Yukon collecting license

[Kenelm Philip]

> Careful! ...there are at least 6 F&WL "agents?" subscribed  to this list.

As long as you follow the laws, the F&WS does not care whether you _like_
them. I have told a number of F&WS enforcement people to their face that
the 1981 revision of the Lacey Act was a poor law. They tended to agree
with me...  And I'm sure the F&WS doesn't concern themselves with what
Canadians think about US laws (again, as long as they follow them when
in the U.S.).

	Ron Gatrelle quotes from 50 CFR 14:62(b) and asks, since insects
are omitted, why they are being regulated. First point: section 14:62(b)
is concerned with recreational fish, and game mammals or birds, and with
household goods, not with insects.

	Second point: 14:62(b) does indeed say nothing about insects--but
other parts of 50 CFR 14 _do_ include insects. Note this: at the end of
the table of contents for 50 CFR 14 it says: "AUTHORITY: Lacey Act...Lacey
Act Amendment, 1981..." In the 1981 version of the Lacey Act, 'wildlife'
is _defined_ to include all animals, including insects. It is true that
the non-biologically-informed people who drew up this new Lacey Act seem to
have known nothing about more than two kingdoms of life--so one could
have some fun in court attempting to exclude some single-celled 'animals'
from coverage as wildlife. However, arthropods are animals under any
multiple-kingdom scheme I have seen so far. So insects are indeed covered
under 50 CFR except where specifically excluded.

>         (c) Scientific. (We see here a clear recognition that there is
> scientific and recreational "hunting". So the fact that "all" specimens
> have some kind of intrinsic "scientific" value is irrelevant. The central
> issue is PURPOSE of acquirement - scientific or recreational. This applies
> to the Yukon also, as Cris stated, PURPOSE is the determining factor.)

	Purpose does not exempt you from the requirement for Form 3-177,
or from the requirement for export permits from those countries requiring
same. Also, the Lacey Act and the Yukon Scientists and Explorers Act are
so different that one can't generalize from one to the other.

> General. Insects require NO permits to import or export under 50 CFR 14
> unless CITES endangered under 50 CFR 23 or US endangered 50 CFR 17.

	This is true--no import or export _permit_ is required by the
U.S. for insects. Form 3-177 must be filled out, that's all. However,
for any insects being imported, a copy of the export permit from the
country of origin must be present _if_ that country requires an export
permit--and copies of collecting permits from the country of origin
must be present if the insects were taken from controlled areas (as:
National Parks, etc.). It is a _U.S._ Federal crime to import insects
from such countries without those permits. Furthermore, it is _your_
responsibility to ascertain whether such permits are required by the
country of origin. If you ask the F&WS, they may reply that they don't
know.

	Does this make life easier for scientists, or amateurs? Definitely
not. Is this going to go away in the foreseeable future? Not as far as I
can see--the more's the pity.

> 14:16 (c) noncommercial (fish and game). Simply declare at any customs
> station. Again, insects are not specified, and should be assumed to not be
> covered. On Arthropods. The only specified Arthropoda I know of in the CFR
> are aquatic (i.e. shrimp, lobster etc.).

My copy of 50 CFR 14, in 14:16(c), states that "...wildlife lawfully taken
by U.S. residents in the United States, Canada, or Mexico and imported or
exported for noncommercial purposes, may be imported or exported at any
Customs port of entry. Since 'wildlife' specifically includes insects,
insects _are_ specified in this section, and _are_ covered. Thus the
requirement for Form 3-177 when importing insects. (And note that 'lawfully
taken' in Mexico may include a permit, and a hefty fee.)

	There is also the infamous '8 or more' rule, which was added a
few years ago. It states that 8 or more 'similar' specimens created a
presumption of commercial use--and, as Eric Metzler said when this rule
was being considered, 8 specimens of _beetles_ (from different familes)
were considered similar by the person who wrote this rule. The importer
can submit a letter explaining why the assumption of commercial use is
incorrect in this case--one would hope that the letter would be accepted
for scientific and amateur collectors (but realize that exchange/trade of
specimens has been interpreted as a commercial activity).

	The sad fact is that the 1981 revision of the Lacey Act has
created a real morass for insect collectors. We will be standing in
this morass for a long time to come--up to our necks...

	On the other hand, I have found the F&WS enforcement people in
Fairbanks to be very helpful. They seem to be more concerned with people
poaching grizzly bears, moose, and walrus than with scientists importing
legally-taken insects from Canada. So the situation is not totally hope-
less, provided you have the stomach for filling out a few forms.

							Ken Philip
fnkwp at uaf.edu

P.S. I am not a lawyer, and the above is _not_ legal advice--just my
opinion. For more on the topic, see my article 'How to Collect Insects
(Legally) in Alaska' in the News of the Lep. Soc. #3/4 1994. I had that
article vetted by F&WS people, National Park Service people, and the
local BLM office, so it shouldn't be too far out. And a few people sent
me irate letters after reading it, accusing me of 'encouraging the
bastards' by describing the rules. But I fail to see the point of
wandering around collecting bugs in blissful ignorance of laws that
can get you into real trouble.




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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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