NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Dedicated exclusively to field herping.

Moderator: Scott Waters

User avatar
geckoguy747
Posts: 325
Joined: August 15th, 2010, 10:46 pm
Location: san bernardino mtns

NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by geckoguy747 »

hey guys, just thought i'd give you a heads up that there were several changes made to the 2013-2014 amphibian and reptile regulations effective as of MARCH 1, 2013.

eight species of amphibian and three species of reptile have been removed from the list of species authorized for take with a sport fishing license. there are also several new county level and subspecies closures. here is the break down:

AMPHIBIANS

as written in the 2013-2014 california department of fish and wildlife regulation book, the following species are no longer authorized for take:

california giant salamander (Dicamptodon ensatus)
southern seep (torrent) salamander (Rhyacotriton variegatus)
california newt (Taricha torosa)
red bellied newt (Taricha rivularus)
long-toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum)
relictual slender salamander (Batrachoseps relictus)
couch's spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus (Spea) couchii)
northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens)

The following special closures have also been added:

no black salamanders (Aneides flavipunctatus) may be taken in san mateo, santa clara, and santa cruz counties.

a note on Batrachoseps:

the current regulations list only B. attenuatus and B. pacificus as authorized for take; however, B. pacificus probably refers to the old taxonomy for the garden slender salamander which is currently recognized as B. major major.

REPTILES

as written in the 2013-2014 california department of fish and wildlife regulation book, the following species are no longer authorized for take:

colorado desert fringe-toed lizard (Uma notata)
mojave fringe-toed lizard (Uma scoparia))
california legless lizard (Anniella pulchra)

The following subspecies also may no longer be taken:

san diego banded gecko (Coleonyx variegatus abbotti)
sierra night lizard (Xantusia vigilis sierrae)
regal ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus regalis)
coast patch-nosed snake (Salvadora hexalepis virgultea)
california glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis)
san bernardino mountain kingsnake (Lampropeltis zonata parvirubra)

in order to protect subspecies previously not authorized for take, the following special closures have also been added:
(please note that these closures may also restrict the take of subspecies that are otherwise authorized for take with a sport fishing license.)

no geckos (Coleonyx variegatus) may be taken in san diego county south and west of highway 79 to its junction with county road s-2, and south and west of county road s-2 to the eastern san diego county border.

no rubber boas (Charina bottae or Charina umbratica) may be taken in kern, los angeles, riverside and san bernardino counties.

no night lizards (Xantusia vigilis) may be taken in kern county.

no ringneck snakes (Diadophis punctatus) may be taken in san bernardino or inyo counties.

no coachwhips (Masticophis (Coluber) flagellum) may be taken in the following counties: alameda, contra costa, fresno, kern, kings, merced, monterey, san benito, san joaquin, san luis obispo, santa barbara, stanislaus, tulare.

no california whipsnakes (striped racer) (Masticophis (Coluber) lateralis) may be taken in alameda and contra costa counties.

no western (desert) patch-nosed snakes (Salvadora hexalepis) may be taken in the following counties: los angeles, orange, riverside, san bernardino, san diego, san luis obispo, santa barbara and ventura.

no glossy snakes (Arizona elegans) may be taken in the following counties: alameda, fresno, imperial (west of hwy 111), kern, los angeles, riverside (southwest of hwy 111 and i-10), san bernardino (west of i-215 and hwy 138), san diego, san joaquin, san luis obispo, santa barbara, santa clara and tulare.

no mountain kingsnakes (Lampropeltis zonata) may be taken in imperial, los angeles, orange, riverside, san bernardino, san diego, and ventura counties.

other notable changes:

sharp-tailed snakes are now listed as Contia spp. authorizing the take of all species of sharp-tailed snakes.
lyre snakes are now listed as Trimorphodon spp. authorizing the take of all species of lyre snakes.
night snakes are now listed as Hypsiglena spp. authorizing the take of all species of night snakes.

the regulations still state that "no sportfishing license is required for the sport take of any rattlesnake, but bag and possession limits do apply." however, all species of rattlesnake are now listed along with the other species of snake authorized for take, and the red diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber) now has a daily bag and possession limit of zero (0).


these are all of the changes i found. if anyone has noticed anything else please add it to the list.
hope this was helpful,
josh
User avatar
Owen
Posts: 1924
Joined: June 11th, 2010, 12:35 am
Location: San Jose', Northern Catcrapistan

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Owen »

Great summary. Thanks for posting.
RobertH
Posts: 1834
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:38 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by RobertH »

Thanks for all the work, Josh, very helpful :thumb:

Robert
User avatar
Mike Waters
Posts: 835
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:37 pm
Location: Bakersfield CA

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Mike Waters »

That is truly disappointing. So many of those animals do not belong on that list. I guess i should entered all 300457939000 arizona elegans that i found the last few years in kern county. Glossys are probably the most common snake we have in the KC desert. Sheesh
User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Fundad »

Wow unbelievable..

Time to start writing letters. I was not aware this ever went before the commission.

Parvs just went from worthless to $150 bucks per.. :(

Legless lizards :lol:

Fundad
User avatar
El Garia
Posts: 722
Joined: October 20th, 2011, 4:39 pm
Location: Santa Clara Co. , CA

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by El Garia »

Nicely done, Josh. Thanks for taking the time to put this together.
User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Fundad »

PS Why Do I feel like I am going to be a criminal now, for herping in California?

Fundad

PS thanks for list Josh.
User avatar
jdustin
Posts: 454
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:59 am
Location: UTAH
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by jdustin »

What data could possibly support protecting glossys and northern charina?!?
User avatar
Owen
Posts: 1924
Joined: June 11th, 2010, 12:35 am
Location: San Jose', Northern Catcrapistan

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Owen »

jdustin wrote:What data could possibly support protecting glossys and northern charina?!?
How about California Newts? (Same goes for CA Giants). I can't tell you how many hundreds of newt stains were on the road yesterday.

Image

Of course, the state of CA is a logic free zone, so anything could happen.
User avatar
ricrabt
Posts: 762
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:55 am
Location: Santa Clarita

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by ricrabt »

Why aren't we saving the gopher snakes and side blotches. Most of these laws are a joke..
User avatar
TORIN
Posts: 106
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 6:26 pm
Location: Atascadero, California
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by TORIN »

Who's the idiot that makes these laws? What a joke. Night lizards in kern county? There are millions of them. Their only threat is housing developments. Just like pretty much every reptile on that list.

I don't know about the rest of you, but when something is wrong I don't go along with it. This over regulation, of even a hobby as insignificant as ours has got to stop. Especially when it's so off base, and totally mistaken.
User avatar
TORIN
Posts: 106
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 6:26 pm
Location: Atascadero, California
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by TORIN »

But I guess we'll have to watch our backs a little harder around any particularly persnickety f&g, and uptight fellow herpers.
User avatar
torquatoiv
Posts: 24
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 10:53 am
Location: SB Mountains

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by torquatoiv »

Wow, that puts it right into perspective.

Why the hell do I even bother paying for a license anymore? Pretty much useless to me unless I want to sit at a local Lake all day and not catch *&^%...my luck. Love the idiots writing these laws. :evil:

Those laws didn't save the crushed San Bernardino Mountain Kingsnakes I almost died peeling off the highway last year. Some people need a little Astroglide, cuz it is in there DEEP.
User avatar
jdustin
Posts: 454
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:59 am
Location: UTAH
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by jdustin »

According to this site, they actually did make it to where a license is now needed for Crots as well. (Never mind, this is incorrect!)
http://www.californiaherps.com/info/herpinglaws.html

The CDFW now recognizes that rattlesnakes are a worthwhile part of our native fauna by removing this notice "No sportfishing license is required for the sport take of any rattlesnake" and adding following rattlesnakes to the list of reptiles that can be taken with a current fishing license. However, the Red diamond rattlesnake - Crotalus ruber is now restricted from take:

Western diamondback rattlesnake - Crotalus atrox
Mojave rattlesnake - Crotalus scutulatus
Western rattlesnakes - Crotalus viridus (oreganus) spp.
Speckled rattlesnake - Crotalus mitchelli
Sidewinders - Crotalus cerastes spp.
Panamint rattlesnake - Crotalus stephensi
Red diamond rattlesnake - Crotalus ruber: Limit: Zero (0)
User avatar
jdustin
Posts: 454
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:59 am
Location: UTAH
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by jdustin »

I just checked the new regulations, and it still states that "No sportfishing license is required for the sport take of any rattlesnake, but bag and possession limits do apply."
Here's a link to the actual current regs, in case anyone cares
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/regulations/Fresh ... c5_60.html
User avatar
snakemastermyke
Posts: 108
Joined: July 15th, 2012, 11:07 pm
Location: So Cal
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by snakemastermyke »

Here's my question... I do not keep crots at home since I moved from a house to an apartment, but I do know a handful of people that keep Crotalus ruber. Now that the possession limit is 0 what are their legal options? Release is illegal... what is there protocol there? Will they have a Grandfather clause?

And as for the rest of these, I would say most of them make terrible captives anyways, but at the same time, where in the world is the science backing some of these calls? I don't get it, they should post the papers that back these decisions. I think if people understood WHY they would be more inclined to respect the rule changes as people only truly respect what they understand.

IMHO.
User avatar
sdFH'er
Posts: 97
Joined: June 1st, 2011, 2:05 pm
Location: San Diego

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by sdFH'er »

Was hoping this was just a bad early April fools joke. Unbelievable......
RobertH
Posts: 1834
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:38 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by RobertH »

I understand everyone's frustration, but feel compelled to call your attention to how your remarks may well be read by the very law enforcement officials you are complaining about: That you are upset because you can no longer go out and capture Rubber Boas, Ruber, Glossy Snakes, Banded Geckos, Patchnose Snakes, Ringneck Snakes, etc., in many populated counties, and that therefore the new laws are necessary. They protect herps from being overcollected, just as intended.

But this is, of course, not what is really going on. As someone else already pointed out, most of the protected species make terrible pets. And most of them simply aren't wanted by herp keepers. The only exception would be appear L. zonata parvirubra, and that species isn't easily collected anyway and found only in very small numbers (unlike z. pulchra in SD County)).

So, in my mind, we should focus our comments - more clearly - on the real reason for our criticism - the apparent absence of data supporting the new laws. If there are no data to support the new restrictions, as is likely, then the new laws are a waste of tax payer money, money that could more wisely be spent on other herp conservation measures that are actually needed.

I, for one, do not feel any more "criminalized" as a herper than before. But, like most of you, I do feel that those who make rules about herps have little to no idea of what is really needed to effectively protect herps.

Robert
User avatar
TORIN
Posts: 106
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 6:26 pm
Location: Atascadero, California
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by TORIN »

I'm not all that worried about f&g reading my comments. Freedom of speach and all that. Not really worried about getting in trouble for violation of any herp law either. Most f&g couldn't tell a gopher, fron a glossy, or rattlesnake anyway, and I'm sure they barely care. Plus the chances of running into any f&g at all is so incredibly low that it's not even worth a worry. Unless you're in a park in which case you shouldn't be taking anything in the first place. I feel we mainly have to worry about other herpers who feel it's their duty to help enforce these laws by snitching to authorities, and probably having to make the authorities aware of the laws in the process, because like I said they probably don't know it themselves.

The future of these animals is threatened by development, not us. Some of these creatures will surely only be saved by captive breeding by private individuals. These laws are actually hurtful to the species they claim to protect. Conservation of small areas of land can only do so much.
User avatar
El Garia
Posts: 722
Joined: October 20th, 2011, 4:39 pm
Location: Santa Clara Co. , CA

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by El Garia »

Whether you realize it or not, such comments on a NAFHA forum can reflect negatively on all of it's members. I don't see any good coming from criticizing DFG Officers, or the other Peace Officers that enforce our wildlife laws. I'm assuming that you don't know this, but we have F&G employees that are members of NAFHA. Please, take all of this into account.
User avatar
Phillodactylus
Posts: 170
Joined: August 25th, 2012, 12:56 am
Location: Victorville, CA

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Phillodactylus »

First, thanks to Josh for taking the time to keep us all up to date on this. I also appreciate reading the comments and opinions that are being shared with us here. I agree with Fundad... I do in fact feel more and more like herping is becoming a criminal activity. Without the reasons, these rules seem completely arbitrary. Who can we contact to ask about the science used to make these rules? Do we speak directly to DFG, and if so, who exactly do we write/call?

Also, I realize their purview is more in the realm of keeping/breeding herps, but is this something we could talk to USARK or some other herp lobbyist group about? They seem to have a bit of pull with the government types if any of us do...

In the end, I doubt that we'll be able to reverse these measures (some of which may be more necessary than we want to admit), but if there is even a chance it'd be worth a shot.

-Phil
User avatar
TORIN
Posts: 106
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 6:26 pm
Location: Atascadero, California
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by TORIN »

I don't think it's being overly critical to say most f&g don't know their herps, or herp laws. Most people don't know every detail of every workplace rule. I'm sure the f&g people who are members of this forum are reasonable people with a good knowledge of Herpetology I am also reasonably sure they disagree with many of the herp laws. They don't make the laws they're just supposed to enforce them. I also doubt they will take one individuals words to be representative of an entire community. Sorry to anybody to whom I've brought fear of persecution, or disgrace with my words, but I speak my mind. I live by the motto don't tread on me. I respect the law, and the officers who enforce it, but I do not just blindy obey. I'm an American not a Frenchman. Lol
User avatar
TORIN
Posts: 106
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 6:26 pm
Location: Atascadero, California
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by TORIN »

Also if these animals are illegal to collect, are they also illegal to kill?
User avatar
nightdriver
Posts: 427
Joined: August 24th, 2010, 9:34 pm
Location: Los Angeles County

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by nightdriver »

I'm giong to need a 6 inch binder to keep this all straight. Coachwips in Kern County ....REALLY? :shock: I'm wondering whats going to be added next year. I'm certain the Aligator lizards south of the 210, west of the 57, north of the 60, and east of the 605 are in dire straights :roll: Where is the science indeed? I'm convinced if we educated the herps about the dangers of crossing roads and what cover herpers prefer to flip, we could make this issue a mute one.

-nightdriver
User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Fundad »

The only exception would be appear L. zonata parvirubra, and that species isn't easily collected anyway and found only in very small numbers (unlike z. pulchra in SD County)).
What are you basing this info on?

Fundad
User avatar
torquatoiv
Posts: 24
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 10:53 am
Location: SB Mountains

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by torquatoiv »

I agee mostly with Torin.

I am just tired of my freedoms and rights being stripped away by the government. I feel it is all driven by money, not any concerns for the actual animals involved, their rattlesnake law is a direct example of that. And to be specific, I am not talking directly about DFG officers, they are primarily just the messengers, just doing their jobs...added most I have talked with have a good general knowledge of herps, just not the laws regarding them...Animal Control officers and the Humane Society employees that I have worked with on a couple of projects are mostly not knowledgeable about reptiles at all.

But, I have been herping all of my life from when I sat in a baby seat 34 years ago. My dad, now 58 years old, was herping when he was a teenager. And now I show my kids how to herp responsively, but these new laws are making it criminal to enjoy this hobby. And I feel these new laws are unjust and made by corporate idiots looking to make more money from fines and fees issued to law abiding herpers. Law abiding herpers are going to be the primary people hassled by these laws, not your typical poacher. And these laws are further unjust BECAUSE the primary threat to every species is the same government making these laws. Housing development, parking lots, every natural habitat that has been bulldozed to make something for our ever growing population or consumption is the direct problem. You don't see the government issuing fines and jail time to corporations scraping the land, destroying habitat and many of the same species these laws protect. Nope, no jail time there, they just get building permits. We as herpers can't even clear that same construction zone of animals that will probably die without facing prosecution and fines. The next biggest threat, the tread of a man made vehicle on a man made road. Followed by natural predators, and then the poaching bastards these laws are made for. I am not saying the thought of regulating herping is not a noble thought, but criminals do not follow laws.

So that's my rant for the day, if there is a petition started, I would gladly sign it. Because if I don't one day the native rosy boa I have had for 7 years, is added to their "revised" list because they have allowed Cabazon to be built up with housing tracts and strip malls, I am going to be a criminal. And that is BS and ridiculous.

Added, another example of the intelligence behind the laws....how in the HELL is a glossy added? That's like adding gopher snakes.
User avatar
Harold of the Rocks
Posts: 45
Joined: August 12th, 2010, 10:03 pm
Location: Napa, CA

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Harold of the Rocks »

Would one of our fellow NAFHA members who are Employed by Fish and Game possibly post a link to the Data that brought these rules into act? I would like to read the data and sources of such data to see where they are coming from. I am just as quick to jump to conclusions of a great act of disinformation and a waste of tax dollars but if i can see the other side of this, i could try to be civil and assume that people much more informed than myself have made good decisions.
Lets not even think about the legalization of Zonata and Charina for propagation. Because 10 years from now when they are as cheap as a pyro or getula. Then the only threats they would have would be from habitat encroachment.
User avatar
Ross Padilla
Posts: 2666
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 6:29 pm
Location: I love L.A.
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Ross Padilla »

Now they are going after the reptile shows in CA.

http://usark.org/campaign/vote-no-to-ca ... 7-p1830-o1
hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 8:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by hellihooks »

It almost feels as though we (data collectors) have been played... we supply data so better herp management decisions can be made... yet it seems as though the data we supplied was used as ammunition to further increase the precautionary principle. :shock:
In other words... the data we supplied was used against us. :( That is a very disconcerting thought. jim
User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Fundad »

In other words... the data we supplied was used against us. That is a very disconcerting thought. jim
I am not so sure it was used against us, but I could be wrong.

A couple of points with that data request.

1. It was years ago and we had only a small percentage of what we have now, and we has less people entering data
2. Many of those records didn't have GPS.
3. No one ever followed up with them to give them more data.
4. Not enough people enter data to make a difference.

Fundad
User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Fundad »

Though a bit restrictive, I am glad to see bag limits placed on Rattlesnakes, such as specks. Bag Limits are equal to protection.

I am also fine with the California Glossy Snake being protected (If there were habitat protections that came with them), but protecting them in all of SD County is silly.

I don't collect much of anything anymore, but I do like to record data. I shouldn't be a criminal for picking up a legless lizard to photo (voucher/Record) it, but with the way "Take" is defined, it could be a citable offence. How am I (are we) suppose to record these species?

I also found my Garter Snake location is being bulldozed.. So they can bulldoze one of the rariest snakes in So Cal, but I can't pick up a common Mtn king to photo it?!?

Its so frustrating.
Fundad
User avatar
Calfirecap
Posts: 638
Joined: June 16th, 2010, 8:09 am
Location: Santa Cruz Co. California
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Calfirecap »

On the flip side of this is, with all the new protected species, it may be more difficult to obtain the permits to bulldoze and pave over good habitat. My biggest problem is with how 'Take' is defined, which is nothing new. As Fundad stated above, 'Take' is simply picking up an animal, not just collection of.
I also agree that if the DF&W had more data, some of the more common species may not have been included. That's where we could come in, by vouchering frequently encountered species, not just the nice finds.

Lawrence
danojeno
Posts: 1
Joined: December 21st, 2012, 3:45 pm

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by danojeno »

Fundad wrote:Though a bit restrictive, I am glad to see bag limits placed on Rattlesnakes, such as specks. Bag Limits are equal to protection.

I am also fine with the California Glossy Snake being protected (If there were habitat protections that came with them), but protecting them in all of SD County is silly.

I don't collect much of anything anymore, but I do like to record data. I shouldn't be a criminal for picking up a legless lizard to photo (voucher/Record) it, but with the way "Take" is defined, it could be a citable offence. How am I (are we) suppose to record these species?

I also found my Garter Snake location is being bulldozed.. So they can bulldoze one of the rariest snakes in So Cal, but I can't pick up a common Mtn king to photo it?!?

Its so frustrating.
Fundad
Remember, "we" should not be recording anything. That right there should be left to the government. The government knows best. Why are we surprised when this happens in CA?
hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 8:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by hellihooks »

I'm not saying the 'powers that be' intentionally used the data we supplied against us... but rather (as Brian implies) we supplied just enough data to hurt, rather than help our cause.
And I can't help but wonder if these changes would have been less 'extreme'... had they had less data to work with.... the ole 'no news is good news'
The way I read it... it's now illegal to keep a Ruber... but still ok to kill one. And... it's ok to keep some horned lizards... that invariably die in captivity. :roll: the logic of some of these rules eludes me. jim
RobertH
Posts: 1834
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:38 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by RobertH »

My biggest problem is with how 'Take' is defined, which is nothing new.
Exactly. It should not be a crime to pose a herp for a voucher shot, or any field photography for that matter. The rules, when they were written, clearly did not have photography in mind.

Robert
User avatar
monklet
Posts: 2648
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 4:44 pm
Location: Ventura, CA
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by monklet »

Fundad wrote:I also found my Garter Snake location is being bulldozed.. So they can bulldoze one of the rarest snakes in So Cal, but I can't pick up a common Mtn king to photo it?!?
Something has gone terribly wrong here. Good case for NAFHA to work hard toward gaining as much credibility as possible so that the wisdom gained by highly experienced herpers such as yourself might be enlisted into the process.
User avatar
TORIN
Posts: 106
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 6:26 pm
Location: Atascadero, California
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by TORIN »

Anybody up for drafting a group email to send to Charlton H. Bonham?

I think a lot of California's herp regulations could use some revising. They can only get worse if we stay silent. We all obviously have some strong negative opinions about the state of the rules regarding our hobby.
mwentz
Posts: 152
Joined: December 8th, 2012, 3:06 pm

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by mwentz »

I know I don't post much, but I do read the forums everyday.

After hearing how the California bullet train is going to be delayed for decades (or never completed because it is boondogle anyways) because of environmental issues raised by the greens, wouldn't it be possible to do something similar?

For example, seeing that all glossy snakes in SD are now protected, can someone file an injunction to stop all building in SD? eg use the system against itself? Or stop all building in parviruba habitat? The current no take regulations are obstensibly to stop the population decline, and can be proven with math and ecology to not work. But math and ecology would prove that habitat destruction would help the populations. Therefore an injunction would be the most and problably only way of actually acomplishing the stated purpose. Any judge that would not see the logic would prove that there is no logic in this descion.

I live in a fantasy world most of the time, so take this with a grain of salt. I just like the idea of using the system against itself. like a snake eating its own tail.

Thanks all,
Matt
User avatar
El Garia
Posts: 722
Joined: October 20th, 2011, 4:39 pm
Location: Santa Clara Co. , CA

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by El Garia »

Risk Evaluations for Species of Special Concern: http://arssc.ucdavis.edu/species/species.html

From the page linked above: "These documents will serve as the basis for listing taxa as SSC"
User avatar
torquatoiv
Posts: 24
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 10:53 am
Location: SB Mountains

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by torquatoiv »

Fundad wrote:Though a bit restrictive, I am glad to see bag limits placed on Rattlesnakes, such as specks. Bag Limits are equal to protection.

I am also fine with the California Glossy Snake being protected (If there were habitat protections that came with them), but protecting them in all of SD County is silly.

I don't collect much of anything anymore, but I do like to record data. I shouldn't be a criminal for picking up a legless lizard to photo (voucher/Record) it, but with the way "Take" is defined, it could be a citable offence. How am I (are we) suppose to record these species?

I also found my Garter Snake location is being bulldozed.. So they can bulldoze one of the rariest snakes in So Cal, but I can't pick up a common Mtn king to photo it?!?

Its so frustrating.
Fundad

I personally know for a fact that California Legless Lizards seem to thrive in my old, dingy, dirty small city. I have found them in 3 backyards, including my parents old house, and one field. My dad finds 2-3 yearly near his chicken coops.
User avatar
torquatoiv
Posts: 24
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 10:53 am
Location: SB Mountains

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by torquatoiv »

TORIN wrote:Anybody up for drafting a group email to send to Charlton H. Bonham?

I think a lot of California's herp regulations could use some revising. They can only get worse if we stay silent. We all obviously have some strong negative opinions about the state of the rules regarding our hobby.

Count me in, though I don't know what service I could be. The whole issue needs to be diagnosed from all angles.

But it says he's open minded and willing to listen to both sides...and a lot of other things you read and hope might actually be truth.

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/about/director/
User avatar
Fieldnotes
Posts: 1474
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:12 pm
Location: Anaheim, California
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Fieldnotes »

It is as if one biologist goes out and cannot find what he is looking for... "Well must be rare better ban it." In actuality, all those species listed are common as corruption politicians. Just because a biologist cannot find something, does not make it rare in the definition of species numbers and overall health. Land development is the true predator.
User avatar
TORIN
Posts: 106
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 6:26 pm
Location: Atascadero, California
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by TORIN »

There's really no way of knowing how they make their decisions about anything. I would definitely like the dfw to make more info available.
Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 639
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 1:14 pm

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Richard F. Hoyer »

As for the San Bernardino Mt. Kingsnake population, I know of two accounts that provide a glimpse into the relative health of that population.

There are two unpublished reports of 1981 and 1982 authored by Gary Keasler that provide results of surveys conducted by Gary and other grad students those two years under the auspices of Dr. Glenn Stewart of Cal. Poly, Pomona. I believe those surveys were in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service.

The surveys were undertaken to expand the knowledge of the distribution of the Southern Rubber Boa. Gary listed all species of snakes observed those two survey years. The three species most commonly observed species were the Mt. Kingsnake - 42; S. Pacific Rattlesnake - 36; S. Rubber Boa - 35 All other species of snakes were observed at much lower frequencies.

The other piece of evidence of which I am aware that pertains to San Bernardino Mt. Kingsnake occurs is the paper I published in 2000 on the Southern Rubber Boa. Similar to Gary Keasler, I recorded all species of snakes observed during my study from 1993 through 1997. The two most frequently encountered species were 104 (83 initial and 21 recaptures) Southern Rubber Boas and 31 San Bernardino Mt. Kingsnakes. There was a total of 25 encounters of 6 other species of snakes during that study.

Richard F. Hoyer
Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 639
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 1:14 pm

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Richard F. Hoyer »

There is one piece of advice I wish I could get across to everyone. Since perceptions are often erroneous, do not use perceptions to reach conclusions or form your opinions!

With many species of amphibians and reptiles being secretive, they are seldom encountered thus giving the impression or illusion of being uncommon to rare. At least into the early 1990's (and perhaps to this day), the commonly held perception by many professional and amateur herpetologists, wildlife biologists, and others has been that the species I have been studying since the 1960's, the Rubber Boa, is not just uncommon but considered to be rare.

Nothing could be further from the truth. If one applies basic biological principles, the Rubber Boa has to be one of the most numerically abundant species of snakes throughout its distribution in the western U.S.

Anyone that believes this or that species to be rare, I urge you access the following paper: Perceptions of Species Abundance, Distribution, and Diversity: Lessons from Four Decades of Sampling on a Government-Managed Reserve. J. Whitfield Gibbons, and others. 1997 Environmental Management Vol. 21 No. 2 pp 259 - 268

And I suggest that everyone ponder the following saying. 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'

Richard F. Hoyer
scott s
Posts: 144
Joined: August 13th, 2010, 5:36 pm

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by scott s »

All snake species are rare if you are too stupid to know when, where and how to find find them.

Protecting glossy snakes just about had me on the floor laughing my ass off, but instead, I felt like crying for how hopelessly ignorant our state employees have become.
mwentz
Posts: 152
Joined: December 8th, 2012, 3:06 pm

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by mwentz »

Hello again,

Mr. Hoyer and Scott S. both have good points. (and many others in this and other theads)

on one hand, it may be true that the authorities may be ignorant to the actual population densities to many species of herps, however the ignorance may not be easily corrected.

I have only have had small amounts of interactions with Cal fish and game, but have not been blown away by their knowledge or ability. (member Jimi would be the exception, much respect).

However at some point one has to wonder if ignorance is willful or at the least convenient. In my line of work, ignorance of the law will put me in jail, or at least have my company pay a lot of fines. There is no such penalty for the people in the agencies that adminster our laws and regulations.

I really hate being the person to advocate any sort of rebellion or civic disobedience (especially since I mostly lurk on the forum, and am new to even being registered to post). But should be challenging the "authorities" more? Ignorance is not an excuse whenever we commit an offence, should ignorance be an excuse when the authorities create an offence? How can we more effectively challenge the ignorance of the authorities? Call them out on it in every public place? (I have a personal favor for shaming people for ignorance (my own included)). Can we somehow get the authorities to actually understand all the facets of the task they are charged with? Or maybe get them to abandon facets that they plead ignorance to?

Ignorance is a failing no matter what, weather it is willful or because of lack of knowledge, but somehow the authorities think that their ignorance is less of a failing than anybody else. We need to re-orient them to this understanding of ignorance. And they need to not only feel shame for being ignorant, but to be willing to abdicate power, or change their amount of knowledge.

thanks for your time again, back to my wonder land
matt

ps. I truely mean no disrespect to anybody, unless they reval in ignorance.
User avatar
Ted
Posts: 312
Joined: December 30th, 2010, 10:02 am
Location: SoCal and Cape Cod

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Ted »

Many people have had great opinions and ideas during this post. Why don't we get a small group together to write up our thoughts, and use the tools we have, namely field experience and the database, to back it up? Also, since we have at least one or two DFG members on this forum, why don't we talk to them first, and maybe ask one of them to bring our written piece to DFG's attention? I'm sure it would mean much more coming from one of their own employees.

Also, I feel that it's necessary to point out that as much as much as these laws bug everyone here (me included), we should be focusing on the laws and not the organization. Saying bad things about the organization will only hurt our chances of changing these laws, and their perception of our group. But, if we focus instead on the laws which we feel should be changed based on the evidence we have, and are willing to work together with DFG, we might actually be able to get something done. We need to remember that they have good intentions, similar to ours, and are only doing what they feel is best with the evidence they have. Lastly, I do agree that it would be nice if they were more willing to share their evidence, so that we could better understand the why of the laws being made.

That's it, have a nice day :beer:
User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2447
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 12:13 am
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by chris_mcmartin »

Is there any sort of due process violation possible with the implementation of these new regs? For example, was a public-comment period neglected? Any stakeholders (e.g. herpers) not invited to the discussions leading up to the new regs?

I don't live in CA, but I've herped there a few times and own an animal which is now illegal (if I lived in CA), so I'm following this with interest.

The problem I see with regs like this is that it is difficult to get them reversed, even when presenting the lawmaking authority with evidence supporting the reversal. Difficult, but not impossible.
FatherRamon
Posts: 13
Joined: January 3rd, 2013, 12:38 pm

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by FatherRamon »

... and own an animal which is now illegal (if I lived in CA), so I'm following this with interest.
Actually, thanks to the Lacey act I believe that if you so much as move your animal across any state line, you are now breaking federal law.
I hope you really enjoy living where you are now. :roll:
Post Reply