As I understand it, the "blurring" of locality data is intended to
produce uncertainty in the precise (known) locality so that the masses may
determine the general distribution without pinpointing localities. Efforts
to conserve the plants will not be hindered by this blurring. Conservation
organizations already have the precise localities. In fact, I believe the
creators of this map intend to obtain these localities from conservation
oriented sources in the first place.
> Another member of the list asked about locations in Texas where CPs could
> be located. I provided some general maps from a book. Was this data blurred
> or not? I do not know. What is the members intentions of wanting this data?
> To simply visit, photograph, and experience, or to pillage and plunder? I
We don't know how this information will be used, do we? This is why I think
those who ask for precise locality data must indicate how they will use it!
Especially if they wish locality data for plants known to be rare and under
collection pressure. I think hobbyists who wish to try their hands at
research will find much more cooperation if they simply choose to work with
plants which are not rare, endangered, or highly collectible. Those who
wish to try their hand at gem-cutting should not insist on access to the
Hope Diamond for their first attempt!
> do not know. But if some one wanted to pillage and plunder bad enough, even
> blurred data would be sufficient to locate a site given enough persistence
> among the individual.
Think of it as like "the Club"--a car protective device. It does not prevent
theft, but makes theft more difficult.
> I hope I do not offend anyone about this next concept. But by forcing
> someone to do good, are we really gaining anything? We all deserve to make
> our own choices. And if society in general moves in a direction that causes
> the destruction of other species and habitats, it is everyones fault. And
> maybe it is necessary, although unfortunate, before society as a whole will
> recognize the direction it is going in, and make a change within itself. I
> think the best we can do is to keep an informed society, and let society
> make the choice for itself, good or bad. I like the statement made earlier
> that >No positive progress can ever be made without a reasonable balance of
> trust.< I hope the author does not mide me using this statement.
Perhaps so. But thus far I have not heard much emphasis on balance. I
have not heard much interest in working with existing conservation agencies.
Instead I am given the impression that existing agencies are perceived as
inadequate, and therefore conservation must be placed in the hands of the
masses. The masses may be well-intentioned, but are they educated in
conservation techniques? This is why I feel people interested in
conservation must work under the guidance of existing agencies. I have
little faith in vigilante conservation.
Michael Chamberland