Attn: Dr. Wehling .. Rhode Island

[Jacob Groth]

Hello Dr. Wehling,

Due to the recent shut-down of the farmer's list, I don't know if you got this message, but I'll post it here and Dplex because I am very interested in your answer to my questions.  The following is my email:
--------------------------------------------
Wayne,

I don't know if there are others involved in the decision making or if it just
happens to be you who does all the responding, but I must respectfully 
respond to your latest comments in regards to the RI issue.

The 2nd College Edition of The American Heritage Dictionary states:

"RARE: 1. Infrequently occurring; uncommon. "

I think Paul's use of rare was an entirely appropriate translation of
"sufficiently uncommon."  Even the dictionary agrees since it is listed as
the 1st definition of "rare."  Nevertheless, this is your semantical answer to
our more relevant question of:  "where is the science, facts, and data" that
would support this decision?  We just need some substance to analyze, not 
symantics.

We, as an industry, are getting very tired of hearing from the USDA that "we
must support the state's concerns."  We have followed up all too often with
the state's of concern, such as Florida, and have found that the concerns
have not originated with them, but with the USDA.  We need to hear direct
and honest answers to our questions.  In fact, we demand to hear direct and
honest answers from the Federal Agency that is supported by the tax paying
people and BUSINESSES of this great nation.  FOI requests simply take too
long, but we are willing to go that route if necessary as we have in the
past.

Please remember that Executive Order 12866 states that: "Each agency shall
tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, including
individuals, businesses of different sizes, and other entities (including
small communities and government entities)..."

I find regulations like this that DO CREATE BURDEN ON OUR BUSINESSES justify
a better answer to our concerns.  As the USDA chisels away our ability to do
business, we have the legal and constitutional right to know WHY so that we
can either appeal or simply understand and agree with it.

But, to avoid the question and make an answer based upon the definition of
the word "rare" is not in accordance to the Federal Regulations according to
Executive Order 12866.

Please tell us what these state concerns are.  What evidence do they have
that monarchs "bypass" their state?  Did you look at the map that Paul
supplied?  Why would RI list the monarch as a common butterfly in this map,
but when it comes to our permits, they call it an "uncommon butterfly?"

Didn't you once tell us that the USDA would soon have authority to overrule
state decisions that were not supported scientifically?  Didn't you also
tell us verbally at a conference that you were on "our side" and would help
us through these issues?  Why does it seem so clear that this is not the
case?

Sincerely,
Jacob

> Paul,
>
> Since when does "sufficiently uncommon" = "rare"
>
> Decisions that I make are, and must be, respectful of state concerns.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wayne Wehling
>
> Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 09:50:19 -0800
> From: Paul Cherubini <monarch at saber.net>
> Subject: Rhode Island

> It is not hard to find references that state the Monarch Butterfly is
> common in Rhode Island
> http://www.mindspring.com/~cherubini/rh.jpg
>
> But if the USDA says it is a rare butterfly then we should just
> let that claim go unchallenged because "arguing down" the science
> is pointless. Right?
>
> Paul Cherubini
>
> ************************************************************
> ************************************************************

> Hi Wayne,

Thanks for your response.  Are there any studies or records available to
show that monarchs seem to avoid the state of RI?  Is this a matter of the
opinions of the Ag officials of that state or are there studies available
that would show this as a matter of fact?

Regards,
Jacob


----- Original Message -----
From: "Butterfly Farming List" <farming at butterflywebsite.com>
To: "Butterfly Farming List" <farming at butterflywebsite.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: RI


> *****************************************************
> Join the IBBA today: http://www.butterflybreeders.org
> Write your letter to USDA today to support butterfly
> releases. Note: Docket # 95-095-2.  Email comments by
>   clicking here: mailto:regulations at aphis.usda.gov
>       Click here to sign on-line petition:
>  http://www.petitiononline.com/stopusda/petition.html
> *****************************************************
>      Be sure to visit http://thenaturestore.com
> *****************************************************
>
> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 9:40:51 -0500
> From: Wayne F Wehling <Wayne.F.Wehling at usda.gov>
> Subject: Re: RI
>
> Jacob,
>
> We do deny permits for monarchs shipped to Rhode Island for release to the
environment.  This decision was based on discussion with Rhode Island after
determining monarchs were sufficiently uncommon.  Looking at the database
reveals that some permits have inadvertently been issued and many permits
issued more than 2 years ago are still valid.  I will have the staff revoke
the inadvertent issues.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wayne Wehling
>
>
>
> Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:48:58 -0800
> From: "Jacob Groth" <jacob at swallowtailfarms.com>
> Subject: RI
>
> Anyone hear about RI denying permits for monarchs?  Wayne, if you read
this, do you have any comments?
>
> Jacob
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> Jacob Groth
> -------------------------------------------------
> President
> Swallowtail Farms, Inc.
> Toll free:  (888) 441-2041
> www.swallowtailfarms.com
> -------------------------------------------------
> Business Consultant
> JAB innovative solutions
> Direct line: (916) 344-2853
> www.thinkJAB.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/private/leps-l/attachments/20020207/c0707537/attachment.html