Insect Regulations

[Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX]

I agree with Ken's observations about not unthinkingly extending to insects
the same concepts we use with vertebrates.  I would extend this to
conservation issues because of the following example: (apologies in advance
if my dated information is incorrect); This has to do with Boloria acrocnema
and perceptions/dataless allegations of "intense" collecting pressure as a
justification for listing it as endangered.  I seem to recall reading
something about somebody harvesting 20% of a presumed population in one
season.  Such annual harvest levels for animals with very low reproductive
rates, such as Grizzly bears, would certainly be cause for alarm.  Similar
or even higher harvest rates for animals with high reproductive rates (such
as insects in general and butterflies in particular) is objectively not a
matter of concern. Even some large game animals are harvested at such levels
annually without the population crashing.  A local fish biologist even gave
me an example of a fish stock that is harvested at a level of 70 or so %
annually.  While I fully support reasonable conservation measures; I am
concerned that they are sometimes motivated by reasons other than credible
data and rationalized by biological concerns inappropriately derived from
other taxonomic groups with fundamentally different biologies and ecologies.
A 20% or much higher one season harvest of most insect populations seems to
be very much within the range of natural variability resulting from
stochastic events that have nothing to do with us humans.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kenelm Philip [mailto:fnkwp at aurora.alaska.edu]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 12:43 PM
To: leps-l at lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: Insect Regulations



> But I do think its wierd that some living thin[g]s are protected and some
> aren't. Why should there be rules for warm furry animals and not slimy
> or crunchy ones?

Well, you have to draw the line somewhere, or you get to the scene
where a diner refuses hot sauce because that might annoy his intestinal
flora.  :-)

	More seriously, we protect vertebrates from cruelty because we
think they are similar enough to us to feel pain the way that we do.
As far as I know, it has never been demonstrated that insects have pain
receptors--and the concept of 'cruelty' towards organisms that do not
feel pain is a bit hard to resolve.

	On the other hand, even if insects (or bacteria) _do_ feel pain,
there are problems in treating them like vertebrates. As I mentioned
earlier, what do you do with insects that have to feed on other insects
while they are living? If you don't feed them, you're being cruel to
them--if you do, you're being cruel to their food. And if you object
to being cruel to bacteria, then stop taking hot showers and using soap!
If you worry about plants feeling pain, then how does one anesthetize
a plant so you can eat it without running afoul of PETP?

	Insects are a very different form of life from vertebrates. Perhaps
it is inappropriate to unthinkingly extend to insects the same concepts we
use for other vertebrates...

							Ken Philip
fnkwp at uaf.edu