USDA / USFW Insect Permits

[Paul Cherubini]

Kondla, Norbert wrote:

> As I understand it; some people are arguing that because some
> lawyers say so, the Monarch is a plant pest.  The normal response of human
> society is to take active measures to control plant pests.  I am not aware
> of any efforts to reduce or control the populations of the Monarch so I
> conclude that this butterfly is in fact not a plant pest by any reasonable
> definition of a plant pest.  What social benefit is derived from treating
> the Monarch as a plant pest ?? 

This is exactly the position of some U.S. State Agricultural regulators.

Examples: 

In early Aug 1997 I walked into to the State Agricultural Headquarters
in Olympia, Washington to apply for a permit to ship 1000 tagged
monarchs collected from a fall aggregation site in California to western
and central Washington for a migration study. Eric LeGassa, a State Dept.
entomologist said he thought it was a big stretch of the imagination to
consider the monarch a plant pest and therefore was not going to require
a permit.

In August 1998, Faye Sutherland, a retired school teacher walked into
the State Agricultural Headquarters in Boise, Idaho to see whether or not
they would require a permit if she received 300 tagged monarchs I collected
from a fall aggregation site in California. They said technically she should
get a permit, but would not require one this case because the monarch is not
a known plant pest.

In August 1998 a school teacher near Salt Lake City, Utah called the
State Agricultural Headquarters to see whether or not
they would require a permit if she received 300 tagged monarchs I collected
from a fall aggregation site in California. They told her "as long as it isn't
a plant pest like the gypsy moth, we don't care".

Paul Cherubini