As an honerably retired Conservation Officer & biologist, I particularly enjoy the occasional posts of my still working breathern.
What I puzzle at tho., is how many otherwise bright lads & lasses in the business have allowed themselves to be somewhat deluded by the anti-consumption fad.... in all of its many cryptic morphs.
The attempt to focus the discussion on W/C vrs C/B is a red herring, the real discussion is timeless...I submit it is largely about ego appeasement and control!
Appended below is a piece I produced and submitted on my own time, yet my own Az Game & Fish Wildlife Mngmt Division would not allow our rule making Comission access to review & even consider an alternative point of view.
John Gunn
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
September 4, 1996
Dear Mr. Howland,
Thank you for the information packet and opportunity to comment on this proposed rule change.
The following comments reflect my personal opinions. As this activity was not an assigned one nor completed on state time, I choose to submit them as a private individual.
I oppose the proposed closure of South Mountain Park to the take of chuckwallas. My opposition is based on philosophic principle, coupled with an extensive personal experience with this area and population of lizards over a period in excess of 20 years.
To completely close the season on a widely distributed, and relatively abundant organism that has a public consumptive demand, prior to utilizing other management options is antithetical to the mission and philosophy of the AGFD.
I have not had the opportunity to examine the documentation that purportedly supports this closure, however I'd be willing to bet that a set of data of similar quality submitted as justification from a humane group petitioning the department to close the peccary hunt in for example, the Tucson Mtn. Park would not garner much interest at the department. The public trust this agency currently enjoys must not be gambled with. We can only protect and maintain our credibility as wildlife stewards by being consistent in our management of wildlife populations. Until credible answers to basic biological questions are known, prohibiting take entirely will ultimately result in the erosion of the publics respect for our agency and its laws.
Fundamentally, the basic biological questions include; What is the estimate of these lizards being taken? What is the estimated number of, productivity of, and composition of this population?
The application of contemporary wildlife management options (tools) ought to proceed, in non crisis situations, through a progression with the complete protection being our choice of last resort. The elimination of consumptive use should rarely be the first arrow out of our quiver. Predictably, this option is being selected when AGFD is dealing with certain taxons of wildlife, particularly reptiles.
Education, Seasons, Special Permits, Methods of Take, Age and Sex of the harvest, are all desirable preliminary steps we should implement prior to enacting another prohibition. If preliminary data do in fact indicate a sustained over harvest, an educational effort starting with a brochure available at the contact stations and trail heads would likely reduce take to a tolerable level. If additional monitoring indicated continued excessive take, the next logical step would be to reduce or close take during the spring peak activity season.
My own observations of this population over more than 20 years is that it is consistently robust. As an indice of this I offer the following;
1) I reviewed my last notes taken May 5 1996 in Pima Canyon a heavily visited area. I observed 2 adult males, 3 adult females, and one unknown subadult in a period of 40 minutes from one vantage point.
2) I have personally measured one population growth originating from a captive pair of chuckwallas genetically similar to the S. Mtn. population. These chuckwallas produced 29 individuals over a period of 5 yrs. from an area of 140'sq.
Much of this park is heavily bouldered and lightly visited. The geology is conducive to providing dense and thus nearly unlimited cover sites for chuckwallas. Given the high quality of the habitat, I observe this population is undoubtedly oscillating around its carrying capacity. It is likely density limited in most years of near normal rainfall.
As it is currently illegal to disturb the rocks within the park, most chuckwalla take can be deterred by enforcing those regulations currently in place.
As indicated above, the South Mountain genotype is found on a number of outlying areas adjacent to the park. These populations are very limited and though currently robust, might be susceptible to over collecting if a park prohibition were in place.
There are a number of other reptile species of much more limited numbers and distribution I have found in this park. Lizards including; leopard, desert collared, and desert iguanas, rattlesnakes including; tiger, speckled, and blacktails, are all desirable to collectors. The occurrence of these species of lesser abundance begs the question: If chuckwallas warrant full protection, why not protect them all? If protection is warranted, why only in South Mountain Park? I see this issue as an entry to a slippery slope.
Undoubtedly, this population was much more heavily exploited by humans than it is currently, given the proximity of South Mountain to the Gila and Salt rivers. Considering this harvest was for food rather than for live specimens, the aboriginals would have been much more effective predators then are todays hobbyists.
The fact that this chuckwalla population, and those other populations with limited habitat on the adjacent disjunct buttes, have persisted through hundreds of years of human harvest, is time tested evidence to the resiliency of this species to harvest, the adequacy of the habitat. It is obvious to me, that we do not have a resource problem to solve.
If there exists any other correspondence or other documents pertaining to this proposal, I would like to have the opportunity to review them.
Please retain me on your list for soliciting public comment.
I trust my comments will be made available for the Commissioners to review during their deliberations.
I appreciate this latest opportunity to contribute.
Sincerely,
John Gunn
JG:jg
cc: file
...I couldnt resist!
And we call the “best of the LE lads” you’re talking about “Ego Rangers.” Much to their credit, some of them actually think the label is funny, and your right they do a good job with busting bad guys, sometimes a little too good, but there is no better person to have watching your back! Anyway, it sounds like AZ is much like many of the states I’ve had experience in, where the Wardens do have to wear both hats because of budgetary constraints, which I think leads directly to the criticism many herpers levy at the Wardens, namely that they can’t tell a kingsnake from a ratsnake. What percentage of the wardens you’ve worked with have difficulty identifying/differentiating the native critters (herps or other wise, because I know AZ makes herps a much higher priority than other states do)? In AZ where you wear both hats, who is it that changed the law on the collection of chucks in the Park if not you?