|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Mar 26, 2012 9:05:59 GMT -8
I have just heard that the USFW are seriously considering prosecuting people in the USA for possessing P. hermeli. They believe that the separate species name is just a ploy to avoid hermeli falling under CITES appendix 1 as a ssp. of P. chikae.
Personally I believe that hermeli is a subspecies of P. chikae - Thanos probably disagrees though -, as published by Page & Treadaway (Dec 2003), although very many collectors will be unaware of this work or the status of hermeli as a ssp. of chikae. I think it would be rather difficult for anyone to be prosecuted for owning a specimen legally imported before December 2003, since up until that time no-one had published a work stating that the two are conspecific.
I would recommend that if the USFW decide that Papilio hermeli should be included in CITES appendix 1 for US regulatory purposes they should put out a statement to such effect and allow registration of all specimens in the USA prior to that date, so that everyone will know that any future imports would be regarded as illegal without CITES permits. As a non-US citizen living on the other side of the World the USFW don't have to listen to my suggestions, but I think it would be the best solution to the problem.
Adam Cotton.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Mar 26, 2012 9:37:05 GMT -8
Best solution would be using CITES list to really protect biotopes.
Not to prosecute collectors who have no impact on insect populations.
But it is easier for USFW to prosecute their bug collectors instead of condemning Indonesian or Philippines authorities...
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Mar 26, 2012 12:45:45 GMT -8
Indeed, if they used the money that is wasted on enforcing CITES and other ineffective "protection" laws on actually protecting habitat, nature would be safe. Trouble is, these types of legistlation are politically good for the image in the opinion of Joe Public. That's why they only protect large showy species rather than little brown Satyrids or Hesperiids that the average bloke couldn't care about.
Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by panzerman on Mar 26, 2012 18:23:12 GMT -8
The idiots that make up the rules for CITES are too blame for this screwup. Why in the hell where papilio chikae, hospiton ever put on CITES appendix ONE?  These are common, not the least bit threatened! On the otherhand, really rare, localized species at risk like parides a. castilhoi, parides q. quadratus, parides klagesi klagesi, graphium levassori, graphium flavisparsus etc. are omitted. Then off course, commonsense is lacking these days.... John  |
|
|
|
Post by jackblack on Mar 27, 2012 0:31:39 GMT -8
Here in Australia years ago , a guy said I don`t like collectors catching birdwings and Ulyses butterflies I`m going to stop this .Various people said you can`t do that .
His comment was you just watch and see.So he pushed the issue as how endangered they were becoming and collectors were wiping them out.
The species are not endangered the habitat is secure in National Parks and Reserves and much of the rainforest that is privately owned.
Every so may years the Environment Dept is supposed to review protections , but the reviews /surveys are done by people they pay to give them the favourable answers they like to hear for this species and they won`t take it off the list as the Govt now makes money from these species through breeding permits ect , it is a ridiculous situation , they do nothing to stop the urban development and land clearing where the food plants occur .
Its a no win situation for the species involved.
These days most collectors don`t want a ratty wild caught specimen , they would rather rear or breed a perfect one for the collection allowing the worn specimens to breed on .
I`m not a butterfly collector myself but have planted heaps of host plants in my garden but many already occur there anyway , but it is nice to see these giants flying around the house at close quarters.But once the Gov`t starts to make money on something it will never relinquish or reduce its hold , just like collecting taxes.
No such things as common sense .
|
|
Merky
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by Merky on Mar 27, 2012 19:14:54 GMT -8
I have wondered when USF&W would get around to Papilio hermeli. Instead of using twisted, contorted logic when dealing with 'endangered species' of leps, the senile thimkers at the CITES committee and USF&W should allow the captive breeding of things like hospiton and alexandra, allow the legal sale/trade of 25 % of bred specimens (with profits going to replenishing habit and hostplants) and the other 75% of reared pupa/adults being released in suitable habitats. The immediate effect would be an instant stop to poaching . The longterm effects? We can only think positively.
What I cannot figure out is the "thinking" of USF&W on Papilio aristodemus ssp schaus.
Schaus's Swt is now found only on Key Largo, Florida. USF&W now breeds and releases it only on Key Largo. Schaus's used to be found in a large area of Sothern Florida, but they staunchly refuse to release and repopulate their former range ? Why not ? It makes no sense at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by mygala on Mar 28, 2012 17:49:09 GMT -8
I have just heard that the USFW are seriously considering prosecuting people in the USA for possessing P. hermeli. They believe that the separate species name is just a ploy to avoid hermeli falling under CITES appendix 1 as a ssp. of P. chikae. Personally I believe that hermeli is a subspecies of P. chikae - Thanos probably disagrees though -, as published by Page & Treadaway (Dec 2003), although very many collectors will be unaware of this work or the status of hermeli as a ssp. of chikae. I think it would be rather difficult for anyone to be prosecuted for owning a specimen legally imported before December 2003, since up until that time no-one had published a work stating that the two are conspecific. I would recommend that if the USFW decide that Papilio hermeli should be included in CITES appendix 1 for US regulatory purposes they should put out a statement to such effect and allow registration of all specimens in the USA prior to that date, so that everyone will know that any future imports would be regarded as illegal without CITES permits. As a non-US citizen living on the other side of the World the USFW don't have to listen to my suggestions, but I think it would be the best solution to the problem. Adam Cotton. I'm not at all familiar with the specific taxonomics of P. chikae and whether P. hermeli is a valid subspecies. It seems that all of this hinges on that fact. If hermeli is a valid subspecies, then it would be covered under the same laws that pertain to chikae. If it's not considered the same, then it's not even protected under CITES. I don't know of anything that has prompted a new look at this species from USFWS. It would help me understand the circumstances if I knew what your source was referring to. Could there have been a recent determination that hermeli is a a subspecies (or maybe a synonym) of chikae? Otherwise, I'm not sure what would prompt a new enforcement priority. I know that some families of animals have an "ultimate" taxonomic body that makes the determination of things like species names and the validity of subspecies. For instance, with spiders, it's the World Spider Catalog, maintained by Dr. Norman Platnick and the American Museum of Natural History. Is there a similar governing organizaion for Lepidoptera? In all likelihood, that would be the reference that USFWS uses to determine who is species, and who is subspecies. They don't make that determination "in house". If it IS decided that P. hermeli falls under the P. chikae umbrella, then they are bound by law to give hermeli the same protections as are afforded chikae. In this particular case, CITES cannot be used by USFWS as a basis to prohibit possession of this (either) species (subspecies). CITES only deals with import/export. I do recall that there were a couple of states that prohibit possession of CITES I species, so that might be important here too. Since we are dealing with the maximum protection afforded by two different laws, P. chikae is going to be difficult to obtain and keep legally in the US, under any circumstances. Since P. chikae is listed under the Endangered Species Act as Endangered (since 1/14/93), there are some things to be aware of.... Any specimens obtained after that are prohibited from import or export, they may not be shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, nor may they be sold or offered for sale. Specimens that were obtained prior to the listing date, but less than 100yrs old, can be possessed, as well as imported or exported, but it may NOT be bought or sold or "held in the course of a commercial activity". Specimens over 100 yrs old are exempt. However, the onus is upon the holder to prove the age and status of the specimen. References: Pre-Act Wildlife ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=28ddd58239f83583fe6a9e2e2c710154&rgn=div8&view=text&node=50:2.0.1.1.1.1.1.4&idno=50Prohibitions Under the ESA: ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=28ddd58239f83583fe6a9e2e2c710154&rgn=div8&view=text&node=50:2.0.1.1.1.3.1.1&idno=50Antique Articles: ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=28ddd58239f83583fe6a9e2e2c710154&rgn=div8&view=text&node=50:1.0.1.2.8.2.7.12&idno=50 |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Mar 30, 2012 0:37:55 GMT -8
Mygala,
As I stated, hermeli was placed as a synonym of Papilio chikae at subspecies level by Page & Treadaway, 2003. (Page, M. G. P. & C. G. Treadaway. 2003. Papilionidae of the Philippine Islands 1. Descriptions of New Subspecies and Changes in Classification. Bauer & Frankenbach, Butterflies of the world. Supplement 8: 1-6. Goecke & Evers, Keltern). This paper is dated 31st October 2003, but is bound with the second part of the book, which is dated September 2004, so I assume that the 2003 publication date is actually incorrect unless the first part was originally published separately.
There is no '"ultimate" taxonomic body' for Lepidoptera per se, although CITES use certain publications (particularly the error strewn D'Abrera series) as references.
No one will be able to use the 100 year rule for P. chikae or hermeli, since chikae was only described in 1965. It is vaguely possible that there is 1 specimen somewhere that Reakirt named Papilio lorquini. This may be a senior synonym of P. chikae, but the description is not conclusive and the specimen is lost. Reakirt stated the specimen was from the Philippines (without further data), but of course it could have come from somewhere else.
Adam.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2012 2:05:05 GMT -8
Well twas only a matter of time before hermeli was protected under CITES, big, showy species that it is, as stated before there are lots of little brown jobs in more need of protection than hermeli, of course its ridiculous but if you are waiting for common sense to prevail the you are going to be disappointed, it would be no hardship at all to allow monitored captive breeding programmes of hermeli/chikae which would satisfy commercial demand and conservation efforts but I must stop now, I am starting to make sense and we cant have that.
|
|
|
|
Post by thanos on Mar 30, 2012 19:02:16 GMT -8
Right, Dunc. Also, cross-breeding experimens, and the DNA, which would show for sure if they are finally the same species or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by mygala on Mar 30, 2012 20:59:25 GMT -8
Well twas only a matter of time before hermeli was protected under CITES, big, showy species that it is, as stated before there are lots of little brown jobs in more need of protection than hermeli, of course its ridiculous but if you are waiting for common sense to prevail the you are going to be disappointed, it would be no hardship at all to allow monitored captive breeding programmes of hermeli/chikae which would satisfy commercial demand and conservation efforts but I must stop now, I am starting to make sense and we cant have that. What you suggest is not out of the question. Normally, CITES I animals cannot be used in the course of commercial activities (bought, sold, bartered, etc). However, CITES allows for the breeding of captive, Appendix I animals in registered facilities. If someone wanted to take the time, trouble and expense to set up such a facility and establish a breeding program for CITES I butterflies, then, then those butterflies would be considered CITES II animals and they would be able to be bought and sold internationally with valid CITES certificates. Here is the CITES Resolution: www.cites.org/eng/res/11/11-14.phpUnfortunately, this would only apply to folks outside of the United States. Because, even though CITES would give these animals a CITES II exemption, they would still be listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act within the US. The USFWS would have to issue a Special Rule under 50 CFR 17.47 to allow the import or use of ESA insects. This is unlikely to happen until someone actually goes out there and does it. It's happened with commercially raised crocodilians in Asia. Their skins are legally imported as leather goods, clothing and other items. So, it's definitely not out of the question. |
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Apr 7, 2012 19:38:01 GMT -8
Some thoughts:
USFWS is primarily concerned with import, not possession. It is highly unlikely they'd go after owners. First, because they'd have to track down the specimens (small fish to fry and a lot of work) and second because they'd have egg on their faces for seizing specimens for which they approved import on the import paperwork.
USFWS typically does not act (yet) like other US agencies and work unilaterally. I suspect in this case that USFWS would wait for a ruling from CITES, then publish it in the Federal Register, thereby making it law.
That said, prosecution is free; it's the defense that costs money. They can prosecute you for possessing a "hermeli" when you and everyone else insists it's a lucanus cervus. It's up to you and your lawyer and your bank account to prove it's not.
Ultimately the game can be won by the commercial trade, as all they have to do is claim it's captive bred, and CITES I prohibitions effectively goes away. But for now, USFWS is certainly aware of hermeli's status, probably not happy with it, and wants to put the kabosh on importation. I suspect if they can do that, it would make them happy. Then they'll move on to something else that will probably annoy everyone even more. Hey, it's just a game.
|
|
|
|
Post by wingtr8der on Apr 11, 2012 10:24:03 GMT -8
Adam, your post is very interesting. How were you able to acquire this little tidbit from USFWS? I am new at this and I would love to have the inside scoop like you do. This edge would prove to be very profitable for me because I attempt to procure the rarest of specimens for my discreet clients.
Joseph
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Apr 12, 2012 6:35:58 GMT -8
Joseph,
I didn't say that I got "this little tidbit" from USFWS. Someone I know in academia told me about it.
Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Apr 23, 2012 19:38:46 GMT -8
Adam, your post is very interesting. How were you able to acquire this little tidbit from USFWS? I am new at this and I would love to have the inside scoop like you do. This edge would prove to be very profitable for me because I attempt to procure the rarest of specimens for my discreet clients. Joseph I've said it before, but here it is again: USA is not Nazi Germany, or even most countries. Almost nothing in USA is totally forbidden, it is "restricted." This includes O. Alexandrae, elephant ivory, heroin, Euro-only Ferraris, machine guns, etc. It's only a matter of knowing the law, and complying with it, compliance being only a matter of money. The more you know the law, the less it costs. |
|
These are common, not the least bit threatened! On the otherhand, really rare, localized species at risk like parides a. castilhoi, parides q. quadratus, parides klagesi klagesi, graphium levassori, graphium flavisparsus etc. are omitted. Then off course, commonsense is lacking these days....
