Comment on FR Doc # 2012-23747

P. shasta charlestonensis may or may not warrant protection. My concern is most over the long term effect accepting the "similarity of appearance" rule with respect to the five blues. And "outlawing all butterfly collecting" in the Spring Mts. Such a rule could be adopted by other Districts in National Forests across the country and essentially destroy scientific collecting which is done more by amateur collectors than professionals (if you consult museum collections, you will find this to be true in most major museums). Austin (1980(81) did an admirable job as a professional entomologist in Nevada and who will provide information to the USFS now? As Season Summary Coordinator for Nevada for the Lepidopterists' Society and the Nevada Coordinator for BAMONA, I am aware recent butterfly reports for that state have become very scarce. Check recent reports in the annual Season Summaries. Collectors believed to be endangering the Mt. Charleston Blue have only collected two specimens of charlestonensis since 1993 that I have been informed of...remarkably low for a butterfly supposedly so sought after as believed in the proposal. Both records were received since the proposal became known to the scientific community in the past two weeks. Collectors do go to the Spring Mts. for various desirable species that are unique to the mountain range not endangered or threatened species, but the two specimens collected of charlestonensis were of a butterfly which was known to be rare but not endangered. Had the US Forest Service posted No Collecting charlestonensis signs at Lee Canyon, that would likely had prevented such collecting which collectors believed was legal. The fact that so few were collected in such a long period demonstrates minimal collecting pressure and that this is NOT a highly sought subspecies. Banning collecting and the five similar in appearance rule will keep knowledgeable observers who could share important faunal information for free AWAY.