Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I have a question about licensing. For everyone who is photographing or observing, are they purchasing a non-game hunting license?

I see no reason to have a license for photographing, now if your going on private land to "hunt", thats another story. But so far, I'm not aware of a photo "license" & if the government developes such a license for that, then we'll all be "comrades" under the hammer & sickle blade, huh? John F.

You do not need a license to use a camera, but it may be best to have one anyway.

If you are trying to photo the animal and you have to "pose" it or impede its escape or movement at all you are now getting into more questionable territory. Any physical interaction with the animal can be interpreted as "hunting" even if you have on intention of taking it or relocating it in any way. Just like you would need a fishing license to do catch and release.

This is a big part of the reason that even the shutterbugs want to get open access to the ROW again.
-----
___________________________
Herp Conservation Unlimited

If people really learn from their mistakes, I should be like the smartest guy in the world

This is kind of what I was getting at. I think it is black and white. If you touch and someone sees it that is 'hunting' therefore, whether you need a license or not you are able to be cited. I fail to see that it is necessary to have one 'just in case' you touch it. If you are on the ROW touching you could be cited with or without a license. If you are just photographing then there is no need to purchase. I'm not sure if TPW have thought this through about revenue lost because of this. My real question would be along the lines of whether or not a license is asked for when TPW stop someone who is photographing? And what is the reaction if the answer is no?

TP&W I would guess is still feeling out the limits on things with this... so pretty much anything can happen.

And also not just touching, but impeding... like if you wave a hand or foot in front of it to make it change directions or stop. So any interaction can get the citation, wether or not it would stick in court???? But why take the ride?
-----
___________________________
Herp Conservation Unlimited

If people really learn from their mistakes, I should be like the smartest guy in the world

he missed your point Lance,
and that point is that if you get the ticket for hunting from the ROW and you don't have a license, you also get the ticket for hunting w/o a license. So the License can be seen as insurance against the second ticket.
-----
Herp Conservation Unlimited
Conservation through captive propagation
Mexicana Group Directory
Photography by Joseph E. Forks

If tow wants to change the the law I'll buy a liscense.
If you buy a liscense now you'll give up you rights and tow can
search your vehicle so why give up your rights and buy a liscense
that's not any good anyways

>>If tow wants to change the the law I'll buy a liscense.
>>If you buy a liscense now you'll give up you rights and tow can
>>search your vehicle so why give up your rights and buy a liscense
>>that's not any good anyways

I'm not sure what the license has to do with probable cause?? I'm no expert but they need probable cause to do a legal search. Just because they search your car and find something / anything does not mean the search was legal. It's not against the law to pick up dead snakes according to Sinclair. It's not against the law to pick up insects. So unless they pull the probable cause out of their arse I don't see where they are going to get it?? Stick to your guns and tell them no they can't search your car. It's not against the law to transport reptiles, and it's not against the law have collecting equipment in the car. If you have a snake in the car and no license, it's not proof but it raises serious questions as to whether you were hunting w/o a license and where you were hunting if you don't have access to private property.
after all that, I don't care if you buy a license or not, I'm just saying it COULD be considered insurance against a citation for hunting w/o a license. I buy one anyway because I have access to some big arse ranches.
-----
Herp Conservation Unlimited
Conservation through captive propagation
Mexicana Group Directory
Photography by Joseph E. Forks

With permits as with hunt liscenses if you show it to them you give
up rights and they have the right to search your car failure to comply
and you in violation of your agreement when you buy it.

I'm pretty sure that game wardens have the right to search either way.
-----
Steve W.

The fourth amendment to the constitution of the United States of America says otherwise. I'm just asking.

>>With permits as with hunt liscenses if you show it to them you give
>>up rights and they have the right to search your car failure to comply
>>and you in violation of your agreement when you buy it.
-----
Herp Conservation Unlimited
Conservation through captive propagation
Mexicana Group Directory
Photography by Joseph E. Forks

CA. Permits have it that failure to comply with inspection is grounds
for termination of permit.
With hunting lisence probable cause is automatic without justification
for search is needed. If you show them a hunting lisense that's
enough that TPW needs to search your vehicle.
So the bottom line is don't give them a reason to search make them
work for it if they want to look in your car.

Here's the law:

§ 12.104. RIGHT TO SEARCH AND INSPECT. (a) A game warden
or other peace officer commissioned by the department may search a
game bag, vehicle, vessel, or other receptacle if the game warden or
peace officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the game
bag, vehicle, vessel, or receptacle contains a wildlife resource
that has been unlawfully killed or taken.
(b) A game warden or other peace officer commissioned by the
department may inspect a wildlife resource or a part or product of a
wildlife resource that is discovered during a search under
Subsection (a) of this section.
(c) In this section "wildlife resource" means an animal,
bird, reptile, amphibian, fish, or other aquatic life the taking or
possession of which is regulated in any manner by this code.

Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 1405, ch. 545, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1975.
Amended by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 261, § 1, eff. Aug. 26,
1991.

I don't think mere possession of a license creates "reasonable, articulable suspicion that the game
bag, vehicle, vessel, or receptacle (to be searched) contains a wildlife resource that has been unlawfully killed or taken". Does anyone know how the "reasonable articulable suspicion" standard is applied?

Robert

Having delta with fish and game and know how they interpret the
law. Put you self in there shoes. And your in west Texas at night
shining the cuts and you have a hunting liscense what more
reasonale cause does he need to search you car.

Each state has it's own unique laws. Different laws and courts may mean different constraints on authority. I'm in West Texas, I've arranged to hunt reptiles on private ranches so I need a hunting license, but I also hunt inverterbates during the day and at night on the public roads with a flashlight. When the game warden asks, I tell him I'm looking for vinegaroons, tarantulas, millipedes and centipedes. In this case, the game warden DOES NOT have "a reasonable, articulable suspicion" that my vehicle "contains a wildlife resource
that has been unlawfully taken." There is not enough nexus between the possession of the license if I were to flip it out to show him (since I need it to take reptiles from the private ranches) and the likelihood that reptiles have been taken illegally from the road and stored in my vehicle.

But, what the hell do I know lol!

Well, I didn't really miss the point. The fact is that if you are truly just taking pictures or observing, why would you need any 'added insurance' like getting a license? You don't need a license to participate in these activities. Besides, if you have a license it implies the intent to 'take.' Also, even if you had access to private land, purchased a license and then were 'observing' on ROW, is your claim really defendable? i.e. - "I hunt on private land officer, but I only observe on ROW?" I realize this is a white elephant that even LE doesn't really want to acknowledge, and least of all us, but the point I'm trying to make is that if you purchase a license, you are admitting that you intend to take.

Dude I don't care if you buy a license or not. I buy one every year because I live here. I own houses and ranches. I may go hunting tomorrow and I may have been hunting yesterday, that doesn't mean I'm hunting today. I have access to land in every corner of Brewster and Terrell counties. If I feel like collecting a snake I have a place to go do it. And don't tell me I can't look at a snake on the road on my way home and that you drive all the way from California to take photos. No wonder the Game Wardens are picking on the out of staters.
-----
Herp Conservation Unlimited
Conservation through captive propagation
Mexicana Group Directory
Photography by Joseph E. Forks

And if you are looking at one on your way home dude and you get stopped, do you show your license?

>>And if you are looking at one on your way home dude and you get stopped, do you show your license?

Showing your license is not admitting that you are hunting. If I get stopped on my way home I could have animals in my vehicle. In that instance if I am asked for my license there is no reason for me not to show it.

Except that you admitted you have no intention of hunting on private property and that you wouldn't buy a license, showing YOUR license would not have been admitting you are hunting either.
-----
Herp Conservation Unlimited
Conservation through captive propagation
Mexicana Group Directory
Photography by Joseph E. Forks

>>Showing your license is not admitting that you are hunting. If get stopped on my way home I could have animals in my vehicle. In that instance if I am asked for my license there is no reason for me not to show it.

>>Except that you admitted you have no intention of hunting on private property and that you wouldn't buy a license, showing YOUR license would not have been admitting you are hunting either.

I'm sorry, but I missed that part where I said I wouldn't buy a license or wouldn't hunt on private property. Where did I say that exactly? I too have access to private property and would purchase a license if I were hunting on that property. However, if I were not, were only on ROW and were 'just looking' then I would not purchase a license.

If, as you say, you were driving home, were stopped and had animals in your vehicle, how exactly would TPW know you had animals? I thought you wouldn't allow them to search? Were you holding them in your hands? What happened to the fourth amendment? It is funny that you are so adamant about knowing your rights, etc., but when I make what I consider to be a salient point along those same lines I get attacked for some reason. Can you explain to me how demanding to see my license for doing something which does not require one is less of a violation of my rights than what you would consider an illegal search of the vehicle of someone who is 'observing?' If you are just walking along the road with a flashlight why would TPW even ask you for a license?

Also, how is it that apparently according to you Texas residents are the only ones who have a valid claim to the 'observing and photographing' hobby? Because someone else travels further than you they can't only look as you do?

I think Joe was merely being a bit of the devil's advocate here, illustrating the thought process that wardens are going through. They see folks driving thousands of miles from far-away states, and to them it's hard to fathom that these herpers are in it just to collect photographs.

I personally know a lot of people who come to Texas every year just to photograph herps on the ROW-I myself very rarely collected anything even before the ban was in place-99% of the time I only took away a photo. I'll do the same after the ban is removed.
-----
Brad Chambers
WWW.HCU-TX.ORG

The Avalanche has already started-it is too late for the pebbles to vote....

>>I think Joe was merely being a bit of the devil's advocate here, illustrating the thought process that wardens are going through. They see folks driving thousands of miles from far-away states, and to them it's hard to fathom that these herpers are in it just to collect photographs.

Of course it is hard for them to fathom. Hundreds of people came every year to hunt, but as soon as the new law is passed, suddenly everyone turns into entomologists and photographers? Let's call a spade a spade.

>>I'm sorry, but I missed that part where I said I wouldn't buy a license or wouldn't hunt on private property. Where did I say that exactly?

You show your license when you are asked for it, and either you have it or not. Prior to this statement your position is to not show your license. You are playing both sides of the fence quite nicely.

>>If, as you say, you were driving home, were stopped and had animals in your vehicle, how exactly would TPW know you had animals?

Why would I hide the fact I had legally collected animals?

>>>>I thought you wouldn't allow them to search?

Who said I would let them search? Quit making stuff up.

>>>>>Were you holding them in your hands? What happened to the fourth amendment?

Ask your buddy Keith. He is the one giving away his fourth amendment rights. I never said I was going to let them search. Learn how to read.

>>>>It is funny that you are so adamant about knowing your rights, etc., but when I make what I consider to be a salient point along those same lines I get attacked for some reason.

You didn't make any saliant points, all you did was jump the fence from not buying license to all the sudden having access to private property. This started because you took issue to the fact that having a license can save you a ticket for hunting without a license. Care to review that point? Maybe ask the guy from kansas that got that ticket.

>>>Can you explain to me how demanding to see my license for doing something which does not require one is less of a violation of my rights than what you would consider an illegal search of the vehicle of someone who is 'observing?'

If the warden makes a determination that you are hunting, he will ask you for a license. If you have it it is in your best interest to show it to him. If not you have the right to get a ticket. Are you having trouble with that or something?

>>Also, how is it that apparently according to you Texas residents are the only ones who have a valid claim to the 'observing and photographing' hobby? Because someone else travels further than you they can't only look as you do?

You have a diminishing capacity to follow along. I told you I HUNT on private property and I HAVE a license. YOU are the one saying you don't want to show your license and until now said nothing about private property. So unless you can continue this w/o putting words in my mouth I suggest you end it.
-----
Herp Conservation Unlimited
Conservation through captive propagation
Mexicana Group Directory
Photography by Joseph E. Forks

>>You show your license when you are asked for it, and either you have it or not. Prior to this statement your position is to not show your license. You are playing both sides of the fence quite nicely.

Joe, I'm not playing both sides of the fence, merely making the argument from both sides. I'm attempting to bring up points from both sides as well. Why would I need to possess a license to engage in an activity which didn't require a license in the first place. Furthermore, had I been lawfully hunting somewhere else WITH a license, but was not in the act of hunting when I was stopped on a ROW why would I volunteer that I had a license - implying that I was intending to do the same on the ROW. They are two separate and unrelated issues. Also, even if I had animals in my posession, this does not imply that I obtained them through hunting, perhaps they are captive produced and I'm traveling with them, or perhaps I purchased them from someone who DID obtain them legally - this does not necessitate that I have a license as well. Apparently you feel that it is necessary to work the system by playing both sides when you are in west TX.

>>Who said I would let them search? Quit making stuff up.

You said that you wouldn't try to hide legally collected animals. If you were asked to show them to TPW, you would do so without a problem? Further, if you don't have any problem showing them, what would be the need to hide anything else by not allowing a search? What else could they uncover if you are offering to show all the animals you have obtained legally?

>>>>>Were you holding them in your hands? What happened to the fourth amendment?

>>Ask your buddy Keith. He is the one giving away his fourth amendment rights. I never said I was going to let them search. Learn how to read.

By showing them your animals, aren't you giving up some of your rights? Aren't you performing their search for them? I suppose it is just semantics. Also, why is Keith my buddy? I have no opinion for or against him, or you for that matter but I guess if someone agrees with points you make he is your buddy, but if he disagrees then he is your enemy????

>>You didn't make any saliant points, all you did was jump the fence from not buying license to all the sudden having access to private property. This started because you took issue to the fact that having a license can save you a ticket for hunting without a license. Care to review that point? Maybe ask the guy from kansas that got that ticket.

If you don't see the logic in my points then you are simply ignoring them. You seem to think that this is some kind of club. If you have access to or own land then you are entitled to an opinion, but if not then you can't have a discussion about it? How am I jumping the fence exactly? When you tell me that you do both things, I'm just trying to reconcile your actions, that's all.

>>If the warden makes a determination that you are hunting, he will ask you for a license. If you have it it is in your best interest to show it to him. If not you have the right to get a ticket. Are you having trouble with that or something?

And by showing him the license, you get out of a ticket? If he determines you were hunting - even after a statement by you that you are not - then you are entitled to a ticket whether you produce a license or not, right?

>>You have a diminishing capacity to follow along. I told you I HUNT on private property and I HAVE a license. YOU are the one saying you don't want to show your license and until now said nothing about private property. So unless you can continue this w/o putting words in my mouth I suggest you end it.

Joe it's funny because it is you who are putting words in my mouth. Who has a diminished capacity to follow along? Perhaps you should reread all of my posts on this topic. All of my statements involved 'IFs' denoting that the discussion would be about hypotheticals. The only statement I gave about myself and what I do or do not do as fact was that I have access to private property to hunt. I never said I did hunt or didn't hunt and also never said that I've ever even hunted in TX before. Is there some difficulty you have with discussing hypotheticals? Even in my responses to your admissions, I tried to get you to clarify in hypotheticals, namely that 'if you were stopped' what would you do in that situation, etc... With that in mind, is it possible for you to continue a discussion of hypotheticals?

What if you DIDN'T hunt on private property even though you had access to it and therefore DIDN'T need to have a license? Would you still purchase a license to 'observe?'

with your first post.

It all depends on a number of factors. But it is very possible that you could say you are just looking, you do not need or have a license, and the warden would say have fun and have a nice day.

My answers were quite a bit different because my situation is quite a bit different, and I think this is a salient point too because every stop for a warden is going to be different and he is going to evaluate each situation on an individual basis.

IF I WERE COMING FROM OUT OF STATE - I would want to have all those bases covered. I would want my permit. I would stay at Louise's where I could walk her property, or arrange access to other private property.

Having and showing a license is not an admission of hunting from the ROW as both Brad and I pointed out. I think that's where we got off track.
-----
Herp Conservation Unlimited
Conservation through captive propagation
Mexicana Group Directory
Photography by Joseph E. Forks

you said something about them having not thought of the lost revenue from License sales.

Well they have and they don't care. The higher ups just don't like us plain and simple. Even suggestions of a herp stamp to increase revenue were met with "poo poo".
-----
Herp Conservation Unlimited
Conservation through captive propagation
Mexicana Group Directory
Photography by Joseph E. Forks

>>IF I WERE COMING FROM OUT OF STATE - I would want to have all those bases covered. I would want my permit. I would stay at Louise's where I could walk her property, or arrange access to other private property.

Let's say that you weren't from out of state, didn't have access to private property, and didn't intend to take, only to observe and photograph?

If I had absolutely no access to private property, then I personally, as a Texas resident, would still buy the license-because I also hunt and fish!
-----
Brad Chambers
WWW.HCU-TX.ORG

The Avalanche has already started-it is too late for the pebbles to vote....

1. I think there is a lot of confusion on this thread regarding "white elephants" when what y'all mean is "red herrings."

Also:

2.If I had absolutely no access to private property, then I personally, as a Texas resident, would still buy the license-because I also hunt and fish!

Most people miss this fact.

If I'm photographing a herp on a ROW and TPWD or other interested party pulls up, and asks to see my hunting license, the correct response is, "What for? I'm not hunting, I'm not touching, I'm just photographing" (but said in good humor and not antagonistic!).

For those that imply the mere showing of a hunting license is probable cause for a search, it may actually mean I bought the Super Combo because I intend to hunt dove, turkey, quail, deer, or any number of species when the appropriate season opens (or did so LAST year and the license in my pocket is still valid till August 31st).
-----
Chris McMartin
www.mcmartinville.com
I'm Not a Herpetologist, but I Play One on the Internet

You are exactly right.

>>You are exactly right.

He is exactly an idiot. Either he is collecting or not. He either has private property access or not. He thinks he is being cute and he knows damn well the answer to his question. This is not something new he just thouyght of. Where the heck has he been for the last three years?

For gods sake. gimme a break. He is exactly WRONG.
-----
Herp Conservation Unlimited
Conservation through captive propagation
Mexicana Group Directory
Photography by Joseph E. Forks

>>He is exactly an idiot. Either he is collecting or not. He either has private property access or not. He thinks he is being cute and he knows damn well the answer to his question. This is not something new he just thouyght of. Where the heck has he been for the last three years?

Wow, I guess it's time for your pills. I guess you really cannot deal in the theoretical of how one should approach a situation. We can only talk about actual situations I guess, right? So I cannot make a point unless I do or don't have access to private property? What difference does it make? Further, what difference does it make if I am collecting? I've been here for the last three years, but mostly listening. Again, does it matter where I've been if I can bring up some good points?

>>For gods sake. gimme a break. He is exactly WRONG.

And why exactly am I wrong again? I see that you've stopped responding to any questions and have gone on the attack again I guess. Reason can only capture you for so long.

>>Wow, I guess it's time for your pills. I guess you really cannot deal in the theoretical of how one should approach a situation. We can only talk about actual situations I guess, right?

I pretty much told you what could happen, but you didn't like that answer. When I said the Warden would tell you to have a nice day you loved it. hahahaha

>>>>So I cannot make a point unless I do or don't have access to private property?

These are pretty simple questions, it's amazing that you can't answer them yourself.

>>>What difference does it make?

Oh, another obvious one. Glenn for someone who's been reading for three years you seem to be clueless.

>>>>Further, what difference does it make if I am collecting?

Wow. Seriously, where have you been for the last few years?

>>>>I've been here for the last three years, but mostly listening.

Your reading comprehension sucks.

>>>>Again, does it matter where I've been if I can bring up some good points?

LOL you can't defend a position until you take one. You don't know if you are from Texas or California. You don't know if you have access to private property or not. You don't know if you are collecting or not. You don't know if you need a license or not. WHAT DO YOU KNOW???? hahahahahaha

Look Glenn, quit wasting my time.

>>
>>And why exactly am I wrong again?

Bringing attention to your thought process is WRONG. After reading your crap I'm damn glad I don't have California plates. Didn't I already say it, No wonder they are picking on ya'll.

>>>>I see that you've stopped responding to any questions and have gone on the attack again I guess. Reason can only capture you for so long.

You got me there Spunkmeyer. If you're collecting you need a license and private property. Any more questions? You can make them harder if you want.
-----
Herp Conservation Unlimited
Conservation through captive propagation
Mexicana Group Directory
Photography by Joseph E. Forks

>>I pretty much told you what could happen, but you didn't like that answer. When I said the Warden would tell you to have a nice day you loved it. hahahaha

You are right about what could happen. And if I choose not to follow your suggestion then that is my right. Why is it that I didn't like the answer?

>>>>So I cannot make a point unless I do or don't have access to private property?

>>These are pretty simple questions, it's amazing that you can't answer them yourself.

I can and do make my own decision, but it is usually a decision made after I weigh options and possibly consult with others about opinions. Is it wrong for me to solicit opinions regardless of whether I have made up my mind or not? Isn't that what discussion boards are all about?

>>>>Further, what difference does it make if I am collecting?

>>Wow. Seriously, where have you been for the last few years?

YES SERIOUSLY! Do you believe that only collectors/photographers of alterna from/in the wild are the only ones who read/post to this forum? If I was simply someone who enjoyed alterna, don't I still have the ability to form and express an opinion regarding compliance with laws of those who DO collect/photograph?

>>>>I've been here for the last three years, but mostly listening.

>>Your reading comprehension sucks.

As does your ability to address valid points without degrading to attacks/name calling.

>>>>Again, does it matter where I've been if I can bring up some good points?

>>LOL you can't defend a position until you take one. You don't know if you are from Texas or California. You don't know if you have access to private property or not. You don't know if you are collecting or not. You don't know if you need a license or not. WHAT DO YOU KNOW???? hahahahahaha

Really, I thought that's what classical debate was all about - the ability to defend an arguement from both sides effectively without regard to a personal opinion? I know the answers to all of these questions that you are pretending that I don't know about - but they are not relevant to the discussion. As mentioned before several times, what is wrong with a hypothetical discussion of the points regardless of either of our specific individual situations? Whether I am from Maine or Florida, is it not possible for me to ask a question? Whether I have access to private property or not, can't I have an opinion about others who do or don't? Is this really that difficult for you to comprehend? No one you know may have ever had an abortion or ever had the 'opportunity' to have an abortion (legal or otherwise), does that mean you cannot have an opinion on whether it is right or wrong?

>>quit wasting my time.

You can view it however you want, but it is clear you don't want to discuss it.

>>Bringing attention to your thought process is WRONG. After reading your crap I'm damn glad I don't have California plates. Didn't I already say it, No wonder they are picking on ya'll.

REALLY? You honestly believe that bringing attention to one's thought process is wrong? Do you even read what you write? You cannot be serious. Knowing the background of people's thought processes go a very long way to helping me form opinions of my own. If someone is able to make a cogent argument that is well thought out, it can generally influence someone else's thought process. And what is with this bias against CA? Where did that come from? Besides, when I'm in TX I have TX plates - rental cars, remember?

>>>>I see that you've stopped responding to any questions and have gone on the attack again I guess. Reason can only capture you for so long.

>>You got me there Spunkmeyer. If you're collecting you need a license and private property. Any more questions? You can make them harder if you want.

Apparently even this one was too hard for you. As has happened before you have lost focus. That was NEVER one of my questions (as you pointed out I can figure that one out myself). My initial question was about why a license would be needed if one was only OBSERVING/PHOTOGRAPHING, remember?

is getting old, now pay attention.

You give everyone else from California a bad name with your "how hard is it to poach alterna" thought process. This is a bias against YOU, not California.

Clear enough for you?
-----
Herp Conservation Unlimited
Conservation through captive propagation
Mexicana Group Directory
Photography by Joseph E. Forks

>>is getting old, now pay attention.

>>You give everyone else from California a bad name with your "how hard is it to poach alterna" thought process. This is a bias against YOU, not California.

>>Clear enough for you?

I didn't know that that is what I was trying to say, but thanks for clarifying it for me. I'm glad we've moved on from a discussion to a clear attack against me though. I guess it is getting old. When you feel that you can't defend a position you just give up and say you are tired? At least that's clear.

Here are the sinple answers. If you are hunting get a license and find private property to hunt on. If you are photographing stuff then you don't need one. Anything else in between will become a red flag to a game warden and at that point he will decide if he will or will not ticket you. At that point the difference between having a license and not having a license is one or two tickets.
-----
Steve W.

Bugs Bunny and Pete Puma...

-----
___________________________
Herp Conservation Unlimited

If people really learn from their mistakes, I should be like the smartest guy in the world

Joe...

It's unfair for you to speak like that imo. This isn't a debate which has an obvious answer nor is either side stupid. I've followed along to a degree and I just cannot relate to your arguments at all. I want to be humble here because I'm just a lowly bystander and out of stater...but I think it's silly to buy a hunting license if you aren't going to collect anything.

You might have overlooked an important variable in this debate- there are herpers who visit the trans pecos region and never collect a single herp. Right now there's a post on a field herp forum of just such a case; a person found a beauty of an alterna and never collected it. I'm reminded of a buddy of mine from photoservancy.com who never collects anything at all yet still herps all over the place (and makes some GREAT finds might I add).

Anyway, that's why I agreed with the other poster.

Glenn has collected alterna in the past and there is no reason to believe that he wouldn't collect another one.

If he's not collecting, he doesn't need a license, and he also doesn't need 50 posts to understand that does he?

Well maybe he does if that is not what he is getting at. He just wants to know what the odds are of him getting caught.

I understand that many here do not see what lies underneath this guys veiled attempts at "discussing the issues", but I certainly do.

I will not sit by and allow the visitors to this forum to BURY us all. If I have to verbally chide them I will. Stand by.
-----
Herp Conservation Unlimited
Conservation through captive propagation
Mexicana Group Directory
Photography by Joseph E. Forks

>>Glenn has collected alterna in the past and there is no reason to believe that he wouldn't collect another one.

Yes, and by that definition, you have collected them in the past and there is no reason why you wouldn't collect another one, correct? What difference does it make? However, apparently several others have changed from being collectors to being observers, so why can I not make the same change? And further, if I have changed to become an observer and still wish to follow the laws, then there is no need for me to have a license. And this is where I have a problem, because I believe that there are many people who are observing (whether on ROW or private property) who still purchase a license, and if everyone is telling the truth, then that license is not necessary for them.

>>If he's not collecting, he doesn't need a license, and he also doesn't need 50 posts to understand that does he?

No, I don't because I understood it before. You still don't want to see what this whole discussion is about because I guess you are being stubborn. I understood what I needed to understand for me, I just wanted to bring it up as a topic because I know there are people who purchase the license for 'observing,' which doesn't make sense to me.

>>Well maybe he does if that is not what he is getting at. He just wants to know what the odds are of him getting caught.

I know what the odds are for me, I don't need anyone to tell me that. However, there is nothing for me to be caught at as I would follow the regs just like everyone else and your implication is transparent by trying to point the finger at me for attempting to skirt the law, but I have made no reference to this at all - only you have because you want to 'draw me out' in an attempt to 'get me in trouble' possibly because you feel that you can't continue a discussion of 'ifs' and I don't really understand why.

>>I understand that many here do not see what lies underneath this guys veiled attempts at "discussing the issues", but I certainly do.

I'm glad that you can make assumptions about what it is I'm trying to do. I also realize that you feel a lot of ownership of all issues as an authority and as the self appointed guru of this 'fight.' But why is it that you cannot discuss an issue?

>>I will not sit by and allow the visitors to this forum to BURY us all. If I have to verbally chide them I will. Stand by.

How exactly am I buryiing you?

But I have just as much right to point out that all you want to do is skirt the fee for a license and poach an alterna. You make it harder for us get this law reversed because of your own selfish reasons. You didn't join the fight. You stood by, did nothing, and now it's easy for you to criticize. Hey you are a couple years late to the party. Great, I'm done posting to you.

Here's some advice. If you want to poach, don't go making a big stink out of it on the forum.
-----
Herp Conservation Unlimited
Conservation through captive propagation
Mexicana Group Directory
Photography by Joseph E. Forks

>>But I have just as much right to point out that all you want to do is skirt the fee for a license and poach an alterna.

Joe, I never said this at all nor did I imply it. In the grand scheme of things and how much it costs me to make a trip to west TX, the minimal fee of the license is a drop in the bucket. My main point, which you continue to fail to see because all you see is red and now your testosterone level is off the charts, is that if a person is observing on ROW, there is no sense in them having a license, even as a 'backup' as you suggest. Why do you need a back up plan if everything you are doing is above board. Do you really think I would begin this type of discussion because I had been having a colitis attack from the worry of whether I could afford a $40 license?

>>You make it harder for us get this law reversed because of your own selfish reasons. You didn't join the fight. You stood by, did nothing, and now it's easy for you to criticize. Hey you are a couple years late to the party. Great, I'm done posting to you.

How am I making it harder for you? How is it that I stood by and did nothing? Do you know what I may/may not have done? Also, what is it that I am criticizing about what has been done?
You jump to a lot of conclusions and that creates a lot more problems.

>>Here's some advice. If you want to poach, don't go making a big stink out of it on the forum.

It's funny how you deal with things. It is also funny how you are clearly trying to put words in my mouth in an attempt to say, "Hey, TPW! Watch this guy - his name is Glenn and he is poaching so be sure to give him a hard time! Oh, and by the way - he's not even from the country of TX so you should make it even harder on him."

Way to gain support for your side Joe. If anything, the way that you have reacted to this might perhaps put a lot of people off.

The easy answer to this is for everyone to make up their own mind as to if they're going to buy the license or not. If they need it it's up to them if they want to get it for peace of mind.
-----
Steve W.

What question hasn't been answered already? Several posters have said:
1)You don't need a license if you aren't collecting or capturing.
2)Many people buy a license because they have access to private property but they still find occassion to herp the roads.
3)If you do briefly pose a snake on the roadside you are technically breaking the law but it's going to be up to the warden as to wheather it's worth persueing.
4)If you intend to break the law, purchasing a lisence will get you out of one of the two tickets they can write.

Yes some people will break the law. The same is true for all hunting laws. In fact when wildlife agencies open season on a game animal they have been known to factor in the impact of both legal and illegal take.
I don't know if you really intend it to, but your continuous focus on the dark side of collecting seems to me like you are trying to either garner support for it or simply point the finger in some bizzare quest for self gratification.
It's fine to be aware of that element but what possible good can it do to focus on it? None. This kind of talk just makes it more likely for the legal collecters and observers to get harrassed in the field and promotes an bad image of all herpers. Which is odd because I assume you are one.
Herpers are trying to resolve this issue with TPWD and this kind of talk is not helping the situation at all.

I agree 100% Aaron!
-----
Todd Hughes

to be clear- I don't even know the other guy who you are arguing with, I'm working on the (somewhat) hypothethetical here. My opinion is not related to any individual, rather to the idea of out of state folks herping without a license and without the intent to collect.

Here's an argument by comparison:

Should an individual purchase a hunting license if they are herping in Big Bend National Park? I herped there by foot a few years ago after speaking in depth with a park ranger about the legality of doing just that. She told me that I could herp to my hearts content but that I (technically- picking up a rock might not constitute a violation for instance) couldn't harass, collect or impose my will upon any artifact in the park (living or non). I believe that no one should ever purchase a hunting license to herp in BBNP because the goal of collecting (and subsequently buying the license) is illegitimate. Similarly, collecting in the roadside "nature sanctuary" should involve the same thought process.

Anyway, Joe, of course you already know all of this and it sounds like the beef between you and the other guy is personal (which my posts certainly are not). Just adding my two cents...

>>to be clear- I don't even know the other guy who you are arguing with, I'm working on the (somewhat) hypothethetical here. My opinion is not related to any individual, rather to the idea of out of state folks herping without a license and without the intent to collect.

I don't know you either. But as you can see, Joe is not concerned with having that kind of discussion, with me or apparently with anyone.

>>Here's an argument by comparison:

>>Should an individual purchase a hunting license if they are herping in Big Bend National Park? I herped there by foot a few years ago after speaking in depth with a park ranger about the legality of doing just that. She told me that I could herp to my hearts content but that I (technically- picking up a rock might not constitute a violation for instance) couldn't harass, collect or impose my will upon any artifact in the park (living or non).>>

Yes, this is exactly a similar type of arguement. There would be no reason to have a license. If you were stopped by a ranger, would you show him animals you have legally collected and then shown him your license Joe? It is exactly the same idea.

>>I believe that no one should ever purchase a hunting license to herp in BBNP because the goal of collecting (and subsequently buying the license) is illegitimate. Similarly, collecting in the roadside "nature sanctuary" should involve the same thought process.

I would agree with that.

>>Anyway, Joe, of course you already know all of this and it sounds like the beef between you and the other guy is personal (which my posts certainly are not). Just adding my two cents...

Clearly this is the case. I'd also like to point out that Joe started out that way nearly from the beginning and has obviously shown his true colors by not being able to continue with a civil conversation. At no time did I begin the attacks, nor did I ever have anything against him. Any interaction I may have had with him could have been described as minimal at best. In fact I'm not sure I've ever exchanged a word with him before, so I'm unaware of what the origin of this animosity is.

Yes, this is exactly a similar type of arguement. There would be no reason to have a license. If you were stopped by a ranger, would you show him animals you have legally collected and then shown him your license Joe? It is exactly the same idea.

It's all up to the individual concerned. I personally will buy a license for hunting one of the ranches made available and if weather makes that choice poor I can just observe elsewhere. I would have no business having animals in my possession to show the ranger so thats a non issue.
-----
Steve W.

aspidites:

I wasn't trying to be rude by refering to you as "the other guy"...I just didn't remember your s/n. Happy herping...

That hurts man. I am from California, so please don't paint us all with the same brush.....lol

Does it count that my family is from Texas and I plan to retire there in 5 years? Give me a pass Brother...

CalPeeps, buy a license to hunt on private property, don't buy a license to photo on the road or the row, but don't touch the animals on the back! It's not rocket science, and it certainly is each individuals' choice on what or what not to do or buy. This thread is getting lame as hell. I have the license to hunt, I will use it to hunt legally on private property, which has been done before, I will have it on me when photographing the roads and rows, if asked, it will be shown, not to be taken as "proof" I was hunting the roads or rows, but to cover the animals I may have in my possession while traveling home. I'm not going to pass up a photo opp just because I have legally acquired animals on me.
-----
Todd Hughes

"Well, I didn't really miss the point. The fact is that if you are truly just taking pictures or observing, why would you need any 'added insurance' like getting a license? You don't need a license to participate in these activities."

That is correct. But, if a warden observes "take” then having a license presumably offers protection from a second ticket IF there are two violations.

"Besides, if you have a license it implies the intent to take"

Not from public roads or ROWs.

"Also, even if you had access to private land, purchased a license and then were 'observing' on ROW, is your claim really defendable? i.e. - "I hunt on private land officer, but I only observe on ROW?"

I think this claim has to be defendable BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE LAW DEMANDS.

I realize this is a white elephant that even LE doesn't really want to acknowledge, and least of all us, but the point I'm trying to make is that if you purchase a license, you are admitting that you intend to take"

Again, I think purchasing a license because you INTEND TO HUNT PRIVATE PROPERTY is now a requirement of this law, even if you never set foot on the property while visiting or living in Texas. There is no link between having the license and an intent to violate this law. In fact, the contrary is probably true; having a license represents evidence of your intention to engage in a lawful activity (hunting on private property).

Robert

>>Again, I think purchasing a license because you INTEND TO HUNT PRIVATE PROPERTY is now a requirement of this law, even if you never set foot on the property while visiting or living in Texas. There is no link between having the license and an intent to violate this law. In fact, the contrary is probably true; having a license represents evidence of your intention to engage in a lawful activity (hunting on private property).

So let me get this straight. Everyone should purchase a license whether they intend to hunt private property or not, because their intent is to hunt 'lawfully' whether they have permission to hunt on private property or not? So they have completed their trip, were unable to gain permission and never ended up hunting 'lawfully?' I agree with you that having a license does not necessarily show the intent to break the law, but couldn't the reverse be true as well? i.e. I only intend to 'observe' and therefore never have the chance to hunt lawfully or unlawfully, so why would it be necessary for me to purchase a license?

The price of the license is much less that the price of a ticket. With that said if you even have the thought of hunting for herps then it's best to purchase a license. If in fact you happen to be photographing on the roadway or ROW and so much as touch or stop an animal from going on it's merry way then you will get a ticket. Better to have a license and not need it than need it and not have it. The difference between the two is an extra charge against you.
-----
Steve W.

"So let me get this straight. Everyone should purchase a license whether they intend to hunt private property or not..."

I do want you to get it straight - lol. Everyone should purchase a license if the intention is to hunt reptiles and amphibians. Where can that done legally? On private property with permission. If the intention is to collect invertebrates, precious gems (ie rocks-lol), or engage in photography, observation or other activities that are deemed lawful without a license, a license is not required.

Robert

Main Entry: 1hunt
Pronunciation: ˈhənt
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English huntian; akin to Old English hentan to seize
Date: before 12th century
transitive verb
1 a : to pursue for food or in sport b : to manage in the search for game
2 a : to pursue with intent to capture b : to search out : seek
3 : to drive or chase especially by harrying
4 : to traverse in search of prey
intransitive verb
1 : to take part in a hunt
2 : to attempt to find something
3 : to oscillate alternately to each side (as of a neutral point) or to run alternately faster and slower —used especially of a device or machine

Be very careful in what you say to the warden. EXAMPLE- from above definition. "2 : to attempt to find something"
-----
Steve W.

Texas is pretty clear on what it means to hunt, attempting to find is not on that list.

§ 1.101. DEFINITIONS. In this code:
(1) "Hunt" means capture, trap, take, or kill, or an
attempt to capture, trap, take, or kill.
(2) "Catch" means take or kill and includes an attempt
to take or kill.
(5) "Take," except as otherwise provided by this code,
means collect, hook, hunt, net, shoot, or snare, by any means or
device, and includes an attempt to take or to pursue in order to
take.

I know what they say but you never know. They can write the ticket and just say tell it to the judge.
-----
Steve W.

Robert, Texas designates insects as nongame, therefore a license should be required to collect (hunt) them. The rule of collecting from the ROW that applies to most nongame species, does not apply to insects, so collect all you want from the ROW - with a license. A game warden may or may not realize this.

§ 67.001. DEFINITION. In this chapter, "nongame" means
those species of vertebrate and invertebrate wildlife indigenous to
Texas that are not classified as game animals, game birds, game
fish, fur-bearing animals, endangered species, alligators, marine
penaeid shrimp, or oysters.

From the TPWD Nongame Regulations FAQ;

Are there nongame species that the rules do not apply to?
Yes – nongame birds, nongame fish, insects, bobcats, coyotes, mountain lions, rabbits, and bison. The possession and/or sale of ALL other nongame species is regulated by the rules. Please refer to section §65.331(d) and (e) for a complete list of species. NOTE: A separate regulation (31 TAC §65.82) makes it unlawful to knowingly take or possess diamondback terrapin.

This, I would guess, means that the more expensive nongame collection/dealer permits for commercial take are not applicable to insects.

This is my take on collecting insects in Texas. Anyone with better info, please comment.

John

Here are some relevant paragraphs from an email I sent to Robert McDonald in July 2007, when TPWD was looking to include inverts in the road ban. Bon appetit...

Robert

Under the existing HUNTING
statutes, Texas has had a long-standing "accepted"
definition of animal as a terrestrial vertebrate. For
example, a person is not required to obtain a license
or a permit to HUNT invertebrates, but a person is
required to obtain a HUNTING license to HUNT any bird
or ANIMAL. There HAS BEEN a distinction made under the
law and it can act as PRECEDENT.

While Sec 61.005 may define wildlife
resources as all wild animals for purposes of Chapter
61, the Wildlife Conservation Act of 1983, it does not
define a wild animal per se, nor define a wild animal
for purposes of the general HUNTING provisions.
While Sec. 67.001 may define non-game SPECIES under
Chapter 67 as those species of vertebrate and
invertebrate wildlife indigenous to Texas that are not
classified as game animals, game birds, game fish,
fur-bearing animals, endangered species, alligators,
marine peneid shrimp., or oysters, it does not define
an invertebrate as a wild animal, and perhaps more
importantly, Chapter 67 is NOT a HUNTING chapter.

IN INTERPRETING LAW, context means everything. Section
62.0031, as
added by Section 44, HB12, falls under Chapter 62,
which contains the provisions that are generally
applicable to HUNTING. Make no mistake about it,
Section 62.0031 is applicable to HUNTING; it is a
“HUNTING” RESTRICTION. As you must be fully
aware, the Chapters containing the specific provisions
applicable to HUNTING are Chapters 42 and 43.
Under Section 42.002(a), no resident may HUNT any bird
or animal in this state without having acquired a
HUNTING license. Under Section 42.005(b) no
nonresident may HUNT any bird or animal in this state
without first having acquired a general nonresident
HUNTING license, a nonresident special HUNTING
license, or a nonresident five-day special HUNTING
license. Mr. McDonald, on page 25 of the
Department’s 2006-2007 Outdoor Annual HUNTING and
Fishing Regulations, it defines animal for purposes of
HUNTING as terrestrial vertebrates, and it has
been consistently defined this way for
purposes of HUNTING for YEARS.

Well, that is the better info I was asking for, lol. Thanks.

John

From the 2008-2009 Outdoor Manual: A hunting license is required of any person, regardless of age, who hunts any animal, bird, frog or turtle in this state (except furbearers, if the hunter possesses a trapper's license). No license is required for nuisance fur-bearing animals, depredating hogs or coyotes (see below). Non-residents under 17 years of age may purchase and hunt with the Youth Hunting License (Type 169).

Resident Hunting (Type 101): $23
Valid to hunt any legal bird or animal (terrestrial vertebrates)

Here's the Link:
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/annual/general/hunt_licenses/

Robert

>>Bravo Robert!! Exactly the scenario this week! i go to west Texas, have a cabin ready for hunting on private property, get rained out of the area, stay elsewhere and road cruise to some great cuts on the row and get pics, saved a ton of money with no wasted trip, got no animals but saved the trip by getting the pics, all legally and license was on hand for the opportunity to hunt. Geez, who is this hypothetical guy? I don't like the ROW thing either, but this is the way to legally deal with the hand we've been given. You really don't hunt on property you have access to? Why the hell not???

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here. I believed that what he was trying to say involved intent. For example, that you intended to hunt legally whether you had permission or not, for whatever reason you weren't able to do this so you fell back on 'observing and photographing' on the ROW but you still had a license which you never really had a chance to use. The implication was that you DID have access to hunt lawfully so that if you were ever questioned while on the ROW you could say something like 'Why would I be hunting here officer when I have access to that property over there?' To answer your question about not hunting private property you have access to, that is another of those white elephants. Whether it was when it was legal to hunt ROW or whether it is to observe and photograph animals currently, the fact remains that the highest population concentrations of these animals occur along the ROW, so if you want to maximize your chances of observing and photographing, you would do so on the ROW. It is much more difficult to seek (with the intent to take) on private property simply because the 'infrastructure' of roads/cuts is not as prevalent on private property. Add to this the fact that ROW represents a sinkhole of dying animals (from easier predation as well as roadkill loss) which create a continual vortex of habitat that is constantly being replenished because a niche exists which is open for an individual to replace another individual once it is lost. Distant populations remain relatively static and without a substantial change to mortality rate unless there is some type of catastrophic event.

>> "the fact remains that the highest population concentrations of these animals occur along the ROW.."

I do not agree with this. While it may be true that rock cuts may offer the habitat in which alterna are most easily observed (in some locales), they do not contain the highest population densities. I have found that alterna are more concentrated in the areas in close proximity to tallus, similar to lepidus. Rock cuts may be the ideal place to look on ROWs that do not feature tallus, but it has been my experience that tallus coming down to the roadside yields substantially higher numbers of alterna. Since tallus is not dependent upon ROWs, I believe alterna will be found to be more numerous on private tallus fields than on public ROW rock cuts.

>>"Add to this the fact that ROW represents a sinkhole of dying animals (from easier predation as well as roadkill loss) which create a continual vortex of habitat that is constantly being replenished because a niche exists which is open for an individual to replace another individual once it is lost."

The point I get from this, is that the private habitat surrounding the ROW has populations more than capable of carrying the burden of loosing large amounts of individuals migrating to fill the constant void left by the collected, road-killed and predated. If rock-cuts were the most densely populated areas, and their rate of loss was substantially higher than the supposed sparsely populated, static surrounding population, the surrounding population would not be able to sustain the losses. It is my opinion that the cuts mirror the unseen surrounding population. They may contain slightly higher or lower densities, depending on the surrounding habitat. Many of the popular opinions of alterna habits and preferred habitat are based upon observations of specimens in the environment most readily available to the observers - ROWs running through habitat, including rock-cuts. I believe that when observation techniques are developed that are not dependent on ROWs, alterna will be shown to be a much more prevalent, wide-ranging opportunist than currently considered.

John

Male taken in close proximity to tallus slope.

Home run, John!
-----
Todd Hughes

>>I do not agree with this. While it may be true that rock cuts may offer the habitat in which alterna are most easily observed (in some locales), they do not contain the highest population densities.

I may agree with you in theory, but it has yet to be proven where the highest concentration is AWAY from ROW because it hasn't really been concentrated on necessarily until recently out of necessity due to the regulations. However, I do believe that rock cuts and roads have a higher than normal population density because of the continual loss and replenishment of this loss by populations which abut populations near ROW and road cuts.

>>I have found that alterna are more concentrated in the areas in close proximity to tallus, similar to lepidus. Rock cuts may be the ideal place to look on ROWs that do not feature tallus, but it has been my experience that tallus coming down to the roadside yields substantially higher numbers of alterna. Since tallus is not dependent upon ROWs, I believe alterna will be found to be more numerous on private tallus fields than on public ROW rock cuts.

So from what you have said, the bulk of your experience is associated with roadways nonetheless. Rock cuts are good habitat because they have artificially increased habitat accessable by snake prey as well as slow the snakes down in their travels because they generally have to stop moving from a horizontal to a vertical movement, which takes more time, exposing the animals for a longer period. And the roads provide ease in accesibility for those seeking them.

>>The point I get from this, is that the private habitat surrounding the ROW has populations more than capable of carrying the burden of loosing large amounts of individuals migrating to fill the constant void left by the collected, road-killed and predated. If rock-cuts were the most densely populated areas, and their rate of loss was substantially higher than the supposed sparsely populated, static surrounding population, the surrounding population would not be able to sustain the losses.

I would tend to agree with this, however, you are missing a key point I think. It is not necessarily that populations surrounding ROW are more densely populated and therefore can sustain the losses. All of the populations tend to be static. But becauase ROW is a sinkhole of loss, it is much more likely that young which are produced in these areas have a greater chance for survival as they are not competing as much because of the continual removal from the population as a whole through the ROW losses. So the sustenance of the losses is really already present in the volume of offspring produced naturally rather than being a higher level of production simply from proximity to the ROW.

>>It is my opinion that the cuts mirror the unseen surrounding population. They may contain slightly higher or lower densities, depending on the surrounding habitat.

I agree, it is just that the survivability of the produced offspring is probably increased in these areas.

>>Many of the popular opinions of alterna habits and preferred habitat are based upon observations of specimens in the environment most readily available to the observers - ROWs running through habitat, including rock-cuts. I believe that when observation techniques are developed that are not dependent on ROWs, alterna will be shown to be a much more prevalent, wide-ranging opportunist than currently considered.

This may be. However, by the own experience of several hunters, most notably Dan Johnson who I believe has made statements to the effect that in collecting in Black Gap he put in many, many, many hours away from ROW with little to show for it compared to his success on ROW. Add to this the fact that there are MANY, MANY, MANY fewer accounts (and pics) being posted to this forum of animals collected on private property (or even pics from ROW for that matter) than had been the case before the law changed and your theory has not yet been proven out. That being said, after many hours I have put in on private property (both before and after the change in law) I have only seen one alterna and it was in an area of tallus as you have explained and extremely far from any ROW area. Yet this is not enough for me to believe that is necessarily favored habitat.

When I read Dan’s remark, I tried to put it into context. There is a greater breadth and array of habitat exposed by public roads, especially through Black Gap, than is exposed by the private properties that serve to bookend Black Gap. I think his experience may/would have been different had he been permitted to explore the wildlife management areas without restriction. Just a thought...

Robert

This may be. However, by the own experience of several hunters, most notably Dan Johnson who I believe has made statements to the effect that in collecting in Black Gap he put in many, many, many hours away from ROW with little to show for it compared to his success on ROW. Add to this the fact that there are MANY, MANY, MANY fewer accounts (and pics) being posted to this forum of animals collected on private property (or even pics from ROW for that matter) than had been the case before the law changed and your theory has not yet been proven out. That being said, after many hours I have put in on private property (both before and after the change in law) I have only seen one alterna and it was in an area of tallus as you have explained and extremely far from any ROW area. Yet this is not enough for me to believe that is necessarily favored habitat.

This is most likely because people can cover miles upon miles a night driving and shining cuts compared to walking.

-----
Steve W.

>>This is most likely because people can cover miles upon miles a night driving and shining cuts compared to walking.

This is also a good point and leads to the discussion of why ROW are more 'ideal' habitat to increase your chances of encountering something.

>> I do believe that rock cuts and roads have a higher than normal population density because of the continual loss and replenishment of this loss by populations which abut populations near ROW and road cuts.

First, what is a normal population density? Second, what is the rate of predation on the ROW, versus anywhere else you may sample?

So much information is lacking when it comes to alterna, that blanket statements like these are blurted out and accepted by those with the same or similar observation records.

A given habitat can support a maximum number of individuals. That number goes up or down depending on the environmental stresses present. If an individual is removed, it opens a spot for another to take it's place. Why are you stating that this somehow translates to higher numbers in this particular habitat? It should be consistent wherever alterna are found. I can only agree that the populations along ROWs are more dynamic, at best.

I have seen more fractured, seemingly ideal, natural "cuts" on private property, than the best road cuts. I have not hunted these areas, nor private tallus fields, but I cannot believe that these areas would contain smaller populations than man-made cuts, as if being in close proximity to the ROW was somehow beneficial. Maybe we do need to protect these areas, lol, you sure you're not advising TPW? Don't misread that as mean-spirited, I kid!

I have spent the majority of my time in a location that contains a mix of rock cuts, outcrops, tallus, and flatland. In my opinion, if rock-cuts offered a superior environment to that away from the ROW, with larger than average populations, it should be evident in this location. Of the 19 specimens I have observed, or know of, 7 have been in close proximity to tallus, 5 have been crossing to or from heavily covered flatlands in close proximity to heavily covered rocky hills, 3 have been crossing between natural stone outcrops, and 3 have been caught in the vicinity of rock-cuts (only one was caught on the cut, and that was at the base). This is not a road that boasts huge collection numbers, it has been estimated at 1-2 per year, and I know of only one DOR.

My point, is that while rock-cuts may offer a great place to observe alterna where those cuts offer the best habitat in the immediate area, there are better habitats.

Tallus is, in my opinion, is option number one, it offers large expanses of covered, crevice-like hunting grounds. Alterna can move through the maze of rock and boulders without ever having to expose themselves to the predation that you stated is such a threat on the exposed faces of rock cuts. I do not believe that alterna are especially timid, so I don't think they are drawn to tallus because of their nature, but because it is the ideal place for them to thrive.

To your other question, I would not bother getting a license in your situation. If you have no intention of collecting on private property, and you are willing to live by the law of the ROW, why waste the money? Texas does not require that you carry a license to observe or photograph. There are some game wardens who may give you a hard time, but I believe that if you are within your rights, they will be nothing more than a temporary nuisance.

Male collected in close proximity to tallus.

>>First, what is a normal population density? Second, what is the rate of predation on the ROW, versus anywhere else you may sample?

This is a good point. It might be difficult for anyone to really quantify. I suppose it is just the conclusion I have come to through my own experience. But that conclusion does lead me to believe that for whatever reason, I encounter more alterna/snakes near ROW.

>>So much information is lacking when it comes to alterna, that blanket statements like these are blurted out and accepted by those with the same or similar observation records.

You imply that it is blurted out and that it is a mistake or a falsehood. If others have the same or similar observation records, doesn't that provide some creedence for the assumption?

>>A given habitat can support a maximum number of individuals. That number goes up or down depending on the environmental stresses present. If an individual is removed, it opens a spot for another to take it's place. Why are you stating that this somehow translates to higher numbers in this particular habitat? It should be consistent wherever alterna are found. I can only agree that the populations along ROWs are more dynamic, at best.>>

Yes, this statement is clear - a given habitat can support a maximum number. It is consistent wherever alterna are found, but imagine that more individuals are removed from ROW for whatever reason, primarily predation/roadkill and as you imply that makes the populations more dynamic, which also would tend to imply that more spots are opened up for others to inhabit, necessitating perhaps a larger carrying capacity for those populations that are nearby the ROW.

>>I have seen more fractured, seemingly ideal, natural "cuts" on private property, than the best road cuts. I have not hunted these areas, nor private tallus fields, but I cannot believe that these areas would contain smaller populations than man-made cuts, as if being in close proximity to the ROW was somehow beneficial. Maybe we do need to protect these areas, lol, you sure you're not advising TPW? Don't misread that as mean-spirited, I kid!

I believe that there are studies which indicate that sometimes disturbed habitat for whatever reason actually increases the carrying capacity of that habitat - as was mentioned in another post which referred to road cuts as 'artificial reefs.' The reasons for this could be many, but among them might be that the road cut, because it is exposed, allows vegetation to grow in an area where it couldn't before, resulting in the production of more food, also exposing it to use by organisms that might not have used it when it was 'hidden' and thus increasing availability of additional prey items that might not have lived in the habitat initially, etc. All of these things COULD contribute to the ability of ROW and roadcuts to support a larger than normal population.

>>My point, is that while rock-cuts may offer a great place to observe alterna where those cuts offer the best habitat in the immediate area, there are better habitats.

I agree with you in principal, however, until these 'better habitats' are really given proper time, the assumption we have to make now can only be based upon past experiences, whether the methods are biased or not and I'd like to go back to an earlier point that I made. Since private land hunting has been forcibly implemented, there is has been a DRAMATIC decrease in postings of captured animals or even observed animals away from ROW. Why is this if there is so much new and good habitat available?

All we can go on is personal accounts. In my own experience, which was admittedly biased as are most people's experiences, I would estimate that both before and after the law changing I've spent approximately 20% of my time observing away from ROW in what I considered to be 'better' habitat than ROW. Yet, those away from ROW areas have only resulted in perhaps 5% of my observed snakes (alterna and otherwise). That experience helps to color my impression that ROW for a variety of reasons allows an improved observational experience.

Reread your previous posts, these are what I took issue with.

>> the fact remains that the highest population concentrations of these animals occur along the ROW

>>I do believe that rock cuts and roads have a higher than normal population density because of the continual loss and replenishment of this loss by populations which abut populations near ROW and road cuts.

Now, your latest comment is something I can understand. You have moved from a broad generalization, to an account of your observations. ROWs provide an excellent place to observe alterna, you can cover far more area in an evening, and the snakes are unable to hide among boulders, bushes, etc.

>>for whatever reason, I encounter more alterna/snakes near ROW.

As for the other exchange...

>> I do believe that rock cuts and roads have a higher than normal population density because of the continual loss and replenishment of this loss by populations which abut populations near ROW and road cuts.

>>First, what is a normal population density? Second, what is the rate of predation on the ROW, versus anywhere else you may sample?

>> So much information is lacking when it comes to alterna, that blanket statements like these are blurted out and accepted by those with the same or similar observation records.

>>You imply that it is blurted out and that it is a mistake or a falsehood. If others have the same or similar observation records, doesn't that provide some creedence for the assumption?

Are others claiming that ROWs and cuts have a higher than average population desity? I have observed 100% of alterna on the ROW, but that does not mean that it somehow contains higher numbers than off of the ROW. I posed those questions to give you an opportunity to support your statement. The fact that you observe alterna on a road that offers no cover, and which you can travel a hundred or more miles in an evening, should not lead you to believe that it offers superior habitat or populations, when compared to the tiny area you are able to cover while field hunting. This is what Damon meant by quantity or quality. You may be finding snakes in mediocre habitat, because of the large quantity of area you patrol. A quality area off of the ROW will contain a larger population, but you may spend 20 times longer searching for an individual because of the small area you can cover, along with the fact that they have countless places to avoid detection.

You have made statements that I believe are incorrect. You have moved away from statements, or toned them down when presented with superior facts. I believe you enjoy the back and forth of these discussions, more than really bringing anything to them. I have lost interest.

John

>>Now, your latest comment is something I can understand. You have moved from a broad generalization, to an account of your observations. ROWs provide an excellent place to observe alterna, you can cover far more area in an evening, and the snakes are unable to hide among boulders, bushes, etc.

Isn't that what I have said, that I believed that it increases your chances of encountering an alterna if you try to observe them on the ROW?

>>Are others claiming that ROWs and cuts have a higher than average population desity?

I don't know, but it is wrong for me to believe that?

>>I have observed 100% of alterna on the ROW, but that does not mean that it somehow contains higher numbers than off of the ROW.

True, but it also does not necessarily imply that the reverse is true, that there are higher numbers away from ROW, correct?

>>I posed those questions to give you an opportunity to support your statement. The fact that you observe alterna on a road that offers no cover, and which you can travel a hundred or more miles in an evening, should not lead you to believe that it offers superior habitat or populations, when compared to the tiny area you are able to cover while field hunting. This is what Damon meant by quantity or quality.

No, but if I take into account my other theories about WHY we might see more along ROW, aside from volume of habitat covered (if you were just walking cuts and didn't take driving into consideration, aren't you covering the same amount of habitat you would be away from ROW?) such as increased predation/roadkill, possible increase in biomass production due to exposure of previously unexposed habitat, isn't it possibl that my conjecture could be correct?

>>You have made statements that I believe are incorrect. You have moved away from statements, or toned them down when presented with superior facts. I believe you enjoy the back and forth of these discussions, more than really bringing anything to them. I have lost interest.

You may believe that they are incorrect, but it doesn't necessarily make them so. We are free to believe either way, my belief is not going to effect you just as your belief isn't going to effect me. What you see as me moving away from statements could be a couple of things, first it could be that as a result of the discussion I may have realized I used the wrong terms to explain myself, realized the mistake and clarified - isn't that what a good discussion is?, second, I have just become more specific or gone down different roads and perhaps you believe I'm deflecting the issue - I don't know. But I'm not necessarily changing my initial conclusions or beliefs.

Dude, theoretic or not, get the license or don't. It's up to you. Do what you want. If you aren't from here, don't fish or hunt game, and want to photo only with no handling (capture) then go for it, should make for some awesome shots...not! well, there have been some great in situ shots but not that many that were great photographs. IMO.
Here's a question for you, why do you think the rows are the place to be anyway? Convenience, yes. Abundance of animals, hardly. There are literally millions of undiscovered populations out there, most are too lazy to get out there and walk riprap or boulder fields, or find undiscovered new habitat. You have got to be kidding me, the population ebbs and flows depending on several factors. I bet next year will be a banner year with several new "localities" added to the roster.
What was the crack about whether legal hunting or not? Securing property to hunt with a valid license is the only legal way to hunt, unless you have a scientific permit. Where are you going with this line?
-----
Todd Hughes

"Here's a question for you, why do you think the rows are the place to be anyway?"

Without taking sides on wheather or not you should purchase a license for observing on the ROW, there are significant reasons why even someone with access to land should also prepare for herping the ROW. The main one is significant enough in itself without discussing the myriad little other reasons such as moving to, from or in between properties.
The main one I am talking about is the weather. Most experienced hunters already pick a somewhat centralized location and carefully watch the weather, waiting up to an hour or two before nightfall to decide exactly which area to hunt.
One year I went ahead and made reservations in advance for 7 nights at a hotel in Del Rio because I really wanted to match up a 277 more than anything. I spent 5 nights enduring too cold and wet of conditions on 277, seeing little to nothing, before bailing on the rest of my already paid hotel bill. Meanwhile Sanderson was experiencing prime conditions and something like 9 alterna had been caught during those 5 nights I was in Del Rio.
So I would say that even if I had reservations on a ranch, if it was bad weather conditions I would bail the ranch in favor of at least getting to see some snakes on the ROW, even if I couldn't collect. Collecting photographs of snakes is better than walking around bone dry rocks or sitting in a lodge while it pours rain. I travel about 1,400 miles to get there and can only go once or twice a year. While I'm not rich, at that point my hotel bill is the least of my concerns.

>>Here's a question for you, why do you think the rows are the place to be anyway? Convenience, yes. Abundance of animals, hardly.

ROW are the place to be PRIMARILY because of convenience, but it is also because of abundance of animals- at least near the cuts, not necessarily an abundance on the road away from the cuts.

>>There are literally millions of undiscovered populations out there, most are too lazy to get out there and walk riprap or boulder fields, or find undiscovered new habitat. You have got to be kidding me, the population ebbs and flows depending on several factors. I bet next year will be a banner year with several new "localities" added to the roster.

You may be right - that new 'localities' will suddenly come into existence. But it hasn't happened yet, and there aren't a lot of people suddenly advertising animals from these new populations. Of course there are millions of undiscovered populations. However, prefered alterna habitat hasn't been a secret for many years, so if all of these animals are so common and easy to find, why hasn't there been a lot of focus on these huge populations by collectors?

>>What was the crack about whether legal hunting or not? Securing property to hunt with a valid license is the only legal way to hunt, unless you have a scientific permit. Where are you going with this line?

In other words, legally hunting vs. legally observing.

>>so if all of these animals are so common and easy to find, why hasn't there been a lot of focus on these huge populations by collectors?

Ask yourself this question. It is because, in large part, hobbyists or those with commercial interests are more interested in satisfying their need to collect or see something, that they are drawn to areas where success is a greater probability. They are more interested in the "thrill" of seeing a Sanderson, than spending long, hard hours in an unproven, remote locale, or they are fanatics of a locale. Since this is a relatively small niche, the known productive ROW habitat offers enough variety for most. This is exactly the reason that those who are exploring, do not quickly share information. Why allow a member of the uninterested share in your success? That time may come, once you move to the next area. There are "unknown" areas that produce, I gather that you understand this, if you have indeed collected from a far from the ROW tallus field.

John

>>Ask yourself this question. It is because, in large part, hobbyists or those with commercial interests are more interested in satisfying their need to collect or see something, that they are drawn to areas where success is a greater probability. They are more interested in the "thrill" of seeing a Sanderson, than spending long, hard hours in an unproven, remote locale, or they are fanatics of a locale.

Although I don't think you can really pinpoint it to commercial interest as you can to the fact that alterna are 'rare' to find and for people that come a long way (essentially everyone save the few who are lucky enough to live in the habitat) they would be most desirous of increasing their chances of seeing something.

>>Since this is a relatively small niche, the known productive ROW habitat offers enough variety for most. This is exactly the reason that those who are exploring, do not quickly share information. Why allow a member of the uninterested share in your success? That time may come, once you move to the next area. There are "unknown" areas that produce, I gather that you understand this, if you have indeed collected from a far from the ROW tallus field.

I agree with you that explorers don't necessarily share their information. However, why would it be necessary to share the specifics of the information down to the township and range of the location. Believe me, I am notorious for not only not telling anyone where I found something, but not telling anyone that I found anything at all. I just am not one with a need to brag. But, were I exploring an unusual area and felt the need to tell someone about it, I would not have a problem saying something like - 'Found these last saturday on private property in the Sanderson vicinity.'

I think they are just as common away from the roads but I doubt that they are easier to find, with some exceptions of course. Finding an alterna on a ranch in Val Verde could be alot easier than finding on on the road in Black Gap.
I think the reason there aren't localities from private property has more to do with the fact that people haven't been doing it for long and access was commonly believed to be virtually impossible. If TX landowners had actually ever thought of marketing access to herpers before this whole Hilderbrand thing I bet alot of herpers would have been taking advantage of that opportunity. I know of one ranch that I will almost certainly get reservations for but I will wait until the roads are open so that I can have that option if the ranch gets rained out. Ranches with decent accomodations will probably do alot better than they are doing now if the roadban gets rescinded. That is if they are near enough to good roads so you can hunt both the ranch and the road.

"...the fact remains that the highest population concentrations of these animals occur along the ROW, so if you want to maximize your chances of observing and photographing, you would do so on the ROW."

"Fact"? Sorry... you're "fact" is opinion and apparently one based in biased observation. The only thing that makes them easier to find along the ROW is convenience. Believe me... there are just as many alterna on the other side of the fence. Drawing the conclusion that there are more alterna on the ROW because you're aware of more being collected there is like saying that snakes don't cross roads when there's no one there to find them.

"It is much more difficult to seek... on private property simply because the 'infrastructure' of roads/cuts is not as prevalent on private property."

It's not any more difficult to seek on private property... it just requires some strong legs and endurance instead of a cold soda, a candy bar, and some music for the radio. Most people are too lazy to do it all night long... hence a portion of the aforementioned collecting bias.

>>"Fact"? Sorry... you're "fact" is opinion and apparently one based in biased observation. The only thing that makes them easier to find along the ROW is convenience. Believe me... there are just as many alterna on the other side of the fence. Drawing the conclusion that there are more alterna on the ROW because you're aware of more being collected there is like saying that snakes don't cross roads when there's no one there to find them.

Yes this is a good point. Fact was not the proper word to use here. It is more properly a result of highly slanted collecting/observation techniques. I wouldn't necessarily dispute that there are as many alterna on the other side of the fence, the differences are that 1) The road itself is a HUGE open area with nowhere to hide - thus easier prey. and 2) Road cuts themselves do create 'artificial' habitat - surely you can agree to that because they create huge areas where the surrounding limestone is exposed.

>>It's not any more difficult to seek on private property... it just requires some strong legs and endurance instead of a cold soda, a candy bar, and some music for the radio. Most people are too lazy to do it all night long... hence a portion of the aforementioned collecting bias.

Yes, and doesn't this make it more difficult? Understand I'm not saying that it is unreasonable, but just that it does represent something out of the norm that is harder to accomplish.

"Road cuts themselves do create 'artificial' habitat - surely you can agree to that because they create huge areas where the surrounding limestone is exposed."

Terrell county is nothing but exposed limestone... roadcuts are just limestone immediately adjacent to the ROW. To imply that limestone immediately adjacent to the roadway is somehow better than the other 2,000 square miles of limestone is a little "iffy".

"Yes, and doesn't this make it (seeking on private property) more difficult?"

If by requiring physical effort you mean more difficult then ok... but the lack of road cuts and roads does nothing to decrease carrying capacity or off-road population size.

>>Terrell county is nothing but exposed limestone... roadcuts are just limestone immediately adjacent to the ROW. To imply that limestone immediately adjacent to the roadway is somehow better than the other 2,000 square miles of limestone is a little "iffy".

I'm not trying to make that argument. I know that the entire region is limestone, yet most of it is not exposed to the same degree that it is exposed and to the extent it is exposed when a ROW is put in. It is better for the fact that it makes it MORE exposed and because it makes it MORE accesible.

>>If by requiring physical effort you mean more difficult then ok... but the lack of road cuts and roads does nothing to decrease carrying capacity or off-road population size.

Isn't requiring more physical effort more difficult? What would your definition have been? Do you consider it easier to observe away from road cuts or ROW?

"yet most of it is not exposed to the same degree that it is exposed and to the extent it is exposed when a ROW is put in."

The entire of Terrell county is covered by exposed, degrading, and exfoliating limestone... giant bluffs and canyon walls, plateaus, mesas, and creek bottoms. It all covered with cracks, crevices, and fissures. Are you meaning to indicate that because hills are cross-sectioned by roadcuts that they're somehow more ideal?

Your impression is a collecting bias. That's it.

Isn't requiring more physical effort more difficult? What would your definition have been? Do you consider it easier to observe away from road cuts or ROW?

If physical effort is a "difficulty" by your definition then I guess so.

I think that while the area covered is more limited because vehicles are often excluded, observation away from the ROW can be concentrated in prime habitats. It's a quantity vs. quality thing.

>>The entire of Terrell county is covered by exposed, degrading, and exfoliating limestone... giant bluffs and canyon walls, plateaus, mesas, and creek bottoms. It all covered with cracks, crevices, and fissures. Are you meaning to indicate that because hills are cross-sectioned by roadcuts that they're somehow more ideal?

Yes.

>>Your impression is a collecting bias. That's it.

Yes, but cannot that collecting bias lend some weight to my argument? Do you have experience which tells you something different than what I have said? Have you observed more animals on ROW or away from ROW? I believe I already know the answer to this.

>>If physical effort is a "difficulty" by your definition then I guess so.

Why are you fighting me on that point? Wouldn't the entire animal kingdom define more difficult as something which required a greater output of energy and calories to accomplish? Come on.

>>I think that while the area covered is more limited because vehicles are often excluded, observation away from the ROW can be concentrated in prime habitats. It's a quantity vs. quality thing.

I agree with this. However, I also agree that ROW cuts provide a unique habitat that because of its disturbed nature might also serve to increase its desireability as a habitat. Can you explain what you mean by quantity vs. quality? I'm not sure necessarily what you are referencing.

Are you meaning to indicate that because hills are cross-sectioned by roadcuts that they're somehow more ideal?
Yes.

Then your bias of not spending time on the other side of the fence has allowed you to draw an incorrect conclusion.

Yes, but cannot that collecting bias lend some weight to my argument?

If you want to reach a biased conclusion then absolutely.

Do you have experience which tells you something different than what I have said? Have you observed more animals on ROW or away from ROW? I believe I already know the answer to this.

The problem is that you apparently think you know the answer to a lot of things LOL.

I forgot to answer... Yes. Years ago I spent time looking on right-of-way... now it's mostly to reach my destination.

Why are you fighting me on that point? Wouldn't the entire animal kingdom define more difficult as something which required a greater output of energy and calories to accomplish? Come on.

More effort sometimes equals more productivity. What's more difficult... driving for 8 hours or walking for two? Some species are easier to find cruising... others are easier to find while walking.

However, I also agree that ROW cuts provide a unique habitat that because of its disturbed nature might also serve to increase its desireability as a habitat..

You're likely to find alterna on road cuts because they're a part of a fractured limestone hill that's full of crevices and prey...NOT because they're road cuts. That's like drawing the conclusion that pavement is desireable habitat because that's where you find all the snakes when you road cruise. LOL

>>Then your bias of not spending time on the other side of the fence has allowed you to draw an incorrect conclusion.

Again, why exactly is it necessarily incorrect? Do you have some data that proves other than what I am contending? I have spent time on the other side of the fence, and as I mentioned before, while it is biased in that I've spent more time looking on ROW than away from, my results by comparison do not play out to what you are claiming, do yours? I estimated that I have spent 20% of my time away from ROW, but that 20% did not result in 20% of the snake total that I have seen, but rather 5%. That data does not equate to what I consider to be ideal habitat away from ROW, nor does it equate to a similar or higher population away from ROW.

>>I forgot to answer... Yes. Years ago I spent time looking on right-of-way... now it's mostly to reach my destination. >>

This didn't really answer the question. Years ago you spent time looking on ROW. How does your overall experience on ROW differ from your experience away from it? In other words, have you personally seen more animals away from?

This leads to my overall point. If, as you say there are many more ideal habitats and huge populations elsewhere, why do people not post photographs of animals they have captured on private property. Similarly, why are there not a lot of photos of animals observed on ROW? I remember in the not too distant past that we saw a myriad of posts of photos of animals which were encountered. That has essentially dried up now. Why is that? I remember a few years ago, people would post pics THE SAME NIGHT they found alterna, I would see the same animal someone had shown me the previous night on the forum the next morning - they couldn't brag about it fast enough. Why is there not the same braggadocio?

>>More effort sometimes equals more productivity. What's more difficult... driving for 8 hours or walking for two? Some species are easier to find cruising... others are easier to find while walking.

Is it painful to agree with me? We are on the same page. Difficulty is a moot point. If 8 hours on ROW produced the same as 2 hrs walking private property, difficulty is relative. But if 8 hrs driving vs. 8 hrs walking, there can be no comparison. Why are you so unwilling to admit that if you are walking on ROW or driving on ROW it is 'easier' than walking on 'unimproved' private property?

>>You're likely to find alterna on road cuts because they're a part of a fractured limestone hill that's full of crevices and prey...NOT because they're road cuts. That's like drawing the conclusion that pavement is desireable habitat because that's where you find all the snakes when you road cruise. LOL

Actually, if you want to talk about increasing your chances of seeing reptiles, the pavement, while not being a desireable habitat, can definitely be an 'artificial' attractant. Depending on the time of year and the area of the country, the road can serve as a magnet. The snakes don't know it is there, but once they touch it and feel the warmth, many times they will stay longer to absorb the warmth. Were they simply traveling across open habitat, it might be less likely that they would stay in such a vulnerable place for so long. In this instance, the ROW is a much more likely place to find reptiles.

"Again, why exactly is it necessarily incorrect? Do you have some data that proves other than what I am contending?"

Yes.

"I have spent time on the other side of the fence, and as I mentioned before, while it is biased in that I've spent more time looking on ROW than away from, my results by comparison do not play out to what you are claiming, do yours?"

Yes.

"I estimated that I have spent 20% of my time away from ROW, but that 20% did not result in 20% of the snake total that I have seen, but rather 5%."

We weren't talking about snake total, but alterna. I stated in a previous post that some animals are easier to observe walking... others by cruising. If I'm looking for gopher snakes the car's the way to go... for klauberi...nope.

"That data does not equate to what I consider to be ideal habitat away from ROW, nor does it equate to a similar or higher population away from ROW."

My results differ.

"This didn't really answer the question. Years ago you spent time looking on ROW. How does your overall experience on ROW differ from your experience away from it? In other words, have you personally seen more animals away from?"

If by animals you mean alterna then yes... that's what the "yes" was for in my previous answer.

"This leads to my overall point. If, as you say there are many more ideal habitats and huge populations elsewhere, why do people not post photographs of animals they have captured on private property. Similarly, why are there not a lot of photos of animals observed on ROW?"

1)Did I say there were more ideal habitats and "huge" populations elsewhere? All I said was that cuts... in as much as they are made from hills that alterna call home are just as likely to have alterna on them as the hills with no cuts through them. Gray-banded kingsnakes are fossorial lizard feeders and they like cracks, subterranean access, and lizards. Go where those things occur and what do ya know? alterna.

2)Do you really need me to answer this?

"Is it painful to agree with me? We are on the same page. Difficulty is a moot point. If 8 hours on ROW produced the same as 2 hrs walking private property, difficulty is relative."

That's what I'm saying.

"But if 8 hrs driving vs. 8 hrs walking, there can be no comparison. Why are you so unwilling to admit that if you are walking on ROW or driving on ROW it is 'easier' than walking on 'unimproved' private property?"

Because of the "if" in the statement above. If the "if" were the case I'd agree with you. I'm not speaking in hypotheticals when I say that I've been more productive with regard to target species away from ROW.

"Actually, if you want to talk about increasing your chances of seeing reptiles, the pavement, while not being a desireable habitat, can definitely be an 'artificial' attractant. Depending on the time of year and the area of the country, the road can serve as a magnet. The snakes don't know it is there, but once they touch it and feel the warmth, many times they will stay longer to absorb the warmth. Were they simply traveling across open habitat, it might be less likely that they would stay in such a vulnerable place for so long. In this instance, the ROW is a much more likely place to find reptiles."

Again... you're back in "Biasville" with that one. The assumption that you find snakes laying on the road because they find it appealing is anthropomorphic at best. There is no data to support your conjecture. You might just find snakes on a road because it's there, it's devoid of cover, and it's easy for humans to travel/cover quickly. Saying the road is an attractant for snakes is like saying steel-belted radials are attractants based on the number of DORs.

I feel like we're having a philosophical discussion about whether a tree falling in a forest makes a noise if no one's there to hear it.

>>"I have spent time on the other side of the fence, and as I mentioned before, while it is biased in that I've spent more time looking on ROW than away from, my results by comparison do not play out to what you are claiming, do yours?"

Yes.

Feel free to share. It has not been my experience so I'm not one to discount yours, but what has been your experience?

>>We weren't talking about snake total, but alterna. I stated in a previous post that some animals are easier to observe walking... others by cruising. If I'm looking for gopher snakes the car's the way to go... for klauberi...nope.

So it would be your contention that alterna are easier to observe away from ROW and walking, correct? I can guarantee that you have spent more time doing this than I have, so if that is what you say your experience is I can accept it. Perhaps I'm not looking in the same ideal habitat that you are.

>>My results differ.

Feel free to share your results.

>>1)Did I say there were more ideal habitats and "huge" populations elsewhere? All I said was that cuts... in as much as they are made from hills that alterna call home are just as likely to have alterna on them as the hills with no cuts through them. Gray-banded kingsnakes are fossorial lizard feeders and they like cracks, subterranean access, and lizards. Go where those things occur and what do ya know? alterna.

Sorry, I guess that's what I inferred from your comment. I might agree with you in principal, but even your statement here belies the fact that you are saying cuts don't provide ideal habitat. You are correct that cuts are just as likely to have alterna on them as the hills with no cuts however, if we are talking about the likelyhood of humans being able to find them (which is what we're talking about, right?) then once you expose their preferred subterranean habitat wouldn't there be a concommittant exposure of the alterna and thus allow more to be seen?

>>2)Do you really need me to answer this?

Sure, why not? Why don't people post pics of legally collected alterna from private property? Similarly, why don't people post many pics of legally observed alterna from ROW? If everything is above board there shouldn't be a problem.

>>Again... you're back in "Biasville" with that one. The assumption that you find snakes laying on the road because they find it appealing is anthropomorphic at best. There is no data to support your conjecture. You might just find snakes on a road because it's there, it's devoid of cover, and it's easy for humans to travel/cover quickly. Saying the road is an attractant for snakes is like saying steel-belted radials are attractants based on the number of DORs.

This is not really biasville again. I don't believe that the road is an attractant, but I believe that once they happen upon the road it might make them want to stay. The steel-belted radial analogy is lame at best. If you want to talk about data, it is all a matter of what you consider valid data. It is clear that apparently my observations cannot be considered valid data, but are your observations valid data. Let me tell you what my experience is (by the way, I find it remarkable that you cannot admit that a cold-blooded animal which needs to thermoregulate would not find something beneficial about a road - because of traffic and because it is generally darker than the natural rocks it absorbs and retains heat better than what they are used to and they like the heat. The single alterna I've collected away from ROW was on a dark rock and not moving - my assumption was it was thermoregulating.) anyway, back to my experience: Several years ago while walking on the top of a cut, approximately 20 feet above the road on a night with a full moon and occasionally I glance at the road to see if I can see shapes there. Something caught my eye because it broke the paint line on the shoulder. I knew it was a dark snake, but I didn't shine my spot because I was worried it would startle it before I could get to it. I phoned (nice to have cell service)my hunting partner who was at road level on the other side of the road quite a ways away because I knew he could get to the snake before me, plus I didn't want to take my eyes from it as I would have to do to climb down. In the five minutes or so it took him to get to the snake it had not moved so far as I could tell and it turned out to be an alterna. Since then I've watched other snakes on roads in my state and have encountered several times where many species of snakes have simply lain on a rural road for several minutes without moving. Thus, I have come to the belief from this data that they do utilize the road to some extent.

Feel free to share. It has not been my experience so I'm not one to discount yours, but what has been your experience?

My experience is that I find more of certain species when I focus specifically on their preferred habitat rather than spending time driving between areas where the preferred habitat is immediately adjacent to or on the ROW.

So it would be your contention that alterna are easier to observe away from ROW and walking, correct?

They can be. Both methods have benefits… we’re back to the quality vs. quantity statement.

I can guarantee that you have spent more time doing this than I have, so if that is what you say your experience is I can accept it. Perhaps I'm not looking in the same ideal habitat that you are.

You also need a big sample size for the numbers to mean anything. There are too many variables regarding snake movement to draw conclusions about population densities based on small sample size.

Feel free to share your results.

I'm not trying to be an ass, but I’m willing to share just what I've shared so far.

I might agree with you in principal, but even your statement here belies the fact that you are saying cuts don't provide ideal habitat.

I'm starting to agree with Joe on your reading comprehension LOL. I never said that cuts aren't habitat. What I did say was that I disagreed with your assessment that it is “fact that the highest population concentrations of these animals occur along the ROW". The conclusions you draw from your biased observations lead you to make incorrect conclusions. Science works when observations lead to hypotheses, hypotheses lead to testing, testing reveals results, and results help generate conclusions. If you eliminate the intermediate steps, or start with preconceived notions you reach biased and incorrect conclusions.

…if we are talking about the likelihood of humans being able to find them (which is what we're talking about, right?) then once you expose their preferred subterranean habitat wouldn't there be a concomitant exposure of the alterna and thus allow more to be seen?

Apparently you are under the impression that cutting into crack and crevice perforated limestone to reveal more cut and crevice perforated limestone increases the chances that alterna come out on top of the crack and crevice perforated limestone?

Quote 1 (from your previous post)
Actually, if you want to talk about increasing your chances of seeing reptiles, the pavement, while not being a desireable habitat, can definitely be an 'artificial' attractant.

Quote 2
This is not really biasville again. I don't believe that the road is an attractant, but I believe that once they happen upon the road it might make them want to stay.

It can be an attractant…. I don’t believe it’s an attractant.
Hmmmm.

Again… what you think snakes might “want” to do and what they do as well as their “resons” for doing what they do…have serious potential to be very different things.

The single alterna I've collected away from ROW was on a dark rock and not moving - my assumption was it was thermoregulating.)

See… at least here you call this what it is… an assumption.

Since then I've watched other snakes on roads in my state and have encountered several times where many species of snakes have simply lain on a rural road for several minutes without moving. Thus, I have come to the belief from this data that they do utilize the road to some extent.

And of course other snakes never come out and lay anywhere they might have access to a thermal gradient so they can thermoregulate. This is what I mean when you see some sort of event and without testing your theory generate a conclusion. You draw the conclusion that snakes use roads to thermoregulate when they could be just thermoregulating and happen to be on the road which was the easiest or closest thing for them to thermoregulate on. If you’re not seeing the distinction with regard to the bias you inject into your conclusions then I can’t help you.

>>My experience is that I find more of certain species when I focus specifically on their preferred habitat rather than spending time driving between areas where the preferred habitat is immediately adjacent to or on the ROW.

This is my experience as well. I don't understand how this contradicts anything that I have said. If ROW travels through their preferred habitat, that is preferred habitat, correct? Also, keep in mind that I've never really specifically spoken about road cruising have I? I realize it can be productive, but for the most part, most of what I was relating was my experience on ROW in general, with most of the attention being paid to cuts, and not the road as you are assuming. I don't spend most of my time doing that. If you are under that impression I don't know how you came to that conclusion.

>>They can be. Both methods have benefits… we’re back to the quality vs. quantity statement.

Again I guess I'm to dense to understand what you mean by quality vs. quantity. Are you referring to the habitat or the animals?

>>Feel free to share your results.

>>I'm not trying to be an ass, but I’m willing to share just what I've shared so far.

So, my results don't match your results. Again this doesn't prove the case either way, correct? By your definition there are too many variables and not a large enough sample size. So am I not correct in making an assumption based upon my own experiences?

>>I might agree with you in principal, but even your statement here belies the fact that you are saying cuts don't provide ideal habitat.

>>I'm starting to agree with Joe on your reading comprehension LOL. I never said that cuts aren't habitat. What I did say was that I disagreed with your assessment that it is “fact that the highest population concentrations of these animals occur along the ROW".

And I agreed with you that I shouldn't have used the word 'fact.' Did you read that part? You have repeatedly said that cuts and ROW in general is not 'ideal' habitat. I contend that in some cases cuts can be ideal habitat and I'm also contending that in some situations cuts are more ideal habitat than the adjacent areas.

>>The conclusions you draw from your biased observations lead you to make incorrect conclusions.

Would your observations not be biased as well? Why exactly would your conclusions be correct and mine incorrect?

>>Science works when observations lead to hypotheses, hypotheses lead to testing, testing reveals results, and results help generate conclusions. If you eliminate the intermediate steps, or start with preconceived notions you reach biased and incorrect conclusions.

I'm aware of the scientific method. Why are you assuming that this is not what I've done? I've observed in several situations, I've tested, and I've generated conclusions based upon my results. Further, all of my testing methods are repeatable and I have repeated several times. The only issue you might have with them is in the relatively small sample size. But simply because I don't have a large sample size doesn't mean that my methods or my results are biased. What IS biased is my continued desire to focus on ROW precisely BECAUSE of my results/conclusion. Also, if you believe that scientists don't start with preconceived notions then you just aren't living in the real world. Preconceived notions are inherent in the scientific community. Many, many experiments are begun with the intent and belief that the results will be skewed one way or another, that is what the hypothesis is about. Isn't the hypothesis skewed to a result by definition? What is necessary in the scientific method to allow it to be above reproach is that the methodology/testing itself is not biased.

>>Apparently you are under the impression that cutting into crack and crevice perforated limestone to reveal more cut and crevice perforated limestone increases the chances that alterna come out on top of the crack and crevice perforated limestone?

Yes, although I wouldn't say on top. Rather I was more talking about cutting into it perpendicular to ground level. Alterna may never even need to break the surface because there is so much habitat underground. But, if in their normal wanderings for food underground they suddenly come to an open area, i.e. a road cut which would normally not have been present, it exposes an animal that wouldn't have been exposed had the ROW not been there. Is that possible? So, I'm not saying that just because you cut into the limestone it makes them want to break the surface more, that's silly.

>>>>Quote 1 (from your previous post)
Actually, if you want to talk about increasing your chances of seeing reptiles, the pavement, while not being a desireable habitat, can definitely be an 'artificial' attractant.

>>>>Quote 2
This is not really biasville again. I don't believe that the road is an attractant, but I believe that once they happen upon the road it might make them want to stay.

>>It can be an attractant…. I don’t believe it’s an attractant.
Hmmmm.

I believe I've clarified this and even clarified it in the post when I first mentioned it. I do not believe they know it is there, but when they find it, they are attracted/magnetized to it because of the heat.

>>The single alterna I've collected away from ROW was on a dark rock and not moving - my assumption was it was thermoregulating.)

See… at least here you call this what it is… an assumption.

What else can it be? What would your assumption have been?

>>You draw the conclusion that snakes use roads to thermoregulate when they could be just thermoregulating and happen to be on the road which was the easiest or closest thing for them to thermoregulate on. If you’re not seeing the distinction with regard to the bias you inject into your conclusions then I can’t help you.

There might be some bias in the conclusions I draw, but not necessarily in the observations I make. Isn't the conclusion what is open to the interpretation of the person studing? Is it possible for two people to draw different conclusions based upon the same observations? Of course. The statement you have made here regarding thermoregulation is circular logic. Aren't you making the same point I did? Would a snake lying on a road motionless be thermoregulating even if it was thermoregulating by accident? If the road is the easiest or closest thing for them to thermoregulate on, is the road not a magnet to them for them to complete their thermoregulation? Are they not on the road in the act of thermoregulation? It is like you are saying that just because I've stopped at Burger King to eat because it is closer and easier than the grocery store doesn't mean that Burger King is an attractant. Further, just because I'm eating at Burger King doesn't mean I'm eating at Burger King.

This is my experience as well. I don't understand how this contradicts anything that I have said. If ROW travels through their preferred habitat, that is preferred habitat, correct?

But Glenn… you need to understand that you didn’t indicate that you were more successful on ROW because you spent time in areas where the road ran through preferred habitat… you indicated that ROW WAS PREFERRED HABITAT. HUGE difference.

Also, keep in mind that I've never really specifically spoken about road cruising have I?

You spoke about the productivity of collection on ROW, which for the bulk of herpers entails road cruising (if only even for moving to a new location), cut shining and walking. Don’t try to dodge behind the nuance to avoid a point.

I realize it can be productive, but for the most part, most of what I was relating was my experience on ROW in general, with most of the attention being paid to cuts, and not the road as you are assuming. I don't spend most of my time doing that. If you are under that impression I don't know how you came to that conclusion.

I included road cruising, spotlighting, and walking in my consideration for the ROW because several references have been made as to the ability of someone on the ROW to cover more ground. Are you indicating that you only walk and walk twice as fast on ROW than you can on private property? I didn’t think so.

Again I guess I'm to dense to understand what you mean by quality vs. quantity. Are you referring to the habitat or the animals?

Why in the heck would I mean animals? You think I meant that I find “better” animals off ROW? Really?

So, my results don't match your results. Again this doesn't prove the case either way, correct? By your definition there are too many variables and not a large enough sample size. So am I not correct in making an assumption based upon my own experiences?

You can apparently make all the assumptions you want.

You have repeatedly said that cuts and ROW in general is not 'ideal' habitat.

You also have issues with inferences. You said there were more snakes on the right-of-way than not. It’s not that cuts aren’t habitat it’s just that they aren’t the best habitat (as you claimed). They’re not any better than the rest of the giant ancient reef they’re made from. You observe in areas where the habitat comes close or up to the ROW and you catch snakes… well what do you know? It’s not that cuts are ideal habitat (relative to the rest of it) it’s that they’re attached and part of ideal habitat.

I contend that in some cases cuts can be ideal habitat and I'm also contending that in some situations cuts are more ideal habitat than the adjacent areas.

Cuts can be good habitat… but because they are cut through habitat… not because they are habitat. If by adjacent areas you mean the flat areas in between areas where the road traverses habitat then yes.

Would your observations not be biased as well? Why exactly would your conclusions be correct and mine incorrect?

…because of the leaps in logic. You make observations and leap past the point of anything your observations could legitimately prove.

I'm aware of the scientific method. Why are you assuming that this is not what I've done? I've observed in several situations, I've tested, and I've generated conclusions based upon my results.

You’ve tested? No… you’ve observed several times, and skipped right to the conclusion.

Further, all of my testing methods are repeatable and I have repeated several times.

Gawking is not a testing method… oh but wait… several times… well then, that’s statistically significant.

But simply because I don't have a large sample size doesn't mean that my methods or my results are biased.

It does mean that you have no methods because you’ve done no tests. You’ve only made observations.

What IS biased is my continued desire to focus on ROW precisely BECAUSE of my results/conclusion.

Your desire isn’t biased… just the conclusions that fuel it.

Also, if you believe that scientists don't start with preconceived notions then you just aren't living in the real world. Preconceived notions are inherent in the scientific community. Many, many experiments are begun with the intent and belief that the results will be skewed one way or another, that is what the hypothesis is about. Isn't the hypothesis skewed to a result by definition? What is necessary in the scientific method to allow it to be above reproach is that the methodology/testing itself is not biased.

Spoken like someone who tries to justifies creation by artificially pairing ratsnakes and kingsnakes.

A hypothesis is a guess. The guess is tested without bias. Results either support or deny the hypothesis. Then a conclusion is drawn. Get it? You guess and then draw conclusions… you’re stuck in the hypothesis stage.

Apparently you are under the impression that cutting into crack and crevice perforated limestone to reveal more cut and crevice perforated limestone increases the chances that alterna come out on top of the crack and crevice perforated limestone?

Yes, although I wouldn't say on top.

OK… on the side of cracked and perforated limestone. That makes all the difference because the hills in west Texas don’t ordinarily have sides.

Alterna may never even need to break the surface because there is so much habitat underground.

That’s why I’ve seen them on the surface on private land? Crap Glenn, they eat LIZARDS… lizards that sleep with their asses hanging out of cracks at night… not 20 feet underground.

But, if in their normal wanderings for food underground they suddenly come to an open area, i.e. a road cut which would normally not have been present, it exposes an animal that wouldn't have been exposed had the ROW not been there.

And the cracks on the sides of the natural hills don’t provide the same opportunity? You HAVE to be kidding me.

So, I'm not saying that just because you cut into the limestone it makes them want to break the surface more, that's silly.

The whole thing is silly.

I believe I've clarified this and even clarified it in the post when I first mentioned it.

How does one go about clarifying a total contradiction?

I do not believe they know it is there, but when they find it, they are attracted/magnetized to it because of the heat.

I am stunned. “I believe it’s an attractant”. “I don’t believe it’s an attractant”. “When they find it it’s an attractant”. You just flip-flopped on your flip flop.

There might be some bias in the conclusions I draw, but not necessarily in the observations I make.

BINGO. *ding ding ding ding ding* Winner winner chicken dinner!

The statement you have made here regarding thermoregulation is circular logic.

No it’s not. Snakes thermoregulate EVERYWHERE and they did so long before man came along with his asphalt trucks. Snakes thermoregulate on roads, along roads, and away from roads. The entire countryside is LOADED with places for them to thermoregulate. My problem is that you find a snake on the road and assume that it and large numbers of its counterparts concentrate on or near roads because of the huge opportunity the asphalt provides for thermoregulation. The problem is the causative relationship you anthropomorphically assign to what you observe. The snake may indeed thermoregulate on a road but your original assertion that there are larger population densities there becase of the artificial elevation in habitat quality isn’t quantifiable.

If the road is the easiest or closest thing for them to thermoregulate on, is the road not a magnet to them for them to complete their thermoregulation?

No lol, it’s not.

Are they not on the road in the act of thermoregulation?

Obviously. They couldn’t be doing anything else right?

When you see male lizards doing push-ups, do you think they’re trying to get in shape?

I'm out Glenn. It's been fun, but this thing has spiraled into neuron frying territory and I need to save what I have left.

Good luck in your endeavors!

The roads are a very new phenomenon in alterna habitat, the species adapted to an environment that was there long before we came along and blew chunks out hills, filled in sections of arroyo and laid down ribbons of pavement. They are adapted to the natural rock features. The fact that their prey items are able to live on the artificial rock cuts is only a fortunate coincidence for us and nothing more.

I firmly believe that we will see higher density of alterna in the more natural habitat, but we also will find that the ground is harder for us to cover as effectively which is why we have a bias for where we hunt. Lets face it, we are a path of least resistance species ourselves here. I also can not come up with a real way for us to measure these population densities we can only measure what we can observe with no certainty that we get an accurate sample rate from either area.... after all they are a secretive species that is rarely active and would prefer to move through cover than in the open when they do move at all.

I will also say that you can thermoregulate back in a crevice or under a flat rock at night as effectively as you can on top of it, after all it is not like the sun is out. They do not need to expose themselves to predation for this. I believe most animals spotted laying in the road were simply crossing and they froze in place as the vehicle approached to avoid detection (which in their natural environment they would have some cover for this to work, even it was just the fact that the ground is not flat and even like a road is). In my experience they do not just lay in the middle of an open space, they press up against or get under a feature for cover or they coil up to park it. Almost every animal I have seen on the road is stretched out pointing at a shoulder, like they want to cross at the shortest point.
-----
___________________________
Herp Conservation Unlimited

If people really learn from their mistakes, I should be like the smartest guy in the world

>>The roads are a very new phenomenon in alterna habitat, the species adapted to an environment that was there long before we came along and blew chunks out hills, filled in sections of arroyo and laid down ribbons of pavement. They are adapted to the natural rock features. The fact that their prey items are able to live on the artificial rock cuts is only a fortunate coincidence for us and nothing more.

Agreed. But are you implying that because their prey items live on the artificial rock cuts that it provides additional habitat for these prey items and thus the alterna?

>>I firmly believe that we will see higher density of alterna in the more natural habitat, but we also will find that the ground is harder for us to cover as effectively which is why we have a bias for where we hunt.

You may believe that but we won't know until a lot more people start exploring that habitat. As I've said before, it has not been my experience.

>>I believe most animals spotted laying in the road were simply crossing and they froze in place as the vehicle approached to avoid detection (which in their natural environment they would have some cover for this to work, even it was just the fact that the ground is not flat and even like a road is).

I agree with this. That is why when I mentioned a specific incident in which I observed differently that I mentioned I had not spotlighted the animal to make sure that the spotlight didn't scare it.

>>In my experience they do not just lay in the middle of an open space, they press up against or get under a feature for cover or they coil up to park it. Almost every animal I have seen on the road is stretched out pointing at a shoulder, like they want to cross at the shortest point.

I would agree with these statements. However, because of the observation previously mentioned, it made me want to 'test' the hypothesis, something apparently I don't know how to do, by viewing other snakes in similar situations without any external stimuli causing them to react or act out of the norm. In many situations, I HAVE seen them remaining on the road. Further, your observations might still be consistent with mine in that they are intent on crossing the road, but might possibly feel the warmth once they are there and decide to stay for a while - all while remaining in the same position they were in when they began their journey with the intent to cross the road.

Agreed. But are you implying that because their prey items live on the artificial rock cuts that it provides additional habitat for these prey items and thus the alterna?

I am thinking they just do not care, if the needs are met why would an animal relocate itself. Any effort to venture out of habitat that provides the basic needs is a biological risk, it is most likely done only to either reproduce or seek out a missing need (food, water, cover, etc) or because of pressure from a predator or competitor for those resources. Except for the nearby presence of the road a rock cut is not very different from a natural rock outcropping. Only there are much much more natural outcroppings in the landscape than there are rock cuts. It also stands to reason that largest continuous stretches of habitat would be natural and not a rock cut, just look at some of the cap rock that goes all the way around some of those hills.

You may believe that but we won't know until a lot more people start exploring that habitat. As I've said before, it has not been my experience.

This is not something that would prove out easy, for one thing the nature of the animal makes it difficult. Remember they can thermoregulate back in the rocks, and their prey also seeks refuge up in the rocks at night as well. For the most part they can just poke around in those cracks getting what they need only coming out from time to time move from one formation of cracks to another. This assumed nature would make it hard to get a sample from anywhere, and the presence of more vegetation and rougher terrain on and around the natural formations will make it that much harder to cover yard by yard. And just think of how many animals you walk within of 5 feet of and never see, now think of how many more it will be with improved cover and more time looking at your feet just trying to walk without falling.

And while I am here I have ask why you find the need in this to pick out all the details on opinions? Simply put hunting for or really finding snakes is three things

3 - knowledge of where when and how to look
2 - effort and time invested
1 - (the most important) is just plain luck

You have to be there and looking in the right direction when the animal makes it appearance, one moment before or after that is a complete miss.

-----
___________________________
Herp Conservation Unlimited

If people really learn from their mistakes, I should be like the smartest guy in the world

>>But Glenn… you need to understand that you didn’t indicate that you were more successful on ROW because you spent time in areas where the road ran through preferred habitat… you indicated that ROW WAS PREFERRED HABITAT. HUGE difference.

Actually (and I spent the time to go through my posts) I never said that ROW was preferred habitat. What I did say repeatedly was that it was my belief that there are higher populations of snakes along and near the ROW for the theories that I postulated. Just because there are higher populations (as I contend) doesn't mean that the habitat is preferred, it simply means that for whatever biological reasons, this habitat can support more biomass than can the undisturbed habitat away from ROW which you might feel is more ideal.

>>You spoke about the productivity of collection on ROW, which for the bulk of herpers entails road cruising (if only even for moving to a new location), cut shining and walking. Don’t try to dodge behind the nuance to avoid a point.

I'm not dodging. I still believe that ROW support a larger population. My references to productivity of ROW were meant to suggest that even with the increased population which I believe exists, the increased numbers are more than likely present on the more 'disturbed' areas around the cuts instead of the spans of hwy between these islands.

>>I included road cruising, spotlighting, and walking in my consideration for the ROW because several references have been made as to the ability of someone on the ROW to cover more ground. Are you indicating that you only walk and walk twice as fast on ROW than you can on private property? I didn’t think so.

Actually, that is what I was indicating. Again, talking about walking a cut, assuming you aren't walking on the top where it might be more 'natural' habitat, you can definitely walk even MORE than twice as fast along the bases of the cuts than on private property (unless you are walking along cuts on a road which is a private road) precicely because of the ROW.

>>Again I guess I'm to dense to understand what you mean by quality vs. quantity. Are you referring to the habitat or the animals?

>>You have repeatedly said that cuts and ROW in general is not 'ideal' habitat.

Again, I checked the posts, what I have said about it being 'ideal' habitat was this: "This is also a good point and leads to the discussion of why ROW are more 'ideal' habitat to increase your chances of encountering something." Please note that the word ideal is in quotes, specifically denoting that I was not saying that in fact it was ideal. Again, what I have said is that I believe there is a greater population along ROW and there would be as a result more likelyhood to encounter them there.

>>You observe in areas where the habitat comes close or up to the ROW and you catch snakes… well what do you know? It’s not that cuts are ideal habitat (relative to the rest of it) it’s that they’re attached and part of ideal habitat.

Semantics - so now you are saying they are ideal habitat if they are part of the ideal habitat where they pass through? So, by your own admission they can be 'ideal' habitat? Who is claiming that they are ideal habitat now?

>>You’ve tested? No… you’ve observed several times, and skipped right to the conclusion.

Why is it that I've not tested? I believe that I have tested and haven't necessarily skipped to the conclusion. I've observed, tested and concluded. The only issue again is how much I have tested and whether it is statistically significant.

>>It does mean that you have no methods because you’ve done no tests. You’ve only made observations.

If that is the case, what would fit your definitions for a test?

>>Spoken like someone who tries to justifies creation by artificially pairing ratsnakes and kingsnakes.

Oh no! You've found me out. Guess I'll have to give up on that plan for a fascist takeover of the U.S. "...and I would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for you meddling kids!"

>>A hypothesis is a guess. The guess is tested without bias. Results either support or deny the hypothesis. Then a conclusion is drawn. Get it? You guess and then draw conclusions… you’re stuck in the hypothesis stage.

No, I'm not even though you want to claim I am. I've tested, MY results are what they are and I've concluded based upon these results. Simply because the results support what my hypothesized guess would be, doesn't necessarily mean that the testing or results are biased.

>>OK… on the side of cracked and perforated limestone. That makes all the difference because the hills in west Texas don’t ordinarily have sides.

You think you are being funny here but I believe that you know my point. The perpendicular cuts are common in west Texas, but if a road cut creates more opportunities for perpendicular cuts and thus exposes more habitat to us, then it does help to increase the chances of us coming into contact with the animals.

>>That’s why I’ve seen them on the surface on private land? Crap Glenn, they eat LIZARDS… lizards that sleep with their asses hanging out of cracks at night… not 20 feet underground.

Are you contending that lizards don't live underground? Crap, I thought they did? Oh and crap, I thought alterna ate rodents too. Where do rodents live in the desert?

>>And the cracks on the sides of the natural hills don’t provide the same opportunity? You HAVE to be kidding me.

Wow, this is getting tiring. Yes they do, but again, you are creating MORE opportunity to expose these cracks to US by making a ROW!

>>I am stunned. “I believe it’s an attractant”. “I don’t believe it’s an attractant”. “When they find it it’s an attractant”. You just flip-flopped on your flip flop.

It's funny you don't want to pay attention to what I say. I'm not flip-flopping. In my VERY FIRST statement about this, I qualified it by saying that I didn't believe that the snakes know the road is there, BUT ONCE THEY RUN ACROSS IT they find it is 'attractive' and a 'magnet' and might want to stay there. They are 'attracted' to it when they find it, but don't remember it's there to return to over and over. If they return to it, it is only in the course of their normal wanderings.

>>>>There might be some bias in the conclusions I draw, but not necessarily in the observations I make.

>>BINGO. *ding ding ding ding ding* Winner winner chicken dinner!

And the problem with that is what? Cannot I make my own conclusions?

>>The entire countryside is LOADED with places for them to thermoregulate. My problem is that you find a snake on the road and assume that it and large numbers of its counterparts concentrate on or near roads because of the huge opportunity the asphalt provides for thermoregulation.

No, that is not my contention and never has been. I've made statements about increased populations along ROW for various reasons, I've made statements about snakes thermoregulating on the asphalt but I have not implied that large numbers of snakes congregate simply for the purpose of thermoregulation. They travel on the road - feel it, like it, and stay to thermoregulate there at that time (PERHAPS). But in no way did I say that the presence of the road results in the increased population level that I'm postulating.

>>>>If the road is the easiest or closest thing for them to thermoregulate on, is the road not a magnet to them for them to complete their thermoregulation?

>>No lol, it’s not.

Why, exactly?

>>I'm out Glenn. It's been fun, but this thing has spiraled into neuron frying territory and I need to save what I have left.

I realize you're being facetious here, but I have actually enjoyed it. Guess if you don't want to discuss it more I'll crawl back into my hovel and continue worshiping the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I think you’re going to have to trust Damon on this one. I believe he has had considerable experience herping extensive habitat on private ranches. I think the rest of us (collectively referred to as the majority of herpers-lol) cannot hope to assess the relative distribution of populations in West Texas because WE CAN’T GET TO THEM; we are not given access. We cannot experience “what’s on the other side of the fence” in Texas and walk to the populations that lie beyond the row like we can in CA and AZ. I would have thought that the removal of the opportunity to hunt R&A on public roads and right of ways would have been followed by a gesture to open up the wildlife management areas, but the only public lands left open for the hunting of “animals” in West Texas remain closed to the hunting of reptiles and amphibians. That’s a little peculiar isn’t it? TPWD can provide for equitable hunting opportunities for everyone and access to R&A populations beyond the ROW on publicly managed lands like wildlife management areas, but they don’t. I hope you are not suggesting that there is a greater R&A population density adjacent to FM 2627 than along the intricate canyon networks throughout the Gap? I would kill a ranger to get back in there (figuratively speaking of course-lol).

Robert

1000% agree with Robert on this, no wildlife management area access = another reason why we can't collectively prove the point. I would LOVE to hear from them the logic of THAT! Game hunting yes, herp hunting, HELL no!
-----
Todd Hughes

>>I think you’re going to have to trust Damon on this one. I believe he has had considerable experience herping extensive habitat on private ranches. >>

I would definitely agree with you there.

>>We cannot experience “what’s on the other side of the fence” in Texas and walk to the populations that lie beyond the row like we can in CA and AZ. >>

Again, while I have access to what I consider to be good habitat and have hunted there beginning probably '93, I would definitely say that Damon has probably put in more time in similar areas.

You are totally deluded if you think the snakes don't "know" the pavement is there, they utilize it, and you know it, stop trying to talk down to people who have this down. You know about thermoregulation, you should know a coachwhips' absolute certainty of finding prey along the road and row, you know these things yet you argue just to argue. If graybands are found from Texas well into Mexico (and they are) (and you know this) how much more (possible) ares that you do not hunt are there? Millions of acres, just on this side of the border. Geez, this is known, what's not known by you is this, many people enjoy herping in the forms of walking terrain they have not explored or re-walking terrain that has the right combinations for what they consider excellent habitat. The reason you are finding 95% of your herps on the cuts is because you spend almost all of your time there, because it is easier FOR YOU. I don't like cities, most towns, clusterflocks of traffic, those things get in the way and cause me mental hardships when herping. I am, out of necessity, a road cruiser because I drive the entire Texas coast for work. When I come out here, I like to spend that time herping, you know, getting out of the car, walking around in habitat, trying to encounter herps and other critters unique to the southwest, but I think you forgot that 90% of the time, graybands are UNDER you, in the rocks, cracks, boulder fields, riprap, all sorts of UNDERGROUND type habitats that you and I will never see without a proctoscope, lol, camera on a cable, probably not even then. But if you get off the cuts and find some other habitat, and spend as much time as you spend on the rows, you might see the little things that turn your attention to the hidden. Sheds, prey abundance, likely looking boulders or even naturally formed "cuts", then you can spend less "energy" and get more out of the effort. Don't misunderstand, I loved walking the cuts, but I can see more things off the cuts then on. What is true in south Texas is true here as well, time, temp, weather, and much more play into it more, IMO, than where. (cuts) The cuts are convenient, period. If saving time is what you are about, eventually, you see your target(s) on the cuts. But if saving peace of mind, exploring, a sense of adventure, finding something new is in your bag, you probably aren't going to find them on the cuts, unless you are a newbie and haven't seen the targets at all. I was that guy, I've seen them on the cuts, where's the big mystery and fun in that anymore? Repeats of others exploits aren't as high in my book as finding my own successes.
But I will enjoy all the animals I see in all the places, just get a better feeling when it is something I expected to be there and it was, proved out by myself. Does this make any sense to you?
I think you probably know why not as many pics are posted, lol, 95% of us hunted the rows and cuts, LOL! It was free, except for gas and lodging, good, clean, safe,quality fun for most. Easy to get to them, make multiple passes, more eyes on an area finds more herps, it IS a hunting bias. Give me all the posters on this forum on a new ranch out there and the weekend, tell me we won't find 20-30 snakes easy. How many alterna? I don't know. Never been done on that scale. Now the big area ranchers are going to get all the Mom and Pop food, gas, and lodging that kept them alive, by default. Don't worry Mom and Pop, we are still workin' this thang!

-----
Todd Hughes

>>You are totally deluded if you think the snakes don't "know" the pavement is there, they utilize it, and you know it, stop trying to talk down to people who have this down. You know about thermoregulation, you should know a coachwhips' absolute certainty of finding prey along the road and row, you know these things yet you argue just to argue.>>

You are wrong about this. Not your argument, but who you are choosing to argue with. I think it is you that wants to argue just to argue. Damon is the one who said that snakes don't find the road appealing. I posited the road as something that snakes would like and utilize once they found it. I totally agree that the road is able to keep snakes on it once they find it. Where I would differ with your opinion is that the snakes 'know' the road is there and go to it specifically because they know it is there. HOW could a snake know the road exists, even after they stumbled upon it once? Do you think they keep coming back to it because it is there? Come on. They are opportunistic and simply roam around. They might stay near it because it goes through their habitat, and enjoy the use of it when they happen upon it each time, but they wouldn't bide their time all day waiting for the chance to go out to the road when darkness fell.

>>If graybands are found from Texas well into Mexico (and they are) (and you know this) how much more (possible) ares that you do not hunt are there? Millions of acres, just on this side of the border. Geez, this is known, what's not known by you is this, many people enjoy herping in the forms of walking terrain they have not explored or re-walking terrain that has the right combinations for what they consider excellent habitat.

Of course this is possible. I know there are millions of square miles of habitat. All of this came about because I was talking about 1) likelyhood of encountering alterna and that I thought chances were better along ROW and 2) that I posited a theory based upon my experiences, which I think can be justified, that it is possible that snake populations are higher along ROW because of several factors, among them possibly greater availability of food and high turnover from losses to increased predation/roadkill.

>>The reason you are finding 95% of your herps on the cuts is because you spend almost all of your time there, because it is easier FOR YOU.

Of course, but that is not the ONLY reason. In other words, I haven't given up on private property, I still put time in there, but because it is not productive for me, I don't feel that it is a better use of my time.

>>When I come out here, I like to spend that time herping, you know, getting out of the car, walking around in habitat, trying to encounter herps and other critters unique to the southwest, but I think you forgot that 90% of the time, graybands are UNDER you, in the rocks, cracks, boulder fields, riprap, all sorts of UNDERGROUND type habitats that you and I will never see without a proctoscope, lol, camera on a cable, probably not even then.

Of course I didn't forget that. That is part of why my arguement is what it is - a road cut exposes the underground habitat. Don't you think that you might be able to see more alterna if you were able to hunt a cross section cut in good habitat away from the ROW? My main contention is that a ROW cut through habitat not only creates habitat, but creates a 'better' environment for humans to come into contact with the alterna.

>>But if you get off the cuts and find some other habitat, and spend as much time as you spend on the rows, you might see the little things that turn your attention to the hidden. Sheds, prey abundance, likely looking boulders or even naturally formed "cuts", then you can spend less "energy" and get more out of the effort.

I agree. I have seen things walking that I would have never seen from the road. It is simply a different experience.

>>I think you probably know why not as many pics are posted, lol, 95% of us hunted the rows and cuts, LOL!

But again, if everything is above board then there should be no problem in posting pics of observed animals, right?

>>Give me all the posters on this forum on a new ranch out there and the weekend, tell me we won't find 20-30 snakes easy. How many alterna? I don't know. Never been done on that scale.

That is exactly my point. As it is conjecture for me to believe that alterna are not more abundant away from ROW (based on experience) then it is also conjecture for you to believe the opposite without having that experience. You are only basing this 20-30 snakes on a belief that it SHOULD be better because it is more natural and SHOULD produce more snakes. Do you see my point?

You totally win Glenn, you are 100% right, I have given up hunting the row, only photograph on cuts, take my license on private property and leave you all the rows, lol!
This I do know, proven or not, there is more habitat out there than those cuts on the rows. There are more alterna out there than on all the rows put together. There are better places to hunt than the rows. Most people will not hunt private property over the cuts or rows, they are too lazy and want instant gratification. Like these pics, for bragging rights. I was there once, now I am not. I like to show the animals, focus on them, not who found them. People are pissed about the laws and I believe most are boycotting until it gets changed. You are in the majority. By the way, where are all your pics from 1993-present? Not for bragging rights, but to show the animals? I don't think you have any on the alterna forum...where's the data?
-----
Todd Hughes

>>This I do know, proven or not, there is more habitat out there than those cuts on the rows. There are more alterna out there than on all the rows put together.

I totally agree with you on that. Have I ever said anything to refute that?

>>There are better places to hunt than the rows. Most people will not hunt private property over the cuts or rows, they are too lazy and want instant gratification. Like these pics, for bragging rights.

Right now I'm just not sure there are better places to increase your chance of seeing alterna. However, I will agree with you that people are too lazy and would simply prefer bragging rights and this is why most focus on ROW. I don't need bragging rights, but believe focusing on ROW will increase my chances of seeing alterna so right now I would prefer to devote the bulk of my attention there, unless something changes with my experience otherwise.

>>I was there once, now I am not. I like to show the animals, focus on them, not who found them.

Unfortunately I guess I haven't evolved to your higher plane of existence yet. I'm still at the Australopithicine stage so you'll have to forgive me. I couldn't care less who found the animals either. I feel good for everyone who is able to find alterna - or any snake for that matter.

>>People are pissed about the laws and I believe most are boycotting until it gets changed. You are in the majority.

I suppose this is true, but from most of the discussion I find it interesting that apparently, even though people spearhead the efforts to change the laws, it appears that people are acting like it doesn't affect them. That they don't care about ROW one way or the other because there is more habitat and better hunting on private property. If this is the case, what do the laws matter to them, or to you for that matter.

>>By the way, where are all your pics from 1993-present? Not for bragging rights, but to show the animals? I don't think you have any on the alterna forum...where's the data?

You're right, you've uncovered another untruth. I don't have any pictures and I've never caught or seen an alterna, so you are right that my opinions and 'data' mean nothing.

I'm not saying you haven't seen them, lol, this is gonna sound funny, but everyone here are your peers, you are one of each of ours. You have observations, based on other peoples' observations. Yes? One day you woke up and decided, I'm gonna look at these road cuts tonight (where did you get the info on when, where, what conditions might be favorable?) and find me a snake I have never heard about. No, you garnered your data (published) asked around from knowledgeable sources (first hand) and gathered a formula that had worked for others so it would get you what you wanted. Hey, cool, so did I. I took every posted sighting off the page, crunched the numbers and came up with the average time, place, and prayed for approaching weather. I ended up placing me and my buddy smack down on 90 at Langtry and whaddya know, bang, 4 alterna in 24 hours. Now comes the hard part, finding them where everybody else doesn't, which now consists of private land that requires a hunting license.
I am no guru, but I am a herper, what works in south Texas works in west Texas, find the habitat, find the mating season, pray for favorable conditions and get your butt out there and look. I used the cuts to cut my teeth on, got a look at a slice through favorable habitat. I don't think snakes always stay in one place even if they have all they need. sometimes those places change, forcing a snake(s) to move to other territory, but I think many times many of them wander all over the damn place. Problem is, we can't see 99% of these wanderings. What happens when a wandering snake is wandering but all of the sudden the habitat splits wide open and disappears? I think they keep going. How many large, adult alterna have you found on the cuts? I say most found are juvies, nearly all, comparatively. Small snakes disperse from the hatching sites, they are great hatching sites but maybe not great feeding sites. So they move. When they come across a cut, I don't think they find an abundant source of food, shelter, or whatever else they need at that life stage, they just try and keep searching for whatever it is they are looking for. I don't think you find more snakes there because it is ideal habitat. I think many get "jammed" there for a time trying to cross the cuts, think about it, how long does it take a new born alterna, or a juvenile, or an adult, or an old adult to cross from the top of one cut, down it, across the road, up the other side, to the top and over? I see hunting bias all over this, we have learned, (some of us) how to waylay individuals during certain times at certain places that are custom made for this.
How many alterna do you find in late fall? If the cuts are prime, why aren't there tons of snakes found during the last foraging events??? Reverse that, Early spring? Why not then? hell, I see snakes basking in winter down here, you should be able to see portions of them poking out therming in winter, why not? Because most of us don't normally look for them then, most of us are lazy. before I went on my first alterna trip, I did a scouting of the general area, never having been there before, and guess what I found? A shed poking out of a crack in a cut and more importantly to me, an indigo. If a damn indigo (semi tropical)can be found in Del Rio in February.....gets one to thinking around the corners, well it did me anyways.
Have fun, get a license or not, be legal, take pics to post and brag about so we can peer review your data, lol!
Glenn, my bottom line here, my totally random ideas have them traveling across sub prime habitat (the cuts) in order to find that which they need. (ideal shelter, food, and mates) Just an idea (theory) for which I have no data for, yet, lol!

-----
Todd Hughes

Your impression is a collecting bias. That's it.

Yes, but cannot that collecting bias lend some weight to my argument? Do you have experience which tells you something different than what I have said? Have you observed more animals on ROW or away from ROW? I believe I already know the answer to this.

Worst excuse ever.... "well it is the way I have always done it so nothing else must work or exist". This tells me that you would accept data from an experiment without a control set to balance it against. Like you mix up the works of faith and science.
-----
___________________________
Herp Conservation Unlimited

If people really learn from their mistakes, I should be like the smartest guy in the world

>>>>Yes, but cannot that collecting bias lend some weight to my argument? Do you have experience which tells you something different than what I have said? Have you observed more animals on ROW or away from ROW? I believe I already know the answer to this.

>>Worst excuse ever.... "well it is the way I have always done it so nothing else must work or exist". This tells me that you would accept data from an experiment without a control set to balance it against. Like you mix up the works of faith and science.

You apparently don't listen to what I'm saying. It has nothing to do with 'the way I have always done it.' I am utilizing data from my own experiences from both sides of the argument, is that not clear to you. I HAVE sought alterna in both situations and still do. Even with my lack of success in one of these methods, I continue to seek away from ROW. Yet, my experience will bias the method I would choose to employ to observe alterna in the future. If my experience told me that I would be able to observe less alterna away from the right of way than near it and observing alterna is my goal, WHY would I want to spend the bulk of my time on what I considered to be a losing method simply because I THOUGHT the habitat looked more ideal to ME and not necessarily the snake?

For something new to add to the scientific knowledge??? maybe??? Why do you hunt alterna from the row?
-----
Todd Hughes

and I would suggest you get that hunting license and go back to your secondary hunting method, lol, you're gonna find more alterna there lol!
-----
Todd Hughes

Bravo Robert!! Exactly the scenario this week! i go to west Texas, have a cabin ready for hunting on private property, get rained out of the area, stay elsewhere and road cruise to some great cuts on the row and get pics, saved a ton of money with no wasted trip, got no animals but saved the trip by getting the pics, all legally and license was on hand for the opportunity to hunt. Geez, who is this hypothetical guy? I don't like the ROW thing either, but this is the way to legally deal with the hand we've been given. You really don't hunt on property you have access to? Why the hell not???
-----
Todd Hughes

I will fight that one to the end, I buy a license to hunt legally, and don't need one to photograph live herps on the row or pick up dead ones either. That is what I do. If you just want to photograph, do that, don't get the license, but don't cry when they see you pose or restrain that snake and you get a double whammy, that is all they are saying. Don't touch or hinder, no license needed. Period.
-----
Todd Hughes

My point that was not addressed at all in the thread was that if you are out to take a picture. And your subject is laying next to an old dirty diaper and you want to move it or chase it a few feet away for a more natural looking photo. Then yes you will need a license to interact with that animal, even though you had no intention of collecting it.

Same would be true if the animal was on the move and you got in front of it to make it stop for a moment to get the photo.... any interaction at all is then more or less like a fisherman doing catch and release and they need a license for that.
-----
___________________________
Herp Conservation Unlimited

If people really learn from their mistakes, I should be like the smartest guy in the world

Sec. 1.101. DEFINITIONS. In this code:

(1) "Hunt" means capture, trap, take, or kill, or an attempt to capture, trap, take, or kill.

(2) "Catch" means take or kill and includes an attempt to take or kill.

(3) "Sell" means to transfer the ownership or the right of possession of an item to a person for consideration and includes a barter and an even exchange.

(4) "Wild," when used in reference to an animal, means a species, including each individual of a species, that normally lives in a state of nature and is not ordinarily domesticated. This definition does not include exotic livestock defined by Section 161.001(a)(4), Agriculture Code.

(5) "Take," except as otherwise provided by this code, means collect, hook, hunt, net, shoot, or snare, by any means or device, and includes an attempt to take or to pursue in order to take.

Lance, I don't know whether your examples constitute hunting activities as defined by this section, but no one should be confused or uncertain about photography parameters at this time (you guys have had two LONG years under this law). Has TPWD issued any guidelines, or responded to individuals in order to clarify what photography activities are permitted without a license?

Robert

I was trying to get clarification on this very issue and was told by the then (possibly still) Captain Warden in Midland that because there was no timeframe stipulated for capture that even the "possession" that occured during the brief moment required to move an animal off the roadway could potentially be considered hunting under Texas Parks and Wildlife code. He said he personally would not cite for it, but that citations could be issued if a warden was cross enough.

Well, it would appear that making any attempt to actually sustain the roadside wildlife sanctuary could result in a ticket, and this is the contradiction that occurs when the fanaticism of a few trumps the sound judgment and reasoning of the many. I agree, “capture” is the most troublesome term in that section, but I also have to believe that you can move a terrestrial vertebrate off the road with a stick without compromising yourself under that section. Using tongs (or any other traditional instrument associated with capture-possession) to move it off the road could get you in trouble.

Robert

§ 1.101. DEFINITIONS. In this code:
(1) "Hunt" means capture, trap, take, or kill, or an
attempt to capture, trap, take, or kill.
(2) "Catch" means take or kill and includes an attempt
to take or kill.
(5) "Take," except as otherwise provided by this code,
means collect, hook, hunt, net, shoot, or snare, by any means or
device, and includes an attempt to take or to pursue in order to
take.

According to the above, it would not be illegal to wave your hand in front of a snake, stomp your feet, or touch with your hand or poke with a stick to make it crawl to a better spot.
True those actions could be confusing to a warden but technically it's not take until you actually pick it up, hook it or pin it and it's not attempt to take unless you are attempting the same.

But it is untested in the real world...
-----
___________________________
Herp Conservation Unlimited

If people really learn from their mistakes, I should be like the smartest guy in the world

can you touch them in the back?

L8r

can you touch them in the back?

L8r

OK, I had to go back up a post to put this in context... out of context it could run off in an a whole other direction.
-----
___________________________
Herp Conservation Unlimited

If people really learn from their mistakes, I should be like the smartest guy in the world

LOL, get your mind out of the gutter Lance......

Its actually a funny skit that the Jerky Boyz do if you have heard of them?

L8r

LOL, if it's not an atrox. "He said I could touch it in the back and now my hand is swelling!"

>>My point that was not addressed at all in the thread was that if you are out to take a picture. And your subject is laying next to an old dirty diaper and you want to move it or chase it a few feet away for a more natural looking photo. Then yes you will need a license to interact with that animal, even though you had no intention of collecting it.

>>Same would be true if the animal was on the move and you got in front of it to make it stop for a moment to get the photo.... any interaction at all is then more or less like a fisherman doing catch and release and they need a license for that.

I think it has been addressed better in some of the subsequent posts that as long as you don't touch it you are ok. However, your analogy of being similar to a catch and release fisherman is flawed. Fishermen require a license whether they release or not. Similarly, you would need a license to interact with an animal - provided you were interacting on private property. Were you 'interacting' on the ROW you are performing an illegal act whether you are intending to catch and release or not.

I think it has been addressed better in some of the subsequent posts that as long as you don't touch it you are ok. However, your analogy of being similar to a catch and release fisherman is flawed. Fishermen require a license whether they release or not. Similarly, you would need a license to interact with an animal - provided you were interacting on private property. Were you 'interacting' on the ROW you are performing an illegal act whether you are intending to catch and release or not.

Not really, that is just fishing in the "wrong" place now...
-----
___________________________
Herp Conservation Unlimited

If people really learn from their mistakes, I should be like the smartest guy in the world

>>Not really, that is just fishing in the "wrong" place now...

Isn't fishing in the 'wrong' place an illegal act?

You can keep picking at it, but it will not make it right...
-----
___________________________
Herp Conservation Unlimited

If people really learn from their mistakes, I should be like the smartest guy in the world

Maybe I don't understand what your point is. Ignorance of the law is not a defense. ROW is a 'non-hunting' area. What point exactly are you trying to make?

My point was not about the ROW, I was making a broader point of when it would be a good idea to have a hunting license at all. The ROW is a moot point here because it is illegal to interact with an animal on it that is regulated by a hunting license. The exclusion would be invertebrates (which I was not discussing either).

Remember our roadside sanctuaries and all...
-----
___________________________
Herp Conservation Unlimited

If people really learn from their mistakes, I should be like the smartest guy in the world

aspidites, who are you? What's your story?
-----
Todd Hughes

Just a hobbyist/observer/photographer/collector who apparently doesn't have enough experience/residency to posses an opinion one way or the other.

every one is entitled to their opinion, you have some, they are yours, good. I use the moniker antelope, because it is fun for me and has a personal meaning, but I sign all my posts with my name. Almost every one of the posters on this thread use their real names, so there is no mystery behind who is saying what. I just don't get the cloak and dagger routine from you, although most already know who you are. The questions you ask sound like you are fishing for a way around the law to me. I hate this crap of a law as much as anyone but there's a few facts that were clearly spelled out. IF you are hunting, or attempting to hunt, you need a license, and legal access to some private property. IF you're just photographing, you don't need one, you know this. All of us have had access to private property, but to say there are more animals on the rows with rock cuts bears no science. And while their is not enough evidence yet, I am certain by shear acreage that there are many better places to hunt than the rows, not easier, better. Quality in the whole experience makes a lot of difference to me, but if I were going to target alterna now, it certainly wouldn't be on the rows. And if I knew this was the way it was going to go down, you can bet your arse I would have found a spot on private property to go to year after year and pound away at finding pops there. for cryin' out loud, one only has to look out at the expanses while driving during the day to see there is way more habitat than on the rows, some better some not, but way more. By that assessment alone, there are too many to count better habitats not found on the rows. Are you asleep while someone else drives during the day?
-----
Todd Hughes

It is far cheaper and easier to put a new road in the less than prime alterna habitat to begin with. To me this means that the vast majority of habitat is at the very least difficult to not only gain access to, but to cover as effective as a paved surface in the marginal habitat the ROW has to offer. In a sense the ROW is liked because of the fact that it was open to everyone and was easy to cover ground and that seemed to make up for the fact that it is the less prime habitat begin with. The road cuts were described very well to me as an "artificial reef" in a sense and that is why animals tend to cluster there. Also, I have heard a debate about the "road gene" where a new road tends to have a higher rate of animals on it at first and then over time that just declines. To me that suggest that the road increases mortality rates and the habitat along side it will decline over time and stay that way, so the road itself is driving populations down not up (captain obvious on that one).

And none of this is worth much debate here anyway, the real deal should be hammering out a plan to get legal access to the ROW again for herping. If you do not like the law, then support an effort to fix it.
-----
___________________________
Herp Conservation Unlimited

If people really learn from their mistakes, I should be like the smartest guy in the world

>>It is far cheaper and easier to put a new road in the less than prime alterna habitat to begin with. To me this means that the vast majority of habitat is at the very least difficult to not only gain access to, but to cover as effective as a paved surface in the marginal habitat the ROW has to offer. In a sense the ROW is liked because of the fact that it was open to everyone and was easy to cover ground and that seemed to make up for the fact that it is the less prime habitat begin with.

I would agree with all of these statements. While I do think that there are some areas of ROW which do exist in prime habitat, for the most part they were put in sub-prime areas which were made 'more' prime by the fact that habitat which was a little better was created from habitat that was crappy.

>>The road cuts were described very well to me as an "artificial reef" in a sense and that is why animals tend to cluster there. Also, I have heard a debate about the "road gene" where a new road tends to have a higher rate of animals on it at first and then over time that just declines. To me that suggest that the road increases mortality rates and the habitat along side it will decline over time and stay that way, so the road itself is driving populations down not up (captain obvious on that one).

I really like the characterization of cuts as an artificial reef, though I wouldn't necessarily agree with the 'road gene' theory. While I do believe that mortality rates will increase, I tend to believe that this can be quickly replenished by the surrounding populations rather than decrease substantially over time.

>>And none of this is worth much debate here anyway, the real deal should be hammering out a plan to get legal access to the ROW again for herping. If you do not like the law, then support an effort to fix it.

I fully agree with that. I'm not sure there is anyone who likes this law.

>>every one is entitled to their opinion, you have some, they are yours, good. I use the moniker antelope, because it is fun for me and has a personal meaning, but I sign all my posts with my name. Almost every one of the posters on this thread use their real names, so there is no mystery behind who is saying what. I just don't get the cloak and dagger routine from you, although most already know who you are. The questions you ask sound like you are fishing for a way around the law to me.

There is no cloak and dagger - I don't know how you can get this impression. Most people who know me know that I could give a flying Javelina's a** what anyone thinks of me or my opinion - mostly because I'm content enough in my opinion. What I don't understand is why someone who perhaps posts a dissenting opinion is excoriated.

>>I hate this crap of a law as much as anyone but there's a few facts that were clearly spelled out. IF you are hunting, or attempting to hunt, you need a license, and legal access to some private property. IF you're just photographing, you don't need one, you know this.>>

Yes, I know this and wanted to begin a discussion of it. Because I know that there are probably those who 'observe' but they still purchase a hunting license - something which I consider to be entirely unnecessary if everything is above board and they are truly observing.

>>All of us have had access to private property, but to say there are more animals on the rows with rock cuts bears no science. And while their is not enough evidence yet, I am certain by shear acreage that there are many better places to hunt than the rows, not easier, better.

Science is primarily based upon observations of results from experiences. Therefore, while I can acknowledge that there is a bias, not to mention a huge difference in time spent exploring one type of habitat over another, my observations and experiences certainly can add scientifically to an asumption such as this.

>>Quality in the whole experience makes a lot of difference to me, but if I were going to target alterna now, it certainly wouldn't be on the rows. And if I knew this was the way it was going to go down, you can bet your arse I would have found a spot on private property to go to year after year and pound away at finding pops there. for cryin' out loud, one only has to look out at the expanses while driving during the day to see there is way more habitat than on the rows, some better some not, but way more. By that assessment alone, there are too many to count better habitats not found on the rows. Are you asleep while someone else drives during the day?

Again, it is all in your interpretation of what better habitat is. You can find an area that you feel looks like the best habitat, spend many hours there and not come up with an alterna. Does that mean that you simply didn't have any luck, or would you begin to change your opinion about what 'good' habitat is? Believe me, I've spent a lot of time in what I considered to be 'good' habitat only to see nothing.

define "a lot of time".
-----
Todd Hughes

>>define "a lot of time".

I suppose I would say weeks, collectively.

two? fifty-two? Not a good explanation.
-----
Todd Hughes