USDA / USFW Insect Permits

[Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX]

Indeed there does seem to be some inconsistency in the posture of some
government regulators.  This is not surprising; my experience is that it
happens quite frequently.  Risk assessment is a good sense thing to do in
making decisions; unfortunately things get out of hand when some people
conjure up implausible or vague "risks" on the basis of emotion and personal
values.  I am still puzzled by the notion of butterflies as "plant pests"
and hence the need for government regulation under this umbrella.  I thought
that other legislation dealing with wildlife more than adequately provides a
safety net for endangered organisms. Did the elected politicians really
intend for bureaucrats to harass taxpayers about non-plant pests.  Legal
opinions are useful for statutory decision makers but such opinions are not
always upheld by the courts when rendering their interpretation of the law.
A reasonable person would examine this issue from the perspective of intent
behind the legislation and what useful purpose is served by a particular
interpretation - other than creating work for public servants.

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Cherubini [mailto:cherubini at mindspring.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 7:11 PM
To: leps-l at lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: USDA / USFW Insect Permits


Dr. Wayne Wehling of the USDA wrote:

> Regarding Paul's comments about the USDA singling "out "warm and 
> fuzzy" insects like butterflies for permit compliance while ignoring less
> romanticized insects like ladybird beetles"; no we did not single out 
> butterflies, however, the USDA has the authority to remove from 
> regulation insects that are no longer considered to require regulation
> or oversight.  We have done this for ladybird beetles and a bunch 
> of biocontrol agents.

Anne Kilmer responded:

> I thought the ladybirds were indeed regulated ... a couple years ago
> there was discussion of releasing California ladybugs in Florida (all
> with the best possible intentions, of course) and we were assured that
> a) a permit was needed and b) one would not be granted.
> Surely ladybug releases are limited to species indigenous to the area?

According to an Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet 
http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~ohioline/hyg-fact/2000/2002.html, ladybug
dealers collect TENS OF MILLIONS of these beetles from summer
and winter aggregation sites in California's mountains and ship
them around the nation. This is done in the name of organic pest control,
but the Ohio State report states "this is probably is not a very good
practice." 

How concerned is the USDA about the 8-fiqure quantity of ladybugs
being harvested from the wild and the problem of their ineffectiveness
as predators of aphids and mites in oreganic home gardens  (because they are

collected in an unhungry, physiologically dormant state)?  Wayne Wehling
explained USDA's position earlier today:

"the USDA has the authority to remove from 
regulation insects that are no longer considered to require regulation
or oversight.  We have done this for ladybird beetles".

Now consider USDA's highly concerned reaction in Sept. 1997 when I
collected a highly romanticized insect - the monarch - from a fall
aggregation site 
in California and tagged and shipped 1000 of them to Washington State 
for release as part of a migration study:  Dr. Robert Flanders 
of the USDA wrote the following in regard to this release on the dplex-list 
in Sept. 1997:

"In this particular example, how can the results of the tagging be
analyzed when the adult monarchs have been artificially transported
several hundred miles from their original, natural location? Was this
a legitimate scientific or educational endeavor? Were the
actual and potential risks acceptable relative to the apparent benefits?"

It is clear to me the USDA has a double standard. Colorful, romanticized
butterflies are subject to strict permit requirements, enforcement standards
and risk assessments based on concerns such as co-transport of diseases,
parasites,
genetically distinct subpopulations, appropriate uses of the organism, etc.

This level of concern and scrutiny for drab colored moths and beetles seems 
much less and many species appear headed for regulation exemptions.

Below is more information on the ladybird beetle harvesting that I copied
from the Ohio State Report:

"Collecting Beetles in California Mountains"

"It is in the mountains that dealers collect the beetles they sell. The
reason for
this is that the beetles congregate in huge numbers in colonies or aggregate
in the same sites year after year. Some colonies have been reported to
contain
as many as 500 gallons of beetles. A gallon of beetles contains from 72,000
to 80,000 adults" 

"Behavior of Mountain Collected Beetles"

"The beetles released in the summer do not disperse any great distance,  
They will drink water, but have no appetite since they apparently are able
to exist 
on their stored fat. Thus, summer-collected beetles cannot be relied upon
to control insect pests any more  than those collected in winter." 

"Collected in Winter or Early Spring and Released in Spring"

"The release made in the spring months usually involves beetles collected
from the mountain aggregations in December, January, February,  When
winter-collected beetles from the mountains are released, they are apt to 
disperse quickly and widely, especially when the temperature reaches 65F 
and above. As a  consequence, only a few beetles may remain in the area 
where liberated. Thus, the beetles cannot be relied upon to control a
potentially growing aphid population." 

"Purchased Beetles Sometimes Mean Unwise Investment"

"There is no denying that lady beetles are beneficial insects, and are good
to have around. It seems that the foregoing information clearly points
out that to use shipped-in beetles in your backyard to economically manage 
pest insects probably is not a very good practice."

Paul Cherubini