Book on Yoshi, USFWS and smuggling

In reading the Amazon reviews just now, I discovered this interesting gem that would indicate that there was some "creative" fabrication by the author.

Read below:

By Barbara Douglas - See all my reviewsAmazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Winged Obsession: The Pursuit of the World's Most Notorious Butterfly Smuggler (Hardcover)
FACTUALLY FLAWED

The following is word-for-word what Ms. Speart wrote at the bottom of page 99 and on page 100.

"Douglas was infamous for having overcollected an endangered population of Palos Verdes blues in Southern California.

`He collected all the plants they fed on so that he could rear near-perfect specimens. The population was so geographically isolated and had already been hammered by urban development. Then Douglas ripped up all of their food plants so that no one else could have them. That was bad. He wiped that population out,' stated entomologist Jeremiah George.

(Short paragraph omitted)

...Malcolm Douglas met an untimely end in November 2007 while on a collecting trip in the Kosnipata Valley of Peru. He was walking across a small wooden bridge when he spotted a butterfly and swung his net with all his might. His body was found late that evening in a river ravine five thousand feet below."

COMMENTS

Infamous means being well known for some bad quality or deed, to be wicked, abominable. Malcolm Douglas was not famous nor infamous. He was kind, gentle, and a friend to the butterfly, its environment and the totality of the world they lived in. Ms. Speart writes about Malcolm Douglas in the most negative tone about his supposed egregious acts. How many people did she interview? In what sections of the country? Did she ever speak with Mr. Douglas? Did she find any documentation of her accusations, written as if they were verifiable facts?

As a direct result of Ms. Speart's accusation that Mr. Douglas overcollected an endangered population of butterfly (a federal crime), the McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity (which now houses Malcolm Douglas's butterfly collection) counted the number of specimens of the Palos Verdes blue butterfly that are in his collection. There are eight specimens. These eight specimens were collected on May 2, 1980, before the species was ever listed as endangered. Eight specimens is not overcollecting nor is it wiping out a population. In fact, this collection is in a section requiring special permission to enter because of its value to the scientific community.

The quote from Jeremiah George is a perfect example of why hearsay is not admissible in a court of law. Jeremiah George, when googled, is listed as a graduate student at UC Riverside and appears to be in his 20s. He probably wasn't even born during the time period in question (early 80s) and did not know Malcolm, my late husband. There is nothing to substantiate Mr. George's comments. No source, no documentation, and Mr. George himself, did not have any first-hand knowledge.

The actual facts controvert everything that was printed in the above paragraphs. The charges are absurd; they defy all logic and common sense as well as being mean-spirited.

What did happen is well documented in United States of America v City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Cases No. 87-5197 and No. CR 87-274-R (the Appeal), Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding. Federal prosecutors brought criminal charges against the city of Rancho Palos Verdes under the Federal Endangered Species Act when the last known habitat, Hesse Park, was bulldozed by the city to make way for a baseball field.

One quote from the case referenced above reads: "The butterfly was originally found only at one site which was extirpated by a housing development. Subsequently, three other colonies were discovered, but these were threatened by overgrowth of weeds, weed control practices which adversely affected the butterfly's larval foodplant, and in the case of one colony, a recreational development." On pages 4 and 5 there is a summary of the contact between entomologist Dr. Rudi Mattoni and another entomologist, regarding the imminent development of the parksite and that when Dr. Mattoni arrived, "he found the locoweed already had been disced into the ground" by the city. (Google disc harrow to see the machinery used.)

One can google "Palos Verdes blue butterfly" to see many references to this case and to see that the population of butterfly is indeed not "wiped out." There is even a 3-minute YouTube presentation that begins by describing the destruction of habitat by the city.

It would never have entered Malcolm's mind to do anything he is accused of in this book. He never ripped up food plant, was not mean-spirited and would not do anything to prevent others from collecting. He lamented the loss of habitat. Furthermore, it would be humanly impossible for any human being, especially Malcolm, who had a decided limp and poor balance as a result of an automobile accident, to find and eradicate every food plant anywhere. (Google "Rancho Palos Verdes" to see images of the area.)

Furthermore, 'Ms. Speart describes what Malcolm was doing just before his fatal fall. How would she know what happened? He was by himself. Who did she communicate with to verify her accounting of what happened? If his body was found late in the evening, does that mean somebody witnessed it and didn't report it--and she talked to that witness to write her description of what happened as fact? How can anyone see a body five thousand feet below? The truth is that nobody witnessed what happened and what she wrote is a complete fabrication. The fall was approximately 30 feet. There was no small wooden bridge. There are photographs of the area that show her description of the area is not true. There was a group leader and several people on this trip who can attest to the facts.

It is telling that Ms. Speart managed to find an obscure reference to the Kosnipata Valley, but all easily obtainable, pertinent facts and common sense that present the incontrovertible evidence to the contrary of what she charges, seem to elude her. If this book is nonfiction, it is incumbent upon the author to write the truth and the editor and publisher to verify the facts. Where is the documentation, the primary sources, first-hand accounts, eye-witnesses for the allegations made on these pages? When selecting a book that is labeled nonfiction, the reader has a right to expect that what is written is verifiable, factual and true. Hearsay and supposition cannot be presented as fact. Not only does this book "create" information, but the details about Mr. Douglas are blatantly incorrect.

Ms. Speart has tarnished the character of Mr. Douglas, demonized his collection process and has subjected his survivors to additional pain and anguish.

It bears repeating: Malcolm Douglas never engaged in illegal activities against an endangered species.

I hate those people who see all amateur entomologists as butterfly killers. Entomologists are butterfly LOVERS !

Butterfly killers are those who just don't care about them !
Those who let States and private firms genocide butterflies with habitat destruction and insecticides !

Stumbled across this gem by accident; incidentally just re-read "Dangerous World of Butterflies" which is one of the worst pieces of psychotic left-wing "journalism" ever.


I wonder if there ever was a lawsuit.



Chuck

I wouldn't call this left-wing at all, it's just bad.

What are you calling left-wing and what right-wing? You ask to look at things without the eye of politics but you are the one naming it explicitly. I am interested to hear what you mean.

For the record if it matters (which I doubt) I am neither left nor right wing, I identify with ideas from both sides. As I spent 95% of my adult life as a foreigner it also never mattered in any election.

You bring up an excellent point, which I believe you did intentionally.

We have a bifurcated, two-party government in USA that has divvied up topics of interest. As such, most Americans, even if not in full agreement with their general party of choice, do take the same stance on most topics of that party.

When I first started traveling abroad, I encountered similar two-party and multi-party but grouped, systems. What struck me (shocked me) is that some of the "hot button" topics in other countries were not aligned with the similar party as in USA! In other words (and I will use left/right since most understand in the general sense, or at least have some concept of American left/right)some of the American right positions were in alignment with a foreign left, and contrary to the foreign right parties!

As I have traveled extensively, I observed this more and more. Also, "hot button" topics in America were immaterial in other places. I'm still trying to understand the Thai Red/ Yellow positions on a variety of concerns...they make sense to them, but in some cases not to me.

Turning back to USA, one aspect that strikes me as absurd is ecological preservation. Hunters, being avid outdoor people, and seemingly embracing all sorts of geography and weather, and talk endlessly about the beauty of the nature they observe, do little toward preservation. Their dollars paid for licenses do, but I've never seen hunters protesting ecological destruction; nor have I seen fishermen screaming to clean the rivers and lakes. It truly is odd, because hunters (and fishermen) are indeed adept at environmental observations- they know the terrain, the flora, and habits of fauna they don't hunt. Oddly, environmental activism is left to those who are, generically speaking, not avid outdoor people at all! Birders, college kids, etc...I mean, look at them in videos- they are virtually never dressed appropriately, and can't discern between a Spotted and Saw Whet owl. Of course there are exceptions- but I am stereotyping and generalizing, and my observations are well supported by evidence.

Yet, in other countries, the hunters ARE the environmentalists- the activists, the noise makers, the group that makes demands on government.

The point being, there are a set of concerns, with some number (I'll pick 80%) common to a vast majority of peoples, yet which political party(s) have taken up any particular cause is not consistent throughout the globe. Which is funny.

Now, that said, I've never read anything anti-insect collecting written by anyone to the right/conservative/small government political side. Which itself is a study; the movement to protect American Herps and Birds a century or more ago was driven by those on the American right (yes, even then they identified as such.) Butterflies and insects slipped under the radar then; fast forward to today though and there are many anti-insect collecting people, and they are all, to the best of my knowledge, on the left side of American politics. Not that all left-leaning people are anti-collecting, but that all anti-collecting are left leaning.

Now the aforementioned books, along with the recent NatGeo hit pieces discussed in the past, are indeed bad journalism. Bad by intentional omission of information; bad by inclusion of clearly false claims; bad because the authors have an agenda which targets the ill informed, helping them form an "opinion" based on rubbish. Why? Because bad journalism, sensationalized journals sells. It sells books, it sells magazines.

This is not an attack on the left. Both left and right and some in between are anti-something or other. What I do think important though is that the anti-collecting movement is led from the left, by people and organizations that identify with, and ARE identified with by the general populace, as pro-environment. If Glassberg and Sierra say collecting is bad, then it must be bad.

Sadly I see virtually no one, and no broadly read media, that defends insect collecting, presents concrete evidence why continued insect collecting by citizen scientists is important, or ensures the survival of our scientific passion. Which is bad- because the facts, the data, is on our side.

Chuck

John, you are telling yourself that large portions of topics between left and right are something that simply get picked up and are not strict. So I fail to see how the information of painting it as a left wing issue is giving any benefit at all to the conversation? Especially on an international forum where things can be understood differently.

Furthermore, reasoning from the US perspective, I think that museums can be generalized and put into the "left wing bucket" (if that makes anyone happy or more informed) as I am sure they are in favor of creating laws and policy (laws and policy being the preferred ways of the democratic party instead of virtue and self reliance of a republican party). I am also sure that many of them promote scientific education and that they do not oppose the collection of voucher specimen when needed. By ignoring this, you are picking the parts that fit your reasoning and ignore the rest.


Let's just simply agree that the book is really bad.