Re: [washbutterflies] Who Can Identify the Worlds Rarest Butterfly

[Neil Jones]

On 16/10/2011 17:38, pavu...@aol.com wrote:

<<

The butterfly was discovered in 1983 by a poacher named Thomas Kral.

>>

 

This is where things get out of hand and the truth is distorted.  The butterfly was indeed discovered, described and named by Tom Kral.  I had corresponded with Kral when he served (as a late-TEEN) at the base.  He was enlisted in the army there and collected butterflies as a hobby.  Kral traded butterflies by mail to supplement his hobby.   He discovered the butterfly (as a teenager) on the base and collected a series of specimens, knowing they were somewhat different from those up north.  As the magazine author states: Mitchell's Satyr was NOT classified as an endangered species at that time. 

 

<<

Kral went to jail for poaching endangered butterflies (though not the St. Francis Satyr, which was not yet listed as endangered or even known to exist when he collected 50 individuals to sell).

>>

 

FALSE.  Kral never went to jail.  He also never offered to sell or trade specimens of the St. Francis Satyr.  His specimens became part of his "type series".  Most were donated to museums.  Kral was subjected to a grand jury investigation for being involved in a 3-person poaching ring out west.  Kral was sentenced with essentially a slap on the wrist: a relatively small fine and a few hundred hours of community service.  The basic focus of his legal defense was the confusing state of wildlife laws.  For example, much of the case built against Kral was around his perfectly LEGAL collecting of many very common species within National Forests and other federal lands out west.  Problem was, once you sell any natural objects collected on federal lands, you need a commercial permit, which few people, if anyone, knew about at that time.  The law was interpreted to include barter (exchange) of specimens.  The prosecution argued that Kral, while GIVING away many such otherwise legally-collected specimens, could not possiblly just give anything away.  There must be some reciprocation, thus barter, thus commercial activity.  I followed that case back at that time, and learned that the judge had some harsh words for the prosecution.  In Kral's case, millions of taxpayer dollars were wasted for a slap on a wrist.

First of all it is ridiculous hyperbole to suggest that millions of dollars were spent on this case

This really is distortion and propaganda on a grand scale. Unfotunately there is evidence of a what research documents as a cognitive deficit in the psyche of some lepidopterists which prevents them joining up the dots. Defending crooks makes us all look bad. and Thomas Kral is one of the most notorious crooks in the history of lepidoptera study. He got off lightly largely because butterfly crimes are not taken seriously and because he went to court sounding very contrite.
Then a few days later he went postal ranting on the internet that he had been treated unfairly. His venom against anyone who disagreed with him was so vile and horrendous  that when he went he aquired the nickname "He Who Must Not Be Named" for fear he might return. (For those of you not familiar with Harry Potter, and I wasn't at the time the nickname was coined for Kral,  the term is used in the books similarly as a nickname for Harry's nemesis Lord Voldemort who was modelled on a mixture of Hitler and the Klu Klux Klan and whose return was feared.). the criminal indictment shows that there was no real care for the science as lots of the scientific names were misspelled. He was prosecuted fair and square because they had evidence from his own writing which confirmed his guilt.

It is important to realise that he had over 200 specimens of butterflies listed under CITES confiscated from him. These are the butterfly equivalents of Rhino Horn and Tiger Skins. I think it is unacceptable to defend a crook who does this kind of thing.

One of the problems is that all this stuff happened when only a few of the current lepidopterists community were on the internet. Those of us who were there at the time remember how bad his behaviour was.

Below I include some comments from the 85 page criminal indictment. I know a lot about this case, despite being British. I have actually spoken to the investigators and examined the documentation for myself in the USA.The excerpts I include are some of those which someone else posted on-line back in 1995 just after the trial.

Neil Jones
ne...@nwjones.demon.co.uk


July 22  1984 letter from kral to et al (paragraph 10, pg 9 of the indictment)
"Thank you very much for you parcel... all the specimens arrived in great
shape and I an very pleased with the bugs you sent me. .......  Because some of the things you
sent me are on the endangered species list, I will be careful not to reveal where I got them
from as you're supposed to have permits to send them and all that extra red tape involved so its best to trade 'under the table' like this..."

16 Sept 1984 (para 20 pg 13) letter from kral to et al
"... I am very interested in your _A mormo langei_ but I'm not sure what to offer for it since you got caught trying to collect them. ...  I myself got caught collecting in Florida's Everglades N.P. and twice in Loxahathchee N.W.R. but got away with it each time, simply by claiming ignorance of the laws..."


Note - _A mormo langei_ is Federally protected and occurs at exactly one
site on planet earth.

12 Oct 1984 letter from kral to et al (para 23, pg 14)
"Thanks alot for your letter and _A. mormo langei which is really
appreciated"

25 Nov 1985 letter from Kral to et al (para 31, pg 18-19)
"Thank you . . . for 2 parcels . . . .  Especially appreciated were the _C. ossi [sic] bayensis_,
_P. icarodes [sic] missionensis"
both federally protected and limited to very small populations.

In the same letter Kral continues     ... "Really sorry to hear about the
problem you ran into concerning the _A. m. langei_.  By all means, please keep both of the Gaspe _melissa_ for the specimen you sent me . . . as I still needed some of these to complete a series . . . .  If you ever
collect any more rare Leps, I imagine you'll really take precautions.  Myself, I use the BioQuip >pocket net--known as the 'National Park Special' for these tricky spots & never collect within sight of anyone even those who don't look the least bit suspicious, I find later afternoon or early mornings when few people are around are best for collecting. . . just say
you're a botanist. Myself, I pretend to be a birdwatcher when collecting adults on the wing,
quickly stashing my net & using the binoculars when someone approaches.  On two occasions, I used
plain ignorance, when I was caught, would just say, sorry, I didn't know you couldn't catch bugs here & just act like a rank amateur bug collector, they always let you go then. . . "

26 Dec 1984 letter from Kral to et al (para 31, pg 21)
"What you tell me about _P. i. pheres_ makes me appreciate the specimens all
the more! . . . I found out that _pheres_ is extinct at the type locality . . . If you can collect more of these for me . . . would be great!'

Paragraph 35, page 22
"On a date unknown to the Grand Jury, but between March 19 1985 and June 25
1992, defendant >Thomas W. Kral acquired from a dealer in Wisconsin butterflies protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973. . .  twenty-one San Bruno elfin butterflies, ...
sixteen Mission blue butterflies, ... nine Lang's metalmarks,... six Myrltle's silverspot butterflies,... four Point Reyes blue butterflies . . ."
All Federally endangered!

26 Dec letter from Kral to other than et al (para 51, pgs 28-29)
"Unfortunately it has become VERY difficult to collect in Florida now & I
had to poach a lot of goodies...."

21 Dec 1985 letter from Kral to et al (para 58, pg 32)
" I've read carefully your additional comments on collecting in the Grand Canyon, & this reminds me a lot of some places in Florida where the authorities are a pain. . . Also have worked out a scheme to elude authorities.  . . .  I plan on really cleaning house on Rocky Mountain Butterflies next year.  Am bringing 20,000 envelopes & I expect to fill them all up!

 About the only way to get rare material & lots of it is to take alot of time off & collect & that's just what I do.  Am envied by most of my colleagues, as few people can do this sort of thing... "

21 Aug 1986 letter from Kral to et al (para 84, pg 39) " ... I did good on my trip ... in Colorado ... Instead of the 20,000 bugs I should have gotten on the trip, I only hit a measly 9,000 ... "

>16 Feb 1987 letter from Kral  to other than et al (para 94, pg 43)

"Incidentally, one thing about myself you may like to know is that I am a big
hoarder of rare material, anything rare I like to have big fat series of..."

27 Dec 1985 letter from Kral to other than et al (para 59, pg 33)
"...  Technically it is _against the law_ to collect in the Yukon or N.W.
Territories . . . but of course you know the old sayings, Laws were meant to be broken so don't pay any attention to laws.  And be prepared to talk your way out of situations..."

And for a GRAND FINALE, on 28 Sept 1985 Kral signs a letter to el al (para 87, pg 41)

   """""Yours in poaching, Tom""""""""

[George Boettner]

Thanks Neil for setting this straight. Heartbreaking when people
do this kind of stuff.
Jeff Boettner

Quoting Neil Jones <ne...@nwjones.demon.co.uk>:

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "MassLep" group.
> To post to this group, send email to mas...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> masslep+u...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/masslep?hl=en.
>
>

[pavu...@aol.com]

Likewise, thanks Neil for enlightening us on this case once again.  Kral's poaching is well known among lepidopterologists and butterfliers alike.  His poaching is unforgivable.  It was also a landmark in the bad press that lepidopterologists received after this well-publicized case.

 

Neil missed my point entirely.  My point is media distortion of facts, not a rehash of Kral's trial.  Kral was not jailed as the article stated and he did not collect the very first known (50) specimens of St. Francis' Satyr to sell them.  Those specimens became his "type series" which now reside in various museums. 

 

Neil, please send your followup to this post to me personally (off-group) before you get us both kicked off the group.  (Sorry, moderator, for ever bringing this up - this is the last you'll hear from me on this.)

Thanks,

Harry