Wisconsin: “It is illegal to remove insect larvae from any trout stream or spring hole tributary to a trout stream for use or sale as bait except that a licensed angler may take insect larvae or nymphs from trout streams by hand during the open trout season for their immediate personal use as bait in the stream from which taken and all such larvae or nymphs must be returned to the stream prior to leaving the stream from which taken. By hand means no use of small seines or nets or other devices."
Falsify, the Wisconsin regulations pamphlet is very poorly written, and it's not actually the law. The law is obscure statutes somewhere. I haven't actually seen it, but Steve Ave'Lallemant (the relevant expert higher-up in the WI DNR) looked into it for me and determined that personal scientific collection is perfectly legal. That was after one or two low-level DNR people got curious about what I was doing and reported me, based on the regs booklet, and there was a bit of confusion around it. From then on I carried a copy of my email from Steve when I was collecting nymphs, though I never ended up having to show it to anyone.
Am I correct in assuming that in most circumstances someone collecting a few bugs for their personal analysis is most unlikely to run afoul of the law in terms of actually being noticed, apprehended, and fined?
I've never heard of somebody actually being prosecuted for small-scale bug collecting.
I, too, have only had my license checked once (though in considerably fewer years than Louis - sorry, buddy).
Wow, PA must be really lax on that. I've been checked many times in Missouri, Wisconsin, and New York. Never had somebody check my bug license, though.
it is illegal to collect invertebrates in any special regulated fishery in the Commonwealth. Otherwise, it is permissible to take up to 50 individuals in aggregate of species (32 cased caddis larvae, 17 hellgrammites and a partridge in a pear tree) in a day.
Boy, that could lead to an exciting day in court:
: "Your honor, the defense calls Konchu to testify that these 54 Drunella
nymphs are in fact comprised of 2 separate species. Nymphs #16-22, 19, 48-49, and 51 are plainly D. lata
: "Your honor, those two species were classified as synonyms in Somebody et al 2001, meaning there are in fact more than 50 of a species."
: "The status of D. whatever
as a separate species was restored in 2008 by Somebody else et al."
: "I instruct the jurors to disregard the conclusions of Somebody et al 2001."
: "However, I have a paper coming out in 2009 that suggests they are in fact synonyms..."
: "In that case, your honor, we contend that 17 of the nymphs are of a premature instar, and their abdominal tubercles are not developed well enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that they belong to D. whatever
: "Now, about those chironomids..."