It is currently November 22nd, 2017, 10:13 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 235 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 16th, 2017, 9:43 pm 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm
Posts: 486
Steve S.
The advice you gave me was just repeated my Dr. Jeff Boundy of Louisiana on the main form under the thread, ”Herpetologists - you can help save Nevada's reptiles “

But just to make myself ‘feel better’, I sent a revised draft of my comments to the Nevada Commissioners (see below). I also sent a copy to the Fox News reporter in Las Vegas but doubt he will pay any attention to it either. Such is life.

Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners
Dear Commissioners,

One of the Nevada DOW’s guiding principles states the “Scientific Management of Wildlife”.**

Considerations:
1) Regulations on commercial take of reptiles could be revised as follows:
A) Set limits on take after NDOW personnel produce estimates of numerical abundance on non-game species of greatest commercial value. B) Consider designating areas / regions in which commercial take is alternated in 2 – 3 year cycles to allow recovery of certain species C) Make the use of pit fall traps illegal for trapping of scorpions, D) If allowed by statute, set meaningful fines for first, then subsequent violations of regulations.

2) The Wildlife Diversity Division should be directed to discard all vestiges of using personal opinions in the management of non-game species and adhere to evidenced-based management practices in compliance with the agency’s stated principle. **

3) Wildlife Diversity Division employees should be directed to hereafter, manage all non-game species as renewable wildlife resources. **

4) The Wildlife Diversity Division should pursue positive relationships, and work cooperatively with the commercial collecting stakeholders.

Supporting Comments:
1) Similar to the practice of the agency’s Game Division, having Information on ‘supply’ as well as ‘demand’ is essential for reaching sensible management decisions. ** The authors of the two power point documents only provide harvest data on the ‘demand’ side. Such data has little meaning without having reptile population estimates. ##

2) Both presentations convey an anti-collecting bias lacking objectivity. ##

3) Information of a deceptive or misleading nature and incorrect interpretations occur in both presentations. ## ++

4) Species of reptiles with large distributions have numerical populations often numbering in the millions. ++ The Nevada 2017 population of Mule Deer is estimated at 92,000. Several species of reptiles have distributions as great or greater than the Mule Deer in Nevada. With having much higher densities than deer, to believe that reptiles have numerical populations the same or below that of deer (92,000) is biologically irrational.

Richard F. Hoyer (Wildlife biologist, Field herpetologist, Wildlife Science, OSU, ‘55’)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
## [PDF] Commercial collection of reptiles - Nevada Department of Wildlife “Commercial Collection of Reptiles” by Jennifer Newmark, administrator, Wildlife Diversity Division State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules - The Nevada ... Jason Jones, Herpetologist, 23, June, 2017, Commission Update

++ Analysis provided on request.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 18th, 2017, 7:50 am 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm
Posts: 486
Odds and Ends #1
In the article by By Ken Botkin, Las Vegas Review – Journal Sept. 3, 2017:

“An outright ban threatened his livelihood, but Bentz said he neither needs nor wants unlimited reptile collection.”
“Bentz said he sent a proposal to state wildlife officials that would limit the collecting season to April 1 to July 31, limit collections of individual species, and impost a daily bag limit of no more than 100 reptiles.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the Main forum:
“---any pitch to “save Nevada’s reptiles” through banning commercial collection is disingenuous.”

But then, how would you characterize the power point document by Jason Jones? Would anyone claim his presentation was balanced totally objective? I do not have to have been present to understand what the presentation was meant to convey.

One of the better human virtues is to treat others as one would wish to be treated. In other words, putting yourself in another person’s shoes. Unfortunately it is seldom used and rarely if ever by governmental officials. And for those on this forum, by advocating a complete ban on commercial collecting, that is taking away a source of income from other individuals. Just something to consider.

Richard F. Hoyer


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 18th, 2017, 8:55 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 8:49 pm
Posts: 1142
Quote:
Would anyone claim his presentation was balanced totally objective?


You seem really locked in on objectivity? In your eyes is the only objective person in the discussion Richard Hoyer? Everyone else is un-objective and therefore wrong? Or is just the state NDOW biologist that lacks objectivity? What does a totally objective presentation look like?

Quote:
One of the better human virtues is to treat others as one would wish to be treated. In other words, putting yourself in another person’s shoes. Unfortunately it is seldom used and rarely if ever by governmental officials. And for those on this forum, by advocating a complete ban on commercial collecting, that is taking away a source of income from other individuals. Just something to consider.


I do think this is an important consideration. Thanks for bringing it up/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 18th, 2017, 9:50 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm
Posts: 427
Quote:
You seem really locked in on objectivity? In your eyes is the only objective person in the discussion Richard Hoyer? Everyone else is un-objective and therefore wrong?


You must first place objectivity into perspective. Objectivity in everyday conversation is a important quality for a person to express in conversions such as this. But only from a personal integrity standpoint and little more. That is not the case when talking about NDOW biologist Jason Jones and accessing what he has presented. Jones is the states scientific authority. His job, his professional obligation is to present the Nevada Wildlife Board of directors with the best possible science based analysis of the situation. A lack of objectivity completely undermines the integrity of any science based analysis. The Board of directors are counting on, trusting Jones to provide them with objective fact based science to help them in their decision making process. NDOW biologist Jason Jones has a professional obligation to be objective not only to the Board of directors but also to his chosen profession. His job as a scientist is to be a fact finder and presenter. Objectivity is the cornerstone of good science. What Jones did went far beyond displaying simple lack of Objectivity.

Ernie Eison


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 18th, 2017, 9:52 am 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm
Posts: 486
Odds and Ends #2
Neither power point document contains reference to the fact that there are other states that have commercial harvest of reptiles and amphibians. Do you think that was just an unintentional oversight on the part of Jason Jones and Jennifer Newmark?

Both documents emphasize that Nevada is the only western state with commercial collecting as if that was a valid argument to ban the practice. With Nevada being the only state that has statewide legalized gambling and prostitution, should the same argument be used for banning them as well?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Newmark document, under the heading of “Data Limitations” is the following:
“Reported data are limited:
 Specifics of age class structure is not well defined (adult/juvenile only)
 Data are primarily reported along linear features such as roads
 No independent verification of data
 Data has errors limiting the usefulness of the data”

If the data submitted by the commercial collectors is of little value, wasn’t it agency personnel that produced those forms? Talk about shooting oneself in the foot.

Quote: “Data has errors limiting the usefulness of the data” Even with stating that the data had errors and of limited usefulness, Ms. Newmark and Jason Jones went ahead anyway and made extensive use of that data. Almost all of their presentations against commercial collecting is based on the data submitting by the commercial collectors that Ms. Newmark pans as of being of little use. Doesn’t that seem strange to anyone besides me?

Did the form the agency produce ask for other than adult / juvenile? So who is at fault for not asking more about age class structure? And had such information been obtained, what do you think the agency would have gained and made use of such information?

As for no independent verification, I suspect the agency should have required that certified public accountants always accompany all commercial collectors. How does Ms. Newmark believe such data should have been verified?

Having information that collecting primarily took place along roads represents a positive piece of information. That agency personnel do not recognize that fact indicates a lack of understand of what constituted important information. That information indicates that areas away from ready access by roads likely were not harvest to much extent.

No doubt there were lots of errors in the information submitted by the commercial collectors. Despite errors, I view that information as a treasure trove of data. Consider that the agency now has data on a large number of reptile species where they had none before. How on earth can a person refer to having such information as being a negative? Again, a total lack of professional objectivity is apparent.

That one slide only represent a putdown of the commercial collectors.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 18th, 2017, 9:58 am 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm
Posts: 486
Odds and Ends #3
From the 8/27/17 article by Daniel Rothberg;
““There is significant mortality of reptiles due to large numbers (700+) of unpermitted pitfall traps,” one NDOW administrator wrote in a memo ahead of the July commission meeting.”
Comment: Can anyone on this forum identify just how much mortality constitutes ‘significant mortality’?

From a Sept. 10 AP story:
“A reptile collector took responsibility for pitfall traps at the August meeting, saying that they are for collecting scorpions, not reptiles, Jennifer Newmark, administrator of wildlife diversity for the Nevada Department of Wildlife, said. Regardless of the intent, the traps are a "huge source of mortality" for reptiles and small mammals, Newmark said.”
Comment: I wonder if Ms. Newmark would be willing to answer the question as to what numbers constitutes a “huge source of mortality”?

The above comments by officials only represent perceptions thus lack a professional approach.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pitfall Traps:
As can be seen in both power point documents and the media coverage, the issue of pitfall traps is made out to be a serious issue. The unmistakable emphasis is that such pitfall traps are causing negative impact to some non-game species.

I again wonder why no one in the Wildlife Diversity Division doesn’t examines such issues in an objective manner? Can anyone tell me how 700 to 1000 pitfall traps in southern Nevada can produce negative impact on any non-game species?

This reminds me of the similar issue of road mortality where many researchers jumped on the bandwagon and churned out studies that claimed road mortality produces negative impacts to the overall populations of some species of herps. There are two indications that neither road mortality or pitfall traps affect overall populations.

In the case of road mortality, for inexplicable reasons, researchers did not take into account that the same frequency of road mortality they had recorded had been taking place for many years before they initiated their study.

And in the case of pitfall traps, it can be noted that the agency’s own data shows a fair number of small mammals and reptiles being found alive or dead in the pitfall traps they searched during 2016 = 2017. From what is mentioned, pitfall traps have been in existence for years. So had the traps produced negative impacts, then the agency would have found very, very few small mammals and reptiles in those traps.

Secondly, I will pose the same question about pitfall traps as I did about road mortality. How can the populations of various species be negatively impacted (by either road mortality or pitfall traps) beyond the home range radius of such species?

In my comments to the Commission, I suggest banning such traps but not because they negative impact populations. The reason is that those who employ those traps likely forget where many of the traps were placed. In addition, they do not conscientiously check them. The one decent piece of data the NDOW personnel presented is the unnecessary and unwarranted mortality of reptiles and small mammals. Such mortality can have zero impact on populations but such mortality certainly represent an unethical loss of life.

Richard F. Hoyer


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 18th, 2017, 10:35 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 8:49 pm
Posts: 1142
Quote:
Can anyone tell me how 700 to 1000 pitfall traps in southern Nevada can produce negative impact on any non-game species?


Richard, how can they not?

We're arguing from very different positions and clearly have different definitions of what an impact is. Why should your position be the default, "objective" stance?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 18th, 2017, 12:32 pm 

Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm
Posts: 1655
Quote:
I believe that biologists that manage big game species undertake estimates of game species populations. So I ask, why don’t biologists of non-game species attempt to do the same thing?


True to a point - usually they are not estimating abundance (unless stakeholders demand it) but something(s) else which is more important for their demographic models. In a pinch they will just use proxies such as ratios, and not even real estimates; for example in managing cats (relatively scare on the landscape, and hard as hell to non-destructively sample) here in Utah we look at gender and age of harvested animals. We shoot for (no pun intended) a harvest that has less chances of causing population decline, and we look for evidence that a decline is happening. So we prefer males, and younger animals in general, to be taken. We have trigger points for reducing harvest effort - if everything the hunters and trappers are bringing in is real young, for example, we infer we've allowed them to hit it too hard, and we dial back. Or if they take "too many" adult females, we also dial it back.

I can't say specifically about the second sentence, but I can speculate from a position of some experience and observation. 1) They often have a "scarcity paradigm" - the animals they know best are the endangered ones. 2) They have no experience and little to no training managing harvests and - equally important - managing hunters. 3) They are not made to do so, by their chain of command. Typically there is no common point of command between game & nongame until pretty high up in the organization, by which point it's a case of putting out fires and trying to avoid crucifiction by the media, the legislature, the governor, and by competing interest groups. 4) They are not made to do so, by some of their stakeholders. Or, they are prevented from doing so, by other stakeholders.

Summing up, it just isn't a priority. It hasn't become or hasn't been made a priority. That's not soooo hard to change.

Quote:
Comment: Can anyone on this forum identify just how much mortality constitutes ‘significant mortality’?


This to me has a whiff of sophistry; I will presume it is unintentional. But let me simplify things. ~50% incidental mortality is significant, whether it's 10 animals or 10 million. Nobody needs to name a number yet. Naming a threshold-acceptable number (10%? 20% 25%?) would be an outcome of a give-and-take process; political, in other words.

Quote:
Many other forms of passive collection/harvest for other species in other states (e.g. juglines, crab traps, etc.) must be marked with the owner/user's name and address, thereby allowing accountability by that person.


Exactly. Unmarked traps are assumed illegal and often can be removed by...someone ("it depends"). Often, an area of resource exploitation is "assigned" to one person. They are thus in a position to be vigilant and protective of "their spot", and to aggressively report or - if allowed - remove illegal traps.

Quote:
If it were me, and I found a pitfall trap with no such information, it'd be a relatively easy matter just to remove it and fill it in

Yeah, you gotta be careful with that though. Sometimes you'd be in the right, sometimes you'd be in the wrong. Depends on the statute or rule. NV stakeholders could work out what they want, on this matter.

Quote:
As always THE JIMI is wrong. ... Sheeesh, again I embarrassed him by pointing out his backwards mis-information and he responds by attacking me with more mis-information...Resort to the old you're pissed about the python ban nonsense to discredit me.

1) Titles now, is it? Really? Like, The Dude? The Pope? The Donald?
2) Embarrassed me? Dream on.
3) I'm the aggressor? And a font of misinformation? Wow, do you project much, The Ernie? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
4) Re python ban, a) you never actually say what you like, what you want, etc so you leave us guessing, and b) given your profound, persistent hostility to USGS, its research products, its employees etc, and also your frequent assertions about python/wildlife impacts ("hoax!!!") - what are we to think? What are you so angry about? We all assume you are angry, because you act in such a nasty way, all the time. Why don't you just chill out a little?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 18th, 2017, 12:50 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm
Posts: 427
Quote:
“A reptile collector took responsibility for pitfall traps at the August meeting, saying that they are for collecting scorpions, not reptiles, Jennifer Newmark, administrator of wildlife diversity for the Nevada Department of Wildlife, said. Regardless of the intent, the traps are a "huge source of mortality" for reptiles and small mammals, Newmark said.”
Comment: I wonder if Ms. Newmark would be willing to answer the question as to what numbers constitutes a “huge source of mortality”?


After witnessing Jennifer Newmark in action at the wildlife board meetings. I can guarantee you Ms. Newmark could not give you an answer of any substance. She would just say I don't know the numbers but its a lot. They put a lot of dramatic (shock value) emphasis on the pitfall trap issue but were very vague about many things. Jason Jones claimed mortality was much greater then the recorded numbers. According to him there is no doubt that predators and scavengers are going into the traps and eating the captured animals before they can be counted. His dramatic proof of this consisted of retelling a tale told to him by a friend who saw a squirrel jump out of one of the traps. (its so goofy you cant make this stuff up)

Quote:
700 to a 1000 pitfall traps in southern Nevada can produce negative impact on any non-game species?


In the case of any of the recorded species they cant produce a negative impact that amounts to anything more then what would be considered negligible. I doubt Jennifer Newmark could comprehend this concept.

I understand this is a crude description and the numbers are rounded off and not precise but essentially ... The Pitfall traps are made from 5 gal. buckets with aprox. a 12 " diameter. If we say there are 5000 of the traps in use that would provide you with about 1/8 of acre of open coverage. There are 640 acres in a square mile and tens of thousand's of square miles of habitat. Even using a massively overstated number of traps the open coverage area is minuscule. There is no reason to believe that the population of any of the species found in the traps does not number in the tens or hundreds of thousand's if not millions. Everyone one of these species are small, low on the food chain and subject to extremely high rates of predation and annual loss. What could be collected in these traps would amount to a very small / negligible percentage of any of the involved species total annual loss. Certainly not enough to have any impact on the ecology of even a portion of the collected region. If looked at with open eyes and understanding along with a proper biological perspective the negative impact pitfall trap argument from a biological standpoint has no valid foundation. Its a shock value tool.

Ernie Eison


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 18th, 2017, 6:24 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Posts: 4009
Location: San Francisco, California
Why is it a shock value tool? Its a routine method that got photographed. It is what it is.

Its an anthropogenic tool of an antiquated mindset and its unwholesome to have them studding the native topography of Nevada.

Too slovenly to lift rocks or walk with a flashlight at night for "scorpions?"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 18th, 2017, 8:49 pm 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm
Posts: 486
In examining the NDOW Wildlife Diversity Division, it mentions the following:
“It has been the responsibility of the personnel in the Wildlife Diversity Division to compile division data on the abundance and distribution of many of the less well-known wildlife species of Nevada. The division has taken historical wildlife records, records of scientifically collected specimens, records of commercially collected specimens, and other wildlife related data and created several large databases.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jimi,
The ODFW web sites pertaining to non-game species are full of what I call ‘creative language’. Manyf references to scientific studies, research, verifiable evidence, literature search, science-based processes, etc. but all deceitful window dressing for public consumption.

In viewing the above quoted from the NDOW web site, I was wondering if Nevada does the same thing as ODFW. Do you think anyone in the Wildlife Diversity Division really has compiled data on the abundance of less known species in Nevada? And do they really have such databases?

After searching and a number of ODFW contacts, I eventually discovered that ODFW does no have any data bases on non-game species the agency has listed in three categories of concern, ‘Sensitive Species’, ‘Protected Species’, and ‘Species of Greatest Conservation Need’. So ODFW have absolutely no evidence in support for all of the species listed in those three categories. And of course, the agency never had any valid evidence in support of any of those listing in the first place, or at least as far as the listed species of snake are concerned.

I finally got one of the biologist to indicate they rely solely on the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC) / NatureServe (Natural Heritage organization). NatureServe supposedly maintains data bases but when contacted to obtain information on snakes, I have been met with silence. So I wonder if Nevada and Utah mimic the Oregon example? Every single listing of the snakes in Oregon in any category of concern are totally bogus!

To show you just how ‘sophisticated’ is my vocabulary, I had to look up the word ‘sophistry’.
Noun, plural sophistries. 1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning. 2. a false argument; sophism.

I will let you be the judge. The reason I asked is because without having the right type of information, neither myself nor anyone else can provide an answer. Such a statement claiming ‘significant mortality’ is being disingenuous if not outright deceitful coming from a wildlife agency official.

Richard F. Hoyer


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 18th, 2017, 9:43 pm 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm
Posts: 486
Ernie,
It is refreshing to observe someone else use critical thinking skills to examine issues. I understand your last post perfectly. In a somewhat different manner, I was trying to make the similar point without going on and on as I tend to do.

But the mistake I believe we both make is that we think everyone should be able to grasp the logic of our arguments. Just doesn't happen.

Richard F. Hoyer


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 19th, 2017, 7:26 am 

Joined: January 11th, 2011, 2:43 pm
Posts: 218
This will probably be pertinent to the discussion.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/lawsuit-ta ... 1505736002


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 19th, 2017, 9:35 am 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm
Posts: 486
One Sept. 3, I sent the NDOW the request copied below. Have yet to received a response. The email address I used was [email protected]

I may have sent my request to the wrong source. Perhaps Bryan or Jimi, could you see if you can obtain the requested information or know of a better source in the NDOW to send my request?

Richard F. Hoyer
======================================================================

Good Morning,
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.

Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 19th, 2017, 10:08 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Posts: 2398
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Jimi wrote:
Quote:
If it were me, and I found a pitfall trap with no such information, it'd be a relatively easy matter just to remove it and fill it in


Yeah, you gotta be careful with that though. Sometimes you'd be in the right, sometimes you'd be in the wrong. Depends on the statute or rule. NV stakeholders could work out what they want, on this matter.


I inferred from the news articles that unpermitted meant unmarked. Not sure if the reverse (unmarked means they're unpermitted) is necessarily true, but likely.

Common sense would have me amazed that someone would be in trouble for removing something that wasn't supposed to be there in the first place. Experience with politicians has me unsurprised. :?

If the intent of new policy is to eliminate cruelty, reduce the numbers permitted to be harvested (i.e. help protect population sizes), etc. in Nevada, while maintaining access by stakeholders, my logic indicates NDOW should, instead of going with an outright ban,

1) impose bag limits...even if they seem unreasonable to some (e.g. limit of 100 chucks annually vs. collectors taking 100 DAILY);

2) specifically prohibit pitfall traps for ANY species (including inverts); and

3) specifically authorize any individual finding an unmarked pitfall trap to remove it (academic researchers may not like this, but then again they theoretically mark their traps with contact info and permit number...).

But perhaps their intent is not on reptile conservation, but something else?


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 19th, 2017, 10:12 am 
User avatar

Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Posts: 4009
Location: San Francisco, California
Richard

as a sample individual - I grasp your logical arguments. But do not think they are the only things that matter when involved with other living organisms.

Because of your life long world view, and Ernie's what has the flavor of an agenda, you both see your perspective as the only thing that matters.

I see your logical arguments and do not find them more important than good will to the living.

Its not the inability to grasp your logic. You and Ernie readily express a tunneled and insular perspective, to a dimensional topic.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 19th, 2017, 5:24 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Posts: 4009
Location: San Francisco, California
Richard I notice without offense that you ignore all of my posts, perhaps because you see them as trivial, with a derailing lean toward concern for the well being of the animals directly affected by commercial collecting. I am occasionally colorful too - but not as colorful as Ernie.


But I noticed you also ignored Bob McKeever's post on the Forum. It was brimming with logical statements.

Im just wondering what your comments are, and that perhaps you could share them here. I would have a difficult time believing it 'slipped past you'.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 19th, 2017, 5:57 pm 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:30 pm
Posts: 404
Location: St Louis, MO / Hartford, CT
My post today is directed to Jeff, Richard, Ernie, Sam Sweet, Brian, Jimi, and Gerri (if he still reads this):


I graduated less than 20 years ago. I do not know if anyone else reading this knows or cares, so I am directing this to they (those) in particular. When I was given my sheep skin (and not that long ago), I was told that the gold standard was peer reviewed data. That is what I was directed to make my decisions upon. I took that to heart, seriously, and I have tried to live a life where I made decisions, trivial or otherwise, based on the merits of proven facts. When I met Richard, I found a mentor that seemed to share the same feelings, only much my senior and much more wise. I see that same drive for truth in each of the individuals I mentioned above and more. I do not care if you agree or disagree with me on any particular issue, as long as it is made with data in mind, then I think the right thing has been done. I hope this will be my last post on a thread in which I have no personal interest other than philosophical.


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

Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Posts: 4009
Location: San Francisco, California
Live animals are reality, made of flesh and bone and nerve fiber.

But most of all I find it amusing that a tiny herp oriented pond of people demand more "Proof" in a fairly understudied group of animals than even Human Medicine does ie empirically agreed on etiologies of disease, drugs and their mechanisms, surgical innovations..

Its really quite funny. And I also think its naive.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 19th, 2017, 8:11 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Posts: 4009
Location: San Francisco, California
On the supposed Thirst for Data

Of all the questions in Herpetology there are to ask and all the data that does exist to seek, the overwhelming preoccupation is : how many can be taken from the wild??


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 20th, 2017, 9:32 am 

Joined: October 11th, 2012, 6:37 pm
Posts: 76
Location: Las Vegas, Nv
chris_mcmartin wrote:
What are the rules on pitfall traps in NV (assuming people wish to legally use them for scorpions)? Many other forms of passive collection/harvest for other species in other states (e.g. juglines, crab traps, etc.) must be marked with the owner/user's name and address, thereby allowing accountability by that person.

If it were me, and I found a pitfall trap with no such information, it'd be a relatively easy matter just to remove it and fill it in--much easier than it was for the user to build it in the first place. It could even be a citizen-science project (free labor!) organized by NDOW, since they're apparently knowledgeable of the locations of numerous such traps.


Chris- under Nevada law pitfall trapping is illegal for the collection of herpetofauna and other vertebrates such as small mammals. Pitfalls could be approved under a scientific collecting permit where the researcher lays out the specifics of the protocol including at least daily checking to minimize take of target species and bycatch, and being closed when not in use. Invertebrates are not regulated under state law so there is no mention in the law about bag limits, species, methods, etc. Basically, it's a loophole the commercialists have exploited. The commercialists own data reported to NDOW shows as many as 50 nocturnal herps a year (banded geckos, shovel-nosed snakes) being collected at 10 am in June or 9 am in July. If they were not using pitfalls, they have provided no alternate explanation of how they were collecting such numbers of nocturnal herps during the heat of high summer.

In short we have been removing pitfalls all summer- in May a group of us removed more than 130 pitfalls from the Eldorado Valley (an area I haven't discussed previously here). Some of us have begun removing in the Amargosa Valley as well. Jason left a line of traps in place that he/we monitored twice a week to measure take/mortality. (Data for his presentations) In August the BLM sent the family that does most of the collecting a cease-desist letter to remove all pitfalls from BLM land (most of the Amargosa Valley). The family claims they have removed all the traps in Amargosa. I went out there yesterday morning and the test trap lines that Jason left have been removed. It appears they are complying with the BLM letter, at least on BLM administered lands.

As I've stated before, the 700 traps I believe is a very conservative estimate. I estimate at least 1000 traps in the Amargosa valley alone, at least before removal efforts began. And that does not include trap lines that have been reported up north in Washoe county, and at the Clark County advisory board last night pitfalls were reported on he Boulder City Conservation Easement. It's another site we weren't aware of, and it's now on my to-do list to go search.

Speaking of last night's advisory board, Jason Jones presented data and was very professional and credible. Bob McKeever spoke and knocked it out of the park. Lots of passionate commentary on both sides. If the advisory board's recommendation to the commission is any indication, I'm cautiously optimistic the wildlife commission will impose some open/closed seasons, and some reasonable bag limits.

As for the rest of this discussion- there's a lot of armchair quarterbacking going on here- my invitation to take serious and sincere field herpers out in the field here in southern Nevada stands-

Cheers,
Steve


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 20th, 2017, 1:16 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Posts: 4009
Location: San Francisco, California
E Stock,

Of all the reasons there are to travel your invite would be #1 to accept but I am not lucky enough to be able to leave my home responsibilities to travel, as well as have received a non fatal but mobility limiting medical diagnosis.

I often post on certain topics in an interest of representative balance and I disclose that there are others that share the same views but are reluctant to post.

Thank you for your input.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 20th, 2017, 2:59 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm
Posts: 427
Still yapping about pitfall traps? Read my previous post for a true perspective . What NDOW biologist Jason Jones is doing with his pitfall trap language is using an old academic parlor trick. That is when you ascribe a maximum effect to a causative agent of barely detectable intensity you can make anything of it. A second trick used is to take numbers out of context. For example Jason Jones loves to ramble on about the number of animals collected but he never mentions the numbers recruited. Using the available reproductive data for all the species deemed "commercial". Along with factoring in the ranges as it applies to this situation. The combined annual number is roughly 575,000 reptiles per. breeding season . That number derived by using fact based reproductive analysis and reducing the numbers to the most parsimonious estimate.

The collectors I'm sure would work and honor an agreement that would include open/closed seasons and reasonable bag limits. They always would have. At least one collector previously submitted a proposal that included that. If it plays out that way. It will not be because of Jason Jones was interested in doing the right thing. Jason Jones and his side kick Jennifer Newmark previously stated to the board that they wanted a full ban. At least one board member agreed. Maybe I missed it. When did using outrageous quotes taken from old news paper articles , lifting irrelevant shock value photos off the net and presenting highly erroneous statistical information in combination with cheesy poorly detail charts and graphs become professional and credible?

Ernie Eison


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 20th, 2017, 3:20 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Posts: 4009
Location: San Francisco, California
WSTREPS wrote:
Still yapping about pitfall traps? Read my previous post for a true perspective . What NDOW biologist Jason Jones is doing with his pitfall trap language is using an old academic parlor trick. That is when you ascribe a maximum effect to a causative agent of barely detectable intensity you can make anything of it.



The traps unacceptable on animal welfare grounds.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 20th, 2017, 3:51 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Posts: 4009
Location: San Francisco, California
stlouisdude wrote:
My post today is directed to Jeff, Richard, Ernie, Sam Sweet, Brian, Jimi, and Gerri (if he still reads this):


I graduated less than 20 years ago. I do not know if anyone else reading this knows or cares, so I am directing this to they (those) in particular. When I was given my sheep skin (and not that long ago), I was told that the gold standard was peer reviewed data. That is what I was directed to make my decisions upon. I took that to heart, seriously, and I have tried to live a life where I made decisions, trivial or otherwise, based on the merits of proven facts. When I met Richard, I found a mentor that seemed to share the same feelings, only much my senior and much more wise. I see that same drive for truth in each of the individuals I mentioned above and more. I do not care if you agree or disagree with me on any particular issue, as long as it is made with data in mind, then I think the right thing has been done. I hope this will be my last post on a thread in which I have no personal interest other than philosophical.



A few years ago, one of the people you mentioned up there became an online friend of mine. We exchanged Emailes and conversed regularly. Although we PMd here through the forum he told me he preferred to email through our home accounts. I got the impression he was a little paranoid, but didnt think about it much.

I admired him and enjoyed our conversations.

Long story short he got involved in a debate and I was sympathetic to his cause, to a point but it started going beyond my comfort level when he sent me an email with a long post he constructed and asked me to post it as if it were mine. I was shocked but still wanted to maintain his friendship. I declined with dexterity and he responded with manipulating commentary but once that failed, he never spoke with me again.

Choose your mentors carefully. The ability to execute mathematical projections isnt the only quality a leader should have. Truth goes deeper than numbers can count.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 21st, 2017, 8:34 am 

Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm
Posts: 1655
Quote:
In examining the NDOW Wildlife Diversity Division, it mentions the following:
“It has been the responsibility of the personnel in the Wildlife Diversity Division to compile division data on the abundance and distribution of many of the less well-known wildlife species of Nevada. The division has taken historical wildlife records, records of scientifically collected specimens, records of commercially collected specimens, and other wildlife related data and created several large databases.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jimi,
The ODFW web sites pertaining to non-game species are full of what I call ‘creative language’. Manyf references to scientific studies, research, verifiable evidence, literature search, science-based processes, etc. but all deceitful window dressing for public consumption.

In viewing the above quoted from the NDOW web site, I was wondering if Nevada does the same thing as ODFW. Do you think anyone in the Wildlife Diversity Division really has compiled data on the abundance of less known species in Nevada? And do they really have such databases?

After searching and a number of ODFW contacts, I eventually discovered that ODFW does no have any data bases on non-game species the agency has listed in three categories of concern, ‘Sensitive Species’, ‘Protected Species’, and ‘Species of Greatest Conservation Need’. So ODFW have absolutely no evidence in support for all of the species listed in those three categories. And of course, the agency never had any valid evidence in support of any of those listing in the first place, or at least as far as the listed species of snake are concerned.

I finally got one of the biologist to indicate they rely solely on the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC) / NatureServe (Natural Heritage organization). NatureServe supposedly maintains data bases but when contacted to obtain information on snakes, I have been met with silence. So I wonder if Nevada and Utah mimic the Oregon example? Every single listing of the snakes in Oregon in any category of concern are totally bogus!

Richard F. Hoyer


The quote from the NDOW website is factually correct, in the responsibilities and actions described. You're not going to find a comprehensive database of, say, Uta or Pituophis sightings (waste of time, not a priority, wouldn't you agree?) but NDOW, particularly once they hired Mr. Jones, has done a heck of a job compiling data, on some species, from diverse sources. And collected quite a bit of their own.

It's easy to be a harsh critic online. I assure you, if you met Jason and talked herps, science, behavioral integrity, and the other topics that have come up in this thread you would walk away ashamed - yes, ashamed - of the way he has been characterized - falsely, viciously, slanderously mischaracterized - here. I venture to assert that you would be inspired to publicly proclaim his intelligence, good manners, and good humor.

I can't say much about ODFW. I have never worked there, I have never worked closely previously with anyone who works there now, and I haven't done any close interstate collaboration with anyone there now or previously. I have worked closely with people who then went on to work there, but who no longer work there. And I have worked in looser interstate collaborations with people who no longer work there. Point being, I can't just pick up the phone and call a friend there, today. My impression is, they're largely a fish & fish habitat outfit. I mean, their deer guys I've talked with complain about "not enough staff or money to do the job as well as we think proper". I doubt they have much to put towards snakes or people who know much about snakes. I understand they do great work for their fish. I've also heard good things about their wolf plan and how they developed it collaboratively.

Quote:
I finally got one of the biologist to indicate they rely solely on the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC) / NatureServe (Natural Heritage organization). NatureServe supposedly maintains data bases but when contacted to obtain information on snakes, I have been met with silence. So I wonder if Nevada and Utah mimic the Oregon example? Every single listing of the snakes in Oregon in any category of concern are totally bogus!


Each of these 4 sentences offers a lot to unpack. Frankly, I'm not going to take the time here and now. I suggest you go back and look at what I have written before about Heritage programs, NatureServe, S-ranks etc. Take whatever selections from it you like, and stick them right here. Here's a deal - I will answer anything you ask, if you will read and digest what I say.

Briefly, no, Utah does not "mimic the Oregon example" as you have described it here. We maintain a number of datasets internally, and send a small subset of fields ("partial records") to NatureServe that they can use. Under the terms of a contract between them and us. (I assume it is more or less like this elsewhere. This might be why you were met with silence??? Contractual stuff between NS & whatever state(s) the records pertain to??? I assure you, NatureServe maintains databases of species occurrence data. There is no "supposedly" to it. That's a dead end, alright?)

Quote:
To show you just how ‘sophisticated’ is my vocabulary, I had to look up the word ‘sophistry’.
Noun, plural sophistries. 1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning. 2. a false argument; sophism.

I will let you be the judge. The reason I asked is because without having the right type of information, neither myself nor anyone else can provide an answer. Such a statement claiming ‘significant mortality’ is being disingenuous if not outright deceitful coming from a wildlife agency official.


What I meant about "significant mortality" and sophistry is this - in a political discussion of a "should they or should they not" nature, the word "significant" is not being used in a statistical or demographic sense. It's subjective. "About half" would be judged "significant" by almost anybody, whether it's half of ten or half of a million or half of whatever the total might be. Think for a minute about, say, catch-and-release fishing. Imagine a method of fishing in a catch-and-release fishery that caused 50% incidental mortality. Even if the biologists argued from a scientifically-credible basis that such take was demographically meaningless, such a loss rate would not be tolerated by the stakeholders. Or by the Board or Commission for that matter. Really, think about it. Nobody but certain commercial fishermen are allowed to waste half of what they catch.

So I say, in such a discussion, to argue that in order to even invoke the term, a user would need to define 1) the total population size and then 2) the numerical threshold of "significance", is, in my judgment, sophistry.

If you can find the time, read some Plato on the Sophists. Interesting stuff. Folks is folks, even millennia apart.

Quote:
I'm cautiously optimistic the wildlife commission will impose some open/closed seasons, and some reasonable bag limits.

That sounds great, hopefully your cautious optimism is well-founded. I would even support the use of pitfall or other traps (funnel, carpet, fyke, etc) as a valid herp commercial collection tool. If they were well-managed (checked often enough, closed when out of season, etc), with good records collection and sharing w/ NDOW, and perhaps some agreement to salvage dead specimens of "taxa of interest" (certain herps, shrews, etc). My opinion in this has zero weight, I understand - just throwing it out there. I wouldn't approve of a "strategic slow strangulation" approach to eliminating commercial take of widespread, common, secure herp taxa. My opinion as a nonresident, occasional Nevada field herper & citizen scientist.

cheers


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 21st, 2017, 4:40 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm
Posts: 427
Jason Jones first recommendation is a complete ban. If that fails to fly this is his next proposal. A list of rules and proposed quotas as recommended by the NDOW(Jason Jones) .

Jones presented absolutely ZERO scientifically sound data or anything of substance on any level to base these proposed regulations and quotas on. The garbage seen in his power point presentation that consisted of a series of outrageous quotes taken from old news paper articles , lifting irrelevant shock value photos off the net and presenting highly erroneous statistical information in combination with poorly constructed charts and graphs. Was only supported with some grossly misleading statements. It was all he had. There was no other data base of scientifically gathered biological information used. Jones just made numbers up. There's nothing involving good science and behavioral integrity about that.

The following regulated take plan was submitted by the NDOW with a number of qualifiers supporting the idea of a full ban in favor of a quota system. The NDOW was dirty at every turn.

All collection of the following species , desert iguana, western chuckwalla, long-nosed leopard lizard, Great Basin collared lizard and desert horned lizard will be completely banned. In addition this recommendation to allow collecting only during non-reproductive months, Jan 1 – March 31 and Aug 1 – Dec 31. The Department recommends closing the season for commercial collecting statewide during the breeding season, from April 1 – July 31.

Species considered under this potential Commission Regulation, along with Annual Quotas could include:

Lizards Annual Quota Limit Eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus) 50
Great Basin skink (Plestiodon skiltonianus) 30
Great Basin whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris) 50
Northern sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciosus) 50
Ornate tree lizard (Urosaurus ornatus) 50
Western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) 50
Yellow-backed spiny lizard (Sceloporus uniformis [magister]) 30
Zebra-tailed lizard (Callisaurus draconoides) 30
Side-blotched Lizard (Uta stansburiana) 50 Snakes
California kingsnake (Lampropeltis californiae [getula]) 10
Desert nightsnake (Hypsiglena chlorophaea) 10
Glossy snake (Arizona elegans) 10 Gophersnake (Pituophis catenifer)
10 Long-nosed snake (Rhinocheilus lecontei)
10 Mojave patch-nosed snake (Salvadora hexalepis)
10 Red racer (Coluber flagellum) 10 Striped whipsnake (Coluber taeniatus) 10
Terrestrial gartersnake (Thamnophis elegans) 10
4 Western black-headed snake (Tantilla planiceps) 10
Western groundsnake (Sonora semiannulata) 10
Western yellow-bellied racer (Coluber constrictor) 10
Venomous Snakes Western lyre snake (Trimorphodon biscutatus) 5
Great Basin rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus) 5
Mojave rattlesnake (Crotalus scutulatus) 5
Panamint rattlesnake (Crotalus stephensi) 5
Speckled rattlesnake (Crotalus mitchellii) 5
Non-Indigenous Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) unlimited
Spiny softshell turtle (Apalone spinifera) unlimited
Mediterranean house gecko (Hemidactylus turcicus) unlimited
Bow-footed gecko (Cyrtopodion scabrum) unlimited

Ernie Eison


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 21st, 2017, 6:13 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Posts: 2398
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
s_stocking wrote:
As I've stated before, the 700 traps I believe is a very conservative estimate. I estimate at least 1000 traps in the Amargosa valley alone, at least before removal efforts began.


Whew! It almost sounds as if a two-pronged approach of 1) banning pitfall traps for ANY wildlife due to bycatch/ethical concerns and 2) authorizing and mobilizing concerned citizens to remove said traps WHEREVER they are would be a more effective and economical means (from NDOW's perspective) of reducing the sheer numbers of herps commercially caught annually--without even needing to impose a ban, or even bag limits on commercial collection.

My reasoning is this:
- Are we to believe the handful of permitted commercial collectors are catching by hand (or by noose) the large numbers they report? If they in fact are (my guess is--they're not), they should have no problem with all pitfall traps being removed.

- Are we to believe the handful of permitted commercial collectors are the only commercial collectors operating in NV? Again, if they in fact are (my guess is--they're not), they should have no problem with all pitfall traps being removed.

- The approach I outlined seems to me like it would simply "keep honest people honest," while simultaneously reducing the numbers of animals removed from the population annually--both intentional captures as well as others which die or are eaten from pitfall traps before ever being discovered.

Also, it continues to amaze me that nobody seems to care one whit about invert populations.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 22nd, 2017, 9:45 am 

Joined: October 11th, 2012, 6:37 pm
Posts: 76
Location: Las Vegas, Nv
Kelly Mc wrote:
Of all the reasons there are to travel your invite would be #1 to accept but I am not lucky enough to be able to leave my home responsibilities to travel, as well as have received a non fatal but mobility limiting medical diagnosis.

I often post on certain topics in an interest of representative balance and I disclose that there are others that share the same views but are reluctant to post.


Kelly- my sympathies, I hope your situation still allows you to participate in some sort of herping activity such as road cruising?

I post to provide my perspective and hopefully contribute to a constructive discussion. I simply don't have time to check FHF every day and engage in endless back-and-forth. I just noticed the other thread on the forum, although it started 6 days ago. I have no idea who SaveNevadaReptiles is- no one I know is involved, or if they are they are keeping it quiet....Bob's post there is right on, stated much more succinctly and eloquently than I could. As for the very small number of people who launch into ad hominem and vitriolic attacks- you, Jimi, and others have rightly critized such conduct. I believe the fault ultimately lies with the FHF administrators who fail to enforce even a modicum of good conduct. I'm all for spirited and vigorous debate of the science, the data, the policy, the issues, etc. but when 1 or 2 people go too far, FHF should shut the spigot off....

chris_mcmartin wrote:
My reasoning is this:
- Are we to believe the handful of permitted commercial collectors are catching by hand (or by noose) the large numbers they report? If they in fact are (my guess is--they're not), they should have no problem with all pitfall traps being removed.

- Are we to believe the handful of permitted commercial collectors are the only commercial collectors operating in NV? Again, if they in fact are (my guess is--they're not), they should have no problem with all pitfall traps being removed.

Also, it continues to amaze me that nobody seems to care one whit about invert populations.


Chris your point is taken. With pitfalls removed I'm sure the commercialists know they are never going to get 31,000 lizards (highest take ever reported) in one year ever again. That's why they've basically given up the fight and conceded on the concept of [i]unimited[i] bag limits. However that still leaves lots of trade space- should Chuckwalla bag limit be 0/yr, 100/yr or 500/yr? Should the aggregate for all lizards be 3000 or 4000? Commission is also considering limiting the number of commercial collecting licenses sold per year. Great idea considering only 7 were sold last year, and 12 was the highest sold in the past 6 years. As I've stated we have debated how much pitfalls boosted their production- double? 1/3 increase? 1/5 increase? I'm sure it varies by species- Chucks clearly aren't being targeted by pitfalls, but Desert Iguanas, Leopard lizards, and Horned lizards clearly are, as are some nocturnal species that no herper could collect in such numbers doing nocturnal visual encounters.

Your comment regarding poaching- that's really a separate issue that focuses on enforcement. We haven't really discussed much here, although I alluded a few time to NDOWs lack thereof. Whatever rules are finally decided upon, it is clear that enforcement will need to improve in NV.

Copy your invert remarks- another battle for the future. Rome wasn't built in a day......

Cheers,
Steve


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 22nd, 2017, 12:37 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm
Posts: 427
xxxxx


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 22nd, 2017, 1:35 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 8:49 pm
Posts: 1142
:crazyeyes: :crazyeyes: xxx :crazyeyes: :crazyeyes:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 22nd, 2017, 2:08 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm
Posts: 427
Quote:
However that still leaves lots of trade space- should Chuckwalla bag limit be 0/yr, 100/yr or 500/yr? Should the aggregate for all lizards be 3000 or 4000? Commission is also considering limiting the number of commercial collecting licenses sold per year. Great idea considering only 7 were sold last year, and 12 was the highest sold in the past 6 years. As I've stated we have debated how much pitfalls boosted their production- double? 1/3 increase? 1/5 increase? I'm sure it varies by species- Chucks clearly aren't being targeted by pitfalls, but Desert Iguanas, Leopard lizards, and Horned lizards clearly are, as are some nocturnal species that no herper could collect in such numbers doing nocturnal visual encounters.


Now we need scorpion regulation. LOL . As explained and demonstrated with the pitfall traps. When you ascribe a maximum effect to a causative agent of barely detectable intensity you can make anything of it. I have never supported the use of pitfalls but to try and make it an issue predicated on biological impact is insane.

Why no comment on NDOW biologist Jason Jones proposed bag limits and restrictions? All completely unsupported. Jones just made up the numbers he liked and wrote down the stipulations he wanted. Jason Jones data was fraught with discrepancies, inaccuracies, duplications and unreliability. Its no wonder his supports flee from commenting on that. Any number advised by Jason Jones will be fraught with prejudice · partiality · partisanship · favoritism · unfairness · one-sidedness · bigotry · intolerance · discrimination and have no scientific basis.

No herper could collect blah blah blah....stocking you really don't have very much understanding do you? Your comments are exceedingly naïve.

Biologist (Jason Jones) preach to naive individuals having no insight into these matters. Who then try to make broad assumptions about a business they know nothing of. In turn they try using their influence, to convince others of their naive views, provided the listeners are equally naive and gullible, and had no practical experience with the situation in real life. These individuals never look farther than their own prejudices. Why should they. They will only disappoint themselves with the truth.

What I see in support of Jason Jones is a number of partisan posters displaying fanboy support and little to nothing in terms of herpetological knowledge.

Ernie Eison

Quote:
both intentional captures as well as others which die or are eaten from pitfall traps before ever being discovered.

An animal falls into a trap and is eaten by another animal. This is a detriment to nature ? You do know there are over 85000 miles of roadway in Nevada.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 22nd, 2017, 2:17 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 8:49 pm
Posts: 1142
Quote:
Jones just made up the numbers he liked and wrote down the stipulations he wanted. Jason Jones data was fraught with discrepancies, inaccuracies, duplications and unreliability. Its no wonder his supports flee from commenting on that. Any number advised by Jason Jones will be fraught with prejudice · partiality · partisanship · favoritism · unfairness · one-sidedness · bigotry · intolerance · discrimination and have no scientific basis.


:crazyeyes: :crazyeyes: WSTREPS you straight up wackadoodle :crazyeyes: :crazyeyes:

I hope someone is paying you something for all this vitriol. It has to be taking a toll on you.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 22nd, 2017, 4:42 pm 

Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm
Posts: 1655
Quote:
someone is paying you


That's where my thoughts have wandered too, Bryan.

Quote:
little to nothing in terms of herpetological knowledge


More good laughs from Bert's sidekick.

Steve - Ernie makes it sound like he's been at these meetings. You have been. You know what he looks like. Has he been there?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 22nd, 2017, 7:15 pm 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm
Posts: 486
Jimi,
I have thoroughly reviewed all that I could find on NatureServe, their methods, and ranking results. But if you would steer me to what you mention about NatureServe, I will review that information and see if it dovetails with what I found and my assessment.

Richard F. Hoyer


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 23rd, 2017, 4:28 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Posts: 2398
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Local TV News Story on Pitfall Traps

1. The way this piece reads, it's mammals that they're trying to get the public to save (cute and fuzzy--I get it) despite only reptiles being shown and discussed in the actual article.

2. The whole angle of the article is on banning pitfall traps--not banning commercial reptile collecting--and they insinuate that's what the hearings this past week and today are about.

3. Jason Jones is quoted as saying (correctly) "We have no idea what this will do in terms of the lasting effects of a population"--even if those lasting effects are negligible. (I'm not saying the effects are negligible; just pointing out there is insufficient data to make any conclusions)

Unless all people are merely Internet warriors, based on the feedback the news station received it seems it would be relatively easy to mobilize a sufficient number of concerned folks to fill in the traps at little cost to the taxpayer, other than the time spent coordinating the effort.


Looking forward to an update from anyone attending this morning's meeting.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 23rd, 2017, 6:45 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm
Posts: 427
Quote:
3. Jason Jones is quoted as saying (correctly) "We have no idea what this will do in terms of the lasting effects of a population"--

You do have idea. A very good idea. Looking at the numbers and species trapped and factoring that number out to an extreme, say multiply that number by 10. Considering the reproductive biology's and pertinent ranges of the species surveyed. The amount of available habitat. The role played by these species in the ecosystem. The fact that the traps have been in use for decades. Jones reaches back to "A place in the early 90's " for his example. The traps are unsavory but as an impactful ecological hazard. They are as worrisome as a cloudy day.

Quote:
1. The way this piece reads, it's mammals that they're trying to get the public to save (cute and fuzzy--I get it) despite only reptiles being shown and discussed in the actual article.


Does it strike you as strange. Jones loves to talk about mammals in traps but only shows pictures of reptiles and to this point has carefully never mentioned the types of "mammals" found in these traps. Why? Jones also has carefully not referenced the fact that reptiles collection in Nevada is handled in the same manor as furbearers. There are a variety of mid sized native mammals in Nevada that you can legally kill to your hearts content, not even a license is required.

Ernie Eison

.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 23rd, 2017, 2:31 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 8:49 pm
Posts: 1142
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news ... on-ban.php


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 23rd, 2017, 4:33 pm 

Joined: October 11th, 2012, 6:37 pm
Posts: 76
Location: Las Vegas, Nv
Yes correct Bryan- the Nevada State Wildlife Commission voted (6-1) to end commercial reptile collection at the end of this season (31 December). No further licenses will be sold.

The CBD release is quite frustrating- they take credit for the ban. Actually they were very late to the game, and their "advocacy" had very little influence on the commission.....

Cheers,
Steve


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 23rd, 2017, 4:52 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm
Posts: 427
Quote:
For those who don't know. This is already looks like a done deal. What is going on now is all for show.


I posted the above quote last week. This outcome was never in doubt. The fix was in before the first meeting. Jason Jones and the Chairmen had already been out chumming around together before that meeting ever took place. My two post in the Herpetologists - you can help save Nevada's reptiles thread summed up this shambolic affair to a tee. NDOW biologist Jason Jones is the type of conniving crumb that has sadly become the face of modern biology.

At some point when the funding begins to slip will be hearing the cry of ....OMG poachers, poachers are depleting Nevada's reptiles from Jones.............its always the next step in BS biology 101. They need a bad guy. Bad guys are good for their business.


Quote:
The CBD release is quite frustrating- they take credit for the ban. Actually they were very late to the game, and their "advocacy" had very little influence on the commission..... stocking

You really don't understand do you.

Ernie Eison


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 23rd, 2017, 6:41 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Posts: 4009
Location: San Francisco, California
I wonder how many of us could walk by a pit trap with an animal in it - of any kind - and not reach in and pull it out, watch it dash away.

How many of us would dribble a little water on its head and even take the time to walk over to some shadey brush and put it within, if it were weak.

Why do I think that you would do it Ernie. Why can I see you alone in my minds eye doing that, for every thing you say about this or that person. Am I mistaken I wonder.


Despite theories or legalities all that aside how many of us here could walk by and not let it go. Thats telling.

The least the commercial guys could do is toss a little ground litter in. It must get in the way of processing them.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 23rd, 2017, 7:01 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Posts: 4009
Location: San Francisco, California
One can be a meticulous counter and measurer and be aberrantly unperceptive.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 24th, 2017, 9:42 am 

Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm
Posts: 1655
Quote:
For those who don't know. This is already looks like a done deal. What is going on now is all for show.

I posted the above quote last week. This outcome was never in doubt. The fix was in before the first meeting.


Well I posted the quote below, the week before that:

Quote:
If a ban or other management restriction is instituted, it will be much more the fault of the scofflaws, than it will be due to enviro-group OR STAFF input. The enviros really can't make NDOW or any other western wildlife agency do much (the agencies pretty much LOATHE them). OTOH user groups systematically breaking the law, for extended periods of time, is something "the agencies" (their Commissions + Directors + staff) are very likely to react very strongly to.


You never give an inch when it comes to taking a little responsibility for the losses you guys suffer, do you Ernie? It's always some "snowflake conspiracy". You fool. You guys are your own worst enemies.

Just by way of example, if I was collecting scorpions (I mean, without a blacklight, ha ha) I'd go with a higher density of smaller, easier-to-bury cans (closer to home too - why way out in BFE?). Nearly any mammal or herp could self-release from a coffee can, for example. Seriously, what scorpion requires a 5-gal bucket to hold it?

It takes a lot of work to bury one 5-gal bucket let alone hundreds or thousands (having done so to put in herp pitfalls, I know exactly how much work it is!).

NOBODY BELIEVES those buckets are for inverts. It doesn't take an abiding bias against commercial collectors, to think there's something underhanded about - uh, you, for example - insisting 1) these devices are just for inverts, 2) any amount - any amount - of nontarget mortality they cause should be ignored by everyone, and 3) the reported harvest has nothing to do with these devices. I mean, IT'S JUST NOT CREDIBLE.

Quote:
aberrantly unperceptive


Nice turn of phrase. Very parsimonious, Kelly.

Quote:
You really don't understand do you.


Take your own words to heart Ernie, and try to get outside your deep old rut. You guys are gonna keep losing, bigger and bigger, until you learn to work with people better. Calling the whole world liars and idiots isn't going to maintain - let alone restore - your credibility, or get you any votes.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 24th, 2017, 9:46 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 8:49 pm
Posts: 1142
Quote:
My two post in the Herpetologists - you can help save Nevada's reptiles thread summed up this shambolic affair to a tee.


You're clairvoyance is impressive Ernie. Like Kelly I would like to think of you compassionately giving some water and caring for reptiles.

CBC definitely understands how to take credit and highjack just about anything. At least they got a press release out the day of...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 24th, 2017, 11:27 am 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm
Posts: 486
Jimi, With respect to your Sept. 21 post, I do not know where to find, nor do I recall what you mentioned about Nature Serve. So what I mention below may not match your understanding of the NatureServe organization.

In reading the various NatureServe web sites, most individuals would believe these organizations are following a science-based processes when assessing and ranking species in various categories of conservation concern. Nothing could be further from the truth.

About 7 – 8 years ago, and then again last year and this year, I examined a large number of the NatureServe web sites. NatureServe does not employ methods that represent a legitimate science-based process. I cannot comment on species the organization has ranked S – 1 and S – 2 as I have not looked into the particulars of those ranking results. But as for the ranking results for species in the S – 3, S – 4, and S – 5 categories, such results are flawed and unreliable as invariably, they lack support from the scientific literature.

Instead of employing an objective, science-based approach that relies on evidence contained in the scientific literature, NatureServe’s methods mostly rely on subjective judgment in arriving at their ranking results, particularly for species of reptiles and amphibians in the above three categories. Such a subjective approach represents each assessor’s perceptions and personal opinions. Consequently, such ranking results are lacking any scientific credibility. An example are the organization’s S-3/S-4 ranking of the Charina bottae (Rubber Boa) in Nevada and S-4 ranking in Oregon.

I have purposely kept this post short by not providing the details that would support my assertions. If anyone has information that indicates I have
erred, I will make amends an revise my take on this issue.

Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 24th, 2017, 1:51 pm 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm
Posts: 486
Jimi,
With respect to your Sept. 21 post, what you mention about being critical is on target. I agree with part of your characterization of Jason Jones as most individual fit a similar profile. But if Jason in the same Jason Jones that posted on PARC, early on this forum ?, or perhaps on the Kingsnake forums, then I have already ‘met’ Jason at long distance.

I don’t question his personality traits. However, I am very critical of the manner he presented information in his power point document. And from his statements quoted by reporters, clearly he lacks an understanding of basic biological principles that govern populations of wildlife.

Richard F. Hoyer


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 24th, 2017, 5:44 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Posts: 2398
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Richard F. Hoyer wrote:
And from his statements quoted by reporters, clearly he lacks an understanding of basic biological principles that govern populations of wildlife.


I'm willing to give Mr. Jones the benefit of the doubt on this point--if you've ever been interviewed by the media, you know they can take your most brilliant statement and somehow make you look like a bumbling fool. :lol:


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 24th, 2017, 5:51 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Posts: 4009
Location: San Francisco, California
I have not counted your posts Mr Hoyer about this issue and arent interested in doing so. I have posted occasionally as a balancing remind that we are discussing flesh and bone.

But your posts are many. To spend this much time and energy is not done dispassionately. I have a hard time believing that the discrepancies you cite and its associative critical review of Mr Jones is at its core.

It doesnt seem forthright for you not to include your personal agenda/goal while you speculate about another's so freely. It seems like an act of omission.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 24th, 2017, 6:02 pm 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm
Posts: 486
In referring to the NDOW maintaining a data base on species, can anyone tell me if the NDOW has a data base on the Rubber Boa? If they do, I presume it is not possible to access that data base. Individuals have the mistaken opinion that information on localities would lead to negative impacts on populations due to collecting ---- which is nonsense. One can access such information in the institutional records on voucher specimens. Does anyone really believe that has led to the declines in any species?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jimi mentioned, “I assure you, NatureServe maintains databases of species occurrence data.” That open another ‘can of worms’.

NatureServe mentions that ‘Element Occurrences’ (EOs) are the ‘linchpin’ of their methods. Get back to me when you find out a precise definition of what constitutes an EO and how each assessor identifies EOs for the species they assess and rank. NatureServe’s use of EOs is another example of the type of ‘junk science’ followed by the organization.

About 7 – 8 years ago, I asked Eleanor Gaines of NatureServe in Portland to define EO and she couldn’t do it. EO’s appear to represent one, or a group of locality sightings for any given species. That is about as close as one can get. In reading through NatureServe’s methods, I believe they use EOs to 1) assess distribution, 2) assess relative ‘rarity’ (abundance), and 3) possibly assess trends.

For easily observable species, EOs likely have value. But for species that are obscure, occur in remote regions, and / or are secretive to highly secretive (mostly fossorial), the use of EOs is badly flawed to worthless.

Just by examining the data in institutional collections on the vouchers should be enough to establish why the use of EO’s is flawed. Such records show an increase in the identified distribution of species over time with an increase in the number of vouchered specimens. That is, way back in time, species with few distributional record (EOs) would appear to be at risk. And now with larger a samples (EOs), they would not be considered at risk.

One first hand example: In 1971, ODFW listed Contia tenuis (Common Sharp-tailed Snake) in their Sensitive Species category and I believe that Natural Heritage (NatureServe) had the species in some dire category of concern – critical, vulnerable, etc.

Up into the mid to late 1980s, the species was only known from 3 counties in Oregon. Now just about 30 years later, the species has been documented in 12 counties and with yet to be verified, anecdotal accounts from 4 – 5 other counties. So the prior perceptions and documents indicating that C. tenuis was of conservation concern, were totally in error. And thus for secretive species that have not been the subject of surveys and or research, the use of EOs as being a measures of distribution and abundance is without any scientific value.

And for those that consider the NatureServe methods and ranking results represent a science-based endeavor, consider the following: Published scientific efforts invariably provide references to scientific literature, cite evidence from such literature that support results, and always includes the name of authors. I have not been able to find any of those attributes in NatureServe’s state ranking results.

One of the basic standards in scientific undertakings is that personal opinions, without supporting evidence, are not acceptable as being scientifically valid. NatureServe state ranking results only represent an assessor’s opinion and thus do not represent a science-based undertaking. That state wildlife agencies use such state ranking results as if such represented sound science is an abomination!

Richard F. Hoyer


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: State pushes to tighten wild reptile collection rules-Ne
PostPosted: September 24th, 2017, 8:38 pm 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm
Posts: 486
Chris,
I am very aware of how journalists can ‘doctor’ information. In my first post of Sept. 1, I mentioned the following:
“Journalists often take liberties. But if the above quotes are reasonably accurate, they reveal a lack of understanding my biologist Jones.

The reason I gave credence to the quotes is two fold. First, the various quotes attributed to Jason Jones are from a several journalist and all such quotes are very similar in content. Secondly, quotes attributed to Jason Jones dovetail with the information contained in his power point document.

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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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: