Collecting Permit Ideas

[Mark Walker]

Another response to Doug Yanega:

I'm not sure why you are so bent on this "no free Lep" thing, but I can live
without an explanation for that.  I would like to respond to some of your
most recent points, however:

>Look at it from the point of view of the host country; (1) is it practical
>to impose any sorts of restrictions on WHAT is collected? Not without
>professional entomologists who examine all material collected to make the
>IDs, and can separate things allowed from things not allowed. (2) Is it
>practical to limit the NUMBER collected? Not without someone whose job is
>counting the specimens when the collector leaves. (3) Is it practical to
>restrict WHERE things are collected? Not without staff at all restricted
>areas who are authorized to search people.
>        Note that ALL this applies WITH a permitting process. It is not
>practical to implement piecemeal restrictions, unless someone is willing to
>shell out the money for the personnel and equipment involved.

I think you are overexaggerating the need for a huge infrastructure.  What
I'm considering would not provide much in the way of enforcement,  and as
such would not solve any of the problems associated with illegal activity
(other than crimes of ignorance).  The solution to illegal commercial
exportation WOULD require large public funding, and would probably be
implemented (sadly) by an inefficient bureaucracy.   From the reports we're
hearing, there is already some such enforcement in place in Brazil - the
decision to fund having already been made.

>At least in
>Brazil, there are no professional entomologists working for any government
>agencies whose services could be co-opted for confirming IDs on a
>spur-of-the-moment basis, likewise no staff free to be moved out to
>national parks to police illegal collecting there, and you don't go through
>customs when *leaving* the country, so you'd have to move someone out and
>set up shop in the airport. That aspect alone - about customs searches only
>being done at the time of arrival at one's destination, rather than when
>one leaves - makes it almost impossible to enforce anything *except* for a
>total ban on anything without a bill of sale (because there is *definitely*
>no way that the customs officials at all of the countries one can fly to
>*from* Brazil will have the time or personnel to check that the conditions
>of one's Brazilian permit have all been met).

You see, you emphasize the enforcement issue.  Bad people are going to
continue to do bad things because they don't feel accountable to governments
or anyone else.   What I'm talking about is a service to accomodate
law-abiding and environmentally concerned individuals who are interested in
collecting common species.  Even if there were no enforcement at all, I
believe that such people would respect any restrictions or regulations that
were conveyed in the permit and refuse to collect threatened species or go
into areas that are off-limits.  Capturing anyone bent on violating or
abusing such a process would require no more enforcement than what is
already in place.

In fact, you could argue that the cost of such enforcement would probably
decrease, since many would not require prosecution.

>>You don't need a bureaucracy to implement such a permitting process.
>
>How can you possibly do it without a bureaucracy?

See above.

>

It wouldn't necessarily require a staff of entomologists, but rather a
person to keep and manage a database.
>> The
>>whole point is not to police who's coming in and what's going out, but
>>rather to provide a process which (at a minimum):
>>
>>1.  Generates records of who's coming in explicitly for this purpose.
>
>Who keeps the records? That involves bureaucracy.

A warm body with a computer and a database.  I'm sure there are plenty of
these already available.

>
>>2.  Distinguishes those who are attempting to act within the law from
those
>>who are not.
>
>Who defines the law? Ditto.

Aren't there are already laws?  If not, I'm sure there's no shortage of
legislators looking for something to do.  O.K., cynicism aside, no added
personnel required.

>
>>4.  Provides a mechanism for elucidating rules, restrictions, hazards,
etc.
>
>Who defines these?? Ditto.

Give me a break, how difficult can this be?  I can't believe that a two page
brochure can't be generated and funded by the permit fee (which I'm thinking
would be something on the order of $100 U.S.).  If we need a bureaucracy to
do this, then we've got larger problems than we're discussing here.

>
>>5.  Provides some financial benefits.
>
>Not enough to pay for itself, surely, and also requires a LOT of
>bureaucracy to process the money.

I don't agree with the first point, and processing money is NEVER a problem.

>
>>6.  Encourages the generation and sharing of critical data beneficial to
the
>>incredibly few people who are genuinely interested in the native Lep
>>ecology.
>
>If there are so incredibly few people (and there are), why would any
>country go to this trouble? Further, critical data on native leps *can* be
>generated and shared without a single specimen leaving the country. This
>will not be considered a selling point.

Why would any country go to this trouble?  That is a very sad statement.
Why does any country ever go to any trouble?  Your second point here is also
very negative.  I guess I would argue that there would likely be an increase
in available information if the government would consider a more friendly
policy.

Peace (as long as it doesn't cost me anything?)

Mark Walker.