Status of the Rare insect.

[Phil Bunch]

>From the regulatory point of view the use of such designation as rare
or common causes problems.  Early in the history of attempts to
protect local Southern California flora the opinion of local botanists
regarding the rarity of species became entrenched in the thinking of
planning agencies.  This led to the designation of several species as
rare and requiring special treatment under CEQA. As biologists started
looking for the plants several were found to much more common that
originally thought. This caused expensive and unnecessary restrictions
to be placed on some development activities.

Errors also were made with species considered to be extirpated.  The
Quino checkerspot butterfly is an example.  When the company  work for
was developing a NCCP Subregional Plan the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) considered the Quino to be extirpated in the area
and refused to give it Covered status.  Now that numerous population
have been located it has become a big problem for us that could have
been avoided.  Since the Service must consider the best available
scientific evidence in listing decisions it's very important that an
adequate assessment of a species actual distribution be made prior to
opinions on rarity being published. Any statement on rarity made on
the basis of limited collection efforts does not constitute a sound
basis for regulatory decision making but may used by some groups to
petition listing as Threatened or Endangered. This may result in law
suites against the Service which waste time and money that could be
better spent on their real mission.

There are good biological reasons to err on the side of the species in
regulatory decision making but the cost of making the wrong decision
can be very high.

Phil Bunch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robin Leech" <releech at TELUSPLANET.NET>
To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 18:53
Subject: Re: Status of the Rare insect.


> It is because most so-called "rare" or "very rare" species are
usually
> artifacts of collecting.  That is, numerous beetle people, for
example, can
> be trying to collect species X and Y, but no one ever turns up more
than 1
> or 2 per year.  Collections then reflect this apparent paucity of
> individuals of species X and Y.
> All it takes is one person to luck out, or stumble onto a number of
> specimens, and in one moment collect more than have ever been
collected
> before to alter an apparent status of "rare" to common.
> Keep in mind that if one person finds one specimen of X or Y at a
location,
> then others "psych" the location and continue to look in other
places that
> have a similar habitat.  In reality, the individual specimens caught
may
> have been on the edges of their distribution, late or early for
their
> seasons, needing more or less humidity, happen-chance landed there
and were
> caught, etc.
> Factors are such things as collecting technique, thoroughness of
collecting,
> where people have been looking, time of year, peculiarities of a
particular
> season,  etc.
> I can cite several examples for beetles and spiders.
> In other words, "rare" and "very rare" are museum terms, and not
necessarily
> reality tems.
> Robin Leech
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vr. Richard Bejsak-Colloredo-Mansfeld" <ricardo at ANS.COM.AU>
> To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 5:46 PM
> Subject: Status of the Rare insect.
>
>
> > Dear colleagues,
> > I know that to give a status to for example beetles, like: common,
rare,
> > very rare etc is not used anymore in any recent publication.
> >  I would like to know why?
> > It is not recommended by government bodies?
> > Could presence of very rare insect stop development / destruction
of the
> > site?
> >
> > Keep care and be of good cheer
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > (name) Vratislav Richard Eugene Maria John Baptist
> > (surname) of Bejsak (Bayshark)-Colloredo-Mansfeld
> > (title) 84 duke of Siebenl?gner
> >
> > websites:
> > http://www.coleoptera.org. and
> > http://www.egroups.com/group/coleoptera
> >
> > University of Sydney
> > The Wentworth Bldg., B 62
> > NSW 2006
> > AUSTRALIA
> > phone  :  +61 414 540 465
> > email: vratislav at bigfoot.com
> > ICQ: 13610107
> >
> > Only after the last tree has been cut down,
> > only after the last river has been poisoned,
> > only after the last fish has been caught,
> > only then will you find that money can not be eaten.'
> >         CREE INDIAN PROPHECY.
> >
> > Incoming  mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>