All,

SWPARC (Southwest Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation - a group of mostly academics and agency biologists) has created a draft, new Model Herp Regs document to update the current Model Herp Regs. They are now accepting comments about it. Actually, they were accepting comments for 30 days in September. They said they might extend it if more private stakeholders wanted to comment.

I explained to them that this was not enough time to get it out to the folks and for them to respond (This looks like agenda advancement.). They say they want comments from the stakeholders. The stakeholders are the tens of thousands of folks in the herp industry from single pet owners up to dealers and big companies. I told them that they need to get a campaign started and have the academics and agency biologists bring the message to the masses about this document. Then they might get some stakeholder responses. They seem not to want to listen. Again, agenda advancement.

If you want to make comments on this document and read it contact Polly Conrad at the Nevada Department of Wildlife: 702-486-5127x3718 or pconrad@ndow.org. I would post it here but they made it into a fancy PDF color document. You can't even cut and paste it into WORD. For a "draft" document this seems highly unusual. I also have a copy of it and you can email me at OHI2007@elp.rr.com. I will post my comments on the document below, however, without reading the "draft" first it might be hard to understand what I am commenting on.

PARC Model State Herp Regulations: Comments and Feedback

1. Do not use PDF’s for soliciting comments. This is user unfriendly. Because this has been used for these draft regs, I will not be able to make complete comments thus you will not get the stakeholders complete response. You can not copy and paste PDFs into WORD and then comment on each statement. This format will bias the comments and ability of folks to respond. If these are just draft regs then why do they have to be so “fancy” now? It doesn’t make sense. This seems to be an attempt to influence the content of these model herp regs by not allowing complete comment. Why else would you do it? In other words, those folks who put this together have decided what the main content of this document should be and that comments are being limited, by making commenting extremely difficult, so as not to allow a complete rewrite of these ideas. This format and the real difficulties in making complete, honest, comments seems contrived to push an agenda.

2. SWPARC/National PARC has not made a sincere effort nor followed the suggestions of the few private folks involved to solicit the participation of stakeholders at large. I have made numerous suggestions to Polly Conrad on how to do this and it has not been done. I will cut and paste some of the suggestions I have made below. This is not an exhaustive list of my suggestions:

I asked you for a WORD version of the Model Herp Regs to post on Kingsnake.com and still nothing has been posted there. Hibbitts posted something on the FHF (Field Herp Forum) but people just commented there. Have you contacted any of the herp groups (USARK, NCARK, HCU, PIJAC) or societies? Did they adequately get the info to their members? Have you contacted a couple dozen of the top breeders in the country? Have you contacted a couple dozen of the top dealers in the country? Is an easy way to comment set up?

and

If Whit Gibbons, Dave Wake, Joe Collins or Ken Dodd or a dozen well known professional herpetologists got on the forums, made appearances at herp society meetings, at herp shows, and contacted herp groups Board of Directors and made a campaign for the next two years, lets say, I would call that an effort.

Without an equal amount of folks from the private sector and academia, in a decision making capacity, these Model Herp Regs are merely agenda pushing. Without a representative amount of comments from the stakeholders concerning these Model Herp Regs you are just pushing your agenda. Until the playing field is leveled this is just an exercise in agenda advancement.

3. You are making these Model Herp Regs to complicated and not defining your terms. What is your definition of “personal collection”? What happens if someone identifies themselves as a “personal collector” but then decides down the road to sell those specimens he collected for personal use? Many “recreational hobbyists” try to hide their activities because they, as humans, practice minimization and justification. How is “trading” and “trades” defined? How is a “gift” defined. How are you going to show that a specimen is wild caught or captive born? You need to define the terms you are using FIRST and get comments on the definitions.

4. Any herp species (including protected species) legally possessed should be allowed to be sold, bought, traded, gifted and transported.

5. Any herp species that is not listed as Endangered or Threatened (E or T) should be allowed to be harvested. Any herp species that is not listed as E or T should have a realistic harvest amount (bag limit) set for it IF NEEDED. This includes “species of special concern.” Often times the use of “species of special concern” is used to stop collectors and hobbyists while the bulldozers of development keep rolling and killing them. Again ANY non-E or T species should be allowed to be harvested.

6. Bag limits should be based on actual, geographically relevant data and not the opinion of the agency biologists or their academic buddies.

7. All regulations should be based on data and not the opinion of agency biologists and academia.

8. The sale of legally collected wild caught herps should be allowed in all cases. It doesn’t matter (other than abuse or intentional introductions) what is done with a harvested animal after it is harvested.

9. Sustainable harvest amounts should be determined for all non-protected species for which there is a concern. This has to be backed up with real, geographically relevant data.

10. Herps should be managed similarly to game animals taking into account their much larger populations, the fact that they are captured alive, and the fact that they are kept, bred and sold.

11. The conflict of interest between AR leaning academics and those that come from academia, the agency biologists, must be reconciled.

12. Stakeholders should have more input into resource decisions. Decision making bodies and other “power” bodies should have equal privates to professionals. Within the private ranks should be equal commercial to recreational folks.

13. It is the responsibility of the purchaser of herp pets or breeder animals to know the proper care of the specimens being purchased.

14. Develop a process by which private individuals can keep, breed and sell E or T species. Captive breeding should be encouraged of any E or T species. This includes commerce in said species. Tracking protocols can be set up.

15. Work with law enforcement to better train their employees so win/win regs can be created. Do not allow excuses of the past to interfere in this process.

16. Tracking individual wild caught animals is to much work and not a prudent use of resources. Simplify all regs and requirements. Any species that is legally harvested can be sold. State to state rules should be normalized and the same across the nation. National regs should be developed so commerce can be conducted as effortlessly as possible. Law enforcement will have to do its job. The only thing the states set is bag limits and determining E and T species.

17. Get rid of all references to restricted and prohibited species “only for zoos, public education programs, zoos and museums.” This is elitist and from a conservation perspective WRONG! Any qualified private person should have the same rights and privileges as any professional person or institution.

18. Many rehabbers and “education” folks use their permits to collect, possess and sell species that are prohibited to stakeholders at large. This should be fixed. Also many academics, zoo and museum personnel and other permitted folks use their scientific permits to collect animals for their personal collection. I know many cases where this is so. It is on going now. This needs to be fixed.

19. Surplus research specimens and their progeny should be disposed to accredited zoos and so forth? No. They should be disposed of to any qualified person. And it should not be prohibitively difficult for non-institutional folks (privates) to acquire these animals. This is elitism. You want to promote captive propagation not restrict it.

20. All laws and regs should be designed to promote the captive propagation of all herp species (including protected species).

21. Requiring documented proof of all animals held and their origin is difficult. Florida does not require a hunting license for herps so how can you document that? How do gifts and trades fit in? If I wild collect animals and have a hunting license how are you going to know that I actually caught those animals? Legal pathways for all activities and scenarios need to be set up. Laws and regs are so complicated it is a law enforcement dream. This needs to be fixed.

22. Do not regulate us to death.

23. Do not evoke the horribly flawed precautionary principle in any decision making situation. Further, “best available science” could be described as the opinion of some “expert.” If that expert is biased or pushing an agenda then is this fair? I don’t think so. Real data must be used.

24. Get rid of the “comprehensive list.” Only species that have current, unbiased, geographically relevant data that gives accepted evidence to their E or T status should be prohibited from collection. However, a program of harvest with strict conservation protocols and monitoring by agency biologists should be developed to allow these species to be captively produced. The fact that taking care of animals costs money must be considered. Private folks that work with these species must either be paid, do it out of the kindness of their heart or be allowed to sell some or all of their offspring. With proper tracking protocol. By allowing private folks to take on the financial burden of captive breeding protected species this frees up the states financial resources for other priorities.

In conclusion, again, I couldn’t make comments on each individual topic in these Model Herp Regs because I couldn’t cut and paste the document into WORD. Since private stakeholders are not an equal part of the decision making process about this document I, as a private stakeholder, see this as more agenda pushing by the PARCers. Also, since a representative amount of private stakeholders did not make comments on this document it does not represent their opinion. I think this is being rushed and what first needed to be accomplished was a mending of the relationship between academics and those that come from academia (agency biologists) and private stakeholders. This tarnished and badly damaged relationship should have been the first priority. Then we can talk about creating a fair, unbiased, all inclusive Model Herp Reg document.

Mike Welker
OHI
El Paso, TX

[ Show Entire Thread ]