Overcollecting big time!

[Anne Kilmer]

If we could get Dr. McCorkle's intelligence, integrity and sense of
social conscience isolated, and do a bit of gene transfer into some
politicians and businessmen, the leps and the rest of us would be much
better off. 

(I shudder away from such a proposition, really. It's a finger of
speech. ;-))
What a splendid, well-researched, well-thought-out summation of the
situation. 
A bouquet of butterflies to David.
Anne Kilmer
South Florida 

"MCCORKLE, DAVID - Natural Science" wrote:
> 
>                                                                         Feb. 27, 2000
> 
> Mr. Bill Funk, Natural Resources
> USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region
> P.O. Box 3623
> Portland, OR 97208-3623
> 
> Dear Mr. Funk:
> 
> I write in objection to the tussock moth spray program of over one
> half million acres planned for Oregon and Washington this year,
> and especially in objection to the use of Btk spray, documented to
> have serious impact on a broad spectrum of lepidoptera species
> (Miller, 1990).  I have done research on the ecology of several
> species of forest lepidoptera, principally on Mitoura spinetorum and
> M. johnsoni, lycaenid butterflies whose larvae help contain
> infestations of various species of dwarf mistletoes (Arceuthobium)
> (McCorkle, 1973).  Mitoura spinetorum is widespread in the
> proposed spray area and is likely to be in the larval stage from May
> to August depending on the elevation.  For instance, I recorded it in
> the larval stage at Canyon Meadows in the Malheur N.F.
> (T15S,R33E) as follows:  May 25 and July 9 on Arceuthobium
> americanum infesting Pinus contorta, July 9 on A. douglasii on
> Pseudotsuga Menziesii (Douglas Fir), July 6 on A. laricis on Larix
> occidentalis, and Aug 21 (probably a second brood) on A.
> camplylopodum on Pinus ponderosa, these dates on various years.
>  There are also various moth species whose larvae feed on
> Arceuthobium, for instance, the microlepidopteran Dasypga
> alternosquamella, which would likely be affected by a Btk spraying.
> 
> In the absence of quantitative data on the reduced wood fiber
> production caused by an increase in dwarf mistletoe infestation due
> to the destruction of the insects that feed on it by an insecticidal
> spraying, I suppose it would be hard to calculate the significance of
> this factor in determining the degree of economic advantage of your
> spray program.  But it is surely real, and therefore an error in your
> calculations.  Remember too, that dwarf mistletoe infestations may
> have a much extended impact compared to a normal tussock moth
> outbreak, and affect more species of conifers than does the
> tussock moth.
> 
> Due to the chaotic nature of population fluctuations, I suppose it is
> difficult to know the precise causes of any particular tussock moth
> outbreak.  However, because it is a native species well integrated
> into the ecology of our forests, it seems reasonable to assume that
> this natural phenomenon has a function, at least some aspects of
> which could be viewed as positive from a human's perspective.  For
> instance, is this a natural way of selecting against genetically
> inferior tree stock?  Is it a functional way of altering the biotic
> components of ecosystems in shifting ecotone zones?  (Such as
> with global warming?)  If certain tree species are stressed during
> certain weather regimes and are destined to perish, to what extent
> do defoliators such as the tussock moth diminish the danger or at
> least the intensity of forest fires?  And, of course, there is the
> abundance of food provided to insectivores during outbreaks.
> <Apparently, even coho salmon benefit, at least with adult
> budworm moths, as winds carry them offshore and deposit them on
> the ocean surface (Dr. Paul Hammond, OSU Entomology Dept.,
> personal communication).>
> 
> There are many other lepidoptera species severely vulnerable to
> Btk spraying as documented by Miller's work cited above.  This
> can have consequences of both diminished abundance and
> biodiversity.  Presumably, the ecosystem will become even less
> stable as a result, especially if such spraying is a long term policy.
>  Perhaps the loss of biodiversity could be minimized by providing
> spray refugia.  In this sense, the long term health of the forest
> ecosystem would be better served by the area not sprayed rather
> than by the area sprayed!  Thus it would seem reasonable to set
> aside at least one section of each township, to be selected on the
> basis of the degree of biodiversity present.  (John Hinchliff's atlases
> of butterfly distribution in Oregon and Washington, and the data
> base upon which they were made, would be helpful here.  It should
> be noted that the data on which they are based are contributed
> largely by amateur COLLECTORS.)  Such refugia would, obviously,
> also harbor the spray program target species which could then, in
> time, reinvade the sprayed areas along with the non-target species.
>  However, if environmental conditions have changed meanwhile,
> this may not be at outbreak proportions, and the species could
> resume its normal forest ecosytem role.  If, indeed, a new outbreak
> wave results, at least the pesticide companies involved could again
> realize a profit on their investments.
> 
> On another aspect, how is it that "commercial take" of lepidoptera
> has been approved in Washington State?  The impact on
> lepidopteran wildlife of the proposed spray program, which is for
> commercial purposes, will be profound beyond belief!  At the same
> time, apparently the Washington Wildlife Department has a policy
> of denying permits for commercial collecting of insect.  If they have
> not nor do not issue a take permit for your operation, it may be that
> you will be liable for lawsuit.  Should it be that it is reasoned that
> because the killed insects are not sold for profit and, therefore, you
> are not subject to permitting requirements, the policy would be a
> mockery of common sense, if not of reality!  Would that there were
> a commercial industry in lepidoptera specimen sales that
> outweighed the commercial loss of woodfiber production as a
> consequence of not spraying.  The ecosystem would be saved!
> 
> Please reconsider your spray program plans.  At least minimize
> the use of any broad spectrum lepidopteracide such as Btk,
> especially in areas of high biodiversity that could serve as refugia.
> If such areas are not identifiable in all townships, err on the side of
> caution for now and instate a program of survey collecting that will
> be useful in the long term.  And, above all, at least monitor the
> impact of whatever you do on non-target species.  Dr. Jeffery Miller
> informs me that he is ready and willing to further his research in
> this regard if funding is available.
> 
> Thank you for this opportunity for input.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> David V. McCorkle, Ph.D.
> Professor Emeritus of Biology
> Western Oregon University
> 
> References:
> Miller, Jefferey C.  Field Assessment of the Effects of a Microbial
> Pest Control Agent on Nontarget Lepidoptera.  The American
> Entomologist, 36:135-139, Summer, 1990.
> 
> McCorkle, David V.  Final Report, Forest Service Contract No. 19-
> 157, Nov. 1973.  (Abstract enclosed.)