|
|
Post by admin on Sept 3, 2014 22:27:02 GMT -8
You knew it was coming.... "PETITION TO PROTECT THE MONARCH BUTTERFLY(DANAUS PLEXIPPUS PLEXIPPUS) UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT " This is a PDF file of 159 pages. I think it is too large to 'attach' to this post so am hosting it on InsectNet at this location: insectnet.com/monarch-esa-petition.pdfPlease read and share your comments here. |
|
|
|
|
|
Post by speydiana on Sept 3, 2014 23:04:26 GMT -8
Thanks, Clark, for starting this topic. I have been following the commmentary on DesertLeps for several days now. Most people, including myself, believe that the petitioners are blowing smoke. The butterfly is not endangered, nor is it threatened in any part of it's range. They want to preserve the Monarch "migration" phenomenon. I don't think the Monarchs are listening. Can we mere mortals actually dictate to a butterfly how to behave?
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Sept 3, 2014 23:41:16 GMT -8
Read the last sentence on p. 159:
"(6) Paragraph (b)(1) will not apply to the collection of wild members of the species and rearing of fewer than ten monarchs per year by any individual, household, or educational entity. "
There goes the neighborhood.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Sept 4, 2014 6:56:19 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Sept 4, 2014 7:01:33 GMT -8
Read the last sentence on p. 159: "(6) Paragraph (b)(1) will not apply to the collection of wild members of the species and rearing of fewer than ten monarchs per year by any individual, household, or educational entity. " There goes the neighborhood. This is exactly why many people believe the whole 'project' is aimed at scuppering the butterfly release industry. From what I understand by reading e-mail group posts on this subject, the proponents of the petition have been trying to find a way to ban release of monarchs without success for many years now, and this seems to be another attempt at the same aim. I don't know myself whether this really is the case or not, but much of the discussion elsewhere certainly suggests this to be the situation. Adam. |
|
|
|
Post by cabintom on Sept 4, 2014 12:09:58 GMT -8
This is exactly why many people believe the whole 'project' is aimed at scuppering the butterfly release industry. From what I understand by reading e-mail group posts on this subject, the proponents of the petition have been trying to find a way to ban release of monarchs without success for many years now, and this seems to be another attempt at the same aim. Forgive my ignorance, but why would they be trying to ban the release of monarchs? |
|
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Sept 4, 2014 12:40:30 GMT -8
OMG. I didn't realize yours was the same. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Sept 4, 2014 14:18:22 GMT -8
Forgive my ignorance, but why would they be trying to ban the release of monarchs? Apparently the anti-release people have made various claims over the years that monarch releases harm the natural population, such as by spreading diseases, artificially boosting numbers etc etc. What they don't seem to realise is that the last thing the butterfly breeders want is disease in their stock, and the breeders take specific precautions to ensure their stock is disease free, otherwise they wouldn't be able to breed monarchs in commercial numbers. They even claimed that bred monarchs would not 'know' how to migrate, but this has been shown not to be the case too. From what I understand, the very people/groups who are vehemently anti monarch release are the proponents of this petition, at least some of them; and people are claiming in discussion groups that since they have failed to stop the butterfly release industry by all previous means they are now turning to this legal method. I don't know if this is true or not, I am only explaining what I have read elsewhere. I should also point out that personally I know relatively little about it, except for what I read, living half way round the world and not breeding monarchs myself. Adam. |
|
|
|
Post by beetlehorn on Sept 7, 2014 7:51:02 GMT -8
Personally I don't think butterfly releases at special occasions have much of an effect either way, so banning them is probably rather pointless, but that is only my personal opinion. There should be more extensive studies on a broader scale, because it seems the evidence is somewhat ambiguous, and arguments for or against are based on rather arbitrary opinions. That being said, I believe that if there were more suitable habitat, and of course more available hostplant (native milkweed species), not only would the American Eastern Monarch benefit, but other butterfly species that need help (Speyeria idalia, Speyeria diana).
To list something as "threatened" or "endangered" is usually an attempt to avoid it from becoming extinct. This doesn't necessarily keep it from becoming extinct, and often population numbers are so low there is little chance of a given species to recover no matter what we do. To say the migration phenomenon is endangered is indicative of the species being or becoming endangered, since it directly reflects their population density. In the case of the Monarch, there should be enough of them left to bring numbers back to previous levels. Habitat restoration, and planting various native species of milkweed in suitable areas is the answer. I don't think farming practices will change in America because a butterfly species is at risk, no matter how much conservationists complain. There is simply too much money involved, and agricultural demands are too great. In other words, farmers and big-time agriculture companies are not going to give up on tracts of land for native weeds to help butterflies, where they could be growing corn, wheat or soybeans. So backroad ditches, abandoned areas, private backyards, forest edges, old mining properties, etc. make ideal locations to sow seeds of native grasses, wildflowers and weeds, especially milkweed. There are still areas that hold stands of milkweeds, and we can all take a few seed pods when they start to pop open, and distribute the seeds in other places where the plants are absent. It is rather easy to do because the seeds will literally sow themselves. I do this every year.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Sept 8, 2014 15:12:28 GMT -8
Here's the pitch on YouTube
|
|
|
|
Post by multicaudata on Sept 9, 2014 16:13:04 GMT -8
So, I'm confused: Would this prohibit collecting of Monarchs or wouldn't it? Is every kid's favorite butterfly going to be illegal to collect if this passes? Will those kids be going to juvie for bringing in Monarchs for their school project collections?  And is there some loop-hole in the law that we could widen to make it not apply to "nivosus" Monarchs? |
|
|
|
Post by beetlehorn on Sept 9, 2014 20:56:57 GMT -8
From what I read on the last page of the petition, and the way I understand it, in terms of collecting wild specimens for display and rearing ten or less as a private affair would be ok, according to section (b)(1). I have specimens from years ago that still look quite fresh, so if there were ever a question as to the legality of the few I have in my collection, "they"-(conservationists), would have to prove these specimens were caught illegally after a new law came into effect. This would be rather difficult to do, unless you were seen catching them.
|
|
cyane
Junior Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by cyane on Sept 15, 2014 15:52:06 GMT -8
|
|
And is there some loop-hole in the law that we could widen to make it not apply to "nivosus" Monarchs?