It is currently November 21st, 2017, 5:55 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 235 posts ] 
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Nevada
PostPosted: August 30th, 2017, 3:36 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 8:49 pm
Posts: 1142
https://thenevadaindependent.com/articl ... tion-rules


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: August 30th, 2017, 10:28 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 18th, 2010, 7:55 pm
Posts: 645
Location: San Diego, CA
I support banning commercial collection of reptiles and amphibians in NV. Captive breeding is a much better way to supply the demand for herps. I'm in favor of allowing limited numbers of herps to be collected for personal use however.
I think the herp laws in AZ are pretty reasonable, and could be used as a model for NV. The laws in CA are mostly reasonable, but need some refinement in my opinion.


One thing I thought was interesting in the powerpoint slides included below the article: 85% of the reptile exports from the US are red-eared sliders. We have way too many invasive red-eared sliders here in Southern California. Maybe there should be a way for people to collect them from parks, golf courses, and wildlands, then turn them in to an exporting agent?


Jeff


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: August 31st, 2017, 1:44 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm
Posts: 427
Quote:
Patrick Donnelly, who runs the Center for Biological Diversity’s regional office in Las Vegas, argued collection can have “huge, cascading effects on overall (reptile) population numbers.”

He added that the commission, a nine-member panel appointed by the governor and charged with protecting the state’s wildlife, could be “legally liable” if it doesn’t act on the reptile issue.



The Center for Biological Diversity. They are nothing more then a corrupt bunch of environmental ambulance chasers, Scumbags each and everyone. All operating on behalf of special interest groups and getting rich doing it. The state isn't pushing for anything. That's complete BS. Its these bottom feeding Center for Biological Diversity lawyers and their special interest group backers that are doing all the pushing. By “legally liable” they mean give us everything we ask for or we will hit you with costly lawsuits. Its how the lawsuit-happy Center for Biological Diversity crumbs make their sizable livings. Anyone who thinks this has anything to do with a genuine concern for Nevadas native reptile populations needs to get to the emergency room quickly . And get their head removed from their ass. Then there's Jason Jones, an NDOW biologist pushing for the regulations. According to this clown. This trade can be lucrative, with gopher snakes going for $380 in Europe. That's absolutely insane. You couldn't give a wild caught gopher snake away for free anywhere in Europe. If Jason Jones has real data to make his case why does he have to resort to that kind of bs.

There are seven collectors registered with the state, five of whom belong to the same family.

They took 7000 reptiles last year. This number comprised of what species and how the collected numbers relate to the overall estimated populations ? They don't tell you that. Why? This what these dirt bags do they take numbers out of context to make them look dramatic. Basically using strong arm bullying tactics, attacking one family just to put another ill gotten paycheck in their pockets. Only a complete "insert profanity here" would support this.

Ernie Eison


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: August 31st, 2017, 1:50 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 8:49 pm
Posts: 1142
I'm a Nevada resident and I strongly oppose commercial collection of reptiles in my state. I also don't think its helpful to insult people that I disagree with.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: August 31st, 2017, 2:21 pm 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:30 pm
Posts: 404
Location: St Louis, MO / Hartford, CT
I could go either way, personal use I certainly think should be allowed for non-endangered herps. Commercial is kind of meh, I can't really imagine banning it would hurt anything. Other than maybe some kids buying junk at a pet store, I really can't imagine there is much demand for it and anything in NV of any real interest is probably already being bred. Feeder lizards are already widely available via FL and I imagine much less expensive. Ernie, I sympathize with you that banning it won't do any good as I doubt it has any effect anyway, but do you think it will cause any harm either so long as personal and educational use remains open? If it only effects 7 people, hard to imagine the average joe really worrying too much about it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: August 31st, 2017, 4:23 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm
Posts: 427
Quote:
Ernie, I sympathize with you that banning it won't do any good as I doubt it has any effect anyway, but do you think it will cause any harm either so long as personal and educational use remains open? If it only effects 7 people, hard to imagine the average joe really worrying too much about it.


Its more big picture then that. Nevada looks like easy pickings to get something passed. The goal is to get bans in as many states as possible and create a domino effect. The longer the list the easier it gets. They go in and say here's what Nevada, Oregon , NJ etc. have done to save their fence lizard's. You MUST do the same or else. You don't always have to hit home runs to have a big inning. The next step or sometimes the co-step is to take away all "exotic" pet ownership as an environmental "protection" measure. For the doubters,

Quote:
Gordon Rodda is a zoologist emeritus at USGS Fort Collins Science Center. His area of professional expertise is the ecology and management of invasive reptiles, beginning with Brown Treesnakes on Guam in 1987. Upon retirement in 2012 he shifted focus to preventing new invasions by screening prospective invaders using natural history traits. He is compiling the natural history traits of all lizards, which will result in publication of Lizards of the World (John Hopkins Univ. Press; date tbd).


What do you think the plans for that book are? Certainly not educational. Rodda is a complete POS. Based on the crap stated in his python research. Gordy will predict that South American caiman lizard's can survive in North Dakoda. There's nothing wrong with the scientific method. Its when it is intentionally misinterpreted and misrepresented as it almost always is in these cases that the there is a problem.

Ernie Eison


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: August 31st, 2017, 5:01 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 8:49 pm
Posts: 1142
I'm not ok with leaving pitfall traps out unattended to wantonly kill lizards and other non target critters. So that a couple people can benefit? I hope that nevada paves the way for these bans. Except.... Every one else has already banned commercial collection....

Stay classy Ernie.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: August 31st, 2017, 5:03 pm 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:30 pm
Posts: 404
Location: St Louis, MO / Hartford, CT
I am trying to think of something to compare it to. In terms of freshwater fishing, I think commercial collecting of many species would be banned. For example, I could commercially collect bait fish but not bluegill. So maybe banning commercial collecting of reptiles isn't such a stretch? Granted there's probably a lot more herp habitat than miles of fresh water I should think? So to ban personal collection would be akin to banning fishing and I do not think that makes sense, almost an anti-conservation measure because it doesn't teach getting out there, how to manage wildlife populations, etc. On the other hand, banning commercial collecting really only prevents 7 people from going out and catching things, so that's why I remain largely uninterested in the result. Certainly no traps should ever be left unattended for any length of time, I would assume personal collection would be by hand, hook, or noose. Im not sure we need to have people out building drift fences on public land.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: August 31st, 2017, 6:16 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Posts: 2398
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
I'm still on the fence with this, depending on how a "commercial collection ban" would be worded. Many people are OK with selling domestically-produced animals...but where did the parents come from? If someone goes out, catches a pair of species X, and produces 50 offspring, should they be allowed to sell them? Because that's still considered commercialization of wildlife in some states.

What if I'm not interested in having a corn snake, but rather a Nevada-native lizard? Should I be able to have someone catch one for me? If so, should I be able to offer them any compensation (even if it doesn't fully cover their expenses, but perhaps pays for a tank of gas)? Or am I just out of luck if I can't travel there?

I sure wish I could see the notes associated with each of the slides...Slide 14 implies the US is domestically producing and exporting over a quarter million brown anoles annually...I've never known anyone who breeds them for export.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: August 31st, 2017, 7:57 pm 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:30 pm
Posts: 404
Location: St Louis, MO / Hartford, CT
I would have to believe any brown anole born in captivity was largely by chance rather than an effort to do so. I've never heard of them being used in any way except catching a bunch for use as feeders. They are barely worth a buck a piece. There is always a danger that laws will be created for some other than conservation and become far overreaching. A lot of people just don't like hunting, fishing, or keeping animals in captivity and will try to sneak in anything they possibly can to oppose such activities. If, as Bryan mentioned, abandoned pitfall traps are being found, it would seem requiring all such traps to be clearly marked and citing offenders might be a good start. With my bait fish traps, I have to have my name and fishing license information on them. If I were to put one out without it, I would be fined. The thing that is strange to me is that people somehow believe that you can take deer, fish, etc, but somehow if a person takes say a single reptile here or there it will lead to a sudden decline. I just cannot find any evidence of this happening or any basis for that extreme viewpoint. Perhaps some early references to such an attitude have just become so often repeated that people are no longer able to apply logic, reasoning, or evidence to the matter any longer.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 1st, 2017, 4:23 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm
Posts: 427
Quote:
I sure wish I could see the notes associated with each of the slides...Slide 14 implies the US is domestically producing and exporting over a quarter million brown anoles annually...I've never known anyone who breeds them for export.


That is true. All the brown anoles exported are produced domestically. They all are collected in the US. But why sell anoles when you can sell gopher snakes for $380.00 a pop in "Europe". LOL. The people that gold dig for these types of bans always make claims about the outrageous profit's made by the collectors. They grab random (seldom realistic) prices off the internet as their proof. They love to point to the export market and the big dollars made there (that's total BS). Not one of the permitted collectors in Nevada has ever exported a reptile in their life. They sell to wholesalers. Why not ask them for sales receipts and see what they are really getting paid. Present the actual bills of sale for review. Obviously NDOW biologist Jason Jones expertise comes from Google. The data he's been presenting does not contain any science. Its a poorly constructed advertising campaign.

The use of pitfall traps as it applies here is an animal welfare issue and has nothing to do with the ecological impacts of take. If its truly believed that the practice of using pitfall traps results in excessive death and or animal suffering. Then simply ban this practice. If over collection in a legitimate concern, reasonable bag limits can be set. Here's the rub. How do you determine what's reasonable when no data exist to indicate that over collection is occurring in the first place. Google expert NDOW biologist Jason Jones has absolutely nothing to demonstrate that any of the now legally collected species have shown any demonstrable decline since the permitting system began. The only decline has been in the number of permit's sold.

Ernie Eison


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 1st, 2017, 10:22 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Posts: 2398
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
WSTREPS wrote:
Quote:
I sure wish I could see the notes associated with each of the slides...Slide 14 implies the US is domestically producing and exporting over a quarter million brown anoles annually...I've never known anyone who breeds them for export.


That is true. All the brown anoles exported are produced domestically. They all are collected in the US.


I use the term "domestically produced" to imply produced under human care, not "domestic" in the Constitutional sense ("all enemies, foreign and domestic"). Most people call this "captive bred" and that is what the slideshow implies.

You're right about the wholesale part. The collectors aren't seeing $40 apiece for a chuckwalla. Maybe $10 if they're lucky.

It's like the Rockcut days in 1996, when the articles claimed poachers were sneaking out literally thousands of dollars' worth of snake every night out of Big Bend National Park. Years, dollars, and dismissed court cases later, this was shown to be patently false. Yet the BBNP Visitor's Center at the north entrance still has a display on this topic.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 1st, 2017, 12:09 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm
Posts: 427
Quote:
I use the term "domestically produced" to imply produced under human care, not "domestic" in the Constitutional sense ("all enemies, foreign and domestic"). Most people call this "captive bred" and that is what the slideshow implies.


Exactly the point I wanted make. That's what these scientist do. They lie without directly lying. They make statements and present imagery that are intentionally misleading. They do it over and over when they are trying to manipulate a situation but don't have a leg to stand on from a factual perspective.

The use of the pricing game is another way NDOW biologist Jason Jones try's to be deceitful. He uses inflated prices to try and make the collector's activity's look far more lucrative and insidious then they actually are. Jason Jones is a scientist why should he be discussing prices? What the animal's sell for is meaningless in this case from a scientific standpoint. There are 7 people with permits who mostly collect part time and catch a limited number of reptiles. Not a single population of any one of the species involved can be demonstrably shown to have suffered in anyway as a result of this collection. The number of permits has steadily declined since the permitting system was put in place. Those are the only numbers that count.

Ernie Eison


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 1st, 2017, 1:03 pm 

Joined: March 8th, 2011, 2:08 pm
Posts: 27
Location: Utah
I have not become informed regarding NV's specifics under discussion here, but here's one general, personal perspective:

Government entities think it's just fine to privatize parts of publicly owned ecosystems (logging, mining, fossil fuels extraction, livestock grazing, some water diversion issues). Do we force lumber companies to harvest & commercialize only "captive-bred" lumber?

State government policies also see fit to warp native ecosystems for the benefits of the "traditional" hunting & fishing constituencies and are glad for the license sales (...jobs, local economic benefits, etc.) connected to those warped ecosystems. There are certainly some impacts to native "nongame" species that are generally accepted when connected to those current established policies, and I think some of those policies can be viewed as types of commercialization.

So I certainly don't see some sort of partial commercialization of states' native reptiles to be out of line with that current context of our public ecosytems' management that most people have come to accept. Of course I'm referring to BLM, USFS, state & private land, not federal parks, monuments & refuges.

I mean I think it's reasonable for states to permit some sort of limited & managed collection of WC reptile breeders and permit the easy sale of their CB progeny. In some situations I doubt that commercialization of the WCs themselves would be detrimental to wild populations, but I feel okay conceding to a complete ban on sale of WC reptiles. That's partly because I'd feel much better if the harvesters can be interested enough in the WC reptiles to invest toward maintaining, breeding & learning about them (all of which require effort), rather than just quickly moving them to some buyer.

Of course it would be desirable if the collectors of the WCs had a strong & mutually respectful connection with state agency managers that facilitated thorough reporting of field sightings & collection data, at least for lesser-known species & populations. And it would be desirable if state agencies that saw fit to spend resources on collection policy details and their enforcement also saw fit to efficiently gather, archive and utilize collectors' & permittees' field data as much as possible (like some states try to do routinely with "game" species' harvest & sightings data).

Thanks, Mark


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 1st, 2017, 1:32 pm 

Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm
Posts: 1655
I don't support a ban, but I do support better management. As for other states' allowing some commercial, wild harvest (not "ranching" or "farming", but wild harvest) of certain reptiles and amphibians, to my knowledge it has not ended in either FL or LA. As far as I know, there are no problems known from the amount of take occurring there. It may well occur in other places too. Even in NV, from what I understand the perceived reductions in permitted exploited species are fairly localized, not "existentially problematic".

The issue here as I understand it, is that the permitted collectors appear unwilling to follow the regs, which results in non-target bycatch and also in excessive target mortality. And there may be some unreported live harvest. It apparently has been this way for a couple of decades, at least. At a certain point, a non-neutered regulating agency has the authority and the responsibility to revoke permits of serial noncompliers. And to update the regs if compliance, or enforcement, is hindered by current language. That would be my preference, rather than a ban. There is a harvestable resource here, that can be exploited without imperiling the viability of the resource.

Another issue I see here, is the allocation of access to that exploitable resource. NV seems quite restrictive for sport harvest, and very liberal on commercial harvest. So potentially 2 million residents are facing off against seven commercial guys. This sort of issue crops up time and again, especially in nearshore marine fisheries. It's just something that has to be dealt with. In a perfect world, the agency would have 2 well-organized stakeholder groups to work with, and something reasonable and fair could be hammered out over a year or three. But the world is what it is; imperfect yet improvable. Sport herpers in NV need to get organized and engage in a long-term fashion with the agency. And the agency needs to be allowed to take enforcement action against the scofflaw commercial guys.

I personally take issue with agency staff taking on a position in such issues. To me, staff are the "can we?" people, not the "should we?" people. I.e., can there be a sustainable harvest, not should there be any - or no - harvest. "Should we" ought to be left to stakeholders and to elected or appointed people. On the other hand I well understand the frustrations of being put in a catch-22 box by dirty stakeholders, dirty politicians, and agencies without the resources or the inclination to work outside their familiar comfort zone. A catch-22 box will drive you insane.

Ernie, you're really, really, really talking out your ass on this one. (Maybe you're in a catch-22 box?) You're deducing from your worldview to the specifics of a situation you don't know much about. (Have you ever studied formal logic? I have. It's pretty hard stuff; "common sense" doesn't take you all that far, because humans have a variety of hard-wired blind spots that steer us to make invalid arguments all the time.) You flame - and I mean YOU FLAME - anyone else who you think is talking about something they don't know much about, but here you are, doing it yourself. While also impugning the character of several people who I know from fairly long work association, aren't anything like you say they are. They simply aren't liars, clowns, pieces of shit, junker scientists, etc etc. They are human beings, with a sample of all the imperfections that entails. But to expect perfection from any human, is to dehumanize them. These guys you're trashing, I'm proud to call them my friends. If they had significant moral or behavioral "warts", they would not be my friends.

So Ernie - do you have the intellectual honesty to admit where you're filling in some blanks with totally made-up junk? Or, are you a prime example of what you're accusing my friends of being? I can accept some human imperfection, but not significant "warts".

Let's see what you've got.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 1st, 2017, 4:09 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm
Posts: 427
Quote:
banning commercial collecting really only prevents 7 people from going out and catching things, so that's why I remain largely uninterested in the result.


I completely understand but, This involves only 7 people and a very small number of reptiles (when placed into the proper perspective and factored into total population numbers) and its been decreasing. Chuckwalla's for example are so plentiful the state allows an unlimited harvest. Add to that a complete lack of scientific evidence showing this limited collection causing any harmful effects to any of the reptile population's involved. You have to ask (logically) Why then is the Center for Biological Diversity so hell bent on getting this ban passed. To the point that they are threating to sue the state of Nevada if it doesn't. For such a small issue they have taken a very big interest. Why? And then there is NDOW biologist Jason Jones clearly bending the facts to fit his wants. Not presenting any quality research in the data he's been pushing for month's. Its all rooted in sensationalism. That's not very good science and certainly not ethical. Hum...................

Ernie Eison


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 1st, 2017, 9:40 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Posts: 4004
Location: San Francisco, California
I always think of how easily reptiles are caught and even more easily contained and stored. Easier than any vertebrate I can think of, with or without collectible appeal.

I cant help but think this inherent fact is considered and that it is an operative in these decisions, if it be over extended in some peoples view, it still might be a factor to the position and motives of those involved.

Maybe its not a sensational motive but a precautionary control tactic borne from that simple and readily exploitable intrinsic.



edited the question mark to a period.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 1st, 2017, 10:21 pm 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm
Posts: 486
The issues that arise with the commercial take of herps are very similar to the issues that arose in the threads involving recreational collecting. As for objecting to the commercial take of herps, one should ask themselves if their objection is based on a philosophical grounds, personal feelings, on rational considerations, on evidence and data, on the application of basic biological principles, or a combination thereof.

The sensationalism and spectacle that has accompanied commercial rattlesnake roundups has always been uncomfortable to me. But being aware that really represents a personal feeling or bias, I try to examine issue in a more impartial and objective manner. There is a good published paper that deals with the commercial harvest of rattlesnakes for rattlesnake roundups. I have the citation if anyone is interested.

Also, one needs to be aware that commercial harvest of amphibians and reptiles has been ongoing for many decades in a number of states. The two states that have had long standing commercial take of herps are Florida and Louisiana. Biologist Kevin Eng of the Florida wildlife agency has published data on this issue in Florida. I think I have a copy of one of his papers as well.

One species over harvested in recent years has been the Alligator Snapping Turtle. But most of the other species harvested over many decades in Florida and Louisiana have remained as sustainable populations. The American Alligator also was over harvested at one time but the with proper management, the species recovered, is once again harvested, and is thriving. The above historical record should be informative as such pertains to the Nevada situation.

And the commercial harvest of herps not only has been just for the pet trade, but for research, educational purposes, for meat, for hides, and possibly for (imagined?) medicinal purposes. In a broad context, is there really that much of a difference in the commercial take of heprs in relation to the commercial harvest of clams, abalone, lobsters, shrimp, crabs, salmon, halibut, etc.? And most individuals do not object to the latter commercial take.

Consider the following:
1) The same basic biological principles govern the populations of all organisms, invertebrates and vertebrate -- both game and non-game species.
2) Unless there is evidence to the contrary, species exist as self-sustaining populations.
3) Self sustaining populations represent renewable wildlife resources.
4) Reproduction creates a surplus. Thus, renewable wildlife resources can withstand some level of take and remain as sustainable populations.
5) Take is a form of predation and humans are just one of a number of predators of renewable wildlife resources.

The Nevada article is lacking the type of information necessary to really make a valid judgment. Yet with commercial take having been legal in Nevada for three decades and collectors required to submit detailed reports, I would think there should be sufficient information to reach a reasoned position.

Note the following: “Jones conceded that the commercial collection data is not perfect.” “It’s market driven,” Jones said. “But it raises a lot of red flags.” From my perspective, without any hard evidence given and only personal beliefs and opinion, to me that raise a red flag!

Quoting from the article:
“But the department sees commercial collection as one of many threats facing the roughly 50 reptile species in Nevada, said Jason Jones, an NDOW biologist pushing for the regulations. Other threats to population size include climate change, development and disease.”
“At recent commission meetings, Jones has argued that commercial collection poses an issue because it often overlaps with breeding months, and populations are slow to recover.”

Journalists often take liberties. But if the above quotes are reasonably accurate, they reveal a lack of understanding my biologist Jones. As invariably is the case in this day and age, climate change is almost always cast in a negative light as in the above passage. But climate change can produced both positive as well as negative affects depending on species. To cast climate change only in a negative context is and example of bias.

As for collecting overlapping breeding months, I wonder if biologist Jones believes that all other predators of the chuckwalla have a moratorium on taking gravid females during the breeding season and at that time of year, only take non-adults, males, and non-gravid females. I have had other biologist express the same concern when they learn I continue to hunt my female Harris’s Hawk into the reproductive season for rabbits.

If I were to ban anything in Nevada, it would be wildlife agency leadership and biologists that do not manage species via science-based processes and instead use personal biases and feeling in making management decisions. From all that can be determined from the article, it is the latter that appears to be driving Mr. Jones’ anti commercial collecting position.

So I concur with some of the positions taken by Ernie but am not all that fond of the ‘colorful’ language he sometime uses. As for the Center for Biological Diversity, my personal experience is that some members of that organization represent the sleaze that has infiltrated and degraded the conservation movement in the U.S. I can provide specifics if requested.

Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 1st, 2017, 11:32 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Posts: 4004
Location: San Francisco, California
Maybe commercial collecting is wrong no matter what anyone has to say about it, pro or con.

No science, no bias, its just something that's being dissolved like a mysteriously vanishing stain here, there.

So unexpected, really. run little one, run.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 2nd, 2017, 9:50 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 8:49 pm
Posts: 1142
A few of my thoughts, genuine and otherwise. I live in Nevada. I work very closely with the state agency. Their biologists are not stupid. They are not scam artists. They are not making up data to support their worldview. Since I've been in this state, I've wanted to see commercial collection end. I don't like it, its not fair that some people take MY reptiles from MY public land and sell them. Just because the animals are not being driven to extinction and ecosystem has not collapsed (yet) does not justify the practice in MY state. How slippery is the slope from a commercial collection ban to an outright ban on pet ownership? Its slippery, next thing we can't take our kids fishing or get a hamburger. That's one slippery slope I tell you what.

Read Jimi's excellent descriptions of how state wildlife management agencies are structured as organizations. Then you might understand how laughable it is to think that biologists are pulling the strings in the agencies. I'd link to the thread but the people that need to read it won't or will ignore it.


I wish I could participate in this thread genuinely but I just can't. I've had enough of Richard and Ernie's propaganda to last me a lifetime. This place is like groundhog day. I concede. There are many sides to this commercial collection issue. Many sides.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 2nd, 2017, 10:07 am 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:30 pm
Posts: 404
Location: St Louis, MO / Hartford, CT
Brian, by your standard I shouldn't be able to take your fish, your deer, your oil, your gas, not even a leaf from your public land. To play devil's advocate, the land also belongs to the collectors, so why should you prevent them from using THEIR renewable resource? If you just hate the idea of people keeping or collecting herps "just cuz", there's nothing really wrong with that but what if we start banning everything anyone does not like. Personally, I am allergic to cats. I'd just assume no one could keep a cat. I also really dislike mustard and would like to reduce the risk it ever ends up on my burger, so for me, banning mustard makes sense if my personal tastes are the only thing that should matter in society. I must agree with Ernie and Richard on the merits, there just not much data to suggest that herps can be easily overcollected. If there's some evidence you are basing your opinion on to the contrary, I'd genuinely like to find the sources so I can read them. I try to have an informed opinion, but someone stomping their feet and saying "cuz I said so" with any demonstrable evidence has become all too common of a behavior.

On a side note, I don't think the majority of biologists are out trying to scam anyone, I imagine the majority grew up dreaming about animals much like all people with an interest in wildlife, but I do wonder if there is not enough focus on wildlife utilization. I had some good instructors that went on at length about it, but somehow it didn't stick with me and I kind of ended up being one of those guys that wanted to support any ban on the take of any wildlife for years, until I finally got some sense back after person, after person, after person kept beating basic facts back into my head. I think in our society it's easy to do, because emotions spread faster than facts. Anyway Brian, I hope you don't feel like I am in any way attacking you or your opinion, you've posted a lot of good stuff on here (fact based I might add) over the years I've been reading the forums.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 2nd, 2017, 11:11 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 8:49 pm
Posts: 1142
Quote:
Brian, by your standard I shouldn't be able to take your fish, your deer, your oil, your gas, not even a leaf from your public land. To play devil's advocate, the land also belongs to the collectors, so why should you prevent them from using THEIR renewable resource?



Why are actions immediately taken to their most extreme (and often absurd) conclusion? We're not arguing a binary, yes or no to any take at all. We're establishing reasonable, science based limits. Unlimited, unregulated take or zero take are not the choices on the table. Anywhere it seems except this forum.

Its Bryan btw.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 2nd, 2017, 11:32 am 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:30 pm
Posts: 404
Location: St Louis, MO / Hartford, CT
Sorry about the misspelling. I think some kind of a bag limit sounds reasonable to me. As far as I know, it is common to limit the collection of certain sexes during certain times of the year. Bryan, all those measures sound reasonable enough to me and I agree with your concern for deserted drift fences.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 2nd, 2017, 12:09 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 8:49 pm
Posts: 1142
Thanks that all I'm looking for. I don't know what the limit on chuckwallas should be. 1,5,10 but probably not 100 annually. And certainly not unlimited.

I really want to fight so that we can all enjoy our resources. I don't want prohibition on bringing an occasional snake or lizard home. Or even collecting to build a captive breeding colony. But its hard when our community gets on the side of commercial collection. I know its not everyone but some of the loudest are being heard.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 2nd, 2017, 3:10 pm 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:30 pm
Posts: 404
Location: St Louis, MO / Hartford, CT
To me as a private reptile hobbyist, huge numbers are not too helpful. It's much better to have people collecting and providing high quality care for a more limited quantity of animals that fetch a higher price in my mind. When I am purchasing imported animals, I buy them from guys who bring in regular, but relatively small shipments, and build a reputation for quality. It indeed does cost more, but not nearly as much as having a disease outbreak or dying animals. I can understand the need to keep the cost down in specimens used for teaching or feeders, ideal targets for those would be invasive species I think (brown anoles, bullfrogs in the west, etc).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 2nd, 2017, 7:07 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm
Posts: 427
Quote:
you might understand how laughable it is to think that biologists are pulling the strings in the agencies Bryan Hamilton


What's laughable is to imply that the impute of state and federal biologist doesn't play a major role in these situations. Why do you think they are called upon in the first place? And these biologist use this. In this case for example. Jason Jones, an NDOW biologist is pushing for the regulations. Clearly he has not presented an unbiased or scientifically based opinion. He is "pushing" strictly from a personal standpoint. Without question NDOW biologist Jason Jones impute cannot be trusted as reliable. But it will be used as a key component in the decision making process concerning this issue, And that is what is really laughable.

Ernie Eison


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 2nd, 2017, 7:41 pm 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:30 pm
Posts: 404
Location: St Louis, MO / Hartford, CT
I think there is a genuine need for all animal people to come together and realize that some give and take could go a long way toward making sure the future is bright and that we crank out as many people who want to preserve reptiles and other animals for the future as possible exist. I also think everyone does not have to agree 100% on every issue. If a bag limit is high enough to reassure collectors that their rights won't be revoked, if those studying animals are allowed to conduct relevant research without undue interference, and those who favor a precautionary approach get some kind of bag limit, then can't everyone live with the results even if they still think it's not perfect?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 3rd, 2017, 4:36 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm
Posts: 427
Quote:
I think there is a genuine need for all animal people to come together and realize that some give and take could go a long way toward making sure the future is bright and that we crank out as many people who want to preserve reptiles and other animals for the future as possible exist.


That's a nice thought but you have to consider where the resistance to that idea is coming from. Certainly not the collector's. The live trade has always been at the forefront when it comes to providing biological data and a willingness to work with everyone. Much of what we know world wide about the ecology of reptiles has come from the live trade. The leading scientific authorities on reptiles are also collectors. Some having extensive backgrounds in the field of wild harvest. They are true expert's that have dedicated their lives to the understanding of these animals. But the world of science has become a marginalized and inclusive one. What you are seeing more and more are scientist that are not interested in science. They are activist, not scientist. Read their comments. At BEST they are only willing to concede what THEY think is appropriate based on their personal belief's and could care less about the facts. Lets look,

Quote:

I've wanted to see commercial collection end. I don't like it, its not fair that some people take MY reptiles from MY public land and sell them.

We're establishing reasonable, science based limits. Unlimited, unregulated take or zero take are not the choices on the table. Anywhere it seems except this forum.

I don't know what the limit on chuckwallas should be. 1,5,10 but probably not 100 annually. And certainly not unlimited.

I really want to fight so that we can all enjoy our resources. Bryan Hamilton


This forum and NEVADA. Unlimited take has been in practice since the Nevada permit system was put in place. Zero take is a choice that certainly is currently on the table. Bryan Hamilton makes claims of establishing reasonable, science based limits. But where is his science. What has been demonstrated is that even with Unlimited take not one of the collected species population's have shown any ill effects. Bryan Hamilton admits to "not knowing" and placing arbitrary numbers on what he thinks the limits should be. From 1 to 10, probably not 100. So in Bryans world not referencing any collection data. A species that has had an unlimited take for decade's without showing any loss in population should overnight have the collection number dropped to 1 or whatever number he thinks in appropriate . There is no science based anything in that mentality. He says he wants to fight so that we can all enjoy our resources. So in the years that permitted collection has taken place in Nevada only the collector's have enjoyed the resources ? In this instance. Its clownish not science based to resort to pandering for public support in that ridiculous manor.

Ernie Eison


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 3rd, 2017, 9:34 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 8:49 pm
Posts: 1142
Ernie,
Your ad hominem attacks are getting all over this forum. Yuck.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 3rd, 2017, 1:36 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm
Posts: 427
Lets look at some REAL numbers and claims as reported by NDOW Biologist , Jason Jones. Please keep in mind I'm only scratching at the surface of this guys unhinged comments and analysis.

Jones claims and highlight's that in a single yr one collector accounted for this number. A total of 5,907 reptiles worth $208,536 US. A collection rate nearly 7 times what the current data has shown to be true. Allegedly sold at prices resulting in a net income roughly 8 times what would be a realistic number.This based on average paid wholesale prices. That is what these collectors get paid, not maximum retail. Clearly cherry picking and enhancing NDOW Biologist , Jason Jones provides no other individual collector data.

Using Jones cherry picked numbers the two most lucrative reptiles (Jones highlighted both) the Chuckwalla was collected at a rate of about 1 every 2 days and the extraordinarily valuable gopher snake was collected at rate of about 1 every 17 days. Pretty poor for a commercial collector who according Jones could easily make thousands of dollar's if not 10's of thousand's of dollars a day collecting just these two common species. The third most valuable was the desert iguana. A total of 6 collected. 1 every two months.

Ernie Eison


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 3rd, 2017, 3:35 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 8:49 pm
Posts: 1142
The part of nevada I live in has no chuckwallas at all. Explain that?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 4th, 2017, 8:48 pm 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm
Posts: 486
A Google search of the‘Nevada Wlldlife Action Plan’ shows 26 reptiles (including the Chuckwalla), listed as “Species of Conservation Priority”. The NDOW states their efforts with non-game species is due to a federal mandate and grant funding from the USF&WS. Nevada Wildlife Action Plan - Nevada Department of Wildlife.

Below the name of each species occurs a justification for listing the species. Note, there is a complete absence of any supporting evidence. Consequently, each of those justifications represent opinion and therefore have zero scientific validity. Below are 4 of the listed species with the quoted justifications. (WAP = Wildlife Action Plan) I have added comments.

chuckwalla “WAP 2012 species because it is vulnerable to decline due to large-scale habitat conversion and loss and unsustainable levels of commercial exploitaton.” (Note the use of generalizations without specifics with respect to estimates of habitat conversion nor specific information on the “unsustainable levels of commercial exploitation.”)

desert horned lizard “WAP 2012 species because of commercial collecton pressures.” (Nap shows distribution over entire state.)
long-nosed leopard lizard “WAP 2012 species because of commercial collecton pressures.” (Map shows distribution over almost all of state.)
(It is disturbing that any wildlife biologist would claim that collecting could produce negative impacts on species that occur state wide.)

northern rubber boa “WAP 2012 species because it requires mesic microhabitats within the Great Basin that are vulnerable to drying due to climate change and is reliant upon aspen riparian areas, a vulnerable habitat-type.” (The reference claiming the reliance on aspen riparian areas is completely false! Besides mesic habitats, the species also occurs in rather xeric, high desert scrub habitat that contains cactus.)

I assume the biologist or biologists that wrote these accounts are aware that thousands of Mule Deer are harvested annually in Nevada (7885 in 2016), and yet deer remain as a sustainable population. Implied is that the commercial collecting of some reptiles is of such magnitude that those species are potentially at risk and need to be listed as ‘Species of Conservation Priority’. Such a position is biologically indefensible! It amounts to deer being recognized as a renewable wildlife resource but then the non-game species of reptiles are not.

Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 4th, 2017, 8:52 pm 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm
Posts: 486
There is an extensive report on the Chuckwalla in Nevada attributed to Dr. Edmond (Butch) Brodie of Utah State. It does not provide evidence one way or the other with respect to the relative ‘health’ of Chuckwalla in Nevada. I was hoping I could find information on the density of the species.

I sent an email to Butch and he got back to me mentioning that the paper did not contain the type of information I was seeking. I then did find a couple of references that provided density figures for the species. With a reasoned estimate on the area occupied by the Chuckwalla in Nevada and, with having data on densities, conservative estimates of the Nevada Chuckwalla population can be produced. I have made some ball park estimates should anyone be interested.

Such estimates can be informative with respect to the issue of commercial collecting. If a species numbers say 100,000 or more and with very few commercial collectors, how valid is the notion that commercial collecting can produce negative impacts to the Chuckwalla and other Nevada non-game populations which like deer, are all renewable wildlife resources? The Mule Deer population in Nevada is estimate at about 92,000 – 94,000.

I also sent an email to the NDOW as follows:
“I have searched many links in relation to the non-game wildlife in Nevada without finding specific information on species the NDOW has identified as ‘Species of Conservation Priority’. I was wondering if there are links to the data base for each listed species. I am particularly interested in the data on the Northern Rubber Boa, Desert Horned Lizard, Chuckwalla, and Long-nosed Leopard Lizard.” (They have yet to respond.)

My computer skills are weak and it is possibly I have overlooked how to access such information. Does anyone know if the NDOW maintains a data base for each listed species? Please let me know if they do, how to access such data bases.

Richard F. Hoyer


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 4th, 2017, 9:05 pm 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm
Posts: 486
At least one of the NDOW links contain reference to the Natural Heritage Organization / NatureServe ranking results. I got the sense the agency made use of NatureServe rankings in some manner but did not explore that facet. If the agency did use NatureServe ranking results in conjunction with their ‘Species of Conservation Priority’ list, that would raise another ‘red flag.

I have researched NatureServe’s methods and ranking results of the snakes in Oregon. Without having any objective evidences, NatureServe’s results are based solely on subjective opinion. All such rankings, which are at the S – 3, S – 4, and S – 5 levels, are all pure fiction.

There are two reason there is a void of factual evidence. NatureServe’s assessment methods are based on the three categories of ‘rarity’, ‘threats’, and ‘trends’. Published research seldom, if ever contains evidence pertaining to those three factors. Secondly, there are very little published research articles on the snakes of Oregon. Consequently, there is no scientific evidence on which to assess and rank species.

I suspect that also may be the case in Nevada, that there is very little published research on most species of reptiles and what has been published does not address the factors of ‘rarity’, ‘threats’, and ‘trends’. For instance, the NatureServe ranking for the Rubber Boa in Nevada is S3/S4 which can only represents the imagination (opinion) of whomever produced that ranking.

Another ‘red flag’ issue is as follows: A good number of the NDOW ‘Species of Conservation Priority’ accounts mention ‘climate change’ (see Rubber Boa account). Climate change can affect species in three ways: it can produce a negative impact, a positive impact, or no impact. As can be noted in the ‘Species of Conservation Priority’ accounts, climate change only is conveyed as producing a negative impact. Such bias represent an agenda that is completely at odds with scientific standards of objectivity.

For the past 20 years, I have come to the realization that what once was a legitimate conservation movement in the U.S., now has been badly perverted. The example of the NDOW coverage of its ‘Wildlife Action Plan’ and the NatureServe ranking results are prime examples of such perversion. The ‘Wildlife Action Plan’ is written in a style that is meant to convey that a science-based processes was employed. Nothing could be further from the truth!

Richard F. Hoyer


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 4th, 2017, 9:14 pm 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm
Posts: 486
There is some chance in the prior three posts, I may have erred (other than spelling typos). I will try to amend any mistakes others identify.

The following is something for Ernie E. to consider. Bryan is correct when he mentioned “Their biologists are not stupid. They are not scam artists.” I concur so let me explain as at times, I believe you are sometimes too harsh because you may have overlooking some realities.

It is my view that leadership and trust are so important in organizations. I do not believe that biologist Jason Jones could have pressed his case against commercial collecting if he did not have the approval and support of his superiors up the line. Had he undertaken his stance without first getting the go ahead from above, he would have been placing his employment on the line. Thus, it is my view that Jason is not the only problem but the leadership is.

As bad as is the content in the ‘Species of Conservation Priority’ document, I cannot fault the biologist or biologists that contributed to that document.
After all, someone in leadership assigned that project to those biologists. And if they wished to continue earning a paycheck, they were smart enough to comply with the task to which they were assigned. So if there is anyone to blame for the type of sleaze that is suppose to represent the conservation of non-game species, I suggest you need to assign such blame to the leadership.

But then one needs to ask why the leadership would undertake a policy that is so counter to an evidence-bases approach to assessing non-game species. To my way of thinking, the problem lies with the federal government and the 12 million dollar carrot they dangled in front of the wildlife agency leadership. And the agency leadership may have been under pressure due to the stated mandate of the USF&WS.

Finally, with respect to the Nevada WAP policy, I see one positive amongst the negatives. That is, all reptiles listed as ‘Species of Conservation Priority’ were not placed in a hands off, protected status. And the negative is that the policy the NDOW has followed is masquerading as if it were science-based. And with implying that the listed species are potentially at risk yet without any supporting evidnce, this is a violaation of the publich trust And as mentioned, it likely started with federal government intevention. Just my take and I could be mistaken.

Last, it has been my unfortunate experience that all too often, so-called public servants are really pubic impediments. That is, they work against instead of for, or in cooperation with members of the public.

I think the NDOW (and Jason Jones) has missed an opportunity to work cooperatively with the commercial collectors instead of against them. So much could have been gained in such a cooperative arrangement with respect to acquiring base line data on non-game species. I have the distinct impression that in Louisiana that has a long history of commercial take of herps, the latter situation is likely at play.

Richard F. Hoyer


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 5th, 2017, 12:39 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm
Posts: 427
Quote:
The following is something for Ernie E. to consider. Bryan is correct when he mentioned “Their biologists are not stupid. They are not scam artists.” I concur so let me explain as at times, I believe you are sometimes too harsh because you may have overlooking some realities.

After all, someone in leadership assigned that project to biologists.[u] And if they wished to continue earning a paycheck, they were smart enough to comply with the task to which they were assigne


I never called these biologist stupid. What they do is not out of stupidity. Its calculating. I haven't failed to consider anything. I do consider all the angles and I know all the angle's. Are the biologist scam artist ? How about their employers are they scam artist? What do you call someone that intentionally present's information that is misleading to sway opinion's ? Did you find Jason Jones presentation to be the truthful, well researched work of an intelligent scientist ? That Jason Jones (not being stupid) based on his ability's has presented an objective quality analysis without personal prejudice ? Is that kind of work what passes as science. After all Jason Jones role in all this is to be the scientific authority is it not? Or are you saying he only did what his employers wanted and that's Ok because his paycheck depends on it?

Quote:
I think the NDOW (and Jason Jones) has missed an opportunity to work cooperatively with the commercial collectors instead of against them. So much could have been gained in such a cooperative arrangement with respect to acquiring base line data on non-game species.


I'm sure Jason Jones understands that after all he's not stupid. Clearly he doesn't want that. He hates these people. He did not want to do anything that might be counter productive to his wants and his employer's wants. In this instance the truth will hurt that objective and he is well aware of that.

Ernie Eison


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 5th, 2017, 8:41 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 8:49 pm
Posts: 1142
Hi Richard, I'll try to take some time to respond to your post. Or you could ask Ernie, self-proclaimed master of geometry.

Quote:
I haven't failed to consider anything. I do consider all the angles and I know all the angle's.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 5th, 2017, 9:51 am 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm
Posts: 486
Ernie,
You posed the following question: “What do you call someone that intentionally present's information that is misleading to sway opinion's ?”

I consider this entire situation as being unprofessional and unethical. In fact, I will go one step further by stating such behavior represent corrupt practices. Similar situations exist in Oregon, California, and perhaps most, if not all state wildlife agencies.

There are at least two major wildlife agency policies and practices I consider as being unprofessional, unethical, and basically corrupt.
1) Wildlife agencies will list species in some category of conservation concern without following a science-based process. That is, without any valid evidence, non-game species have been listed base solely on anecdotal information. The Nevada DOW is clearly guilty in that respect.

All agency biologists and leadership know that species should be listed on the basis of valid evidence. Invariable, wildlife agency’s stated principles and administrative rules specify managing species on the basis of sound-science. Yet wildlife agencies list non-game species without any supporting scientific evidence whatsoever.

2) In the name of conservation, wildlife agencies list non-game species in a hands-off, no-collecting, ‘Protected’ status indicating that such a policy protects species. Such a practice is irrational, biologically indefensible, and has zero conservation value.

Agency leadership and their wildlife biologists (should) know that species and habitat are inseparable. With infrequent exceptions, the decline of non- game species invariably is due to the outright loss and / or degradation of habitat, not collecting. Game species are harvested by the thousands, and as renewable wildlife resources, remain as self-sustaining populations. The same applies to non-game species.

From my perspective, that wildlife agencies employ both policies is an example of ‘institutional or organizational corruption’. I suggest readers Google that issue. The example below was published by an ASU professor. It pertains to business but applies to government as well.

Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE NORMALIZATION OF CORRUPTION IN ORGANIZATIONS Blake E Ashforth, Vikas Anand
Abstract:
Organizational corruption imposes a steep cost on society, easily dwarfing that of street crime. We examine how corruption becomes normalized, that is, embedded in the organization such that it is more or less taken for granted and perpetuated. We argue that three mutually reinforcing processes underlie normalization: (1) institutionalization, where an initial corrupt decision or act becomes embedded in structures and processes and thereby routinized; (2) rationalization, where self-serving ideologies develop to justify and perhaps even valorize corruption; and (3) socialization, where naı̈ve newcomers are induced to view corruption as permissible if not desirable. The model helps explain how otherwise morally upright individuals can routinely engage in corruption without experiencing conflict, how corruption can persist despite the turnover of its initial practitioners, how seemingly rational organizations can engage in suicidal corruption and how an emphasis on the individual as evildoer misses the point that systems and individuals are mutually reinforcing.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 5th, 2017, 5:17 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Posts: 4004
Location: San Francisco, California
What if some things are unprovable?

A Professor of many sciences told me that some biological questions are unprovable by scientific method because of the nature of biology itself. He was actually a rocket scientist so I assumed he knew what he was talking about.



When I read the article on corruption and let it perch on the context of this thread I almost choked on a smartpop kernel.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 5th, 2017, 10:17 pm 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm
Posts: 486
E.E.,
You inquired about possible scams. In my latest post, I identified two wildlife agency policies I consider as being corrupt. Those policies then lead to three ways in which the public is scammed by wildlife agencies.

1) Wildlife agencies list species in some category of conservation concern solely on basis of speculation (opinions), without having support from any valid evidence. In creative written justifications for public consumption, agencies imply that science based processes were involved in listing species. Such deceitful, false justifications represent a scam perpetrated against the public.

2) Under the guise of conservation, wildlife agencies inform the public that species are being protected when the agency lists such species in a protected status. That too represent a scam as a protected status has zero conservation value and does not protect species.

3) A third scam against the public occurs with the public’s tax resources being wasted on the above two corrupt practices, all in the name of conservation. The agency’s personnel’s efforts and the funding expended toward those two worthless polices could have been devoted toward legitimate conservation issues. Such waste represents another downside to the above two policies.

With respect to #2, I have encountered wildlife biologists that actually believe that species are being protected when placed in a protected status. I doubt that such individuals understand the basic principles that govern all species. And likely they would be unable to explain the basis for wildlife representing renewable resources. They could not explain why game species can be harvested year after year and yet remain as sustainable populations.

For anyone who harbors the belief that placing non-game species in a protected status actually protects species, consider the following. Nobody hunts the Marbled Murrelet or N. Spotted Owl in Oregon either for sport or for meat. And those species are not collected for their feathers or for pets. Yet both species declined to the point of becoming federally listed. So you need to understand that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1916 – 1918 that placed all native birds in a protected status, did not protect either species nor other native birds that have been listed or proposed for listing.

Richard F. Hoyer


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 6th, 2017, 9:36 am 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm
Posts: 486
E.E.,
As for the presentation, a good deal of the details in graphs, tables, and figures are not legible and some are lacking an explanation. What can be gleaned from the information suggests to me that the presentation was based mainly on an emotional approach rather than on a scientific approach.

The article mentions that in 1995, there were 31 licensed commercial collectors but by 2016, that number had dropped to 7. The graphs show that 31,803 (or 31,830) reptiles were harvested in 1995 but by 2016, the number of harvested reptiles was down to 7102.

It seems that Jason Jones and NDOW leadership considered that information as supporting the contention that commercial collecting is harming targeted reptiles. That is, the declined from 31,803 down to 7102 represented a decline in populations. I cannot think of any other reason why that information would have been presented to the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners.

Note that the graphs shows a nearly perfect correlation between number collectors and number of reptiles harvested. So instead of supporting Jason Jones’ position, that information does just the opposite. That is, an average of 1026 reptiles were harvested per collector in 1995 (31,803 / 31) whereas the same figure for 2016 was nearly the same at 1015 / collector (7102 / 7). I haven’t the foggiest notion why that didn’t resonate with Jason Jones and the NDOW leadership? I suspect they failed to objectively analyze that data.

So the notion that a decline in reptile populations occurred due to commercial collecting lacks support from the data. Had the number of collectors remained at around 30 and then just 7102 reptiles had been collected in 2016, that would suggest population declines likely had occurred.

If commercial collecting of reptiles in Nevada was truly lucrative as implied in the presentation, then the number of collectors should have gone up, not down. Had a significant increase in the number of commercial collectors occurred resulting in a substantial increase in the number of reptiles harvested, then Jason Jones and NDOW leadership may have had some basis for concerns.

I am just flabbergasted that any wildlife agency could be concerned with the impact of commercial collecting when there occurred such a highly significant decrease in both the number of commercial collectors and the number of reptiles harvested. When emotions are involved, individuals tend not to be able to analyze information objectively but instead, interpret information in a biased manner as seems to be the case here.

Reviewing information second hand as II have done here can be prone to error as it lacks the context in which the information was originally presented. So what I mention above could be off target to some degree.

Richard F. Hoyer


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 6th, 2017, 12:26 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Posts: 4004
Location: San Francisco, California
What Emotion is it that the individuals of the wildlife agency all have?

You keep referring to "emotions" and "feelings" but wont name them.

Not saying its right or wrong here but an ethical stance isnt an emotion.

If the "emotion" is respect and protectiveness for wild animals in their native state because of an awareness of the plight of a very large percentage of commercially collected herps, then I find that preferable to a robotic disconnect from life that only counts numbers as an operative.

And so do many other people here. They are just unwilling to be "colorfully" savaged for their views.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 6th, 2017, 2:43 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 29th, 2011, 12:56 am
Posts: 777
Location: Belgium
Richard F. Hoyer wrote:
Reproduction creates a surplus. Thus, renewable wildlife resources can withstand some level of take and remain as sustainable populations.

Given natural and 'less natural' conditions and pressures, populations may grow, stay more or less equally sized, or shrink. Generalizing that all/most populations are in the first case seems dangerous. Without having adequate insights into the population's health and dynamics (also at a genetic level), going ahead and assuming that it's doing just fine seems a self-fulfilling prophecy. The cited statement seems to paint the optimistic picture as if all populations are doing great. Just a side note.

And another drop of European naivity: maybe (any type of) collecting can be OK at a smart level for a flourishing population. If you just don't collect, it will (obviously) usually be even better. As long as population dynamics are only know from limited evidence (as seems to me to be the case in most of the examples I have read here now and before), what's wrong with the precautionary principle?


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 6th, 2017, 3:55 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm
Posts: 427
Quote:
That is, an average of 1026 reptiles were harvested per collector in 1995 (31,803 / 31) whereas the same figure for 2016 was nearly the same at 1015 / collector (7102 / 7). I haven’t the foggiest notion why that didn’t resonate with Jason Jones and the NDOW leadership? I suspect they failed to objectively analyze that data.


You have made some good points Richard but I have no doubt that it certainly did resonate with Jason Jones and the NDOW leadership. I'm sure they have the basic math skills and ability to discern that the availability of the reptiles hasn't diminished. Only the demand. That is where the emotional approach rather than a scientific approach takes over. Jason Jones knows full well that nobody on that Wildlife Commission Panel is going to carefully read, analyze, or critically evaluate anything. When these Commission Panel people look at a graph, if the line goes down that means decline. That's all they see. If the State biologist throws them any cockamamie theory . That's good enough. Their not going to calculate or question anything.

What these Wildlife Commission people will do is look at the pictures, read the captions, and arbitrarily listen to a few testimonies and that's it. Jones knows this. That is why when you review his submitted "data", its nothing more then a compilation of SHOCK value PICTURES and CAPTIONS!!!! Many are completely irrelevant to the issue and grossly misleading. And also very cookie cutter. They create a desired image. I believe a biologist first and foremost has an obligation to provide accurate and unbiased data to the best of his ability's. Be truthful and objective. I cant fathom that was the case here. When the emotional approach is applied and the facts disregarded it no longer has anything to do with science, now its religious. It is an attempt to force personal belief on others while denying other possibility's. Notice how those who champion the integrity and necessity of science and the scientific method suddenly have no need for it when the narrative suits their belief's.

Ernie Eison


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 6th, 2017, 4:26 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Posts: 4004
Location: San Francisco, California
Actually, it's the mindset of utilitarian entitlement over nature and animals that has its origin in religion.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 6th, 2017, 5:50 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Posts: 4004
Location: San Francisco, California
Yes I know that your use of the word "religion" was meant as a casual rhetorical, but it was strategic.

Also strategic is the use of words like "emotional"

It is effective too - what male herper wants to be associated with the mental picture of a floppy hatted lady who feeds feral cats, right?

But one of the most vital abilities of that deemed masculine in character is the willingness to Protect the vulnerable.


I'm not trying to argue with you Ernie as you would easily win. There is a whole other half of the grapefruit that isnt even on the table here so I am just offering some commentary representing the Absent Crickets.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 6th, 2017, 7:06 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 8:49 pm
Posts: 1142
https://www.snakes.ngo/save-nevadas-rep ... ign=buffer


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 6th, 2017, 8:19 pm 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm
Posts: 486
Jeroea,
I struggle with written communications so it appears that unintentionally, I conveyed an incorrect inference. So both of your first two sentences are correct as they match my understanding. Even though through reproduction, species create a surplus of their numbers, most species are considered
to be at equilibrium, neither appreciably increasing or decreasing. The evidence for the above is found in the fact that throughout time, we continue to observe species occurring throughout their documented distributions. But of course there are many exceptions, especially when humans convert wild habitats to other uses.

The evidence also makes it clear that humans as predators, can remove a certain amount of the surplus that species create during reproduction and still have those species continue as sustainable populations. The harvest of game species is an example. That humans have over-harvested to the point the some species having declined is well documented at well.

And in the case of the Nevada, Chuckwalla issue, without some evidence to indicate otherwise, the species can be harvested (just like deer) and remain as self-sustaining populations. No evidence was presented by Jason Jones that demonstrated a decline in the Chuckwalla or the populations of any other reptile species that have been commercially harvested in Nevada for about the past 3 decades.

As I mentioned in my first post, I am not fond of the commercial take of herps. It is my ‘feeling’ that with some individuals, the profit motive can lead to problems. But I have disciplined myself not to let such feelings or biases interfere with objectively examining issues.

Richard F. Hoyer


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 6th, 2017, 8:53 pm 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm
Posts: 486
The distribution of the Chuckwalla in Nevada, as shown in the Stebbins field guide, occurs in about 1/8th. of the southern part of the state. Is there anyone familiar with the species in Nevada that can provide information as to just how wide spread is the habitat in southern Nevada in which the Chuckwalla occurs?

Clearly the species does not occur throughout all of the 1/8th. of the state as shown in the field guide. So would the distribution of the species in Nevada amount to about 1/20th, 1/30th, 1/40th, 1/50th, 1/100th, 1/150th, 1/200th of the state? Is anyone with some experience with the species in Nevada willing to provide and estimate?

Richard F. Hoyer


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 6th, 2017, 9:28 pm 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm
Posts: 486
E.E.,
I can’t disagree with anything you mention as essentially, much of it is identical to my understanding and experience. Submitting documentation and providing testimony before the Calif. and Oregon Wildlife Commissions has been a complete waste of energy and time. The Commissioners put complete trust in what the agency biologists tell them.

Case in point, during the June 16, 2016 Oregon Wildlife Commission session reviewing the revised OAR Div. 44 regulation, the ODFW presenter inferred that the NatureServe rankings (of species he urged be place in a protected status), as being science-based. The presenter took 55 minutes in his presentation and each member of the public was limited to 3 minutes. Fat chance! In submitted document before hand, I had informed all members of the Commissioner that the NatureServe (ORBIC) ranking were not science-based but only represented the subjective opinion of the assessor. Was a wasted effort as they believe the ODFW employee.

Richard F. Hoyer


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 235 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: