Yukon collecting license

[Ron Gatrelle]

I actually like the idea of "licenses". Here are my pros and cons. There
are two basic cons. One is simply that allowing government to have power
(control) will inevitably mean more control which will become too narrow
and restrictive. The second is simply that allowing government to have
power (control) will ditto. (By the way, I agree with Cris that this is a
miss application of this statute. But what is worse is if it is allowed to
stand it will stick.

The pros (in US). First, the point mentioned below by Cris that this could
help US collectors in our screwy import/export mess. Second, and this is my
main reason for jumping in, is that I have long felt that it is unlawfully
discriminatory against butterfly "hunters" to not even have the opportunity
for a "bug hunting" license for National Parks and Refuges where animal,
bird and fish hunters all have that opportunity - and many refuges (like
_our_ National Forests) are managed (operated) mostly for the sake of the
lumber industry.

Why is it not a violation of my civil rights to be discriminated against
just because my "game" of choice is bugs? The only reason the fisherman,
duck, bear, and elk hunters are not poachers is that they have a license.
Bug hunters are relegated to the back of the bus. This water fountain is
not open to us. EITHER LET ALL HUNTERS IN OR KEEP EM ALL OUT. These areas
belong to the people not the government. Are not bug hunters just as much
the people as duck hunters? (Government is the caretaker as the people's
representative - not the owner.)

Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cris Guppy or Aud Fischer" <cguppy at quesnelbc.com>
To: <leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 2:13 AM
Subject: Re: Yukon collecting license


> Personally, as someone who is a government bureaucrat in Canada, I doubt
> very much that the present interpretation of the Act would stand up in
> court. The Act specifically refers to "scientific and exploration
purpose".
> The key therefore is the PURPOSE of the butterfly collecting, and the Act
> simply does not apply to collection of butterflies for hobby or
commercial
> purposes. It is irrelevant that all specimens have scientific value, it
is
> the purpose for which the specimens are collected that matters.  If the
> Yukon or Canadian governments want the Act to apply to those purposes
they
> should amend the Act, not try to warp its meaning through bureaucratic
> interpretations.
>
> That said, it is apparently easy enough to get a permit. As long as all
that
> is wanted is a list of what is collected, then why not get the permit?
> Especially American collectors, since you have to worry about the "legal
> collection" interpretations of your own Customs agents.
>
> Regarding "need" for the permits. Of course there is no need for them,
> except as a mechanism for government to track collecting activities.
There
> are no species listed as being of conservation concern in the Yukon (nor
> should there be). A couple collecting sites MAY have excessive collecting
> pressure on them (Keno Hill, Windy Pass), but there is absolutely no
> evidence that this possibility is at all real.
>
> Cris Guppy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kenelm Philip" <fnkwp at aurora.alaska.edu>
> To: <leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 9:55 PM
> Subject: Re: Yukon collecting license
>
>
> >
> > > I cannot imagine this occurring in the Yukon Territory, an area so
wild,
> > > huge, and so sparsely populated.  What sparked this?  Do I have the
> > > wrong perception of the Yukon Territory?
> >
> > Here's a little background. The Yukon's Scientists and Explorers Act is
> not
> > something brand new. It has been in force since 1958. There is a
similar
> > act applying to the Northwest Territories, but I do not know the
situation
> > in the new territory of Nunavut.
> >
> > For a long time, amateur collectors have been assuming that this
> > Act applied only to scientists, and not to them. Even Canadians have
made
> > this assumption, and there has been some discussion about this on
Leps-L
> > in the past.
> >
> > There was a problem recently at Keno Hill, where the residents of
> > Keno became unhappy with some Japanese collectors, and jumped to the
con-
> > clusion that they were collecting commercially and reducing the
population
> > of arctic species that fly in tundra on the hilltop. Some Keno
residents
> > thought that the butterflies on the hill were unique to Keno Hill, and
> > were thus reasonably concerned about the impact of large numbers of
> > collectors.Their complaints got some YT government people involved in
an
> > attempt to a) find out more about the Keno Hill butterflies (all of
which
> > fly elsewhere in the Yukon), and b) figure out exactly what the
applica-
> > bility of the Scientists and Explorers Act might be to collecting
insects
> > in general by anyone. The paragraph I posted on 9 Feb. is the result of
> > their deciding about the overall applicability of the Act: It applies
to
> > _everyone_, Canadian, foreigner, scientist, amateur, or commercial
> > collector.
> >
> > As for any perceptions people may have had of the wild, huge, and
> > sparsely populated Yukon Territory--remember that this is not the U.S.
> This
> > is Canada, eh?
> >
> > Ken Philip
> > fnkwp at uaf.edu
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  ------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
> >
> >    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
>    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
>


 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl