Listing vs restricting collecting

[Cris Guppy & Aud Fischer]

A key issue that non-Canadians may not be aware of is that there are NO laws
in Canada requiring the protection of the habitat of a species of
conservation concern. The Ontario law, no matter how well meant, will
therefore have absolutely no effect on the conservation of any butterfly
species. Until Ontario, and the rest of Canada, passes legislation requiring
habitat protection there will be no meaningful protection of butterflies no
matter how much collecting is forbidden.

The only possible exception in Ontario is the Karner Blue, which has been
extirpated from Ontario (and therefore Canada) due to habitat degredation.
Should it be re-introduced, or a remnant population found, population size
and the area of suitable habitat will be sufficiently small that collecting
could have an adverse effect on the population.

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris J. Durden <drdn at mail.utexas.edu>
To: leps-l at lists.yale.edu <leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
Date: August 30, 1999 7:37 AM
Subject: Re: Listing vs restricting collecting


>  I have no problem with listing a species on a watch list to promote
>additional research and to foster concern for preserving its habitat. I do
>question the practice of turning this listing around in such a way as to
>inhibit research on the listed species and its use in education,
>recreation and art.
>  Perhaps requiring an annual national permit to take, with a carefully
>compiled, justified and reviewed list of prohibited species would suffice
>to weed out the unscrupulous greedy individuals who are bent on genocide.
>We have hunting and fishing permits that people respect. We have the sale
>of "duck stamps". We have large protected reserves like the venerable
>Yellowstone National Park, and many National Forest Wilderness Areas, and
>State Parks in which fishing is permitted by fishing permit.
>  Perhaps it is time to promote a national "butterfly stamp" program. Any
>collector of butterflies must buy a federal stamp to be signed and carried
>while collecting. Convicted poachers should be prohibited from buying a
>stamp until rehabilitated. Others could buy the stamps to promote research
>on listed species and their habitat conservation.
>  I would hate to see this introduced at other than the Federal level, but
>I suppose in this states-rights-concious country this would be inevitable.
>Perhaps the initial offering of "butterfly stamp" regulated collecting
>could take place on Native American Land. A number of tribal lands already
>issue their own "duck stamps".
>  A "butterfly stamp" would allow the bearer to carry a butterfly net with
>some protection against arbitrary harrassment by local enforcement
>officers. It would provide wildlife authorities with a means determining to
>whom to distribute information about changes in regulations, something they
>do not accomplish well today. It would also facilitate a self
>identification of the special interest group involved and allow  collectors
>to organize to influence the design of regulations and to challenge those
>that are ill-advised.
>  I do not think that it should be necessary to carry a "butterfly stamp"
>to collect springtails or pseudoscorpions, but if your research or hobby
>involves carrying an insect net it might prove practical to buy a
>"butterfly stamp" anyway. I think this approach would be far superior to
>the existing regulations developed in such interesting areas as southern
>Florida.
>..........Chris Durden
>
>
>At 07:50  30/08/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>It is easy for regulators accustomed to dealing with birds and mammals
>>to confuse the difference between listing a species as threatened or
>>endangered and restricting collecting.  It's probably also easy for us
>>who study leps to do the same.
>>
>>There are important reasons for listing a species as threatened or
>>endangered, but it just so happens that existing regulations on
>>threatened and endangered status carry proscriptions regarding
>>collecting and possession.  In my view the important thing to consider
>>is that the regulations are not PRIMARILY to restrict collecting, but is
>>what lepidopterists find galling.  The developers on the other hand,
>>find that the regulations require them to set aside land, to mitigate,
>>or can actually halt development.
>>
>>It would be possible (and NJ is grappling with this now), to list a
>>species as threatened and allow certain permitted collecting.  This
>>obviously would NOT fly for an endangered listing (except for unusual
>>circumstances).
>>
>>If we can not list a species as threatened we can not use existing laws
>>to preserve its habitat, so there would not be anything left to collect
>>in a few years, anyway.
>>
>>So it's not that the collecting would eliminate the population.  Indeed,
>>I would say that it is irrelevant whether collecting would eliminate the
>>population.
>>
>>However, I would also counter the oft-expressed view that butterflies
>>can't be overcollected.  As they become rarer and their value increases,
>>there are commercial pressures to collect them for sale or trade. People
>>who we like to refer to as "unscrupulous" will return day after day or
>>week after week to collect as many as they can.  Although serious
>>lepidopterists (such as people on this list) probably don't engage in
>>such commercial exploitation, it is naive to assume that this doesn't
>>happen.
>>
>>Serious investigators (whether professional or amateur) can "usually"
>>get permits to study and collect some listed species (and in NJ we are
>>supporting the collection of voucher specimens for endangered species),
>>to support the protection of their habitat.
>>
>>Mike Gochfeld
>>
>>Mike Gochfeld
>>
>>
>
>