I really wish we could have intelligent discusions here. Please just stop the petty name calling, everyone.
I emailed a local ranger district and got in touch with their silviculturalist. This is what he said:
- Me: As a "candidate" species for threatened status, is there an implied global do-not-transplant requirement for whitebark pine (say, across the PNW), or is it still a local district or forest decision?
- Him: There is no implied restriction regionally. Should whitebark pine officially become a threatened species there could be some direction from our Regional Office, which manages Washington and Oregon forests, to restrict harvesting the species. Or, maybe not. Due to its high elevation habitat, I would imagine much of the whitebark pine in the PNW is located in designated wilderness which in itself restricts plants from being harvested. So it may be up to the individual forest to determine if it needs additional protections for the tree beyond wilderness protection.
- Me: More generally, if I ask a permit office "what can't I collect in your district" and they give me a list, can I treat that as the final say? Or am I on the hook to do research myself to make sure they didn't omit some restricted species? If the latter, what is the definitive place I look to make sure I've got the right list?
- Him: Each Forest is responsible for letting you know what is restricted, so yes you can treat this as the final say.
So, as far as I'm concerned, the expectation of all of us is to ask each district for their do-not-touch list, when acquiring permits. That is the source of truth.
As an aside, he also highlighted the other key ways threatened species are protected, even if not officially designated so. Wilderness areas, national parks, etc. that forbid any collection at all. I for one can attest that it is very hard to get high enough in Washington, in legal areas, to even reach whitebark pines.