regulations question

Dedicated exclusively to field herping.

Moderator: Scott Waters

Post Reply
hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

regulations question

Post by hellihooks »

5.60 :b) Limit: The limit for each of the species listed
below is two, unless otherwise provided. Limit,
as used in this section, means daily bag and
possession limit.

I say possession means that you need to have a fishing license for as long as you keep a native herp (renewed every year) while others say you only need a license to collect... not keep. (once you get it home... you don't need a yearly license to keep it)

Which pray tell, is correct?

User avatar
Steve Bledsoe
Posts: 1803
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:14 am
Location: San Clemente, CA www.swfieldherp.com
Contact:

Re: regulations question

Post by Steve Bledsoe »

If it's in your home, it's in your possession. You must have a current CA fishing license, or state issued Scientific Collection Permit to keep the animals.

The bag limits also apply. If the bag limit is 2, you can only have 2 in your possession in your home at any time. This is a point that I personally think needs some changing. Herps are treated as game animals by the CDFG which means that it's legal to kill them as long as you have a valid fishing license, and as long as you don't possess more than your limit, dead or alive. This means that you can basically "kill your limit" each year, but you can't keep your annual limit year after year as live animals, because it places you in an over-limit situation.

If you compare this to deer hunting, for example, herp take limit laws make no sense. Example: You buy a hunting license and a deer tag for the current deer season. The bag limit is 1 deer. You kill a deer and have the head mounted and hang it on your wall. The following year, you buy another license and deer tag, kill your one deer limit and have the head mounted and hang it on your wall too. In the eyes of the law, this is legal, but if you do the same thing with reptiles, you are in violation of the law! California law is very clear about possessing animal parts as being the same as possessing the whole animal. Does not a mounted deer head constitute part of the animal? Doesn't make sense.

IMO, you should be able to keep your limit with your current license, and do the same next year with that license. It seems like the simple solution would be for the CDFG to stipulate in the regulations that you can keep your annual limit each year as long as you keep your license from that year on hand on the premises where the animals are kept. Maybe even require that the expired licenses are posted in plain sight like lots of other permits.

hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: regulations question

Post by hellihooks »

Steve Bledsoe wrote:If it's in your home, it's in your possession. You must have a current CA fishing license, or state issued Scientific Collection Permit to keep the animals.
I agree, as logic dictates that if possession ONLY reffered to collection... the term 'bag limit' would be superflous... When in the field... it's called a bag limit... in your home... your possessions.

Those I'm 'arguing' with say than Chang and the 'new head honcho' guy say possession only refers to collecting... :roll:

I've been looking, but can't find anywhere where what you say is specifically spelled out, in the regulations. I think the problem is those who wrote the regulations are counting on folks (including officials) to actually understand what they read... :roll: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Steve Bledsoe
Posts: 1803
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:14 am
Location: San Clemente, CA www.swfieldherp.com
Contact:

Re: regulations question

Post by Steve Bledsoe »

I do know that Chang is one of the more logical LE officers in the department, and understands herp keepers. It's the young guns who want to be hard-asses that are the problem. It's like not having a license and moving a live snake off a roadway so that it doesn't get killed. Many LE officers understand and respect the act as something logical. Others will use it as an opportunity to write a citation.

Technically, possession is possession, no matter where it is - in the field, in your car, in your home, in a hotel room, etc. This is why fishing bag limit laws spell out regulations that apply to multi-day fishing trips. Some of the laws will allow you to possess two or three daily bag limits if you are on a fishing vessel that is offshore for days at a time and not returning to port each day. This of course doesn't apply to herps, which are found on land. Seems to me it's an easy fix with some simple language written into the regulations.

User avatar
Kent VanSooy
Posts: 1100
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:51 am
Location: Oceanside

Re: regulations question

Post by Kent VanSooy »

My understanding has been that if you think of herps exactly like fish, then you're following the regs. This means that when you take your daily limit, you can go home and eat them, then go back the next day and get another limit. You could catch your limit, give those fish to your neighbor (who does not need a license to possess them), then go back and catch more the next day. You could catch some fish at the end of the year, put them in your freezer, and still legally possess them in January without buying a license for the current year.

So I think this means I only need a license to catch snakes, but as long as I'm within my possession limits, I don't need one to keep them. If I give them to a neighbor, they don't need a license at any time. I could catch 2 rosy boas and cook them for dinner, and get two more the next day for a total of 730 rosy boa in a calendar year.

I ain't saying it makes sense, but this is my understanding.

User avatar
Steve Bledsoe
Posts: 1803
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:14 am
Location: San Clemente, CA www.swfieldherp.com
Contact:

Re: regulations question

Post by Steve Bledsoe »

Kent - You're probably correct in your understanding of the written law, and I agree with you that it's the way it works with fish, but my fear is that these things always contain an element of 'subjectivity' on the part of a law enforcement officer. There is nothing to prevent an overzealous officer from citing you for having over your limit of rosy boas in your possession in your home, even though you collected them legally with a license on different days, or even in different years. The bigger problem is that you can be falsely charged with the crime, pulled into court, and be forced to bear the expense of defending yourself. When you are found innocent of any crime, or if the case is simply thrown out of court, you're still on the hook for your attorney fees, which in many cases can ruin you financially, with no recourse to recoup your losses. It's a very scary reality in my view.

Many years ago, a mutual friend of yours and mine (who shall remain nameless) was arrested for possessing California legal species as pets. He wasn't arrested for having too many, or for not having a valid license, he was arrested because he kept the animals in his place of business. He was in the business of importing and distributing freshwater tropical fish. Even though LE had no evidence that he had ever sold any CA native reptiles to anyone, or evidence that the animals he kept in his office at his place of business were ever offered for sale, the prosecutors dragged the court battle out for a solid year. When our friend ran out of money to pay his attorney, he ended up defending himself as his own attorney. The result was that the judge eventually threw the case out of court for total lack of evidence, but in the end, our friend lost his business and everything he owned, and didn't receive as much as an apology from anyone. This is the sort of thing I fear can easily happen to anyone, and why you can't assume that LE officers and prosecutors will use logic in their decision making process.

This is why I'd like to see something written into the regulations regarding the keeping of live herps. People don't normally keep live 'game' animals such as deer, trout, bass, native quail, etc and some game animals are illegal to keep alive without the proper permits. This is where collecting herps differs greatly from fishing. Cleaned fish stored in your freezer are eventually consumed, or are obviously kept in a state of intended consumption. Live rosy boas, on the other hand, survive for decades in captivity. Having a large number of them alive in your possession can lead a misinformed LE officer to assume that you have collected over your limit, or even try to make a case that you're a poacher and black marketer.

Jimi
Posts: 1930
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: regulations question

Post by Jimi »

you can't assume that LE officers and prosecutors will use logic in their decision making process
Steve, I agree with basically everything you're saying, except your use of the word "logic" throughout this thread. I recommend that in the context of this thread, you just toss that word out of your vocabulary, and focus instead on the desirability - to herpers, not necessarily to the agency - of discriminating in the regulations between bag and possession limits, and between "kill" and "live" consumptive uses.

Saying "I'm being logical, and you are...doing something else" is insulting and not likely to keep someone talking with you. In other words, it's a self-defeating tactic to support a long, long conversation. Trust me, the "administrators of justice" are using logic when they do the kinds of things described here. It just isn't a logic many of us like, appreciate, or understand.

Kent has it right, which seems weird as hell - not right! - to a lot of us...so as you note, we need to get the regs changed. They weren't handed down to Moses or anything, they were just ginned up by some people - probably just a few guys in the agency, without a lot of authentic stakeholder or public participation. That's old school executive-branch government, the times are changing. Not by themselves though, it takes pressure...it takes sustained engagement, and an ability to listen and understand, and influence & be influenced by the other guys too. They might be able to explain their concerns, and you guys might be able to create ways to overcome them. Such as a reporting system for all harvests, combined with retaining records of having purchases annual licenses for all of them.

Your comparison with deer mounts is a good one. Nobody requires a valid hunting license for every year you possess a mounted head. Just the year you took the animal. Keep this gem and use it. Likewise, some agencies have developed regs to deal with fish in the freezer, recognizing that daily (bag) and even trip (possession) limits might not make a lot of sense in light of actual management objectives (e.g., suppressing invasive sport fish, or thinning over-dense populations so the survivors can grow larger). I would focus on that - what are the actual management objectives for the exploited populations? Where the regs are superfluous or in conflict with those objectives, they should be changed or eliminated.

Just my $.02, I understand I am fortunate in not having a lot of experience as a herper, with CDFW.

cheers,
Jimi

User avatar
Steve Bledsoe
Posts: 1803
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:14 am
Location: San Clemente, CA www.swfieldherp.com
Contact:

Re: regulations question

Post by Steve Bledsoe »

Being a mechanical engineer by trade, logic is a big part of my being, and my Vulcan ancestry! LOL. I can assure you that my comments are not intended to be insulting to the CDFG or law enforcement in general. I apologize if it sounds that way, as I think that the CDFG has come a long way in recent years in terms of protecting our native herps. I applaud them.

What I'm basically saying is that even though we both agree with Kent's take on the laws as they apply to fish and herps, fishing and field herping are very different activities, mainly in that fishermen don't keep their catch as pets for years on end. I just think it's risky business to assume that law enforcement is automatically going to see things your way should a discrepancy arise if there are no clear and explicit instructions written into the law.

I also don't like the present language regarding bag limits that, as Kent pointed out, can be interpreted to mean that if the bag limit is 2 rosy boas per day, a person can legally take 2 per day every day of the week under the authority granted by a fishing license. Again, there needs to be some clarity in the written law to protect both the herps and the herpers.

hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: regulations question

Post by hellihooks »

My understanding is that to have more than 2 wc rosys in the home, you need one of two permits... either the commercial propogation permit (which allows one to sell offspring) or the non-commercial propagation permit... which requires that you give all offspring away... and keep accurate records of who was 'gifted'. (as with Z's)

Granted... were dealing with 2 differing classes of snake...one that can be bred legally and one with (now, in So Cal) O take, and I'm not even sure that they will issue a non-commercial propagation permit for rosys. Furthermore... I'm not sure what other herps besides Z's one can get a non-commercial propagation permit for, if any.

But it seems that one permit is for breeders and the other for 'hobbiests' and it's frustrating that someone (anyone) who wants to 'be legal' gets polar-opposite replys to questions, depending upon which person they talk to, at CDFW... :?

And like fishing... who herps for one year? Perhaps they assume that if you fish or herp for one given year... you do it every year, so should always have a license from year to year, establishing that you are in fact, a herper or fisherman, allowed to have a certain number of fish or reptiles, with the only question then remaining... how many?

And the problem with Ken'ts '2 a day' scenario is that if one were to take things to the 'legal limit', and it comes to pass that CDFW gets wind that you have 730 boas in your possession... no one, including probably a Judge, will believe that you're anything BUT a poacher... whether you have a license or not... :shock:

Remember when J. Lemm put out a request for a pair of Red Coachwhips for the local reptile exhibit at SD Zoo, and I gave him a pair? I later had to send them a copy of my fishing license to prove that the snakes were 'legally collected' that year, which I'm sure is on file somewhere. Obviously they (SD Zoo) does not have to renew a license year after year for them, BECAUSE they have proof that at one point, they were legally collected. (and...they're a zoo... :crazyeyes: )

But my question was not really for hobbiests or the breeders, per se... but rather for the average Joe who finds a gopher or king or rosy, and decides to keep it (or even 'some') as a pet(s), whether or not he/she happened to have a license that year the snake was collected. If LE has occassion to see they have snakes, and F&G is called... can / will they get cited if they do not have a current license??? :? I think they will be cited. :shock:

User avatar
Steve Bledsoe
Posts: 1803
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:14 am
Location: San Clemente, CA www.swfieldherp.com
Contact:

Re: regulations question

Post by Steve Bledsoe »

hellihooks wrote:But my question was not really for hobbiests or the breeders, per se... but rather for the average Joe who finds a gopher or king or rosy, and decides to keep it (or even 'some') as a pet(s), whether or not he/she happened to have a license that year the snake was collected. If LE has occassion to see they have snakes, and F&G is called... can / will they get cited if they do not have a current license??? :? I think they will be cited. :shock:
.... which illustrates my point precisely. If you must hold a current fishing license to collect a snake, then it makes sense, to me at least, that you must hold a current fishing license to keep the snake as a pet; keeping as a pet = possession. Possession requires a current fishing license. (There's that pesky logic thing again!)

Because herp regulations are included as part of the freshwater fishing regulations, Kent's exercise of treating herps like fish under the law is spot on. There is no other way to look at it. But, it's the herper habit of keeping animals as pets that really muddies things up. With the way things are written (or actually not written, in this case) there is no definitive answer to Jim's question. The call is left up to the LE officer, and it's purely subjective.

User avatar
Kent VanSooy
Posts: 1100
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:51 am
Location: Oceanside

Re: regulations question

Post by Kent VanSooy »

My understanding is that to have more than 2 wc rosys in the home, you need one of two permits... either the commercial propogation permit (which allows one to sell offspring) or the non-commercial propagation permit... which requires that you give all offspring away... and keep accurate records of who was 'gifted'. (as with Z's)
Jim, that's my understanding as well. In my 730 rosy per year example, I'm saying you could take that many, but you could only possess 2 at any given time (therefore the absurd notion of having a daily lichanura luncheon). Alternatively, you could give them away each day, and make 729 of your neighbors happy. Think about that one for a moment - your neighbor can legally possess them without EVER having a fishing license! I wonder if they have to stay within the possession limit? - presumably they would. In my fishing model of understanding, ANY kind of possession (alive, dead, frozen, etc) is all the same.

I agree that to possess more than 2 rosys (our example for the moment) you need a breeder's permit. And since we're on the subject, I've had a permit for more than 20 years now, but my 2015 permit was delayed by several months. The reason? The forms were changed for this year, and the request was made: "list all species in possession including non-native and those you do not intend to use for propagation". I thought that seemed pretty clear, so I listed my pair of legally-collected longnose snakes. Boy, did that gum up the works! I eventually received a call from the warden asking why I listed those - when I said it's because the Dept. asked for it, it was explained to me that the form is only for native animals you intend to breed, so the permit holder should never list such animals. The request is absurd, and to quote my friend Steve, not at all logical.

All this reminds me a bit too much of paying taxes - the code is in place to try to encourage/discourage certain activities, but if reasonably intelligent people are incapable of understanding the requirements, clearly that objective is not being accomplished.

Jimi
Posts: 1930
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: regulations question

Post by Jimi »

Kent, your example sounds very familiar, and anyone with an iota of empathy readily understands your frustration. It's a stupid situation. What I suspect happened is that the administrative unit that changed the form did not - for whatever reason - successfully communicate that change with the field enforcement staffer you encountered. The latter is enforcing what he knows to be in effect (even if he's actually not up to speed; he is wrong). It isn't illogical, it's poor organizational management of its functions. The request may seem absurd to you, and it appears unfamiliar (and quite possibly absurd) to the local enforcement guy, but whoever came up with it had his/her reasons - which made perfect sense to them - I assure you.

Those reasons - the particular problem(s) requiring this particular solution (a tweak in the form) - just aren't being communicated. It would have been better if 1) herpers and CDFG law enforcement had been at the table with the CDFW "form-owners" to help define the problem(s) and craft reasonable, acceptable, compliable, enforceable solutions, and then 2) those solutions had been communicated within CDFW and to the herper stakeholders via an effective process. Then nobody would be getting surprised here...and the 95% of ethical keepers would be in compliance, the 5% of dirtbag keepers would still be dirtbags, and the cops and judges could readily tell the difference. Instead of everybody looking and feeling a little grimy and pissed off.

Anyway, I'm not trying to antagonize you guys - quite the opposite, I'm trying to encourage you. Like I said, I agree with just about everything said so far - by all 3 of you. I hope you receive or create the opportunity to work with CDFW to correct these bureaucratic snafus. There's something very strange about human nature, that cloaks the status quo in some sort of legitimacy, even if it's ridiculous. Or maybe it's just the most powerful force in the universe - inertia. Finally, it's important to recognize that the status quo is usually working well enough for somebody, most often whoever is "in charge". Whatever the cause, it requires a LOT of energy input to create a new status quo. Good luck guys.

Cheers,
Jimi

hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: regulations question

Post by hellihooks »

Kent VanSooy wrote: Alternatively, you could give them away each day, and make 729 of your neighbors happy. Think about that one for a moment - your neighbor can legally possess them without EVER having a fishing license! I wonder if they have to stay within the possession limit? - presumably they would. In my fishing model of understanding, ANY kind of possession (alive, dead, frozen, etc) is all the same.
This specifically is what I'm asking... do you run a risk of being cited for owning a native herp without a current license... or at the very least, a copy of a license from the year the snake was collected? For short of those, or some proof that someone gave you the snake (presumable legally collected by them, and again... where's the proof it was?)... LE & F&G has no way to determine if and when the snake was legally collected and (as is their wont, and job) claim you are illegally in possession of a native herp.

I ask this not for me... but for members of High Desert Wildlife group, who have on occassion decided they'd like to keep a herp they've found, or were given. I tell them they need to have a fishing license to legally possess any native Ca herp, but J. Amquist of Forever Wild says accoeding to Chang and the 'new head honcho' at F&G, you only need a license to collect... not to keep.

As for rosys ... I gift locality pairs (if and when I manage a pair) to friends with captive propagation permits... so that I can get that locality when commercially availible. Or... used to, at least... I'm down to one baja rosy and one albino king, to re-home, and I will be at 0 herps kept. 8-)

Having just read Jimi's reply... someone (a Nafha officer perhaps) should forward this disscussion to the 'proper' person (whoever that may be) as it clearly defines the problem... :|

User avatar
Owen
Posts: 1923
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 11:35 pm
Location: San Jose', Northern Catcrapistan

Re: regulations question

Post by Owen »

So the citizen science irony of this is that if I'm data collecting on most animals with no intent to keep anything, I can only do 2 at a time:

Image

Image

If a third herp is present, I need to ignore it, or record the particulars of a given animal while hoping that the third (or fourth, etc...) stays put. In this case of the 2 yearlings above, there were 3 within 5 feet of each other, but having only 2 hands, I could grab 2. Of course, I could have bagged 2 to get the third, but I carry no bags or containers with me and if I did grab the third, I would be in violation of possession limits. Of course, if I grabbed 3 of the above for the purpose of identification (elegans and atratus can look very similar), I would not know if I had 2 of 1 species and 1 of the other, or 3 of the same species until I could inspect them closely.

If I did keep animals, and I had 2 at home, could I legally capture a third in the field, even if only to collect specimen data?

User avatar
Steve Bledsoe
Posts: 1803
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:14 am
Location: San Clemente, CA www.swfieldherp.com
Contact:

Re: regulations question

Post by Steve Bledsoe »

Jimi said, "What I suspect happened is that the administrative unit that changed the form did not - for whatever reason - successfully communicate that change with the field enforcement staffer you encountered. The latter is enforcing what he knows to be in effect (even if he's actually not up to speed; he is wrong). It isn't illogical, it's poor organizational management of its functions."

Because of situations exactly like what Jimi stated above is why I say that you can't rely on what Chang or someone else in the Department says, no matter how sincere they are, or how much they believe they're correct in their understanding of the general attitude of the Department. It's the attitude of the individual officer that you need to be afraid of. Until there are laws that spell out, to the letter, all of the answers to the questions that are being raised in this thread, I for one will always hold a current permit, never posses more than my legal one day bag limit, and always relay this very message to anyone who should ask these questions. It's simply not worth the risk to do otherwise.

Great thread, by the way, Jim. Thanks for starting it! :thumb:

User avatar
El Garia
Posts: 722
Joined: October 20th, 2011, 3:39 pm
Location: Santa Clara Co. , CA

Re: regulations question

Post by El Garia »

Owen wrote: If I did keep animals, and I had 2 at home, could I legally capture a third in the field, even if only to collect specimen data?
My understanding of the regulations is that you would not be able to handle or capture a third in the field, if you possessed two at home. Possession is an easily definable term, that doesn't lend itself to much room for interpretation, imo. I do know that with largemouth, catching more largemouth when you still have some in the freezer at home is in violation of regs. I would assume that herps are equally afforded the regulatory protections given to an invasive gamefish.

User avatar
Kent VanSooy
Posts: 1100
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:51 am
Location: Oceanside

Re: regulations question

Post by Kent VanSooy »

Jimi, thanks for your measured responses here. I too think there's a human nature factor here - when someone has power over an individual, they expect that power to be administered fairly and logically. It's then difficult to be understanding and patient when it seems like the Mad Hatter is in charge. CA's captive permit breeding system was started and turned to law by herpers working with CaDFW, so that should serve as a lesson that communication, understanding, and even progress is attainable.

Jim, I wonder if Kyle Chang would be willing to draft a memo stating his position? Probably not, but it wouldn't take much effort to ask.

Owen, you've brought up yet another can of worms... :) I think that once you have those snakes in hand, you've "taken" them, and that also means that they can't be legally released. Obviously that makes getting a decent citizen science voucher shot problematic, if you're compelled to watch your data point quickly slither away. This becomes yet another trip through the looking glass, as CaDFW has been very appreciative of the HERP data we've provided, but their own regs make obtaining those data difficult. And Jimi, you might be pleased to know we've actually been engaged with CaDFW on this very question, and have a good dialog going. There's only so much energy and time for this, and for me and a couple others, clarifying this last point trumps the rest.

Jimi
Posts: 1930
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: regulations question

Post by Jimi »

Owen brings up some good points that ought to be brought to the table, if you all embark on a "review and revise" of the CA herp regulations. Does citizen science fall under "scientific collecting" or "recreational take"? Where should it fall? How do the 2 relate?


In Utah a major herper/agency effort from ~2002-2008 resulted in the creation & adoption of these aspects of the state regs (source is http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code ... 53.htm#T22):

(3) A person may temporarily handle for personal use live amphibians or reptiles classified as noncontrolled and controlled for collection and possession without a certificate of registration only as provided in Subsections (a) through (d).

(a) An amphibian or reptile may be held for up to 15 minutes in a non-harmful way for the purpose of photography, noninvasive data collection and moving out of harm's way;

(i) For the purposes of this Subsection, noninvasive data collection means the collection of external measurements, specimen weights, external meristics, and sex determination which does not involve the use of probes or other instruments which enter the body of the animal;

(b) The amphibian or reptile cannot be moved more than 60 feet from the location found;

(c) The amphibian or reptile can be placed in any container, bag or device which confines the animal so it may be transported; and

(d) The amphibian or reptile must be released immediately when directed to do so by a division employee.



Note there are 3 use-types in this state, personal, commercial, and scientific. This (above) is all found under "personal". There are also 3 classes of animals here - uncontrolled (dirt-common stuff like Uta & gophers), controlled (desirable or "uncommon" stuff like milks & pyros), and prohibited (venomous & black-listed non-natives). So you've basically got a 3x3 table of possibilities for any given person:animal encounter.

Maybe this could provide some material for you guys to discuss (I think some law enforcement guys might not like interpreting intent - anybody with a snake in a sack can just say "I'm only taking photos" - but it's working here). Personally I think our regs are still way too complicated and restrictive, but I understand they are vastly better than pre-2008. So a lot of the guys here are happy enough to let the status quo be. That, and/or they're still exhausted or burnt out from the 2002-2008 saga. My point is, take what you need and leave the rest, don't pursue or accept a carbon-copy of these regs. Work through whatever it is you all actually want to accomplish - secure wild populations, just and equitable access to the wild resource, more and better and easier monitoring of species status, legal captive propagation as distribution of offspring, compliable & enforceable regs for wild, captive, and "temporary-hold" animals, etc etc. (Figure out your "why?" FIRST, then go to "how?")

I'm glad to hear you all are talking with each other. Good luck, and may you have vast reserves of patience and energy!

cheers-

User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2443
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: regulations question

Post by chris_mcmartin »

Jimi, thanks for the "success story" you posted re: Utah regs and herper involvement in getting them updated. There should be a "best practices" type template wherein we herpers can take what we like (and don't like) from each state's regs, and make a "model regulation" which herpers from each state could attempt to work with their fish & game and/or legislators to pass.

Hey, it works for the animal-rights groups (they have boilerplate they foist upon unsuspecting municipalities and end up banning "constrictors over 5 feet" and other dubious restrictions); why not for us--who (by and large) want to increase knowledge (citizen-science aspect), make MORE of a species (breeders), or even just catch a snake for closeup photography/positive ID (non-collecting field herpers)? And I don't begrudge people who collect (I do it occasionally myself)--so long as they comply with the regs (and that those regs "make sense;" i.e. not possession limits of 1, like I think is still the case with some CA herps).

I've never lived in California. I've herped there, though, so I bought the appropriate licenses as needed. I believe I was told by CDFG, maybe 10+ years ago, told me I couldn't collect since I was from out of state (email exchange; wish I would've kept them), and further, that if I bred CA species someone gave me, and they weren't on the approved list, I'd be slapped with a Lacey Act violation!

hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: regulations question

Post by hellihooks »

Short of actual Herping licenses, what we need is different stamps on the fishing licenses... like 'citizen scientist' that gives us free reign to collect data... hobbiest stamp... where in limits and terms are clearly detailed... etc... 8-)

Jimi
Posts: 1930
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: regulations question

Post by Jimi »

Jim, the stamp & license stuff is part of what I call "the what & the how" - to be dealt with after figuring out "why":

1) why do herpers want to interact with wildlife (what experiences with & uses of the animals are herpers after?), and why does the agency want to insert itself into those experiences & uses (what problems for wildlife & other people are realistically possible or likely, if the herper-desired experiences & uses occur at a reasonably-expectable rate?)

2) what mechanisms & instruments could enable reconciliation of the competing whys, and avoid/minimize/offset the possible problems?)

3) how do we deploy those mechanisms & instruments to adequately reconcile the competing whys, and avoid/minimize/offset the possible problems?


told me I couldn't collect since I was from out of state (email exchange; wish I would've kept them), and further, that if I bred CA species someone gave me, and they weren't on the approved list, I'd be slapped with a Lacey Act violation
That right there is the kind of crap I would spend a considerable portion of my net worth and my time & energy fighting, were I so slapped. It's ridiculous, the over-reach. I wish your story were unbelievable. Unfortunately, I can believe it.



Chris, PARC has model herp regulations (http://www.northeastparc.org/products/p ... elines.pdf). They at least provide a straw man to compare against any specific status quo. As with the Utah regs, I suggest any readers take what they need and leave the rest - don't accept or pursue whole-hog adoption of these PARC model regs.

Honestly they look to me to have been written in a bit of an agency bubble, without much stakeholder input. For example, they take a dim view of non-institutional venomous keeping - a common staff bias in state wildlife agencies. They also have some really questionable suggestions - from a safety & liability standpoint - like "require venomous reptiles to be PIT-tagged". That's just begging for a lawsuit, I tell you what - and it's an inferior solution to whatever problem they wanted to manage. Venomous keepers could have given them 3 or 4 better ideas...but I don't think such keepers were consulted.

They also look pretty "Yankee fish & game" - overall, pretty darn onerous and restrictive, pretty "up in your business". But there's a lot of stuff in there that most agencies don't yet do, that I think a lot of herpers would appreciate. There's also some stuff in there that a lot of herpers might find excessively liberal or permissive, such as "have a well-regulated commercial collection system". (FWIW, personally I like the idea because it tries to balance the "access to the resource / protection of the resource" competing dual mission of wildlife management agencies. But I know a lot of herpers LOATHE the idea.)

Anyway, have a look.

cheers,
Jimi

hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: regulations question

Post by hellihooks »

Kent VanSooy wrote:
Jim, I wonder if Kyle Chang would be willing to draft a memo stating his position? Probably not, but it wouldn't take much effort to ask.
Request sent... :beer:

User avatar
Helleri
Posts: 80
Joined: April 27th, 2011, 8:11 pm
Location: Boulder Creek, CA

Re: regulations question

Post by Helleri »

Maybe someone who knows this well could make a test for inexperienced field herpers. Just something that helps them understand instantly, out in the field, what the treatment should be of a given circumstance. It Could be a multiple choice thing, where for each question a scenario is given. Could make it as a "self test". Meaning the bottom of each question could have the answer (or the bottom of the page if the want is to have the test be printable. If using something like html5/CSS/JavaScript, it could be drop down expandable). And, the material it is referencing for the correct answer.

hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: regulations question

Post by hellihooks »

Helleri wrote:Maybe someone who knows this well could make a test for inexperienced field herpers. Just something that helps them understand instantly, out in the field, what the treatment should be of a given circumstance. It Could be a multiple choice thing, where for each question a scenario is given. Could make it as a "self test". Meaning the bottom of each question could have the answer (or the bottom of the page if the want is to have the test be printable. If using something like html5/CSS/JavaScript, it could be drop down expandable). And, the material it is referencing for the correct answer.
we don't know the correct answers... that's what this post is about :?

craigb
Posts: 634
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:02 am
Location: Southern Cal.
Contact:

.

Post by craigb »

.

Post Reply