|
|
Post by Chris Grinter on Aug 10, 2011 7:31:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by starlightcriminal on Aug 10, 2011 14:13:32 GMT -8
What?! Good for the Miami Blue (sort of... I'll forgo all the issues with the way our "protection" is designed) but- what?! Leptotes cassius eats plumbago, an extremely common exotic ornamental here in Florida. I am watching females oviposit on mine right now. Lots of them.
I guess I will be rich though, I have a whole bunch of specimens of both Cassius and Ceraunus (but not a single Miami Blue) from prior to this declaration that are just waiting to be spread! Anyone want one? $100.00 a pair? Ha ha ha. I can hardly believe it. Thanks for the update, I would have never guessed in a million years that those two butterflies would be protected.
And the "mistaken identity" defense is employed- does anyone know of any other examples of such a thing being used to protect other plants or animals? I mean, they are tough to tell apart until you can see them fairly close, but really?
Just out of curiosity, since I really do have specimens from earlier this year and last year and previous years, how do you protect yourself from getting in trouble for having an protected species? It's ironic- I have avoided all protected species purposefully and two of the most common butterflies in my area are now my only contraband. I can't help but chuckle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Grinter on Aug 11, 2011 0:53:32 GMT -8
Yes, they have used the similarity clause in their books before and with some good reason I think. There are a number of cave-obligate Rhidine ground beetles in Texas that all roughly share the same habitats and all are nearly identical looking. Instead of choosing which ones are endangered they just made them all endangered. Seems pretty logical in that case. Also, the shovelnose sturgeon was declared "threatened" due to similarity of appearance to the "endangered" pallid sturgeon. www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/fishes/FRshovelnoseFinalRuleSOASept2010.htmlBut this blue thing just seems nuts, those Ceraunus blues make it out here to California! If you have specimens of these blues they have officially become bricks - you can't sell or trade them even if they were collected before yesterday. The way the laws work you could be prosecuted without having a previous exemption granted from FWS to trade in endangered species. My honest suggestion is to just throw them in the trash... since if someone is inspected and they find these specimens they could use them against you! I also wouldn't even joke about them costing $100 a pair now, FWS reads this forum and uses what they find here to inform their laws. Obviously some of these guys do not have a sense of humor. |
|
|
|
Post by starlightcriminal on Aug 11, 2011 6:09:02 GMT -8
It's a bit funny though- the law is stop collecting. Certainly any collector after these two species could simply get them not in South Florida, which would guarantee no Miami Blues. After all, they are extremely rare and found in a very limited geographic region as such. And more over a collector would easily be able to see the difference. They aren't discrete as soon as you get a look at them, the Miami has a very easily read orange spot.
Anyway, I don't understand why the Ceraunus and Cassius blues collected prior to this declaration are "bricks"- people can possess all kinds of rare things that were collected prior to being given protected status; ornithoptera, tiger skins, elephant ivory. All kinds of things are legally acceptable, you see people on antiques roadshow with their carved elephant tusks all the time which are perfectly legal because they come from a time prior to the modern laws forbidding ivory trade. You just can't be involved in any new collection or selling of products derived from it, and for good reason of course. But no one confiscates or destroys people's old ivory, much of which is so old it can't possibly have documentation and can't necessarily be easily dated otherwise. How would anyone think to have a permit for something before it requires a permit? Anyone know where to find official literature covering the rules in situations such as these? If not, I guess the trash is their new home. It's sad. Perfectly good specimens, representing dead little animals, are now completely wasted if this is right.
It's true that all of these things should really be evaluated on a case by case level but as you say, we are not very interested in spending money on experts. I think after the 240 days is up it will be revised to protect them in Florida only or something else similar, again because of the limited distribution of the Miami. Certainly if you are collecting Ceraunus in California you can be sure it isn't a Miami, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Grinter on Aug 11, 2011 8:55:48 GMT -8
Yes, you are legally allowed to posses a pre-act item, but you may not sell the item across state lines. You can sell something in-state if you have documentation that is is pre-act (a data label may not meet this rule since you create it) but only if your state does not have a rule against commerce in protected species ( I think California of course bans the sale or trade of endangered species). If you have pre-act specimens you can give them to someone across a state line, but not for profit or even exchange. For inter-state sale under the ESA you need a permit, but no permits are issued for wildlife (Perhaps wildlife means living animals only?). It's confusing, but here is the FAQ: www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/permits.pdfFinding all of these laws is difficult, but basically they become bricks since you can only give something away. If FWS finds records of shipments going from one person to another after you give them something they will use it against you (I've been with officers during inspections and they run forensics - fingerprint and hair samples...) |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Grinter on Aug 11, 2011 12:01:29 GMT -8
I should further clarify - only the florida subspecies of ceraunus and cassius blues are being protected. Leptotes cassius theonus and Hemiargus ceraunus antibubastus. In Florida, these are both abundant insects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by starlightcriminal on Aug 11, 2011 12:49:35 GMT -8
Yes, I was really concerned mostly about the specimens I already have. I don't sell or trade actually, I just collect myself, for myself, so as long as I don't have to trash my owns specimens which were collected legally I don't care. I am located in Florida, which means mine are not transportable any more if I understand correctly. But since I don't have that intent, I can keep the pairs in my personal collection without worry, right? I don't want to trash my own specimens if I don't have to and it seems like those specimens collected before there was anything in place protecting them should be fine, especially in this case where we are talking about two very common butterflies that are just lumped in because the legislatures think their inspectors will have too hard of a time noticing a bright orange spot or lack thereof when they are checking peoples shipments and such. Really, for the people who are being barred from collecting these butterflies it should be very obvious which one is which. So too should it be for the inspectors.
Imagine if everyone with the Florida ssp. had to throw there legally gained specimens away- some years down the road scientist saying "boy, something must have happened from period x to y because there are none of these butterflies vouchered from then- maybe it was highly endangered!"
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Grinter on Aug 11, 2011 12:58:29 GMT -8
Oh no, you can legally keep the ones you have! I might imagine that if you are ever inspected by Fish and Wildlife for some reason you might be questioned about them, but these agents aren't completely retarded.
The theory behind protecting all the blues in the area is to prevent someone claiming they were catching cassius or ceraunus when they were actually netting miami blues. Basically it's a general anti-collecting law because they think collectors will swarm on the endangered miami blue, even though FWS state themselves they have "no evidence" to suggest this would happen.
I am betting the influence of anti-collecting organizations like NABA have lobbied for more restrictive laws regarding collecting. They haven't specifically asked to include the other blues as far as I can tell (and Jeff Glassberg told me as much) - but they do have an anti-collecting agenda.
|
|
