Please read this carefully before jumping on or off the HCU bandwagon:
From the current HCU Constitution:
Resolution 2: HCU does not support the collection of any reptile or amphibian from the wild for the purposes of sale, including, but not limited to, the wholesale commercial collection of turtles for food markets and similar trade in rattlesnake skins, meat, and organs.
Now for a few questions and answers:
Is this a final on unalterable position of HCU? NO. It can be amended now or later. Personally, I see no reason to change it. It can also be clarified without amending the constitution.
Does HCU "oppose" commercial collection? NO. Please re-read Resolution 2. It says “HCU does not support”. Not supporting something is FAR different than opposing it. Not supporting is a passive stance that allows us to oppose OR accept commercial collecting. If we wanted HCU to be committed to active opposition of commercial collecting in general, we would have used the word “oppose”.
Why was this language chosen? Those of us directly involved in trying to form HCU and drafting the constitution debated this issue and exchanged MANY ideas. One early draft of the constitution did state “HCU opposes…” That language was quickly stricken in favor of our current, more neutral, stance. We considered other wording including listing certain types of commercial collecting that we would actively support. Ultimately (at least for now) we decided against that for political and practical reasons. The current wording of Resolution 2 gives us a great deal of flexibility to accept and possibly even SUPPORT some sale of wild animals. Look again at the exact wording, “including, but not limited to, the …”. This wording DOES NOT preclude HCU from later deciding to support certain types of commercial collecting. It simply sets the bar high and defines HCU as an organization of non-commercial herpers.
Could this resolution be changed? Of course. There is an amendment process laid out in the constitution. Also, I assume that the constitution will have to be “ratified” by the membership (once there is a membership) at some point in order for it to be official. If so, it could easily be changed by general acclamation prior to ratification. (THIS IS NOT AN INVITATION FOR PROPOSALS TO CHANGE ANYTHING RIGHT NOW. I think we should focus on moving forward. If can re-visit this issue properly at a later date, hopefully in an official HCU forum.)
Why not have the resolution state that HCU supports certain types of commercial collection, such as for academic, research, or breeding stock? We certainly considered doing that. Ultimately, we (the secret cabal) decided that doing so was unnecessary, and counter productive. If we used the “support” word, we would have lost our ability to be neutral. Also, we generally concluded that we don’t “support” these types of commercial collecting. We simple recognize that are legitimate or even necessary and we neither officially oppose nor support them. Also, politicians don’t generally see these practices as commercial anyway. Certainly, the door is open to clarify this later. However, it is my current opinion that any clarification would be best left OUTSIDE the constitution. A constitution should be a guiding document, not a listing of each and every position ever taken or considered.
Why not list certain collection methods as accepted or not accepted? I proposed doing exactly that, but I was later convinced that doing so in the constitution (or perhaps anywhere) would be a bad idea. I voiced a generally opposition to high impact collecting methods (specifically traps) and suggested they be banned. However, I was quickly informed that many hobbyists use traps to for personal observation and collection. On hearing that, I quickly withdrew my suggestion, and suggested instead, that at some later date, we consider recommending or even drafting some regulations for acceptable trapping practices (i.e. trapping permits, trap tags, limited numbers of traps, etc). I personally feel that some regulation of trapping would be a good idea. However, HCU will need to proceed VERY carefully and deliberately AFTER hearing from the membership (again, once we have a membership).
Why not propose bag limits in the constitution? This was also discussed and dismissed for the same reasons as outlined in the prior two points. My personal opinion is that bag limits are a good idea and merit the support of the HCU. However, coding bag limits into the constitution is not necessary and could later prove to be counter productive.
What if I am still unhappy about Resolution 2 or something else about HCU? I see two options for you. 1) Join (once we have a means for accepting members) and voice your concerns in an attempt to change things from within. 2) Don’t join.
