Sveže off stiskalnice, Miami Blue Butterfly (MBB) je zdaj navedena kot zvezno ogroženih ga dejanja opravljanja izrednih. Huzar! (prav?)
Miami Blue Butterfly iz Metulji Amerike
Moja prva misel je bila, “počakajte, ni bilo to že ogrožene?”. Da, Izkazalo se je, MBB je state-ogrožena, saj 2002 po predhodnem peticijo v sili, ki ga severnoameriški Butterfly Association vloženo (Prav tako). Ta ukrep je zdelo dovolj obsežen, saj se ta metulj nikjer drugje v ZDA. Ampak to ni pomembno podrobnost, in ne vidim nobene resnične škode v zvezni kotacijo drug metulj. Florida Keys prepričani potrebujejo vsak unčo pomoč, ki jo lahko dobite, ko gre za varovanje okolja.
Kot ogroženih vrst Miami Blue (Cyclargus Thomas bethunebakeri) je severni podaljšek razpon vrste, ki Pogosto se pojavlja v celotnem Karibih. Ali ne priseljenec v ZDA je resnično dovolj izrazit, da bi upravičili podvrste sam ni nekaj, kar res lahko obravnavala, ker nisem metulj fant v najmanj. Jaz močno bojijo celotno idejo podvrsto, ampak, hej, Mislim, da ti metulj fantje potrebujejo nekaj storiti! Prav tako se zdi logično, da se mi, da bi prihodi odselil blues seveda spreminjajo v izobilju čez južni obali Floride. V začetku leta 1950 je bilo včasih obilno gor in dol plažah skoraj vsej državi te žuželke. Zadnji 60 ak leta so bila kruta do Floride – Razvoj in komarjev odbitek je opustošila kaj je bilo neokrnjene habitat. Vsi metuljev, ki trpijo.
Potem sem ugotovil, da je nekaj Zelo čudno O tej napovedi: Določba v sili je Prav tako kotacija vse podobne blues, ki si delijo življenjski prostor z MBB kot ogroženo in zato zaščitena! Zakaj? Ker so poglej kot MBB. Te blues vključujejo Cassius modra (Leptotes Cassius), Ceraunus blue (Hemiargus ceraunus), in Nickerbean blue (Cyclargus ammon). Pojdimo ena stvar naravnost – obe Cassius in Ceraunus blues niso na noben način dejansko ogrožene niti redki. Oba sta lahko – neverjetno bogate vrste z območjem, ki se razteza čez vse Carribbean, Gulf Coast zahodu do Kalifornije in celinskih strays na srednjem zahodu!
Torej, prosim, kako bi to lahko opravili?
Gary Larson, Far Side
Oh, to je pravica – strah mongering vam prinaša radikalno anti-pobiranju North America Butterfly Association. NABA dojema zbiranje kot eno izmed najhujših nevarnosti za metuljev prebivalstva kljub neverjetno pomanjkanja dokazov. Da, Vsak zbiralec tam je sporting zlo črno ogrinjalo in zaradi česar je svoje življenjsko delo, da bi pogasili lepoto iz sveta. Nekako je ta organizacija uspelo prepričati USFWS imajo točko. Ne morem narediti ta določba pravice, tako da tukaj je točen citat.
Poleg tega, Storitev je izdajanje 4(d) Posebno pravilo o teh vrst za vzpostavitev prepovedi glede zbiranja in trgovinske menjave, v Združenih državah Amerike. Ta ukrep prav tako prepoveduje uvoz v, in izvoz iz, Združene države od treh podobnih metuljev. V nasprotnem primeru zakonite dejavnosti, ki bi lahko vplivale ti podobni metuljev, kot so pravno uporabe pesticidov, košnja, in uporaba, se vozilo ne prepoveduje. Razširitev prepovedi zbiranja, posest, in trgovina s tremi podobnimi metuljev bo zagotoviti večjo zaščito Miami modro.
Jaz sem pošteno besed. Dobro, morda sem lahko upravljate nekaj več besed.
Pojdi naprej in uničili obliž habitata in nato pršite herbicid na njej. Ampak raje ne upajo zbrati eno modro… USFWS gleda.
Prav tako se izkaže, da je precej paranoična. Seveda, divji lov ne zgodi vsak enkrat v nekaj časa, ne glede na to, katere vrste se lahko zaščitite. Pa naj gre za dobiček ali hrano, nekaj čudno živali bo pobral off. Vendar obstaja kakršen koli dejanski dokazi v podporo tej ravni norosti? Večina citatov v registrarja so iz primerov, ne strokovnih revijah.
Storitev je ugotovila, da imenovanje kritični habitat za Miami modrega metulja ni smotrno, saj bi objavljanje zemljevide in opise pomembnih habitatnih območij pogosto napove točno lokacijo metulja na divjih lovcev, zbiralci, in vandali in se lahko dodatno olajša motnje in uničenje habitata metulja je.
Oh jaz ljubezen quotes: (vir)
pa tudi pomeni, da ni nobenih dokazov ali informacij o trenutnem ali preteklem pritiska zbiranje na Miami modro (FWC 2010, p. 13)… Kljub temu, da nimamo dokazov o nezakonitem zbiranju Miami modro, mi imeli dokaze o nezakonitem zbiranju drugih metuljev iz zveznih dežel v južni Floridi …
…Ista spletna stran ponuja vzorce dveh drugih metuljev podobni po videzu Miami modro; ceraunus modra trenutno prodaja za 4,00 € ($5.57), in Cassius modra je na voljo za € 2,50-10,00 ($3.48-$13.93).
… Zato, je čisto možno, da zbiralci pooblastil za zbiranje podobne vrste, lahko nenamerno (ali namerno) zbirati Miami modro metulj razmišljanje je bilo, ali načrtujete, da trdijo, so mislili, da je, Cassius blue, nickerbean blue, ali ceraunus blue
Ne razumite me narobe – dodatna sredstva in zaščita za redke vrste bi bilo koristno tako dolgo, kot je habitat varovati. Vendar se zdi, da je velika večina sredstev, ponavadi gredo v ujetništvu rejskih programih, ki dvomeče veliko dobrega. Če je metulj izginja od otokov, nato sproščajo oblake njih bo samo za lepe fotografije in ni shranjeno vrste.
Bom oddajo naročenih komentar in vam predlagam, da storijo enako. Komentar tukaj pred oktobrom 11, 2011: Zvezna eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Sledite navodilom za oddajo pripomb na seznamu tovora št. [FWS-R4-ES-2011-0043]. Ali pišite na: U.S.. mail ali ročno dostava: Javne Komentarji Processing, V vednost: Ne seznamu tovora. [FWS-R4-ES-2011-0043]; Oddelek za politiko in direktiv upravljanje; U.S.. Ribe in Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, volja 22203..
Spoštovani gospod. Grinter,
Kot znanstvenik, Prepričan sem, da ste se običajno iščejo podporo podatke pred izdelavo izjave. Navajate, da je severnoameriški Butterfly Association radikalno anti-zbiranje. Ta izjava je neresnična. Če pogledaš na 20 let NABA publikacij, boste videli, skoraj ne omenja zbiranje sploh! Prav tako, in vsi v položaju, vodstvo z NABA, nima absolutno nobenega problema z zbiranjem metuljev za znanstvene namene. Bil sem poklicni znanstvenik (saj so bile številne druge ljudi na vodilnih položajih na NABA), delajo na Stanford University Medical School in na Rockefeller University. Jaz sem vsekakor vse za znanstvene raziskave! V svetovalnem odboru Poleg NABA v znanstvenem, sestavljen iz Nat Holland (Rice University), Naomi Pierce (Harvard University), Robert Robbins (U.S.. Narodni muzej), Ron Rutowski (Arizona State University), John Shuey (Nature Conservancy) Ernest Williams (Hamilton College), vključuje nekatere izmed najodličnejših znanstvenikov v Združenih državah Amerike, ki delajo z metulji.
Kaj NABA počne, Poleg spodbujanja znanstvenih raziskav je nekaj, objavljeni v ameriški Butterflies,) je spodbuditi ljudi, ki niso znanstveniki (kar je skoraj vsakdo) pristopiti metulje z daljnogledom in kamere. Ta poudarek na daljnogled in kamere je povzročila ogromno povečanje števila ljudi, ki so resno zanima metuljev, kar je povzročilo povečanje našega znanja metuljev in, Najpomembneje, v povečanju naše sposobnosti za ohranjanje metuljev.
Kar zadeva Miami Blues, ni bilo NABA ki pozvane USFWS da tudi seznam Ceraunus in Cassius Blues. In niti jaz, niti kdorkoli na NABA, so povedali, ne verjamem, da je največji nevarnosti, da metulj populacije kolektorji.
Lep pozdrav,
Jeffrey Glassberg, Doktorat.
Predsednik: Prav tako
Dr.. Glasenberg – Hvala, ker ste si vzeli čas, da odgovori na moj komentar in zagotoviti nekaj temperiranje, da po mojem mnenju. Medtem ko nisem neposredno navaja, da je NABA vprašal USFWS naštevanje Ceraunus in Cassius blues, Razumem, kako bi se lahko napačno razlagali, da je točka. Kako so prišli v registru, je skrivnost, da me, in sem še toliko bolj zmeden z odločitvijo za zaščito teh skupnih in široko segajo vrste, tudi če FWS same državne “ni dokaza”.
V zvezi s NABA verjamem, da ste tehnično pravilno. Organizacija je nikoli uradno natisnjeno ali zahteval nobenega anti-zbiranje sentiment. Anekdoto lahko rečem, da sem občasno naleteli NABA opazovalci, ki so vehementno me lovili od habitata, iz katere sem bil zakonito zbiranje metuljev. Seveda vem veliko več, zbiranje prijazen opazovalci kot sovražni opazovalci, ampak to je samo kratka anekdota, ki je vzbudila moje sume.
Ker ste predsednik združenja in so tiskane knjige, ki jih NABA in sami podprl kot predsednik NABA bom vaše mnenje kot uradni držo NABA. Neposredno na vaše Butterflies skozi daljnogled East navajate: “Tudi ko tlak zbirka ne povzroči dokončno v zatonu redkih kolonialne metulja, each individual killed results in the depletion of the gene pool, and this loss of genetic diversity becomes more important as the colony becomes smaller.” Aside from being factually misleading, this statement is preceded by reports of collectors wiping out the Mitchell’s Satyr (which is still not extinct). I see this as a very anti-science and anti-collecting agenda. 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’ Družba. 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 (and lucrative) 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 of the time.
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.
Zdaj, 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. Čeprav, 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, tudi, 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. Go figure.
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 in 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’ Družba “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. Zdaj, 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” hrošči. 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. Vendar, 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.
Poleg tega, 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, Ne. 2 (Aug., 1987), pp. 483-498
“The possible impact of collectors on M. athalia populations
Several authors (npr. 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 (tj. the maximum collectable proportion) during the mark-recapture experiments. Rezultati, 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.