That is exactly the point - the proposed laws have no exemptions for color morphs or subspecies. Nowhere does the proposed law mention either. And while herpetoculturists might interpret that to mean they aren't covered by the proposed changes - F&B very well might interpret just the opposite. And since they are the ones making the rules - their interpretation is the one that counts in a court of law - unless we can prove otherwise.
And since elsewhere in the law it specifically states that they are trying to remove the "profit motive" for captive breeders, one can only imagine that if they leave such things open to interpretation - when it comes time to charge someone with an "offense" as a "captive breeder" that they will interpret this to *their* advantage, and not *ours*.
As for people collecting PA native herps for resale - I can only say that I have no experience with anyone doing this, and I would ask for proof that this occurs in an organized way. Not that I don't think that it could occur, or that I don't believe you, but it's simply a case where the arrest records, etc. would provide info about the extent of the problem. Frankly, there are few Pennsylvania native species that have any commercial value at all, for the herp community. And those that do, namely box, wood, and bog turtles already have laws in place.
In fact, all herps in PA, already have collection laws in place - if these laws are being ignored, and collection for sale is taking place, then enacting more laws will do nothing to stop what is already criminal activity. So nothing is "a long time in coming" - the laws regulating herp collection have been in place for years! Adding new laws will achieve nothing.
All it will do is serve to limit legitimate captive breeders, and limit field collecting, which I'd be willing to bet is engaged in mostly by young kids and educators.
The parts of the proposal regarding rattlesnakes, and harvesting herps for food, etc. (shooting frogs, etc.) I have no problem with, in fact as far as rattlesnakes go - I would have no problem with full protection for all timbers, and prohibiting rattlesnake roundups............but that's another story.
My main complaint with the conservation portions of the proposal are in regard to imposing no collection bans on species which F&B completely admits to having *no* population data on. They are proposing to enact these bans, because they *think* there *might* be some sort of decline.
It's my opinion that we should not enact laws based on what a small commitee *thinks* or *believes* or because of "might bes". We should base laws on facts.
All I am saying is that they should do the research on these populations to see if there really is a decline before passing laws. Show the evidence.
I am all for wild herp conservation. I will personally help out as much as I can. Also, often there is just no need for people to wild collect herps. For the most part, I think field collecting should be limited to something like bird watching - find the animal, be allowed to pick it up and examine it, but only take photos, and let the animal go.
I think science teachers, and environmental education teachers should be allowed to collect 1 or 2 animals to keep for classes.
But - I also don't think that there should be anything wrong with a person, dedicated to some of Pennsylvania's more obscure herps, say collecting a pair of Dekay's snakes, or northern ringneck snakes, and captive breeding them. Animal's like that have no huge "value" to the herp hobby, but there are people who would find caring for captive bred offspring of those species interesting and rewarding. A "hobbyist" of that type would never - and would never seek to - "profit" monetarily from such an endeavor. Sometimes "profits" are simply in the caring for, and enjoyment of interacting with these animals.
