Sorry!! I will just post them on here from now on. I just did that, that's it's pretty long.



On March 3rd, 2010, California Fish and Game Commission held their monthly meeting in Ontario, CA to consider possible action on non-native turtles and frogs. At the last meeting, on February 3rd, it seemed as though all the Commissioners were in agreement that they were in favor of section 671, banning frogs and turtles from being imported or sold in California. What was revealed on March 3rd was something very different.
Deputy Director Sonke Mastrup of California Fish and Game started the topic by stating that he “was directed to come back with a resolution that would help us deal with using Title 14 section 236.” He also presented a slide saying that, “The Commission hereby directs the Department of Fish and Game to cease issuing permits pursuant to Section 236 of Title 14for any non-native turtles or frogs.”

With that short, uninformative introduction to their plan of action, Commissioner Carlson pulls out the twenty four speaker cards to start the public comments. Animal rights groups started the discussion by way of Eric Mills, Action for Animals; Nicole Paquette, HSUS; Madeline Bernstein, LA ASPCA and others. The confusion started straight out the gate. Mills asked the commission for clarification on whether this action would include just the food market, or also the pet trade. Mastrups’ response is the first of many answers that are unclear and lead to more questions. In response, he states, “Um, that section does not speak to live, what, what it does, this action, what it does is ban the importation of live turtles and frogs that come under that section except for pets and things. Those are, uh, those are uh exempt under that section. If you recall the presentation at the last meeting I went through the details.” So now the decision on this matter has turned from ceasing permits, to just ceasing permits on animals headed to the food markets. Also, at the end, his states that he went through the details at the last meeting; though no one that watched the video, and even some of the Commissioners, did not know what was going on.
All of the many people that came to support the Commission’s decision recommended a complete ban on all non-native turtles and frogs under section 671. Their argument is that Fish and Game cannot enforce regulations already in place on these animals, and that an all out ban would make it easier to enforce. Madeline Bernstein, Los Angeles SPCA, admitted she had been asking the Commission to ban these animals since 1994, based on one animal neglect case. Today she brought up the case again, and it seems that is the only case she has to back up her cause; 16 years later. Interesting note about Bernstein is that she is an attorney, and once ran a course titled, “Surviving Scandals and Crises in the Media” for the humane law enforcement in Pasadena.

The number of people that spoke out against the proposed action outnumbered the previous; although there was a huge cloud of confusion on what Mastrup had presented. Everyone had prepared statements and arguments to go against the Commission banning all non-native frogs and turtles. Some clambered to revise their statements, some passed, but then, some of them questioned even further, so much so, that the real truth came out. Michael Luhrs came out the gates protesting that he tried to contact Fish and Game Commission earlier in the week to get more information to what they were proposing to do, and was told that “it doesn’t exist and that nobody had any idea what it was”. He was also one of a few that made the point that this was not an action to protect California’s wildlife, but an agenda of the HSUS. Luhrs also made a great point by reminding the Commission that the bullfrog is a problem that they created themselves; “The department fought tooth and nail for years to maintain it as a game animal, with seasons and bag limits.” Like everyone there from the reptile industry, Scott Solar was under the impression this meeting was to ban these animals. When he was called up for public comments, the question arose again, trying to reaffirm that this action would not affect the pet trade. Mastrup repeated that it would not, and the secretary recommended that he show a slide from the last presentation. It was on importation permits, and stated, “Permit not required if for personal, pet or hobby. Possession would still be legal.” This slide was presented at the last meeting, but mentioned only in passing. Also it was not an important point since it was not clear that they were going this route, as they seemed more inclined to go with 671. Renowned herpetoculturalist and author, Phillipe du Vosjoli was also there to protest that he could not get a clear answer from the Department on what this ban was about either. He also recommended that shops that sell these animals should post a large sign stated that it is illegal to release these animals into the wild; as there are a lot of people who do not know that it is illegal.

Once Christine Roche took stage, things got very interesting. She made it a point to clear things up and get a solid understanding of what was really going on. When questioned on the last meeting, Mastrup responded, that this resolution would only affect the food markets, and that she is getting confused with the other option they are considering, a complete ban. In reaction, she states, “Since this Commission is still trying to decide whether they are going to use 671 or the other one, this issue is still on the table because that decision has not been made.” What was Mastrups’ answer? “Correct. I have, the department is simply providing the Commission a step they can take now… It’s just maybe a first step of many.” Commissioner Rogers chimes in, “If they show up in live animal markets, then we know that the people that are bringing them in ostensibly for ‘pets’, are selling them to the live animal markets. Then we will take another step. Right now we are satisfied with taking the initial step to see if in fact the pet trade is as it represents itself to be, which is doing the right thing.” He also tries to remind her and the reptile community in a threatening way that, “You must understand, and I’m sure you do. There are a whole bunch of people that, probably wildly outnumber the pet trade who um, who think they should be banned entirely…. We are only taking this first step, now.” Christine responds in a way that we all wanted to cheer for, and some did, “Then, we will see you again.” Commissioner Rogers made it clear in Christine’s questioning that they wanted to go for 671, and that they were going to go after the pet trade once they showed up in the food markets. Later on in the public comments the point was brought up, by Jordan Russell, about how they could have easily have came from Arizona by way of a seven hour drive, and how that would immediately be the fault of the pet trade. Commissioner Rogers response was a repeated and threatened, “I don’t know, I don’t know. But we would have to shut down the turtle trade.”

Now that it was a little bit clearer what was really going on, Shane Bagnall was up on the podium. Once again it was brought up that from the last meeting it was not clear that they were not going the 671 route, and that is why there was such a big response from the pet industry. The highlight of his speech was when he questioned a section of the game code in which it seemed to state that the Commission did not have the authority to regulate certain codes if it had a commercial impact, which in this case, it would have a huge impact. The response from Commissioner Rogers, “No, we do. It’s just a different law.” Once again, when the Commission is questioned, they give no clear answers, and skirt the real issues, and goals of the Commission.

After the public comments were heard, for the first time in this discussion Commissioner Richards speaks up and quickly addressed the Commission and the audience; “Because I tend to agree with some of the speakers who watched the video, which I have not watched, but my belief is I thought we had given a different direction to staff. And so, I am, umm, not necessarily opposed to the suggested action, but uh, I felt that there was certainly a majority if not a totality of the Commission who was in favor of a total ban of importation for the pet trade as well as the food trade. So I can understand why someone may have that misunderstanding, because I certainly did.”

At the end of the meeting, Commissioner Rogers tries to clear the topic up and summarize; “What you were seeing at the last meeting was a number of Commissioners, and I think that’s the general misunderstanding, a number of the Commissioners were in fact interested in 671. The majority of the Commission was in fact interested in the 671. But as the, as the, discussion progressed, we felt that a lighter touch, initial first step, was the appropriate thing to do. Which is why we did this lighter touch, initial first step. I’m sorry that has angered, even that, has angered a number of people; but that bullet that was dodged in the last meeting, was a significant one. We were very, very close to going the 671 route. What we are doing now, is a much lighter touch, initial foyer in controlling the illegal trade of these animals… This is just a first step. No, it is not the case, if they continue to show up in the live animal markets, you couldn’t say they came from the pet trade; no, you couldn’t say that. But what would you do if the boat is sinking? You start plugging holes. That is essentially what we would have to do.” By his unsure, repetitiveness and unwillingness to answer questions clearly, how can you believe a word that comes out of his mouth?

The Commission voted, and the proposed resolution that they would no longer issue import permits for live non-native turtles and frogs was passed with no hesitation. At the next meeting they will present the draft to put into official Fish and Game Policies.

Confusion seemed to be the theme of the whole meeting. If their real interests and goals were to protect California’s natural resources, by way of intellect and science, why would they skew and try to hide what they were really doing. The Commission has made it clear that their real goal is to ban all non-native frogs and turtles. They are starting with these animals in the food markets, stating that if they show up there, they will blame it on the pet trade. Since the pet trade and these food markets have little to do with one another, I’m confident in saying that they will certainly continue to show up in these markets, especially since no one in the food industry showed up to the meeting. This subject will be on the table again, and sooner rather than later.

Tammy Joseph

CAL-SPAN Footage 03:47:45 to 04:48:45
http://www.cal-span.org/cgi-bin/media.pl?folder=CFG

[ Show Entire Thread ]