Conditions for Overcollecting

[Neil Jones]

In article <200001011616.JAA02304 at trifid.u.arizona.edu>
           jbwalsh at u.arizona.edu "Bruce  Walsh" writes:

> Some of the comments from the US Fish and Wildlife services contained in
> the recent posting (by Neil) on the potential listing of the Sacramento
> Mountains Checkerspot inspired me to think about the parameters underwhich
> overcollecting can be a serious issue.
> 
> I'm interested in the thoughts of others on the Leps-l about which
> factors can make a population vulnerable  to overcollecting.  I'm especially
> interested in examples, either valid or cited by others, where overcollecting
> has caused significant harm to a population.

The obvious example is the well documented one of the New Forest Burnet moth.
Zygaena viciae yetenensis. This was exterminated in the 1920s. The evidence
is overwheming that it was overcollecting that exterminated it.
There is more detail in the archive. Its demise was predicted by the collectors
of the day. There is still a single population of the New Forest Burnet moth
which exists in Argylshire in Scotland. The population is absolutely tiny,
often in single figures and it survived for many years on a single cliff
ledge just a few square metres in size.

> 
> I'm NOT trying to restart the collecting debate, so please let's start
> the last year of the old millennium with a truce on this issue.

GRIN. Don't start that one either. I have seen some terrible flame wars
about when the millennium starts. Of course since there is no year Zero
you are technically correct.


  Rather, I
> think that all sides will agree that there are certainly populations where
> modest collecting has at best a trivial effects.  Likewise, I think all
> sides will agree that there can be conditions underwhich very significant
> collecting can have a serious impact.  What are these conditions?  All
> thoughts are welcome.  You can send them to me or post them for the amusement
> of all of the list.

There is no question that collecting of endangered species should be banned.
No question at all. Endangered species frequently have greedy enemies who
wish to destroy their habitat for personal gain. It is necessary to prevent
them from destroying BOTH the habitat AND the creatures themselves.
Not to do so leaves the species wide open to attack.

(In the case of the Sacramento Mountain's Checkerspot there
are people who wish to turn some of its precious unique habitat into a kiddies
playground.
My own feelings on this is that is like handing a precious and unique art
work like the Mona Lisa over to a five year old with a bunch of crayons in
his hand to use for drawing practice.)

> 
> Peace
> 
> Bruce
> 
> 

-- 
Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.nwjones.demon.co.uk/
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog
National Nature Reserve