InsectNet forum

Hello everyone,

I am new to this place. I'm really into all macro-Lepidoptera but especially butterflies and Saturniids. I do butterfly counts and sightings as well as collecting, rearing, and breeding. I'm sure this topic has come up before, but I would really like to hear people's thoughts on the North American Butterfly Association and Jefferey Glassberg.

Also, those who do counts and sightings as well, what database do you use?

Regards,

Ethan

I personally do not like NABA's anti-collecting stance. They sometimes harass collectors, so I try to avoid NABA people. I keep a copy of P.17 of the Kaufmann Field Guide in my car, which explains that collecting has almost zero effect on butterfly populations and that the "bad guys" are the ones who destroy habitats, such as real estate developers and big commercial farms. Having said that, I acknowledge that the goal of NABA is to preserve butterfly populations. I think we can all agree on that. Before Glassberg founded NABA, he was a collector. He didn't denounce collecting until he had collected every species he wanted.

I completely agree. Their stance on collecting is only backed up with emotional reasoning. They should all stop driving cars because cars kill way more butterflies than collectors can catch. They also seem to be antagonistic to different habitat management practices which is something I don’t understand. Stuff like controlled, local burns and haying. I think it’s a shame that Naba seems to have more power than an institution like the Lepidopterist’s society that has a much more balanced approach.

I’m friends with some people who associate with Naba so I appreciate the work that they do. But I just wish they would stop with this “hands off nature” stuff because I think it will have some pretty dire consequences.

There's no such thing as a "controlled burn" Ask the CA Dept. of Forestry. When I lived in Humboldt, they had 2 get of of hand and caused a mess.
There is a database of Pacific Northwest leps I use, never heard of the NABA, doesn't sound like I want to.

Hi Kevin,

We've talked before. I'm sure if things aren't done with the necessary precautions, things can get out of hand. But where I live in the Midwest, prairie burns (done locally with breaks) increase help wildflower diversity. Species like our native Speyeria benefit from burns. Violets also increase.

Bunch of tree huggers with big hearts and few brains.

"we are shifting the paradigm from collectors with nets, capturing and killing butterflies, to enthusiasts with cameras and binoculars, capturing beautiful images of live butterflies in nature." That's nice. We need more photos of misidentified Viceroys.



"NABA has amassed the largest database of butterfly sightings and population abundances in the world." Rubbish, pure rubbish.

"NABA envisions a future where wild butterflies thrive in healthy habitats, none are threatened or endangered, and all people can enjoy observing them in nature." Impossible. Many taxa are threatened and endangered from elements other than man. Thousands of butterfly taxa have gone extinct before man, some will after. It is impossible to have "all people" observe them in nature.

In order to save butterfly taxa we have to know them. That requires dissection, grinding up for DNA, and collections. NABA's trumpet is based on the hard work of those the seek to put out of operation.

One major problem with "butterfly watching", whether it be by NABA members or unaffiliated individuals, is that many species cannot reliably be identified from photos alone, some need at least examination of genitalia for accurate identification.

Recently a colleague and I were asked to review a paper on butterflies of a SE Asian country based solely on photographic records of living specimens. Particularly for Lycaenidae and Hesperiidae but also in some other groups (such as Satyrinae) a single photo is often not diagnostic (e.g. both upperside and underside need to be seen), and many specimens could not be accurately identified to individual species even from photos where both sides were at least partially visible. Some species cannot be identified beyond 'species-group' from photos at all, even from superb photos of pinned specimens. That is why scientific collections are invaluable, and private collections also contain specimen data which may be important in future.

Adam.

Photos of wild insects are just pretty pictures, even in some of my guide books, by well known persons have less than stellar photos, and I take pictures as well, they go in the digital photo frame.
Next time use a better acronym.

I agree with all the above. For me, a physical scientific collection is priceless and cannot be replicated with photographs of live individuals.

Thanks, guys, for your answers. Even if collections told us nothing, it still would be a neutral on stable populations of species according to various studies. If they just used common sense, they would see that being anti collecting is silly. Surely these people are super knowledgeable on Lepidoptera. They should know the huge reproductive capacity of insects.

I remember seeing a Karner Blue habitat being torn to pieces by ATV routes cutting right through. I remember finding many dead Limenitis carcasses on the roads. They don't complain about that as much as they do with collecting.

Nymphalis antiopa wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2024 2:54 am If they just used common sense,

There's your problem.

Look, it is universal country-wide that one cannot catch and kill song birds, despite many having very healthy populations. Meanwhile, house cats are allowed to roam freely and have been documented to have a significant negative impact on song bird populations. One isn't allowed in most places to shoot cats that are outdoors; "environmentalist" tree huggers are fine looking the other way when it's their cats that kill birds. These same NABA people who are horrified that some citizen scientists kill butterflies are the same types with the bird depleting cats, but somehow to their logic, that's OK.