Checkerspots and Paul Cherubini

[Neil Jones]

In article <3942D8B2.5610 at mindspring.com>
           cherubini at mindspring.com "Paul Cherubini" writes:

> Now imagine how much trouble I'd be in if I suggested that the underlying
> reason why the http://www.wildlifewebsite.com/ website failed to disclose the 
> fact of the Quino checkerspots' abundance in Mexico was because 
> it would defuse public concern, hence lead to less grants and donations? 
> People would be furious over my suggestion that a conservation website 
> was not telling the whole truth in order to raise the maximum amount money
>  (i.e. put profit ahead of truth). A double standard as I see it.
> 
> Paul Cherubini

You have on several occasions made similar statements about organisations
and respected scientists. I believed them to be mere conspiracy theorising
and without foundation. In this case I am certain.

The reason that http://www.wildlifewebsite.com "failed to disclose the fact
of the Quino checkerspot's abundance in Mexico" is because the  author
of the article concerned i.e. ME  checks his facts. The sightings to which
you referred are MISTAKEN. The Quino Checkerspot is NOT abundant in Mexico.

I have now taken the time to double check what my face to face conversations
with US several experts had told me. There have been reports like this before
and they are the result of misidentifications. Quino is regularly reported
when in fact it is chalcedona a commoner species which is being seen. I know
from personal experience that they in the same habitat at the same time and 
are similar in appearance. In fact while there are a few populations of Quino
in Baja California
(i.e for non-americans the Mexican side of the border) they are small. 

Another person said  "only US populations" need to be in trouble to be
listed. This is INCORRECT. Under the US Endangered Species Act, "distinct
population segments" of VERTEBRATES may be listed, but NOT populations of
invertebrates or plants.  Plants and invertebrates must have a scientific
name to be protected under the Endangered Species Act.
To be listed under the Endangered Species Act, a species (or subspecies)
must be "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range."

A threatened species is one that is "likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range."

When the United States Congress wrote the Endangered Species Act, they
specifically stated that ONLY biological and NOT economic data may be
used to determine whether or not to list a species. 

Economic data are taken into consideration for critical habitat. 
Critical habitat is a legal designation that covers areas that are occupied or
unoccupied by the species that are essential for the conservation of the
species which may require special management considerations.
Critical habitat is a legal designation that applies only to US federal
agencies - they can not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. 


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