It is currently September 23rd, 2018, 6:48 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 285 posts ] 
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 15th, 2013, 11:36 am 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm
Posts: 510
The following is part of a post copied from the Calif. forum. I have included it here as some individuals likely harbor the notion that recreation collecting or sports take of herps can harm species.

Richard F. Hoyer
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laura:
I continue to be totally at a loss to explain how individuals with university degrees in wildlife science can propose a no-collecting status of species for which there is no demand (such as the S. Torrent Salamander).

Such individuals should automatically understand that the reason why species have declined is invariably due to outright loss and / or degradation of habitat. It thus is just as inexplicable that instead of proposing measures to protect, restore, create favorable habitat, the focus has been on a prohibition of general or recreational collecting which in reality, is a non-issue with perhaps some very rare exceptions.

I don't mean to 'pick' on California as the misconception or perception that collecting can harm species is widespread amongst state wildlife agency biologists, conservationists, wildlife law enforcement, and both amateur and professional herpetologists. As a matter of fact, when this issue was 'discussed' years ago on the PARC web site, I discovered two individuals in population biology that also harbored that erroneous notion.

But it still blows me away that many individuals that majored in wildlife science have not grasped the fundamentals that govern populations.

Here is a hypothetical example: Entering the 2013 breeding season, assume there are 1,000,000 S. Torrent Salamander in Calif. After the breeding season is completed by say August 2013, the population had increased to 3,000,000. Given that the amount of suitable, occupied habitat remains relatively constant, what would be the approximate population of S. Torrent Salamanders going into the 2014 breeding season?

Individuals that truly grasp the basics of populations would not hesitate in providing the answer. Did I catch you hesitating? Hah! And of course, the answer would be 1,000,000. If during the winter scientists (or anyone) were to collect (preserve) 5000 S. Torrent Salamanders across the species distribution in Calif., you would still have about 1,000,000 S. Torrent Salamanders entering the 2014 breeding season and 3,000,000 at the end of the 2014 breeding season.

However, if 10% of the salamander's habitat were lost to whatever cause, then you would have corresponding decrease in population numbers. Of course there are many caveats that could produce a somewhat different picture. But this example should bring home the realities that species exist at equilibrium within suitable habitat given relatively constant environmental conditions from one year to the next. That is, numerical abundance does not appreciably change over time given those two constants. Collecting, similar to harvesting of game and commercial species, can only incur changes in populations if demand approaches or exceeds the supply produced during reproduction.

Richard F. Hoyer


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 15th, 2013, 12:48 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 11th, 2010, 5:01 am
Posts: 519
Location: Louisiana
An empirical example of Richard's scenario is that of Alligator management in Louisiana. In particular regions, alligator farmers are permitted to remove most of the alligator eggs (all eggs from nests). It has already been determined (decades of research by alligator biologists in Louisiana) that the survival rate from newly-laid egg to a 2-year old alligator is 14%. In other words, if the eggs were left in the nests, 86% would not be alive in two years. In order to replace the naturally surviving segment of the population, each farmer is required to release 14% of the alligators, at 2 years of age, to the site of origin.

The 86% of alligators that do not survive to 2 years corresponds to percentages of excess reproductive effort in other species. The excess is nutritive biomass that is cycled, typically as prey for other species, back to the ecosystem. Whether or not humans should be partakers of any of the excess, and to what degree, should be the determinant for bag limits on species.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 15th, 2013, 1:43 pm 

Joined: November 5th, 2012, 5:13 pm
Posts: 84
Location: Dothan, al.
In Alabama protection means nothing. The state does nothing for herps that I'm a where of. They don't allow breeding,education animals.i use fl kings to teach kids about eastern a and so on. They know the rattlesnake rodeo guys gas gopher burrows. But do nothing.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 15th, 2013, 2:06 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 11th, 2010, 7:43 am
Posts: 1253
Location: kaukauna, wi
i like wisconsin's laws. non-residents cannot collect at all. residents can collect within bag limit guidelines. no animal may be sold, bartered or traded. only given away. all offspring fall under this as well. under no circumstances are any animals or offspring allowed to cross state lines. the lacey act overtakes as soon as this were to occur.

i don't like collecting. the animals have an equal right to life as we do. they just want to do as God intended. that's what's best for them.

-ben


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 15th, 2013, 6:06 pm 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:46 pm
Posts: 287
Richard you make too much sense.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 15th, 2013, 7:00 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:20 am
Posts: 562
... me, despite a degree & a lifetime of work in population level wildlife mngmt, ... im throwing down w/ ben the muskie-killa-magnet whatever, ... if i dont like or do something, math be damned, ... you prolly dont need to be doin it either ... an if you dont agree, ill support any laws that'll make you agree :crazyeyes:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 15th, 2013, 7:22 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Posts: 3534
I agree with the policies being ill-founded, but I'm not sure that this is where the fight is. We could work our butts off to get the restrictions lifted, and likely make very little progress...and if we did, where would we be?

The problems that herps are facing are not based on how we collect, but how we manage habitat, and even more so how we abuse natural resources. Until we change those things, one day most of the herps we have left will just be in zoos and tiny managed "wildlife preserves".


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 16th, 2013, 6:02 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 9th, 2010, 5:51 am
Posts: 793
Location: Arizona
i don't like collecting. the animals have an equal right to life as we do. they just want to do as God intended. that's what's best for them.

Ben, while you're certainly entitled to your opinion (just as everyone is), I'm sure you can see the flaws inherent in it.

Arizona has bag limits for every native reptile and amphibian...Those bag limits vary depending upon species (i.e. 20 in aggregate for Coleonyx variegatus and 4 in aggregate for Crotalus atrox and so forth). While there is much that I have issue with when it comes to how our state wildlife agency manages native wildlife, I do agree that bag limits are the most responsible way of managing stable populations of viable animals.

I think collecting gets the brunt of the attention because quite frankly, it's a helluva lot easier to legislate than dealing with the construction and development industries. These industries have powerful economic and political allies, and attempting to tell them that bigger isn't necessarily better means you're telling them that they're not going to make as much cash as they otherwise would....good luck with that. On the other hand, "close" the season on a particular species and you can tell your constituency that you're concerned for the welfare of the animal (even though scientific data may not support such a concern). Meanwhile, shopping malls and parking lots can continue to be built in the name of "economic progress".

It's really simple....Protect and consserve the habitat, and you protect and conserve the animals that live there.

Collection of wild animals by and large is not a threat to the continued survival of most species. It just isn't. Sure we all have our own set of ethics and opinions on the matter, but when push comes to shove the data just doesn't support collection as a large scale threat to most species. Yes, there are some localized populations of certain species that may indeed be affected by unscrupulous collectors, and these populations should be protected...But if the true aim is protection, then we need to examine the rate at which habitat is lost, not the rate at which animals are collected.

-Kris


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 16th, 2013, 7:02 am 

Joined: November 4th, 2010, 2:43 pm
Posts: 546
azatrox wrote:


Collection of wild animals by and large is not a threat to the continued survival of most species. It just isn't. Sure we all have our own set of ethics and opinions on the matter, but when push comes to shove the data just doesn't support collection as a large scale threat to most species. Yes, there are some localized populations of certain species that may indeed be affected by unscrupulous collectors, and these populations should be protected...But if the true aim is protection, then we need to examine the rate at which habitat is lost, not the rate at which animals are collected.

-Kris



You're correct. It is not a threat (non commercial collecting anyway) to most species. Absolutely correct. But what benefit does it have to the species? My feeling is if it doesn't benefit the species/population/etc., don't do it. Why would you?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 16th, 2013, 7:32 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:14 pm
Posts: 3298
Location: San Antonio, TX
While I agree with many of the sentiments here about the net effect of protection of species being non-targeted and less effective than they could be, I don't blame the enforcers of the laws for this. They only have two choices, protect a species or don't. Why? Because those are the limits of the laws. There isn't really room in the laws to specify what a species is to be protected from.

It is a real pity that when the US was formulating the Endangered Species Act, they didn't call it the Endangered Habitat Act and have habitats protected rather than individuals species. It is much more cost and ecologically effective to protect the habitat than to try and protect the species. But, unfortunately, that idea has no political legs so all we can do is "protect" the species.

I am personally willing to sacrifice my right to collect/disturb/keep a species if it means it can potentially be protected. My personal needs are not greater than that of the species in question. Unfortunately, land developers aren't so altruistic.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Laws..........
PostPosted: October 16th, 2013, 9:00 am 
User avatar

Joined: November 14th, 2012, 12:38 pm
Posts: 70
Location: Chino Valley, Arizona
Laws only apply to law-abiding citizens. If one wants to poach, then that is what happens. Poaching (not just reptiles & amphibs) is actually a lot larger than you might think.

Passing gun laws only restricts law abiding gun owners....it means NOTHING to criminals.
:)

Kerby...


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 16th, 2013, 4:25 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 12th, 2010, 9:28 am
Posts: 597
Location: Monterey Peninsula, CA
Richard F. Hoyer wrote:
Here is a hypothetical example: Entering the 2013 breeding season, assume there are 1,000,000 S. Torrent Salamander in Calif. After the breeding season is completed by say August 2013, the population had increased to 3,000,000. Given that the amount of suitable, occupied habitat remains relatively constant, what would be the approximate population of S. Torrent Salamanders going into the 2014 breeding season?

Individuals that truly grasp the basics of populations would not hesitate in providing the answer. Did I catch you hesitating? Hah! And of course, the answer would be 1,000,000. If during the winter scientists (or anyone) were to collect (preserve) 5000 S. Torrent Salamanders across the species distribution in Calif., you would still have about 1,000,000 S. Torrent Salamanders entering the 2014 breeding season and 3,000,000 at the end of the 2014 breeding season.


This argument seems kinda shaky for a couple of reasons. The answer would be 1,000,000 only if the population isn't changing over time. But assuming that the population isn't changing over time seems like a very large assumption.

Also, are these particular numbers backed up by evidence? It sounds a lot worse if you start with an assumption of 10,000 S. Torrent Salamander in Calif, and then collect 5,000 each year. Do we know that 1,000,000 is closer to the truth than 10,000? (I'm not saying that it isn't, just that without some evidence to back up the numeric assumptions, the rest of the argument -- which relies on one number being orders of magnitude larger than the other number -- is meaningless.)

John


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 17th, 2013, 2:53 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 11th, 2010, 5:06 am
Posts: 271
Richard F. Hoyer wrote:
Here is a hypothetical example: Entering the 2013 breeding season, assume there are 1,000,000 S. Torrent Salamander in Calif. After the breeding season is completed by say August 2013, the population had increased to 3,000,000. Given that the amount of suitable, occupied habitat remains relatively constant, what would be the approximate population of S. Torrent Salamanders going into the 2014 breeding season?

Individuals that truly grasp the basics of populations would not hesitate in providing the answer. Did I catch you hesitating? Hah! And of course, the answer would be 1,000,000. If during the winter scientists (or anyone) were to collect (preserve) 5000 S. Torrent Salamanders across the species distribution in Calif., you would still have about 1,000,000 S. Torrent Salamanders entering the 2014 breeding season and 3,000,000 at the end of the 2014 breeding season.

However, if 10% of the salamander's habitat were lost to whatever cause, then you would have corresponding decrease in population numbers. Of course there are many caveats that could produce a somewhat different picture. But this example should bring home the realities that species exist at equilibrium within suitable habitat given relatively constant environmental conditions from one year to the next. That is, numerical abundance does not appreciably change over time given those two constants. Collecting, similar to harvesting of game and commercial species, can only incur changes in populations if demand approaches or exceeds the supply produced during reproduction.

Richard F. Hoyer


Hi Richard,

I respect your work and agree with you that habitat destruction is one of the major threats to amphibians. However, your Torrent Salamander example does not take into account the empirical data on amphibian population dynamics. There are numerous long-term data sets estimating amphibian population size over time. Some of these datasets span multiple decades. This empirical data (not back-of-the-envelope calculations) demonstrates that the number of individuals in a population often varies drastically from year to year, sometimes by two orders of magnitude (100-fold differences in population size). There are a variety of factors that cause such variation in population size, including climate, interactions with other organisms (e.g., predators, disease), and the inherent variability of intraspecific density-dependence.

I would be happy to send you some of the papers I am referring to, just pm me your email address.

Best wishes,

Mike


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 17th, 2013, 4:30 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:20 am
Posts: 562
Mike/Ribbit, et al.;

The example was presented as a "in a nutshell case" to demonstrate a principal that still stands. Yes populations do tend to oscillate around a long term mean, & a mean that may itself rarely be actually observed, but is instead mathematically derived.
I have observed & managed a lowland leopard frog population for an even decade in the sonoran desert. The frogs population appeared to range from near zero when i took over the area's mngmt; to very abundant with estimates as high as 1000 / linear mile in 3 of the 10 years. Sometimes we observed declines that appeared associated w/ creek flow regimens, one time we implicated cytrid, one time we had no clue. At the end of my tenure the frogs were as scarce as when i started; despite all my progressive management :lol: :? [ mud turtles though were a success story!].
The point using Richards distilled principle is that at any of those population peaks; one could have taken numerous frogs & tadpoles (and we did) and at the end of the decade; one would not be able to notice the loss; & that would be the case!
When most herps decline for whatever reasons, humans are not going to be able to detect them in numbers great enough to be cause additional declines. The bio-politix lets be clear is in all states im aware of; "state protected spss status" does nothing for the sps in ?, it doesnt stop or even slow development, here in az it just lets the state appear to be doing something to "manage" it !

edit; none of this (my txt) pertains to the ESA (US federal) listing as discussed above by Chris, that law is most helpful to many taxa and normally listing does include critical habitat designation which often does effect something + for the organism/ecosystem in peril. ESA listing is a deliberate & laborious process (as it should be) w/ a good deal of information gathered first, quite unlike state listings ...

footnote; lowland leopard frogs are "protected" here in az ... jaja ...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 17th, 2013, 5:11 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 11th, 2010, 5:06 am
Posts: 271
Hi regalringneck,

Thanks for your reply. Like you I've spent years tracking amphibian populations trying to determine what causes their populations to fluctuate.

The problem I had with Richard's example is that it ignored the complexity of natural variation in population size, and predicted that population size would remain constant if habitat size remained constant. Even in the absence of environmental fluctuation, simple density-dependence can make population size vary widely from year to year.

Richard could use a more accurate example like yours to make the same point. Amphibian populations often (not always) fluctuate very widely. However, for many species/populations (but not all) you can remove individuals with little or no detectable effect on the population.

Perhaps this seems like a trivial point. But for anyone trying to make claims that include quotes like "Individuals that truly grasp the basics of populations ..." should make sure that they are accurate in their claims.

And just to clarify - I am not opposed to collecting many reptiles and amphibians, and I think that habitat destruction is one of the biggest immediate threats affecting amphibians and reptiles.

All the best,

Mike


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 17th, 2013, 3:50 pm 

Joined: July 26th, 2010, 12:26 pm
Posts: 288
Location: South Carolina
Richard said, "some individuals likely harbor the notion that recreation collecting or sports take of herps can harm species".

Richard, I read it twice and it has done nothing to change the notion I harbor. What really stands out in the story is the word hypothetical. The whole story is hypothetical. Do we have any accurate data that tells us how many animals are collected every year in the US?

Every fall thousands of people hit the Blue Ridge Parkway. Many of these people stop to pick blueberries. In less than a week every blueberry has been picked by the people. I see them carrying jugs filled to the top. It is unreal how quick the millions of blueberries get gone. No telling how many animals depended on those blueberries. I know blueberries are not herps. However, there is no way that collecting reptiles and amphibians does not effect populations, you are not the only one collecting. Sure, habitat destruction and road kills claim more victims but you are still part of the problem. And, why do the pro collectors always start these threads, are you trying to make yourself feel better about the situation?


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Laws..........
PostPosted: October 17th, 2013, 10:01 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Posts: 3534
Kerby Ross wrote:
Laws only apply to law-abiding citizens. If one wants to poach, then that is what happens. Poaching (not just reptiles & amphibs) is actually a lot larger than you might think.

Passing gun laws only restricts law abiding gun owners....it means NOTHING to criminals.
:)


Heh heh - so I guess only law-abiding gun owners go to court and end up with fines/jail time?

Society isn't divided into neat little groups of "law-abiding citizens" and "criminals". Whether it's traffic laws, drug laws, gun laws, tax laws, alcohol and tobacco restrictions, a little shoplifting here or there, beating up a guy who had it coming, etc., everyone has had some area where they felt the laws didn't really apply to them. (unless, of course, you've never started a fight, drank or smoked before the legal age or in the wrong place, carried a gun in a non-legal area, taken a herp when you didn't have the correct license, lied on your taxes, etc.)

Laws are for society. If we think that they're useless and make no difference, go to Somalia and see how a lawless society is working out for them.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 17th, 2013, 10:05 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Posts: 3534
Ribbit wrote:
Also, are these particular numbers backed up by evidence? It sounds a lot worse if you start with an assumption of 10,000 S. Torrent Salamander in Calif, and then collect 5,000 each year. Do we know that 1,000,000 is closer to the truth than 10,000? (I'm not saying that it isn't, just that without some evidence to back up the numeric assumptions, the rest of the argument -- which relies on one number being orders of magnitude larger than the other number -- is meaningless.)


First off, yeah, the number of torrent salamanders in California should pretty certainly be far over 10,000. Have you had much experience with torrent salamander population densities? There should be over 10,000 in single watersheds.

And second, the even easier assumption to make is that the number collected will be closer to 50, or even 5, than 5,000.

If we're just talking about torrent salamanders as our test case, then I can't imagine any scenario where collection will ever do more harm than good. There's hardly anyone collecting torrent salamanders at all, and every single person who does is one more person who actually cares a little about the species.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 18th, 2013, 5:17 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 12th, 2010, 9:28 am
Posts: 597
Location: Monterey Peninsula, CA
jonathan wrote:
Ribbit wrote:
Also, are these particular numbers backed up by evidence? It sounds a lot worse if you start with an assumption of 10,000 S. Torrent Salamander in Calif, and then collect 5,000 each year. Do we know that 1,000,000 is closer to the truth than 10,000? (I'm not saying that it isn't, just that without some evidence to back up the numeric assumptions, the rest of the argument -- which relies on one number being orders of magnitude larger than the other number -- is meaningless.)


First off, yeah, the number of torrent salamanders in California should pretty certainly be far over 10,000. Have you had much experience with torrent salamander population densities? There should be over 10,000 in single watersheds.

And second, the even easier assumption to make is that the number collected will be closer to 50, or even 5, than 5,000.

If we're just talking about torrent salamanders as our test case, then I can't imagine any scenario where collection will ever do more harm than good. There's hardly anyone collecting torrent salamanders at all, and every single person who does is one more person who actually cares a little about the species.


I wasn't talking about torrent salamanders. I was talking about the argument as stated. The argument gets stronger as you increase your estimate of population and decrease your estimate of collection, of course. All I'm saying is that it is the specific numbers that are relevant. If everyone agrees that the populations of all species are so high that any imaginable collection pressure will have negligible effect, then the argument is solid. I'm not sure everyone agrees about that.

John


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 18th, 2013, 5:49 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 9th, 2010, 5:51 am
Posts: 793
Location: Arizona
You're correct. It is not a threat (non commercial collecting anyway) to most species. Absolutely correct. But what benefit does it have to the species? My feeling is if it doesn't benefit the species/population/etc., don't do it. Why would you?

Yes, thank you for clarifying re: type of collection. In my post I was referring principally to collection for personal use rather than commercial collection (although one could make the argument that overall effect on certain species is largely unaffected even with commercial collection)...Not saying I agree with commercial collection per se (I don't) and I'm not saying I support it (I don't). I'm stating that with regard to some species, collection (be it commercial or personal in nature) is largely inconsequential to the continued survivability of the species (provided habitat isn't destroyed during the collection itself).

All that said, I'll address your previous concern re: why do it? We all have our personal views and feelings on the matter of collection...Personally, I have no issues whatsoever with the legal, responsible collection of wild reptiles and amphibians for personal use...While the collection of a particular wild animal may not have direct benefits to the species, if that animal were paired with another and bred, then the resulting captive bred offspring would be available for those that might otherwise go out and collect their own wild caught animals...While there may be some debate as to the overall effectiveness of this line of logic, I do know that it has happened more than a time or two. By your logic, every animal that is left in the wild represents a direct benefit to the species, and as such if one doesn't collect one because they got a captive bred animal instead, then yes...the original wild collection indirectly benefitted the species as a whole. I could also extend this further and state that not only have the animals directly benefitted, but the habitat has as well, as there's now one less person trudging through it, looking to collect their target.

So why do it? Well...why do people utilize any natural resource? Whether we're talking about hunting or fishing or mushroom hunting or whatever, people do these things because it brings enjoyment into their lives....Hell, many of us herpers go out and see/photo animals because of this very reason, and one could make the argument that such utilization isn't altogether that much different than collecting when we consider the drives and motivations for doing so. People keep animals (be they wild caught or captive bred) for any multitude of reasons...For some they want to make money...for others they're simply fascinated...yet others are keeping them for scientific reasons....The point is, there are any number of reasons why one might go out and collect a wild animal...Provided that that person is enjoying the animals in a responsible, ethical, legal way (and provided we've already established that doing so has a largely negligible effect on overall population sustainability), then why SHOULDN'T one go about doing so if one desires?

And this is where we come full circle and return to personal ethics, moraility, etc....and they're different for all of us.

Hope I've answered your question.

-Kris


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 18th, 2013, 6:31 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 9:06 am
Posts: 744
Location: Montana
Stellar post, Kris. I agree with everything you've said.

-Cole


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 18th, 2013, 7:30 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Posts: 2416
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Ribbit wrote:
I wasn't talking about torrent salamanders. I was talking about the argument as stated. The argument gets stronger as you increase your estimate of population and decrease your estimate of collection, of course. All I'm saying is that it is the specific numbers that are relevant. If everyone agrees that the populations of all species are so high that any imaginable collection pressure will have negligible effect, then the argument is solid. I'm not sure everyone agrees about that.


From what I gather, you're basically saying blanket permissions/prohibitions do not make sense from a scientific standpoint, and such regulation needs to be addressed on a species-by-species basis.

I THINK Mr. Hoyer's premise is a lament that it's easier/cheaper (lazier?) to institute blanket bans on collection (or overly restrictive bag/possession limits) than to expend the resources in examining each species.

This is where citizen science could be used to great benefit--getting a better handle on specific populations and the pressures they face, at little to no cost to the relevant wildlife agency (and, thus, the taxpayer who decries spending his/her money turning rocks in streams).


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 18th, 2013, 8:59 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 19th, 2010, 6:42 pm
Posts: 848
Location: New Yawk
I think it should also be noted that blanket bans are rarely the result of "university degrees in wildlife science" and more often the result of administrators and legislators.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 18th, 2013, 9:49 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 12th, 2010, 9:28 am
Posts: 597
Location: Monterey Peninsula, CA
chris_mcmartin wrote:
Ribbit wrote:
I wasn't talking about torrent salamanders. I was talking about the argument as stated. The argument gets stronger as you increase your estimate of population and decrease your estimate of collection, of course. All I'm saying is that it is the specific numbers that are relevant. If everyone agrees that the populations of all species are so high that any imaginable collection pressure will have negligible effect, then the argument is solid. I'm not sure everyone agrees about that.


From what I gather, you're basically saying blanket permissions/prohibitions do not make sense from a scientific standpoint, and such regulation needs to be addressed on a species-by-species basis.


I wasn't really trying to put forth any specific proposal or approach, though I basically agree with what you're saying. I was merely reacting to what seemed like an overly broad argument. The Torrent Salamander example was presented as evidence with this introduction:

Richard F. Hoyer wrote:
The following is part of a post copied from the Calif. forum. I have included it here as some individuals likely harbor the notion that recreation collecting or sports take of herps can harm species.


In that context, it seems like the Torrent Salamander example was intended as some sort of proof or at least evidence that recreation collecting or sports take of herps cannot harm any species. And I don't think the example as given really does anything to prove or support that premise. It does provide evidence that the Torrent Salamander population wouldn't be harmed by recreation collecting, if you accept that the given population estimate and recreation take estimate are somewhere near reality. I don't know whether that is the case, and no evidence was presented to back it up (though I'm sure Hoyer knows far better than I do). But even if we accept those numbers for Torrent Salamanders, that doesn't mean that every other species is similarly safe.

John


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 18th, 2013, 12:34 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 9th, 2010, 5:51 am
Posts: 793
Location: Arizona
I assume the "no breeding" is to prevent the animals from entering the pet trade

Chris,

That would be a correct assumption (among other reasons). Az prohibits any commercialization of any native reptile or amphibian, including the progeny thereof. No trading, bartering, consigning, etc....It is howver 100% legal to gift out offspring of non protected species, so long as the giver receives nothing of monetary value in return.

AzG&F would be implicitly encouraging commercialization if it gave approval to breed these "protected" animals...

-Kris


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 18th, 2013, 12:36 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 9th, 2010, 5:51 am
Posts: 793
Location: Arizona
oops...wrong thread. LOL

-Kris


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Laws..........
PostPosted: October 18th, 2013, 1:39 pm 

Joined: January 11th, 2011, 2:43 pm
Posts: 219
jonathan wrote:
Laws are for society. If we think that they're useless and make no difference, go to Somalia and see how a lawless society is working out for them.

Yes.

I'd like to see someone address a different example, the Indigo in Florida. Clearly habitat destruction is a horrible problem. But it's a large, wide-ranging snake with limited habitat. Does anyone know (anyone from the Arianne Society here, maybe?) densities in a given county, or forest, in Florida? As others have noted here and in other threads, road kills and predation take a toll. Might collecting of that species have a detrimental effect on populations, despite the presumably accurate conclusion re: the torrent salamanders?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 18th, 2013, 2:33 pm 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm
Posts: 510
John:
You ask for evidence and yet strong circumstantial evidence has been available all along.

It is likely that in many regions of the U.S., species of earthworms have high densities and are prolific breeders. And earthworms likely have been in existence in N. Am. for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. So the question becomes, why aren't we up to our ankles in earthworms?

Earthworm population undoubtedly fluctuate greatly throughout the year as well as from one year to the next in response to varying environmental factors such as drought, precipitation, predation, floods, freezing temperatures, etc. But over the longer term, the mean numerical abundance of earthworm populations that occupy suitable habitat likely remain fairly static.

Despite the immense reproductive potential of earthworms, we are not overrun with earthworm due to one simple biological reality as follows: On the average, the mean annual attrition (death) from all sources equals the mean annual reproductive output. As a result, populations tend to remain at equilibrium, neither appreciably increasing nor decreasing.

If that were not the case and over many thousands of years, the mean annual survival of earthworms had exceeded the mean annual attrition by a small percentage each year, by now we would be up to our ankles or kneecaps in earthworms. But because we are not being overwhelmed by earthworms indicates a balance exists between the mean annual reproductive output and mean annual death of earthworms.

This basic concept of biology / wildlife science accounts for the reality that we are not being overrun by earthworms and the same reality applies to most species of wildlife. And that is why I mentioned that species tend to remain at equilibrium.

History had taught us that species have come and gone. So yes, the numerical abundance of species change over time when there occurs a change in basic environmental factors that in turn increase or decrease favorable habitats for species. But I am referring to where current environmental factors average out to be pretty much the same over each decade thereby not increasing or decreasing the amount of favorable habitat for species.

It remains to be seen if the current warming trend has any appreciable affect on the quantity and quality of habitat for many species. The numerical abundance of species will increase or decrease in relation to any increase or decrease in the amount of favorable habitat.

Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 18th, 2013, 2:54 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:20 am
Posts: 562
quote:
I'd like to see someone address a different example, the Indigo in Florida. Clearly habitat destruction is a horrible problem. But it's a large, wide-ranging snake with limited habitat. Does anyone know (anyone from the Arianne Society here, maybe?) densities in a given county, or forest, in Florida? As others have noted here and in other threads, road kills and predation take a toll. Might collecting of that species have a detrimental effect on populations, despite the presumably accurate conclusion re: the torrent salamanders?

...while no expert, no need here to let that stop me :p ... i have read much of the published ntrl histry indigo research, including Orianne's excellent group of pubs ( i have a decent dry-biblio if anyone really needs one) so in that sense, i guess i am .... & yes full protection from collecting is in my opine; appropriate for easterns (not texicans). The reasons being obvious to those familiar w/ the sps. & i wont bother to re type them here (google the USFW indigo recovery plan) Home ranges have exceeded 200 sq ha for large males, 50 for females.

again, for some herps, partic the "k selected sps" such as crocs & many turtles, there is a better case to be made for protection. Most us squamate herps are on the " r side of the spectrum", the eastern indigo appears to be a notable exception. when there are exceptions, invariably local biologists & naturalists are aware of their biological sensitivity.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 19th, 2013, 8:07 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:23 am
Posts: 2240
Location: Unicoi, TN
A lay person’s thoughts (they don’t come very often):

Deer, turkey, bear, alligator, red fish, and other game animals were once driven to the edge of non-existence with the rapid spread of us invasive “old worlders”. These animals are now in overpopulation in many areas.

Managed by state and federal fish and game orgs, most successes seem attributed to habitat improvement and yet this included regulated harvest. Nothing succeeds like success.

Their “game” designation gives them value, so habitat protection sells to the public.

On the human relations factor, at least, in part, a help to these successes has been that most hunters and fisher-persons are law abiding, responsible, and quick to report illegal activities. This puts many more eyes on the problem, then the F&G game LEOs can afford.

I’ve heard several times, “how do we know the population dynamics in herps?”
From this, I can only assume that “game biologists” must have magic 8 balls that they won’t share with non-game biologists/managers, or have radio tagged every game animal and game fish in the field.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 19th, 2013, 10:54 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 12th, 2010, 9:28 am
Posts: 597
Location: Monterey Peninsula, CA
Richard F. Hoyer wrote:
This basic concept of biology / wildlife science accounts for the reality that we are not being overrun by earthworms and the same reality applies to most species of wildlife. And that is why I mentioned that species tend to remain at equilibrium.

History had taught us that species have come and gone. So yes, the numerical abundance of species change over time when there occurs a change in basic environmental factors that in turn increase or decrease favorable habitats for species. But I am referring to where current environmental factors average out to be pretty much the same over each decade thereby not increasing or decreasing the amount of favorable habitat for species.


I guess my uncertainty about this argument boils down to uncertainty about whether collection by humans is, or could ever be, enough of a factor to affect the population equilibrium. If the collection by humans had been at a more-or-less steady state for hundreds or thousands of years, then that could provide strong evidence that it is not enough of a factor to affect the overall populations. But it seems likely to me that the collection by humans has increased in the last hundred years (say), and continues to increase, both because the human population continues to grow and because keeping captive herps seems to be growing more popular over time.

So even if we assume that all other factors are constant, and thus species populations are generally at equilibrium, if more and more individuals are collected each year then it's conceivable that the number of collected individuals could eventually affect the overall population of a species, thus throwing the population out of equilibrium. Whether that seems likely or unlikely depends strongly on the population sizes and the number of animals collected. Maybe it's the case that the number of animals collected is so insignificant compared to the overall population for every single species that even if the number of animals collected continues to grow, it would continue to be insignificant in the imaginable future. But without a lot of specific numbers to back it up, that seems like a really strong statement. I haven't personally seen a lot of specific numbers in this area. Maybe others have.

John


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 19th, 2013, 4:23 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Posts: 2416
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Ribbit wrote:
I guess my uncertainty about this argument boils down to uncertainty about whether collection by humans is, or could ever be, enough of a factor to affect the population equilibrium.


The best catch-all answer to this is, "it depends." What species are we talking about? How much of its habitat is accessible (i.e. not on protected or private land)? And, most importantly, is there a significant demand for that species?

I'm a proponent of species-specific management...heck, I might even settle for genus-specific management; it'd be better than blanket bans/closed seasons (or blanket "no limit" open seasons, for that matter).


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 19th, 2013, 5:36 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:09 pm
Posts: 1211
chris_mcmartin wrote:
Ribbit wrote:
I guess my uncertainty about this argument boils down to uncertainty about whether collection by humans is, or could ever be, enough of a factor to affect the population equilibrium.


The best catch-all answer to this is, "it depends." What species are we talking about? How much of its habitat is accessible (i.e. not on protected or private land)? And, most importantly, is there a significant demand for that species?

I'm a proponent of species-specific management...heck, I might even settle for genus-specific management; it'd be better than blanket bans/closed seasons (or blanket "no limit" open seasons, for that matter).


How about we apply these hypotheses to Southern Rubber Boas (Charina bottae umbratica) ? ;) ;)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 19th, 2013, 6:25 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Posts: 4113
Location: San Francisco, California
[/quote]

But it seems likely to me that the collection by humans has increased in the last hundred years (say), and continues to increase, both because the human population continues to grow and because keeping captive herps seems to be growing more popular over time.

[/quote]



So is greed. Growing, that is.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 19th, 2013, 8:52 pm 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm
Posts: 510
Bill Mc--:
The first part of your post pertains to game species for which there is demand. That is a much different kettle of fish than the topic of my post which pertained to a non-game species (the S. Torrent Salamander), for which there is no demand.

You then ask, “how do we know the population dynamics in herps?” The population dynamics for herps (all non-game species) is exactly the same as for game species. That is, the same basic biological principles govern the populations of all species of wildlife.

As for the biologists involved with game versus non-games species, it has been my experience that there seems to be vast difference. Game biologists execute
methods for assessing both the numerical abundance (supply) and the demand for game species. I am well aware of the constraints faced by biologists dealing with non-game species. But I am still perplexed that for the most part, they neither attempt to estimate numerical abundance nor attempt to determine the demand for
non-game species.

If by chance you asking how to assess the numerical abundance of non-game species, I may provide an answer at a later time.

Richard F. Hoyer


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 19th, 2013, 9:52 pm 

Joined: September 25th, 2013, 12:33 am
Posts: 22
Location: Bali Indonesia
You only have to look at species which become 'flavour of the month' in the pet trade
Example
Canary chondros [totally protected and have never been given a collection permit]
These come 2 isolated islands Kofiau and Missool
Neither island has really suffered from habitat destruction
Before they were marketed as canarys we could take tours there and photograph 20 to 50 every day
10 years after canarys became famous the snake smugglers listed Kofiau and Misool as no longer commercially viable
Our last tour found 5 in 7 nights searching

This is also happening right now with several other locales of other species including dwarf retics

So while in some ways the argument about collections not really affecting wild numbers because of natural attrition is true
In other ways it is very false unless the collection is strictly supervised


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 20th, 2013, 12:09 am 
User avatar

Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Posts: 4113
Location: San Francisco, California
Bali Reptile Rescue wrote:
You only have to look at species which become 'flavour of the month' in the pet trade
Example
Canary chondros [totally protected and have never been given a collection permit]
These come 2 isolated islands Kofiau and Missool
Neither island has really suffered from habitat destruction
Before they were marketed as canarys we could take tours there and photograph 20 to 50 every day
10 years after canarys became famous the snake smugglers listed Kofiau and Misool as no longer commercially viable
Our last tour found 5 in 7 nights searching

This is also happening right now with several other locales of other species including dwarf retics

So while in some ways the argument about collections not really affecting wild numbers because of natural attrition is true
In other ways it is very false unless the collection is strictly supervised



Some invitation and eventual consequences will evade hard data.

Reptiles are easy vertebrates to catch, and even easier to store than a crate of unripened fruit. Not proven, and yet its the truth. Just another factor to think about or ignore - whatever ones proclivities may be.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 20th, 2013, 8:30 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm
Posts: 2293
Ah, I see that one of FHF's classic debates is underway at the top of the message board to welcome me back - how nice! (Yup, for those interested, I've finally completed my many arduous preparations for relocation and even the relocation itself. Farewell, TX! I'm now and for the foreseeable future a resident of NY's Adirondacks.)

A number of excellent contributions have already been made to this discussion, covering almost all of the ground that we cover again and again whenever this topic comes up. To seemingly no avail, unfortunately, as some people appear ever to cling to their same positions born of ignorance, emotionalism and religious belief. Even more sadly, we're apparently dealing with willful rather than simple ignorance; the latter is merely the result of a lack of education (and hence we're all ignorant of all kinds of things), after all, and even if these people never received formal training in population biology they've by now certainly received ample instruction on the subject from a number of experts here at FHF. Oh well.

Accordingly I won't spare more than a bit of time for this discussion. I just want to add my voice to those others of reason here and make/emphasize a couple of points that I haven't yet seen clearly laid out in this latest go-round, and then I'll let y'all (or in honor of my new location, "youse guys"?) enjoy or suffer through the rest of this thread without me.

1) All wildlife species can be thought of as being harvested by humanity in one way or another. Some of these ways are deliberate and obvious, such as hunting and live collecting (be it for commercial or private purpose). Others are unconscious (at least with respect to any particular species) and all too often ignored, such as demolition of a species' habitat for development or degradation of said habitat through pollution. All remove animals and/or their potential to produce future animals from species' populations, and in total they reach every species, everywhere. (If you think manmade pollution isn't reaching species and habitats absolutely everywhere, you're kidding yourself.) We are indeed fortunate that the vast majority of species can (still) handle the level of harvest we inflict upon them just fine. Truthfully, this resilience results from the fact that all species have evolved and are continuing to adapt to accommodate the various harvests they're subject to (by humans or other agents), at least starting us out with them in a very good position.

2) An abundance of reason and real-life experience demonstrate that managed harvest is a far better idea than unmanaged harvest. Even if we start out not knowing much about a species and its population(s), management tends to limit the potential negative effects of harvest even while impelling us to learn more and fine tune our future efforts. And this is all the more true the more imperiled the species.

3) Blanket protection is a form of management, yes, but it's such a passive, unthinking and prohibitive form of management that in many ways it mimics no management at all, and worse, it often precludes more active, reasoned forms of management. It can and does commonly discourage, and in some cases even prohibit, efforts to learn more about and improve how we handle a given species and the threats it faces. It all too readily allows people to believe they've done something concrete for wildlife conservation when all they've actually done is put another meaningless law on the books. And it erects yet another barrier between people and nature when now more than ever we need people to understand and appreciate nature (even if we as individuals don't particularly like all of the ways in which others find their appreciation). Effective management targets action at meaningful threats, and meaningful threats are identified by prioritizing among possibilities by use of reason and data, not emotional appeal or personal interpretation of anyone's preferred deity's will. For these reasons I and many other long-time professionals I have known in wildlife conservation view hands-off legislation as a hinderance rather than help to our efforts.

Agree or disagree with these points, and for whatever reason you choose, it's all ok with me. I'm happy to answer sincere questions anyone might have for me about them, but I'm not up for endless, pointless debate. Life's too good to waste it in such a fashion.

And part of what's good about it for me is that I'm finally back online with y'all! :beer:

Gerry


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Dr. B's back ...
PostPosted: October 20th, 2013, 10:42 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:20 am
Posts: 562
... n still typing da truth :}

Just wanted to megacongrat you & your wife for your orderly escape from texas, and now you'll have so many new trails & places to explore, you probably wont make the time to muck about on here w/us...
but if you do, maybe some autumn color for those of us doomed to only see shades of drought ...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 20th, 2013, 9:05 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 4:49 pm
Posts: 233
Richard,

Let me guess that you are referring to the draft California Species of Special Concern document. I am looking at the whole thing now as a reviewer and am pretty upset at the lack of perspective it shows. Some accounts (I won't list them here) cite range or population declines that I can only call imaginary. There are lots of inconsistencies in assigning numerical values to threats.

The whole SSC concept is meant to be foreward-looking: "Special Concern designation results in a greater depth of knowledge about species as well as proactive conservation aimed at maintaining or restoring populations to avoid the need for future, formal listing" (p. 17). Further, it is meant to stimulate research into basic biology, threats and management. However, the protective function is basically nonexistent -- SSC animals are typically listed in a table separate from T&E species in impact reports, and as far as I am aware have basically never received any consideration at all in altering the process or footprint of projects. They have no legal protection against extirpation by habitat destruction, etc., and are ignored.

The ONLY place I know of where SSC designation matters is that they are automatically excluded from Scientific Collecting permits, and generally require an order of magnitude more bullshit to be worked with. This prevents research most of the time. The assumption that biologists pose a grave threat to species they want to study seems to be part of the DNA of fish-and-duck-buck types. What it comes down to is that you can bulldoze them all day if you are pig-ignorant, but if you know what they are you ain't supposed to touch a one of them.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 21st, 2013, 5:37 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 11th, 2010, 5:01 am
Posts: 519
Location: Louisiana
Quote:
The ONLY place I know of where SSC designation matters is that they are automatically excluded from Scientific Collecting permits, and generally require an order of magnitude more bullshit to be worked with. This prevents research most of the time. The assumption that biologists pose a grave threat to species they want to study seems to be part of the DNA of fish-and-duck-buck types.


Our Department (Louisiana) just revised our SSC list of about 25 taxa, only three of which require more than a fishing license to collect, and no bag limits on the others. Paradoxically, we encourage researchers, hobbyists and commercial folks to report their finding or take of SSC animals. Our biologists work at maintaining a rapport with our constituents to perpetuate the existing exchange of information with the public. In fact, I have gently chastised individuals who have released or failed to document important specimens.

There's a suggestion in here somewhere for other State Agencies.

Jeff


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 21st, 2013, 11:07 pm 

Joined: August 7th, 2010, 2:48 pm
Posts: 307
Location: Tucson, AZ
dthor68 wrote:
And, why do the pro collectors always start these threads, are you trying to make yourself feel better about the situation?


I'll take "Cute, but Clueless" for $400, Alex.

Richard is not a pro collector, dthor69, by any stretch of any hallucination. As anybody vaguely aware of his work knows.

Kindly leave the table so the rest of us can engage in valuable discussion in our BigBoy and BigGirl voices, if labelling and Strawmanning is all you contribute. Reason is never benefitted by either.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 22nd, 2013, 3:30 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Posts: 2416
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Verhoodled wrote:
Richard is not a pro collector, dthor69, by any stretch of any hallucination.



I think dthor68 meant "pro collector" in the sense of "in favor of collection," not "professional collector."


Put me down in the column for "in favor of collection" as well, DEPENDING ON THE SPECIES, based on population/habitat health. And "in favor of" is not to be interpreted as "encouraging," but rather "allowing."

:)


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 22nd, 2013, 9:47 am 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm
Posts: 510
Dr. Sweet:
At some point, I believe CDFW biologist Laura Patterson did mention that UC Davis was working on a SSC document. But I have not seen a copy of that draft.

Last spring, I recall reviewing the older SSC document and the Risk Assessment protocol which formed the basis for identifying such species. I found the latter to be badly flawed as it largely incorporates a great deal of anecdotal input (guessing).

I have intended to, and eventually may find time to respond to a number of other posts in this thread.

Richard F. Hoyer


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 22nd, 2013, 10:44 am 

Joined: October 21st, 2012, 8:12 am
Posts: 16
Good stuff, thanks for posting this.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 22nd, 2013, 11:22 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Posts: 5722
Location: Los Angeles County
There is some very intelligent conversation on this thread..

I understand were Mr Hoyer is coming from.

Sam, its good to know you are reviewing their work. With your field herping skills and experience, along with your in-depth knowledge of our California Herps, I do not know "Anyone" more qualified than yourself to provide an accurate response.

Someone above posted their being variations in the dynamics of the populations up to 100 fold, if that's the case than why would collecting in small amounts ,under the umbrella of a reasonable bag limit, have any baring the population, if at most the collecting is no more than 10 fold of the overall population?


Louisiana seems to get it right..


If collecting and 100 fold population fluctuations are so impact-full, than why is the the Burmese Python population still with us and growing? Isn't there a bounty on them and large eradication efforts going on for them? Didn't the Python just suffer a massive die off due to extreme cold?

Yet their numbers still grow..

Am I the only one that sees the irony?

Fundad


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 22nd, 2013, 11:37 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 19th, 2010, 6:42 pm
Posts: 848
Location: New Yawk
Fundad wrote:

If collecting and 100 fold population fluctuations are so impact-full, than why is the the Burmese Python population still with us and growing? Isn't there a bounty on them and large eradication efforts going on for them? Didn't the Python just suffer a massive die off due to extreme cold?

Yet their numbers still grow..

Am I the only one that sees the irony?

Fundad


Because each species is different, and invasive species are in a category all their own (in that they typically lack natural means of population control, ie parasites, disease, and co-adapted predators.

Also, folks need to be aware of the concept of the extinction vortex. We all know that the main causes of decline for our reptiles and amphibians in the US are habitat loss and fragmentation, disease, and invasive species. However, we can COMPOUND these losses by extra collection pressure.

Image

Now, that said, I think collection is unlikely to effect many of our native herp species. However, which is better: setting arbitrary collection limits, or going with the safe route of disallowing collection until more information is available for a given species? This is a philosophical debate.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 22nd, 2013, 12:00 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Posts: 5722
Location: Los Angeles County
Quote:
Now, that said, I think collection is unlikely to effect many of our native herp species. However, which is better: setting arbitrary collection limits, or going with the safe route of disallowing collection until more information is available for a given species? This is a philosophical debate.


:lol:

It depends how many of our very limited resources, including time, are we using enforcing these regulations? Wouldn't those resources be better used on the most needed species? Or on habitat enforcement?

Is there a bigger cost of hiding that species from the general public's view?
The General public protects what it knows and likes, and disregards and abuses the rest.

Are these protections also preventing citizen scientist observations, and records?

Are we protecting common and widespread species with the same protections as "at risk" species, thus gaining lack of respect from the general public for the regulation in the first place?

Philosophically of course.
Fundad


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 22nd, 2013, 5:15 pm 

Joined: July 26th, 2010, 12:26 pm
Posts: 288
Location: South Carolina
Verhoodled wrote:
Quote:
I'll take "Cute, but Clueless" for $400, Alex.

Richard is not a pro collector, dthor69, by any stretch of any hallucination. As anybody vaguely aware of his work knows.

Kindly leave the table so the rest of us can engage in valuable discussion in our BigBoy and BigGirl voices, if labelling and Strawmanning is all you contribute. Reason is never benefitted by either.


Clueless is not knowing what "PRO" means. Also, I am not at the table, never was. The discussion is meaningless and you yourself have yet to contribute to it at all, other than labeling me. And, a "BigBoy"/"BigGirl" is one who will leave it where he/she finds it. A child wants to keep it captive. I would guess that you have a lot of growing up to do.

Personally, I could care less if one wants to collect, it is not my business. But to think that collecting does not hurt wild populations is laughable. Sure, if one person collected one animal it would not hurt. However, it is not one person, it is many. Of coarse a collector does not want to think he/she is part of the problem, so here we are, again!


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Protection--a flawed policy
PostPosted: October 22nd, 2013, 7:11 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm
Posts: 2293
John Vanek wrote:
... which is better: setting arbitrary collection limits, or going with the safe route of disallowing collection until more information is available for a given species? This is a philosophical debate.

I'd say it's more practical than philosophical, given that not only reason but also real evidence can be brought to bear on the question, and real impacts can result from the path chosen.

My answer to the question depends on the species and its situation so far as it is already known, of course, but in the vast majority of cases I would definitely say "setting arbitrary collection limits." Better still would be attempting to incorporate whatever information is already available in setting those limits; this might not differ all that much from doing it arbitrarily at first, but at the very least it'll put everybody in the right frame of mind. In addition to maintaining connections between people and animals - giving many people who otherwise likely wouldn't do so a reason to care - collection limits tend to promote further study to improve management, as both those who want the limits increased and those who want them decreased have cause to support such efforts. Blanket protection tends to shut things down, sometimes tangibly by putting too many hurdles between the animals and those who wish to study them, but mostly simply by planting in people's (especially administrators') minds that the species thereby has all the protection it needs. Saying it again but with emphasis of the important parts: EFFECTIVE management targets action at MEANINGFUL threats.

Gerry


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 285 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: