>>The following reptiles will likely be moved from List A to List B:

>>Broad-headed skink (Eumeces laticeps)

>>Eastern six-lined racerunner (Cnemidophorus sexlineatus)

>>Eastern hog-nosed snake (Heterodon platirhinos)

>>Queen snake (Regina septemvittata)

>>Eastern ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus sauritus)

>>



Hogs and Queens I can see logically moving to List B (though for me Hogs are still locally common enough to find - been over 10 years since I've seen a queen). I see enough ribbons to wonder why they would move them (unless it's due to population decrease from the more northern counties). Never seen a six-lined racerunner yet in the wild so I personally wouldn't feel bad if they get moved to List B. As for the broadheads, either I see quite a few of them or our 5-line population is really good at pretending to be them ...so it seems strange to want to move them to list B.







>>And those turtles not currently regulated - painteds, eastern muds, eastern musks, and northern redbellies - will likekly be put on List B - requiring a permit to own more than one specimen of a particular species, and only one can be wild-caught.

>>



On the one hand, for these, I would think the logical conclusion would be to put them on List A - not list B. Though for mud turtles list B may indeed be appropriate - the others are much to common to find in comparison. On the other hand if the intent is to regulate (permit wise) how many people are actually allowed to have to reduce the chances of abuse (the difference between 1 (B) and 4 (A) really ain't that great) then I honestly think they need to be throwing RES into the mix as well -- that's the turtle most commonly abused by people wanting to have them as pets and the reason why they've become 'established' in the wild via dumping and the one that really needs to be regulated. Of course it doesn't matter which list the turtles get put on...state is gonna have a hell of a time enforcing it so I do not see it making much of a difference.





>>The breeding of turtles will likely also be legal for the first time in ten years in MD, thanks to a law that was passed last year, and DNR is considering a permit for anyone wanting to breed turtles.





As for the breeding of turtles.... damn that's a hard one to decide. On one hand I like the law as it stands but on the other it does go a little overboard in restricting people with legit desires to breed legally. I would think if they are very strict on how they go about issuing permits to folks who want to 'legally' breed them, I can probably live with it. If they are going to issue permits to just any joe-shmoe who thinks they can breed turtles and make lots of money off them selling them then we are better off without that law passing. Last thing I want to see happen is this law (if it passes) causing a major increase in the work load and hassle upon the shoulders of rescues due to increase of the turtle population within the state as a direct result of legalized breeding and the subsequent rise in dumpings by disillusioned 'pet turtle owners'....it's bad enough as it is with people bringing baby turtles back from NY or myrtle beach vacations then dumping them 2 months later. It would be nice if they could put a clause in denying people the option of breeding RES which is the turtle that causes a lot of problems in relation to the other species when it comes to dumpings and illegal releases into the wild.



_____



Wyvern

[ Show Entire Thread ]