Reptile & Amphibian Forums

What is the difference between fishing in a national park, which is generally permitted in at least some part of the park.... And picking up a reptile or more traditional hunting which is never permitted?

I am not planning on making a legal case out of it, the regulations are pretty clear. But at the heart of things, what is the big difference? Is it just that fishermen have better political connections? Why is one such a bad thing, when the other they sell bait for in the park gift shop? In fact while in the Everglades they had those little bug catching kits for kids for sale....

Just one of those random thoughts that gets into my head from time to time. I guess it is one of those "perception" kind of things?

You're right about the gift shops. Maybe if the national parks thought they could make it so you had to buy your "park approved" bags, containers and snake hooks mandatory for collecting they would allow it. LOL
-----
Steve W.

Well I think all these contribute though not all apply to every park.
1) Profit for the park.
2) Fish are often stocked, which justifies the profit.
3) More studies have been done on fish, also justifies the profit.
4) Man has been fishing since prehistory.
5) Herping became popular at about the same time conservation became popular. It was hard to find funding to do studies and much easier to demonize and ban it rather than spend money on a relatively small segment of the population.

>>Well I think all these contribute though not all apply to every park.
>>1) Profit for the park.

Most National Parks only require a valid state fishing license to fish in the park waters--unless a person is buying all their equipment and bait within the park, the park isn't seeing any profit from it.

I agree that it's a bizarre little bit of regulation. Maybe it has to do with a large percentage of fisherman being catch-and-release? I know, so are herpers, but the perception of herpers just wanting to commercially collect and wipe out local populations is still there.

Maybe it's also because many of the waters were stocked with nonnatives (bass and various trout from other regions of the US), so the ecosystem is already out of whack and they figure it's OK to remove those fish via hook and line.

-----
Chris McMartin
www.mcmartinville.com
I'm Not a Herpetologist, but I Play One on the Internet

I don't know if profit is the best word since the money probably just goes toward maintaining the park, not like a bussiness where the owner's or CEO's make 10 million a year.
Nonetheless it has to be a huge draw for the park and causes people to spend, entrance fees, parking fees, boat fees, camping or hotel fees, concession fees, supplies, etc. much more than just bait and tackle.
I am not trying to say the parks have "sold out" or don't have a worthy "mission".

my book.I would never go off and disturb the hab but if its basking on a road in a state park its going home with old slappy here.
Just look on the classifieds and you will see all kinds of Joshua trees and borregos etc.......what up wit dad?
Splitbrain

If the road is a normal state or county road then it, and the easment are generally OK. If it is a park road, then no.

Plus we were talking about National Parks, not State Parks. And I believe they all maintain their own roads inside the respective park.

Lance

>>my book.I would never go off and disturb the hab but if its basking on a road in a state park its going home with old slappy here.
>>Just look on the classifieds and you will see all kinds of Joshua trees and borregos etc.......what up wit dad?

Those animals come from the roads outside of Anza-Borrego, not within the park and from the roads near the Joshua Tree NP, not in the park.

Many state and federal parks cover border to border. Roads through those parks are within the park but are public easements. That means those easements are protected, just like the park.

There has been some question about this in Texas, but generally roads through protected areas are protected.
-----
Chris Harrison
San Antonio, Texas

Maybe from state to state but I have absolutely read that the state park of the Big Bend National State Park, the road is of public domain as so much easement. I just cannot find the lit or article on that now though. Now of it was tested in court on the pubic domain of road / pavement..........
-----
I may be old , cantankerous, crabby, and cynical, but......

Easements through a Texas State Park that are maintained by TxDOT are not under State Park Jurisdiction, or so Parks & Wildlife has told me (Ray Spears, Alpine Warden, asked this of TPWD attorneys when Austin wouldn't give him a straight answer). In other words, FM 170 is fair game its whole length.

Troy

I tested it my own way, but agree 100%

Now if anybody wishes not to hunt it for any reason I will respect them for it, but I say it is no different than any other state TXDoT Road.

Lance

Great question.

I to wonder why the state spends so much money stocking fish into public waters, but will do little to help other outdoor industires (when was the last time TPWD stocked quail on a WMA, for hunters?) I believe that it is the sheer number of people that fish. Not all people hunt, and definately not all people "herp", but most of the population fishes, or at least will fish if given the oportunity. So, because of the numbers, and potiential profit to be made, they cease the oportunity and cater to the fishing industry, while ignoring the others.
-----
South Texas Herps