To kill or not to kill?

[canonman]

Julie
I think your right it can be read by non member, must admit never thought of that
Mick

[jimfoxy]

This is a very tricky topic and each of us will have our own views. My own views for what it's worth:

I don't think anybody has any justification in killing for collection purposes, unless the end result is to indirectly promote those species in some way e.g. museum display, national collection etc. This indirect promotion effect can often be very difficult to evaluate! e.g. a child of 5 who lives in London, doesn't have the opportunity to travel out of London, sees a beautiful Swallowtail butterfly in the Natural History Museum and, later on, becomes active in butterfly conservation. Even a private collection could have this effect on a relative.

Some national surveys of insects do involve killing because without doing it, the statistics would be extremely unscientific and it would be impossible to conclude whether species numbers were increasing or declining. Abundancy of individual species is related to the environment and food availability (habitat, weather, temperature, predators etc) and so gives us huge amounts of information on all these factors. The important thing is that any killing should be minimised so as not to noticeably affect species abundancy and that this subject should never be forgotten.

The question of whether we need 'scientific study' will always be debated. If our aim is to get a grasp of how the world works and look after it, then I think we do. Compared to the amount of habitat destruction which is going on due to short sighted greed and profit in the world, the effect is miniscule.

Those who are concerned about killing for scientific purposes should consider whether they should stop driving their cars at high speed and splatting all those insects! What about crop pests?

Species diversity is paramount to our own survival on a planet where we are changing the environment too quickly for species to evolve and adapt. To conserve diversity, it is important that we identify how species fit into the ecosystem while minimising the impact of study.

[Hornbeam]

I agree with you all and would never kill to collect or identify because, for me, natural history is just an interest and not a profession. I don't even pick and press flowers! I suppose its ok to collect adult insects like butterflies which are going to die shortly anyway, but I'm just not into collecting anything other than photographs.

Now that we can take close up photographs of insects and flowers etc., there is no real need to collect them or to kill to identify them. I have been reading Gilbert White recently and in his pre-photo days, all naturalists shot birds, disected them to see what they ate and then mounted or stuffed them. What comes across vividly is how many more birds and insects there were in his pre-pesticide day!! Stone curlews, nightjars, ring ouzels were very common and he describes hedgerows, mature oaks and even whole oak woods being stripped bare of leaves by "chafers". We have lost so much

[Alan]

In an article in British Wildlife Journal (Oct 05), entitled Natural History Re-mastered. It went on to argue that with the development and subsequent interest in digital photography, natural history may once again become as popular as it was in Victorian times because it makes ‘collecting’ natural history subjects more accessible again.

One of the reasons put forward was that in recent times collecting by traditional means became frowned upon by society. This subsequently may have led to the decline of the interest in nature.

Most can now afford a reasonable digital camera, so can build-up and good collection of images, and re-master the Victorian attitude of collecting without the need to kill specimens.

It's one thing looking at nice wildlife documentaies on TV, but another to get involved!

I think most members would agree, that for some, this is the very reason a lot have becomes involved in this site, and their interest in nature has snowballed so to speak.

[jezlee]

Originally Posted by Alan

In an article in British Wildlife Journal (Oct 05), entitled Natural History Re-mastered. It went on to argue that with the development and subsequent interest in digital photography, natural history may once again become as popular as it was in Victorian times because it makes ‘collecting’ natural history subjects more accessible again.

One of the reasons put forward was that in recent times collecting by traditional means became frowned upon by society. This subsequently may have led to the decline of the interest in nature.

Most can now afford a reasonable digital camera, so can build-up and good collection of images, and re-master the Victorian attitude of collecting without the need to kill specimens.

It's one thing looking at nice wildlife documentaies on TV, but another to get involved!

I think most members would agree, that for some, this is the very reason a lot have becomes involved in this site, and their interest in nature has snowballed so to speak.

Exactly, Alan .... I've always been interested in "nature" from a boy, when my Dad took me fishing (don't let's start on that one again!) and I used to sit by the lake, canal or river and watch the birds, animals and insects around me .... I also had a brief flirtation with taking photographs in the field before, either as slides or negatives but even then it was a costly business and I used to eke out my shots beacuse I didn't want to run out of film, and then when they were processed, a lot were just thrown away, so that hobby gradually faded away. I still went out into the countryside and enjoyed it immensely, but certainly the advent of digital photography has rekindled my interest in a big way. Now instead of coming back from an outing and trying to describe some wird insect I'd seen to my wife, I can now show her on my computer monitor! She still thinks I'm completely barmy doing what I do, but at least now she can see some results ....

[Alan]

Originally Posted by jezlee

Exactly, Alan .... I've always been interested in "nature" from a boy, when my Dad took me fishing (don't let's start on that one again!) and I used to sit by the lake, canal or river and watch the birds, animals and insects around me .... I also had a brief flirtation with taking photographs in the field before, either as slides or negatives but even then it was a costly business and I used to eke out my shots beacuse I didn't want to run out of film, and then when they were processed, a lot were just thrown away, so that hobby gradually faded away. I still went out into the countryside and enjoyed it immensely, but certainly the advent of digital photography has rekindled my interest in a big way. Now instead of coming back from an outing and trying to describe some wird insect I'd seen to my wife, I can now show her on my computer monitor! She still thinks I'm completely barmy doing what I do, but at least now she can see some results ....

I think in a way, this idea has become the motto of WAB. Without the gallery, it wouldn't be half the site it is now!

Although I've been mad on the natural world ever since I can remember, and take a lot of this in my stride - if that's the right word, I would think many people passing throught this site, have become first time nature lovers so to speak, and are now avid 'digital nature collectors'.....

[Wild-Woman]

Ah Jez but if you show her enough times then she'll get the bug. That's what I did with my husband. It's infectious for sure. Chris loves the photography now. Looks at the new pictures in the gallery and gets all inspired. It's nice because we go out for ages on reserves at the weekends together-forget all the DIY jobs and housework and thoroughly enjoy ourselves. He's even got his mates asking now and all they usually talk about is the new football season! Jules

[canonman]

Must agree again with you.
Years ago people only used cameras for their holidays and the odd family get together. The cost of the prints determined how often it was used.
I think also the results of the pictures when returned from printing tended to make people think it’s not worth it i.e. dads head missing, lamp-post sticking out mums head, you all know the type of thing I’m on about
Going out and about taking picture of nature, to be honest don’t think they would ever consider it.
Nowadays with digital cameras people want to go out and about, they want to put the camera to use, and you can only take the family’s picture so many times.
People would look for something else to photograph and taking pictures of landscapes and nature is I would have thought the obvious route.
With the ability to see their shots and being able to delete bad ones as made a difference, you also only have to print the pictures you want.
If digital photography as stopped a few people killing butterflies and other things for a collection good, But to be honest I doubt it.
We can only hope that having digital cameras now it may well stop others starting one
Mick

[nightshade]

There is a call for a national collection but with better recording facillities there is no need for more killing

[Imaginos]

Q: Whats the last thing that goes through a flies mind when it hits a car windscreen?
A: What a pointless way to go.

I've been reading this thread with interest. It does not surprise me that most of the replies have been in a 'no to killing vein' and would agree on some of the points-especially Alan's.
However, there are two holes in most of these arguements:
The first is the idea that small amounts of collecting is, in itself, detrimental to populations when a look at the front of any one car will reveal more dead insects than one person can hand collect in a year; add to this the masses of insecticide sprayed on arable fields and gardens and fed to livestock (which has the knock-on effect of killing off coprophagous species) and it is evident that collecting has an infinitesimal effect on population size (of course if a species has been pushed towards the edge of extinction by other means (usually habitat destruction) then collecting can have an effect, but those British species in danger of this are protected under law and any responsible collector will know these and avoid killing them).
The second is the assertion that photographic techniques are able to replace having the specimen for ID purposes. Frankly I am surprised that many of those who take part in the daily 'what is this' merry-go-round in the Inverts section have stated this, seeing the difficulties that have been shown in this technique. With a specimen in hand you can quickly note dorsal AND ventral characteristics, the latter is difficult to get in photography. Also I'd rather count the number of antennal segments rather than guesstimate from a blurred image, rather see the arrangement of pores on a specimen than worry that it is an artefact of the digital process, rather look at the shape of the lower mandible (often hidden in living insects) than wonder what it might have been like. Also, many species are separated by differences in the genitalia which are inside the living creature but can be extruded in some species after death, but some need to be boiled up in chemicals before you can identify them, again not possible with a photo. There is a move towards DNA identification nowadays, but this requires the killing, or at least dismembering the subject to extract the DNA.
In my work we process, at peak, tens of thousands of dead insects, these are collected at 12 sites in the UK using 40' suction traps that sample 50 cubic metres of air per minute. Those who have a grasp of maths will appreciate that such large numbers caught in such small areas reflect the immense number of insects there are in Britain. The sister survey-the Light Trap Network has demonstrated that their traps have little or no effect on local moth populations despite being on every night of the year.
Insects reproduction involves a lot (LOT!) of redundancy, basically they have high mortality rates built into their systems, hence their ability to survive the aforementioned onslaught of pesticides and also predators (most birds-even granivorous ones-time their hatching to coincide with the spring insect emergence). What really does for insects is habitat change. Hands up how many of you dug up your gardens this year-congratulations you probably killed or displaced more insects than I'll look at next week, think about what more large-scale disruptions can do.
Of course collecting should be responsible and targetted and not just a 'grab stuff, pin it, forget about it' attitude. Personally I think it is better for an insect to die at the hands of a collector who will identify it and thus add to his (and possibly others) knowledge in doing so than die because it was exposed to avermectins used for worming cattle or splatted on a windscreen, or flew into one of those blue light things at the back of bakeries.

[Paul mabbott]

Yes, indeed, I notice that most of the references in this thread have been to butterflies which should, mainly, be identifiable by the naked eye *but* absolutely impossible for most beetle families (and flies, mites, aphids, parasitoid Hymenoptera &c &c &c). You only have to look at some of the wild guesses that are thrown about on this forum to see how little value can be attributed to many photographic "identifications"!
Not my field and I'm sure that there are sometimes reasons for collecting butterflies - but rather sad that people would want to turn them into decorations ....

Originally Posted by Alan

.... it's often the only way to get the record verified. At least then some protection may be attributed to the area in question, so measures can be put in place to help them. We cant help them until we know they're there! Which may unfortunately involve the collection of a specimen. I think it's fair to say, most of what we are discussing refers in the main to the particulary difficult insect group.

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by scholesy

For my sins i support Leeds Utd. The only real United.D

You must have been really sinful - there is, of course, only one Premiership United in Yorkshire .....

[jimfoxy]

A good post, Imaginos. I heard a rumour that female moths are more likely to come to light after they have mated and laid eggs; is there any truth in that? Just asking because a killing trap which used light would be less likely to effect the population if this were so.

[Wild-Woman]

Mmm.Paul.

Your quote 'You only have to look at some of the wild guesses that are thrown about on this forum to see how little value can be attributed to many photographic identifications'

I think us lesser knowlegeable non entomologists do ok actually. Lots are correctly id'd from the superb photographs posted on this site.
We are all trying to learn and at least show some effort as to what some species are.

Not being rude but I feel quite saddened from the way you expressed that.

Feel like giving up now. Julie

[eeyore]

I agree julie - I can see what paul is trying to say but that could have been said with a bit of consideration for other people feelings.

Surely a "wild guess" or inaccurate identification is better than none at all , at least it shows that people are trying to ID stuff rather than sitting back and waiting for someone to do it for them.

oh and julie dont give up - one day you too may be able to identify things by the 16th segment of the thorax (or whatever) - as it zooms past on the wing , then you can condecend to us lesser mortals too.
In the mean time have a big hug (((((((((((((x)))))))))))))) from a fellow clueless

[jezlee]

Originally Posted by Wild-Woman

Ah Jez but if you show her enough times then she'll get the bug. That's what I did with my husband. It's infectious for sure. Chris loves the photography now. Looks at the new pictures in the gallery and gets all inspired. It's nice because we go out for ages on reserves at the weekends together-forget all the DIY jobs and housework and thoroughly enjoy ourselves. He's even got his mates asking now and all they usually talk about is the new football season! Jules

Oh, don't get me wrong, Jules .... she will quite happily come out with me and enjoy the walks in the country - it's just she has no interest in photographing "creepy-crawlies" .... she tolerates it as a necessary evil to enable us to get out and about together!

[jezlee]

Originally Posted by eeyore

I agree julie - I can see what paul is trying to say but that could have been said with a bit of consideration for other people feelings.

Surely a "wild guess" or inaccurate identification is better than none at all , at least it shows that people are trying to ID stuff rather than sitting back and waiting for someone to do it for them.

oh and julie dont give up - one day you too may be able to identify things by the 16th segment of the thorax (or whatever) - as it zooms past on the wing , then you can condecend to us lesser mortals too.
In the mean time have a big hug (((((((((((((x)))))))))))))) from a fellow clueless

I agree too ... this "identification" process we have going here gives me, and I imagine countless others, many hours of pleasure – yes, we get it wrong sometimes and we can't always identify exactly with 100% certainty what species an insect is, but does it matter?

I have a web site where I put up my pics, I started it 2 years ago and have steadily updated it. Now this isn't intended for the professionals amongst us, as I state on the site – I do it a) because I'm interested in nature and b) I hope I can impart at least a little bit of my knowledge to other people who may just be starting out on the road to nature heaven!

As on WAB, I have people email me, sometimes with a pic, to ask "What's this insect/spider/moth/butterfly I found in my kitchen last night?" Sometimes I can help them, sometimes I can't - and then I will point them in the WAB direction ....

I think I would rather tell someone that a hoverfly is Eristalis tenax, when really it is Eristalis pertinax, and somehow trigger an urge in them to investigate hoverflies further, and maybe one day they will be on WAB, dispensing their own knowledge to others, than say to them without killing it and dissecting its genitals, I can't tell you what it is .... and perhaps putting them off the whole idea ....

[Alan]

I don’t think it comes as a surprise to most that in the main most members don’t agree with collecting specimens for ID purposes. This should only really concern the members who are entomologists. I think the experts of the site would agree with this.

Most of us are interested in insects etc for their own sake and have no intention of dissecting them to prove an ID. That isn’t really necessary for us.

The so-called ‘wild guesses’ that many of us take part in, are part of the learning curve of us non-entomologists members. It’s surprising though how many of these ID attempts turn out to be right, especially has most of us have limited knowledge and lack specialist resources (textbooks etc) compared to some. Even with the resources it takes a lot of study to get things right.

Thanks has to go to the insect experts who put up with us, and in my opinion, enjoy putting us right! Otherwise I’m sure they wouldn’t be members in the first place.

Apart from anything it’s all good fun and part of the community aspect of the site.

Whatever your views……….good thread Jez!

[jezlee]

Originally Posted by Alan

Thanks has to go to the insect experts who put up with us, and in my opinion, enjoy putting us right! Otherwise I’m sure they wouldn’t be members in the first place.

Apart from anything it’s all good fun and part of the community aspect of the site.

Whatever your views……….good thread Jez!

I can only agree with you Alan on this .... make the most of it!!

[Paul mabbott]

Yes, and no, sure just watching is interesting but don't you want to know what you're watching and what they're doing? You don't need to be a professional scientist to work these out *and* you often don't need to pin things *but* sometimes you do .... If you don't know the species then you can't relate your observations to the known natural history and you can't contribute to the extension of human knowledge. You're not doing a George Bush, are you? We don't need science, just a belief! 'Interested' laypeople can contribute to science, hopefully you and other people on this forum will ....

Originally Posted by scholesy

If you have an interest in nature and wild animals then surely greater enjoyment can be had from experiencing them in their natural habitat engaging in their natural behaviour. Not on a slide or with a pin through them.
Whats the point?
We all like to know what it is we have seen but if a species has to be killed in order to confirm an ID then it sort of defeats the objective of enjoying the creature in the first place.
i'm not bothered about the latin name of some spider enough to go to those lengths.
The majority of us aren't biologists but just interested laymen who have a passion for wildlife.

[Paul mabbott]

Yes, agreed - I said 'some' - quite obviously, a *lot* are correctly identified. Wasn't trying to denigrate the general idea *but* if some peopel are happy with rough guesses and then post these on the internet so that other people can make misidentifications ... well, it just isn't helpful.
Incidentally, I am *actively* involved in getting members of the public to contribute to insect surveys (without killing them!) so am actually very enthusiastic about fora such as this. What I am *not* keen on are individuals who say the whole business is useless and that species identification is unimportant or it doesn't matter as long as it's roughly right ....
Don't be sad and don't give up! I'm sure that you, unlike some people, realise the value of good ids and reporting - sorry if I upset you or anyone else.

Originally Posted by Wild-Woman

Your quote 'You only have to look at some of the wild guesses that are thrown about on this forum to see how little value can be attributed to many photographic identifications'
I think us lesser knowlegeable non entomologists do ok actually. Lots are correctly id'd from the superb photographs posted on this site.
We are all trying to learn and at least show some effort as to what some species are.
Not being rude but I feel quite saddened from the way you expressed that.
Feel like giving up now. Julie

[Wild-Woman]

Forgiven and forgotten. julie

[Hornbeam]

Don't give up, Julie Unless you are a professional bug researcher, then exact identification doesn't matter at all. Working it out, taking a guess, deciding on the basis of probability rather than disected certainty is the fun and interest. Having said that, I agree with the view that killing for collections and identication is a drop in the ocean compared to chemical sprays and road slaughter. Personally, I don't take a high moral stand - I just don't want to look at or collect dead animals. They are dull, dusty and dead. If I can't see all that I need to see in a photo of live creatures in their natural environment - so what?