Reptile & Amphibian Forums

www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061126/NEWS01/611260329

Pocono LifeEmail Print Subscribe Collectors threaten wildlife
November 26, 2006

Like many naturalists, my passion for animals was largely molded during childhood years when friends joined me in collecting "expeditions" into the wilds around our neighborhood. In our case, the wilds were vacant lots, city parks and marshlands on the outskirts of Queens, New York City, most of which have long since been paved over and developed.

In these green oases we left no discarded tire, plywood board or abandoned refrigerator unturned in our quest for garter snakes, box turtles or Fowler's toads. We captured these treasures, brought them home in bags on our bicycles, and transferred them to fish tanks and cages. This was before the dawn of the environmental movements of the 1970s, and it never occurred to any of us that these exciting explorations could ever become endangered by overcollecting.

For me, at least, these were introductions into the world of nature and the sparks that ignited an educational and professional career of a lifetime.

continued below ADVERTISEMENT Other Popular Features
AP Video
Blogs.ThePoconos.com
Football picks
Pocono Autumn
Your Community

Today, we know better. Populations of many reptiles and amphibians throughout the world are in trouble, and collecting them from the wild is just one of many contributing causes. Global warming is drying out breeding ponds, water pollution and destruction of the ozone layer are leading to mutations and deaths, a strange fungus is causing massive kills all around the world, and overdevelopment is adding roadkills to this mortality list as these animals attempt to travel between breeding and hibernation areas.

Collecting snakes, frogs, turtles and other herps — either for the pet trade or by individuals — may be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back for some of these species beleaguered by other threats. Solving the complex global issues that face wildlife is very difficult and time-consuming, but the solution to overcollecting is often as simple as passing new laws — and that's just what the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission has recently done.

After numerous meetings with the various special-interest groups hunters, breeders, collectors, park rangers, teachers, scientists, the commission has placed new restrictions on collecting our state's reptiles and amphibians, following decades of being far too liberal in its quotas, especially compared to the exemplary laws enacted by New York and New Jersey.

These new protective measures were proposed by a special advisory panel of scientists, chaired by Tim Maret, a biologist at Shippensburg University. They coincide with the completion of a statewide Herpetological Atlas in which hundreds of volunteers sent their observations to Dr. Art Hulse of Indiana University of Pennsylvania for six years. What resulted was a comprehensive book on Pennsylvania's reptiles and amphibians, with distribution maps and estimates of their specific population statuses.

Sadly, for many of these animals the data proved what many field naturalists had feared — they're disappearing from many areas. Habitat destruction is the chief cause of these declines in Pennsylvania, but unscrupulous collecting, either for individual possession or sale, is also contributing to some degree.

Based on what was legally permissible, it's no wonder.

For example, for most snakes, a collector is allowed to capture two per day, and there is no limit or season for copperhead snakes or snapping turtles. Timber rattlesnakes are protected to a greater degree, but even this uncommon and declining reptile is suffering from annual "round-ups" in some rural areas where collectors remove them from their dens, bring them to town and display them to crowds, often roughly handling or injuring them in the process.

Beginning in January 2007, all of this changes. For most snakes, the quotas have been cut in half, and only one copperhead can be taken annually from mid-June to the end of July. A special permit is necessary to capture snapping turtles up to 15 per day, and quotas for bullfrogs and green frogs have been reduced to 10 and 20, respectively.

And there's a "forbidden list" of species that can't be collected at all: smooth green, eastern hognose and eastern ribbon snakes; Jefferson, marbled and four-toed salamanders; spotted, wood and box turtles; fence lizard; and other species that are found in more western or southern parts of the state. These are species deemed rare and at-risk of becoming endangered by the committee of experts assembled by the commission.

The timber rattlesnake's protection has been bumped up a notch — now, only snakes greater than 42 inches long males can be "borrowed" for round-ups and then returned, thus protecting pregnant females from the stress and injury associated with being grabbed by hooks or tongs, thrown into sacks and transported long distances.

The restrictions for some of these animals, in my opinion, aren't stringent enough. Rattlesnake round-ups should become a relict of the past, and even common snakes like black rat snakes can quickly become extirpated from areas if collectors are allowed to capture one per day. Killing copperheads should also be banned, and the daily quotas on snapping turtles, green frogs and bullfrogs still seem way too high.

But this is a start, and, according to the commission's Chris Urban, more changes will be made as more information on these animals' populations is gathered. The days of unlimited collecting are over, and the focus of budding young naturalists should now be on observing and photographing their subjects in the wild.

As Tim Maret has said, "Our ethic needs to change. Where an animal is found is its home, and that's where it should stay."

Information about these new regulations was supplied by The Wild Resource Conservation Program, Harrisburg.

The key passages in this article:

>>Like many naturalists, my passion for animals was largely molded during childhood years when friends joined me in collecting "expeditions" into the wilds around our neighborhood . . . most of which have long since been paved over and developed.

The writer is concerned about overcollecting in a place which now no longer exists (paved over).

>>And there's a "forbidden list" of species that can't be collected at all: smooth green, eastern hognose and eastern ribbon snakes; Jefferson, marbled and four-toed salamanders; spotted, wood and box turtles; fence lizard; and other species that are found in more western or southern parts of the state. These are species deemed rare and at-risk of becoming endangered by the committee of experts assembled by the commission.

I disagree with the rationale of these and other states' "forbidden lists:" they protect animals which BARELY enter the state (Oklahoma protects desert side-blotch lizards, which are probably the most common reptile in the Southwest, simply because they have been found in one county in state). In other words, if the state were to redraw its arbitrary (from a natural standpoint) boundary, all of a sudden such animals would be legal to capture/purchase captive-bred.

Killing copperheads should also be banned, and the daily quotas on snapping turtles, green frogs and bullfrogs still seem way too high.

Snapping turtles are extremely prolific, and bullfrogs even more so--AROUND THE WORLD.

>>As Tim Maret has said, "Our ethic needs to change. Where an animal is found is its home, and that's where it should stay."

So, this particular writer would deprive today's children of that which sparked his own interest in herps (collecting). I think many people would agree large-scale commercial collecting is Frowned Upon, but who's out there commercially collecting black rat snakes and snapping turtles?
-----
Chris McMartin
www.mcmartinville.com
I'm Not a Herpetologist, but I Play One on the Internet

I also noticed how the author segues from childhood collecting to declining populations overall. It makes the minor collecting activities of children sound like a signifiacnt factor in extinction. The implication being that any collecting whatsoever is harmful.
I also noticed many species carry a one per day bag limit, which does sound rather generous since there are 365 days in a year. I have to wonder though if it is a one per day BAG & POSSESION limit. That's quite a different thing as that means if you collect one you cannot collect another until you no longer posses the first one. Even if you have the first one 20 years you can't collect another. Sounds like some major doublespeak could be going on.
Then there's the thing about collecting a Timber, potentially mixing them with other possibly diseased snakes at roundups and returning them to the wild. Who the heck thought that was a good thing? Or maybe I just read it wrong?

If you can name one snake that has been extirpated due to over collecting I will eat my hat...and post a picture of the act.

You quite plainly buy into the hype that resource agencies use to promote their budget and their job...

I would focus on developers, politicians, and the like before I would take away some young persons chance to gain appreciation for wildlife. Its bad enough that the habitat to support these animals is dissapearing faster than the animal itself.

-----
Cheers
Lateralis
"I would rather be precisely wrong than approximately right"
Marion "Doc" Ford

It seems to me that some reptile keepers (of which I am one) as a whole are against every single law regardless of what it is that tries to preserve reptiles.

I think laws that protect wild reptiles from collection are great . In Everglades some have removed bark from trees,etc collecting scarlet kingsnakes,etc.

Plenty of captive bred stuff that no one should be collecting anymore . Again regardless of the law some object to it as think they have a "right" to collect what they want when they want.

Lia

It seems to me that some reptile keepers (of which I am one) as a whole are against every single law regardless of what it is that tries to preserve reptiles.

If habitat is being destroyed like the letter says, what good does it do to not collect out of said environment? So, even if the environment is destroyed, at least the wildlife is still undesturbed, right? We all know it doesn't work that way.

I think laws that protect wild reptiles from collection are great.

You obviousely have a lot of faith in how laws are written and enforced. Do you keep anything that is native to your state? If so, are you going to be ready to surrender them, when they go on the endangered list? It won,t matter if they are captive bred or not.
Do the reptiles in your collection not trace back to wildcaught lineages?

In Everglades some have removed bark from trees,etc collecting scarlet kingsnakes,etc.

There are many many trees in the everglades, with rotting bark, and the scarlet kings have more than enough places to hide.

Plenty of captive bred stuff that no one should be collecting anymore.

That depends on what you are breeding? Take any given species, and in a few generations you'll start seeing problems with inbreeding if new blood is no longer introduced. I actually work with a snake that is very common in the US, however I've found very few captive bred sources. I've had to collect specimens from the wild just to get a decent genepool to work with.

Again regardless of the law some object to it as think they have a "right" to collect what they want when they want.

There will always be those who break the law, and if they get caught, they'll have to pay the consequences. As long as something is legal to collect there is nothing wrong with taking a few specimens here and there if they are to be used responsibly (You know, like the origional ancestors of your reptiles). If a large area is destined for development, there is nothing wrong with collecting everything you can out of there, unless you believe it's better to leave something in it's natural habitat, even if that means burying it in concrete.
Did you know cornsnakes are still very abundant in the Oketee area of SC even though people have been collecting them like crazy from there for more than 60 years. Look at the big picture.

Alan

I agree corns and rats are abundant but you must admit some like Indigos ,kings have declined so laws on collecting as a whole are benefecial.

Pythons and redtail boas seem to be doing well to in the Glades but those I think people should be allowed to collect lol.

Sure. There are species that need protection. However if the habitat is being destroyed, the animals should be removed, and if something is protected it can't be removed without breaking the law. That's where a law that is meant to protect, is failing the species.
Alan,

Posted by: Alan Garry at Thu Nov 30 14:39:06 2006 [ Report Abuse ] [ Email Message ]

Sure. There are species that need protection. However if the habitat is being destroyed, the animals should be removed, and if something is protected it can't be removed without breaking the law. That's where a law that is meant to protect, is failing the species.
Alan,

That is true the wild areas are being overrun as the human population grows . Collection laws will keep some of the wildlife around a bit longer though I agree not forever without wild areas.
Dont pet the 12 foot 600lb gators in Florida .

Copied from the field and notes forum.
=====================================

Posted by: Richard F. Hoyer at Wed Nov 29 00:45:20 2006 [ Report Abuse ] [ Email Message ]

Langly,
On the surface, your opinions seems rational and well founded. I apologize for being critical but as a wildlife biologist, there is so much wrong with the information and inferences in your article that it would take volumes to explain.

Let me mention a few factor to consider.
1) Before regulations on take of any species are enacted, a wildlife agency or commission should obtain reasoned estimates for two factors: A) the supply (numerical abundance) of a species and B) the demand for the species. I would be pleasantly surprised if PA accomplished those tasks before it made the current changes in its regulations.

2) Species of wildlife are renewable resources. Provided they are reproducing normally and there isn't some factor or factors causing abnormally high mortality factor, species produce annual surpluses. In other words, species over produce their kind during reproduction. This principle, derived from evolutionary biology, is basic wildlife biology or population biology 101. To grasp this point, the same basic principles of population biology that govern game fish, birds, mammals, and fur bearers (all of which are harvested annually), govern the non-game species including species of herps. It has always been mind boggling to me that state wildlife agencies somehow treat non-game species differently as if their populations were governed by a different set of biological principles.

3) States such as Florida, Louisiana, Texas, and Nevada allow commercial take of some species of herps and have been doing so for decades. One needs to think about the implications and how such would relate to recreational collecting of herps.

4) State wildlife agencies have been placing non-game species (herps included) in a protected, hands-off category for which there is little or no demand. I would venture to say the PA has done that very thing. So I will ask you, if here is no demand for a species, just what is the species being protected against?

Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon)

The following is my comments to the Pennsylvania Boat Commission on their proposed regulatory changes. I just wish we had an organization that could stand up to the regulatory community and protect our rights.

Saturday, December 24, 2005
Douglas J. Austen, PhD
Executive Director
Fish and Boat Commission
P.O. Box 67000
Harrisburg, PA 17106-7000

Re: Comments on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Title 58. Recreation; Part II. Fish and Boat Commission, Chapters 53 and 77; General Provisions; Fishing; PFBC Proposed Rulemaking 175

Executive Director Austen:

I have the following comments regarding proposed regulatory changes to Title 58. Recreation , Part II. Fish and Boat Commission, Chapters 53 and 77 General Provisions, Fishing, specifically, Sections: 77.3; 77.7; and 77.8.

The drafting of these proposed regulatory changes by the Pennsylvania Reptile and Amphibian Technical Advisory Committee demonstrates a serious lack of knowledge and understanding regarding the husbandry requirements (captive care and breeding) of reptiles and amphibians.

The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission is supporting and sponsoring proposed regulatory changes that rely on the erroneous belief that “over collecting” is the primary culprit responsible for native species decline when, in fact, the primary cause for Pennsylvania native species decline is “Habitat Destruction” which Pennsylvania State Regulations have failed to curtail.

The Pennsylvania Environmental/Land Use Regulatory Program, as well as most other state programs (nationally), have failed miserably in their attempt to protect suitable habitat and provide habitat continuity and diversity required to support these native reptile and amphibian indicator species.

To take away the right of Pennsylvania Residents to acquire captive bred native Pennsylvania reptiles and amphibians is both ridiculous and Machiavellian. Your argument that “Conservation Officers” cannot identify wild native Vs captive born and bred native animals is easily avoided through a “permit process”.

Your Agency should be supporting Captive Breeding Programs of Native Pennsylvania Reptiles and Amphibians Not Discouraging them by making it illegal to import or export native Pennsylvania Reptiles and Amphibians.

Reptiles and Amphibians available for sale today, including Northeastern Box Turtles and North American Wood Turtles, are unquestionably captive born animals that are in prime health due to successful, achievable, private, captive breeding programs.

It is abundantly clear to me that the Pennsylvania Reptile and Amphibian Technical Advisory Committee has no appreciation for private, successful captive breeding programs that have resulted in the preservation of numerous reptile species, including, the Galapagos Tortoise, the Aldabra Tortoise, the Radiated Tortoise, the Sulcata Tortoise, the American Alligator, the American Crocodile, to name a few. To disregard captive breeding programs as a legitimate, responsible, and successful approach to species preservation is irresponsible and not based on reality.

I’ve been interested and actively involved with the study of reptiles and amphibians for over 40 years and I’ve never seen a baby wood turtle or box turtle in the wild. Do you really believe that people go out and capture, from the wild, baby turtles and try to sell them on some perceived black market?

Through these proposed regulatory changes, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission is trying to shift responsibility for native Pennsylvania reptile and amphibian population decline to some “bogey man/black market” that doesn’t exist instead of accepting responsibility for regulatory failure to protect required habitat.

It is reprehensible and irresponsible to blame private individuals for species population decline and then set up regulations to prevent the successful captive breeding of these animals because of Pennsylvania regulatory program failure. Private hobbyists, scientists, enthusiasts, and researchers are not to blame for species decline but rather over-development and destruction of required habitat is the reason for species population decline.

Here is what some of the experts say regarding private, captive breeding programs:

Practical Encyclopedia of Keeping and Breeding Tortoises and Freshwater Turtles; A.C. Highfield, 1996.

“the technical knowledge gained in captive breeding projects can contribute greatly in the success of other projects based in the natural habitat.”;

“The ultimate objective of most serious and conservation-conscious keepers is to achieve consistent and sustainable captive reproduction.”;
“captive breeding holds the most promise for eventual repopulation”;

“Breeding threatened species of reptiles in captivity is increasingly becoming the only method by which fellow enthusiasts can obtain specimens”;

Turtles & Tortoises of the World. David Alderton, 1994.

“But it is simply not enough to try to conserve turtles by attempting to prevent their capture.”…”it is their economic value that offers their salvation.”

“The turtle issue reveals the misplaced emotional fervour which presently threatens to undermine the overall credibility of the conservation movement. It would, indeed, be a tragic irony if a combination of misplaced human sympathy and continued hunting were to prove the two major forces which led to the extinction of any species of turtle.”

I support any regulations that would prohibit the capture, from the wild, of any endangered native or non-native species of reptile or amphibian.

I am vehemently opposed to any regulations that would prohibit the legal acquisition or sale of captive-bred native or non-native reptiles and amphibians. These proposed regulations, specifically sections 77.3, 77.7, and 77.8 would take away my rights to acquire and maintain in captivity, legally acquired C.I.T.E.S. II listed animals available for sale to me within the United States.

I am one of thousands of serious hobbyists, scientists, and enthusiasts that would be made criminals by these proposed regulatory changes that are based on completely faulty information.

Additionally, these proposed regulations would prevent the capture of the northeastern box turtle and north american wood turtle without first having them listed as State Endangered. This must be interpreted as an obvious legal overstep by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission of its regulatory authority.

These proposed Pennsylvania regulations are more stringent than the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service C.I.T.E.S. import/export requirements that impose “no controls on shipments of CITES II animals between States or U.S. territories…”. This indicates to me that these proposed regulations would interfere with federal regulations regarding interstate commerce, trade and shipment.

It is quite apparent that these proposed regulations have received no legal review. Furthermore, the Pennsylvania Reptile and Amphibian Technical Advisory Committee, upon which you relied for advice, is clearly uninformed and misguided as evidenced by these proposed regulations and what the individual Members have said in the Press.

I would question any recommendations coming from this Reptile and Amphibian Technical Advisory Committee and believe a re-evaluation of all of its recommendations is warranted based on these misguided proposed regulatory changes put forth for your consideration.

These proposed regulations could be amended to provide for an Annual Permit that requires “proof of purchase/receipt” of native Pennsylvania Reptiles and Amphibians purchased from outside their endemic area and certainly allow for the export of captive-bred native species to areas outside their endemic range.

Thank you for considering these comments.