butterfly bust and butterfly
watching has nothing to do with misguided enforcement of well-intentioned but
equally misguided legal provisions.  I doubt that Mr. Glassberg knew he and
NABA were going to be pawns in a propaganda ploy when he was being interviewed
by Williams.  There is simply no need for and no constructive purpose to be had
>from  the butterfly watcher/butterfly collector polarization that some people
are clearly trying to orchestrate.

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

---

From: [email-masked] (Chris Raper)
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 17:59:37 GMT

>insect collector  in the world.
[snip]

>....  There is simply no need for and no constructive purpose to be had

Well said Norbert.

Is there a way that people in the UK can get a transcript of the
article in question?

Thanks
Chris R.

--
All views are my own and are not necessarily those of my employer.