The dangers of generalizations

[Michael Gochfeld]

Chris Durden wrote: The last thing we need is national regulations, 
written for your neck of the woods, inhibiting our exploration of our 
end of the woods.

I can certainly appreciate that knowledge of fauna and biodiversity is 
different in Texas vs New Jersey. It can be dangerous to generalize.  
Also I don't know much about  Texas butterflies. Everytime I've been 
there it's been either the driest or the coldest or the poorest year.  
Ditto for my visits to California. I should have a plaque on my wall 
saying "you should have been here last year". 

However, I haven't had the impression recently of much action on the 
National Level for listing species.  It seems to be currently a state 
activity. 

I was wondering what species that might be listed in New Jersey (or in 
the northeast), for example, would impact research or collecting in 
Texas. (i.e. a species very rare in one region, but common in another). 

Maybe an interesting exercise would be for people to identify which 
species currently listed by state or by nation, they think are 
inappropriately listed (i.e. listed as endangered when they should be 
threatened or lower, or listed as threatened, special concern, etc, when 
they should be down-graded.

Then it would be interesting to do the converse, but that turns out to 
be quite time-consuming. 

I also thought about Anne Kilmer's example, of being unable to garden 
for Schaus Swallowtail, because people don't want an endangered species 
in their neighborhood.  Most of us have heard of the NIMBY (not in my 
backyard) phenomenon when it comes to the siting of nuclear powerplants, 
hazardous waste sites, shelters for AIDS victims or drug addicts, etc). 

Also we know that many farmers and ranchers are very unhappy at the 
prospect of an endangered species being discovered on their property, 
but I hadn't thought about the good old suburban neighborhood plagued by 
an endangered species. 

Mike Gochfeld