Checkerspot on the news

Pierre A Plauzoles plauzolesp at bigvalley.net
Sun May 7 14:38:23 EDT 2000


Michael Gates wrote:

> A few comments on a few responses...
>
> Doug Yanega wrote:
> >>Would that be the Chalcedon checkerspot, do you think?
> >
> >No, it would Euphydryas e. editha, known as the Bay Checkerspot
> <snip>
> >Five years with no sightings is certainly possible on an inhabited piece of
> >property, though it all depends on the credibility of the consultants doing
> >the surveys. One certainly does hear of consulting firms who conveniently
> >fail to report positive sightings, or contract out to marginally competent
> >field people who don't do a thorough job of surveying.
>
> I agree 100% Doug.  Some consultants can't help the fact that they don't have
> years of experience with butterflies, but they get permitted for survey work
> and are legitimately trying to increase their knowledge about their natural
> history, etc. Bravo! However, there are slimebags in developers' pockets who
> will say anything for a buck.  It reminds me of a site near Temecula in S.
> Cal.
> two years ago that was surveyed by a "biostitute" who reported that no
> hostplant
> was to be seen for the listed Quino Checkerspot Butterfly.  This site had been
> partially graded. A legitimate biologist went out a few days later (on his own
> dime) and found exceptional hostplant populations growing in and around the
> ruts
> left by the grader! I can confirm this because I saw it a couple days after
> him.
>
> Pierre Plauzoles wrote:
> >the Los Angeles area (Playa Vista, Bel-Air Crest, developments on Palos
> Verdes
> >Paninsula, along Mulholland Highway in the western Santa Monica Mountains,
> in >Santa Clarita and Antelope Valley, etc) that I do tend to be a tad
> skeptical >where developers, their methods and intentions where wildlife
> are concerned
>
> Only a tad skeptical?  I'm downright suspicious! Although the majority of
> developers follow the surveying laws and go through the whole rigamorole,
> it's the few bad apples that casts a foul shadow upon development as a
> whole.  I worked on an absolutely gorgeous site E. of San Diego that had
> been completely denuded of vegetation.  On one side was beautiful coastal
> succulent scrub (with several rare plants I might add) and on the other was
> a bare wasteland.  Of course, they just hired a high-powered attorney to
> fend off USFWS's feeble protests.  In my opinion, the only time that
> developers will care a whit about the environment is when it affects them
> directly. A general example of this is a recent sewage leak in the vicinity
> of Huntington Beach that closed the beach, smelled bad, etc. All the rich
> folks living along the beach brought considerable resources and political
> pressure to bear on the mayor, etc. and the problem was removed from their
> perception and everything goes back to 'normal'.

Good heavens, Mike!!  Can't you see sarcasm when it knocks your head off your
shoulders?  Suspicious?  of course; so am I -- and rightfully *highly* suspicious
at that.  There are just times when I choose to be subtle enough to get people's
fingers doing some walking on their keyboards.  :-)

> >(whether the wildlife be elk, blue butterflies, bats, some flower-loving
> fly or >a rare lizard makes no difference to me.  They all deserve *some*
> attention from >us before we go trashing their homes: we should at least
> make a good faith >effort to find out what is actually "out there" before
> we trash a place.
>
> Yes.  Endangered species are a symptom of what is going wrong,
> environmentally speaking.  Ok, so maybe an endangered fly isn't as sexy as
> some of our rare megafauna that captures the public's heart, but both point
> to the same problem: habitat degradation.  In the US, we focus too much on
> the 'species' that is dying out rather than the 'habitat' in which it
> lives.  Who knows, would more land area be preserved if we tried protecting
> habitats rather than species?

Yes.  I think more species would be preserved, and with less effort per species,
especially if the areas involved were large enough to be truly viable.  One
problem is the encroachment by trucks, cars and buses (and so on) and the
fossil-fuel fumes they generate.  The sooner we see the benefits of rail
electrification and the public transportation improvements that can engender the
better.  People will depend on their private auto less and generate less air
pollution in the process.

> Mike Gochfeld wrote:
> >We are in the process of validating (or invalidating) an EIS submitted
> >for a 50A (20 Ha) plot of second growth woodland.  The EIS was a
> >travesty. It's not surprising that it might have overlooked a threatened
> >species of Skipper (since the listing hadn't occurred yet and the
> >skipper is only active for about two weeks in late summer), but they
> >listed fewer than 20 trees, 20 breeding birds, no herps etc.
> <snip>
>
> >I remember someone once saying that EIS were a deadly enemy because once
> >completed they took on a life of their own and became official,
> >regardless of the credentials of people who challenged them.
>
> True. Part of the problem stems from the bureaucrats who are responsible for
> decisions based upon EILs having no experience and/or training in biological
> issues like endangered species, conservation biology, habitat restoration and
> no desire to improve their knowledge with a little reading.

The same goes for the developers.  Were they to get a knowledge upgrade, they
would then realize that butterfly gardens can be an asset in selling a home.

> Plus, "unfavorable" (read 'preserve habitat') decisions can 'rock the boat'
> and cause friction, something a GS15 might not want to do as it could
> threaten all he has worked so hard for (benefits, fat-cat salary, etc.).

So what else is new?

> On a final note in my diatribe, I'd be interested in knowing what everyone
> thinks about the latest USFWS decision to allow permitted biologists to
> capture, and handle and remove the endangered Quino Checkerspot to
> facilitate identification in areas outside the indicated survey areas
> (ostensibly to allow for increased info. on distribution, undiscovered
> populations etc.)? You can check out their PDF protocol at:
> http://www.r1.fws.gov/text/QCB2000Prtcl.PDF (see pages 6-7).

I think the idea is just a cover for the developer to be able to say it isn't
there, when, in fact, if it is, they just haven't bothered to do their homewirk
right.


More information about the Leps-l mailing list