Ed's query on releases (fwd)

Neil Jones Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk
Mon Sep 29 17:24:12 EDT 1997


Forwarded message follows:
> To: dplex-l at raven.cc.ukans.edu
> Subject: Ed's query on releases
> 
> from: R. M. Pyle
> 
>         Ed Rooney's carefully reasoned and responsible approach to the
> rearing/releasing question is much appreciated.  Ed, "butterfly ranching"
> has a long and honorable history.  L. Hugh Newman reared British butterflies
> for sale for decades, supplying, among others, Winston Churchill with scores
> of peacock butterflies (_Aglais io_) for release at garden parties.
> Churchill struggled with his gardeners to maintain nettles for their larvae.
> But peacocks occur throughout Britain.  When Newman "got his knickers in a
> twist," as the Brits say, was when he advocated importing Continental
> species into the British fauna!  This resulted in a nationwide policy
> calling for no releases out of range.
>         In the late seventies, I worked for the Wildlife Dept. of the Gov't
> of Papua New Guinea, developing the butterfly ranching program as a means of
> augmenting local habitats with hostplant culture and providing an
> alternative income for villagers, so that they could resist logging and oil
> palm plantations and protect their local rainforests.  But they never sold
> livestock for release elsewhere.  Since then, the PNG program has become a
> model for butterfly farming/ranching programs over much of the tropical
> world, providing income for people and livestock for butterfly houses in the
> North.  This happy marriage is NOT involved in releases of butterflies out
> of range, and USDA-APHIS makes sure of this.
>         Karen O., in her good posting, made the critical point with the word
> LOCAL:  I don't think anyone objects to releasing live butterflies that have
> been reared from local stock, if done under proper conditions to give the
> releasees a chance to survive.  "Within the native geographic range" isn't
> good enough, since butterflies have patchy distribution, differing
> subspecies, diseases, and so on.  For example, transferring _Speyeria cybele
> cybele_ from Virginia, say, to Olympia, Wash., where _S. cybele pugetensis_
> occurs, could cause some real confusion.  They're all "great spangled
> fritillaries," and then, they're not.  Sticking with genuinely local
> material is the safe way to go.
>         I can't tell where you are from, but a good practice is to check
> with your state or regional lepidopterists' association and find out about
> their atlasing project and how you could avoid interfering with that (a kind
> of collegial consultation that Mr. Schnauber seems averse to).  As Karen
> suggests, state lines make useful guidelines, and your idea for smallness is
> commendable, too.  Go from here: the ideal is for children to gather larvae
> in their own school's vicinity, rear them, and release the adults in the
> same habitats.  This isn't always practical, but perhaps that is what we
> should seek to match as closely as possible. (Karen, could that Virginia
> teacher be encouraged to go out and find local larvae, or to contact
> dplexers in her area who could help her to do so?)  "Transportation" is the
> main problem here, and should always be minimized.
>         Thanks for your thoughtful query on behalf of the "wee beasts," Ed.
> I hope this helps.  
> 
> Bob Pyle
> 
> (The above is in response to:
> >   I have a few questions for the list members concerning this and other
> >releases of transported butterflies. etc.Respectfully,Ed Rooney.)
>   
> 
> 

-- 
Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk "The beauty and genius of a work of art
may be reconceived, though its first material expression be destroyed; a
vanished harmony may yet again inspire the composer; but when the last
individual of a race of living things breathes no more another heaven and
another earth must pass before such a one can be again." William Beebe


More information about the Leps-l mailing list