Not allowed to rear local butterflies, WHAT?!

Tish Silberbauer xadeb at magna.com.au
Tue Oct 7 16:24:24 EDT 1997


On Mon, 6 Oct 1997 20:43:22 -0400 (EDT), Pavulaan at aol.com wrote:

>In a message dated 97-10-03 14:54:07 EDT, Paul Weaver writes:
>
><< The local zoo here in the town I live in is setting up a butterfly exhibit
>of local specimens.  They are not allow to breed these butterflies under any
>condition.   >>
>
>WHAT?  When did THIS rule come about?  Who made it?  Who enforces it?
>
>Now I've heard everything.  Paul, tell me this is not so.  If this is true,
>then ultimately any child rearing a caterpillar is breaking the law.  And
>what of it?  Does this rearing restriction apply only to the confines of an
>enclosure, or are they going to restrict butterfly gardens as well?  (God,
>there are Monarchs eating my Milkweeds!  Lock me up, please!).
>
>Are the geniuses at the USDA behind this one or is this a STATE thing?  Maybe
>Bob Flanders could explain this one to us? (And please, like Paul asked, no
>web sites.)
>
>Not being allowed to rear local butterflies?  Where is this going to end?  My
>congressman is going to get an earful now.
>
>Harry Pavulaan
>
Whilst I have no knowledge of the US laws in regards to rearing or
holding various lep species, this situation has occurred in the state
of Queensland, Australia, where efforts to conserve and encourage
urban populations of the magnificent Richmond Birdwing (Ornithoptera
richmondia) have been severely hampered by ill-conceived laws which
prevent the transfer, holding and re-release of any stages of this
species.  Various workers in Brisbane, Qld. have been encouraging
schools to start planting the appropriate species of native
Aristolochia in suburban gardens to encourage the recolonisation of O.
richmondia into these regions, but are hampered by the requirements
for a permit at every stage.  One of the very evident sources of
mortality of this species are large ants (Myrmecia sp.) attacking
larvae.  If you were to move larvae or eggs from a plant next to a
Myrmecia nest and place them on a safer plant you would be breaking
the law.  I know this sounds totally unbelievable, but developers who
wish to develop in areas where the food plant is present are still
doing so quite freely and legally.  Likewise, if you were to breed
through a cohort, and then release them in a re-vegetated area of
Brisbane without an appropriate permit, you would be breaking the law.

All this for no point.  Collectors have never threatened this species,
there is no evidence of collecting being a problem, and the very
process of strengthening  _existing native_ populations (just so we
don't get caught up in the Monarch release argument :-). ) is
discouraged.  The most frightening part is that whilst these laws are
relatively easy to enact, they are much much harder to dissolve....

Now a sensible law would call the the declaration of "noxious" status
for  introduced Aristolochia vines which attract oviposition, but do
not support larval growth.  A sensible law would prevent development
in areas where the native food plants occur.  Not in Qld.

Dave B.
David R. Britton & Tish Silberbauer
Wollongong, Australia
email:xadeb at magna.com.au
Dave's work email: davidb at uow.edu.au


More information about the Leps-l mailing list