Who are the CP community? How educated about CP must one be to be included
in this CP community? Why do you say this community _MUST_ have the
"unblurred" locality data--what would this data be used for among persons
not engaged in conservation or distribution-related research?
>
> I would imagine any researcher working in the CP field would be very interes
> in these results, with the possibility to having long term records showing h
> sites have changed or disappeared. Whether these researchers are working for
> Universities, Botanic Gardens, or government it may well be of interest for
> different reasons.
I'm working with Utricularia of the midwestern U.S., and I am not enthusiastic
about this mapping. Since I live in the midwest and have contacts with local
botanists, I believe I can do a better job of gathering and confirming info on
midwestern Utrics than the creators of this map (unless they too live in this
local area and spend an equal amount of time on this tiny corner of CP data).
I have questions about what data will be used to create this map. Will it be
based on localities which have been permanently documented by herbarium
specimens? (professional botanical distribution maps almost always are). Or
will the sites be based on hearsay? "I saw Utricularia biflora over in
Klomeek Bog". Will the map document both extant and historical sites? If
so, will a method be used to distiguish the two? Who will be called on
to provide the raw locality data? Universities and herbaria? Conservation
organizations? CP hobbyists? If herbaria are consulted, how many
institutions will have the time to go through all thier CP records as a
favor to this project? Or will specimens be requested as a formal loan
(this would be time consuming!) If conservation agenies are queried, how
many will give up their protected localites?(don't invoke blind trust here!
These agencies will likely demand a good deal of confidence in the validity
and utility of this map). If CP hobbyists provide the bulk of the localities,
we can assume the sites will be based on hearsay and personal observations.
This is not regarded as a professional approach to constructing botanical
distribution maps.
> My understanding is that _most_ species /are/ threatened. Maybe not with
> extinction but certainly with being put onto the endangered lists.
My observations of Utricularia suggest that (at least locally) most species
of Utricularia are quite common. Utricularia is the largest CP genus.
>
> No, this process is definitely two-way. The conservationists must trust the
> hobbyists, but equally the hobbyists must trust the conservationists. There
I do not follow. Why must the conservationists trust the hobbyists? It is
true that a conservation agency must be trusted to do its job--elsewise they
will not be supported by donations and funds. If a conservation agency
freely distibutes rare-plant locality data to rare-plant hobbyists, then I
would NOT trust that this conservation agency is doing its job!!
> Everything that goes on in this world is either based on trust - or non-trus
> The trust based ideas almost always work best. Otherwise we would turn into
> highly autocratic society.
Trust is a fine thing. But I don't put faith in blind trust. I might trust
an individual personally. I may find his character trustworthy. But I
would not trust him to use a tool unless he his educated in the use of that
tool. What we need is education before trust. World distribution data is
a poweful tool. I would not trust it in the hands of persons not educated in
the many ramifications for use and mis-use of this data.
Destruction of the natural environment seems to me to be caused by three
factors: Increase in human population, increase in consumption by this
population, and increase in technologies which allow each person to leave
a greater "mark" on the word. These marks are often scars. Wide availabitly
of rare-plant localities is just such a tool. In the proper hands it may
be used for good--if these hands are well educated. In the wrong hands, or
in hands not educated in its use, I fear the "unblurred" locality data
could target exploitation or mismanagement of these plants.
Conservation is a fine thing, and could use more support. However, intuitive
approaches to conservation may be unproductive or even detrimental. For
instance, fire kills plants. To protect rare plants, we should protect their
habitat from fire. This is intuitive, but some rare plants and their habitats
depend on occaisional fire for their life cycle. This was discovered with
research into fire ecology. Conservation approaches demand a good deal of
education, and there is still a great deal more to learn. Conservation
biology is a new science. I think the ICPS could do much to educate CP
hobbyists on conservation approaches, and this would be better than giving
out locality data, and trusting CPers to invoke intuitive conservation
measures without a good education in conservation issues and techniques.
Michael Chamberland