Dishonesty in government

Dedicated exclusively to field herping.

Moderator: Scott Waters

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 509
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 4:03 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by WSTREPS »

If the ESA worked there should be less species on its list from year to year. The fact that there are always more, and more of them being upgraded, only shows that, like every bureaucracy, wildlife protection is self-aggrandizing and self-generating. Like the 300 billion dollar a year drug war (an amount far greater than the GNPs of the nations that supply the drugs) it depends on the existence of a drug problem for its own economically parasitic existence.

Wouldn't it make more sense to stop looking at this from a species standpoint, and start looking at it from a wilderness standpoint? To start drawing lines on maps (as Costa Rica has done) instead of on meaningless lists in space; to save hundreds of species in one whack now and forever rather than sitting back waiting to put a new name on a wall calendar for a few scientists to ponder pensively? To get out of the Police Business and get into the Park Business? To get rid of a system that does not work and get into one that does? And to take the money that supports the failed system and put it into land acquisition where it can have real value?

Every nickel given to the ESA is a nickel wasted. We need an EHA (an Endangered Habitat Act), not a cumbersome and useless ESA. We should be protecting biological life zones, and within these life zones humanity should be encouraged to interact, not shut out behind legal barriers so that these zones can have no useful reason for their existence.

Try suggesting this to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the rest of their police factions and you'll just scare the hell of them. "But what will happen to us?" they whine. Have them report next day for duty as Park Guards. They can still keep their badges and guns.


Having already "misplaced" $45 million of sportsmen's money, chased through three congressional hearings and faced with impending legislation about misuse of another $500 million, the USFWS is grabbing for every straw they can to justify an already precarious existence in the Endangered Species business (Miniter, Outdoor Life, March 2000). As Miniter notes:


The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has changed from an agency mostly concerned with game management and sport fishing to an agency that's wielding the extraordinary power of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). As a result, the USFWS now has to care for snails, butterflies, cacti and every other flora and fauna in the U.S.... The ESA, which was passed in 1973, has brought the USFWS a barrage of lawsuits and pressure from environmental groups to do everything from protect the prairie dog as endangered, to saving spotted owls and finger-sized snail darters. This has made it a very political agency.... Through the ESA, the USFWS can stop development in Seattle because of dwindling salmon populations or introduce aggressive species (like wolves) into an ecosystem despite vehement local objection.... All this has to some extent shifted the agency's goals, but also its personnel. At one time the service was made up primarily of biologists who were also hunters [read that "field experience," my brackets];
Ernie Eison

Below a statement from Louie Porrus. For those who don't know who Louie is, click the link and find out. , http://www.internationalherpetologicals ... ras-award/

I'm proud to say that I was part of that great push to kill what would be the first of many insane proposals I would see in my life time. At a young age I was privy to many things as to how the endangered species business works.
L: To be candid, the laws were pretty horrible and eventually they became a nightmare. The '69 Endangered Species Act was a telltale sign of things to come, but it was the '73 version that knocked dealers like Chase out of business. Chase hung in there for a while and moved to smaller quarters, but things were never the same. In '75, the CITES treaty came into effect, and about that time a number of states, including Florida, had issued new legislation. The mid '70s were also a time when humaniac groups were making a concerted effort to outlaw zoos and prohibit animal ownership, and the feeling in the trade was that laws were no longer being enacted to regulate, but to prohibit. The real shocker came in March of '77, when proposed regulations under the Injurious Act appeared in the Federal Register. In addition to all the recent legislation, the proposed regulations were so prohibitive that they threatened to put us out of business. The regulations would have made it illegal for dealers to import venomous snakes, as well as many salamanders, newts and other amphibians. Since CITES had recently come into effect and many countries had yet to establish permit systems, imports for specialty dealers like The Shed had slowed dramatically. In essence, besides trying to sustain our livelihood, we were representing an entire portion of the animal industry. So we took it upon ourselves to write a detailed letter explaining the ramifications of the proposal, to which we attached petition forms, and we mailed it to all our customers and to every herp society and organization we could think of. We also mailed the letter to countless politicians, like senators, representatives, congressmen, even the President. We raised enough commotion that people took our petitions to the streets, and it's interesting that even people in Canada got into the act! Although other groups voiced their concerns, I don't believe that any efforts were as organized or as emotional as ours, and with the amount of public outrage we elicited, I can't help but think that The Shed played a major role in the final outcome. Even before the results were made public, a Fish and Wildlife Service agent confided in me, unofficially of course, that no wildlife proposal in history had ever been defeated as soundly or effectively.
......................................................................................................................................
The community service part :
Currently there are approximately 291 venomous reptile licenses, for both native and exotic species, in the state of Florida. This survey will be used to help FWC understand the feeling of the general public regarding venomous reptiles being kept by zoos, commercial entities and private individuals in the state of Florida. Click the link to take the survey


https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/VR-Rule


Deadline July 27! Open to in-state and out-of-state residents.

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) is currently rewriting Florida's venomous reptile keeping regulations. A group of professionals and stakeholders has been chosen to assist in this task. This group is the Venomous Reptile Technical Assistance Group (VRTAG). USARK holds a seat at this table.

At this point, it is unclear if FWC will follow the suggestions of the VRTAG. While the VRTAG should be wholly utilized by FWC staff to help grasp venomous reptile biology and husbandry, the animals are still very misunderstood. Lifetimes of experience (some VRTAG members holding decades of knowledge) cannot be properly absorbed in a couple meetings, especially if VRTAG voices are not met with open minds.

Now, without sharing their plan to do so with the VRTAG or asking for their input, FWC has released a public opinion survey of only 6 questions with no background information. And now, following the escape of two snakes by irresponsible keepers who did not have appropriate caging or secondary containment (as presented by the VRTAG), the entirety of the venomous keeping community is being punished.

Please take the survey (can be taken in 2 minutes or less) and realize that it is no easy feat to meet the requirements for the venomous reptile license in Florida. The survey does not mention 20 pages of regulations, proof of experience, FWC inspections and all the other criteria before anyone can obtain a license to legally have these species of venomous snakes and lizards. Even "personal use" keepers with one snake must follow the same regulations, get the same inspections, and surpass the same barriers as zoos and large venom labs.

Florida already has the most exhaustive venomous regulation in the U.S. Now, additional regulation and even a ban are in talks. While we do hope FWC will listen to the science-based, common-sense recommendations of the VRTAG which will properly address all issues, we're quite unsure why they are requesting large amounts of skewed data from an uneducated general public. USARK
User avatar
Brian Hubbs
Posts: 4735
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:41 am
Location: "Buy My Books"-land

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Brian Hubbs »

And here we are, rolling the same egg across the table...back and forth, back and forth, with the same results...everyone keeps their own opinions. Is it any wonder i never have anything of substance to say anymore...it's a waste of time. 8-)
stlouisdude
Posts: 458
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:30 pm
Location: St Louis, MO / Hartford, CT

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by stlouisdude »

Brian, I don't believe everyone does keep the same opinions. My opinions have turn a U turn in the few years I've been on the forum and new members join everyday. If you've been herping for 30+ years, there might not be much new on this (or nearly any other thread) which probably explains why most posts seem like a dead horse.
User avatar
Brian Hubbs
Posts: 4735
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:41 am
Location: "Buy My Books"-land

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Brian Hubbs »

True. I stand corrected. Preach away...
User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3689
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:39 am
Contact:

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by jonathan »

Brian Hubbs wrote:And here we are, rolling the same egg across the table...back and forth, back and forth, with the same results...everyone keeps their own opinions. Is it any wonder i never have anything of substance to say anymore...it's a waste of time. 8-)
stlouisdude wrote:Brian, I don't believe everyone does keep the same opinions. My opinions have turn a U turn in the few years I've been on the forum and new members join everyday. If you've been herping for 30+ years, there might not be much new on this (or nearly any other thread) which probably explains why most posts seem like a dead horse.
Brian Hubbs wrote:True. I stand corrected. Preach away...

Any reader of GEB has to love the fantastic multiple internal self-references in this conversation. :lol:


I agree though. There's a lot of really helpful discussions from these boards that have seriously affected my opinion. Guys like Richard and Jimi come on and share their knowledge about herps as well as their experiences, participate in an honest give-and-take of opinions, and are willing to both try to challenge people as well as challenge themselves.


The number of people who come in with a strong agenda and engage completely one-sidedly without willingness to learn, who don't let anyone else's opinion get in the way of presenting their own, and who otherwise add nothing to the board, could be counted on one hand (GN, KS, EE, and a couple others who aren't around anymore). There's no uniform ideological tilt to them, just a personality issue that defies ideological boundaries. They have a disproportionately negative effect on the board, but they don't represent the vast majority of posters or drive the vast majority of conversations.
User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 509
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 4:03 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by WSTREPS »

Wow, nearing 3000 views and over a hundred replies. Its funny how people will bump a thread back to the top just to complain about the threads content and/or to take a personal shot at someone that threatens them in some odd way. None the less if it helps to bring attention to this important topic its all good.
Conservation groups sprang up with the frequency of the Spiritualist movements of the last century, filling our mailboxes with requests for handouts that they might save the planet, but no one dared question these floating ghosts on strings: it was unpatriotic. There was panic, and there was money to be made preying on that panic—more money than was ever made in selling wildlife or wildlife parts. Some of these conservation groups actually accomplished something. The best of them, recognizing that it was the sheer masses of mankind, and not any individual membership, that was the real environmental threat, raised money to purchase land habitat, and this was sound thinking. But the worst of them, and by far the more common, catered to the lowest of human sentiments, and erected scapegoats in place of solutions, so that they might be paid to throw mud.
The latter found themselves nourished by State and Federal government agencies which bled our tax blood: state biologists sucking up grant money to "monitor" impossibly secretive animals like snakes and bats; game chiefs given greater arrest power and throwing their weight around accordingly; and at pet snake conventions attended largely by children, wildlife policemen strutting their big guns: "protecting us", apparently, from Dennis the Menace.

The present conservation movement could not have arisen at any other time in human history without the coincident changing of the century and the present human population explosion: it is a creation of these two favorable events. The coincidental existence of a mass media willing to publicize it (for media too thrives on hysteria) gives the impression of a "problem" appearing in all parts of the globe simultaneously. Oriental sellers of snakes to the medicine and food markets of the far east, conducting business as they have for thousands of years, are suddenly being arrested as "smugglers"; with eerie simultaneity, similar arrests occur involving pet dealers in America; respected zoo men and herpetologists are being visited by the American version of Haiti's Tonton Macoutes: a USFWS answerable to no-one, not even the U.S. Constitution. Armed raids on pet owners compare with raids on crack houses; reptile "smugglers" (or buyers from "smugglers", even though they be unwitting dupes) are chased all over the world at costs of millions of dollars, then extradited, a treatment seldom afforded even to Nazi war criminals.
The topical words of Mr. Ripa are true and certainly food for thought when thinking about conservation, what that means and the surrounding laws, the motivation behind why some laws that on the surface seem so crazy are pushed thru and followed up with even more nonsensical "protection" and "conservation" plans.

Dean Ripa is a accomplished herpetologist and researcher as is another herpetologist and researcher Louie Porrus quoted in this thread. They represent the best side of intelligent conservation ideas and solutions. And so do others who are willing to step up and be truthful about what is taking place in todays twisted world of Wildlife management, law enforcement and activism.

To these people, Im thankful for them standing up and saying what needs to be said. Its not just disgruntled herpetoculturalists expressing their distrust and anger, As some try to make it seem in desperate attempts to deflect attention away from the revealing and uncomfortable truth. Its wide ranging disapproval from many backgrounds including scientific community.

No one from that side is pushing for less information to be utilized in the decision making process. Ideally we all want decisions to be made objectively premised on ALL the available information . Uninformed people spread uninformed opinion's that lead to uninformed decision's.

To the contraire of what should be to often decision's have been the result of an inclusive club comprised only of those with a unified goal ( the arbitrary public hearings included for show). Using only the Information sourced from a close nit coalition of participant's who stand to benefit from coercing law makers into knee jerk responses. If there is any hope at all of solving the problems that plague todays misguided conservation cocktail. First the problems need to be admitted to and openly addressed. Don't hold your breath.

No one is even remotely attempting to fix the situation. They are only deluding themselves with an obsolete and failing ESA and from there encouraged to support more theories and programs that, wrong at base, can only get more wrong as the incorrectly diagnosed problems continues to elude our attentions.


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

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Richard F. Hoyer »

Kelly Mc,
You mentioned, “I would hope nothing - most especially anything invalid or badly founded ever gets in the way of your studies.” It's too late.

Since winding up the SRB study in San Bernardino Co. in 1997, that same year I began concentrating my effort on other Rubber Boa populations that never had been studied at various localities in Kern Co. northwest of the San Bernardino Mts. But as of 3/1/2013, a new CDFW regulation went into affect that placed all Kern County, Calif. Rubber Boa population into a hands-off, protected status.

Secondly, this year, a proposed revision of OAR Div. 44 regulations adds a good number of herps into ODFW’s ‘protected’ status that includes 6 species of snakes. Now if some individuals on this forum still have doubts about the claims I have made in this thread, consider the following:

The individual in charger of formulating these revised ODFW regulations is a nice guy (I met with him in March), but as a veterinarian, he is virtually void of knowledge about the species he has been dealing with including all species of herps. So what he and ODFW did was to rely on the ORBIC / NatureServe ranking information of species. (ORBIC = Oregon Biodiversity Information Center)

The NatureServe rank for the Night Snake is S-3, for the Stripped Racer, S-3/S-4 and for the Ringneck Snake, Racer, Oregon Aquatic Garter Snake, and Rubber Boa are all ranked S-4 with all of those species being proposed to be added to ODFW’s hands off, protected status.

The NatureServe S-3 rank reads, “Rare, uncommon or threatened, but not immediately imperiled, typically with 21-100 occurrences.”
The NatureServe S-4 rank reads, “Not rare and apparently secure, but with cause for long-term concern, usually with more than 100 occurrences.”

Now I will state unequivocally that ORBIC / NatureServe’s S-3 and S-4 ranking for the above species are TOTALLY without merit as they have zero scientific evidence that would support those ranking. NatureServe relies mostly on ‘occurrences’ for ranking species. Thus you have to try and understand what ‘occurrences’ or ‘Element Occurrence’ represent. Good luck if you wish to inform yourselves about ‘occurrences’. For species of herps that by their very nature, are secretive, the use of ‘occurrence’ is badly flawed.

So, for the S-3 rankings, NatureServe has no valid evidence to claim those two species of snakes are “rare, uncommon, or threatened”. Because those snakes have never been the subject of studies in Oregon, there is no valid baseline data on their population status. Thus the claims of rare, uncommon, or threatened are pure speculation.

For species ranked S-4 and where NatureServe states as if fact, ”—but with cause for long term concern –“, once again, that organization has zero scientific evidence that would support that claim. I have no explanation as to why ODFW personnel do not recognize that the NatureServe ranking process lacks scientific legitimacy other than suspect that no one at ODFW has bothered to investigate the NatureServe process.

So it can be noted that all S-4 ranked species are specified as being “not rare”. So in the proposed regulations, we have a state wildlife agency, having biologists with degrees in wildlife science, claiming that species which are “not rare” are in need of being protected?

Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon)
stlouisdude
Posts: 458
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:30 pm
Location: St Louis, MO / Hartford, CT

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by stlouisdude »

Richard,

I am still trying to figure out what threat they are protecting them from? As far as I know the primary threat to reptiles is bulldozing or extreme alterations of their habitats, so if it does not identify and protect those habitats, how would the populations be any more or less protected?
Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 639
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 1:14 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Richard F. Hoyer »

stlousidude,
You mention, “I am still trying to figure out what threat they are protecting them from?” Should you (or anyone else) ever discovers the answer, please inform me.

I have yet to hear any rational explanation as to why wildlife agencies continually propose the irrational policy of placing species in a hand-off, protected status. The only rational policy that can protect species is one that protects habitat, plain and simple!

And I have no explanation as to why wildlife agency personnel with university degrees, do not attempt to inform themselves about the very species they propose managing as was the case in Calif. with the Rubber Boa in Kern Co., and the present case here in Oregon. But even more inexplicable, these university educated individuals in ODFW have before their very eyes, the statement that species are “not rare”, but then propose that such species are in need of being protected?

Government bureaucracies seem to exist in an entirely different social world that can sometimes be characterize as lacking common sense and rational thinking. With the Oregon wildlife agency now proposing they need to protect species that are not rare, you have a prime example.

Richard F. Hoyer
User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3689
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:39 am
Contact:

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by jonathan »

Richard F. Hoyer wrote:Government bureaucracies seem to exist in an entirely different social world that can sometimes be characterize as lacking common sense and rational thinking.
See, that's the unnecessary and unproven ideological add-on that only does harm to all the good stuff you say.


Where's the social world that has all the "common sense and rational thinking" which you can hold up as a strong positive alternative to this alternate reality that government bureaucracy supposedly exists within?

Do these boards not show ample evidence of people who lack "common sense" and "rational thinking"?

Do people from every walk of life not show ample evidence of lacking "common sense" and "rational thinking"?


Right now, the people who are most opposed to "government bureaucracies" are in the process of trying to elect Donald Trump as the president of the United States of America. I suggest that this alone is sufficient proof that "common sense and rational thinking" are not the actual criteria that the dividing lines are being built around.
Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 639
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 1:14 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Richard F. Hoyer »

Jonathan;
Your reasoning is correct, that some individuals in every walk of life lack common sense and sometimes fail to exercise rational thinking processes. But what I have learned in life is that sometimes what I believe to be common sense and rational thinking can sometime be on shaky grounds when someone else points out flaws in my thinking process. That is why I have encouraged others to challenge my line of reasoning which is exactly what you have done.

That being said, I believe you are overlooking one very important distinction. Individuals in the private sector that lack common sense and make irrational decisions have little or no impact on you and me. But individuals in government that make irrational decisions that lack common sense can adversely affect from a few individuals, to millions of individuals.

As for your last comment, I believe Scott Walters would prefer that politics not be a part of these general forums. That being said, it is my view that in November, the voters will have to make a choice between the lessor of two evils.

Richard F. Hoyer
User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 509
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 4:03 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by WSTREPS »

Government bureaucracies seem to exist in an entirely different social world that can sometimes be characterize as lacking common sense and rational thinking. With the Oregon wildlife agency now proposing they need to protect species that are not rare, you have a prime example. Richard F. Hoyer

I cant agree. If I'm getting what your saying. What is sometimes characterize as lacking common sense and rational thinking is in fact very much the opposite. Its calculated and manipulative. Smart. That is for the inclusive group that benefits. The Oregon wildlife agency now proposing they need to protect species that are not rare, is a prime example of how you get ahead the easy way. Its cookie cutter environmental business 101.

It is common sense and rational thinking to know that you can increase your funding , your control , your importance by using your authoritative position and perceived expertise, to take advantage of situations that help advance your objectives with little to no resistance. And the best part about it is, people will you love for it. They think your the good guys. They think your being noble and protecting rare, declining and endangered specie's. The decision makers at Wildlife agency's don't just roll out of bed and start coming up with crazy legislation ideas that make no sense for no reason. Its delusional to think that the environment isn't a business and that the people who make their living from it are not part of the industry. Like any career unless your completely devoid of ambition and intelligence. Your going to try and get ahead. Your going to figure out the best ways and most efficient method's of doing that. What we see in todays world is easy pickings for these people and they are taking advantage. To me where the lack of common sense and rational thinking comes in to play. Is in the people who cant see the forest for the trees and think its more complicated then that.

Ernie Eison

A look at CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna) for a little more insight,

The CITES list is over 1300 species long (and growing). We may conclude that no scientific studies are required to qualify a species for CITES listing, since the majority of species on CITES are not endangered or even particularly rare: indeed, most (probably more than 70 percent) range from common to abundant. The name CITES is a misnomer: it may be a convention on trade, but it has little to do with trade in endangered species per se, these being far in the minority. What would an accurate, scientific reappraisal of CITES mean to CITES? It would mean a CITES of weakened importance.

A weakened CITES is clearly not in the interests of USFWS. We must assume, however emotionally attached we are to the idea of protecting wildlife, that CITES, like any bureaucracy, cannot survive without two ingredients: power and money. The more species they are charged to "protect," the more power they have to get money to justify doing the job.

Their job consists mainly in vending their stamps to the wildlife agencies abroad, who in turn sell them to the wildlife exporter. As a result of which they also exercise considerable input over local regulations in these foreign countries. The bigger and more inclusive the CITES list, the more countries over which they can exercise influence. It's really a very simple idea: the English once did the same thing with tea sent to the American colonies. You pay our tax (buy the stamps) and we will allow you to import or export the product.

Third world countries love it: it means American dollars funneled into their own wildlife departments. At home in America, USFWS loves it for the same reason: you pay for their jobs. Does it perform a useful function? In some ways, yes. It increases the value of wildlife (you have to be able to afford to buy the stamp) and because of the higher price tag, this creates a sense of value for the exported (and imported) live animal.
stlouisdude
Posts: 458
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:30 pm
Location: St Louis, MO / Hartford, CT

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by stlouisdude »

Richard's case in Oregon I think it is a great case study. You have people that had no data which indicated action was needed, knew they had no data, but pushed for a ban on species for which no significant demand has ever existed and despite a biologist with decades of experience with some of those species providing evidence that they were common. This to me is extremely unethical behavior. Whether it was done because of a personal agenda (don't like people keeping snakes) or if you buy Ernie's explanation, intentionally misusing laws that were passed to protect rare wildlife on common species is unacceptable and provides a boy who cried wolf scenario which lowers public trust in wildlife agencies. Perhaps if this is the kind of behavior non-game departments become famous for, it is time to find a better use for those competitive tax dollars.
User avatar
Bryan Hamilton
Posts: 1234
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 9:49 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Bryan Hamilton »

This is all such a pointless discussion. If there is no demand, then who cares if collection was banned? Not me. It pains me to say it but BRIAN HUBBS is right!
stlouisdude
Posts: 458
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:30 pm
Location: St Louis, MO / Hartford, CT

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by stlouisdude »

Bryan, there are reasons to temp. collect the snakes, such as measuring and weighing them. I do wonder if that high horse you've been riding lately was WC though :P I hope you'll release her back into the wild. All kiding aside, only 3 people apparently showed up to contest the rule change so I suppose you're right, virtually no one cares but it's more the principle than the actual change.
User avatar
Bryan Hamilton
Posts: 1234
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 9:49 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Bryan Hamilton »

I resemble that remark but my horse isn't high. I don't live in Colorado. I understand the principle thing. I've just learned to choose my battles.
stlouisdude
Posts: 458
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:30 pm
Location: St Louis, MO / Hartford, CT

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by stlouisdude »

Bryan, I suppose I am just greatly disappointed in what I am hearing. I grew up, like most of the people here, dreaming about reptiles and amphibians and pursuing them and finding species I could currently only see in books. Now, 10 years ago, if someone would have told me a non-game department had been created, I would have supported such a thing without hesitation.

My thoughts, perhaps naive, would be that they would employ people to find and protect critical habitats, to find and protect critical microhabitats on existing public lands so that sensitive places are not made unfavorable for rare wildlife. I can even accept that resources are thin and they cannot do this for every species. Surely, though, they could take a day to ride around with Richard and see the snakes are common as dirt, though? Now, I am hearing that they do not do any of this and hire a vet of all freaking people to give an uninformed opinion on what should be done. To me that's a waste of resources and I'd rather see the money go back into the game department, to land purchases, or any other use. If there's something I am missing, I am open to changing my opinion and I would be glad to be wrong!
User avatar
Bryan Hamilton
Posts: 1234
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 9:49 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Bryan Hamilton »

I can appreciate your frustration. I've been there. I do think that overall non-game departments are doing just what you want them to in terms of prioritizing habitat for many non-game species. Its incongruent to many that a species that needs management and requires land aquisitions should then be open to collection. Do you know how hard it is to get land purchased in the government? Really hard. Now you're a biologist that has finally convinced the agency to purchase some land for some rare species conservation. Now that same biologist is supposed to tell the folks approving the purchase that its OK to collect that species. I understand that it might not matter at a population level but it doesn't add up.... Wildlife agencies aren't run by the biologists but the game commissioners. Jimi has some really good posts explaining how wildlife agencies are structured.

I agree its ridiculous if biologists aren't going out with Richard to learn about snakes. Thats just silly. But then again maybe Richard drives a weird car with too many bumper stickers fuzzy dice.
Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 639
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 1:14 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Richard F. Hoyer »

Bryan,
Your first comment of 7/28 overlooks many aspects of the proposed revision of OAR Div. 44 regulations such as the negative impact those regulation will have on research. I know of 5 herpetologists that wrote comments to the commission including Dr. Robert Mason of OSU. Perhaps you might consider contacting Dr. Mason to get his views.

To grasp the overall nature of those regulations, I suggest you click on the link provided in the thread below in this forum entitled “A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herping”. Or Google, http://www.dfw.state.or.us/agency/commi ... /index.asp
Then click on “June 2016 ODFW Commission Meeting Minutes. Go to Exhibit ‘A’. At the right side are a number of links and you might start by clicking on and reviewing the information in Attachment #3. The attachment that includes written comments is of interest although for some reason, ODFW has not copied but a small number of such comments. All but one of mine are missing.

Then consider the following. At the first Commission meeting where they entertained comments from the public, instead of allowing the normal 5 minutes for each speaker, they limited comments to 3 minutes. I did not attend that meeting. I did attend the second meeting on June 9th and again, because of the number of individuals wishing to provide testimony, they limited comments to 3 minutes.

In contrast, Dr. Gillin (the ODFW veterinarian that was responsible for the revised regs.) took the better part of 55 minutes to explain the regulations.

There were four individuals that got up to comment about the problems with the regulations involving herps which by the way, is just a small part of the revised regulations. Most of the comments were from individuals that maintain native wildlife with a large number of those individuals being pet skunk owners. Then there were there individuals form Wildlife Images of Grants Pass Oregon that testified how the revised regulation would negatively impact that organization.

I suggest you might reconsider your comment about ‘who cares if collection was banned’ as I mentioned above, you overlooked the impact such regulation will have on potential herpetological research. Instead of providing incentives and fostering research on species of herps, the revised regulations will do just the opposite.

Richard F. Hoyer
User avatar
Bryan Hamilton
Posts: 1234
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 9:49 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Bryan Hamilton »

Thanks for the follow up comments Richard. I'm fortunate enough to live in a state where research is pretty easy but I do have experience in other states where its not so easy. That link doesn't work btw.
Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 639
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 1:14 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Richard F. Hoyer »

Bryan;
It works if you copy the entire 'link' then enter it on Google as I just did.

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/agency/commi ... /index.asp

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

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Richard F. Hoyer »

Jimi,
On July 2nd, I sent a message to Eleanor P. Gaines, Zoology Projects Manager, Oregon Biodiversity Information Center, Institute for Natural Resources, Portland State University. Over the years, I have exchanged messages with Eleanor. Immediately below is a slightly edited version of my inquiries.

“Eleanor, I have been unsuccessful in trying to learn the specific methods used by Oregon Natural Heritage to acquire the information used to establish the ranking of species. I reached a dead end when I tried to access information in the ‘NatureServe Rank Calculator.” “Also, I have been unable to find individual species showing the information used to assess ‘rarity’, ‘threats’, and ‘trends’. Are there links to the individuals species that provide that specific information? Or is such information ‘off limits’ to the public?”

I then asked for the specific information used for ranking the Rubber Boa. In her response, she mentioned they no longer use EOs (Element Occurrences) “—for more common species like the rubber boa.” For such ‘common species’, she mentioned they use a point observation database (PODs) which are observation records.

She did not provide any specific information used for ranking the Rubber Boa nor did she answer if such information was not available to members of the public.

Since you are familiar with the Natural Heritage organizations methods for ranking species, can you find out if it is possibly to access the specific information the organization has used to rank each species? Can you find out if that information is available to the public?

Richard F. Hoyer
Post Reply