Cloudcroft checkerspot listing

Chris J. Durden drdn at mail.utexas.edu
Sun Jan 9 02:43:39 EST 2000


>Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2000 01:28:51 -0600
>To: Norbert.Kondla at gems3.gov.bc.ca
>From: "Chris J. Durden" <drdn at mail.utexas.edu>
>Subject: Re: Cloudcroft checkerspot listing
>In-Reply-To: <60F1FEB31CA3D211A1B60008C7A45F43088F23E7 at blaze.bcsc.gov.bc.ca>
>
>Good qustions. Would someone with the answers please post them. I would
like to develop some respect for the findings and confidence in the process.
>.......Chris Durden
>
>At 01:14  7/01/00 -0800, you wrote:
>>I recently read the Federal Register finding which was kindly posted on this
>>discussion group. Here are my observations:
>>- it is unclear what this has to do with the taxon proposed for listing but
>>the document alleges general overcollection of butterflies in the general
>>area. Q. Does anyone have any data to support this allegation ? Of course
>>some people would argue that any collection is overcollection but I am
>>curious about the data supporting the allegation and also what level of
>>collecting is used to distinguish between overcollecting and other
>>collecting in that part of the world. I note with curiosity that a closure
>>order on collecting was implemented due to "the threat of overcollection" Q.
>>So what has been going on here, was there overcollection or merely a
>>perceived threat.
>>-the document references possible effects of road reconstruction; I am not
>>familiar with the ecology of the Penstemon species used by cloudcrofti but I
>>am aware of two cases in western Canada where disturbance by road
>>construction has actually caused massive increase in the local Penstemon
>>species and likely corresponding increase in both E. anicia helvia and E.
>>chalcedona paradoxa as a result ( I note that I do not have predisturbance
>>data for comparison but when butterflies are swarming around larval food
>>plants that are unnaturally abundant, one can suspect a cause and effect
>>relationship)
>>-the document points out that specimens of other subspecies of E. anicia (a
>>common and widespread taxon in western North America) have been offered for
>>sale. Q. So what and what does this have to do with the status of
>>cloudcrofti; is there any data to suggest that cloudcrofti is threatened by
>>commercial collecting ??
>>-the document speculates about likely high interest in the taxon and
>>apparent low numbers. Q. where is the data for this speculation; have any
>>population estimates been made during the normal natural population
>>fluctuations that occur over time ??
>>-the document drones on about high prices for prized species, Q. So what,
>>has anyone actually ever bought or sold even a single cloudcrofti specimen
>>for a 'high price'
>>-has anyone done any surveys to find out what the actual distribution of
>>cloudcrofti actually is ? or will a listing decision be made on the skimpy
>>information in the said document with its very curious commentary about
>>collecting and collectors. I honestly hope that a decision will be made on
>>much better data and less biased verbiage than what appears in the federal
>>register. Flame away if you disagree- but if this were brought to me for
>>either signature or statutory decision; I would laugh the authors out of the
>>room and suggest they come back with an objective assessment based on data..
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>Norbert Kondla  P.Biol., RPBio.
>>Forest Ecosystem Specialist, Ministry of Environment
>>845 Columbia Avenue, Castlegar, British Columbia V1N 1H3
>>Phone 250-365-8610
>>Mailto:Norbert.Kondla at gems3.gov.bc.ca
>>http://www.env.gov.bc.ca
>>
>>


More information about the Leps-l mailing list