Reptile & Amphibian Forums

TALLAHASSEE - The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission may decide this week to stop people from keeping cougars, cheetahs, hyenas and other wild animals as pets.

Florida's "Class I" list of banned pets already includes 22 species, including chimpanzees, hippopotamuses, lions and elephants. Exhibiting or selling Class I wildlife requires a permit; keeping Class I animals as pets is prohibited unless the animal was already in possession on Aug. 1, 1980.

The state wildlife commission, which meets today and tomorrow in Crystal River, will vote on whether to expand the Class I list to include cougars; panthers; cheetahs; hyenas; aardwolfs; gaurs, an ox-like animal; and Siamangs, a species of gibbon.

Additionally, the commissioners may ban people from taking fox, skunks, bats, raccoons, and white-tailed deer from the wild in order to keep them as pets.

Nick Atwood, campaigns coordinator of the Animal Rights Foundation of Florida, applauded the proposed measures as a step toward his group's goal of eliminating the exotic animal trade in Florida.

But some pet owners are protesting, Atwood said.

"There has been a lot of controversy over adding cougars and cheetahs to Class I," he said. "A lot of people who own them don't want them" to be restricted.

On the flip side, the proposed rule would lift a blanket prohibition on keeping American alligators at home. It would establish new regulations for keeping the animals, setting strict cage and handling-experience requirements.

The new rule increases requirements for keeping a range of other animals, including giraffes, jackals, wolves, wildebeest and several primate species. Keeping these animals would require a permit.

"In recent years in Florida there have been several tragic reminders why exotic and wild animals don't make good pets," Atwood said.

"The rule changes under consideration by the FWC will help to ensure the humane treatment of captive wildlife and protect the public from potentially dangerous animals."

Eric,

This is an interesting proposal and one that should be followed closely as with each new regulation and/or addition to any existing regulation, it WILL be used as the "stepping stone" for the next one that WILL follow.

For instance, this proposal only affects a small segment of captive (private) husbandry of these exotic animals and therefore, less resistance and/or objection to getting the "initial regulation" passed and enacted...This will establish the "working" framework as a starting point. Now change the names of the animals to something we are more familiar with (e.g. Burmese Python, etc)...Once the framework is in place, it's relatively easy to change the names to go up the food chain...

This is the case with ALL of the regulations/laws that are passed...They are used both as the starting point for the inevitable "addition" and/or the next one...After all, it's the "end state" that the AR folks are interested in that counts.

Also, this will also add additional legal precedent for action by sympathetic lawyers to the AR agenda...

Thanks for the update..

Later,
Jim.

PS: I imagine that the government (and it's sanctioned entities-zoos, state parks, research universities, etc) are exempted from this proposal...
-----
CSRAJim

I thought I just read in Reptiles Magazine that new Florida turtle regs will ban native turtle collecting entirely, with a take limit of one per day for individuals. Commercial turtle breeders will have 2 years to collect all the breeding stock they'll ever be able to collect. After 2 years commercial collecting will be completely verboten.
Did I read this wrong? Is this part of the new regs mentioned here?
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

John,

Hey man...I just don't know. Magazine subscriptions are "luxury" items these days...

Is your post the "jest" of the article? Just wondering...

Later,
Jim.

-----
CSRAJim

I'll have to go back and read it carefully. Just kinda skimmed it the first time. Will get back.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

I reread it here it is...Reptiles Magazine August 2009, page 17, TURTLE HARVESTING LIMITS UPDATE,
"Legislation limiting the harvest of wild turtles nears approval in Florida and South Carolina. Meeting in mid-April, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) directed staff to finalize the draft rule that would ban commercial take or sale of wild freshwater turtles. It would also prohibit, among other things, the collection of eggs and transport of more than one turtle per day. Individuals could take one wild freshwater turtle per day per person for noncommercial use. Turtle farms would be allowed to collect turtles for breeding purposes for two years.
A final hearing for the rule will take place at the FWC meeting in Crystal River, Fla., on June 17. If the rule is approved, the FWC said, it will be the strongest conservation measure for freshwater turtles in the United States"
Source is: (FWC press release, April 15 and 17, 2009)
Obviously, this meeting has already happened, if not postponed, so don't know the final outcome.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

John,

Thanks man...

That's interesting...Two states (FL & SC) limiting the harvest of wild turtles...Perhaps there are federal "strings" attached to funding for state wildlife programs...I wonder.

FL-FWCC proposed rule(s) "will be the strongest conservation measure for freshwater turtles in the United States." I suppose that when they get that done in two years, I'll bet they'll attempt a "pen-and-ink" change to the existing rule(s) and apply the transport of one turtle per day to private herpers as well.

Regardless, this stuff is both relentless and unending...

Later,
Jim.

-----
CSRAJim

That does bring up an interesting point as to the definition of Commercial - vs - hobbyist/breeder. This is something some are in complete disagreement, regarding a distinction between the two. Something worth fleshing out and pinning down before this rule spreads to other states, as I'm sure it will.

No doubt there is a revenue sharing quid pro quo with the federal government. Although, I believe this rule was primarily driven by the publicity generated from certain groups in regard to the cruelty and inhumanity in the exploitation of our freshwater turtles. Those turtles being allegedly shipped to Asia for the food market, to the point of extinction.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

John,

For me, I try to keep things simple so I see no distinction between the two regarding the regulation of both “commercial-v-hobbyist/breeder”. To me, the difference between the two is the “scale” of the operation (they both work with animals for a desired purpose). I know that a difference exists but, I equate all of this stuff as an “us-against-them” and both the “commercial” and “hobbyist/breeder” face similar regulations by governmental agencies and by separating the two only works in their favor (“divide-and-conquer” strategy). When I consider the supporting industries (e.g. husbandry supplies, food, enclosures, etc), we are all in the same boat…And these days, we can’t row in two different directions.

I have no idea regarding the allegations of shipments of American turtles to Asia are true or not but IF TRUE, then here is another failure of the government to protect America’s resources!

From my research, there is a “quid pro quo” between the fed’s and the states. In fact, the wildlife agencies of ALL 50 states are members of the “association” and to qualify for federal grants, their state programs must be “approved” by the Director of the Department of the Interior and thus, there are “strings” attached to the states when they accept federal grant funding (taxpayer dollars) for their wildlife programs. The USFWS is NOT in the business of “recovering” endangered species as evident by their 1% success rate over the decades since the enactment of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). So what ARE they doing with annual budget appropriations from Congress?

Well since FY2001, the USFWS has had two “programs” to provide taxpayer dollars to the states to acquire public lands (under government control and regulation) and they “grant” millions of dollars for this purpose. They include the “Habitat Conservation Plan Land Acquisition Grant Program” and the “Recovery Land Acquisition Grant Program”. For single state grants, the states must match 25% of the federal grant funding and must have an approved plan. So what are we talking about here?

In FY2008, the USFWS “granted” some $49.3 million dollars (both programs) to California, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin to acquire some 25,743 acres. In FY2009, both USFWS programs “granted” some $49.9 million dollars to acquire another 34,068 acres of public lands in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. Now adjust this amount by the state’s matching 25% and the total amount is $124 million taxpayer dollars for 59,811 acres of formerly private lands. I know that this doesn’t sound like much when compared to the trillions of taxpayer dollars of the federal budgetary appropriations but consider the following;

1) This is just ONE agency of the Department of the Interior (BLM, USFS, etc).

2) The amounts listed above are only the “single state” grants and does not include the “multi-state” grants nor does it include another program (called the “Habitat Conservation Planning Assistance Grants”) which is used for “assistance” in the states as well to develop future land acquisition grants.

3) The listed acreage above does NOT include the “takings” (seizure of private lands by the USFWS) nor does it include the “mitigation” lands (donated by large private industries) or actual “donated” lands (private citizens and NGO’s).

4) Finally, these two programs have been in existence since FY2001.

To put this in perspective, I read the testimony of a deputy director before a congressional committee that stated that the Department of the Interior (and its agencies) had some 1 in every 5 acres (20%) of American lands under their jurisdiction. I can not remember who it was or whether it was before a house or senate committee but, I do remember that figure. Now add in other federal agencies (e.g. DOD, etc) and the states and local governments to that figure (I have no idea how many acres they have under their jurisdiction) and the 20% is even higher. Why the land grab by the government of private lands? Well one reason is the “resistance” by the people (via lawsuits) to an ever increasing amount of regulation imposed by the government…I wonder why that is?

Later,
Jim.

-----
CSRAJim

" For me, I try to keep things simple so I see no distinction between the two regarding the regulation of both “commercial-v-hobbyist/breeder”. "

I see huge distinctions. Methods of operation , personal view points, end results in the various areas of the live animal trade and not so live animal trade but....................

" I equate all of this stuff as an “us-against-them” and both the “commercial” and “hobbyist/breeder” face similar regulations by governmental agencies and by separating the two only works in their favor (“divide-and-conquer” strategy). "

Unfortunately this is how it is. You can`t pick and choose . If you support private ownership you have to support the industry , if you support the industry you can`t support certain individuals and not others.

Ernie Eison
WESTWOOD ACRES REPTILE FARM INC.

Ernie,

>>I see huge distinctions. Methods of operation, personal view points, end results in the various areas of the live animal trade and not so live animal trade but…

>>Unfortunately this is how it is. You can`t pick and choose. If you support private ownership you have to support the industry, if you support the industry you can`t support certain individuals and not others.

A agree with you and I believe I stated that there is a distinction in my post but in view of the current regulatory climate, THEY do not make any attempt distinguish one from the other. In THEIR eyes, we are ALL the same. Therefore, it’s “us-against-them”. If one day I can afford it, I’d never part with any of the animals that I produce…

Their approach is the “industry” as a whole and not in parts. In other words, all of mankind is capable (potential) for violent crime (even though only a VERY small minority of the entire population actually commits these acts of violence) and therefore, EVERYBODY should be locked up! Of course, they’d exempt themselves and their own sanctioned “entities”…

I’ll wager a bet that the next version of HR-669 will include provisions that will “permit” (provided you “register” and pay a “fee”) certain activities of the “industry” in an attempt to “buy-off” a few opponents (to silence their opposition) to get some version of a bill passed.

The end justifies the means with this “stuff” and there is a documented history of them doing just this sort of thing going back decades…The “divide-and-conquer” strategy is a very successful formula for them and they’ve been using it for a long time. Just do some research about the current version of the Lacey Act…Previous legislation either didn’t solve the “problem” (inadequate) or they found something other “problem” that was not addressed in the original bill.

If the “problem” is solved, there can be no program to justify tax dollars to support it nor will the politicians (or the bureaucrats or lobbyist dot.org's for that matter) have something to campaign on (or lobby for) in the next election. After all, the first job of EVERY professional politician is to get elected and EVERY job after that is to get reelected…With out tax dollars, there is no reason for a bureaucrat at a government agency to have a job with a retirement package (taxpayer funded)…Heaven forbid! Without their government security blanket, this would mean that they would have to get a real job that would subject them to the REGULATIONS that they pass (that they are exempt from while government employed).

Regarding the dot.org's, there would be no reason for them to exist either and their charitable philanthropy grants would be unnecessary as well (forcing them to have to work at a real job) because their reason for existing would disappear. No lobbying, no "grants" to subsidize their employment, LIONS, TIGERS AND BEARS, OH MY!!!! Sorry that I have such a cynical attitude about this but, this appears to me to be the way it is with them…

Later,
Jim.

-----
CSRAJim

" Just do some research about the current version of the Lacey Act…Previous legislation either didn’t solve the “problem” (inadequate) or they found something other “problem” that was not addressed in the original bill. "

The research I did was being there when the feds discovered just how foolish a smart man can make them look. The individual that caused the original version of the lacy act to be altered happened to be the guy who at pretty young age showed me how the animal world go's round. Since then I've had a very well rounded education.............

Probably the biggest case in US history was between the US GOV and Hank Molt, the guy who changed the reptile world and the law books forever .

Hank set the stage for everyone as far as transforming reptiles from novelty's into rare and valuable collectable's. A true prototype for the industry. He really created the modern reptile business.

Like in every other business venture there were glitches. One of them was the pick and choose prosecution tactics used by the feds. It was tricky situation . How do you put away the evil animal smuggler with out implicating the pristine reputation of the nations top zoos who were his knowing and very willing clients? Adjust the rules. The whole thing was a joke and has been ever since.

Like the old saying go`s the bad guys aren`t always what they seem and the good guys aren`t always right .

Ernie Eison
WESTWOOD ACRES REPTILE FARM INC.

Ernie,

>>Probably the biggest case in US history was between the US GOV and Hank Molt, the guy who changed the reptile world and the law books forever.

That’s one that I was thinking of & thanks for sharing a personal experience from “ground zero”…

>> How do you put away the evil animal smuggler with out implicating the pristine reputation of the nations top zoos who were his knowing and very willing clients? Adjust the rules. The whole thing was a joke and has been ever since.

Yep, they are one of the “sanctioned” entities…What a dilemma indeed. It’s a joke because it is based on agenda politics…It took me a while to find a reason why the invasive species issue is so important to “them” as it just seemed to be an “out there” issue and not really connected to anything really important but it is one of the three legs of the environmental/conservation (ECO) stool. It stems from the US MAB Program as does climate change and biodiversity (endangered species and habitat). Invasive species and climate change are the propaganda banners to advance the agenda but they are just the tip of the ice-berg so to speak…

In the end, it’s about nothing more than huge sums of money from Big ECO special interests (philanthropists, dot.orgs, etc) and power (politicians) and its sad really in that throughout recorded human history, how many times has the “socialistic” experiment been tried and failed at the expense of freedom and human suffering? Like these intellectual pseudo-scientists and academics of today have a utopian plan for the American version of it…NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It’s just a repackaging of the same old failure…

>>Like the old saying go`s the bad guys aren`t always what they seem and the good guys aren`t always right.

I here you man except that one side has a badge, a gun and a “pseudo-law” to justify it…

Later,
Jim.

-----
CSRAJim

>>
>>Yep, they are one of the “sanctioned” entities…What a dilemma >>indeed. It’s a joke because it is based on agenda politics…It >>took me a while to find a reason why the invasive species issue >>is so important to “them” as it just seemed to be an “out >>there” issue and not really connected to anything really >>important but it is one of the three legs of the >>environmental/conservation (ECO) stool. It stems from the US >>MAB Program as does climate change and biodiversity (endangered >>species and habitat). Invasive species and climate change are >>the propaganda banners to advance the agenda but they are just >>the tip of the ice-berg so to speak…

Jim,

Speaking of biodiversity, I'm still trying to understand how biodiversity can be so important to an ecosystem, yet at the same time many academics/scientists are trying to convince us that any/all introduced species are "invasive", "harmful" and/or "destructive." I believe it was Ernie who pointed out that at least one Dept. of Interior scientist has deemed boa constrictors and ball pythons "invasive" and "dangerous." One academic who testified in support of HR669 came right out and said any/all introduced species is/are harmful.

I agree with you 100%, much of the "invasive species" movement, particularly with regard to reptiles/pythons, is one big money and job security grab... nothing to do with science.

Thanks,
Ed

Ed,

As I understand it, biodiversity is the “sum of all the species” of all living things living within an ecosystem of a given area (terrestrial or aquatic). It’s one component of the entire “system” which includes the soil, atmosphere, climate, water cycle, etc…It’s very complex and each component listed above plays a role in supporting life (carrying capacity-might be called something else these days). In other words, a square acre of tropical land may support 1,000’s of individual species of animals/plant whereas a desert may only support a few 100. According to some, “biodiversity” is a very important “indicator” of each “biome” on the earth.

The problem with it is that at some point in time, biodiversity, climate change, invasive species became a POLITICAL movement using each of these (and several others) “issues” as a banner for the advancement of socialism in our country. This is only my opinion but, it’s based on some six months now of research about this stuff. What we are being told is not entirely what is actually going on…

As I posted earlier regarding the state wildlife grant programs available to the states from the USFWS is actually an ever increasing amount of the loss of freedom for the private citizen for the use of the land. It is becoming so pervasive that even city planners (commissions, zoning agencies, etc) are receiving assistance from the USFWS (along with their NGO "partner" The Nature Conservancy-named in several state HCP's) in incorporating the “agenda” into their “vision” of ECO (environmental/conservation) and the USFWS is helping them do it!

For example, in FY2007 the USFWS provided assistance (the states applied for it) to Tennessee and Kentucky for an HCP in the “Cumberlands Region”. It involves some 24 counties in both states to develop a “multi-species, multi-county, landscape level Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).” It is intended “to minimize or avoid impacts to threatened and endangered species as planned growth continues” in the region. On the face of it, this is a good thing but when you dig into the details, it is not. These HCP’s are the initial “phase” of the restrictions to the land via regulations & local ordinances that appears to lead to either a direct land acquisition, easement acquisition, fee-title acquisition or the acquisition of “rights” (timber, etc) of the land itself in the subsequent “phases”. In other words, the HCP’s are nothing more than the “design” of a future construction project that is just awaiting the funding for the construction work to begin. In the case of this government construction project, the funding comes from the taxpayers and the actual construction is the land acquisition itself.

These HCP’s are occurring throughout the country every single year…In FY2007, there were 15 of them with 19 in FY2008 and 11 more in FY2009. The total cost to the taxpayers (USFWS only) was $181.52 million dollars for all three UFWS programs to the states. This isn’t much compared to the overall federal budget but that is not the significance of this program. The significance of it is 1) the purchase of private lands to be placed under government control and 2) the use numerous regulations to impose influence over adjacent private lands (via ESA, NEPA, Clean Air and Water Acts, etc). Therefore, the actual cost to the taxpayer is far more SIGNIFICANT than just the tax dollars spent with these three USFWS programs. There are the legal fees paid to fight government the court over “mitigation” and “takings” (seizure of private lands by the government when an endangered species is “discovered” on the land) and the expenditure of funds to comply with the numerous myriad of regulations for a construction project, etc, etc, etc. Who pays these costs? WE DO!!!!!

One final point here…Note some of the states where the some of the “grant” money is being spent which includes Arizona, California ($79.50 million-44%), Florida, Hawaii, Michigan, Texas ($15.04 million-8%) and Wisconsin…Now compare this list to the list of “sponsors” of HR-669. Ring a bell? The state of California is the #1 recipient of the USFWS grants to the state with the state of Washington ($28.38 million-16%) being number two. Except to the figures listed above, the other states received between 1-3% of the grant money (which appears to the approximate % of the other states).

I wonder what I’ll find when I research the other agencies of the Department of the Interior regarding their state grants …

Later,
Jim.

PS: Invasive species (bad) and biodiversity (good) are used as propaganda banners for both of these issues (climate change is another). The "bad" issue (Burmese Python) is carried over and over again by the media and the AR crowd in their "story lines", dot.org websites and mailings to "scare" the public into action and the "good" issue (Red Cockaded Woodpecker) is sold to the politicians (for tax dollars) in reports and testimony...They are both part ot the political ECO movement...
-----
CSRAJim

Ed,

--According to the “Designation of U.S. MAB Areas and Recognition of Entities Contributing to the U.S. Biosphere Reserve Program” from the U.S. Biospher Reserve Directorate report to the U.S. National MAB Committee (February 1996), both the National Science Foundation (NSF) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) are recognized as an “affiliate” of the US MAB. An “affiliate” is defined as “a group, program, organization or partnership that identifies with the goals of MAB and the U.S. Biosphere Reserve Program, and working actively toward the implementation of these goals in a particular ecosystem of landscape (seascape).”

--Included are:

“Organizations or programs working cooperatively with USMAB to promote particular Biosphere Reserve functions (e.g. The Nature Conservancy’s Biosphere Reserve Program, NSF’s Long-Term Ecological Research Program, the National Biological Service’s GAP Analysis Program).”

--It continues with;

“Entities recognized as U.S. MAB affiliates may involve government agencies at all levels, nongovernmental organizations, commercial interests, universities and research institutions, community groups, and local citizens. U.S. MAB affiliates participate in Directorate-sponsored programs and projects (e.g. small grants) and receive MAB technical assistance for developing Biosphere Reserve nominations and programs.”

--And;

“U.S. MAB affiliates are recognized by certificate from the U.S. Biosphere Reserve Directorate on the basis of their capabilities, interests and accomplishments in furthering the goals of the U.S. Biosphere Reserve Program.”

--From the summary of “The 20 in 2000 Campaign”, a proposal for the Functional Development of U.S. Biosphere Reserves, U.S. Man and the Biosphere Reserve Program, Biosphere Reserve Directorate (February 1996) paper which states the following;

“The mission of the biosphere reserve program is to ‘establish and support a U.S. network of biosphere reserves that represent the biogeographical areas of the U.S’. In the U.S., there are currently 47 biosphere reserves consisting of 99 UNESCO – designated sites. Using biosphere reserves as demonstration areas the biosphere reserve program ‘promotes a sustainable balance among the conservation of biological diversity, compatible economic use, and cultural values through interdisciplinary research and training’.”

--So, the TNC is an “affiliate” of the USMAB Program since February 1996…Now consider the following from the USFWS…

Oregon (FY2007) – Pocket Creek Ranch Conservation Easement at Zumwalt Prairie (Wallowa County, OR): $557,000. This grant is for the acquisition of a conservation easement over 5,817 acres adjacent to THE NATURE CONSERVANCY’s Zumwalt Prairie Preserve in Northeast Oregon. The conservation easement will protect additional habitat for the largest known Spalding’s Catchfly population in Oregon and habitat of the Snake River Steelhead, both federally listed threatened species. This acquisition is also expected to benefit the Columbia Spotted Frog, nesting raptors including Ferruginous Hawks and Northern Goshawks, and Columbian Sharp-Tailed Grouse.

Texas (FY2007) – Whooping Crane Seadrift Habitat (Calhoun County, TX): $412,750. This project proposes to acquire a conservation easement by THE NATURE CONSERVANCY to preserve the 2,160 acre J. Welder Ranch, an area of coastal marsh that is optimal habitat for the endangered Whooping Crane and Brown Pelican, and the threatened Piping Plover. Increasing commercial and residential development pressures within, and adjacent to, currently used Whooping Crane habitat in Arkansas and Calhoun counties make the need for habitat protection measures paramount for the recovery of these species.

Idaho (FY2008) – Boundary Creek Conservation Easement (Boundary County, ID): $1,471,500. This grant will support THE NATURE CONSERVANCY’s acquisition of a conservation easement for more than 654 acres of high-priority private forestland in Kootenai Valley of Northern Idaho. The subject property provides a critical link between the higher elevation public lands of the Selkirk Mountains and over 2,000 acres of low-elevation protected areas owned by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Vital Ground Foundation and the Owens Foundation for Wildlife Conservation. The protection of the property will contribute to the recovery of Grizzly Bear, Mountain Caribou, Bull Trout, Canada Lynx, and Gray Wolf.

Wisconsin (FY2009) – Karner Blue Butterfly HCP Land Acquisition-Quincy Bluff (Adams County): $1,533, 000. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is awarded $1,533,000 to fund the acquisition of a 240 acre parcel and an 870 acre parcel located within the Qunicy Bluff and Wetlands State Natural Area. Purchase of these properties substantially benefits the restoration and management of the ecosystem present on the complex of lands owned in Central Wisconsin. Once acquired, they will be permanently protected and managed for the Karner Blue Butterfly to assist in the recovery of the Glacial Lake Wisconsin KBB Recovery Unit. The acquisition of these parcels will help connect State Natural Area lands owned by THE NATURE CONSERVANCY with those owned by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, which currently totals over 5,000 acres.

Texas (FY2009) – Creating the Ranchito-Laguan Atascosa Corridor for Ocelot and Other Wildlife in South Texas (Cameron County, TX): $840,593. THE NATURE CONSERVANCY requests $840,593 in Federal funding to acquire through fee-title a 1,242 acre tract that would protect the Ocelot, Jaguarundi, Northern Aplomado Falcon, and several State-listed species, located in Cameron County, Texas. Protection of thornscrub woodlands and wooded waterways, such as Resacas, is a high priority for Ocelot and Jaguarundi continued existence as well as being needed for both species’ recovery. The 1,242 acre tract contains a wooded riparian zone along a Resaca that provides existing suitable habitat for a travel corridor, and is large enough to potentially support three adult Ocelots. Acquisition would contribute to recovery plan criteria: protect existing corridors and create new dispersal corridors.

--As I mentioned above, there is a National Committee for the Man and the Biosphere Program (2000) which consists of members from the following departments and agencies:

Department of State
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Smithsonian Institution (SI)
Department of Energy (DOE)
U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS)
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Forest Service (USDA-FS)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
National Science Foundation (NSF)
Department of the Interior
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

--I don’t know how you read this but IMO, there is a connection between the USMAB, The Nature Conservancy and the USFWS regardless of what they would say in the contrary…

Later,
Jim.

PS: information after 2000 regarding the USMAB is very difficult to find, so I do not know “who” the current department/agency members are of the National Committee…

-----
CSRAJim

>>Eric,
>>
>>This is an interesting proposal and one that should be followed closely as with each new regulation and/or addition to any existing regulation, it WILL be used as the "stepping stone" for the next one that WILL follow.
>>
>>For instance, this proposal only affects a small segment of captive (private) husbandry of these exotic animals and therefore, less resistance and/or objection to getting the "initial regulation" passed and enacted...This will establish the "working" framework as a starting point. Now change the names of the animals to something we are more familiar with (e.g. Burmese Python, etc)...Once the framework is in place, it's relatively easy to change the names to go up the food chain...
>>
>>This is the case with ALL of the regulations/laws that are passed...They are used both as the starting point for the inevitable "addition" and/or the next one...After all, it's the "end state" that the AR folks are interested in that counts.
>>
>>Also, this will also add additional legal precedent for action by sympathetic lawyers to the AR agenda...
>>
>>Thanks for the update..
>>
>>Later,
>>Jim.
>>
>>PS: I imagine that the government (and it's sanctioned entities-zoos, state parks, research universities, etc) are exempted from this proposal...
>>-----
>>CSRAJim

You mean I can't keep the jaguar anymore? But my lease isn't up on it yet.
-----
Steve W.

Steve,

>>You mean I can't keep the jaguar anymore? But my lease isn't up on it yet.

Hey man...The four pawed type is already a NO (unless you're a sanctioned government entity) and with the "Global Climate Change"...They're getting around to a NO for the four wheeled type as well...

Perhaps the wheeled version will "evolve" into a "rice burner" (XJ-4) with a "low carbon foot print" and that one will be "blessed"...Ha! Ha!

Later,
Jim.
-----
CSRAJim

"A lot of people who own them don't want them" to be restricted. The placement of those quotation marks had better be a typo.

Terry Vandeventer