Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I have a problem with blanket state regulations which restrict the possession and sale of native species. As a hobbyist with aspirations of future breeding projects, I don't think it makes sense to lump people like me in with "commercial collectors" who wipe an area clean of individuals of a given species.

How's about this: Implement a "no resale" law. What I mean by this phrase is:

1. Relax possession limits (be they WC or CB).
2. Prohibit the sale of any WC herp.*
3. Allow the captive breeding of, and sale of the offspring of, native herps.
4. Require PIT tags for all CB herps sold for verification purposes.

Basically, what this would mean is that there is a financial incentive to BREED specimens rather than COLLECT them. For example, for personal use, I could collect 100 specimens, though I see very little need for such measures. Or, I could collect 3 males and 6 females of a species, breed them, and sell any and all offspring, retaining the original WC individuals.

Breeders could continue to collect WC specimens to supplement bloodlines, but they'd have to personally do so, which means a small boost for the local economy in the desired locales (via lodging and meals, vs. a local commercial collector). Not being able to legally sell the WC specimens whatsoever would seem to me to reduce the collecting pressure overall.

*I understand that the prohibition of sale of WC individuals would potentially hamper the ability to swap/purchase specimens to vary bloodlines, and limit acquisitions by new breeders to first-generation offspring vs. original specimens (unless they go out and collect their own).

This is merely a small proposal, by no means well-thought-out, but I present it for discussion.
-----
Chris McMartin
www.mcmartinville.com
I'm Not a Herpetologist, but I Play One on the Internet

Chris,

First, you need to understand that wildlife laws in the United States are built on the foundation of removing any economic value from wildlife. This started, in part, because of the slaughter of the Bison herds on the plains for their valuable hides and tongues. The animals were shot with guns in large numbers, the hides removed, and the rest of the carcass was left out in the sun to rot (if you’ve seen the movie Dances With Wolves, you’ve got a pretty good idea of what occurred). The result the Bison herds collapsed almost to the point of extinction. A similar story can be told about the Great Egret that was shot by the millions for a half dozen breeding feathers on the backs of male birds. The half dozen or so feathers were removed from the dead birds, sold to hat makers, and the rest of the bird was left to rot. This kind of commercial hunting for specific wildlife products was seen as a huge waste of what was then considered a public resource to be used by everyone, so game laws were enacted to eliminate this kind of wholesale slaughter of animals for commercial purposes. However, 100 years ago, many people still relied on hunting to feed their families, and many others liked to hunt for sport, so we as a society decided that it was okay to hunt for food and sport, but not ok to wipe out whole species just so a few people could make a quick buck by killing off the wildlife that belonged to everyone. In other words, if you make it illegal to sell bear parts, there is no ‘legal’ economic value to that bear, so the only hunting of bear will be for food or sport. The unfortunate reality is that there is a growing “black-market” in bear parts, so bears are hunted commercially for just their gallbladders that are worth many hundreds of dollars each, and there are many examples of other species being poached for economic gain as well. However, from an enforcement perspective, it is illegal to sell wildlife in part or in whole (with out a special license to do so) to protect wildlife from the kind of commercial exploitation we experienced with the Bison, Great Egret and many other species, so if you catch a person selling wildlife, they get busted.

What I find interesting about the black-market trade in poached wildlife, or parts there of, from the United States is where it is headed. It is well known that China is a huge market for animal parts, and bear gallbladders in particular, are imported to China by the crate-load from the US every year. Why does China need so many bear gallbladders from the US? Because almost all of China’s bear populations have been driven to extinction because of commercial exploitation of wildlife. As many on this forum often point out, China is a huge importer of reptiles for commercial trade. In China people eat snakes commonly, and they are considered an aphrodisiac. Some day someone is going to have to explain to me how eating a long slender snake makes a person manlier, but I digress. History has taught us in the US that commercial trade in wildlife is a very tricky business that must be handled very carefully to prevent human greed from whipping out entire species. Of course the down side to the elimination of the value of wildlife comes back to bite us in the ‘end’ every time an Endangered Species interferes with someone’s economic development of their land that the Endangered Species has used as its habitat for thousands of years. Inevitably, some old farmer, who wants to turn his pastures into condominiums to make millions more than he could by continuing to graze cows, stands up at a public meeting to discuss the options and asks, “what good is this (snake, lizard or frog) to anybody any way? I’m trying to build something here that will produce jobs and homes for people!” In other words, since wildlife has no commercial value to anyone, let’s put something there, like condos, that does have some value to people. The needs of worthless wildlife are irrelevant. Our system of protecting wildlife in this country may not be perfect, but at least we still have bears, Bison, egrets, snakes etc. left to protect. In the face of commercial exploitation, where wildlife has value, China sure hasn’t been able to protect more than remnant populations of Sun bears and Panda. I wonder why?

Beyond the theoretical reasons for limiting commercial use of wildlife, there are some practical ones. I am sure there are plenty of folks who will want to comment on the fiasco out in California where the Department of Fish and Game legalized captive breeding of a few species of native snake for commercial purposes. The basic problem there was one of differentiating between wild collected stock and captively produced stock. In California the regulations effectively set a maximum size limit for animals that could be sold by the people permitted to breed and sell native snakes. The idea was that you could breed the animals and sell them right away, so you would be selling baby snakes not adults. That way someone could not collect a bunch of wild animals and sell them as captively produced. Of course, this would not stop the guy who collects juvenile snakes and sells them, but it was an attempt. As you can guess, the real problem for the people producing captive stock came when the animals did not sell as fast as they could breed them, so the breeders maintained the animals for a while, and as all young healthy animals do, they soon out grew the size restriction. The breeders were now in possession of over sized captive stock they could not sell, they could not release because DF&G did not want to risk introducing exotic diseases into wild populations (which is a very real problem! e.g. Cal desert tortoises), and the breeders could not possess the animals in those numbers because the snakes now being over sized, were no longer covered by their breeding permit. In other words, it was a real “Catch 22” scenario, and some of the breeders decided to “push the envelope” instead of work to fix the problem, and things got ugly! I still don’t understand why this perfectly predictable problem was not dealt with initially, but it wasn’t, and after a few rather well publicized criminal proceedings, the experimental program was eliminated.

This illustrates the fundamental problem with law enforcement, how do you practically enforce the law, or put another way, how can you tell the difference between the guy who collects 10 snakes over ten years and keeps them all as pets vs. the guy who collects 10 snakes on a single trip, sells them illegally and goes out and collects 10 more? Similarly, how do you tell the difference between the guy who’s successfully hatched 12 eggs that the snake he legally collected six months ago laid shortly after he collected her and the guy who went out and collected 12 baby snakes from the wild? Functionally, you can’t. Yes, you could ask the person with the snakes where he got them, but the only thing that would do is penalize the honest people and let the scum bag poachers get off because they always lie to them selves as well as to everyone around them. The example I have used before is the no hunting in National Parks law. You cannot hunt in a National Park, so therefore you have no reason to have a gun in a National Park (yes, the NRA might have a few reasons, but possession of a firearm in a National Park is still against Federal Law). That way when a Park Ranger sees some guy dressed in camo caring a rifle in a National Park, the Ranger does not have to wait to see the guy shoot an Elk to arrest him for poaching. The Park Ranger can simply arrest the guy for being in possession of a firearm in a National Park. The guys ‘intent’ is irrelevant to the charges filed against him. In other words, the guy may have been looking for an Elk to shoot, but how do you prove in a court of law what his intentions are? In court, the guy with a Felony rap sheet for poaching as-long-as-your-arm is going to say he was looking for a place to target practice. The Jury is not going to see his rap sheet, if his lawyer is worth his weight in salt, so it becomes incumbent on the Prosecution to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt” that the guys intent was to shoot an Elk, or was it a moose he was trying to shoot, or perhaps it was a wolf, etc. etc. The poacher gets off because proving a persons intent in a court of law is very difficult to do, but it is easy to convict a guy with a gun in a National Park. He either had the gun or he didn’t.

This is where possession laws come in. A law enforcement officer does not need to know what you intend to do with the animals you have in your possession. All he needs to know is how many of which species you have. If you are over the limit, you get a citation to appear before the Judge to explain yourself. The Game Warden doesn’t need to try and figure out what your intentions are (i.e. sell the snakes or keep them as pets), and he certainly doesn’t need to prove in court that you intended to collect more animals than you were allowed so you could sell them. All the Warden has to do is show the Court the physical evidence that you actually did collect more than you were allowed. The problem here, of course, is that the kid collecting one more snake than the limit to keep as a pet gets as big a fine as the poacher who gets caught with one too many snakes that he intends to sell. BIG difference in intent between these two individuals, but as I have shown, ‘intent’ is a difficult thing to prove in a court of law, so we have to do the best we can. Of course there are some states where placing protected (or even common) species on the road as bait right in front of a Game Warden hidden in the bushes with a camera to photograph the herpers foolish enough to stop and pick up a protected species from the road, has turned into a real cottage industry! Yep, the person who picks up the snake, shoots a couple of photos and drops it off to the side of the road may find them selves receiving a warning or even a small fine from the Game Warden down the road waiting for them, but the person in real trouble is the person who puts the “bait” in a bag in their car. The Game Warden starts to salivate at this point because now he can search the guy’s car to see what else he has in his possession. Then that ice chest full of herps the guy has collected over the last few days gets close scrutiny. If he is over the limit for several species or in possession of a number of protected species, that guy is going downtown to get acquainted with his new roommate in a real small and lonely cell, and proving intent becomes a whole lot easer. Of course most herpers think this tactic is unfair, but then so is hiding behind a bush with a radar gun to catch speeders, and as a result of this tactic, most of us don’t race down the highway at 90 mph.

The other more subtitle problem here is the problem of “pets” in wildlife law enforcement. Let’s face it, 100 years or so ago when wildlife laws were first enacted, people did not keep snakes, lizards or frogs as pets much past the age of 10 (which makes me wonder a bit about us herpersJ), so regular hunting laws worked fine. You went on a hunting trip, and you shot six rabbits and a deer, which you brought home to eat. Occasionally you would hang the head of a particularly large buck you shot on the wall, but for the most part you did not keep wild animals you hunted around your home, so you could hunt a “bag limit” on your next hunting trip as well. However, now we have herps as pets, and the law is for possession, which means that you can have a maximum of X number of species A and X number of species B in your possession. If you were eating the snakes, you could collect X individuals of each species on every hunting trip, but since we herpers keep them as pets, we can only possess X individuals total, not X from each collecting trip. Not really fair when you look at it on the surface, but how does the Game Warden know you collected X individuals from this trip and X individuals from that trip? The answer, he doesn’t. You can only have in your possession X individuals total, and if you collected them under a hunting or fishing license the previous year, but you intend to keep them as pets, you better go out and get a new license every year because that license is the only reason you can legally posses that snake! And if your pet snake lays eggs, you now have X however many eggs in your possession, which is one of the reasons why most states have made it illegal to intentionally breed native species.

Now, you brought up a potential solution to all the problems I have pointed out above (except the commercial value problem) by using PIT tags (Passive Integrated Transponders or PIT tags- are small, about the size of a grain of rice, electronic devises that transmit an individual binary code when “charged” by a reader, and are implanted under the skin of an animal to “permanently” mark that individual) to distinguish wild animals from captive stocks. Keep in mind that PIT tags are a relatively recent advancement (the last 10 or so), and they have only became economically feasible in the last three years or so (i.e. under $10 a tag). Zoos, horse and cattle breeders use them all the time to keep track of their animals. Veterinarians now regularly implant these tags into dogs and cats to identify expensive breeders or to help animal shelters locate the owners of a lost animal, and they work out great for that purpose. Now imagine you’re a Game Warden and see some guy with a 3-foot long rat snake with scars and ticks on it that is for sale at the local herp show as “captively produced”. You pull out you PIT tag reader to see if this animal is really from captive stock, and sure enough the snake is tagged and the tag is registered to this “breeder” for placement into a captively produced snake. What do you do? Here again we are back to the issue of proving something you cannot directly observe i.e. the origin of the snake. The Game Warden now has to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt”, to a jury who mostly probably don’t care for snakes much, that this snake was not captively produced. How do you do that? The animal has the tag in it that says it was captively produced doesn’t it? The animal could have gotten the scars in captivity, but not likely. The animal could have also gotten ticks from a wild collected cage mate, but also not likely. And the animal could have grown to three feet in the two years since the tag was issued, but again, not likely. “Not Likely” does not prove something beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Yes, this is an extreme case with the scars ticks and size, but even with out them, what’s to stop and unscrupulous person from implanting the tags in wild collected animals, or worse, removing the tags from legal animals and implanting them in captive stock? (And yes this can be done…cases of tag switching in horses and dogs used for breeding have occurred) The answer is honesty, but poachers are not honest with anyone, least of all them selves, so the technique will not prove useful from an enforcement perspective, but don’t worry, in a few more years genetic fingerprinting will be cheep enough that all of these problems will be solved because we will be able to register individual breeder animals by their genetic code, and all of the off spring from those breeders will be identifiable genetically. Problem solved! But wait…now comes snake paternity suits…=)

Big Brother

>>First, you need to understand that wildlife laws in the United States are built on the foundation of removing any economic value from wildlife.

I might be able to understand the original intent, though I can't say I agree. Like you said further down your voluminous post , if the wildlife is profitable to someone (not necessarily via collection or consumption; could be from photography/viewing in situ), people are more likely to be willing to protect the animals and, more importantly, their habitat. We certainly don't hold many other natural resources in the same regard (forest products, for example), though I'm not saying those activities are wrong, or that two wrongs make a right.

The unfortunate reality is that there is a growing “black-market” in bear parts,

To me, this example merely underscores one of my underlying themes: there are people who wish to do things in accordance with the law, and those who will go to great lengths to circumvent the law. I tend to fall into the first category, assuming the law is just and reasonable, and many if not most laws are. But I can't say I've come to a full and complete stop at every single stop sign I've ever come across, even though that's the letter of the law.

My proposal would not necessarily stop poachers from keepin' on doin' what they do, but it would provide a legal means for people with intentions of furthering herpetoculture to do so. The bottom line is that you have to make it simple (both in the "legalese" itself, and from an economic standpoint) for people who wish to follow the law to in fact "do the right thing" by it. I don't understand the relatively high cost of breeding permits in some states (several hundred dollars) which pretty much eliminates the prospect of breeding and selling "lower-end" animals (which most of my favorite species would be considered), seeing as how you can purchase WC individuals for half the price of CB.

Some day someone is going to have to explain to me how eating a long slender snake makes a person manlier, but I digress.

That's another thread, as you've alluded--this side of the equation has to do with education (getting rid of the "folk remedies"

for people!” In other words, since wildlife has no commercial value to anyone, let’s put something there, like condos, that does have some value to people. The needs of worthless wildlife are irrelevant.

I know you're speaking tongue-in-cheek here, but I think wildlife has intrinsic value in itself, yet can also be shown to have economic value, be it from breeding or wildlife-watching/appreciation. That some of us choose to appreciate this wildlife in our homes where practical should not necessarily be discouraged.

purposes. The basic problem there was one of differentiating between wild collected stock and captively produced stock.

This is the downfall of the CA regs: "we (LE) can't reliably determine the origin of a specimen, so let's make them ALL restricted/prohibited." Again, it all boils down to some people willing to follow the regs, and some totally ignoring them (it happens now, and it would happen with my proposal as well, but I'm trying to give people more options to be in compliance without detrimentally affecting local populations).

Perhaps the proposal could be implemented as an interim regulation (a special season, if you will). Appropriate reporting requirements could be enacted, and numbers of species taken could be monitored. Given the option of doing all this above-the-board, I think you would get many people to comply, and the data from such interim regulation could be analyzed to determine what impact, if any, the special season was having. If a significant negative impact was determined, the interim regulation expires, and populations rebound. If no significant negative impact was found, the regulations could be implemented permanently.

cell, and proving intent becomes a whole lot easer. Of course most herpers think this tactic is unfair, but then so is hiding behind a bush with a radar gun to catch speeders, and as a result of this tactic, most of us don’t race down the highway at 90 mph.

The whole "this tactic is unfair" argument is always countered by the "if you're not breaking the law, you have nothing to worry about" argument. Not that I agree with that.

your next hunting trip as well. However, now we have herps as pets, and the law is for possession, which means that you can have a maximum of X number of species A and X number of species B in your possession. If you were eating the snakes, you could collect X individuals of each species on every hunting trip, but since we herpers keep them as pets, we can only possess X individuals total, not X from each collecting trip.

This is the part that really upsets me (for lack of a better term, anyway). Some of the animals I now keep were initially collected as feeders for other animals. Feeders are eaten, and more are collected. Net effect on the wild population=small, but negative. Collection for breeders=initial stock; net effect=even smaller, since I don't need to continually collect.

previous year, but you intend to keep them as pets, you better go out and get a new license every year because that license is the only reason you can legally posses that snake!

I've queried CA residents about this, and it's unenforceable in its current form: you don't have to buy a fishing license to buy a Cal King in a pet store, so how would LE know where you got the snake? It could've been collected, or it could've been bought captive-bred.

What do you do? Here again we are back to the issue of proving something you cannot directly observe i.e. the origin of the snake.

Again, I think it comes down to not being able to prove a LOT of the measures that have been enacted. My proposal as originally presented did not mention anything about cost, but I would set the fee schedule such that it was more of an incentive to BREED animals rather than simply collect WC for immediate resale. Like I said above, it shouldn't cost $200 annually, (just for the permit, not including the overhead involved in breeding them), to be able to sell 6 (in a good year) CB baby lizards for $20 each.
-----
Chris McMartin
www.mcmartinville.com
I'm Not a Herpetologist, but I Play One on the Internet

Chris,

I really enjoy debating these issues with a person such as you who really thinks about these issues, and is trying to do the right thing!

However, since I like to debate all the angles, I do have a couple of points I think I need to restate.

1)Laws, like security, are designed to prevent crime, and since we live in a society where you are “Innocent until PROVEN guilty…BEYOND a reasonable doubt” in a court of law. (Remember this DOES NOT apply until you have actually been charged with a crime, and go before a Judge) Laws must be written to minimize the potential excuses criminals can give to explain their actions. Unfortunately, this means the rest of us “Law Abiding Citizens” have to give up certain ‘freedoms’ for the greater good (e.g. have you tried to get on a plane lately? I can’t even take my Swiss Army knife on the plane any more, and I feel positively naked without it, but if I was a Federal Special Agent, I could take my gun on the plane! An Agent can take a gun on board a plane, but not a pocketknife?!? Every one, including cops, has to follow the rules, so that when someone breaks them…the hammer can fall!). You need to remember the bigger picture here. If it is easy for people that are poaching and selling wildlife to get away with a crime because a few people, with legitimate reasons and good intentions, want to be able to be able to do something that creates a loophole in the law that the poachers, and their high paid lawyers, can exploit to get away with their crimes, then we all lose! Remember, the goal here is to protect wild populations of animals in perpetuity, and I assure you, poachers are doing a whole lot more damage than you and a few other breeders can undo, so I ask you, which is more important, your breeding a relatively few native species or stopping poachers from decimating wildlife populations? What is your ultimate goal?

2) You state that I am being “tongue-in-cheek” when I said:
“Inevitably, some old farmer, who wants to turn his pastures into condominiums to make millions more than he could by continuing to graze cows, stands up at a public meeting to discuss the options and asks, “what good is this (snake, lizard or frog) to anybody any way? I’m trying to build something here that will produce jobs and homes for people!” In other words, since wildlife has no commercial value to anyone, let’s put something there, like condos, that does have some value to people. The needs of worthless wildlife are irrelevant.”
I assure you that I was not! I can give you more examples of this kind of mentality than you can believe!! Ever go to the Pacific Northwest? Look for pick-up trucks with bumper stickers like “I love Spotted Owls, they Taste GREAT!” In Texas for a while the Houston Toad was preventing development, so people had bumper stickers like “The only good toad is a Road Toad, better dead on my tread!” Or the big one right now in So. California, where the California Tiger Salamander was recently placed on the Endangered Species List and is thus interfering with landowners who want to turn their land into vineyards or condos, is “Tiger Salamander, the other White Meat!” I even remember one guy who wanted to develop his land but an endangered fly, which just happened to be the only remaining pollinator of a flowering plant that served as the last food stop for 25 species of hummingbirds migrating to So America for the winter, showed up at a public meeting with one of the endangered flies in a bottle and demanded to know “why this useless fly was more important than the welfare of his family?” He then dropped the vial on the floor, and crushed it. He was arrested on the spot for killing an Endangered Species, and the crowd at the meeting booed the F&WS Special Agents as they took him away in handcuffs! And by the way, that landowner had very good lawyers because he was a millionaire! His family welfare was never at risk. People, for the most part, only protect something as long as it is convent, or does not affect them, and people who’s only concern in life is making a buck and taking everything they can get their hands on, will never see wildlife as anything other than a commodity to exploit or a useless annoyance to making money.

I understand that you and most of us Americans think wildlife has intrinsic value or we would not have the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, state game departments and the Endangered Species Act, but I assure you there are a lot of people out there who think wildlife is worthless, and they do not care if every species on the planet went extinct as long as they can continue to make lots of money. Unfortunately, people with money have figured out that politicians listen to them if they give them money to stay in office through campaign contributions and trips to exotic island vacations under the guise of a “charity event.” Yes, in the United States the people decide how the government is suppose to be run, but the guy in the drivers seat is big business.

3)You state that it is legal to buy Cal. Kings in Cal. This is partially true. In California you can buy/sell “genetically distinct” Cal Kings. In other words, you can sell albino-striped phase Cal Kings that would never survive in the wild, but you cannot buy/sell Cal Kings that are “normal” or “wild type”. However, the argument has been made that you can buy/sell heterozygotes for the albinistic trait that appear to be wild because they carry the same “distinct genes” as the albinos. This has obviously created an Enforcement problem that has still not been resolved, as far as I know.

4) Finally, you make the statement “…if the wildlife is profitable to someone (not necessarily via collection or consumption; could be from photography/viewing in situ), people are more likely to be willing to protect the animals and, more importantly, their habitat. We certainly don't hold many other natural resources in the same regard (forest products, for example), though I'm not saying those activities are wrong, or that two wrongs make a right.”
While I agree we need to institute a “non-consumption” License of some kind in this country to promote the protection of non-game wildlife, which includes plants and trees BTW, because right now most of the money to protect wildlife comes from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses, I do not agree, however, that placing value on trees has protected forests. I, and many others who have seen our National Forests from the air, would argue that we are systematically destroying our Natural Forests and replacing them with a monoculture of trees selected exclusively for their ability to survive transplantation and grow rapidly, so they can be harvested again. Remember, the US Forest Service is under the Department of AGRICULTURE. The National Parks and F&WS are under the Department of the INTERIOR. (See my post titled “RE: Question for Big brother - BigBrother, Sat Jan 17 19:46:47 2004” where I discuss the history of these two departments and the ideological differences between them) These two departments have completely different mandates, and I assure you, if you looked at how much money you and I the tax payers are paying to support the Forest Service and it’s program of logging at our expense, so that a few very rich individuals and companies could make a lot of money without paying for the cost of building logging roads into the forests, for example, you would be outraged! You and I the taxpayer are paying billions of dollars a year to subsidize the logging industry, and in return we get decimated forests for our money. How is this fair or right? And why does it continue? I would say this is a glowing example of how placing value on wildlife simply does not work to the benefit of all, and it certainly doesn’t do much to protect ecosystems, which, unfortunately, most Americans think the Forest Service is doing.

Chris, we have got to look at the big picture, and keep our eye on the goal, because if we don’t, it doesn’t matter how many snakes you can breed in you basement there won’t be any left in the wild, and the habitat where those snakes in your basement originally came from will be gone! It is up to all of us to put actions to our words if we are really going to conserve wildlife and the incredible Biological diversity of this planet.

Big Brother

actions. Unfortunately, this means the rest of us “Law Abiding Citizens” have to give up certain ‘freedoms’ for the greater good (e.g. have you tried to get on a plane lately? I can’t even take my Swiss Army knife on the plane any more,

As a side note, yes, I've made 3 flights in the past week alone, and I've always carried a switchblade knife with me and have never had anyone question it. But then again, you should ask me what I do for a living.

You need to remember the bigger picture here.
...
Remember, the goal here is to protect wild populations of animals in perpetuity, and I assure you, poachers are doing a whole lot more damage than you and a few other breeders can undo, so I ask you, which is more important, your breeding a relatively few native species or stopping poachers from decimating wildlife populations? What is your ultimate goal?

Protecting wild populations of animals has less and less to do with legal collectors, or even poachers, than with habitat destruction, for the most part. I think you'll agree with me on that.

I think your question is comparing apples and oranges. You should ask which is more important: my breeding a relatively few native species, or stopping poachers from decimating those relatively few native species? Or better yet, my breeding a few species, or poachers taking those species, or the entire habitat being bulldozed?

A license/permit is required to collect rosy boas in CA, for example, but no one pursues developers for taking (in this case, killing) them over the limit when they pave and build houses over their hibernacula.

I'd guess that the number of rosies killed in such fashion, or ran over by cars, each year far exceeds the number collected, both legally and illegally. So, if we're talking big picture, the problem is not "take" of species necessarily, but rather preserving areas where they could be "taken" in the first place! I'd hate to think of a world where the ONLY place you can see such animals are in the limited parks scattered hither and yon.

>>2) You state that I am being “tongue-in-cheek” when I said:

Maybe a better choice of words would've been "devil's advocate." I based this on your statement
The needs of worthless wildlife are irrelevant.

Ever go to the Pacific Northwest?

I take it you haven't visited my website. The forests up there have some ugly spots due to the tree farming practices, but I'd rather see a few ugly spots which are being managed for rapid growth and sustainable harvest than the clearcutting of new land.

People, for the most part, only protect something as long as it is convent, or does not affect them, and people who’s only concern in life is making a buck and taking everything they can get their hands on, will never see wildlife as anything other than a commodity to exploit or a useless annoyance to making money.

I agree in the sense that if we (as a society) want to really protect something (be it wildlife or something else), we must make it more convenient, or economical, to do so than to do otherwise.

It's similar to a degree to racism. Enactment of laws prohibiting certain types of racist behavior didn't automatically eliminate racism; racist attitudes still prevailed (and will continue on ALL sides), but those attitudes will eventually "die out" or get "bred out," or even better yet, "learned out."

The same goes for cavalier attitudes towards our environment--I think education is the key rather than more and more restrictive laws.

I know former commercial collectors who have changed their tune, not because of laws (though they may have sparked the change in the first place), but because these people, through the course of their collecting practice, came to learn more about the natural history of their target species than many researchers do. After all, their livelihood depended on it. I may be digressing somewhat, but I think I had a point somewhere. I think it was something along the lines of inclusion of pertinent segments of the populace in the legislative process.

That is what I'm working (slowly) towards establishing with my local herp club--a rapport with the folks who write the laws. I have a general disagreement with the philosophy of people who petition for laws, or who author/sponsor laws, the subject matter of which they have little to no first-hand experience with. It's one thing to do a summer of field research on a species, but an entirely different matter to live with that species on one's own property for several generations, but have your personal observations dismissed as "anecdotal" while the academians push legislation on how you are allowed to use your land.

At the risk of being a pot amidst kettles, I have not had this happen personally, but I can sympathize. I think it's important to view this from all perspectives.

>>3)You state that it is legal to buy Cal. Kings in Cal. This is partially true. In California you can buy/sell “genetically distinct” Cal Kings. In other words, you can sell albino-striped phase Cal Kings that would never survive in the wild, but you cannot buy/sell Cal Kings that are “normal” or “wild type”.

Legally, you can sell ANY Cal King, provided you have the captive propagation permit. Albinos have not possession limit, which is the difference you mention from a legal standpoint. For details, consult the Native Reptile and Amphibian Captive Propagation Regulations.

This has obviously created an Enforcement problem that has still not been resolved, as far as I know.

Per the regulations, retaining the bill of sale is sufficient proof, in California's case. Since I own all wild-caught North American native animals at the present, I've considered getting notarized letters outlining the date of capture for my specimens to preclude any potential legal entanglements.

But then again, this is predicated on my being honest, and the honesty of others who legally purchase captive-bred animals. Any jerk could whip up a fictitious "bill of sale" for purposes of "defeating" LE. It goes back to my previous assertion that there are some real scalliwags out there, and making the laws more restrictive on the law-abiding will not appreciably curb their efforts to thwart the law.

>>While I agree we need to institute a “non-consumption” License of some kind in this country to promote the protection of non-game wildlife, which includes plants and trees BTW,

Non-game wildlife does NOT include plants and trees where I currently live. I can't speak to your state's regs, not knowing where you live. However, I'm sure with a little sleuthing I could find somewhere where certain plant species are protected, but it's not under the purview of nongame wildlife.

You and I the taxpayer are paying billions of dollars a year to subsidize the logging industry, and in return we get decimated forests for our money. How is this fair or right?

Aw man, I knew I read this in your post, but I already started addressing it earlier. How is it fair or right? Because we, the taxpayers, both allow it and condone it (through our continued use of wood and wood products). If more people bought steel-frame homes and conducted business electronically, maybe we wouldn't need so much logging. That's an oversimplified view, but you get the idea.

And why does it continue? I would say this is a glowing example of how placing value on wildlife simply does not work to the benefit of all, and it certainly doesn’t do much to protect ecosystems, which, unfortunately, most Americans think the Forest Service is doing.

Chris, we have got to look at the big picture, and keep our eye on the goal, because if we don’t, it doesn’t matter how many snakes you can breed in you basement there won’t be any left in the wild, and the habitat where those snakes in your basement originally came from will be gone!

Maybe we are more in tune with each other after all! You're right, it doesn't (nor should it) matter how many snakes I can breed in my basement (were I to own one!). Attack the problems one at a time--the biggest first; and that is HABITAT DESTRUCTION.
-----
Chris McMartin
www.mcmartinville.com
I'm Not a Herpetologist, but I Play One on the Internet

Chris,

First, I must say, my comment about airline security was in reference to commercial airlines that us poor saps who aren’t in the Air Force and who don’t have the ability to be “doing mock five, with your hair on fire!” But then, you knew that

You’re right, we are basically on the same page, but as I have said before, “the devil is in the details!” Habitat destruction is, in most but not all cases, the biggest problem species face. Unfortunately, there are many desirable species whose habitat is still present, but over collection has placed serous doubts on the long-term survival of the species. This problem is particularly onerous in the tropics where species have relatively small ranges (i.e. a single valley or mountain top), and can be easily collected to extinction. The bigger concern I have is for species whose habitat has already been reduced to a small park or preserve to protect the few remaining populations of a species, and poachers go into those areas to collect the rare animals that thus command a high price amongst unscrupulous collectors, and like it or not, unscrupulous collectors are rampant amongst our ranks. This is why I have been advocating for the majority of herpers, who would never buy one of the last few hundred flat-backed spider tortoises stolen out of the in-habitat breeding preserve a couple of years ago, to stand up and say this kind of behavior is no longer acceptable!

Let me put this another way, if you cut the available habitat of a species in half, what do you have? The answer is half the number of animals. Animals in nature, occupy the habitat to the fullest extent that habitat, which includes the food and other resources needed by wildlife to live, can support. If you decrease the habitat by bulldozing it, the displaced snakes, for example, do not move into the remaining habitat, and go on like before with an increase in the number of individuals in the remaining habitat. The habitat can still only support X number of individuals, and in many cases in North America the remaining habitat is also compromised by pollution, LOGGING (which produces a monoculture forest with little value as habitat for most forest species) etc. thereby reducing the number of animals it can support, so the displaced animals often die or displace animals already present in the remaining habitat that also die. The result, half the habitat…half the animals, but this assumes that the remaining habitat can support/contain the biology of the animal (e.g. The home range of an Indigo snake is huge for a reptile, which is one of the main reasons why they aren’t doing to good. This is also why large predators are often the first to go in a disrupted ecosystem). Then, if we add, as you suggest, a road through the remaining habitat, we introduce a random mortality factor that can have severe long term effects on population numbers and demographics (i.e. the new individuals from the destroyed habitat move in once to help replace the road losses, but the road is there for good, and roads more often than not get bigger and more busy resulting in greater mortality over time). Now, on top of all that, you want to continue the collecting of animals from that habitat? Let’s face it, in the last twenty years the amount of natural habitat available for wildlife has been cut by a third to a half depending on which part of the country you live in, and in that same amount of time the number of herpers has increased by some 500% or more! Can you see the problem here? Yes, habitat destruction is the biggest problem most species face, but the coup de grâce for many herp species could very well be over collection and poaching of the remaining individuals in limited habitat!

Species go through population cycles, but we humans, in our infinite wisdom, have decided that nature always produces more individuals in a population than can survive, so we can harvest those “surplus” individuals with out harming the actual population. Well there are three problems with this, and I don’t even want to call it a hypothesis because it does not even have enough science behind it to call this idea a hypothesis, assumption. First, natural populations fluctuate as environmental conditions change, and more often than not, we humans seem to be unable or unwilling to detect these changes, and we are only just beginning to be able to predict how small changes in the environment will affect population size. The result, we take the same number of surplus individuals from the population regardless of how conditions change. Yes, this may be fine for a while, but it is like playing Russian roulette with half the chambers full! Look at the sardine industry collapse for the classic example, or if you like some more recent examples, look at the newspaper stories on the hake, tuna, shrimp and many other fisheries or look at deer populations and hunting regulations over the last five years. Second, populations produce surplus individuals for a reason. That reason is “survival of the fittest.” Put in simple terms, ‘cause I could write a book on this, surplus individuals need to be produced in a population to provide the raw materials for selection to occur. Some individuals are born with less adaptive genes and they, and their genes, are selected against thereby leaving the “better adapted” genes in the remaining population. The result is the local population is “better adapted” to the local conditions over time, or put another way, the “weak individuals” are removed from the population leaving the “stronger individuals” to produce the next generation. Unfortunately, we humans harvest the individuals we find, which are not necessarily the “weakest”, and in fact we often hunt for the healthiest looking individuals when we collect, so we are a random force that actually helps to decrease the adaptation of the population to the local environment, and thus, we reduce the populations long-term viability or survival probability. Third, the number of “surplus” individuals in a population is an entirely subjective guess for a particular population and has no relevance to other populations, and this assumes that there was even an effort to determine the number of “surplus” individuals in the first place, which in the case of herps, there generally was not. As I said, continuing to collect individuals from the wild is like playing Russian roulette with half the chambers full, and trying to justify continued collection because habitat destruction is a bigger problem, simply does not hold water. In this case, like many others, “if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem,” and continuing to collect animals from wild populations is contributing, in a small but significant way, to their demise.

Now back to the topic, wildlife laws are intended to stop, or in reality decrease, the illegal harvesting of wildlife for commercial purposes, be it for food, pet or pelt. Game Wardens need to be able to enforce those laws within the Justice System we have in place here in the US, and our system is set up to make it difficult to put innocent people behind bars, which unfortunately means it also makes it difficult to put the guilty behind bars. The deck is stacked against the Game Warden and in favor of the criminals. If we open up commercial production of all native species it is going to be difficult to impossible to enforce anti-poaching laws because the Game Wardens will not be able to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt” that a poacher is removing animals from the wild, so the poachers will be given free rein to take all the animals they want from the wild without any fear of being caught. Placing “loopholes” in the law will only make it more difficult to impossible to put poachers behind bars. No, that’s not fair to you and others who have the best intentions with breeding native species, and who want to do things legally, but again, look at the big picture. Do you really want to protect species in natural habitat, or do you want to be able breed anything you want in your basement (garage, den or where ever)? What is your real ultimate goal?

As you said, education is the key, and people need to be educated about how our legal system operates. Laws are by definition punitive in nature. They are not designed to keep honest people from doing what ever they want, that is an unfortunate side effect. Laws in the US must be designed to keep dishonest people from doing what ever they want, and to be able to realistically enforce those laws we must draw a line somewhere or the lawyers will make everything gray. Trust me when I say our system is far from perfect, but it is a whole lot better than the legal system in most other countries. In Zimbabwe, for example, if you are caught more than half a Km from the road with a gun of any kind, a snare or a machete in a wildlife park, you are shot on sight. There is no trial, there is no explanation of your intent, there is no giving up to the police, you’re dead. Our system is a whole lot better than that, but with our kind of freedom comes responsibility, and we all must take responsibility for our actions and the effect of our actions have on the people and world around us, as they say “no man is an island.” If people want to say that their intention is to conserve species, fine, but put your mouth, actions and your money in the same place! You cannot say your trying to conserve species and continue to buy wild collected animals.

Further, education is necessary, because most people are unaware of how their actions translate to the bigger picture. Let’s return to the forestry example where I talked about how unfair it is that our tax dollars are being used to support the logging of our National Forests for the benefit of a few wealthy people, and you said, “Because we, the taxpayers, both allow it and condone it (through our continued use of wood products).” I don’t honestly think that most people actually realize how much of their tax dollars are being spent supporting various programs, and even fewer people realize that there are alternatives to wood frame houses that have many benefits over wood besides the ecological ones. However, people are creatures of habit, so until they see the real need for change they keep plugging along in the same old way looking for the wood frame houses they are use to, and in so doing support the continuation of logging and the resultant environmental degradation. If people were truly aware of how much logging is costing them in terms of taxes and ecological stability, I think people would make better choices.

The common excuse people give for not making ecologically responsible choices is, “there were no cost effective alternatives that were environmentally friendly,” which is where legislation and education can be beneficial. Look at the auto smog laws in California where you live. California had a real bad smog problem, but the auto manufactures were not adding pollution control devices to their cars because it would increase the cost of their cars and the competition would take away their sales. California’s Air Resources Board passed a law setting emission standards for all new cars in incremental steps of ever more stringent standards. The auto manufacturers complained bitterly that it would drive them to bankruptcy and consumer groups complained that the cars would be too expensive. However, the law equalized the stage for everyone and let the free enterprise system dictate how the manufacturers met those goals while still remaining competitive. Because all manufacturers were required to meet the same goals the cost deterrent was reversed. If a manufacturer wanted to compete in California, they had to develop the technology, but because it was required on all cars, the manufacturers could quickly recoup their costs, and car prices stayed down. Now the technology developed in California is being sold across the US because it is cheaper to manufacture one car for the entire country than it is to manufacture one car for California and another for every where else (I know this is not true in all cases, but without CA’s restrictions, the rest of us would probably still not have smog devices on any of our cars. Now if CA would only tighten up the pollution standards of SUV’s we could see another quantum leap in improved air quality). Now CA is requiring that a certain percentage of cars sold in CA by a particular manufacturer be low emission, so the price of hybrid and electric cars went from the $50,000-$60,000 range down to the $25,000-$30,000 range where some of us can actually afford to buy them. With out the incentive of law, hybrid cars would probably never have been developed, and if they were, they would be too expensive for anyone to own. These alternatives are now available, but people have to buy and use them, which is where understanding the “big picture” and an environmental education come in.

Wildlife laws are the first step in protecting the species we love, understanding why those laws are in place, obeying them and ultimately actually protecting species requires people to get educated and make ecologically responsible choices. If you keep your eye on the “big picture” it will make the sacrifices we all must make to conserve species a little easer to make.

Finally, I have one bone to pick. You state, “I have a general disagreement with the philosophy of people who petition for laws, or who author/sponsor laws, the subject matter of which they have little to no first-hand experience with. It's one thing to do a summer of field research on a species, but an entirely different matter to live with that species on one's own property for several generations, but have your personal observations dismissed as "anecdotal" while the academians push legislation on how you are allowed to use your land.” First, anecdotal data, as defined by law (under NEPA), is any data that is included in an environmental impact report that has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. It does not matter if it is a scientist who supplies the information or a landowner; if the data is not published it is considered anecdotal. Second, most land owners who complain about environmental laws are generally people who decide they want to do something entirely different with their land than what it has been used for in the past, such as turning a pasture into condominiums, so their anecdotal data is immaterial to the new land use, and in most cases the land owner did not even know what species of salamander or frog were on their land in the first place. Third, most professional herpetologists I know working in the environmental protection field grew up collecting herps just like the rest of us, and most keep at least a few herps as pets. These are people who are smart enough to have figured out a way to get paid to do what they love. Further, they have spent years studying at the university to complete degrees in their field, and many of them have dedicated their entire careers to studying a particular species or group of species, so saying their information is based on a summer of field research is not only unfair, it is not true. I hear these kinds of comments all the time, and they are simply based in nothing more than jealousy. Academics are down in the trenches fighting to save species every day in an up hill battle with little hope of real success against big business and politics. They deserve our support and our respect, not unfounded cheep shots.

Big Brother

five, with your hair on fire!” But then, you knew that

Yes. Permit me a little fun here!

Habitat destruction is, in most but not all cases, the biggest problem species face. Unfortunately, there are many desirable species whose habitat is still present, but over collection has placed serous doubts on the long-term survival of the species.

Yes. You're right. We don't have an argument there. Overcollection may be a culprit, but that's what I'm trying to address. No single person would be able to "overcollect" in the current understanding of the term, as that person wouldn't be able to DO anything with his captives (i.e. sell them) to make it financially appealing to overcollect. You would no longer have a person collecting a couple hundred snakes in a weekend, because he flat out couldn't afford it financially or logistically.

The bigger concern I have is for species whose habitat has already been reduced to a small park or preserve to protect the few remaining populations of a species, and poachers go into those areas to collect the rare animals that thus command a high price amongst unscrupulous collectors, and like it or not, unscrupulous collectors are rampant amongst our ranks.

My proposal wouldn't make that any less illegal. I don't have a problem with your concern.

This is why I have been advocating for the majority of herpers, who would never buy one of the last few hundred flat-backed spider tortoises stolen out of the in-habitat breeding preserve a couple of years ago, to stand up and say this kind of behavior is no longer acceptable!

Exactly. I neither condone, nor propose, the removal of specimens from designated protected areas. I don't condone, nor propose, the sale of animals that can't be bred in captivity.

Then, if we add, as you suggest, a road through the remaining habitat,

I did not suggest that. I was commenting on the illegality of collecting animals from an area that one month later, has been paved over, be it for a housing addition or a Starbucks. The developers require no permits for the "take" of hundreds of individuals. If somewhere you inferred that I condoned building roads, especially the construction of such roads for the purpose of taking animals, I apologize for being unclear.

Yes, habitat destruction is the biggest problem most species face, but the coup de grâce for many herp species could very well be over collection and poaching of the remaining individuals in limited habitat!

Must...reiterate...original...proposal! The poaching, I can't help. The overcollecting is what I'm aiming to eliminate (i.e. you won't overcollect if you can't sell what you catch).

If we open up commercial production of all native species it is going to be difficult to impossible to enforce anti-poaching laws because the Game Wardens will not be able to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt” that a poacher is removing animals from the wild,

Hence the PIT proposal. Perhaps a size limit for animals for sale could help as well (I know, it smacks of the CA snake debacle, but in my proposal there wouldn't be a penalty for POSSESSING such an animal, just SELLING it).

look at the big picture. Do you really want to protect species in natural habitat, or do you want to be able breed anything you want in your basement (garage, den or where ever)? What is your real ultimate goal?

You seem to imply that the two concepts are mutually exclusive. I must disagree. My "real ultimate goal" would be to have the ability to breed animals, while still having habitat in which they can exist in the wild. To me, it does us as a society little good to have a million captive kingsnakes if there's nowhere to see them in situ, and it does us little good to have what we might think is "habitat" if no one even knows, much less cares, about what might be living out there.

You cannot say your trying to conserve species and continue to buy wild collected animals.

You are correct, which is why I thought up my proposal. You would not be allowed to buy wild collected animals.

Let’s return to the forestry example where I talked about how unfair it is that our tax dollars are being used to support the logging of our National Forests for the benefit of a few wealthy people, and you said, “Because we, the taxpayers, both allow it and condone it (through our continued use of wood products).” ...If people were truly aware of how much logging is costing them in terms of taxes and ecological stability, I think people would make better choices.

You sure took the scenic route in saying "I agree!"

>>The common excuse people give for not making ecologically responsible choices is, “there were no cost effective alternatives that were environmentally friendly,”

Yes. And since it's the common excuse, I think governments and corporations should work in concert to cater to that excuse. Make doing the right thing cheaper than doing the wrong thing. I'm not just talking cheaper in an intangible "long-term benefits" way of thinking, but showing people a measurable difference in their pocketbooks. There are folks out there working on doing just that.

Look at the auto smog laws in California where you live.

I do? Not now, not ever, if I can help it!

If you keep your eye on the “big picture” it will make the sacrifices we all must make to conserve species a little easer to make.

I suppose this is a philosophical difference between us, which is acceptable as long as it doesn't come to fisticuffs.

It is my gut feeling that people will work to conserve things they care about, and quite frankly, not a whole lot of "mainstream" people care about herps (at least not to the extend they care about the flagship species like pandas and manatees). Granted, nobody keeps pandas and manatees in their homes, but at a grassroots level it's easy to positively influence a person's attitudes towards snakes, for example. Often this influence can be exerted in a passive manner, simply by being near snakes. There are folks who have easy access to areas where snakes can be found in the wild (and even some not-so-wild locales in close proximity to human habitation), but for the folks that don't, captive specimens can serve to raise awareness. I'm getting back to my earlier statement about protecting habitat because "hey, such-and-such snake lives out there, so maybe I shouldn't build my house here" vs. "why not build a house here? It's just a desert hillside."

Finally, I have one bone to pick. You state, “I have a general disagreement with the philosophy of people who petition for laws, or who author/sponsor laws, the subject matter of which they have little to no first-hand experience with."
...
Further, they have spent years studying at the university to complete degrees in their field, and many of them have dedicated their entire careers to studying a particular species or group of species, so saying their information is based on a summer of field research is not only unfair, it is not true.

That is not what I intended, but you seem to have some first-hand knowledge of people to which I'm referring (I'm perceiving a little defensiveness in the tone which may or may not be present). I'll pick a bone of my own:

I hear these kinds of comments all the time, and they are simply based in nothing more than jealousy. Academics are down in the trenches fighting to save species every day in an up hill battle with little hope of real success against big business and politics. They deserve our support and our respect, not unfounded cheep shots.

I'd consider someone who, as you say, is fighting to save species from big business and politics, not an academic, but either a shill or an activist. Or perhaps a euphemism would be "applied science." A true academic would simply provide data supporting or refuting hypotheses, and while said folk are certainly entitled to personal opinions and feelings, they should keep them out of their findings. To do otherwise in my mind calls the validity of their results into question.

But we're digressing. I do appreciate the civility and thoughtfulness of your replies, but I must admit I'm getting short on time to read and respond!
-----
Chris McMartin
www.mcmartinville.com
I'm Not a Herpetologist, but I Play One on the Internet

Chris,

You need to check out the thread titled “Then and now, how the reptile industry has banded together, installment 1......” below, and you will see why I have argued some of these points in the manor I have.

In the early 1980’s a new field of biology was formed called Conservation Biology which combines the “theoretical” science fields of ecology (including population and community ecology), biogeography and genetics with the “applied” sciences such as forestry, fisheries and wildlife management to study and ultimately preserve biological diversity for perpetuity. This new “mission-oriented” discipline also incorporates the human element (with 6.3 Billion humans on the planet is would be stupid to ignore their effect) into scientific study because lets face it, all the scientific study in the world is not going to do an ounce of good to conserve species if it is not incorporated into environmental policy and in ecological management plans. Further, it would be nice if conservation was as easy as saying, “do these three things and all will be well,” but the practical and economic reality is that everything is a compromise, so rather than take a back seat to the debate after the hard science is done, this new field incorporates practical solutions to real world problems, unlike the “theoretical” science of the past, into the decision making process, so it is only natural for Conservation Biologists to be actively involved in the battles over species survival and management plans. Scientists, like animals, must constantly adapt to the changing environment in which they live or go the way of the dinosaurs. Conservation Biology is neither shill nor activism, it incorporates real science from diverse fields, thereby providing real solutions to the very real problems we all face. Unlike the “theoretical” science practiced in the library or laboratory by academics of the past, Conservation Biology is in the trenches making a real difference, but then that’s why top scientist in various fields from Universities all over the world like Michael Soulé, Bruce Wilcox, Edward O. Wilson, Norman Myers, Robert May, Stuart Pimm, Allendorf, Diamond, Cody, Gilpin, Hubbell, Jordan, Ganes, Lovejoy etc. etc. etc. consider themselves Conservation Biologists. As you said, “I think education is the key…”

Now I’ll cut to the chase and make my points on your proposal short.
“1. Relax possession limits (be they WC or CB).”
This will only make it easer for the unscrupulous poachers to get away with their crime because it is impractical to differentiate CB and WC animals, which makes enforcement difficult to impossible.
”2. Prohibit the sale of any WC herp.*”
This is already illegal with very few exceptions that have for the most part been disasters.
”3. Allow the captive breeding of, and sale of the offspring of, native herps.”
Once again, this will only make it easer for the unscrupulous poachers to get away with their crimes.
”4. Require PIT tags for all CB herps sold for verification purposes.”
This could solve some of the problems above, but the cost and practical constraints in implementing such a system would be severe, but you’re on the right track here.

Bottom line, if you want to conserve species; why not help protect animals in their natural habitat instead of trying to breed them in a cage for money?

Big Brother

P.S. I don’t think it is possible for me to keep it short

>>In the early 1980’s a new field of biology was formed called Conservation Biology which combines the “theoretical” science fields of ecology (including population and community ecology), biogeography and genetics with the “applied” sciences such as forestry, fisheries and wildlife management to study and ultimately preserve biological diversity for perpetuity.

I will accept that such as field, or "discpline" as you later call it, exists, but I can't rightly call it science (which has no agenda). I apologize for further diverging from the topic; maybe this should be addressed in a different thread.

>>Now I’ll cut to the chase and make my points on your proposal short.
>>“1. Relax possession limits (be they WC or CB).”
>>This will only make it easer for the unscrupulous poachers to get away with their crime because it is impractical to differentiate CB and WC animals, which makes enforcement difficult to impossible.

See #4, and also my suggestion in the most recent reply about size limits on animals sold.

>>”2. Prohibit the sale of any WC herp.*”
>>This is already illegal with very few exceptions that have for the most part been disasters.

Can you show me where this is illegal? Remember, I'm in TX and with the proper permits, it's legal for many species. In fact, our herp regs have been recently relaxed to increase the possession limit for many species which, after years of study based on records turned in by folks including commercial collectors, have shown no appreciable decline, or are actually increasing in population.

>>”3. Allow the captive breeding of, and sale of the offspring of, native herps.”
>>Once again, this will only make it easer for the unscrupulous poachers to get away with their crimes.

I disagree, and I suppose we'll have to leave it at that.

>>”4. Require PIT tags for all CB herps sold for verification purposes.”
>>This could solve some of the problems above, but the cost and practical constraints in implementing such a system would be severe, but you’re on the right track here.

It could solve MANY of the problems above, if I were to include the size-limit on specimens sold (which would help weed out the possibility of selling WC). I am one of those who wouldn't have wanted PIT tags in herps due to cost, but after hearing about how the prices have fallen recently, it sounds more and more attractive. The cost of the PIT tags would be borne by the consumer. Readers can be had for roughly $500 US, which would hardly break the bank of LE units, and would not be restricted solely to herp use but could be used for other wildlife tracking as well.

>>Bottom line, if you want to conserve species; why not help protect animals in their natural habitat instead of trying to breed them in a cage for money?

Two points:

1. You're assuming it's an either/or situation, while I don't see the two as mutually exclusive;

2. You're assuming I'm doing it for the money. Right now, some states have possession limits of TWO specimens, and if you breed them you must immediately give the offspring away. While there's nothing too wrong with that small aspect (giving offspring away vs. selling), it does limit the amount of knowledge one herpetoculturist can glean about the species (proper husbandry requirements for breeding based on observations of one pair).

The biggest part of "protecting animals in their natural habitat" is "protecting the habitat in the first place." Frankly, I'm a little put off seeing prime habitat being destroyed for houses with no legal means to salvage the herps living there. Aha! There's another idea--a "salvage permit," but then again that would add yet another facet to the bureaucracy.

>>P.S. I don’t think it is possible for me to keep it short

You did a lot better this time! You're obviously passionate about the subject matter.

I think this thread has durn near played itself out!
-----
Chris McMartin
www.mcmartinville.com
I'm Not a Herpetologist, but I Play One on the Internet

Chris,

Conservation Biology is a discipline born out of the frustration many scientists experienced when the species and ecosystems they studied for years were whipped out by habitat destruction. This is not some feel good endeavor, it is real objective science. The difference here is the questions asked. Traditional science would ask, “What is the relationship between population size and selection for gene frequencies over the next 100 years.” A Conservation Biologist asks, “What is the minimum number of individuals a population must maintain to have a 90% probability of survival for 100 years.” The same basic scientific method is used to answer both questions, but the answer to one question has immediate practical application to species conservation. What good is science if the animals we study go extinct before the study is done?
For more information you should check out the many scientific organizations and journals dealing with Conservation Biology:
Society for Conservation Biology http://conbio.net/
Center for Conservation Biology http://www.stanford.edu/group/CCB/
The Centre for Applied Conservation Research http://www.forestry.ubc.ca/conservation/
Center for Applied Biodiversity Science http://www.biodiversityscience.org/xp/CABS/research/biology/biology.xml
Journal “Conservation Biology” http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0888-8892&site=1
Journal “Biological Conservation” http://www.elsevier.com/inca/publications/store/4/0/5/8/5/3/405853.pub.htt

So now you live in Texas? I thought we were talking about captive breeding of native reptiles? The California Kingsnake, which is a subspecies of the Common Kingsnake, that you have been using as your example does not occur in Texas, and therefore is non-native to Texas, but I thought you stated, or at least implied, that you had one of the rarely given out permits to breed Cal Kings in CA. You certainly provided a link to the CA Regulations, which is what my comments were in reference to. It is illegal to buy, sell, trade etc. any native wildlife in CA without a permit, and very few breeding permits are given out for herps, and then only for about five or six species. Further, it is illegal in 31 out of the 50 States to sell native herp species as a general rule, and yes some states have exceptions for certain species, but the remaining 19 states have certain native species that also cannot be sold. In most states there are provisions for commercial collecting licenses, and about half the states allow some kind of captive propagation of some species under a permit. In other wards, the argument is dependent on the state in which you live at to whether or not it is legal to sell/breed native species, which is one of the many reasons why wildlife laws are such a quagmire!

In Texas, you basically have open season on just about any kind of herp you want, and you can sell almost every native herp there is in Texas, which is why there are so many Texas herps in the pet trade, and from what your saying, things in your state are getting easer, but I would love to see the scientific reports to back up the claim that “…after years of study based on records turned in by folks including commercial collectors, have shown no appreciable decline, or are actually increasing in population.” If this statement were true, then the biologists I know in Texas would be amazed to find out that more studies on population biology have been done in the State of Texas than in the rest of the United States combined! Records of animals taken from the wild can in no way indicate the size or viability of a population. Go back and read my first post on this thread explaining the problems with harvesting “surplus” animals from a population. Even scientists with strict guidelines and equal sampling effort can at best get relative abundances from capture data. To truly get a sense of the dynamics of a population requires in-depth capture re-capture population studies conducted over about a ten year period, so the claim above is just amazing to me!

Again, let’s bottom-line the issue. If you want captive breeding to be the sole source for herps in the pet trade I’m right there with you!!! The only question I keep pointing out is, “How is a Game Warden, who will have no direct knowledge of the history of the animals he sees, going to be able to tell the difference between a WC animal and a CB animal (that is not a “morph”)? The size of the individual is irrelevant to the issue. The answer is he can’t, so the Game Warden can’t bust the poachers. Every thing else is immaterial to the argument before a Judge. A Judge only wants to hear proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the snake seized from the suspect is an illegal wild animal. Everything else just muddies up the waters.

Yes, PIT tags could help solve the problem, but ONLY IF EVERY captive animal, regardless of source, were PIT tagged, and there was some way to ensure that the tags could not be transferred to another animal. And the chances of that happening are slim to none with our current technology, but, as I said before, YOU”RE ON THE RIGHT TRACK! You just need to look at wildlife law from the perspective of enforcement. Laws that cannot be enforced are at best an exercise in futility, and at worse can contribute to the problem, which is what I think would occur in this case.

This really is an either/or scenario. If you relax the laws, you make it impossible for Game Wardens to enforce the law, and poachers are given a free hand. If you keep the law the way it is, you make it difficult for herpers to breed native herps, and poachers have a difficult time raping wild populations. There is no magic bullet here, and until there is, we have to decide which is more important, breeding animals in captivity or protecting wild populations of herps? I submit that if you really want to conserve herps, the choice is obvious, if you look at the situation from the perspective of enforcement of the law. It is like the difference between ecology and conservation biology. Ecology is great in an ideal world where you can study the animals and plants in habitat and the interactions between them, but we don’t live in an ideal world because there is a bulldozer heading our way to wipe out part or all of the habitat. An ecologist would sit back with a notebook and pencil and record how the environment was affected by the damage of the dozer and move on to a new study site. The conservation ecologist asks what is it going to take to keep the remaining plants and animals alive in the face of this destruction, and is there some way we can alter the path of the dozer that will minimize the destruction? In other words it is all a matter of objective and perspective, so I’ll ask you again. What is your objective with breeding native herps in captivity? From what perspective are you looking at the problem? And now the tough one…Are your objective and prospective in tune with one another, or is there some conflict between the two?

So much for keeping it short!

Big Brother

>>Conservation Biology is a discipline born out of the frustration many scientists experienced when the species and ecosystems they studied for years were whipped out by habitat destruction. This is not some feel good endeavor, it is real objective science.

What you've described in your subsequent paragraph makes sense. It does NOT make sense for those same people to write legislation. I have no problem with pure science being applied by someone else in writing such legislation, but I DO have a problem with studies commissioned to support an agenda (a study to back up a law currently under consideration, a study on the impact of logging funded by a paper company). No matter your intentions, it becomes difficult to remain unbiased against the entity writing your paycheck.

>>So now you live in Texas? I thought we were talking about captive breeding of native reptiles?

This is not a state-specific forum; I was writing a proposal which could be applied to ALL states, in an effort to streamline LE (which is one of the problems you've mentioned--the 'quagmire').

I thought you stated, or at least implied, that you had one of the rarely given out permits to breed Cal Kings in CA. You certainly provided a link to the CA Regulations, which is what my comments were in reference to. It is illegal to buy, sell, trade etc. any native wildlife in CA without a permit, and very few breeding permits are given out for herps, and then only for about five or six species.

This is incorrect. I've spent many months researching the whole CA reg mess, and you don't have to have a permit to keep a Cal King in CA. The fishing license, which allows possession of animals caught under the authority of that license, is not required for people walking into a pet store and buying a Cal King (although I've not been into a pet store, I'm told my by CA friends that you can do so). So now, you have a situation like you mentioned, where LE can't tell who bought theirs in a pet store, and who took theirs from the "wild" (perhaps a vacant lot down the street) without a permit. In other words, we have an unenforceable law, like you say my proposal would be, except this one (and many others) already exist.

As I've said repeatedly, a law only works on the law-abiding. You can make the penalties stiffer, or the restrictions more...restrictive, but for penalties to work a person has to get caught. For some people, the benefits (actual monetary or perceived) simply outweight the risk of getting caught, and they'll continue to poach. For others, the law would be well-written and make sense from a species protection standpoint, and they will obey it because they know it's the right thing to do. I'm sure most people in the CA herp hobby comply with the law to the best of their ability. I'm also sure there are many who do not, either because they don't KNOW the law (after all, it's covered in the fishing regs, and if they're not collecting, they might not even be aware of them), or because they consciously break the law. Those people have existed since time immemorial, and will continue to exist.

are getting easer, but I would love to see the scientific reports to back up the claim that “…after years of study based on records turned in by folks including commercial collectors, have shown no appreciable decline, or are actually increasing in population.”

I am not privy to the studies; I just know that Texas Parks & Wildlife changed the laws in 2002 after input from collectors, hobbyists, and staff (which I presume includes biologists). I was very careful not to claim "scientific studies," since I do not know how the staff biologists analyzed the records.

>>Again, let’s bottom-line the issue. If you want captive breeding to be the sole source for herps in the pet trade I’m right there with you!!!

This statement makes me think we're in agreement.

The only question I keep pointing out is, “How is a Game Warden, who will have no direct knowledge of the history of the animals he sees, going to be able to tell the difference between a WC animal and a CB animal (that is not a “morph”)? The size of the individual is irrelevant to the issue. The answer is he can’t, so the Game Warden can’t bust the poachers.

PIT tags. Receipts of purchase. No receipt = produce the license under which the animal was caught. No license = pay the fines (or whatever punishment determined).

Every thing else is immaterial to the argument before a Judge. A Judge only wants to hear proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the snake seized from the suspect is an illegal wild animal. Everything else just muddies up the waters.

You just need to look at wildlife law from the perspective of enforcement.

Not necessarily. I'd rather look at wildlife CONSERVATION from the perspective of EDUCATION and SENSIBLE LAWS. Enforcement is way down the chain from there.

Laws that cannot be enforced are at best an exercise in futility, and at worse can contribute to the problem, which is what I think would occur in this case.

As I've pointed out above, laws like the ones in CA. I only use CA laws because I have studied them more heavily than other states' (besides TX) due to my herping trips there.

>>This really is an either/or scenario.

We'll continue to disagree on this one.

If you relax the laws, you make it impossible for Game Wardens to enforce the law, and poachers are given a free hand.

I think you're putting words into my proposal that weren't there. I don't see it as "relaxing the laws," but rather tightening them (you must live in a state where all of this is already prohibited in any way, shape, or form--I'm thinking rather of places I've herped--CA, NV, AZ, TX, OK, etc). Maybe a key ingredient missing from my proposal would be a daily field limit ("bag limit"--if a warden stops a guy with a hundred snakes in a cooler, he could still be dealt with as a poacher. But yes, it would be hard for LE to come bust someone at their home and discover what could either be a legitimate breeding facility or a mere holding tank for commercial-scale collecting activity.

There is no magic bullet here, and until there is, we have to decide which is more important, breeding animals in captivity or protecting wild populations of herps? I submit that if you really want to conserve herps, the choice is obvious, if you look at the situation from the perspective of enforcement of the law.

Call me stubborn, but I still refuse to accept that this issue must be addressed from the perspective of enforcement. I can't remember if you ever said you were in fact a member of LE in some capacity, but I would tend to believe it (and I'm definitely not saying it's a bad thing!), based on the importance you place on the LE side of the equation, but again, that's only one small part of the equation. I think the issue is better addressed from the Big Picture, as you have already pointed out, which includes, again as we have already discussed, education and habitat protection among other things.

I'm not advocating open season on threatened or endangered herps. The bottom line is that I submit there is such a thing as Sustainable Use for many herp species (NOT all), and I think you would disagree.

What is your objective with breeding native herps in captivity?

I assume this will sound counter to my argument to you, but actually, protection of wild populations. See my next response.

From what perspective are you looking at the problem?

I'm looking at the perspective that a commercial collector can collect many individuals of a given species, go sell them, and come back the next weekend and collect the same number. A breeder can collect less individuals and end up producing MORE without continually tapping the wild populations. However, many current laws (and I apologize for not considering the states which forbid keeping ANY native reptile, another premise with which I disagree) place considerably more restrictions on breeders than on collectors.

And now the tough one…Are your objective and prospective in tune with one another, or is there some conflict between the two?

I think they're in tune. I'd rather see 100 breeders in a state take 4-6 specimens each (total: 600) and successfully breed them and sell the offspring over the next 10 years, than see 10 collectors take 20 specimens each (total: 200) and do it every summer for those same 10 years (grand total: 2,000).
-----
Chris McMartin
www.mcmartinville.com
I'm Not a Herpetologist, but I Play One on the Internet

Chris,

I have given you the links to the societies and journals dealing with Conservation Biology, I have explained what it is, how it started and what its goals are, and yet you still feel it necessary to assign invalid value judgments about something you obviously don’t care to understand, but I will try one last time to explain it to you before I give up.

Conservation Biology is a science focusing on the preservation of Biological Diversity and the conservation of species in perpetuity. Conservation Biology incorporates a variety of both theoretical and applied scientific fields to answer questions that are relevant to the ecological crisis we all face today. Conservation Biologists often participate in the biological decision making process (i.e. how to comply with legislation already written by lawyers and politicians, not biologists and certainly not by Conservation Biologists. If environmental laws were written by a group that included some biologists, we might get some laws that made a whole lot more sence, but I digress) to make sure the information, which they have often spent years conducting on the ground research to compile, does not get misinterpreted or misrepresented by some politician, lawyer or government bureaucrat. Yes there are Conservation biologists that work for various agencies and even private companies, but the vast majority are academics who are professors at universities. They are not “yes men” on the payroll of some logging company, but it would appear that you have decided other wise.

I said, “…I would love to see the scientific reports to back up the claim that “…after years of study based on records turned in by folks including commercial collectors, have shown no appreciable decline, or are actually increasing in population.”

And you said, “I am not privy to the studies; I just know that Texas Parks & Wildlife changed the laws in 2002 after input from collectors, hobbyists, and staff (which I presume includes biologists). I was very careful not to claim "scientific studies," since I do not know how the staff biologists analyzed the records.”

There are no studies. I am sure the biologists who work for TPW told the commission that changed the law that, and they were ignored. The changes in the law were done using a wild guess by some politician with no real knowledge as to how populations of animals and ecosystems function. This is a classic case of where input from a Conservation Biologist would have greatly improved the law. Instead of protecting wild populations of herps, these changes only protect a few commercial collectors. I just hope there are some herps left in Texas to protect in fifty years.

A the risk of repeating myself, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sect. 40, General Provisions Relating to Native Reptiles and Amphibians. “(a) General Prohibition: It is unlawful to capture, collect, intentionally kill or injure, possess, purchase, propagate, sell, transport, import or export any native reptile or amphibian, or part thereof, EXCEPT as provided in this chapter, Chapter 2 of this subdivision relating to sportfishing and frogging, sections 650, 670.7, or 783 of these regulations…” The sportfishing regulations allow the possession of basically four individuals animals form almost every species of amphibian in the state, and they allow the possession of basically two individuals of every reptile in the state. There are restrictions for T&E species and you can possess larger numbers of common species, but nowhere in the sportfishing regulations does it allow a person to sell native animals. Section 43. Captive Propagation and Commercialization of Native Reptiles and Amphibians. “(a) Native Reptile and Amphibian Propagation Permit. (1) Permit Required. …(e) Every person, who, for commercial purposes, sells, possesses, transports, imports exports or propagates native reptiles or amphibians… or who propagates native reptiles and amphibians for noncommercial purposes… shall have a native reptile and amphibian propagation permit that has not been revoked… (2) Bill of Sale. All animals sold pursuant to these regulations must be accompanied by a numbered bill of sale which shall contain the name and permit number of the permittee, the complete scientific of each native reptile sold and the name and address of the buyer. A copy of the bill of sale shall be retained by the buyer.” The regulations go on to list the only species allowed to be commercially propagated in the State of California, and they include: California Common Kingsnake, Gopher snake, Coastal and Desert Rosy Boas, and that is it!

So PLEASE EXPLAIN how my statement “It is illegal to buy, sell, trade etc. any native wildlife in CA without a permit, and very few breeding permits are given out for herps, and then only for about five or six species” is INCORRECT? Further, the state will not issue a permit for breeding more than three native species to any one individual and then they are not allowed to possess more than 30 individuals of each species including the parents and the offspring. AND… last year there were less than 24 permits issued for the entire state, so this is a very rare exception to the general law… and, as I said in my first post, enforcement of this law in California has proved to be a nightmare for enforcement and breeders alike, and no one is happy with the law. Why? Because neither a piece of paper, a size limit nor a PIT tag can be used to distinguish between a wild collected and a captive born snake. I bought 1,500 PIT tags not two months ago. What is to stop me from putting those tags in 1,500 wild collected snakes and selling them as CB? The answer, HONESTY, but CROOKS BY DEFINITION ARE NOT HONEST!

The only way PIT tags would work is if the PIT tags were implanted right after hatching by a Game Warden, and the number of each tag was logged into a data bank maintained by the game Dept. with a sample of DNA from each animal to prevent people from switching the tags after the fact. Then, and only then, could you distinguish between WC and CB in a court of law, which is the only place it really matters. Who is going to pay for the cost of the PIT tag, registration data/DNA bank, and not to mention the time of the Game Warden to come out and implant the tags? The breeder perhaps, but this would add at least $20 to the cost of each animal. Will the breeder be able to recoup his costs with out selling the snakes? No, which is why I am assuming this is all to be done for profit.

Again, if you want to outlaw the collection of wild collected herps thereby forcing people to buy CB herps, I am right there with you! But if you honestly think that the availability of CB snakes will some how stop poachers from taking snakes from the wild and selling them for less money than you can sell your CB stock for, then you are failing to see the reality of the situation. In fact, I think you will greatly increase not only the number of herps poached but also the profit margin of the poachers! Under your plan, Joe Blow can no longer collect his own snake, so he has to buy it from somewhere. Does he buy it from you for $40 or more fro a baby, or does he pay a poacher $40 for an adult? As you said, “Make doing the right thing cheaper than doing the wrong thing. I'm not just talking cheaper in an intangible "long-term benefits" way of thinking, but showing people a measurable difference in their pocketbooks.” The only way your plan would work to conserve species is if you had an absolutely foolproof way to distinguish between a WC and CB herp 100% of the time so people who poach and buy WC herps get convicted and fined so people will understand they must obey the law, and PIT tags simply won’t accomplish this goal. I think your on the right track, and you have some good ideas, but man you have got to look at the big picture ‘cause you seem to be stuck in a rut thinking that if you produce CB snakes no one with ever poach snakes again, and that just ain’t reality. The only way to stop poaching is to make it almost impossible to make a profit from poaching and make it very easy to get caught, but your plan will do the exact opposite on both counts!

Big Brother

>>I have given you the links to the societies and journals dealing with Conservation Biology, I have explained what it is, how it started and what its goals are, and yet you still feel it necessary to assign invalid value judgments about something you obviously don’t care to understand, but I will try one last time to explain it to you before I give up.

I guess you should just give up, no offense meant to you; but calling something a "science" when it has an agenda (preservation of biological diversity rather than a simple increase in the body of knowledge which can be applied by other disciplines) is a conflict of terms. Call me pedantic if you will. This could be better addressed in another thread, or probably better still in another forum, but I only read a select few here.

>>There are no studies. I am sure the biologists who work for TPW told the commission that changed the law that, and they were ignored.

My curiosity in this area is starting to get the better of me. Cite for me your proof for this allegation (or tell me you can't), and better still, "unveil" yourself here so I can lend more credence to your opinions!

improved the law. Instead of protecting wild populations of herps, these changes only protect a few commercial collectors.

If you look at the list of herps for which the rules changed, there MAY be some which are of interest to commercial collectors. Many are not.

>>A the risk of repeating myself, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sect. 40, General Provisions Relating to Native Reptiles and Amphibians.

Regardless (yes, regardless), it can and does still happen (on this point, I'm relying solely on the observations of resident CA folks). By reading the law, you would think you had to buy a fishing license every year in order to continue to maintain a Cal King in captivity. Maybe I should check with the CA herp clubs to see if there have been any problems with people getting reptiles confiscated.

I think I'd have to concede your point that it may be illegal. However, I think you'd have to concede my point that it's an unenforceable law.

What is to stop me from putting those tags in 1,500 wild collected snakes and selling them as CB? The answer, HONESTY, but CROOKS BY DEFINITION ARE NOT HONEST!

And crooks, by definition, do not follow the law.

>>Again, if you want to outlaw the collection of wild collected herps thereby forcing people to buy CB herps, I am right there with you!

We will therefore have to terminate the discussion. That is clearly NOT what I'm in favor of. I'm against the SALE of WC. One could still collect (with appropriate bag limits).

But if you honestly think that the availability of CB snakes will some how stop poachers from taking snakes from the wild and selling them for less money than you can sell your CB stock for, then you are failing to see the reality of the situation.

Actually, I DO see the reality of the situation, and it can be addressed two ways. Your methodology addresses the supply side of the equation (penalizing people for collecting). My methodology aims to address the demand side of the equation (allowing greater freedom with CB projects, with the animals' better suitability for the pet trade than WC in the first place). Some people ALREADY pay more for CB than WC--some for moral reasons, some for a perceived "greater value" in that the animal will have a greater chance of survival. This is why education is important (which might be the only thing left for us to be in agreement? )--people need to realize that when looking for a pet herp, CB is almost always the better route to go.

It's easy for people right now to take what they perceive to be the 'moral high ground' by saying their pet was CB, even if its parents were pulled from under some bark just a few months prior.

In fact, I think you will greatly increase not only the number of herps poached but also the profit margin of the poachers!

How can a poacher turn a profit if no one buys the herps he collected?

Under your plan, Joe Blow can no longer collect his own snake, so he has to buy it from somewhere.

A slight misstatement. Under my plan, Joe Blow can buy his permit and come on down and collect his own snake. I still don't have a problem with that.

Does he buy it from you for $40 or more fro a baby, or does he pay a poacher $40 for an adult?

You're assuming I'd be wanting to turn a profit (or that the poacher wishes to do so, for that matter). Not many people in it for the money are going to breed herps that aren't profitable. Furthermore, nobody would then be able to even BUY those herps, because none would be bred.

The only way your plan would work to conserve species is if you had an absolutely foolproof way to distinguish between a WC and CB herp 100% of the time

I must disagree here as well. You are severely limiting your point by placing such stringent requirements on it ('absolutely foolproof,' '100%,' etc). If it worked MOST of the time, and people were caught and fined accordingly for breaking the law, I STILL maintain that the species would be better off. After all, some people still break other laws, but does that mean we should not have those laws in the first place?

thinking that if you produce CB snakes no one with ever poach snakes again, and that just ain’t reality. The only way to stop poaching is to make it almost impossible to make a profit from poaching and make it very easy to get caught, but your plan will do the exact opposite on both counts!

We're in disagreement again. I don't think it will do the opposite on BOTH counts (although I do agree with your assertion about catching poachers).

I don't care if it's difficult to get caught poaching. You read correctly; I don't plan on poaching so it's a nonissue for me personally. Also, I think you mentioned about poachers in Africa being shot on sight. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

I DO care that it's a good thing to make it easier for people to get CB rather than rely on WC for desirable species. With that part solved, the poacher will have less of a market. There will still be some dirtbags out there who will poach (as there are now), and there will still be some people willing to buy those poached animals (as there are now). This proposal wouldn't STOP that, but it would help STEM that.
-----
Chris McMartin
www.mcmartinville.com
I'm Not a Herpetologist, but I Play One on the Internet

Chris,

You said, “I guess you should just give up, no offense meant to you; but calling something a "science" when it has an agenda (preservation of biological diversity rather than a simple increase in the body of knowledge which can be applied by other disciplines) is a conflict of terms. Call me pedantic if you will.”
Okay, you’re pedantic, but you’re also dogmatic and myopic. The environment is falling apart around us, and you would have scientists continue in the narrow box your High School Science Teacher told you was the definition of science even though traditional science has been unable to stop the ecological crisis we find our selves in. Personally, I’ll put my money on the Conservation Biologists because I want there to be a world left for my grandchildren to inherit!

I said, “I am sure the biologists who work for TPW told the commission that changed the law that, and they were ignored.”
And you said, “My curiosity in this area is starting to get the better of me. Cite for me your proof for this allegation (or tell me you can't), and better still, "unveil" yourself here so I can lend more credence to your opinions!”
Well, I could tell you that I personally know two biologists who work for Texas PWD who are furious about the new changes in the law, but then you would force me to unmask, and we can’t have that because it is far too much fun messing with people’s minds this way… Oooo. The plot thickens! Suffice it to say that I have more letters behind my name than are in it, and I have spent more time dealing with wildlife laws than the entire Bush Cabinet combined (of course that’s not too hard to do, I’ll grant you), but my qualifications are immaterial to the points I am trying to make, so why muddy things up? Let me answer your charge by giving you information and resources, so you can find the answers yourself (of course that did not work out so well with Conservation Biology, but maybe this time you won’t be so dogmatic in the face of the facts).

DIXON, J. R. 1987. Amphibians and Reptiles of Texas. Texas A&M University Press, College Station. 434 pp. The publisher states “For this new edition Dixon has added a section on conservation issues that highlights the threats to the continued survival of amphibians and reptiles, particularly commercial collecting and habitat destruction.”

Gibbons, J. Whitfield, David E. Scott, Travis J. Ryan, Kurt A. Buhlmann, Tracey D. Tuberville, Brian S. Metts, Judith L. Greene, Tony Mills, Yale Leiden, Sean Poppy, and Chris Winne. The Global Decline of Reptiles, Déjà Vu Amphibians. This was a BioScience article available online at http://www.parcplace.org/documents/GeneralHerpInfo/reptile_decline1.htm
Particularly check out the section on “Unsustainable Use” that discusses the impact that over-collecting by the pet trade has had on populations, and it gives specific examples of snake and turtle species wiped out by over collecting.

From The Handbook of Texas “Habitat destruction, COLLECTING, and, probably, pesticide use, have led to a decline of the Texas horned lizard in many parts of the state, and the species is now classified as threatened and protected under state law.”

From Oklahoma Wildlife Diversity Program of the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation “The collection of horned lizards as pets or to sell commercially in the pet trade may have affected some populations, especially near town and cities. Anecdotal accounts state that thousands of horned lizards were shipped out of Oklahoma and Texas and sold as pets in the eastern U.S. and Europe from the early 1900s until the 1980s. Because of their special diet, most of these lizards died from improper care within a few weeks, and no self-sustaining captive-bred populations were ever developed. Horned lizards now are protected in Oklahoma and Texas and this activity is illegal; however, where collecting was common, some populations may not have recovered yet.” Kind of makes you wonder why people kept collecting critters that died all the time doesn’t it? Still think people will do the right thing?

And my favorite from the Texas Parks And Wildlife website FAQ page on reptile permits:
“Why were non-game permits created?
These regulations were created by the department to gather information on pressures exerted on non-game populations because of take by hobbyists and other collectors such as commercial dealers. Anecdotal evidence has indicated that in some cases, harvest of certain non-game species is great enough to possibly affect the overall sustainability of wild populations. It is TPWD's mission to manage the state's wildlife so that a viable and harvestable population is maintained.”
That sort of casts some serous doubt on your assertion that this same information demonstrated that some populations actually increased in size with collecting, doesn’t it? And you will note they call the data “anecdotal” not scientific because there are very few real studies on herp population dynamics. The Global Decline of Reptiles article above has a good discussion of this universal problem.

You said, “I think I'd have to concede your point that it may be illegal. However, I think you'd have to concede my point that it's an unenforceable law.”
That is exactly what I have been saying all the way along, but you keep arguing that it is some how enforceable by keeping a sales slip or sticking a PIT tag in the animal, but yet that is exactly what was tried in CA, and it failed miserably. “Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.”
TPWD says it all:
“Why is there a possession limit on listed species?
Since it is difficult to prove intent to sell, a possession limit has been established over which it is assumed that the individual is engaged in some type if commercial activity.”
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/conserve/permits/faq/
This sounds kind of like what I said in the first post huh?
If you increase the possession limit to allow for people to captively breed, how are the Texas Game Wardens going to be able to bust poachers on the side of the road with 20 snakes in their trunk?

“And crooks, by definition, do not follow the law.” Again, exactly my point, so why make it easer for them to get away with breaking the law?

”Actually, I DO see the reality of the situation, and it can be addressed two ways. Your methodology addresses the supply side of the equation (penalizing people for collecting). My methodology aims to address the demand side of the equation (allowing greater freedom with CB projects, with the animals' better suitability for the pet trade than WC in the first place). Some people ALREADY pay more for CB than WC--some for moral reasons, some for a perceived "greater value" in that the animal will have a greater chance of survival. This is why education is important (which might be the only thing left for us to be in agreement? )--people need to realize that when looking for a pet herp, CB is almost always the better route to go.”
I think we do agree that it is great to encorage people to take responsibility for their actions and buy captive bred herps. This is something I have been advocating for probably 10 years or more now. I even proposed this concept on this forum a couple weeks back (see "Amphibian and Reptile Enthusiasts for Conservation and Responsible Pet Ownership, a proposal. - BigBrother, Jan 25, 2004", but all the moral high ground in the world is not going to stop poaching as long as someone can make a profit doing it, so the laws must address this issue or there is no incentive to obey the law.

“I must disagree here as well. You are severely limiting your point by placing such stringent requirements on it ('absolutely foolproof,' '100%,' etc). If it worked MOST of the time, and people were caught and fined accordingly for breaking the law, I STILL maintain that the species would be better off. After all, some people still break other laws, but does that mean we should not have those laws in the first place?” Ok, since most people obey the speed limit at say 55 mph, but some safe drivers want to go faster than that, so let’s give only the safe drivers a permit to drive ten miles over the speed limit. Now explain to me how this is going to increase the ability of cops to enforce the speed limit on speeders? Do they pull over every car going over 55 mph to see if they have the permit to drive faster than 55 and give gold stars to the ones with the permit, or do you just assume that everyone has the permit and only pull over the people going over 65 mph? Either way, by giving an exception to the law you are decreasing the ability of police to enforce the law. One way you unnecessarily tie up man hours pulling over people with the permit to drive faster, so more unsafe speeders get away with speeding while you’re giving a gold star to the guy with the permit. The other way you let speeders get away with the 10 mph increase because it is too much trouble to enforce the actual law, but you save a ton of money not having to buy all thoes gold stars. In order to effectively enforce a law you have to draw a line somewhere, and yes, that law will inconvenience some people, but that is the reality of living in a society with other people. However, in this speeding example, at least the cop and Judge will be able to check to see if the permit is valid for the person driving faster than 55 mph, but in the case of WC vs. CB snakes he can’t tell the difference, so how is anyone going to get fined for breaking the law when you can’t prove that they actually broke the law in the first place?!? Our legal system is defined by “reasonable doubt”, which is generally taken to mean the Judge has to be 90% sure the person is guilty. If you can’t prove the animal is not CB, how can a Judge be 90% certain the snake was poached? He can’t! I don’t know any other way to explain this. Gold stars simply do not get the job done!

“I don't care if it's difficult to get caught poaching. You read correctly; I don't plan on poaching so it's a nonissue for me personally.”
Fine for you, but when your in the position of proposing or making laws, you do not have the luxury of burying your head in the sand and pretending that every one will do the right thing to earn a gold star. The world is a much bigger place than you and your actions. Keep breeding snakes until they burst out of your windows if you want, but leave the proposal and enforcement of laws up to those of us who have the knowledge and ability to see the big picture and make the tough calls to try and make some dent in the activities of poachers, and if you don’t like the laws that we make, then come up with some proposals based on reality, not your egocentric view of the world around you and a box of gold stars.

And with that, I give up trying to explain to you how wildlife laws actually work. I just hope that someone out there in cyber land got something out of this discourse besides a headache.

At least we agree that it is better to buy CB animals than WC

Big Brother

P.S. I found this little tidbit on the TPWD web site you might be interested in:
NEW REGULATION - A person possessing a valid non-game permit may sell non-game wildlife only to a person in possession of a valid dealer's non-game permit.

And also from TPWD:

Who needs a non-game permit?
Anyone in possession of more than 25 listed animals in the aggregate. See the non-game regulations for more details.
Anyone collecting animals from the wild or captive-breeding them for commercial purposes, that is, for sale or trade of the animals, dead or alive. This also applies to the offspring of captive adults.

>>Okay, you’re pedantic, but you’re also dogmatic and myopic. The environment is falling apart around us,

This one quote you've provided gives more insight than much of our discussion up to this point, at least from a philosophical perspective. I don't feel the same way (apocalyptically?) about the current situation as you do, so understandably we are approaching the current topic from wholly different worldviews. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that.

and you would have scientists continue in the narrow box your High School Science Teacher told you was the definition of science

..or what my college professors told me, or what current academia tells me when the subject is broached elsewhere than here. I'm a firm believer in the "wearing of hats" to provide a cliched analogy, and furthering agendas which, for better or worse, have become highly charged politically, by someone "wearing the hat" of a scientist rather than an advocate/activist (even if their "day job" is that of a scientist) is intellectually dishonest.

even though traditional science has been unable to stop the ecological crisis we find our selves in.

As well it shouldn't; it's not its job.

Personally, I’ll put my money on the Conservation Biologists because I want there to be a world left for my grandchildren to inherit!

I don't wish to bring any more emotion into this discussion than has already been applied, so I will sidestep this one.

you would force me to unmask, and we can’t have that because it is far too much fun messing with people’s minds this way…

I was hoping for a more sincere method to your discussion than merely "messing with my mind!"

The plot thickens! Suffice it to say that I have more letters behind my name than are in it, and I have spent more time dealing with wildlife laws than the entire Bush Cabinet combined (of course that’s not too hard to do, I’ll grant you), but my qualifications are immaterial to the points I am trying to make, so why muddy things up?

If the letters are important enough to mention, then they must bear some relevance to the discussion.

BioScience article available online at http://www.parcplace.org/documents/GeneralHerpInfo/reptile_decline1.htm
>>Particularly check out the section on “Unsustainable Use” that discusses the impact that over-collecting by the pet trade has had on populations, and it gives specific examples of snake and turtle species wiped out by over collecting.

I thank you for this reference; while I didn't see any mention of species "wiped out" (maybe a difference in our understanding of the term?) by overcollecting, it did seem to present a balanced view (meaning, there was information there we could BOTH use to support our sides of the discussion).

populations may not have recovered yet.” Kind of makes you wonder why people kept collecting critters that died all the time doesn’t it?

Yep, and I think it took a while before herps actually gained sufficient popularity that people gave a [noun of your choice] about their captive well-being. You don't see horned lizards sold in roadside stands anymore, and I'll agree that part of the reason is the illegality of it, but even unscrupulous collectors who sell them have a hard time doing so because people who previously might have bought them have learned that they're difficult to keep alive in captivity (again, this is approaching the problem from the demand-side of the equation--I'm a believer in "carrot" vs. "stick" tactics). I only have firsthand knowledge of one individual who has successfully maintained them for a long period of time, and I don't think he's bred them.

Still think people will do the right thing?

I think the pendulum is swinging in that direction, yes. It's due in part to legislation, true; but it's also due to people just knowing better than to buy WC.
>>And my favorite from the Texas Parks And Wildlife website FAQ page on reptile permits:
...
>>That sort of casts some serous doubt on your assertion that this same information demonstrated that some populations actually increased in size with collecting, doesn’t it?

You seem to be hinting at a cause-effect relationship, which I do not suggest (sorry if it sounded like I did). Maybe I should've said that populations were not significantly impacted, and in some cases increased over the data collection period, though not attributable to collection. Like your Global Decline of Reptiles article indicates, there are a lot more variables, most notably climatic factors, which may influence short-term population changes.

>>If you increase the possession limit to allow for people to captively breed, how are the Texas Game Wardens going to be able to bust poachers on the side of the road with 20 snakes in their trunk?

Because no one in their right mind keeps their breeding operation in the trunk of their car?

>>I think we do agree that it is great to encorage people to take responsibility for their actions and buy captive bred herps. ... all the moral high ground in the world is not going to stop poaching as long as someone can make a profit doing it, so the laws must address this issue or there is no incentive to obey the law.

All the laws in the world are not going to stop poaching either. The "people aren't obeying the existing laws, so let's make even more laws" approach doesn't seem to be working (yet? until we get rid of the pesky privacy rights in homes!).

Ok, since most people obey the speed limit at say 55 mph, but some safe drivers want to go faster than that, so let’s give only the safe drivers a permit to drive ten miles over the speed limit. Now explain to me how this is going to increase the ability of cops to enforce the speed limit on speeders? Do they pull over every car going over 55 mph to see if they have the permit to drive faster than 55 and give gold stars to the ones with the permit, or do you just assume that everyone has the permit and only pull over the people going over 65 mph? Either way, by giving an exception to the law you are decreasing the ability of police to enforce the law.

I don't know where you drive were most people obey the speed limit, but yes, I wish there was more enforcement. "Everybody else is going that fast" isn't an excuse, and anyone speeding should be ready to pay a fine. Enforcement of speeding laws is already ineffective (though a great source of revenue for a local township I know of), so LE gets a random sampling of speeders at best. Similarly, I'm fairly certain for every kid that currently gets busted with a too-long snake, or one over the possession limit, there are plenty more career poachers who get away with it. That doesn't make it right, any more than punishing those who wish to do what's right and/or legal makes THAT right.

in the case of WC vs. CB snakes he can’t tell the difference,

If sufficient legal documentation isn't, well, sufficient (since documents can be forged), what good is our signature on a check, or most of our current paperwork-intensive governmental structure? I agree that lines should be drawn; we just disagree on WHERE.

>>And with that, I give up trying to explain to you how wildlife laws actually work.

Or don't work.

See you in the next thread, whoever you are!
-----
Chris McMartin
www.mcmartinville.com
I'm Not a Herpetologist, but I Play One on the Internet

You quoted "DIXON, J. R. 1987. Amphibians and Reptiles of Texas. Texas A&M University Press, College Station. 434 pp. The publisher states “For this new edition Dixon has added a section on conservation issues that highlights the threats to the continued survival of amphibians and reptiles, particularly commercial collecting and habitat destruction.” "

Here is the new 2000 version Texas Snakes Identification, Disrtibution, and Natural History by Werler and Dixon University of Texas Press. In the chapter titled Conservation "The loss of a single snake, or a dozen snakes, or even a hundred in one year will probably not seriously impact the balance of a particular ecosystem, at least not in the long term." In the whole chapter there is no mention of collection for personal use. The only things mentioned are wanton killing of snakes, which is also said to be of little importance directly, the main damage being the general attitude of the public which fails to see value in the much hated snake and instead regards them as dangerous. Habitat destruction, pollution and fire ants are listed as the real threats. I think these author have realized that most collecters do little, if any lasting damage and can in fact be allies in the conservation movement.
Note this book is specificly about Texas snakes, personally I think tortises because of lower reproductive rates and Alligators because of the vastness of the hide trade are a different story.
I think portraying personal collectors as the "straw that will break the camals back" is less a truth than preventing personal collection is "straining out the gnat while swallowing the camel".
And I agree with Fundad about giving up personal freedoms to make enforcement easier. Given reasonable permits which are not near so hard to enforce as you seem to be saying I think conservation could find many allies and ambassadors among hobbyists.

”3. Allow the captive breeding of, and sale of the offspring of, native herps.”
Once again, this will only make it easer for the unscrupulous poachers to get away with their crimes.

>>>I disagree. CA has a Commercial Breeding Program that you spoke of as a disaster. If F&G managed more dilligently there really wouldn't be many loopholes. When you get your permit you are required to list all native CA herps in your possesion. You are also required to report all eggs produced and how many hatch. If indeed people are using the permit system to poach it could easily be discovered with a litte work. In order to get your permit you must give F&G the right to inspect your facilities at any time. F&G could easily do an inspection on about August 15th and make a note of how many eggs, and in the case of live bearing Rosy Boas how many gravid females there are. This way it would be easy for F&G to detect at the end of the year when sales reports are turned in, as is required, who was selling offspring in excess of what they produced. If a peson had 30 Cal King eggs and sold 31 well maybe there was twins but if he had 30 eggs and sold 100 babies obviously there was some poaching going on. Rosies are a little harder but still the average number of babies is about 5-7, if somebody had 4 grvid Rosies and produced 24 then good, if he produced 36 well it's possible (resonable doubt), but if he produced 75 then obviously a poacher. The thing to do then would be for F&G to set up a sting where they know so-and-so had 20 Cal King eggs and have 3 different agents place orders for 10 snakes each. If he filled all orders the they have him. From the permit holders I have talked to F&G simply just does not do inspections on a regular basis. True ther would be room for a small amount of poaching in live bearing Rosies, but I think if F&G did this to just a few permit holders every year it would drasticly reduce any laundering going on.
But then again I doubt it is the permit holders that are doing most of the poaching. In fact as evidenced by the decline in value of the species allowed I would say the permit system has been very successful at reducing incentive to poach. Baby Cal Kings can now be found at every San Diego herp show for around $15 each. Very few normals are even sold anymore, mostly you see hi-whites, abberants and albinos. Coastal Rosies at $25-40, Deserts at $35-50. The AZ Rosies which used to be $200-400 each are now down to $50-75 and this didn't happen because AZ allowed the sale of them, they still don't. It happened because CA allowed the sale of them. A person from back east used to be able to count on paying for their trip to AZ by catching just 2 Boas, now they would have to catch 20 which just isn't feasable. The private sector is to thank for this. I live and hunt in CA and you cannot tell me that poaching has not gone down because of the permit system. I also go to TX to hunt every year and see dozens of collecters from all over the USA, nobody there asks for Cal Kings and Rosies anymore. They ask for Pond Turtles, Chuckwallas and Rattlesnakes because there is no captive breeding allowed and the market demands for these are not being met so they are easy to sell.
Lastly it's true we don't have a right to keep herps but we do have a right to use our natural resources in ways that the government managers see fit. When the parameters for use are unreasonable there will be disagreement, discontent and backlash in the form of noncompliance. When the parameters are reasonable you will see more compliance as well as more reporting of non-compliance by the public who pays for the system to operate.

Aron,
I don’t get your point, and in fact I think you make mine for me. The current program in Calif doesn’t work because the law is not enforceable in its current form because there are not enough inspections. To solve the problem of a lack of inspections you suggest that there be more inspections, and then you want a Game Warden to determine if your snake is gravid or probe your snake to determine its sex? (And no they can’t count the eggs ‘cause roses are live bearing) Do you really want a Game Warden with no experience with herps probing all of you animals to determine their sex once a year? And what is to stop some “breeder” from letting their baby rosy boas die and collecting larger more profitable animals from the wild to sell after the inspections are over?
Prices of herps vary according to supply and demand. When I was a kid I use to have two to three year waiting lists for some of the rat snakes I use to breed, but about 15 years ago I could not give them away because the pet stores could not even sell them for $15, and now there are actually breeders who are making money again on corn snakes. The market is all about supply and demand, which is why people are always attracted to the new, exotic and hard to get animals because that is where the money is, and it is just another part of the collections disease all us herpers seem to suffer from, but lets not use our insatiable appetite for new and exotic animals as an excuse to wipe out species, shall we.
Big Brother

Bigbrother-
1)Laws, like security, are designed to prevent crime, and since we live in a society where you are “Innocent until PROVEN guilty…BEYOND a reasonable doubt” in a court of law. (Remember this DOES NOT apply until you have actually been charged with a crime, and go before a Judge) Laws must be written to minimize the potential excuses criminals can give to explain their actions. Unfortunately, this means the rest of us “Law Abiding Citizens” have to give up certain ‘freedoms’ for the greater good (e.g. have you tried to get on a plane lately? I can’t even take my Swiss Army knife on the plane any more, and I feel positively naked without it, but if I was a Federal Special Agent, I could take my gun on the plane! An Agent can take a gun on board a plane, but not a pocketknife?!? Every one, including cops, has to follow the rules, so that when someone breaks them…the hammer can fall!). You need to remember the bigger picture here. If it is easy for people that are poaching and selling wildlife to get away with a crime because a few people, with legitimate reasons and good intentions, want to be able to be able to do something that creates a loophole in the law that the poachers, and their high paid lawyers, can exploit to get away with their crimes, then we all lose! Remember, the goal here is to protect wild populations of animals in perpetuity, and I assure you, poachers are doing a whole lot more damage than you and a few other breeders can undo, so I ask you, which is more important, your breeding a relatively few native species or stopping poachers from decimating wildlife populations? What is your ultimate goal?

Fundad-
Why should we have to give up our freedoms in order to catch poachers... Please explain in detail for me so I understand where you are comming from.

What species are on decline because of poaching again?? What species are we talking about.. I am not aware of any in California... So I would be interested to what species we are talking about.

I have a novel idea... I know it's been tough for some people to understand, so I 'll throw it out there again.. HOW ABOUT WE ENFORCE LAWS IN THE FIELD. Meaning LE goes to where this so called poaching is taking place and enoforces bag limits there.. Just like they do with fishing and hunting. A number of us would be willing to share places and times herpers could be found in the field it's not rocket science nor hard. I can tell you this there wouldn't be much poaching going on on my beat without me getting a few.. But there seems to be a lack of herp enforcement often because of funding, time, education, and other issues. That needs to change if we are going to protect our herps from the "so called underground poaching network that is depleting our gopher snake populations." LOL

Next everyone needs to buy a herp license or stamp.... If we dont know how many herpers there are in the field, than how can we know how many herps are being taken??? This is a pet peeve of mine.... Also a tag system like they they have for steelhead so we can know exactly how many of each species are taken each year.
I know there are budget problems proventing that, but the extra revanue from the herp license would help offset the cost..

Next issue is habitat destruction... habitat protection needs to be the top priority, without out it I will strongly oppose any and all scrafices of our freedoms. When developers and poor land management for herps continues at an alarming rate killing 100,000's of herps a year how can we justify giving up our freedoms.......... We give up our freedoms already. Example not collecting from state parks, monuments and preserves...... ETC..

All of the above will protect our wildlife and is that hard to do. But yet it's not done.. Until all of the above are in place than I will fight against giving up our freedoms to make things 'BETTER' for law enforcement. If all of the above are in place and we still have a real problem not precieved one than I will support giving up my freedoms..

There is no problem with someone taking a few herps within bag limits for personal use. Why would I want a captive breed animal. What joy would I have in that? Having an herp and knowing where it came from the exact rock for example and having the memories of finding that herp are part of the joy of keeping them...

Remember the goal here is to protect wildlife, so lets get started today.......

Stepping off soap box and putting the gun down
Fundad

.

Fundad
First, I think a herp license stamp is a great idea!!! I buy hunting and fishing licenses every year, not because I actually use them, but because I feel that paying those fees gives me more of a right to direct how natural resources are protected. It is kind of like the Voting argument, “If you don’t vote, you don’t have the right to complain about the outcome.”

Yes, like it or not, species are in decline in California in part because of over collection. See the report:
Jennings, Mark R. and Marc P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California. Final report submitted to The California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division. Ppii-255.

The following is a partial list of the herp species in California that are reported to be in decline in part because of over collecting or poaching for the pet trade:
Breckenridge mountain slender salamander
Yellow-blotched salamander
Large-blotched salamander
Coast range newt
Northern red-legged frog
Western pond turtle
Banded Gila monster
San Diego horned lizard
Flat-tailed horned lizard
Sandstone night lizard
Sierra night lizard
Baja California rat snake
San Bernardino mountain kingsnake
San Diego mountain kingsnake
Rosy boa
So as you can see, there are species in California subjected to over collecting, and there are many papers published in peer-reviewed journals that also support this contention. Just because you may not think your actions do not have an impact on wild populations does not mean the impacts are not there.

All I have argued for in this thread is maintaining the ability of Game Wardens to “ENFORCE LAWS IN THE FIELD.” Those laws are based on possession limits. If you increase the possession limits for breeders to maintain captive animals, then the collector can have possession of many more animals than is reasonable for him to collect. We do not have one set of laws that only apply in the field, and another set of laws that apply at a breeding facility. A possession limit is a total possession limit. In other words, thank you for arguing my point exactly. Further, I have said repeatedly that the Game Wardens do not have the time to enforce the laws as they are currently written, so what makes people think they will somehow find the time to enforce new laws that require all kinds of inspections. The answer, they can’t, so why make a difficult job impossible?

As to what freedoms we have to give up… That is kind of a misnomer, because it is already illegal to breed and sell native herps in California with very few exceptions, so it is really more like we’re not increasing our right to breed and sell any herp we want for personal profit, because we as a society think it is better to preserve animals in their natural habitat than it is for a few people to monetarily benefit form captive breeding. If that is bad… then so be it.

Finally, I want to address the base problem here. You and others seem to think that because habitat destruction is the main problem facing most herps that some how your activities are in consequential to the problem. In other words, you recognize that species habitats are being destroyed at an alarming rate. Lets stay a housing development and shopping maul destroys half the available habitat for a particular species thereby eliminating better that half the number of individuals of a given species (there are many published papers on the relationship between habitat size and the number of individuals the habitat is able to support decreasing faster than the habitat, but that is a discussion well beyond my point here), which means the genetic diversity of the population has also been decreased, thereby increasing the probability of due to demographic, and genetic problems, all of which increase exponentially as the size of the population decreases. Now, after all that, you want to continue or even increase the collection of wild populations because the bigger effect on the population is the destruction of the habitat. Over collection just makes the problem worse, and may even provide the final bullet that drives the species to extinction. After habitat destruction has crippled populations, over collecting has a much greater impact than it ever could on its own. If ten people fire guns at a person, but you are only one of the ten people, does that make you any less guilty of murder than the other nine people?

It is like you said, “Remember the goal here is to protect wildlife, so lets get started today.......” If you’re going to wait until everyone else has cleaned up his or her act before you get started. There won’t be anything left to protect.

Big Brother

Good post big brother.

I just want to simplify one point you made. I think that the main reason why all these laws being enacted do not allow provisions for CBB animals is there is virtually no easy way to distinguish them from WC. I honestly think that if there were a realistic way to distinguish them, lawmakers would make exceptions fopr them.

Steve Schindler

Thanks for the vote of confidence Steve! Now if we could just get Chris to understand this simple point.

Big Brother

>>Thanks for the vote of confidence Steve! Now if we could just get Chris to understand this simple point.

I've previously tried another proposal--deliberate hybridization for the sole purpose of making animals distinguishable from WC in the pet trade, but the discussion devolved into a personal attack and was removed by the moderators.
-----
Chris McMartin
www.mcmartinville.com
I'm Not a Herpetologist, but I Play One on the Internet

I've covered this in another post, but here is is again:

1) I think BB is against captive breeding.
2) I think BB wants to conserve habitat.

I think most people would agree with him on point 2, but we have a problem with point 1. I would sure like to know what native animals here in the United States have suffered a decline in population due to overcollection for the pet trade.

There are more black pine snakes in captivity today than there are in the wild. This is solely due to the efforts of hobbyists. With a diverse array of color and pattern morps of corn snakes, there is less of demand for wild caught animals. Who made all those morphs? Answer: Private breeders.

More and more pet stores are buying captive bred stock from local breeders, rather than selling imported animals. And BB thinks this is somehow wrong.

Yes, in other countries there are animals on the brink of extinction, but I think most people here want to keep and breed their native "Born In The USA" herps without the hassle of the government, who is doing a rather shoddy job of preserving the environment/biodiversity.

The fact is, in the United States the collecting of herps is a "drop in the bucket" compared to the other factors affecting their survival (habitat destruction/fragmentation/alteration).

Tim Spuckler

Whatever BB believes, he fails to see the big picture. If animals are in decline, there's more going on than collecting for the pet trade. A couple of springs ago a good friend of mine met someone who caught 30 cornsnakes on a single stretch of road in Okeetee, in a single evening. Okeetee, probably the most collected spot on the planet. WOW!!! What a decline lol. I have a breeding project I'm working on, that there aren't that many CB available, although it is a common animal. So I hope to aquire more wildcaughts in the future.
In order for no more natural environment to be destroyed, there needs to be permanent bans on things like; asphault, transportation, air conditioning, concrete, plastic, all metals, and oh yeah, lets not forget war, especially WMD. Until then, let's pull some of these little guys out of harms way.
Anyway guys, these are just my opinions, so get out there and go on some herping adventures. Enjoy.
Alan,

While I agree that BB fails to see other points of view.....

Does anyone else have a problem with one individual taking 30 Okeetee corns out of the wild from Okeetee? Aren't these commonly cb animals, of a popular colormorph?.... Not to mention that you need special permission to collect there.... I wouldn't have a problem with 5 or less... but 30 - by one person?!

That doesn't seem right to me, and I think you are actually hurting your own point of view, and supporting BB's by suggesting that collecting on that scale is ok. That, however, is just my opinion.

Lisa McCune

WOAH!! Time out! Did I ever say he kept them all? I assume he didn't. The point I was making, was that a locale where extensive collecting has taken place for well over a half a century is still producing a great abundance of reptiles.

OK, granted, when talking about collecting wild herps for the pet trade, and refering to Okeetee as the most collected area, I assumed when you said he "caught" 30 corns, he collected them either for himself, or to sell.

He could very well have just caught and released, or collected some, but not all.... But you just said that you "assumed" that he didn't. So technically, you don't know he didn't either.

At any rate, sorry if I jumped to conclusions!

Lisa

WOAH!! Time out! Did I ever say he kept them all? I assume he didn't. The point I was making, was that a locale where extensive collecting has taken place for well over a half a century is still producing a great abundance of reptiles.

Tim,
I am not against CB herps, in fact, I have done it most of my life. What I am against is people continuing to remove animals from the wild just because it is cheaper to do so than it is to CB them, and I am against removing animals from the wild under the misguided belief that captive breeding herps in a herpers basement will some how magically conserve wild populations because it does not. Under the best of circumstances captive breeding by amateur herpers can only reduce the pressure placed on wild stocks by the pet industry, it cannot improve conditions in the wild, so there is no advantage to wild populations, and if someone has a published paper in a peer-reviewed journal to prove I am wrong, I would love to see it!

Further, your statement “More and more pet stores are buying captive bred stock from local breeders, rather than selling imported animals. And BB thinks this is somehow wrong.” Is patently false! I have been advocating this approach for years.
See: · Amphibian and Reptile Enthusiasts for Conservation and Responsible Pet Ownership, a proposal. - BigBrother, Jan 25, 2004

“The fact is, in the United States the collecting of herps is a "drop in the bucket" compared to the other factors affecting their survival (habitat destruction/fragmentation/alteration).”
While on the surface this may seem true, functionally, the WC of herps can and has been the final straw directing a number of species and subspecies toward extinction (e.g. Northern Madagascar spur tortoise, spider tortoises, tomato frogs, 3-5 species in the Phelsuma complex, Madagascar boas [both ground and tree species] perhaps as many as 9 species of the Galapagos tortoise complex, woma, Chinese crocodile lizards, just to name a few off the top of my head, and in the US bog turtles, box turtles, S.F. garter snakes, horned lizards, chuckwallas, Gila monsters, almost all of the tri-colored kings, Blair’s kings etc. come to mind immediately). The only “drop in the bucket” here is the amount of time humans have been collecting herps from the wild in significant numbers. Thirty five years ago when I first started in herps you had to collect your own pet herps or special order herps from the very few herp dealers out there because most local pet stores did not carry herps, and they simply were not available in any numbers what so ever, but now, almost every pet store in the US carries herps and the herp pet industry is now the fastest growing portion of the multibillion dollar a year pet industry. Demand for herps is greater than ever, and at the same time habitat destruction due to the ever-increasing human population is also having devastating effects on wildlife populations, but which of the two factors is likely to be the final cause of the extinction of species? The simple answer is it is a one two punch, and both impacts work in concert to drive species toward extinction.

This is a very simple and intuitive concept. If we take a box full of 1,000 crickets, provide them with four sections of egg carton, an unlimited food supply and egg laying media, we can feed off perhaps 50 crickets a week and still be able to maintain the population just fine with no appreciable decrease in population size. If one day we suddenly remove two of the sections of egg crate with most or all of the crickets residing on those sections of egg create what are we left with? Any one who has bred crickets knows that if you over pack crickets in a cage a large number will die and the population becomes unstable all by itself, but even if we keep this simple and say that we are now down to just 500 crickets in the cage, can we still harvest 50 crickets a week with out appreciably decreasing the population? The answer is no, because we are now removing more individuals in a given period of time than can be incubated hatched and raised to a sufficient size to be used as food, and the population will slowly decline to a point where extinction is inevitable.

With wild herps in the US we have, by development and land use changes, effectively eliminated half or in many cases much more of the habitat available to herps, which functionally wipes out half or more of the number of individuals in the species “population.” As a population gets smaller, you lose genetic diversity by attrition, and you greatly increase the probability of extinction resulting from demographic stochasticity, genetic drift, etc. etc.. Now you have a population that is unstable, and you want to continue to remove individuals from it at the same rate as you did before the habitat was destroyed. Can you see how this could be a real problem? Now keep in mind, as I pointed out above, that the herp industry/hobby has exploded in popularity here in the US over the last ten years or so, and thus the demand for herps has greatly increased, which means we should expect the demand for wild herps to be greatly increased as well, so now you want to take more individuals from the already unstable population. Now can you see the problem?

Let’s take this simple scenario one step further and use the ornate box turtle as an example. Here we have a species that can be found in probably the majority of pet stores across the country and is only protected in four of the 12 or so states where it occurs naturally, so a significant number of animals are harvested from the wild for the pet industry throughout its range. The local pet store by my house, for example, sells an average of three to five box turtles a month or let’s be conservative and say about 30 box turtles a year, and since it is illegal to sell turtles less than 3”, the turtles sold are all going to be adults. These animals take three to five years (and possibly longer in the wild) to reach sexual maturity, the average female will lay 2-6 eggs a year for the rest of her reproductive life of perhaps 30-40 years, so it will take about 15 breeding box turtle pairs with a three to five year head start (the length of time it takes to reach maturity and thus legal size) to supply just this one pet store. Now how many pet stores do you suppose there are across the country that sells about this same number of animals? Let’s say there are a thousand (an average of only 20 pet stores per state, which I think we can all agree is way under the actual number of stores), so we now need 15,000 breeding pairs of box turtles to supply the market in the US alone. Do you really think there are 15,000 actively breeding box turtle pairs in captivity here in the US? If not then where are the 30,000 box turtles needed to supply the pet industry every year coming from?

Adult box turtles require road-less preserves of ~250 acres or more to survive in habitat, and it has been suggested that such a preserve could support 40-50 adult box turtles. That means we need about 600 preserves greater than 250 acres in size just to support the pet industry, if we assume that two eggs out of every clutch survive, and the statistics tell us that only one or two young box turtles will survive over a four to five year period in the wild at best, so now we have to increase the number of 250 acre preserves to 3,000 just to supply the pet industry, or a total of 75,0000 acres of undisturbed land just to support the pet industries need for just one species of herp. Just how many 250-acre road-less parcels of undisturbed land do you suppose are left in the mid-west? The last time I drove I-70 through Kansas the only thing I saw along the road side was field after field of sorghum, corn, and other crops with the occasional cow pasture thrown in for good measure, and we haven’t even discussed natural mortality factors or the numbers of box turtles that get sent to Asia for food.

Now, just to bludgeon the point to death, let’s add the time factor. Box turtles live to be 30-40 years old on average (yes some may live to be 100, but the majority are going to die from predation, disease and getting run over by cars by the time they reach 40 years old). The herp industry has only been collecting herps from the wild in the numbers we are talking about for the last 15-20 years or so, which means that we are just now going to start seeing the effects of wild collection of box turtles on the population as the adults hatched before WC start to die off in large numbers thus requiring younger individuals to mature and replace the dying adults in the population. Will this stressed population be able to survive in this state for five or ten years? Maybe. Will it be able to survive for fifty or a hundred years? Probably not.

Yes, the collection of herps for the pet industry is not as significant as habitat destruction in terms of the sheer numbers of animals taken, but habitat destruction only removes animals once, whereas the pet industry continues to take animals from the wild year after year with no end in sight, which sure makes it difficult for box turtles to survive in the limited amount of habitat they have left to them after we have destroyed a significant amount of their habitat. If ten people stab holes in the side of an above ground swimming pool, and you are the tenth person to make a hole in the side of the pool, are you any less responsible for draining the pool than the other nine people who punched holes before you did? In the end, the pool is still empty, and you participated in it’s draining.

Last question, why do you think the “…government, who is doing a rather shoddy job of preserving the environment/biodiversity” is doing such a bad job of protecting the environment? The simple answer is because more people tell the government that protecting our natural resources is not as important as building houses, shopping malls and freeways. I wonder why that is? I’ll bet that if the majority of people in the US stood up and said we have got a big environmental problem here that we have got to fix before it is too late, progress would be made, but that steep requires people to take personal responsibility for their contributions to the destruction of the environment both direct and indirect, and we are a Country full of blameless folks when it comes to environmental degradation.

As I have said on many posts before now, it is time to shape-up or ship-out, and last time I checked there weren’t too many boats leaving planet Earth!

Big Brother

Big Brother wrote:

If ten people stab holes in the side of an above ground swimming pool, and you are the tenth person to make a hole in the side of the pool, are you any less responsible for draining the pool than the other nine people who punched holes before you did? In the end, the pool is still empty, and you participated in it’s draining

>>>Could you stop the pool from losing all its water if you could stop the tenth person from punching a hole in the side of the pool? No! The same goes for reptiles in their habitat. Like it or not, stopping people from keeping reptiles will not save them from extinction!

Lets say you have a pool full of water and it has three holes in it. The biggest being habitat destruction, the second biggest being the skin and food trade and the smallest being the pet trade. Which one would the rational person fix first? That's easy, the biggest hole. Right? You would think a person with so many letters after his name could figure this out.

If your goal is to get water from the pool, you don’t punch a hole above the water line, you punch a hole below it, and so as long as you want to keep removing water from the pool, the hole has to be below the waterline, which means you are contributing to the darning of the pool. A reasonable person would realize this and try to do what ever they can to patch the pool, but don’t feel picked on M5 because I’ve been working at plugging up the other two holes for 20 years now, your hole is just my latest project!

Big Brother

Big Brother wrote:

"If your goal is to get water from the pool, you don’t punch a hole above the water line, you punch a hole below it, and so as long as you want to keep removing water from the pool, the hole has to be below the waterline, which means you are contributing to the darning of the pool. A reasonable person would realize this and try to do what ever they can to patch the pool, but don’t feel picked on M5 because I’ve been working at plugging up the other two holes for 20 years now, your hole is just my latest project!"

>> If you really have been working at plugging up the other two holes for 20 years, then you have fail miserably.

M5,

Man, I have really gotten under your skin!

It is a big pool with lots of holes, and I am just one person, but I keep trying to stop the water as best I can.

I’m curious, have you even tried to plug-up any of the holes you’ve helped to create, or is that you walking away pretending there is no problem and your not responsible in any way for even a small hole in the pool?

Big Brother

Here's where you're wrong BB,

SF garter snakes are endangered NOT because of overcollecting - it is from habitat loss. I asked what animals in the United States have suffered due mainly to overcollecting, and you could not provide me with a straight answer. Yes, box turtles and other herps have declined, and SOME of this may be due to overcollecting, but MOST of it is due to habitat fragmentation/degradation/loss, as well as pollution and introduced species. I repeat: Collecting of herps in the United States is a "drop in the bucket" compared to the other problems they face.

Tri-color and graybanded kingsnakes are cheap - this is due to the success of private breeders. It is not economical to go out looking for them and spend time and money (and not necessarily find one), when you can purchase one with the color and markings of your choice, feeding on mice, from a private breeder.

In the early 80s several Pueblan milk snakes were collected from Mexico. No more were collected since then, yet these are one of the most popular snakes in the hobby, due to captive breeders. Did breeders conserve this snake in the wild? YES. There is no need to go out looking for a snake in another country when you can get one from your local breeder.

Captive breeding conserves wild populations of reptiles.

Tim Spuckler

The question was about how species go extinct. Yes habitat destruction wiped out all but three very small habitat patches for the SF garter snake, which means they are on the brink of extinction. Then some herp collectors decided they wanted some, and started collecting them from two of the three remaining habitats to sell. They got busted, which is where most of the SF garters in zoos in the US came from originally and I suspect the European populations as well. The result, the SF garter is now extirpated from one of the remaining sites and the other two are on the verge of extinction. Further, from an evolutionary scale (i.e. 100’s and 1,000’s of years not the 10’s of years it took to drive these animals to this point), the SF garter snake is a walking-dead species, and collecting for pets contributed to that demise in a significant way by further reducing it’s gene pool and range. Is there and example of over collecting driving a species to the brink of extinction with out habitat destruction here in the US? That’s a chicken and egg question. Show me a species in the US that is not affected by habitat destruction in the US today. If back up a bit in time you can argue that several species of horned lizards where almost wiped out by over collection in the 70’s and 80’s, but most have since rebounded due to protection. If we applied that same amount of collecting pressure to horned lizards today in the fragmented habitats in which they live, would they be able to spring back like they did before? I think not. I have never argued that over collecting was the exclusive cause of decline for any one species, I have always argued that it is a one two punch and herpers are providing the death blow for many species, so don’t try and twist the facts to take the heat away from where you feel it.

And BTW, just last week I read a report about two guys getting busted at the Mexican border with a trunk full of snakes including some milk snakes, so I guess captive breeding has not stopped the removal of all snakes from the wild after all.

Look, I am not against captive breeding of herps, in fact I whole-heartedly support it as a replacement for collecting herps from the wild. What I have a problem with is the notion that continuing to remove snakes from the wild to captively breed them will some how improve the survival probability of the species in the wild, because it does not. Removal is removal. If you want to argue that by removing a few you can prevent the removal of many, fine, but don’t try and say that removing a few will some how add individuals back to the population, because it won’t. There are only so many cookies in the cookie jar, and I assure you that every kid in America is capable of eating the cookies in the jar faster than their mom’s can bake them!

Why are you so resistant to the notion that taking animals out of their natural habitat is not conservation except in very rare circumstances? (Such as the vultures in India that are being poisoned by feeding on dead domestic cattle that have been injected with a commonly used veterinary drug) This is not rocket science; in fact it is very intuitive if you just stop trying to convince yourself that your dung don’t stink!

Big Brother

Big Brother wrote:

"As I have said on many posts before now, it is time to shape-up or ship-out, and last time I checked there weren’t too many boats leaving planet Earth!"

>>> Just about everything a person does effects the enviroment in one way or another, so unless you live in a cave and eat weeds I think you need to put a lid on your garbage can!

Yep,
So the question is, how much stuff do you have in your garbage can? I recycle everything I possibly can, so my can is probably smaller than yours. Taking responsibility for your actions does not eliminate the impact of your actions on others, but it sure can significantly reduce them.

Big Brother

There you go again representing your opinions as hard cold facts. You have no proof that captive breeding is of no benefit to wild populations. Although I admit there have been a few cases where it is true, it does't hold true for all reptiles. What different ecosystems have you extensively studied, and in how many different countries. You say no one has proof that CB benefits wild populations, however you have shown no proof either. While you might be able to show us a paper that agrees with your views, you can't prove to us that the writer doesn't have an agenda.
While you say, we all need to do what we can do to preserve the environment, you offer no solution, except a total ban on WC. Environment is going to continuously be destroyed whether it's residential or commercial development, highway construction, or the many other types of polution. You can't stop it. You may be able to protest it, but the project will just take place somewhere else, destroying once again the environment.
You can't tell me there is anything wrong with collecting reptiles out of such places, unless you can show us that burying them in concrete preserves the environment. Maybe in the same way formaldahide does.
Later.
Alan,

Alan,

Do you honestly believe that the only place people collect herps is right in front of a steamroller? Come on! Look at the guy who posted about how he collected more snakes on his favorite collecting road this year than he has in the last ten years. The only people I know who collect in front of steam rollers are environmental consultants and they release the animals back into the wild, so don’t try and use the argument that your only removing animals that would die anyway ‘cause that just ain’t so, and deep down you know it!

As you point out, there are many published papers to back up my position. You discount those papers because the author must have had a hidden agenda (even though they are published in peer-reviewed scientific journals). In other words, it does not matter what proof I offer, you will still not be convinced because I and all the scientists working on this problem are some how biased against reptile collectors, so our research is invalid in your eyes no matter what. The good news is that at least you finally admit that there is some science to back up my position!

Now I’m going to turn it back on you. Show me one published paper in a peer-reviewed journal that supports your position. The only captive breeding programs that have been effective at aiding the recovery of wild populations are directed toward that exclusive goal, and most of those are really more like in-habitat “head start” programs like the one on the Galapagos for all the tortoise species declining due to rats eating all the eggs in the wild. I’ll go you one further. Show me a journal article that talks about herps produced by private breeders being involved in a re-release conservation program of any kind. If you want to claim that your reducing the collecting pressure on wild stocks by captive breeding, fine, but don’t try and pass it off as some how improving wild populations, because it is not.

Big Brother

More opinions from the one that doesn't use his real name. Actually just the same ones all over again. First off I never said that from in front of a steam roller was the ONLY place where anyone collects. Have you ever thought of getting a job as a reporter? I collect wherever someone will let me, and I just take what I'll use in a breeding project, no more. However your last sentence about captive breeding being of no benefit to wild populations is nothing more than an opinion, that you repeatedly state as an absolute fact. And as far as your scientific, journal does everyone agree with each other? Are you telling me that all researchers agree on all points? Even these researchers can't tell you for sure that the cause of a species decline is field collecting. There are some researchers that don't like field collectors when they collect in an area where they are doing research. Therefore they don't have anything good to say about them. I've known other researchers that appreciate field collectors for the information they provide them.
You also stated that there are researchers that do collect from large construction sites and then relocate the animals. Are you aware there is a controversy on moving reptiles even a few hundred yards. I don't see a problem with that myself but some do. Some biologist will tell you that turning a snake loose in another area a few miles away will mess up the gene pool in the new locality. Some believe a snake will try to return to its' locality of origin. In both cases , I don't know. Who do you believe?
It sounds to me like you are trying to convince field collectors that what they are doing is wrong, But once again that is your opinion. Also how do you propose we save this environment. You offer no solutions. If there ever is a proposed ban on exotics in my town, I sure hope you aren't there to speak on our behalf.
Anyway if you have opinions about the herp trade, feel free to share them, but don't represent opinions as cold hard facts? And furthermore, how about using your real name like an adult.

You said, “Environment is going to continuously be destroyed whether it's residential or commercial development, highway construction, or the many other types of polution. You can't stop it. You may be able to protest it, but the project will just take place somewhere else, destroying once again the environment.
You can't tell me there is anything wrong with collecting reptiles out of such places, unless you can show us that burying them in concrete preserves the environment.”

In other words, your position is that it is ok to collect herps from places where the environment is going to be destroyed any way, so I said, “Do you honestly believe that the only place people collect herps is right in front of a steamroller? Come on! Look at the guy who posted about how he collected more snakes on his favorite collecting road this year than he has in the last ten years. The only people I know who collect in front of steam rollers are environmental consultants and they release the animals back into the wild, so don’t try and use the argument that your only removing animals that would die anyway ‘cause that just ain’t so, and deep down you know it!” And to that you respond by saying, “First off I never said that from in front of a steam roller was the ONLY place where anyone collects. Have you ever thought of getting a job as a reporter? … I collect wherever someone will let me, and I just take what I'll use in a breeding project, no more.”

So you acknowledge that you are taking animals from the wild that would not die as a direct result of habitat destruction? Which was a major part of my point you were attacking before. Alan, if you just take a few snakes for a breeding project, that is fine with me, but if 15 of your friends also take snakes for their independent breeding projects and five commercial collectors take snakes every year for twenty years to supply the pet industry, can you see how that will add up to a whole lot of snakes being removed from the wild? We have got to draw the line somewhere. The real discussion should be where we draw the line, not whether or not the line should be drawn.

And yes, I am well aware of the controversy over moving animals in habitat. I even served on a translocation subcommittee where we discussed the pros and cons over many days. The difference between that discussion and this one was the motives of the people involved. All the scientists on that panel were there to look-out for the long-term survival of the species in question, which meant we all were trying to find the best possible solution with the maximum benefit to the animal, not each other, not because it was our hobby and certainly not for personal financial gain (every one on the committee was a volunteer). That is the position I am still functioning under on this forum. What is your motive for breeding herps? What is the motive of a commercial exporter? If your motive is to enjoy keeping herps as pets fine, just don’t say your doing it for the benefit of the animal, because as I have said many times before you’re not.

You are trying to make it sound like there is some debate about the benefits of captive breeding to wild populations here that I have some how failed to see, so let me try a different example to demonstrate why there is no debate here. If you have a bucket with 50 marbles in it and all of your buddies want marbles, what do you do? You take marbles out of the bucket and hand them out to all of your buddies. Let’s say you have ten friends and you give them each 2 marbles, which means you now only have 30 marbles left in your bucket. The next year four of your friends come up to you because they have lost their marbles (OK. I admit this is a bad joke, but stick with me here) and want you to give them more, so you do, and now your down to 22 marbles in you bucket. You realize that at this rate your also going to loose all your marbles within three years, so the next year when four of your friends come up to you wanting more marbles you decide to take just two marbles out of your bucket, melt them down and create eight small marbles to give to your friends, but your bucket is still down to 20 marbles at this point, so you have slowed the decay rate to marble extinction from three to ten years, but in the end your going to have an empty bucket because your not putting any marbles back in your bucket, you are only removing marbles. In other words, you are slowing down the time to extinction by captivity breeding WC marbles, but your still removing marbles from the bucket, your not putting them back. Why not ask your friends to stop loosing their marbles, or better yet, why don’t you all pool the marbles you’ve already got, melt them down and create many more smaller marbles, so everyone can play with their marbles and you can keep the 20 marbles you have left in the bucket?

Now Alan please explain what I have missed here. Once an animal is removed from the wild for a captive breeding program, it is effectively dead to the wild population, and since it is illegal in most states to release CB or re-release WC animals back into the wild, there is no way captive breeding can increase the size of the wild population, it can only decrease it. If you want to argue that your not decreasing the population by much, fine, but there is no logical way to increase the size of a population by removing members of the population. Can you lesson the impact WC can have on wild populations by CB? Yes! But can you increase wild populations by CB? No, because there is no feedback loop. It is a closed system, so yes I do state emphatically that there is NO DIRECT BENEFIT to wild populations from captive propagation. There is no logical alternative to debate. If you remove an animal from the wild it is gone from the population! And thus you have an impact to the wild population. The impact can be small or it can be large, but it cannot be a positive.

Finally Alan, you said “Also how do you propose we save this environment. You offer no solutions.” You obviously haven’t seen · Amphibian and Reptile Enthusiasts for Conservation and Responsible Pet Ownership, a proposal. - BigBrother, Jan 25, 2004

And this attempt at injecting logic into the herp industry is just my latest attempt to increase public awareness of the dark side of this hobby. Like it or not, it is there, and I honestly believe that if people critically look at the problem without all the personal biases that normally cloud human judgment, the answer will present it self to us.

Have a nice Day J

Big Brother

OK whoever you are. If you don't have a problem with someone taking a few snakes out of the wild, then why a total ban on wildcaught? I never said that I am breeding reptiles to help the environment, nor have I ever felt that I was. I brought up points such as collecting in areas that are destined for destruction, and you never commented whether you thought that was right or wrong. That was just a question in itself. Yet you just construed it as a statement saying that is all anyone does. Therfore the conversation just went a whole different direction.
Also you say that you keep reptiles, but from reading your post it's hard to tell if you even advocate captive breeding. It seems you are trying to convince everyone that they think they are helping the environment through captive breeding. I would say most of the people on this forum don't believe that at all. In fact we aren't as unenlightened as you make us out to be. We aren't a bunch of children in dire need of adult supervision.
As far as you stating emphatically that there is NO DIRECT BENEFIT to wild populations from captive breeding, is once again an opinion. What I do which is selective breeding, has no more benefit, than the color morph breeders. But what about the locality breeders. They breed what is found in the wild, and yes offspring is released occasionally. On the milksnake forum someone stated a release program of CB eastern milks several generations CB were released with positive results. If you asked on the milksnake forum it probably wouldn't take you that long to get an answer.
Once again if you want to discuss something you feel strongly about, that's great. But just because you believe something doesn't make it fact. Anyway I'm ready to turn in for the night.
Later. Alan,

Alan,

I am not advocating a total ban on all collection of wild herps, but I am advocating we severely limit or even ban the commercial collection of herps for the pet and food industry (opinion). We have enough animals in captivity right now to support a captive breeding program that could more than supply enough herps to satisfy the vast majority of people who want to keep herps as pets (opinion). Further, and more importantly, I am trying to bring awareness to herpers about the dark side of the herp pet industry and it’s potential impacts on the future survival of wild herp populations (opinion). Finally, I am trying to help define the problem, so we as a community can try and solve the problem (opinion).

The first step to solving any problem is recognizing that there is a problem in the first place (opinion), and for some reason people in the herp community not only refuse to admit that the collection of wild animals for the pet industry has the potential for very real impacts on wild populations (opinion), some herpers even state that their captive breeding program somehow conserves wild populations (and no I am not trying to convince people that this is what they are trying to say because this is the feel good line herpers use all the time), and this feel good line is patently false (fact). Worse, some herpers actually uses this concept to justify the removal of animals from the natural environment (fact). Again, it is illegal in most states to release CB stock back into the wild (fact), so it is impossible for private breeders to benefit wild populations (fact), but despite these obvious facts you still seem to suggest that some how breeding animals in someone’s basement benefits wild populations (your opinion, not mine), and you attack my statement as an opinion with no facts to back it up (your statement not mine). Again, how do the animals go from the basement back out to the wild? A feedback loop from the CB stock to the wild population is required in order to show benefit to the wild population (fact). You, for the first time in your last post, finally mention a captive release program for CB eastern milk snakes, which if true, and the result of captive breeding by private people, not a zoo, would represent a potential benefit to a wild population from captive breeding by private individuals (opinion, because there could also be some very real negative consequences from this program), but I have some serous doubts that this is the case because of the many problems that have resulted from such programs attempted in the past (opinion based on observed zoo breeding program failures), but if this case is correct, it represents the only way a CB program can, in any way, be construed as having a direct benefit to wild populations (opinion, because this may not even benefit the population). That is my entire point, and yes, it is based on facts! You may not like it, but someone has got to stand up and “call the kettle black,” and yes, I, like you, have been collecting and breeding herps my whole life, so I am just as guilty as the next guy and thus, I am a rather large “black pot,” but I can see what the future holds if we continue down this path and I don’t like what I see, so I am trying to get others to realize what is ahead before it is too late! And yes, what the future holds is my opinion, but I do not represent that part of my argument as fact.

Further, there are only a handful of professional breeding programs involving animals in zoos that have any real benefits to wild populations (opinion, because some scientists don’t even think they have any real benefits to wild populations), but I can almost guarantee you, that every zoo you visit in the country will give you the feel good line that they are in existence to conserve wild populations of animals even though most zoos contribute even less benefit to wild populations of animals than private herp breeders do (opinion)!! Let’s face it, we live in a society where we want to pat our selves on the back and say we are doing a good thing even though the only species we benefit by our actions is Homo sapiens (opinion, because some scientists think we have effectively already sealed our own doom), which is the problem that we must recognize exists while there are still some populations of herps left to conserve in the wild (once again my opinion because some scientist already argue it is too late already!). What follows from this realization is a critical evaluation of our roll in the destruction of the environment and a serious evaluation of how many animals we are removing from the wild FOR OUR (HUMAN) BENEFIT (opinion) because our private CB programs are not doing wild populations of herps any good what so ever (fact, unless your milk snake example turns out to be correct, in which case it would be the first such successful program).

I personally think we should captively breed all the herps we can to supply the pet industry till herps are coming out our ears (opinion)! I just think we need to be very careful how we institute captive breeding programs so we don’t weaken the protection of wild populations of herps (opinion). And I think herps probably represent one of, if not the best, groups of pets for people to own especially as our cities get more and more crowded (opinion) as the human population goes from the 6.5 billion people who now live on this planet (fact, give or take 50 million) to the projected 9.6 billion people that will live on the planet by the year 2050 (projection based on current population growth rate adjusted for losses due to HIV). The only thing I am arguing against is continuing the collection of animals from the wild, in the enormous numbers we currently are, to support the pet industry, and then, being so self-centered as to say that we are doing it for the benefit of the animals we are exploiting, because we are not, we are doing it for our selves (opinion).

I hope this clears up the difference between my opinions and the facts my opinions are based on.

Big Brother

I fully support your ideas, friend.

I truly believe the future protection of herpetoculture lies in

1) Increases in captive breeding
2) Decreases in wild capture
3) Persuading legislatures to adjust laws to account for CB / WC differences.

I'm all for the laws protecting wild specimens, because with all the reputable breeders around these days, there's not much need to collect from the wild.

Curently, most reptile laws only differentiate between native and non-native species ... but they do not differentiate between wild-caught native and captive-bred native species.

When they are revised to acknowledge these differences, and perhaps to embrace them, we will have made a giant leap for herpetoculture.

Keep up the good work.

-Brandon Cornett
www.nosnakeban.org