I came accross the following on another website. Does anyone know anything about it?
(I am moving this over to the law forum so that people won't miss this. written by John Gunn)
Several years ago, a now infamous az legislator who was interested in herps... actually proposed decriminalizing them. I produced this white paper to assist him, but alas by then he was in full retreat due to media harrassment...pity we still dont let facts interfere with public policy!
MANAGEMENT OF THE GILA MONSTER AND BEADED LIZARD IN ARIZONA
In 1950 and 1952, The Arizona Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) was successfully persuaded that the gila monster (Heloderma suspectum) and the horned lizards (Phyrnosoma spp.) were threatened with extirpation due to over-collection. The commission then voted to fully protect them. It was a prudent decision given the information available at the time. With that commission action, another piece of our freedom was eroded. Subsequently, the commission did drop the prohibition on horned lizards. No one would articulate an alternative approach to the management of the genus Heloderma until now, some 42 years later.
The state had no population data when the prohibition was initiated, it now has much more data to justify undoing this error. With the information now available on this secretive species. It is a logical decision for the AGFC to allow for the consumptive use of this resource.
Much of the following narrative is equally applicable to the gila monsters close relative; the beaded lizard (Heloderma horridum). This organism is of even greater distribution ranging widely through western Mexico, and Northern Central America. It enjoys a richer thorn scrub habitat than does the gila monster and is encountered much more frequently. The distribution of the beaded lizard stops at the extreme northern edge of the Mexican thorn scrub, approximately 200 miles South of the Arizona border. If there were any risk of beaded lizards being able to survive in the much more arid Arizona deserts, they would undoubtedly already be here. The State of Arizona has no justifiable interest in prohibiting the possession of beaded lizards. When discussing these two species together, I will refer to them as helodermatids.
The fundamental tenet of modern wildlife management (conservation biology) is that there is produced a sustainable yield of individuals from the populations of various organisms. The more widespread a particular organism is, the more likely a regulated "take" will have no significant negative impact upon populations of that species. This is the logic that justifies the take of a wide spectrum of wildlife ranging from pronghorns to prairie falcons. Fully protected wildlife should be those species that are exposed and vulnerable to man, they should occupy a narrow ecological niche, and be restricted to limited and specific habitat types. The gila monster ranges widely in Arizona, from Old Mexico to Utah, from Yuma to Clifton, and from 500' to 5000' in elevation. It does not fit any of the criteria that would justify full protection status.
The Gila Monster occupies a wide variety of habitat types. It is able to occupy significantly degraded habitats such‚ as State Trust Lands that are typically severely overgrazed ranges. It is commonly found on mining sites. Indeed, as long as there remains a burrowing rodent community, the gila monster is one of the last desert dwellers to be lost from an area. If suitable cover (boulders or brush) is left intact in an area so that Gambels quail and desert cottontails may persist, the gila monsters will thrive. This minimum level of habitat quality, combined with its secretive nature, explains why the gila monster is able to persist in such limited relict areas with heavy human presence such as the Phoenix Mtn. Preserves, Tucson Mountain Park, and brushy areas along the various canal right of ways.
The Arizona Game and Fish Commission protected the gila monster because they were convinced in 1952 that the species was in jeopardy for its continued existence. Today, biologists know this is not the case. Two quality gila monster studies (2,3) have been conducted in the two major desert ecosystems this species inhabits. These studies indicate minimum population densities of ~ 20 to 32 individuals per square mile. These two studies also revealed that the gila monster spends over 98% of its year underground. Even during its short spring activity period, the gila monster was found to remain underground some 96% of the time. Because of this secretive behavior, it can thrive in close proximity to man. This behavior is the reason that it is inconceivable that this species would be vulnerable to over harvest.
It is the creatures secretive nature that lead those earlier observers to believe they were very rare, probably endangered, and in need of complete protection back in 1952. In many extensive blocks of prime habitat such as Indian reservations, most parks, National Wildlife
Refuges, etc., this species would remain fully protected without the state prohibition.
Given this information, the Arizona Game and Fish Commission as trustee of wildlife for the public, has a duty to direct the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), to make this resource available to the public on a sustained yield basis (see attachment A).
The state acknowledges and affirms the unimportance of individual helodermatids by its practice of discouraging the release of them even when their locality origins are known. Contrast this with their procedures for dealing with a releasable bald eagle.
There are subgroups likely to advocate the continued prohibition. They are conservation law enforcement officers, and out of state reptile breeders. Their opposition is predictable due to the fact that the current prohibition benefits them directly. It provides one; high profile arrests, and the other; high sales prices. The law enforcement group will resist change due to the loss of relatively abundant and easy "high profile" arrests. It might also be difficult for some officers to acknowledge that they have been pursuing people who have not been impacting this resource negatively after all. The other group likely to resist the decriminalization of helodermatids are the current breeders who enjoy a current situation of high demand and low supply. Some non-game biologists may also resist a change in the law. Some of these biologists have had little professional or academic exposure to wildlife management. They often orient towards a preservationist philosophy. Some do not agree that the public has a right to utilize wildlife and other natural resources. They rarely are experienced with the constraints involved with enforcing wildlife laws and often feel they have accomplished a real benefit for a species merely when a law has been enacted.
Government, like most human institutions, is reluctant to admit an error. Rather than learn, adjust, and move on, they will normally "circle the wagons", and dig in for a fight. Unable to defend the current prohibition based on the actual status and biology of helodermatids, one can expect the prohibitionists to attempt to use the "this will open the door for commercial abuse..." argument to maintain the status quo. I would counter them with the fact that many other species characterized by high demand/limited supply/ and high commercial value such as bighorn sheep, falcons, various snakes, etc. are available to the consuming public. Their regulated take is not facilitating excessive unlawful take nor unlawful commercial activities. Indeed helodermatids are currently being bred and sold elsewhere. It is ironic as well as unfair that residents of this state, the state with the largest U.S. populations of gila monsters, cannot possess one. Yet helodermatids are available to a resident of New York!
Wildlife law enforcement resources are limited, therefore if significantly negative impacts to populations cannot be documented or logically derived, we probably don't have a real problem to solve! It is pointless to ponder on "what if scenarios" and then actually dedicate those limited resources to chase after them. It is crucial in order to maintain the publics respect for the body of wildlife law, that each particular law have purpose and justification. The prohibition regarding the take and possession of helodermatids has neither.
Other rationale for allowing for the take of gila monsters includes:
¥ Federal Lands; A significant portion of Arizonas gila monsters inhabit federal lands. Wildlife has long been considered a product of the land. The land owners, in this case U.S. citizens, are prevented any reasonable access to utilize resources produced on their land.
¥ Revenue generation; Gila monsters are an untapped revenue source for the state via permit/tag sales. Currently gila monsters are collected and the AGFD is receiving no revenue as a result. Attachment A indicates a potential revenue well in excess of $2,000,000.
¥ Prohibition against helodermatids discriminates against Arizona residents; while an Ohio resident may possess one lawfully obtained, we cannot. What (who's) interest does Arizona protect by prohibiting a person in Flagstaff from
possessing and studying a beaded lizard born in Georgia?
¥ Tribal interference; the state is currently infringing on Arizona Indian reservations rights to sell permits to take and possess gila monsters to non-tribal Arizona residents.
¥ Data collection; trappers and other consumptive wildlife users historically have provided data to the AGFD. Reptile collectors can do similarly.
¥ Standardized management; the state should strive to develop coherent rationale with which to manage groups of organisms similarly. Other reptiles such as coral snakes, and rosy boas are much more limited in their Arizona distributions than gila monsters, and have equal levels of demand, yet the state does not prohibit their possession.
¥ Decriminalization will facilitate captive breeding; These long lived animals breed well in captivity. Given the difficulty in locating wild ones, most people desiring them will purchase them. Thus over time, the collection of wild animals will decrease. Examples where this has occurred include the tricolored king snakes and rosy boas.
¥ Fairness; people who work for, or have connections with AGFD, the universities, zoos, etc. can readily obtain gila monsters and occasionally beaded lizards, to "maintain" indefinitely. Often these are the same animals seized from the average citizen.
NEEDS
¥ Place the genus Heloderma in group "C" of commission order 43. This would provide for a limit of 2 per annum. Consider continuing the prohibition against killing them.
¥ Provide non releasable helodermatids for adoption as is currently done with tortoises. The AGFD should consider auctioning these as a fund raiser.
¥ Suggest departmental personnel maintain records of roadkills.
¥ Drop prohibition on the import/export of the genus.
¥ Conduct a 5 year review of the disposition of the helodermatids that have come in to the AGFD custody.
CONCLUSIONS
¥ There exists a public demand for helodermatids. This demand should be accommodated using the same "sustained yield" rationale as justifies other consumptive uses of wildlife.
¥ None of the research completed indicates a need to support the continuing prohibition of helodermatids. During this period of prohibition, considerable numbers of individuals have been apprehended, some even jailed for the possession of these reptiles. Many more helodermatids were killed by ignorant people compelled to "protect someones child from being bit". Most of these folks were never caught. Safely sequestered in their burrows, the helodermatids rode out this past 42 years much as they have successfully done for the last several hundred thousand years. For them, the prohibition has mattered not one bit.
¥ There is no evidence that the current management strategy has had any beneficial effect whatsoever for this genus.
¥ The wildlife management organs of state government have an interest and duty to protect populations of organisms.
¥ The state has an obligation to provide wildlife resources to the citizens (owners) in a regulated manner and on a sustained yield basis.
¥ The state has no right to infringe on an individuals right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by practicing discriminatory practices with regards to wildlife use.
¥ There exists the opportunity to broaden our freedom of choice in how we as citizens participate in our natural world.
SUGGESTED READING
1) The Gila Monster and its allies, by Charles Bogart and Martin Del Campo 1956. American Museum of Natural history Bulletin # 109. .
2) The Ecology of the Gila Monster in Southwest Utah, by Dan Beck 1990, in Journal of Herpetology (24):54-68.
3) Movement, Behavior, and Body temperature of the Gila Monster in Queen Creek Arizona, by Lauren Porzer 1981, MS Thesis, ASU, Tempe.
ATTACHMENT
A) Population and Productivity estimate for Arizona Gila Monsters.
ARIZONA GILA MONSTER POPULATION/PRODUCTIVITY ESTIMATE
A) Gila monsters occupy approximately 1/3rd of Arizonas ~ 2750 Townships (ea. township = 36 sq. miles).
B) Of the approximately 900 Townships they inhabit, Banded Gila monsters inhabit 300, Reticulated Gila Monsters inhabit 600.
C) To get my numbers very conservative, I will assume 50% of each Township is unsuitable habitat for healthy population density and structure.
D) Research indicates these creatures attain densities of 20 to 32 per square mile. This again is very conservative value as it assumes all the individuals were accounted for. I will use a mean of 20 per square mile for my subsequent calculations.
E) Of the 300 Townships inhabited by banded gila monsters, and assuming they only occupy half the area of each Township, there are 5,400 square miles of habitat. This area will then support 108,000 individuals. Of the 108,000, 54,000 are females. Of the 54,000 I will assume 50% are mature,= 27,000. Literature indicates clutch sizes ranging from 5 - 12. I will calculate conservatively using a minimum clutch size of 5 eggs. These 27,000 females will produce 5 eggs each per annum = 135,000 ova. I will assume a 50% hatch for a 67,500 annual production. If permits were available for 10% of this population and harvest success reached 30%, this would produce 17,550 permits and 5,265 individuals collected. It is highly unlikely that an army of collectors could locate a fraction of this number. This then would contra-indicate the need to utilize a permit system.
F) Of the 600 Townships inhabited by reticulated gila monsters, and assuming they only occupy half the area of each Township, there are 10,800 square miles of habitat. This area would then support 216,000 individuals. Of the 216,000, 108,000 are females. Of the 108,000, I will assume 50% are mature, = 54,000. These 54,000 produce 5 eggs each per annum = 270,000 ova. Assume 50% hatch for a 135,000 annual production. If permits were available for 10% of this population and harvest success reached 30%, this would produce 35,100 permits and 10,530 individuals collected. It is highly unlikely that an army of collectors could locate a fraction of this number. This then would contra-indicate the need to utilize a permit system.
As nearly half the gila monsters are located on lands whose current status would preclude their take regardless of the state law, I halved the above numbers to reflect this to derive a dollar value. Arizona could justify issuing 26,325 special tags per annum. At $100/tag, this could potentially raise over two and a half million dollars per annum, provided there was that much demand.
