Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Randy,

As a scientist you should know better than to make statements that are completely untrue. In a post below you stated that the bag limit on Zonata is one per household. Not only is this not true it does question your ability to notice obvious details and the community as a whole must question your motives and logic.
I come from a law enforcement background, therefore read the laws very carefully. As should you.

Here is the Text and meaning of the law in clear text. Taken directly from the DFG website.

Bag Limit defined
1.17. Bag and Possession Limit.
No more than one daily bag limit of each kind of fish, amphibian, reptile, mollusk or crustacean
named in these regulations may be taken or possessed by any one person unless otherwise
authorized; regardless of whether they are fresh, frozen, or otherwise preserved. Exceptions:
See Sections 7.00, 7.50 (a), 27.60 (e), and 195, Title 14, CCR.

PLEASE NOTE IT SAYS ANY ONE PERSON NOT HOUSEHOLD!!

Reptile Regs defined
5.60. Reptiles.
(a) General Provisions: Only the following reptiles may be taken under the authority of a
sportfishing license, subject to the restrictions in this section. The limit for each of the species
listed below is two, unless otherwise provided. Limit, as used in this section, means daily
bag and possession limit. No reptiles shall be taken from ecological reserves designated
by the commission in Section 630 or from state parks, or national parks or monuments.

NOTICE IT SAYS DAILY BAG LIMIT

Zonata Regs defined

(44) California mountain kingsnake (Lampropeltis zonata), except San Diego mountain
kingsnake (Lampropeltis zonata pulchra) : Limit: One (1). Special Closure: No California
mountain kingsnakes shall be taken in Orange and San Diego counties, and in Los Angeles
County west of Interstate 5.

NOTICE IT SAYS LIMIT ONE. THAT IS ONE DAILY BAG LIMIT PER PERSON (SEE ABOVE FOR DAILY BAG LIMIT AND REPTILE REGS)

This is a serious error in your credibility and judgement. We must take this into consideration when hearing your take on the Zonata population. What studies or observations do you have to make bold statements about Zonata populations. If you have done a study yourself did you pay attention to the details like you did with the Regs? You as a member of the scientific community should be held to a high standard of true statements not random, uneducated and false statements.

Sincerely
Brian Hinds
AKA Fundad

.

the words in your post actually say "daily bag and possession limit." While I am not in CA, states where I have lived, that has always meant total in your posession. OK, I'm back out now. Sorry for butting in.

Daily bag and possession limits are different things. The intent of the wording came from edible game. For example, in a certain region of TX, you can take 15 doves during the legal shooting hours of one day. However, you can have 30 doves in your freezer (possession limit). If you shot and ate (=disposed of) 15 doves everyday, during the 90 day season, but never exceeded the possession limit of 30, then multiply 15 by 90, and you get an astounding legal take of 1,350 doves, per person, per season. However, if you don't eat them in a hurry, then each license holder is limited to 30 in the freezer. If CA doesn't state possession per household (some states do), then the possession limit is equal to license holders per household.
If the daily bag limit is one Z, and the possession limit is one Z, then all you need to do, to legally collect more, is dispose (in a non-commercial manner) of one Z per day. Viola, if you do that, you can legally collect 365 zonata per year. And to think that some people will try to put a spin on legal reality.
Shane

>>the words in your post actually say "daily bag and possession limit." While I am not in CA, states where I have lived, that has always meant total in your posession. OK, I'm back out now. Sorry for butting in.

>>Daily bag and possession limits are different things. The intent of the wording came from edible game. For example, in a certain region of TX, you can take 15 doves during the legal shooting hours of one day. However, you can have 30 doves in your freezer (possession limit). If you shot and ate (=disposed of) 15 doves everyday, during the 90 day season, but never exceeded the possession limit of 30, then multiply 15 by 90, and you get an astounding legal take of 1,350 doves, per person, per season. However, if you don't eat them in a hurry, then each license holder is limited to 30 in the freezer. If CA doesn't state possession per household (some states do), then the possession limit is equal to license holders per household.
>>If the daily bag limit is one Z, and the possession limit is one Z, then all you need to do, to legally collect more, is dispose (in a non-commercial manner) of one Z per day. Viola, if you do that, you can legally collect 365 zonata per year. And to think that some people will try to put a spin on legal reality.
>>Shane
>>
>>>>the words in your post actually say "daily bag and possession limit." While I am not in CA, states where I have lived, that has always meant total in your posession. OK, I'm back out now. Sorry for butting in.
>>
>>

If zonata are not specified in the recipe, then use them as a substitute for any other snake
Shane
The Culinary Herpetologist

If the daily bag limit is one Z, and the possession limit is one Z, then all you need to do, to legally collect more, is dispose (in a non-commercial manner) of one Z per day.

Or you could drive down to the mailing store and send off the snake right after you catch it so that you could get 3 or 4 a day sent off if you were efficient. That way you could collect 1460 Zs a year and send them to a wholesaler.

Viola, if you do that, you can legally collect 365 zonata per year.

What do violas have to do with this? I always prefer the cello anyway.
-----
Chris Harrison
Does anyone else here think that these scrolling signature lines are stupid?

>>Or you could drive down to the mailing store and send off the snake right after you catch it so that you could get 3 or 4 a day sent off if you were efficient. That way you could collect 1460 Zs a year and send them to a wholesaler.
>>

Now Chris, that would be illegal. Don'tcha know.

>>Viola, if you do that, you can legally collect 365 zonata per year.
>>
>>What do violas have to do with this? I always prefer the cello anyway.

Fine, Walla
Shane

I made that statment because I had several officers of Calif Dept of F&G tell me that. It is one per person but… Here is clarification I received from further discussions with Calif officers about this specific issue. Keep in mind my original statement was “According to California F&G officials the legal possession limit is only one per household and not one per person.” Perhaps the original individuals I had spoken with either interpreted the law in a specific manner or did not clarify they were talking about a loophole in the law and not an enforceable situation. I repeated what law enforcement officials told me. I am as concerned about the letter of the law as other people on this forum are.

People will use the presence of other individuals in their household to get around the 1 per person possession limit. This is a loop hole that frustrates some law enforcement officers. People who use such loopholes may evade enforcement but they do cause concern for officers and legislators. If they encounter the situation and they find evidence that the animals are in fact possessed by a single person they can enforce it. This is a remote possibility. I did not inquire what would constitute evidence but I assume something like feeding records for both (or more) animals that predate the presence of the roommate. This would still be hard to prove. The actual loophole is not claiming that the second person collected the snake but instead it lies in the fact that an individual can legally give one away as a gift (you need F&G permission to export it across state lines), and then later posses a new specimen.

As for my statement of populations: It is considered (theory or conclusion) by multiple researchers, field people, etc. that over collecting has had a negative impact on some zonata populations, mainly pulchra and parvirubra. The extent of this impact is considered to be enough to warrant concern and influence legislation. I know that in several area of the Angeles NF where I used to frequent and see many zonatas the numbers seem to be significantly reduced as time went by. This is true of other species as well. I agree with this theory. Over collecting may not the only culprit but it certainly can cause problems for a species, even eliminating them in a given area. I believe that if a law is in error it should lean in favor of conservation. I also believe that a species should be protected throughout its range.

Bottom line: It is 1 per person of the species. If they can prove that multiple animals in a house belong to a single individual they can pursue enforcement. The issue that started this debate was an individual who brought a second zonata home admitting his wife didn’t like reptiles but her presence satisfied the “one per person” law. According to his written statement he is technically outside the law. In practical terms he is probably outside prosecution. He also changed his story. I would advise people to never post anything on these forums that could indicate illegal activity or even raise suspicion. The possession limit of pulchra is zero. L agalma is exempt as it is not a native subspecies. (There was an individual busted at a show in Calif recently trying to pass off other zonatas as agalmas). It is illegal to break apart habitat (rock caps and outcroppings) in searching for L zonata. You can not get a commercial propagation permit to breed zonatas. It is my understanding that if you breed your zonata with someone else’s or you inadvertently bring home a gravid female, you have 45 days to give away all animals. necessary to bring you back down to the legal limit of one. Someone posted a contradiction to this but I have not found any particular exception to the law. If time allows I will write a similar post appropriate for Mountain King forum.

Randy

Randy,
I suspect that the regulations governing herps is Calif. are so imprecise that they are open to different interpretations and thus the problems that arise. I would believe that if someone out of state were to purchase an out of state fishing license for the purpose of collected the legal limit of various species, there must be some provision in the regulations that allows such a person to legally transport herps out of state without being in violation of regulations.

As far as the input you have received about snake populations from "---multiple researcher, field people, etc.---" regarding the impact that recreational collecting has on populations of snakes, you are getting grossly erroneous information. Even commercial collecting is not likely to have any lasting impact on snake populations unless you are talking about very small, isolated populations.

I have had a number of my Rubber Boa sites 'trashed' by collectors and in three cases, all snakes, not just the boas, were removed including Racers, Gopher Snakes, Garter Snakes. Of course such situations are distressing as I lost all opportunities of continuing the recapture of specimens that I had captured many times over many years. But I am realistic and objective enough to understand that such reduction in the number of snakes at those localities is very temporary and has no lasting impact on the overall numerical health of the species involved. At all but two sites that are isolated due to habitat fragmentation, recovery of all species was quite rapid. The same recovery takes place when natural events greatly reduce the populations of snakes (and other species) as happens with land slides, extreme freezing spells, prolonged periods of drought, wild fires, etc.

I know of no published research that has demonstrated or described a serious problem with the reduction of snake populations due to recreational collecting. There is one such publication for the wood turtle at a small lake. The problem is that individuals, including some herpetologists, population biologists, wildlife biologists, and others state perceptions as if they were factual and that is a no-no in science.

These situations where individual use their anecdotal perceptions as if such were factual is identical to views I have heard expressed by fishermen. Where they once
caught many fish and now experience a lack of success, they come to the conclusion that the area has been fished out. In some instances they could be correct but in most cases, their inability to catch fish and resultant perception are erroneous. That happened a few years ago on the Crooked River in central Oregon where three fly fishermen from Bend Oregon lamented how the bait fisherman had ruined the river and that few fish were not available. Their proof was that they had worked hard at fishing the prior two days and had almost no success. Of course, they were wrong as I was lucky enough to be using a better pattern and had much success. Not only that, ODFW fisheries biologist Amy Stuart of Prineville had been conducting population analysis of the Crooked River for 2 - 3 years running by electro-shock, mark and recapture methods and demonstrated that the Crooked River had trout densities (if my memory serves be correctly) from 3000 - 4000 fish per linear mile.

Again, I urge that you read the study by Fitzgerald and Painter on the COMMERCIAL harvests of Rattlesnake species over many decades. Their findings demonstrated that although a few local populations of some species seemed to be harmed (not extirpated) by such commercial harvests, for the most part, populations of the various species seemed not to be affected by such annual harvest of hundreds and thousands of rattlesnakes over many, many years. And rattlesnakes that are of commercial worth and harvested are amongst the largest of our native species of snakes. As such, it is highly likely they exist in lower densities than much smaller species that are in demand such as the tricolored kingsnakes.

If you wish further input as to why recreational collecting and even commercial collecting cannot have an overall negative and permanent impact on species, you can contact me at: charinabottae@earthlink.net.

Richard F. Hoyer

As explained to me by the California Dept of F&G. If you are from out of state and purchase a license you can collect a zonata and take it home with you. You are legally obliged to limit yourself to 1 wc animal. You may have more cb animals if your home state allows. If you are in possession of more than 1 wc zonata you may be prosecuted under the Lacy Act. California laws are relatively precise and easy to interpret but there are loopholes. How individual officers will approach these loopholes is often a matter of their personal interpretation. California, for reasons right or wrong, has determined a need to be proactive in protecting the California Mountain Kingsnake. They have enacted legislation intended to accomplish this without completely removing the species from the access of the collector. I applaud their intentions and in considering such I accept any errors they may have made in determining the need for zonata conservation.

The concern is not the impact on the species as a whole but on populations of the given species or subspecies within a specific area. It is theorized that over collecting and resulting damage to microhabitats can, and does have a negative impact on specific area. Theories are based on observations and the analyses of data. They are not a no-no in science. It is common for theories to become working models or paradigms until proven invalid and replaced. I think this is appropriate in conservation where it is best to be proactive. I do believe that unethical and uncontrolled hobbyists can damage populations in a specific area. If the behavior continues the population will not recover to what may be considered a natural norm. In the instances you cited, could it be possible that the rapid recovery was do to favorable conditions and an absence of repeated trauma to the area for the period in question? If a species relies on specific microhabitat features could that preclude their recovery in a specific location? You mentioned two instances where isolated populations failed to recover from trauma inflicted by over collection. Could a continuous distribution range be in fact a continuous range of otherwise isolated populations if the species requires specific habitat features? There are many questions that must be answered before over collecting can be discounted as an impact.

We are also talking about philosophy here. I believe that laws should err towards conservation and not towards the hobbyist. I believe that a species should be protected through out its range, especially since many species are suffering a decrease in habitat and range. I also believe that intentional violation of collecting laws is not the trivial equivalent of jaywalking but is in fact poaching. I further conclude from years of observation that the biggest threat to herpetology as a hobby is the unscrupulous behavior of many hobbyists themselves. You are 100% correct that laws do not always accurately reflect "facts on the ground" but they are laws and they do serve an important overall purpose.

Many factors contribute to stress on a species health or survival including natural events. For example, The Two-Striped Garter Snake was placed on the protected list because of a significant loss of habitat and because several years of drought have decreased its numbers (reproduction). I am sure there are canyon streams where they are still quite common but in others it is not presently common even though it previously was. This species exists in habitats that are not continuous. They do not commonly cross dry mountain ridges to seek other streamside communities and not all streams are part of a larger system. There are thus some habitats where if extirpated the species could take years to recover and then only if the location was spared from any further trauma.

We must do what we can to keep human impact to a minimum. Agencies entrusted to manage natural resources such as wildlife have a difficult task in balancing between conservation and the desires of individuals. Laws are sometimes difficult to interpret because they are written with such a balance in mind. The alternative is a situation like Washington State where the collection and possession of native species is simply illegal without a scientific permit. Not much of a gray area there. I hope Washington lightens up a bit as every kid who wants to deserves the opportunity to catch and keep a pet. My fear is that the future will see more and more localities leaning towards the Washington model.

You concluded that “recreational and even commercial collecting cannot have an overall negative and permanent impact on species.” I would agree that this true for most species when considering their entire ranges of distribution. Your own post indicates that it can have a negative impact on isolated populations within a species. There are also multiple examples in history where conservation has been implicated as an important aspect of bringing a species back from an endangered status.

Randy Hallman

Randy,
You are correct when you indicate that "We are also talking about philosophy here." It would seem that even though we both are conservation minded, our philosophies are considerable different. As a graduate of Wildlife Science (O.S.U. '55') and one who dabbles in scientific endeavors, it is my view that credible, professional processes should be used to manage all species, not just game, fur bearers, and commercial species. In other words, there needs to be some legitimacy to the processes that identifies and lists species is some category of concern as well as for managing species. After all, isn't that the reason there are many universities with departments in Wildlife Science that produce graduates with degrees in wildlife science--and let me stress the word SCIENCE.

My philosophy is that wildlife agencies should not be wasting time, energy, and funding on species that are not in need of being managed. That means that state and federal wildlife agencies and their university trained biologists should be applying the basic principles of population biology / wildlife science and valid science-based processes to assess the status of non-games species (including herps).

You mention the word theorized. The definition of 'Theorize': to form or offer speculative explanations. The use of conjecture, supposition, impressions, theorizing, perceptions and other forms of speculation is not only unprofessional but is being basically dishonest when such junk-science processes are used to assess, list, and manage non-game species.

If you believe that most non-game species that are listed or are being managed having been assessed on the basis of factual information, you would find that is not the case if you would take the time, as I have done, to look into the situation. As an example, here in Oregon there are four species of snakes that have been placed in a category of concern and are thus in a hands-off, 'protected' status. They are the Sharp-tailed Snake, Calif. Mt. Kingsnake, Common Kingsnake, and Ground Snake. Studies of these species have never been undertaken in Oregon. Other than their currently known distributions, no other factual information exists for these species in Oregon (except what I have discovered for The Sharp-tailed Snake). Consequently, they were listed and placed in a protected status based on the above mentioned junk-science processes. Since discovering this scenario, I have found that other state wildlife agencies have been doing the same thing.

I am not certain just how the Ground Snake was originally listed other than its presently known distribution is limited to the southeast corner of Oregon. The Sharp-tailed Snake and both species of kingsnakes have reasonably large distributions in Oregon and were listed based SOLELY on anecdotal impressions and concerns--without a shred of factual data.

I will close with two questions for your to consider. 1) Why is a hands-off, 'protected' status needed for species in which there is no demand? In other words, what are you protecting the species against? [example: Sharp-tailed Snake in Oregon] 2) If a species' habitat is not simultaneously protected, just how does such a listing really protect a species for which demand is virtually zero?

Richard F. Hoyer

I believe the difference is this. Theories can take a long time to formulate, test, and apply. It takes a long time for even factual information to make it into legislation. My philosophy is that wildlife management agencies should be very proactive and not reactive. After all species can be deregulated if later research or information indicates they do need a higher level of conservational status. If a species gets into trouble time can be important. The longer it takes to implement conservational measures the less effective they may be. This is of course a case by case scenario.

In most jurisdictions all wildlife is managed to one degree or another. An individual who pens legislative recommendations in Oregon may do so with only the state’s population of the particular species in mind and not the overall population across state and national boundaries. Again, I believe any particular species should be managed through out its range and such management should take into consideration worse case scenarios such as micro habitats or isolated populations.

The process, like all legislative processes, is far from perfect. There are inconsistencies, gray areas, laws that are too strict and even laws that are not strict enough. This is all the more reason for legislation to be proactive and not reactive.

A scientific theory is a proposed explanation based on observations and other information. They fill the void where fact is not yet determined and they are used as paradigms for further study or action. If you have an observed result and you want a different result you must alter events preceding the result. If you have a theory as to the cause of the unwanted result that would be the first place to start your alteration. If you ignore the theory and it is correct all subsequent activities are sure to fail.

1) If the agency with jurisdiction determines a species needs conservational measures a zero or minimal bag or possession limit is a logical part of those measures. The threat, real or perceived, may not lie in a demand of the species by hobbyists but such a law is logical start. Why allow an endangered species (or at risk population within a species) to be collected simply because you doubt it will be?

2) This question does illuminate a very real problem. One of the reasons species become legislated for conservation is because of habitat loss due to development, over use, industrial activity, pollution etc. It is unjust that the hobbyists are not only the first, but sometimes the only member of the chain significantly affected. Your example of the Sharp-Tailed Snake is a good portrait of such an error in conservational measures. Federal Land, State Parks and the like often offer habitat protection but what if significant portions of the habitat lies outside these parameters? What if a logging or oil company successfully lobbies to open prime habitat on federal land to exploitation? Some species survive such activities and some do not. Some even thrive.

Species often face multiple problems in maintaining their health. Those charged with their conservation often face multiple problems in trying to manage them. Hobbyists, collectors and the like are not always an ally in conservation. They are at times one of the problems conservation faces.
-----
Randy Hallman

Randy, don't waste your time with another post on the Z forum. Even poor people can hammer a LE officer's decision to give a citation. Of course, that only happens when said poor person actually knows the written regs. It doesn't matter what you think is right, or what the LE officers you speak with think is right.
You can speak your mind on this forum, but you can't change the book just because you don't agree with it. It's sad that some ignorant people fall prey to equally ignorant LE officers (well, not really).
Dude, I could care less about what you think, and if ignorant LE officers try to enforce their opinion on me, then I'll present the regs to the judge. It's not a difficult system! If you have a problem with collection of zonata, then you should explain to some legislative body that their prime habitat isn't prime real estate. After you get done with that explaination, you should explain why Thamnophis hammondi are disappearing, and collectors don't have anything to do with it. When you get done explaining that, then maybe you will have a clue.
Shane

I am not sure what you are actually trying to say here or how it contributes to the ongoing discussion. I apologize if I have misunderstood you.

But, if you do not care what I think the solution is simple, do not read my posts. It appears you have not really read them anyway. But your opinions and inputs are noted.

LOL. Don't try to confuse your response to Mr. Hoyer with your inability to deal with my criticism (or a host of others for that matter).
It's true that I have learned to not respect anything you type, but then again, when you type BS on a public forum, I'll be there (along with that host of others). The beauty of the internet is that even you can find a new name. You should try to admit that you were mistaken in regard to CA regs, or otherwise, pretend you are always right.
Shane

I do not see what connection you are making between my response to Mr. Hoyer and my response to you. You are of course entitled to your opinions, whatever they may be. That is after all part of what these forums are about. I have no intention on using any other user name. The feedback I receive is largely positive. As to your criticism: I respect and accept opinions that disagree with my own but I am not sure what exactly you are criticizing. I have posted many different points, opinions, and even facts concerning several issues. If you have been following my postings on the zonata debate you would have read my follow ups clarifying the controversial points I made and why I made them. I made the follow up postings after further inquiry with the Department of F&G. The posting corrected inconsistencies in my previous statement. I am sure you also noticed my initial statement on the legal issue was posted as information explained to me by several hard working and conscientious F&G officers. They were not my personal opinion. To be fare I did have to clarify that in a second post. The initial statement, if taken as a blanket fact, and as I worded it, was very misleading (my bad) but not entirely untrue. It did require further research and clarification which I supplied. This whole process has been the result of dialogue and interaction with other respectful members of the forums. It has been fun, educational, and productive. I understand your anger and disagreement. To a degree I also share in the frustration over these areas. I have gotten different answers from the multiple officers I have spoken with and there are reasons for this.

Thank you for continuing to read my postings,

Randy Hallman

"I made that statment because I had several officers of Calif Dept of F&G tell me that."

>>>I believe you there. One of them once told me on the phone that all getula subspecies are illegal to sell. I would also like to point out that you do not need permission or any kind of permit to export your bag limit of zonata out of California. The law only says they may not be exported for COMMERCIAL purposes. This does not apply to personal collection.
And with regard to exporting several zonata one at a time this is a vague area. Does California have to authority to regulate what you possess in another state? As has been shown in Texas with herpers laws that are too vague are unenforcable.
On the surface from this one sided discussion it appears that one or more members of CAF&G is either negligently or deliberatly passing down misinformation possibly due to a personal bias against zonata hunters.

I agree completely Aaron. This guy has been discredited already by a number of people already here. He keeps trying to preface everything with "well the Dept told me this and that, etc". God bless the F&G Dept, but they just do not always have the right answers in my past experience. I think this guy is just trying to stir things up with misinformation. It's not working though.