Comment on FR Doc # 2012-23747

The proposal to list P. shasta charlestonensis as an endangered species may or may not be justified. Based on my observations of the Mt. Charleston area and Lee Canyon, it is very likely that butterfly is far more common and widespread than currently known. But such habitat is largely inaccessible and problematic to reach. Listing the other species of "similar appearance" was a bad precedent to start with the listing of the Miami Blue. The Ceraunus Blue (Hemiargus ceraunus) and Reakirt's Blue (Echinargus isola) are common butterflies of the southwestern deserts and found well outside the Spring Mts. of Nevada. They look nothing like a Plebejus shasta except for size. The two Ancilla Blues are not readily separable from each other but much different than charlestonensis. The Lupine Blue (Plebejus lupini texanus) is also easy to separate from the Mt. Charleston Blue. It should be a simple matter to train Spring Mts. USFS employees how to recognize a Shasta Blue, otherwise this raises questions about the competency of government agencies and believe me, right now that is what people who study butterflies are asking themselves. Protecting non-endangered species endangers the study of butterflies, museum and private collections and will ultimately raise questions about the Endangered Species Act. Making it against the law to have a collected specimen of a butterfly collected in 1990 should this proposal pass in 2012 is a violation of personal property rights and ruin peoples lives who don't deserve that. Yes, prosecution of a person collecting an endangered species makes sense. Requiring a butterfly in ones possession to be an antique over 100 years old does not. This is an issue certainly destined to find the US Government taken to court and a violation of justice for individuals that did not really break any law.