Butterflies (3 spp.) and the F&WS

Mon Sep 3 16:01:36 EDT 2001

With regard to anyone having the 'right' to do whatever they darn well
want to, simply because for a short, very short, segment of evolutionary
time they happen to have been 'given' a so called 'right' by only one of
many other species on this planet (which has, by the way, evolved to its
present evolutionary development in a relatively short evolutionary
period of time) it seems to me that there must be some sort of
compromise made of this so called 'right'.  My feelings on this stem
from the following events.

I own property near Prescott, Arizona.  When I constructed on it I
consciously made an effort to disturb the land as little as possible.  I
love to see the quail, rabbits, horned toads, tarantula's, blue birds,
road runners, insects, etc., and above all the butterflies in my living
area.  I did not want this to disappear.  This is a high desert area,
but I really like the grassy shrub oak terrain, and like to hear and see
the wind blowing the grass.  Recently, a neighbor bought the property
next to me and then proceeded to bulldoze all the the surface of over
two acres of land.  There was no apparent reason to do this.  He will
not actively use this area, but I imagine to him he has 'improved' the
property.  To me it is an eye sore, and in the process of bulldozing his
land he has destroyed the habitat of many vertebrate and invertebrate
species.  

Another neighbor near me who moved in about two years ago proceeded to
again defoliate and make barren the acres him and his wife owns.  First
they fenced it in, and then his wife spent weeks actually BY HAND
pulling the natural vegetation (they look upon natural vegetation as
'weeds' - really weird) on this 2+ acre parcel of land.  When that did
not work because of regrowth, they then hauled in truck loads of sand to
cover the area in the hope that that will keep these so called 'weeds'
down.  These people are absolutely insane!!!!

I see this kind of stuff over and over in the area of my property.  I
consider it paradise, but it seems like most property owners do not see
this or do not have any appreciation of nature.  They seem to be
motivated by some misguided value that if they haven't scarred and
mauled their property sufficiently, they may not be looked upon
favorably by their neighbors.  If they are not well-to-do enough to own
a small dozer, they get out their weed eater on a Sunday to mow down
these so called 'weeds'.  All these activities go way-way beyond fire
safety considerations.  They seem to consider 'nature' as an enemy, and,
thus, are themselves enemies of nature.  Give man/woman the means, and
they will use these means to destroy, e.g., if the two property owners I
mentioned could not have afforded a small dozer, or pay to have it done,
it would not be done.  What the ability to blast and destroy the
mountainous area near Prescott is doing to the beauty of the area to
simply put in a Wall Mart, or some other shopping center, instead of
being more environmentally conscious, is another story.

Because I see this over and over, it does seem to me that there needs to
be some compromise made to this so called 'right', which most interpret
as a god given 'right', or some kind of 'right' in the sense of a
natural law.  I am continually dumbfounded over the way people destroy
the natural treasures they have.  With respect to the property owner
near Cloudcroft, based on the prevalent human behaviour I have observed
around my property, it seems safe to predict that the owner will scrape,
scar, and destroy much more habitat than necessary to use the land as
he/she wants to use it.

Stan

David Smith wrote:
> 
> Hello,
>     What everyone seems to overlook in these debates is that someone owns
> the land that you are talking about and very reasonably has plans for it. If
> that person cannot use the land in the way that they want to then the
> government should reemburse him (or her) for their loss. That is the way
> things have historically worked (at least in the U. S.) and that is the only
> honest way to do it. If the government does not reemburse the owner then
> they are thieves. Why should one person or organisation bear the burden of
> preserving a species, subspecies, or local population of an organism? Don't
> get me wrong, I am in favor of habitat preservation but I don't think
> another should bear the burden for what I want done.
>             David Smith
> "Mike Quinn" <Mike.Quinn at tpwd.state.tx.us> wrote in message
> news:22D91ED6CCEED311BED1009027A8F72CD1A3A2 at tpwd-mx1.tpwd.state.tx.us...
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: NEWS at fws.gov [mailto:NEWS at fws.gov]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 1:03 PM
> > To: fws-news at lists.fws.gov
> > Subject: [fws-news] SERVICE, CONSERVATION GROUPS REACH AGREEMENT TO LIST
> > NEW SPECIES UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
> >
> >
> > **************************************************************
> > This message is from the fws-news listserver.
> > **************************************************************
> >
> > Chris Tollefson 202-208-5634
> >
> >      SERVICE,  CONSERVATION GROUPS REACH AGREEMENT
> >      TO  LIST NEW SPECIES UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
> >
> > Interior Secretary Gale Norton today announced that the U.S. Fish and
> > Wildlife Service  and several conservation organizations have reached an
> > agreement in principle that will enable the Service to complete work on
> > evaluations of numerous species proposed for listing under the Endangered
> > Species Act.
> >
> > Under this agreement with the Center for Biological Diversity, Southern
> > Appalachian Biodiversity Project, California Native Plant Society, and the
> > Biodiversity Legal Foundation, the Service will issue final listing
> > decisions for 14 species and propose eight more species for listing. The
> > Service also will be able to take action on four citizen petitions to list
> > species under the Act.   The Service and the organizations have agreed to
> > extend deadlines for eight other critical habitat designations, thereby
> > making funds available for these actions.
> >
> > <snips>
> >
> > Carson wandering skipper (Nevada and California): Emergency Listing
> >
> > This species of skipper butterfly, Pseudocopaeodes eunus, is the only one
> > in it genus.  It is found locally distributed in grassland habitats on
> > alkaline substrates in Nevada and California.  The skipper depends on
> > saltgrass communities with a freshwater source nearby to support nectar
> > sources.  This subspecies is threatened by habitat fragmentation,
> > degradation, and loss primarily due to agriculture, livestock grazing, and
> > urban development. Non-native plant invasion and impacts from proposed
> > water development projects which can alter local hydrology are also
> > threats.  The genus of skipper butterfly is believed to include five
> > subspecies: One of the subspecies, P. e. obscurus,  currently found in
> only
> > two populations, one in Washoe County, Nevada and the other in Lassen
> > County, California.  A third population of P.e. obscurus  known from
> Carson
> > City, Nevada is believed to have been extirpated from that site in recent
> > years.
> >
> >
> > Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly (New Mexico): Proposed Listing
> > Rule
> >
> > The Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly is restricted to the
> > vicinity of  Cloudcroft in the Sacramento Mountains in Otero County, New
> > Mexico.  The species is threatened by destruction and fragmentation of
> > habitat from private and commercial development, habitat degradation and
> > loss of host plants from grazing, encroachment of conifers and non-native
> > vegetation into non- forested openings, over-collection, and, due to its
> > limited range, vulnerability to local extirpations from extreme weather
> > events or catastrophic wildfire including fire suppression activities.
> >
> > Miami blue butterfly (Florida): 90-day Finding
> >
> > The Miami blue is a small butterfly with bright blue forewings on both
> > sexes, a wide dark outer border on the forewing in females, and an
> > orange-capped eyespot on the hindwing.  This subspecies once occurred from
> > mainland peninsular Florida, as far north as Hillsborough and Volusia
> > counties, southward to south Florida and the Keys, including the Dry
> > Tortugas.
> >
> >
> ***************************************************************************
> > News releases are also available on the World Wide Web at
> > http://news.fws.gov
> >
> > Questions concerning a particular news release or item of
> > information should be directed to the person listed as the
> > contact. General comments or observations concerning the
> > content of the information should be directed to Mitch Snow
> > (Mitch_Snow at fws.gov) in the Office of Public Affairs.
> >
> > To unsubscribe from the fws-news listserver, send e-mail to
> > fws-news-request at lists.fws.gov. Enter "unsubscribe" in the subject field.
> >
> ***************************************************************************
> >
> >
> >  ------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >    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 