Subject: Ohio's protection of lepidoptera

From: John A Shuey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 11:01:06 -0500

Recently, Kenelm Philip noted:

>         It is of interest to note that in Ohio, the collecting of butter-
> fly species declared protected by state law is allowed to members of the
> Ohio Lepidopterists' Society. The state department of natural resources has
> found that the information provided by such collecting is so valuable as to
> outweigh any damage done.
>

I though I'd provide an overview of some backgound on how this came to be.
The situation in Ohio did not come about by chance, but represents the
endpoint of over a decade of pro-active work by lepidopterists/collectors to
demonstrate that :

1.  Collecting by amateurs and professionals can be a very useful inventory
tool.
2.  Amateur collecting activity can make a positive contribution to society,
such as identifying
endangered species, publishing natural history papers, and generally
increasing knowledge.
3.  Collectors are really concerned about protecting endangered species.
4.  Collectors are by and large, a responsible group of people who are an
asset, rather than a liability
in conservation matters.

We (the Ohio Lepidopterists) accomplished this by taking several deliberate
actions.  First, back in
the mid 1980's we applied for a state grant to determine the status of all
the federal candidate species
of lepidoptera reported from Ohio.  This included definitive search of
historical records/collections as
well as intensive field work.  The results were transmitted on time to the
granting agency, and later
published in peer-reviewed format as:

- Shuey, J. A., E. H. Metzler, J. W. Peacock, D. C. Iftner, J. V. Calhoun, R.
A. Watkins, J. D.
Hooper, and W. F. Babcock, 1987. Evaluation of the status and habitats of
potentially endangered or
threatened Lepidoptera in Ohio.  J. Lepid. Soc. 41: 1 - 12.

In response to this and other activities by members, the state literally
handed the Ohio Lepidopterists
6 years of funding at US$10,000 per year to conduct a statewide survey of the
Lepidoptera.  This has
produced tremendous results not all of which are finished or published yet,
including:

- Riddlebarger, Joseph E.  1984.  Euchloe olympia, a butterfly new to Ohio.
 Ohio. J. Sci. 84 (5):
267.
- Calhoun, John V.  1985[86].  An annotated list of the butterflies and
skippers of Lawrence County,
Ohio. J. Lepid. Soc. 39 (4):  284-298.
- Shuey, J. A., D. C. Iftner, and J. V. Calhoun, 1985.  The distribution of
Satyrium edwardsii
(Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) in Ohio. Atala 13: 1 - 3.
- Rings, Roy W., Richard M. Ritter, Robert W. Hawes, and Eric H. Metzler.
 1987.  A nine year
study of the Lepidoptera of the Wilderness Center, Stark County, Ohio. Ohio
J. Sci. 87 (3): 55-61.
- Shuey, J. A., J. V. Calhoun, and D. C. Iftner, 1987.  Butterflies that are
endangered, threatened or
of special concern in Ohio. Ohio J. Sci. 87: 98 - 106.
- Rings, Roy W. and Eric H. Metzler.  1988.  A preliminary annotated
checklist of the Lepidoptera
of Atwood Lake Park, Ohio. Ohio J. Sci. 88 (4): 159-168.
- Calhoun, John V., Thomas J. Allen, and David C. Iftner.  1989[90].
 Temporary breeding
populations of Phoebis sennae eubule (L.) (Pieridae) in Ohio and West
Virginia. J. Res. Lepid. 28(1-
2): 123-125.
- Calhoun, John V. and David C. Iftner.  1988[89].  An additional natural
hostplant of Pieris
virginiensis (W. H. Edwards) (Pieridae) in Ohio. J. Res. Lepid. 27 (2):
141-142.
- Metzler, Eric H. and John A. Shuey.  1989.  Unusual butterflies and moths
of the Oak Openings,
Lucas County, Ohio. J. Stranahan Arboretum. Spring, 1989; 7-10.
- Nault, Brian A., Roy W. Rings, and David J. Horn.  1989.  Lepidoptera
recorded from the islands
of western Lake Erie, with a brief account of geology and flora.  Great Lakes
Entomol. 22 (3): 111-
119.
- Rings, Roy W. and Eric H. Metzler.1989.  A preliminary checklist of the
Lepidoptera of Mohican
State Forest and Mohican State Park, Ashland County, Ohio.  Ohio J. Sci. 89
(4): 78-88.
- Shuey, J. A. and J. W. Peacock. 1989.  Assessment of hostplant exploitation
in an oligophagous
population of Pieris virginiensis (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) Amer. Mid. Natur.
122: 255 - 261.
- Metzler, Eric H. and Vincent P. Lucas.  1990.  An endangered moth in Ohio,
with notes on other
species of special concern (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae, Sphingiidae,
Notodontidae, and Arctiidae). Ohio
J. Sci. 90 (1): 33-40.
- Rings, Roy W. and Eric H. Metzler.   1990.  The Lepidoptera of Fowler Woods
State Nature
Preserve, Richland County, Ohio.  Great Lakes Entomol. 23(1): 43-56.
- Iftner, D. C., J. A. Shuey and J. V. Calhoun. 1992.  The butterflies and
skippers of Ohio. Ohio
Biological Survey, New Series, Vol.9 No.1., 212 pages.
- Rings, R.W., E. H. Metzler, F. J. Arnold, and D. H. Harris. 1992.  The
owlet moths of Ohio.
Order Lepidoptera, Family Noctuidae. Ohio Biological Survey, New Series,
Vol.9 No.2., 220 pages.

I sure I missed a few old papers related to the survey, and Eric Metzler has
published a couple of
recent papers on moths that are not included.  Several others are in the
works.

What's my point?  It is this - that to make sure that evolving federal, state
and local policies meet
your needs, be they collecting, research, or what ever, you have to take an
active role in shaping the
policies.  In most states, agencies would have made the decisions about what
butterflies and moths are
endangered, in Ohio we, the collectors, scientists and butterfly watchers
took the lead long before any
bureaucrat pondered the issue.  By getting out front, and proving the case
for collecting as an asset to
society, they really had no choice but to accept the truth.  (I should note
that most of the critically
endangered species occur on nature preserves, and these populations have
other legal protections -
but the discovery of a "new" population of a state endangered species does
not carry the threat of
legal repercussions that it would in other regions).

So....  all this whining about laws that inhibit this or that activity
irritates me.  Rather than sit around
and bitch, we should as a group be getting out there and proving our point.
 You can't just tell an
enforcement officer that collecting is good and expect him to believe it,
when the only examples he
has ever heard about are blatant violations of the laws protecting endangered
species or our National
Parks and forests.  Bad news flies like the wind, good news generally isn't
even news worthy.

If you are concerned about infringements on your rights as a collector and
your expect to effect some
change in public policy, then lead by example.
      Don't break Laws.
      Don't trespass.
      Don't defend obvious law breakers.
      Don't set a bad example.

      Do get permits.
      Do file reports on time.
      Do publish new information.
      Do show concern about the environment and endangered species.

   AND SO ON.

Only when collectors are generally viewed as a positive resource, will we see
the types of legal
changes that we expect.  Because like it or not, perception IS REALITY, and
the perception of
butterfly collectors in general is pretty bad at the current time.  We have
some serious damage to
repair, and I think that it will take a few years to accomplish the repairs.
 In the meantime, we have
to somehow replace the bad news with positive.  The only way to do this
involves actual work.  I
suggest that we get to it.

Sorry this post got so lengthy.  But good things generally don't happen by
chance, they require work,
diligence guidance and patience.  If you made it through all of the above, at
the minimum you have
lots of patience.

John Shuey

---

From: Stephanie McKown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 15:59:26 -0500

Bravo John!

---

From: Stephanie McKown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 16:04:30 -0500

John -
I have seldom been turned down when asking for a permit to collect in
protected areas.  Of course, like the Ohio Leps, I have always provided the
park, forest or refuge with an offer of specimens (which they usually refuse,
so I deposit them in museums like LACM) and documentation in the form of a
report of my activities, methods used and photographs of specimens.  The
report, they gladly take.

Stephanie McKown