USDA / USFW Insect Permits

[Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX]

Good to know that there is still some common sense in the wacky world we
live in :-) As a person who is a government regulator and has spent much of
his life in that capacity I sometimes cringe from the legal opinions and
interpretations that I encounter.  Standard legal advice to statutory
decision makers in this part of the world is to be mindful of the intent of
the legislation you are working under and remember that the courts normally
interpret the law on the basis of !)stated or implied intent of the
legislators, and 2) how a reasonable person would understand the law

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Cherubini [mailto:cherubini at mindspring.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 11:31 AM
To: leps-l
Subject: Re: USDA / USFW Insect Permits


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