>
> Why is it illegal for someone to collect endangered species, yet the
> equivalent to a nuclear bomb can be dropped on acres of Sarracenia by a
> corporation and not an eyelash is batted! ? Where is the Nature
> Conservancy? where are federal and state government laws that protect
> these species? I don't get it! Are these corporations above the law?
I'm not sure if any of the species you listed are officially protected.
Even if they are, one usually needs to sue to protect a species if the
land's owner is unwilling to do so. Even then, there may be little that
can be done, except to delay the destruction. I remember a story in the
papers about 3 years ago about one of Ross Perot's companies. He owned
land which including nesting sites for an endangered bird which he wanted
to develop. He learned that he was going to be sued to prevent
development in a few days. Therefore, he immediately had the forest
bulldozed so there would be nothing left to fight about in court. I may
have some of the details wrong, and I don't intend this to be a
political comment on Perot, but it points out how little can be done to
protect endangered species. I think it's important to support candidates
for elected office who are environmentally friendly (OK, so I made this
a political statement after all).
> I really don't feel that small collections made by responsible hobbiests
> is the problem. Mass collection for trade is bad, but by far, the worst
> threat to Sarracenia stands in the south is habitat destruction by
> developers and corporations.
I would agree with this, except that too many collections by individuals
can also devastate a population. It is almost always true that the most
severe threat to a species comes from habitat loss.
Back on that soapbox again. I seem to spend a lot of time there.
Wayne Forrester