Post by roseinbloom on Jul 24, 2023 7:30:28 GMT -6
Hi all, I think I am looking for anecdotes or feedback on a possible plan of attack. (These are long-term plans—not something I can focus on right now, but I know if I reach out and have some forward movement it won’t get swept under the rug later)
We have the right soil conditions, etc., to tend a patch of a wild, native plant which is the singular host species for the larva of an endangered butterfly native to my region. While I think we could be very successful at establishing this patch, if the butterflies populate here the state could come in and claim eminent domain over that land. Word-of-mouth is this happened recently in my area to a women who did this same thing in her front yard.
I’m interested, long-term, in petitioning to change this, unless the argument against privately owned property is convincing. I would think citizen-scientists should be encouraged to promote wildlife habitats, especially in light of continued human development. I’m not sure how such wildlife areas would negatively impact existing areas protected by the state or otherwise. I would think the argument against would be more about “ownwership” or access to endangered species and their exuviae/parts which shouldn’t be traded or monetized (ex. Permits to hold native/endemic feathers)
Or maybe, legitimately, the only issue is having a permit for such purposes…although I would think permits for living species would be super complicated. No one is looking for any gain other than to create spaces for an endangered species (we have already met and exceeded some of the criteria for creating “certified” wildlife habitats on our property, and we raise monarchs to adulthood, and this is just an extension of that).
Are there any thoughts? Does anyone know of similar examples which are published? Should I expect to reach out to the DEC directly or would it be more successful through another venue that would connect with the DEC?
We have the right soil conditions, etc., to tend a patch of a wild, native plant which is the singular host species for the larva of an endangered butterfly native to my region. While I think we could be very successful at establishing this patch, if the butterflies populate here the state could come in and claim eminent domain over that land. Word-of-mouth is this happened recently in my area to a women who did this same thing in her front yard.
I’m interested, long-term, in petitioning to change this, unless the argument against privately owned property is convincing. I would think citizen-scientists should be encouraged to promote wildlife habitats, especially in light of continued human development. I’m not sure how such wildlife areas would negatively impact existing areas protected by the state or otherwise. I would think the argument against would be more about “ownwership” or access to endangered species and their exuviae/parts which shouldn’t be traded or monetized (ex. Permits to hold native/endemic feathers)
Or maybe, legitimately, the only issue is having a permit for such purposes…although I would think permits for living species would be super complicated. No one is looking for any gain other than to create spaces for an endangered species (we have already met and exceeded some of the criteria for creating “certified” wildlife habitats on our property, and we raise monarchs to adulthood, and this is just an extension of that).
Are there any thoughts? Does anyone know of similar examples which are published? Should I expect to reach out to the DEC directly or would it be more successful through another venue that would connect with the DEC?
