Frisk off presser, Miami Blue Butterfly (MBB) er nu opført som føderalt truede ved lov af en nødsituation bestemmelse. Huzzah! (højre?)
Miami Blue Butterfly fra Butterflies of America
Min første tanke var “vente, var det ikke allerede truede?”. Ja, viser sig MBB er state-truede siden 2002 efter en tidligere nød- andragende indgivet af den nordamerikanske Butterfly Association (Også). Denne foranstaltning syntes omfattende nok, da denne sommerfugl forekommer andre steder i USA. Men det er ikke en vigtig detalje, og jeg kan ikke se nogen reel skade på føderalt notering anden sommerfugl. Florida Keys sikker brug for hver ounce af hjælp, de kan få, når det kommer til at beskytte miljøet.
Som en truet art Miami Blå (Cyclargus Thomas bethunebakeri) er en nordlig række forlængelse af en art, almindeligvis opstår i hele Caribien. Hvorvidt den amerikanske indvandrer er virkelig karakteristisk nok til at berettige en underart af sig selv eller ej, er ikke noget, jeg kan virkelig tage fat, da jeg ikke er en sommerfugl fyr i mindst. Jeg kan i høj grad vige tilbage fra hele idéen om en underart, men hey, Jeg gætte disse sommerfugl fyre har brug for noget at gøre! Det synes også logisk for mig, at indstrømning af udvandrer blues naturligt ville ændre i overflod over den sydlige kyst af Florida. I begyndelsen af 1950'erne disse insekter bruges til at være rigelige op og ned strande næsten hele staten. Den sidste 60 ulige år har været grusom til Florida – udvikling og myg bekæmpelse har hærget det plejede at være uberørt levested. Alle af sommerfuglene lider.
Derefter indså jeg, der var noget meget ulige om denne meddelelse: bestemmelsen nødsituation er også notering alle lignende blues, der deler levested med MBB som truede, og derfor beskyttet! Hvorfor? Fordi de se ligesom MBB. Disse blues omfatter Cassius blå (Leptotes Cassius), Ceraunus blå (Hemiargus ceraunus), og Nickerbean blå (Cyclargus Ammons). Lad os få én ting lige – både Cassius og Ceraunus blues ikke på nogen måde faktisk truet eller endda sjældne. De kan både være – utroligt rigelige arter med et interval, der spænder over hele Carribbean, Golfen kyst vest til Californien og indre adopterede til Midtvesten!
Så jeg spørger, hvordan kunne det have bestået?
Gary Larson, Den anden side
Åh det er rigtigt – frygt mongering bragt til dig af den radikalt anti-opsamling Nordamerika Butterfly Association. NABA opfatter indsamling som en af de alvorligste farer for sommerfugl befolkninger trods den utrolige mangel på beviser. Ja, hver opkøber derude er sportslige en ond sort kappe og gøre det til deres livsværk at slukke skønhed fra verden. En eller anden måde denne organisation har formået at overbevise USFWS de har et punkt. Jeg kan ikke gøre denne bestemmelse retfærdighed, så her er den nøjagtige citat.
Desuden, Tjenesten er at udstede en 4(d) særregel om disse arter at etablere forbud mod indsamling og kommerciel handel i USA. Denne handling forbyder også import til, og eksport fra, USA af de tre lignende sommerfugle. Ellers lovlige aktiviteter, der kan påvirke disse lignende sommerfugle-såsom lovlig anvendelse af pesticider, græsslåning, og anvendelse-er køretøjet ikke er forbudt. Udvidelse forbuddene i indsamling, besiddelse, og handel med de tre lignende sommerfugle vil give større beskyttelse til Miami blå.
Jeg er ærligt målløse. Godt, måske jeg kan klare et par flere ord.
Gå videre og slå ned plasteret af levesteder og derefter sprøjte herbicid på det. Men du bedre ikke tør at indsamle en enkelt blå… USFWS is watching.
De har også vise sig at være temmelig paranoid. Selvfølgelig, krybskytteri sker hver gang i et stykke tid, uanset hvad art du beskytter. Uanset om det er for profit eller mad, et par ulige dyr vil blive hentet fra. Men er der nogen reel dokumentation for dette niveau af craziness? Størstedelen af citationer i registrator er fra sager, Ikke peer reviewed tidsskrifter.
Tjenesten har fastslået, at udpegning af kritiske levested for Miami blå sommerfugl er ikke klogt, fordi offentliggøre kort og beskrivelser af kritiske habitatområder bredt ville annoncere den nøjagtige placering af sommerfuglen til krybskytter, samlere, og vandaler og kan yderligere lette forstyrrelse og ødelæggelse af sommerfuglens habitat.
Åh jeg elsker citater: (kilde)
men også viser, at der ikke er beviser eller oplysninger om nuværende eller tidligere samling pres på Miami blå (FWC 2010, p. 13)… Selvom vi ikke har beviser for ulovlig indsamling af Miami blå, Vi har beviser for ulovlig indsamling af andre sommerfugle fra Federal lander i det sydlige Florida …
…Det samme websted tilbyder prøver på to andre sommerfugle ligner til Miami blå; den ceraunus blå sælger i dag for 4,00 € ($5.57), og Cassius blå er til rådighed for € 2,50 til 10,00 ($3.48-$13.93).
… Derfor, Det er meget muligt, at samlere bemyndiget til at opkræve lignende arter kan uforvarende (eller bevidst) indsamle Miami blå sommerfugl tænker det var, eller planlægger at hævde, at man troede, det var, den Cassius blå, nickerbean blå, eller ceraunus blå
Må ikke få mig forkert – supplerende finansiering og beskyttelse til en sjælden art kan være nyttige, så længe habitat er sikret. Det forekommer imidlertid, at størstedelen af midlerne tendens til at gå i fangenskab avlsprogrammer som tvivlende gøre meget godt. Hvis sommerfuglen er forsvindende fra øerne derefter slippe skyer af dem vil kun gøre for smukke fotografier og ikke en gemt art.
Jeg vil fremlægge en anmodet kommentar, og jeg foreslår, at du gør det samme. Kommentar her før oktober 11, 2011: Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Følg vejledningen for indsendelse af bemærkninger til docket Nej. [FWS-R4-ES-2011-0043]. Eller skriv til: US. mail eller indlevering: Offentlige Kommentarer Behandling, Att: Docket Nej. [FWS-R4-ES-2011-0043]; Division for politik og direktiver Management; US. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, vilje 22203..
Kære hr. Grinter,
Som videnskabsmand, Jeg er sikker på, at du normalt ser for at understøtte data, før at udtale. Du anfører, at det nordamerikanske Butterfly Association er radikalt anti-indsamling. Denne erklæring er usandt. Hvis man ser på det 20 år NABA publikationer, vil du se næsten ingen omtale af at indsamle overhovedet! Også, og alle i en førerposition med NABA, har absolut ingen problemer med at indsamle sommerfugle for en videnskabelig formål. Jeg var en professionel videnskabsmand (som var en række af de andre mennesker i ledende stillinger hos NABA), arbejder på Stanford University Medical School og ved Rockefeller University. Jeg er bestemt alt for videnskabelig undersøgelse! Desuden NABA Scientific Advisory Board, bestående af Nat Holland (Rice University), Naomi Pierce (Harvard University), Robert Robbins (US. Nationalmuseet), Ron Rutowski (Arizona State University), John Shuey (The Nature Conservancy) og Ernest Williams (Hamilton College), omfatter nogle af de fremmeste forskere i USA, der arbejder med sommerfugle.
Hvad NABA gør,, ud over at anspore til videnskabelig forskning, hvoraf nogle er offentliggjort i American Butterflies,) er at tilskynde folk, der ikke videnskabsmænd (hvilket er næsten alle) at nærme sommerfugle med kikkert og kameraer. Denne vægt på kikkerter og kameraer har resulteret i en enorm stigning i antallet af mennesker, der er seriøst interesseret i sommerfugle, og dette har resulteret i en stigning i vores viden om sommerfugle og, vigtigst, en stigning i vores evne til at bevare sommerfugle.
Med hensyn til Miami Blues, det var ikke NABA som anmodede USFWS at også listen Ceraunus og Cassius Blues. Og hverken jeg, eller nogen på NABA, har sagt, heller tro, at de største trusler mod Butterfly befolkninger er samlere.
Med venlig hilsen,
Jeffrey Glassberg, Ph.D.
Præsident: Også
Dr.. Glasenberg – Tak fordi du tog dig tid til at svare på min kommentar og give nogle temperering til min udtalelse. Mens jeg ikke umiddelbart, at NABA havde bedt de USFWS at opremse de Ceraunus og Cassius blues, Jeg kan forstå, hvordan dette punkt kan blive misforstået. Hvordan de ankom i registeret er et mysterium for mig, og jeg er dobbelt forvirret over beslutningen om at beskytte disse fælles og vidtrækkende arter, selv når FWS selv stat “er der ingen tegn”.
Med hensyn til NABA Jeg tror, du er teknisk korrekt. Organisationen har aldrig officielt udskrevet eller krævede nogen anti-indsamling stemning. Anekdotisk jeg kan sige, at jeg til tider har mødt NABA amatørornitologer, der har voldsomt jaget mig fra habitat, hvorfra jeg var lovligt at indsamle sommerfugle. Naturligvis ved jeg mange flere indsamlings- egnet amatørornitologer end fjendtlige amatørornitologer, men det er bare en kort anekdote, som har vakt min mistanke.
Da du er præsident for foreningen og har trykte bøger godkendt af NABA og dig selv som præsident for NABA vil jeg tage din mening som den officielle holdning i NABA. Går direkte til dine Butterflies gennem kikkert Østen du angive: “Selv når indsamlingen trykket ikke resulterer direkte i lukningen af en sjælden koloniale sommerfugl, enkelte dræbte resultater i nedbrydningen af genpuljen, og dette tab af genetisk diversitet bliver mere vigtig som kolonien bliver mindre.” Bortset fra at være faktuelt vildledende, denne erklæring indledes med beretninger om samlere udslette Mitchells Satyr (som stadig ikke er udryddet). Jeg ser dette som en meget anti-videnskab og anti-indsamling dagsorden. The book continues on with vast generalizations regarding taxonomy and the Linnaean nomenclature system, none of which help support your “raison d’être” of conversation.
I know I grew up collecting butterflies and it helped me grow into a naturalist and scientist. While watching is a great activity, I do not see evidence for the support of science by NABA.
The most convincing evidence however might be especially relevant and poignant here. Your 2001 editorial in American Butterflies (a NABA publication) brags about your leverage of sensitive habitat localities of the Miami Blue over FWS in an attempt to force their hand in protection
Chris, I’ve read through this a couple times now and I’m still not sure why you’re so up in arms about the federal listing. I see it as a legal maneuver to go after the poachers, especially on an international level. I have visions of comparisons to how mob bosses are nabbed for tax evasion rather than murders of which there is no evidence. Did you see the prices some butterflies fetch? The irony is that listing will probably increase the black market value of the butterflies and those won’t be shown on websites. I may be mistaken, but if collecting is for scientific purposes, permits can still be issued for endangered species.
As for NABA, I always thought their main goal was promoting awareness and conservation of butterflies; there are other organizations that focus on the scientific aspects, like the Lepidopterists’ Samfund. To that end, Jeffrey and his BtB books, particularly his 1993 first edition, have done a good job at making butterflies more accessible to the general public. Before Peterson came out with his bird guide, enthusiasts shot and stuffed birds just to identify them. That’s unthinkable today and look how popular (og indbringende) birding has become. Collecting will always have a place in the scientific world, but I’d like to believe there’s a growing culture of naturalists who don’t have to kill or collect in order to appreciate and be well-informed.
Too bad about your experience with NABA members. There are always freaks associated with any organization. I refuse to associate myself with my town’s monarch group, because a few vocal individuals, while good-intentioned, often get emotionally accusatory based on misinformation they’ve picked up. You know there’s a $1000 fine if you’re caught molesting a monarch here? I’ve joked that the city could make a lot of money when tagging is done every year.
The topic bothers me because there simply isn’t a real poaching problem and collectors are being vilified for no reason whatsoever. The FWS say themselves there is no evidence to support the idea that poaching is a problem for the Miami Blue. It has been state endangered since 2002 and not one poacher has been seen. Anecdotally I have never even heard of someone catching or wanting to catch a Miami Blue. I am also a tiny bit bothered by your comparison of butterfly collectors to mob bosses. 99% of the fear of butterfly collectors is fear mongering with zero evidence to support it. The fact is, there has never been an instance of a collector making a butterfly extinct. If you drive a car – you will kill orders magnitude more butterflies every year than you could possibly dream of catching with a net.
Of course there is a sizable trade in butterflies, Papilio and Ornithoptera in particular fetch these obscene prices and I’ve even blogged about it before. But those prices do not reflect the rarity of a species, but often only of a specimen – they are usually natural hybrids, gynandromorphs or color aberrations that are nothing that can nor should be protected. There are still butterflies that fetch hundreds or even a few thousand dollars, but this is due to the difficult to catch in the wild (either on a mountain top or in a war-zone). You also have to understand that there is no real trade in the Lycaenidae (blues). There is no international pressure to poach these blues out of existence – this is why no collector has ever been caught trying to do so. The Scahus’s Swallowtail however would have an international market – but even FWS can only come up with one example of poaching.
There are always one or two bad apples and I have no qualms against making a species endangered and collecting illegal. But protecting “similar” species that honestly look nothing like the MBB to save it from collecting is absurd. A poacher “claiming” to catch a common blue that has a Miami blue in their net could have been prosecuted before this similarity law. It’s very easy to tell these species apart in the field. The butterfly collecting community is small in the first place, and the number of the people who are breaking the laws to collect is a tiny fraction of this community. There may be 10 people in the US who poach butterflies – do we really need to legislate against them?
The most important thing here is that insects are not birds – the population dynamics are so vastly different that laws governing them in the same manner are absurd. Insects have vastly larger populations, lay orders of magnitude more eggs, and live for only a few weeks of the year. When you net a male butterfly in the field 9 times out of 10 he has already mated with one or more females. A female butterfly has deposited most of her eggs by time she is caught on the wing. I often catch females hoping for eggs and only get a handful if any of the many dozens she has already laid in nature.
Collecting plays an important role in butterfly education and identification beyond the scientific realm. For many species you can not accurately identify them without collecting a series of specimens of both sexes. I see no point in butterfly lists that watchers generate since many of their identifications are likely to be inaccurate and there is no method for fact checking (if you’re a birder you know the problems with false ID’s). Even a good photograph can only be identified with 100% accuracy 3/4 af tiden.
I never want to be part of a state in which school children are not allowed to collect butterflies – and now kids in Florida can’t catch the abundant blues that are on every flower in their back yard. The vast majority of insect collections in museums are not made by research scientists, but by hobbyists. I grew up collecting butterflies because it was fun, not because I was a 10 year old researcher. My hobby developed into a passion, a career and into science. I don’t have a problem with watching, I think it’s great, and I think NABA has managed to raise “awareness”. However I fail to see how conservation can be achieved when it is not based in science. People are being mislead into thinking non-scientific collecting (and all collecting) is evil and it is doing the entire scientific community a disservice.
Nu, that is a better argument than your post, Chris. Haha, I’m sorry I mentioned mob bosses. My point was that there are crimes that are near impossible to find evidence, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. What prosecutors have done is go after something that can be caught, like tax evasion or in this case obvious commercial trade of similarly looking butterflies. At the very least they’re now armed with a law that can allow them to collect evidence. I think there’s more to the story of why USFWS (not NABA) enacted the emergency listing that’s not obvious. And I’m certain it’s not to vilify collectors like you or school children.
I had a collection as a kid and it consisted of mostly cabbage whites and grasshoppers. I ended up publishing a study that collected half a million moth specimens over the course of 10 years and curated a museum collection that consisted mostly of private donations. I also know a couple people who have turned entire bedrooms or utility rooms in their homes to house their collections. I hope they will eventually leave their collections at institutions that will preserve their efforts. There is tremendous value in collecting, if properly documented and cared for.
With that said, the majority of people out there do not get into collecting or science. They simply don’t have the patience or interest. Here’s where I think NABA has played an important role in increasing awareness of an animal that many people simply never notice. Not everyone is like you, Chris. I see public interest and education as the main point of butterfly counts, not necessarily accurate identifications. Selvom, many species can be statistically evaluated over the long-term from these annual counts. Get the public interested in the diversity of pretty butterflies, then they’re more inclined to see the value in protecting habitats, not to mention donating money to institutions that support jobs like the one you have and I have had. Here, for, is value in simply watching butterflies. Be careful of biting the hand that feeds you.
I still fail to see how this is like going for tax evasion or how it helps to gather more evidence – either a miami blue is poached or not (and I’m not arguing against the possibility of this happening). I see this more like changing the law to make impersonating Marlon Brando equal to murder just so you can go after the mob bosses. They can’t find anyone poaching therefore they make collecting a common and abundant species illegal – shazam – now you can find more evidence because you just created it. Gå figur.
NABA didn’t and couldn’t enact any laws of course, but they did petition for the listing of the Miami Blue, both in 2000 og 2010 (their petition resulted in this declaration). Nowhere in the records have I found the request to include the other species, but there is no denying that NABA is an anti-collecting organization that has direct ties to this new law… perhaps they just planted the seed.
I’m all about public education but just not at the expense of science. I know almost no one has the time nor will ever care enough to become a citizen-scientist. But NABA is on one hand generating public awareness and participation which is great – but on the other hand making it much harder for scientists to actually do their job (getting chased out of habitat). Just think about grad students/PI’s working with blues in Florida now have to go through the ESA which is a true nightmare – a bureaucratic road block that even NABA had a really hard time fighting through (or heck anyone working on ANY insect in florida could now face the ESA because their project might impact the habitat of this ABUNDANT and widespread species that literally occurs everywhere).
I would be a full supporter of NABA if they didn’t foster an anti-collecting environment – heck I have even participated in NABA butterfly counts (with a net though).
A program that I do fully support is the Lepidopterists’ Samfund “Outernet Project” – with the goal of putting nets in kids hands. http://www.lepsoc.org/education.php
The real endangered species here is the butterfly collector. I do not have a problem with people taking photographs of butterflies. NABA and the Lepidopterist Society both share a common interest and appreciation of the subject with perhaps different objectives. Habitat distruction, wide spread use of pesticides, herbicides and the whole sale plantings of vineyards here in California and habitat loss due to urbanization in Florida have played a far greater role in the demise of all butterfly populations then a billion butterfly poachers could have. I myself was embroiled in a famous case entitled Crimes of Passion and was labled a butterfly poacher by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. For the record, most Ornithoptera or birdwing butterflies are rather common but have had blanket protection due to the U.S.F.W.S. lack of expertise seperating common species from rare or endangered ones which would also apply to the three species of blues in Florida. Another case is the Apollo butterfly which has as wide a range of distribution from Norway to Mongolia south to Spain and Turkey being included in C.I.T.E.S. Another flaw with the endangered species act while well intended is actually missapplied to sub species. American museums are poorer institutions because exchanging butterflies is considered a comerical venture as something of value is received for something sent or offered. While you ponder why you see fewer butterflies each year or the fact that tropical rain forest decrease by the year, please enjoy your wine !
I feel that we as lep collectors seem to take the blame for bugs going extinct, yet the law enforcement groups don’t go after developers that want to change good habitat into strip malls or parking lots. But a guy waving a net is the enemy? Right. I was in Afghanistan and I have seen some very good places to collect Parnassius and other leps. Hell, I’ve been on patrol in them and have seen some nice stuff flying around. I could of caught a couple if I wanted to, but there are ambushes, mines, and IED’s waiting in many areas there. Nu, if there is someone who really wants an A1 Parnassius chaltonius or meutingi, and isn’t scared to get killed, captured, tortured, or blown up, then they can go there and collect these “rare” bugs. At the same time, now I’m home and have plans to go enjoy my hobby and have a couple of projects to do, and the last thing I want to deal with is some people trying to stop me from catching bugs. I had this happen before deployment in a park in central tennessee, where there was a couple that decided that I was a poacher for collecting zebra swallowtails, Tiger swallowtails, and some common nymphalids, went to the ranger and tried to get me kicked out of the park. Luckily the ranger knew that I was collecting, and that I have a permit that year to collect in state parks. I just hope I don’t have people try to stop me this year.
You state that no butterfly has ever been collected to extinction. Men, there is a well known example from the UK where it was a day-flying moth. The New Forest Burnet moth had an unique subsepeies in the New Forest which created as a “New” hunting forest by King William I who came to the throne in 1066. The moth had its exctinction predicted by the collectors of the day in the 1920s . There was heavy commercial collecting with collectors patrolling the sites looking for newly emerged adults. It duly became extinct.
Endvidere, it is basic science that predation affects populations. So it is therefroe reasonable that we should prevent predation of endangered species. We do know from the research that it is possible to collect most of the specimens of a butterfly from small colonies easily.
Here is one of several examples from the literature
The following is an excerpt from a published paper. The Ecology and Conservation of the Heath Fritillary Butterfly, Mellicta athalia. II. Adult
Population Structure and Mobility by M. S. Warren Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 24, Ingen. 2 (Aug., 1987), pp. 483-498
“The possible impact of collectors on M. athalia populations
Several authors (fx. Frohawk 1934) have suggested that over-collecting may have led to the decline of M. athalia in some areas, but they produce little evidence to support this. The possible impact of collectors can be examined by calculating the proportion of the adult population caught in one day of intensive catching (dvs. the maximum collectable proportion) during the mark-recapture experiments. Resultaterne, plotted on Fig. 8, show that the proportion caught was closely related to the population size itself and ranged from 4 to 94%”
If you can collect 94% of the butterflies in a colony you can certainly drive it to extinction.