NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Dedicated exclusively to field herping.

Moderator: Scott Waters

User avatar
Phillodactylus
Posts: 170
Joined: August 25th, 2012, 12:56 am
Location: Victorville, CA

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Phillodactylus »

Ted wrote:Why don't we get a small group together to write up our thoughts, and use the tools we have, namely field experience and the database, to back it up? Also, since we have at least one or two DFG members on this forum, why don't we talk to them first, and maybe ask one of them to bring our written piece to DFG's attention? I'm sure it would mean much more coming from one of their own employees.
Ted, great idea. Would anyone who has experience in this be willing to draft such a letter? A declaration of insufficient data, per se. haha.

I have been thinking a lot about the different herper schools regarding collecting as opposed to the observe, document, leave alone method of herping. I have collected herps since I was a kid, and my first lizard pet was a Side blotched lizard I found when I was 5. 25 years later I am starting to feel the draw of the "photo, let it go" mentality, as I have seen in many of my mentors and fellow herpers. I am unsure if I would have stayed so interested in herps had I not had the chance to enjoy them at home. The reason I bring this up is that laws restricting collection matter; and though taking away the collection aspect may not bother some of you folks, I would like others to have every opportunity to learn the responsibility, respect, and love that we all share for herps.

Just my thoughts. Have an excellent day.

Oh, PS... I looked at one of the links and saw the Baja Collared Lizard listed as a SSC. I didn't see them on Josh's take restriction. Were they added to the restricted list?

best,
-Phil
User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2447
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 12:13 am
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by chris_mcmartin »

FatherRamon wrote:
... and own an animal which is now illegal (if I lived in CA), so I'm following this with interest.
Actually, thanks to the Lacey act I believe that if you so much as move your animal across any state line, you are now breaking federal law.
I hope you really enjoy living where you are now. :roll:
It's a San Diego banded gecko I've had for 10 years; was given to me.

I'm not sure how well a Lacey Act violation charge would hold up; to me it's similar to the possession-restrictions on how many zonata a CA resident can have (still 1?)--people living in other states can keep pairs (or more) and breed them freely. However, Warden Chang will tell those people they can't... :o

Surely I could somehow claim grandfathering--I have photographs of this lizard with my child over the last 8 years or so, so it would be easy to prove I had this lizard well prior to the new restrictions.

I like where I'm living alright for now, but will be moving in the next year or two, so perhaps I'll have to lawyer up to do so? :?
Jimi
Posts: 1955
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Jimi »

A California native and a long-term former CA resident (Josh and I, respectively) were discussing this topic over in our Rocky Mtn chapter forum: http://www.fieldherpforum.com/forum/vie ... =9&t=15605

Something Ted here kind of stuck out for me, as it runs counter to my experience:
Ted wrote:
Why don't we get a small group together to write up our thoughts, and use the tools we have, namely field experience and the database, to back it up? Also, since we have at least one or two DFG members on this forum, why don't we talk to them first, and maybe ask one of them to bring our written piece to DFG's attention? I'm sure it would mean much more coming from one of their own employees.
The first part (right up until "...talk to them first,") sounds alright - a good start. Everything after that rings false to me though; especially the last sentence. I don't know CDFW culture, and maybe it depends in part on which employees might be willing to carry your water for you, but - generally speaking, the stakeholders carry a lot more weight than staff on a stakeholder issue. A parting thought for your consideration - the only staff who might carry more weight than an organized group of stakeholders...well, I guess you could say they've already had their say, couldn't you?

Anyway, just thought it might be helpful to point that out. Have a chat with your 1-2 forum members who also work for CDFW. (I'm curious about the capacity in which they work.) See if they'd be willing to advise you. Offer them anonymity.

Best,
Jimi

PS Chris - I doubt the statute of limitations on Lacey is 10 years. Heck, the financial-meltdown guys are off the hook in 5 - any day now.
User avatar
Ted
Posts: 312
Joined: December 30th, 2010, 10:02 am
Location: SoCal and Cape Cod

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Ted »

Jimi wrote: The first part (right up until "...talk to them first,") sounds alright - a good start. Everything after that rings false to me though; especially the last sentence. I don't know CDFW culture, and maybe it depends in part on which employees might be willing to carry your water for you, but - generally speaking, the stakeholders carry a lot more weight than staff on a stakeholder issue. A parting thought for your consideration - the only staff who might carry more weight than an organized group of stakeholders...well, I guess you could say they've already had their say, couldn't you?
Jimi-great point. I agree, it may be a better idea for an average member to bring this to them. I am willing to type up a draft of a letter, but I don't have the experience to claim any authority on the subject. I would not only appreciate but require help from some of the more seasoned herpers here (and the database) in gathering information and arguments. After typing up a draft I'll post it online for critiques and changes, before any kind of a final draft. Everyone's input on this is important in order to make the best argument possible. :thumb:

Thoughts?
-Ted
Aaron
Posts: 287
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:46 pm

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Aaron »

Herp stamp. F&G is all about the bling!!!
User avatar
Phillodactylus
Posts: 170
Joined: August 25th, 2012, 12:56 am
Location: Victorville, CA

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Phillodactylus »

Ted,

I'm all ears! Rather, eyes. :thumb:

-Phil
User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Fundad »

Herp stamp. F&G is all about the bling!!!
Rick Staub and I have been preaching that for years. Rick even tried to get the Department to issue them (He spent many months writing letters, phone calls, and multiple FG commission meetings.)

He then reached out to us herpers for help, and guess what only a couple herpers offered support to him and the Herp Stamp Idea. In fact there was a ton of Weeping and Gnashing of teeth at the very Idea of it..

It's to bad really.. He put the ball on a Tee for us and you had to do is hit it, but very few did.

In fact in 2000 when they proposed these same species (for the most part) only a handful actually did any work to try and get them to reverse. 6 of us to be exact. I spent 6 months of my life working on that issue, and only 5 others offered a hand, there was a lot or weeping at that time too, among herpers..

I know who those 5 other were, and I know who "didn't have the time".

We have a Database set up, and people still "don't have the time" to enter data.

We reep what we sow.

Fundad
hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 8:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by hellihooks »

If you follow the link El Garia provided, you'll notice that 'collection pressure' is NOT even considered as one of the weighted scores in the metrics used to determine application of SSC.
They assess such things as range size, population trends, climate change and development... plug the numbers in and produce a score.
We're not even in the picture... as not significant enough to matter. (<100 members, in Ca?)
These protections speak more to what will happen in the future (with development the major player) than what current statuses may be. The loss of the ability to keep certain species, by the herp hobbiest, is epiphenomenal (a side-effect) of the protections provided. So... don't take it so personally... we weren't even considered in the decision process... :roll:
While it sucks, for folks who had hoped to (or do) keep the former legal bag limit of some of these now protected species, ostensibly, we are a data-collecting organization, so we should direct our efforts towards obtaining an exception to, or a re-definition of 'take' that would allow us to seek and collect data on protected/SSC species, as 'citizen scientist' partners with the regulating agencies. I can't see them saying no, to more data on the species they have deemed 'imperiled' along with all the other data we collect. That said... we NEED to get large enough to 'matter'... :roll: jim
User avatar
Ted
Posts: 312
Joined: December 30th, 2010, 10:02 am
Location: SoCal and Cape Cod

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Ted »

Which species would you all want me to focus on? here's what I got so far from this thread:

California Newts
Night Lizards
Crotes
Coachwhips
Glossys
Zonata
Charina
Legless Lizards

Any other species you all feel should be added? Also, the six other main arguments I got were to

1. redefine take to allow photography
2. release data used to create these laws
3. protect species such as crotes from killing rather than just a bag limit
4. clarify legal options for pets that are now illegal for take
5. consider collection pressure as a variable in determining SSC
6. higher difficulty for construction in sensitive areas


Anything I missed, or that you want added? Pm me or just post it.
User avatar
sitarshaman
Posts: 48
Joined: May 3rd, 2012, 10:00 am
Location: Los Angeles Co.
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by sitarshaman »

I was reading over the regulations....and i noticed that the only gila monster that was was the reticulated ? Does thi mean i could legally have a banded or mexican beade lizard ? If i could afford a captive born specimen....i would love to have one. Can anyone clarify this for me ?
Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 639
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 1:14 pm

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Richard F. Hoyer »

To all:
I have discovered the likely source for the recent CDFW actions that led to so many species being placed in a hands-off status. I may get back to that point sometime later.

Secondly, I see there are individuals on this forum that have the IMPRESSION that recreational collecting can have a negative impact in species. Such perceptions are irrational. There are some exception, particularly with certain species of turtles, where recreational collecting can have a negative impact. But for most all other species of herps that have reasonably large distributions, recreational collecting cannot possibly produce either overall negative effects nor lasting effects on populations. On the other hand, outright loss of habitat or serious habitat degradation does produce negative impacts on populations.

In years past, I have addressed this very issue of sports take or recreational collecting a number of times. I produced a series of essays on this issue on the PARC (Partners for Amphibian and Reptile Conservation) Listserv web site a number of years ago when some professional herpetologists voiced concerns about recreational collecting having a negative impacts on species. I will not re-address that issue here but simply say that anyone that believes recreational collection is a problem has not done their homework. They need to sit down and examine this issue in depth, something that wildlife agency biologists have failed to do.

I'll leave that issue with one parting thought. In order for any form of take / predation (collecting being a form of predation) to have a negative impact, demand has to approach or exceed the annual supply created by each species during reproduction. Now I quickly add the above is simplistic. But as simplistic as it is, that scenario is supported many time over by what has occurred, and has been learned, during both commercial and sport take (harvests) of wildlife resources.

Last, it would seem that some of you believe that data would be meaningful to officials in the non-game section of wildlife agencies. You are mistaken! Unlike there counterparts in the game division of wildlife agencies, having facts, data, and other forms of evidence has little or no relevance with biologists in the non-game divisions of state wildlife agencies.

For instance, there is no data nor evidence that would remotely support the recent ban on collecting the Rubber Boa in Kern County. So on what basis did CDFW enact that restriction? They did so based on the personal input (OPINION) from certain individuals. I greatly suspect that the same scenario would apply to the majority of other cases in which the agency has placed in a hands-off status.

Richard F. Hoyer
User avatar
Ted
Posts: 312
Joined: December 30th, 2010, 10:02 am
Location: SoCal and Cape Cod

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Ted »

Richard, I agree with you up until here:
Richard F. Hoyer wrote: Last, it would seem that some of you believe that data would be meaningful to officials in the non-game section of wildlife agencies. You are mistaken! Unlike there counterparts in the game division of wildlife agencies, having facts, data, and other forms of evidence has little or no relevance with biologists in the non-game divisions of state wildlife agencies.

For instance, there is no data nor evidence that would remotely support the recent ban on collecting the Rubber Boa in Kern County. So on what basis did CDFW enact that restriction? They did so based on the personal input (OPINION) from certain individuals. I greatly suspect that the same scenario would apply to the majority of other cases in which the agency has placed in a hands-off status.
I have no doubt that opinion was the deciding factor in these laws. However, lack of data used does not mean that providing new data would not change their opinions. A quote comes to mind:
Opinions don't affect facts. But facts should affect opinions, and do, if you're rational. -Ricky Gervais
I would like to hope, at least, that if we provide our own opinions on certain issues, whilst backing up our opinions with facts (data) in the process, they may change their opinions. It's entirely possible that they won't. However, as the old cliché goes,
It is better to try and to fail than to fail to try and forever experience the inestimable loss of what might have been. -Unknown
hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 8:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by hellihooks »

Ahhh... the fresh-faced idealism of youth, untarnished by the cynicism we OG's suffer from... from years of banging our heads on walls, to no avail. :roll:
Go for it Ted... perhaps an appeal from today's youth will garner more consideration than opposing views from cohorts. :lol: :lol:

Btw... they will probably never outlaw killing crotes... cause crotes can kill people, and they will never take away people's right to protect themselves, when in fear for their lives... :? 8-) jim
User avatar
Brian Hubbs
Posts: 4735
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:41 am
Location: "Buy My Books"-land

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Brian Hubbs »

Interesting thread. For those of us who have been around a few decades, this is nothing new. It WILL get worse however, especially if you people who live in CA and love to herp do nothing about it. The database (contrary to Richard's opinion) is our best ammunition to restore bag-limits and photo rights on SSC species. The Davis people who put these recommendations together asked for our data. We had little at that time to offer. We still have little to offer for many of these species. I am working on that, and so are many others, but some of the people with the most to contribute are still doing nothing. Hmmm....
Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 639
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 1:14 pm

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Richard F. Hoyer »

Ted:
Is that an Eagle Owl in the photo and are you a falconer?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the behavior of wildlife agency non-game divisions, I was not specific enough. I should have confined my remarks to the sections that deal with herpetology. For instance, even though a flawed out come was reached, I know that CDFW biologists involved with the new falconry regulations in your state did apply standard processes in trying to reach informed decisions such as the one in which the agency placed a limit of 13 Prairie Falcons / year that could be taken for falconry purposes. I had been asked by falconers in Calif. to review the part of the proposed regulations dealing with the CDFW proposed quota on Prairie Falcons.

I hope you are right that I am mistaken, that in fact, there are some wildlife agency biologists dealing with herps that do pay attention to data, evidence, the use of accepted science-based method, and the application of basic principles of population biology / wildlife science BEFORE enacting management decisions such as the new restrictive regulations on take. But it has been my sad experience that seems not to be the case.

For instance, in my home state of Oregon, four species of snakes were placed on the state's Sensitive Species and Protected lists without a single piece of valid evidence in support of such listings. I did a study in Oregon on one of those species, Contia tenuis, the Common Sharp-tailed Snake.

I can't speak for what has occurred in Calif. except for two examples. I mentioned the one example in my prior post. That is, there is absolutely no evidence that would remotely support having enacted the no-collecting scenario for all Rubber Boa populations in Kern County. The reason I have that position is because since 1997, my major field efforts with the species in Calif. have centered on all Rubber Boa populations that occur in Kern County.

To my knowledge, I am the only individual that has ever attempted to acquire data of a basic biological nature on the species in all of these regions in Kern County. Consequently, there is no formal published or gray literature relating to the biology of the boa populations in Kern County. And thus no evidence is at hand that would suggest anything other than all such populations exist at normal densities.

The other example is that in 1971, the CDFG officially designated the Southern Rubber Boa as 'RARE' (later changed to 'Threatened'). They listed the SRB without support from any
valid scientific evidence. Instead, the agency convened a panel of professional herpetologists and on the basis of the perceptions and personal opinions of those individuals was the SRB listed.

Having earned my degree in wildlife science, I would be astonished to learn if any institution with majors in wildlife science would openly teach or advocate managing species of wildlife based solely on hearsay type input such as personal opinions without a smidgeon of evidence in support of such opinion. Such behavior would be characterized as being unprofessional and unethical. Yet it is my understanding that is exactly how wildlife agency non-game division biologists operate with respect to herps.

Now to be fair, I could be mistaken. So if anyone has information that counters what I mention above, by all means, either respond here or sent me a private message at [email protected]. I am certainly not immune from making mistakes. And everyone, please feel free to copy this message or any other of my posts to whomever you wish including individuals with the CDFW.

The last time I reviewed the regs in Calif. (1970's I believe), in order to remove a species from some official listing, one had to have conducted or cite research that demonstrates that such listings are in error. At least that is the gist of what I understood at the time. And by the way, quite some time ago, I contacted the agency and cited two valid pieces of evidence that the SRB population in the San Bernardino Mts. is at normal densities and in fact, is very likely to be the most numerically abundant species of snake in those mountains from about 5500 feet elevation and above. But despite having that information, the SRB remains on the state's 'Threatened status.

Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon)
User avatar
Ted
Posts: 312
Joined: December 30th, 2010, 10:02 am
Location: SoCal and Cape Cod

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Ted »

Richard, thank you for the clarification. I agree that wildlife agencies dealing with herps tend to be, shall we say, more difficult than others. I think you nailed it earlier when you said
Richard F. Hoyer wrote:And I suggest that everyone ponder the following saying. 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'
I would like to believe that CDFG did do some sort of surveys, or research, into these species, but in finding that few were found misinterpreted the information to mean that these species were either uncommon or rare. If there is not, as you said, any "formal published or gray literature relating to the populations in Kern County", then it can be reasonable to say that DFG used what they had to form an opinion. After all, it would be more difficult to research if the research wasn't readily available, and it is very easy to not find rubber boas even if they decided to do a survey.

As far as citing research, that is what the database is for.

P.S. Yes, that is an Eagle Owl. I'm not technically a falconer at this time, but I am allowed to handle some raptors due to my volunteering with the OC Birds of Prey Center. I plan to get my license once I graduate college.
VICtort
Posts: 691
Joined: July 2nd, 2010, 6:48 pm
Location: AZ.

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by VICtort »

I agree with Brian Hubbs, we have heard much of this before. Venting frustration here will have little effect on your perceived oppressors... they don't seem to listen to us.

Herpers need to be represented. I am thinking that is why R. Staub and B Hinds and others wanted the stamp.

How many of you were at the Commission meeting when these Title XIV regulations were discussed and then voted upon? Did you make your views known and try to overcome or learn what recommendations the Commissioners followed in determining their votes?

Do you know these Commissioners, these Governor appointees who come from varying backgrounds and sometimes special interest groups?

Herpers are a small and often factionalized group. We don't always come to mind when a Commisioner votes on an issue that impacts us. Some of you take it so personally, but I don't, we do not even cross their minds. Attacking their credibility is irrelevant, they are the power who votes. How do they decide to vote ?

Often they are lobbied by special interests , groups who have an agenda and seek support. They share information and consult. Most years hunting regulations are reviewed and some are changed based on studies, natural phenomenon/population fluctuations and politics.

Sometimes Commissioners lose there appointment by failing to yield to political pressure. You can be sure affected groups who monitor the Commissions agenda and regularly meet with key players will be at the meetings (also in smoke filled rooms).

When duck hunting comes up, DU and CWA will be heard. When big game comes up, SCI will speak. When salmon regulations change, tribes and UAC be heard...and on and on and now days, not just the hook and bullet crowd, but environmental groups such as CBD or Sierra Club. Sometimes law suits follow, but often things can be worked out prior to unwanted changes

We are not the first group to feel disenfranchised. Falconers could see they were going to be regulated out of existence or into jail...they became involved and may be a model for a small group to follow?

The Commission agenda is available and maybe we need to monitor it and not be taken by surprise? Maybe we need a committee to go to the meetings in your area and become a familiar face with the Commissioners? Maybe we need to establish some relationship with them and take them for a road cruise on a balmy summers night in a shiny convertible? We need to become relevant and visible to them. I can assure you many Commissioners have enjoyed luxury duck hunts at the finest clubs and fishing charters aboard vessels.

If we don't get the commissioners ear, we will continue to endure unpalatable decisions. The State contracts for studies and consultations with acadaemia and private companies,and they will rely on these and agency recomendations unless someone steps up
with some credibility to modify their view. Sometimes politics will trump facts and science, a two edged sword for a small esoteric group such as field herpers.

Sometimes strange alliances can form and bitter antagonists may temporarily unite to achieve an in common goal. Thus the field herper who catches and releases may have something in common with collectors/ captive breeders or pet industry. Some of us old timers remember CHIAC who heavily lobbied DFG after a misguided enforcement effort went askew. ( some of you may also remember that CHIAC hired a former a commissioner to represent them.)

To close, someone should monitor the meetings and actively participate informing Commissioners of our concerns. Those persons should represent groups and work with other groups at times. The information is on the DF &W
website and meetings are held all over the State. We need to get involved or expect more of the same...we simply are not represented and other groups (HSUS?) may be working against us. We can not win if we don't play the game.

Respectfully, Vic
VICtort
Posts: 691
Joined: July 2nd, 2010, 6:48 pm
Location: AZ.

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by VICtort »

Sorry, above posted 2x in error.
Jimi
Posts: 1955
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Jimi »

We can not win if we don't play the game.
That's it, right there. Vic also provided lots of the detail on how the game is played. Nothing - nothing - I saw there rang false. (I'm sorry to say I saw a lot in Richard's posts that also rings pretty true. Decisions are not made on data alone. Sometimes all it takes is a couple guys waving their hands.)

A while back - on this subforum I think - I said (paraphrasing, from memory) "you guys are spending way too much time discussing hypothetical policy, and way too little practicing actual politics". I still believe it. I see evidence here that others also believe it.

Before anyone departs with the foul taste of the word "politics" on his/her tongue, please just ponder this: if we're discussing a public resource, being managed with public funds, by public-employee managers, who are overseen by public-servant politicians, who were elected in political campaigns by a mercurial, forgetful, distracted electorate - how on Earth can you imagine it isn't going to be political to the bone? That's just irrational. We need to get over it, and get after it.

Some reasonable, realistic tactical suggestions were made, and I hope you guys can take them up. Better late than never.

Best,
Jimi

PS Fundad - if I might be so presumptuous, it seems - from what you've provided - that the error made back in the day, was that Rick proceeded without marshalling enough troops. He charged out into no-man's land by himself and was picked off at leisure. Next time around, folks need to make sure & head out with a solid crew.
User avatar
Ted
Posts: 312
Joined: December 30th, 2010, 10:02 am
Location: SoCal and Cape Cod

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Ted »

Jimi wrote:
We can not win if we don't play the game.
That's it, right there. Vic also provided lots of the detail on how the game is played. Nothing - nothing - I saw there rang false. (I'm sorry to say I saw a lot in Richard's posts that also rings pretty true. Decisions are not made on data alone. Sometimes all it takes is a couple guys waving their hands.)
I agree completely. My hope all along has been that the letter I am drafting (might be finished by tomorrow, but definitely by Saturday) will be a starting point for people to start becoming involved in the actual lawmaking process. I hate to say it, but we really don't have much of a right to complain until we've tried to change/fix/create laws that pertain to our group of herpers. I am willing to go to any commission meetings I can, but I'm going off to college for the next four years in New Hampshire and will only be around for holidays.

If we're going to get anything done in this political realm, we ought to get a small group of people who are willing and have the knowledge/experience to go to some of these meetings and put their opinions into the pot. Everyone has a say in our government, but if we don't speak, no one will know or care about us.

Sorry about the mini-rant, but we really should be doing more. After all, we're the ones who these laws affect, not the people currently making them.
User avatar
Brian Hubbs
Posts: 4735
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:41 am
Location: "Buy My Books"-land

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Brian Hubbs »

There are many SSCs that are not affected by collecting or picture posing. I think one of the goals should be to get the dept. to sell a stamp for each SSC species allowing a collection of 2 for those who want them. Each stamp could cost $20. I doubt they would sell many, but it would at least allow serious herpers to work with species that are now off limits. There should be no regs against photography of herps, unless they are SSCs that are posed. That should be a free permit.

Let's face it, how many people want a legless lizard, or granite night lizard, or newt? There are still about a million pond turtles out there, so a bag-limit of 2 would do nothing to those, especially if certain counties are closed. L. z. pulchra and parvirubra are not going to be impacted by a small bag-limit either, as their respective populations number in the millions (just read my book). It just seems that the powers driving these regs are anti-collecting and anti herpers in general. That needs to change or we will be raising generations of people who have no interest in reptiles (just like in Australia).
User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by FunkyRes »

It also should not be illegal to propagate captive herps without a permit nor should captive herps that are documented as captive bred count towards bag limit, since their possession has nothing to do with take of any wildlife.
User avatar
jdustin
Posts: 454
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:59 am
Location: UTAH
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by jdustin »

All,
What do you think of a change to the NAHFA bylaws that include a new officer in each chapter who's charged with working with the chapter's state agencies. An elected representative of NAFHA who can represent the group and our data and interests.
Perhaps we need more than one rep in those chapters that cover several states. Or maybe a simple change to the current conservation officer role would suffice. Thoughts?
-Josh
User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by FunkyRes »

I don't think it needs to be position specified in the bylaws. I would not be opposed the California Chapter electing someone who's job it is to express official concerns with the state agency, if there was a qualified person who wanted to do that.
User avatar
jdustin
Posts: 454
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:59 am
Location: UTAH
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by jdustin »

Something like that at the very least. Someone to make sure we are aware of the issues like this one before the concrete harden, so to speak.
My personal feeling is that if we find ourselves under-represented, we should consider electing someone specifically so they have weight in actually representing us.
User avatar
Kent VanSooy
Posts: 1100
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:51 am
Location: Oceanside

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Kent VanSooy »

I'd like to correct the esteemed Mr. Hubbs - it was NAFHA who reached out to the ARSSC task force, not the other way around. Here's the original communication from 2009:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARSSC,

My name is Kent VanSooy, and I'm the president of the SoCal chapter of NAFHA (North American Field Herping Association). Your group may already be familiar with ours, but I just wanted to make sure, since we have information that you may find useful as you work to update the California ARSSC taxon list.

Here's an excerpt from our charter:

"To collect scientific data on wild reptiles and amphibians in the United States, Canada, and Mexico and maintain a database for the collection and sharing of such scientific data.
To unite amateur/private herpetologists and professional herpetologists in the collection of data with the goal of conserving North American herpetofauna, with a greater goal of species management. A highlight of this group is to provide state and national game agencies with sufficient data to assist in the development of more educated decisions on how to better manage reptile and amphibian populations"

You can access our database with no special permissions - just navigate to NAHerp.com. Once there, the database can easily be searched using various keys (including finding all records from California). There are approximately 3125 records currently from CA in the database. The records will show the locale of an animal down to the county, and may include other data (time, elevation, habitat type, etc) along with voucher photos.

Please let me know if we can help you in any way. I would also be particularly interested in hearing whether our database is useful to your work - our membership is concerned with the future of our California herps, and would very much appreciate knowing that their efforts are helping with management decisions.

---------------------------------------------------------

We went back-and-forth quite a bit with the task force, and coordinated NAFHA's very first data release to supply them with data on the taxa they requested. Our thinking at the time was that DATA would speak louder than any of our opinions, and supplying that would give us the best shot at seeing an informed decision.

There's been a couple references in this thread to the Risk Metrics used by the ARSSC - looking at them may aid in understanding why some of the decisions were reached. I'm not saying the decisions are right, but rather that a process (albeit flawed) was followed.
User avatar
Ted
Posts: 312
Joined: December 30th, 2010, 10:02 am
Location: SoCal and Cape Cod

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Ted »

A letter has been drafted for review:

http://www.fieldherpforum.com/forum/vie ... =6&t=15699
dangerdan
Posts: 8
Joined: August 23rd, 2011, 10:11 pm

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS with regard to Rattlesnakes.

Post by dangerdan »

I had to crawl out from under the rock I was under for this one. Since I keep crotes I need to speak up. I am all for the crote regs. They now have a written bag limit of two just like everything else. F&G has always said it is two but now it is in writing. I have always kept a pair because I was under the impression that the limit was 2. I heard and saw evidence of people killing many in a day, way over bag limit and bragging about it on the internet. It still seems to me that now I could legally go out and kill 2 so pacs a day, bring them home, eat them and then tomorrow go kill 2 more a day until I can't find any more. This is the part I don't understand. I am under permit in Orange County and now I need to know what I legally need to do with my captive born ruber that I have had in my collection for years. I plan to write F&G to see what they want me to do with them. The part that I am bummed about is, I just started to do educational seminars for our local Orange County Boy scouts out of the Oso Lake Campground and I bring along the 3 rattlesnakes we have in Orange County. I feel it is best for them to see the real deal and then it sticks in their mind when they encounter one in the wild. So now I need to show them a picture of a ruber? Speaking as a teacher that does not work as well as a live specimen. Can't I get an educational permit? I only need one for an educational display rattler. I will not breed them and I have never bred them. I would if we could find another pied or a striper and now my dream of an albino ruber is gone forever? I would really like to see what an albino red diamond would look like. I know too much deli cup talk, But really if someone found an albino ruber I would hope it would be protected and the gene saved. Could we get an albino waiver? My next question is how does this effect development in Orange County? I know for a fact that 900 new houses are going to be built near my house in Lake Forest on land where I have found ruber. They will surely bulldoze reds in the process. Maybe I can use this to my advantage and prolong or stop the process. They have done bio surveys and the first survey said that reds were unlikely to be on the site. I spoke up and said I have documentation that shows reds on the proposed site. A second survey was completed but I have not seen the results yet. Maybe they need to do a new study since there is a no take snake on their site. Please any advice let me know. I will be glad to add anything I can (besides cash) to this fight? As some of you know I am a teacher in Irvine and I have a big mouth. Let me know how I can help.

Danger Dan
User avatar
Ted
Posts: 312
Joined: December 30th, 2010, 10:02 am
Location: SoCal and Cape Cod

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Ted »

Dan, do you happen to still know how/where to find Ruber on that site? If so, it may be worth contacting them and saying that you will do a survey for them, having more experience in the area may help. The current problem with the bag regs, from what I understand, is that they do not affect how many can be killed, just how many can be taken. I could easily be wrong in believing this, it's not very clear. One way or another, you can probably get some sort of permit for the educational talks you do, though I'm not sure of the procedure.
User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Fundad »

Something else to keep it mind (Another new regulation)

It is unlawful to

Fail to exhibit, on demand, all fish, mollusks, crustaceans, amphibians and reptiles and any device or apparatus capable of being used to take them, to any peace officer or authorized CDFW employee (FGC 2012);

This is new..

Fundad
User avatar
Brian Hubbs
Posts: 4735
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:41 am
Location: "Buy My Books"-land

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Brian Hubbs »

Sorry Kent, my bad...thanks for clarifying that.
User avatar
Kent VanSooy
Posts: 1100
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:51 am
Location: Oceanside

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Kent VanSooy »

An SSC (Species of Special Concern) for a given animal is a double-edged sword: it limits the ability of enthusiasts to interact/take that animal, but it can also provide some degree of protection to wild populations. It doesn’t mean however that any area where an SSC has been found will be preserved! For example, San Diego’s county Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) aims to guide development to have a minimum impact on SSCs (NOT zero impact). Herps are not the only (or even the main) consideration – mammals, birds, and plants are considered as well. Areas of habitat here with known populations of SSCs have been bulldozed. The good part is that animals, including herps, are considered in the planning process, and an area with documented SSCs stands a better chance of avoiding bulldozing than one that doesn’t.

Here’s a copy of the Risk Metrics used by the SSC task force. Each species is assigned a rating in each category (based on DATA, that was our involvement in 2009), and the numbers are added up. A higher total increases the concern for a particular taxon.


i) Range size (RS): Calculated as the percent of California occupied. Estimated from range maps.

Small (<10%) = 10
Medium (10%-50%) = 5
Large (>50%) = 0

ii) Distribution trend (DT): Estimated from documented extirpations. An additional five points was added if extirpations have been documented since 1994 when taxa were last evaluated for SSC status.

Severely (>80%) reduced = 20
Moderately (>40-80%) reduced = 15
Slightly (<20%) reduced or reductions suspected = 5
Stable (~0% reduced) or increasing = 0
Extirpations since 1994 = +5

iii) Population concentration/Migration (PC): Determined from natural history and ecological information. This metric assesses vulnerability during a particular life stage when populations are concentrated in small areas relative to their total range, such as in pond breeding amphibians.

Vulnerable life stages = 10
No vulnerable life stages = 0

iv) Percent of entire range in California (PE): Estimated from range maps.
100% (endemic) = 10
>66-99% = 7
>33-66% =3
<33% = 0


v) Ecological tolerance (ET): Evaluated based on available natural history and ecological information.

Narrow ecological specialist on rare resource = 10
Narrow ecological specialist on common resource = 7
Moderate ecological specialist = 3
Broad ecological tolerance = 0

vi) Population trend (PT): Estimated from documented declines in population abundance at currently occupied localities. An additional five points was added if declines have been documented since 1994 when taxa were last evaluated for SSC status.

Severe declines (>80% reduced) = 20
Great declines (40-80% reduced) = 15
Moderate declines (20-40%) = 10
Slight or suspected declines, trend unknown = 5
Stable (~0 % reduced) or increasing = 0
Declines since 1994 = +5

vii) Vulnerability to climate change (VC): The VC metric score is a combination of the climate change threats within the taxon’s geographic range and the taxon’s sensitivity to those threats. The following potential climate changes were considered: wildfire, snowpack, temperature, precipitation, vegetation. Predictions for the directions of changes for each factor in each bioregion of California were determined from Climate Action Team Reports and a special issue of the journal Climatic Change (California at a Crossroads: Climate Change Science Informing Policy Volume 87, Supplement 1, March, 2008). Sensitivity to these predicted changes was estimated from known natural history and ecological information for each taxon. To be conservative, we assessed sensitivity under the assumptions that animals would not migrate or adapt in response to climate change.

Highly sensitive = 10
Moderately sensitive = 7
Slightly sensitive = 3
Unlikely to be sensitive = 0

viii) Projected Impact of Threats Over the Next 20 Years (PI): Estimated from potential impacts of known threats such as planned development and stochastic events like disease outbreak.

Seriously reduce (>20%) = 10
Moderately reduce (>10-20%) = 7
Slightly reduce (>5-10%) = 3
No substantial net impact (<= 5% or increase) = 0
User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Fundad »

I understand the risk matrics. Its what they put in those fields and how they came up with thosr numbers its what concerns me.

For Example lets take Item 1 (Range Size)

Ruber scored an equal score-10 as the ‘Breckenridge Mtn.’ salamander.

Are you kidding me? 100 square miles versus 1000's of square miles.

Now look at distrabution trend for Ruber.

Here is there Justification for a score of 10 on this one

"From maps/comments in Jennings and Hayes (1994), appears to be extirpated at ~20% of historical localities likely due to habitat loss from development and agriculture. Possibly also suffers from persecution; large adults are rare (pers. comm. in Jennings and Hayes 1994)."
Notice the words "appears to be extirpated"

"“Habitat for the coastal form is significantly reduced from the 1970’s. C. ruber was so common it was scary in the 1970’s on hillsides around Ramona, San Marcos, Escondido, Santee, and other San Diego County sites that have since been developed and lack any habitat at all. The northern part of the county still has significant habitat.” S. Barry, pers. comm."
They used a "pers. Comm." to help provide a number (btw those cities make up a very small area of their overall range, and if any of you have hunted those areas, its still scary).

This sports fans, is "REAL" science at work. :roll:


How about the population trend section?

They used this,
"Population declines likely within remaining habitat. May be declining at the northern end of its range in Morongo Valley because of growth and development (S. Barry, pers. comm.)."
Again notice the wording "declines likely within remaining habitat" and "May be declining" "pers comm".

Heck why did they even bother collecting data, all they had to do is question Barry, and twist his wording about possibilities into realities.

More Science at work here.. "rolling eyes"

Fundad


Fundad
User avatar
Kent VanSooy
Posts: 1100
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:51 am
Location: Oceanside

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Kent VanSooy »

Me too Brian - the SSC task force indicated they'd have copies of the completed report available sometime this spring - it should be fascinating reading!
User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Fundad »

The Western toad (Which is not protected) scored "Higher" with a score of 43 than the southern Zonata Clade at 37, yet the Zonata is protected now?


None of this makes sense to me, so I wish someone would clarify, and if the summery isn't out yet, and subject to peer review, how can the CDFW make
judgements on management?


Fundad
VICtort
Posts: 691
Joined: July 2nd, 2010, 6:48 pm
Location: AZ.

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by VICtort »

Fundad wrote:Something else to keep it mind (Another new regulation)

It is unlawful to

Fail to exhibit, on demand, all fish, mollusks, crustaceans, amphibians and reptiles and any device or apparatus capable of being used to take them, to any peace officer or authorized CDFW employee (FGC 2012);

This is new..

Fundad
Actually no, 2012 has been on the books for decades . Most Wardens enforce it vigorously, it is a core section to allow enforcement of gear restrictions etc . in the field. It is also frequently used when a subject lies to the wardens inquiry ...
User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by FunkyRes »

Fundad wrote:The Western toad (Which is not protected) scored "Higher" with a score of 43 than the southern Zonata Clade at 37, yet the Zonata is protected now?


None of this makes sense to me, so I wish someone would clarify, and if the summery isn't out yet, and subject to peer review, how can the CDFW make
judgements on management?


Fundad
Western Toad should be protected - but from its real threats (habitat alteration), not field herpers, but I am worried about it as a species, it seems to be declining in a lot of places where there use to hundreds of thousands.
User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Fundad »

Actually no, 2012 has been on the books for decades . Most Wardens enforce it vigorously, it is a core section to allow enforcement of gear restrictions etc . in the field. It is also frequently used when a subject lies to the wardens inquiry ...
I only saw it with Fish and Hunting, not reptiles (written out in the regulations anyway). Maybe I am not remembering corretly.
Western Toad should be protected - but from its real threats (habitat alteration), not field herpers, but I am worried about it as a species, it seems to be declining in a lot of places where there use to hundreds of thousands.
Not my point really, Its debatable weather or not they should be protected, they are widespread and extremely common in a large number in areas.

My Point was the Toad scored higher than Zonata and Isn't protected.

Fundad
User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Fundad »

http://www.fgc.ca.gov/regulations/2012/5_05fsor.pdf


STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FISH AND GAME COMMISSION
FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR REGULATORY ACTION
Amend Sections 5.05 and 5.60
Title 14, California Code of Regulations
Re: SF 4: Sport Fishing Regulations fo
r the Take of Amphibians and Reptiles
I. Date of Initial Statement of Reasons: May 25, 2012
II. Date of Final Statement of Reasons: November 8, 2012
III. Dates and Locations of Scheduled Hearings:
(a) Notice Hearing: Date: June 20, 2012
Location: Mammoth Lakes, CA
(b) Discussion Hearing Date: August 8, 2012
Location: Ventura, CA
(c) Adoption Hearing:
Date: November 7, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
IV. Update:
There were no changes from the Initia
l Statement of Reasons regulatory
language.
The Fish and Game Commission adopted
the proposed regulations at its
November 7, 2012 meeting.
V. Summary of Primary Considerations Ra
ised in Support of or Opposition to the
Proposed Actions and Reasons for Re
jecting those considerations:
No public comments, writt
en or oral, were received during the public comment
period.
VI. Location and Index of Rulemaking File:
A rulemaking file with attached
file index is maintained at:
California Fish and Game Commission
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, California 95814
2
VII. Location of Department files:
Department of Fish and Game
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, California 95814
VIII. Description of Reasonable Alte
rnatives to Regulatory Action:
(a) Alternatives to Regulatory Action:
No alternatives were identified.
(b) No change Alternative:
The no change alternative would result
in the Commission and Department
continuing to allow take of species
known to be at conservation risk without
having evaluated the effects of
sport take on these species.
(c) Consideration of Alternatives:
In view of information currently
possessed, no reasonable alternative
considered would be more effective in
carrying out the purposes for which
the regulation is propos
ed or would be as effective and less burdensome to
the affected private persons
than the proposed regulation.
IX. Impact of Regulatory Action:
The potential for significant statewide adver
se economic impacts that might result
from the proposed regulatory action
has been assessed, and the following
determinations relative to the requir
ed statutory categories have been made:
(a) Significant Statewide Adverse
Economic Impact Directly Affecting
Businesses, Including the Ability of
California Businesses to Compete with
Businesses in Other States:
The proposed action will not have a signi
ficant statewide adverse economic
impact directly affecting business,
including the ability of California
businesses to compete with businesse
s in other states. The proposed
changes are necessary for the continued
preservation of the resource and
therefore the preventio
n of adverse economic
impacts. The actions
proposed will improve D
epartment efforts related to
conservation of at-risk
animals in California.
(b) Impact on the Creation or
Elimination of Jobs Within
the State, the Creation
of New Businesses or the Eliminat
ion of Existing Businesses, or the
Expansion of Businesses in California:
The Commission does not anticipate
any impacts on the creation or
elimination of jobs,
the creation of new business,
the elimination of existing
3
businesses or the expansion of busine
sses in California. The potential
impacts from the proposed regulations
in the Sport Fishing Review Cycle
may range from 0 to 16,000 jobs
depending on the Commission’s final
actions. The impacted businesses are generally small businesses
employing few individuals and, like a
ll small businesses, are subject to
failure for a variety of causes. A
dditionally, the long-term intent of the
proposed action is to increase sustainabi
lity in fishable sturgeon stocks and,
subsequently, the promotion and long-
term viability of these same small
businesses.
(c) Cost Impacts on a Representat
ive Private Person or Business:
The agency is not aware of any cost im
pacts that a repr
esentative private
person or business would necessarily
incur in reasonable compliance with
the proposed action.
(d) Costs or Savings to State Agencies
or Costs/Savings in Federal Funding to
the State:
None.
(e) Nondiscretionary Costs/Sa
vings to Local Agencies:
None.
(f) Programs mandated on Local A
gencies or School Districts:
None.
(g) Costs Imposed on Any Local Agency or School District that is Required to
be Reimbursed Under Part 7 (co
mmencing with Section 17500) of
Division 4, Government Code:
None.
(h) Effect on Housing Costs:
None.
4
Updated Informative Digest/Policy Statement Overview
Existing regulations specify 28 amphibians and
58 reptiles that can
lawfully be collected
with a sportfishing license in Californ
ia. The proposed regulatory change removes
species designated as Species of Specia
l Concern from aut
horized take with a
sportfishing license, and revises special
closure areas to include 11 species or
subspecies. The regulation change is intend
ed to increase conservation consideration
for animals known to be at risk. The
regulation change also updates scientific and
common names to those currently in use to
help eliminate pot
ential confusion by
licensees or Department staff. The regulatio
n change also explicitly lists rattlesnake
species allowed for sport take to elim
inate existing confusion about how bag and
possession limits apply to these snakes. Fo
r two amphibian species now known to be
introduced to California, the
regulation change also revises the bag and possession limit
from four to unlimited.
The Department designates Species of Specia
l Concern to focus attention on animals
at risk and achieve conservation and recovery
before listing them as threatened or
endangered becomes necessary. The Departm
ent currently has no information about
amount or effects of sport take
for these animals, so it is
therefore prudent to remove
species of concern from collection.
Numerous taxonomic revisions have occurred
since this regulation was last amended in
2002. The proposed regulatory change updat
es common and scientific names to
current nomenclature, delineates geographic boundaries for Special Closures as
necessary to reflect taxonomic changes
or other new scientific information.
Proposed Regulations
Consideration and adoption of
these proposed regulations
(amending 5.0 and 5.60) will
result in the following:

Removal of eight amphibians and three rept
iles from the list of species currently
authorized for take with a sportfishing li
cense. Twenty amphi
bians and 55 reptiles
will remain legal for take with a sportfishing license.

Provide current taxonomic nomencla
ture for all species on the list.

Updated language regarding Special Closures where new scientific information
indicates closures to be appropriate.

Changing the bag and possession limit for
two non-native amphibians from four to
unlimited.

Explicitly listing rattlesnake species authoriz
ed for sport take to eliminate existing
confusion about applicable bag and po
ssession limits for these snakes.

The benefits of the proposed r
egulations are to improve
conservation of at-risk
animals in California, sustainable m
anagement of sport fishing resources, and
promotion of businesses that rely
on California’s sport fisheries.
5

The proposed regulations are
neither inconsistent nor in
compatible with existing
state regulations.

The Commission does not anticipate non
-monetary benefits to
the protection of
public health and safety, worker safety,
the prevention of di
scrimination, the
promotion of fairness or social eq
uity and the increase in openness and
transparency in business and government.
The regulations were adopted as propos
ed at the Commission’s November 7,
2012 meeting in Los Angeles, CA.
User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2447
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 12:13 am
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by chris_mcmartin »

V. Summary of Primary Considerations Raised in Support of or Opposition to the Proposed Actions and Reasons for Rejecting those considerations: No public comments, written or oral, were received during the public comment period.
How did this slip under the radar of anyone remotely connected with CA herping? Apparently it even went unnoticed by PeTA/HSUS who I'd assume would've at least shown support for the new restrictions.

Methinks the "public comment period" wasn't terribly "publicized." :?
User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Fundad »

It also has the number of reptiles protected wrong..

:?

Fundad
User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by Fundad »

For those of you that don't enter data, consider the following from the above.

"The Department currently has no information about
amount or effects of sport take
for these animals, so it is
therefore prudent to remove
species of concern from collection. "
User avatar
sdFH'er
Posts: 97
Joined: June 1st, 2011, 2:05 pm
Location: San Diego

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by sdFH'er »

Fundad wrote:For those of you that don't enter data, consider the following from the above.

"The Department currently has no information about
amount or effects of sport take
for these animals, so it is
therefore prudent to remove
species of concern from collection. "

Forgive me for not putting two and two together but how does data entry realistically* reflect sport take? As far as I'm aware the data does not, and has no way to record or even accurately estimate an "amount of sport take" given all other environmental/ecological factors. I think it would be fairly difficult to correlate annual population differences for the majority of species listed from the limited amount of data entered in relation to the effect of sport take, unless the take is extremely radical in nature. I am all for data entry and do think that it it extremely beneficial, however short of CDFW issuing a tag or stamp system for take and actually recording the amount I don't see an accurate way of recording said numbers. CDFW should not be automatically immune from legitimately obtaining it themselves just because they state they do not have the information on a subject, after all they are tasked with RESPONSIBLE management. Not trying to bicker or fight here and I agree more data is always better (just not sure this is realistically the best scenario to justify it). Have I perhaps overlooked something?
User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2447
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 12:13 am
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by chris_mcmartin »

Fundad wrote:For those of you that don't enter data, consider the following from the above.

"The Department currently has no information about
amount or effects of sport take
for these animals, so it is
therefore prudent to remove
species of concern from collection. "

I wonder if they ever cruise the various reptile classifieds and see if any of those species are offered for sale? If not, there is probably not a widespread demand, hence no need to impose a collection ban...

Not saying my proposed methodology isn't without flaws, but I doubt they even considered rolling it into their calculus.
rtdunham
Posts: 219
Joined: January 11th, 2011, 2:43 pm

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by rtdunham »

Post deleted by poster.
User avatar
jdustin
Posts: 454
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:59 am
Location: UTAH
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by jdustin »

I'm with Fundad on our need to provide more data, that is what we do.
However, I'm not sure that its right of CDFW to shift all burden of proof off of themselves. Shouldn't they be required to make laws based on information, not on the lack of information?

I just have a hard time accepting this mindset: "The Department currently has no information about... it is therefore prudent to..."
Shouldn't the agency charged with managing these things be expected to actually get relevant information before imposing restrictions?
hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 8:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by hellihooks »

jdustin wrote:I'm with Fundad on our need to provide more data, that is what we do.
However, I'm not sure that its right of CDFW to shift all burden of proof off of themselves. Shouldn't they be required to make laws based on information, not on the lack of information?

I just have a hard time accepting this mindset: "The Department currently has no information about... it is therefore prudent to..."
Shouldn't the agency charged with managing these things be expected to actually get relevant information before imposing restrictions?
It's called the PP... Precautionary Principle... and it is regularly over-applied all across the Nation.
It is a very real (if somewhat obtuse) goal of Nafha to work towards reducing this where extant, under "towards better Herp Management' in Nafha's Purpose statement. Increase protections where appropriate, reduce the PP where appropriate = Conservationists & Herpetoculturists (keepers/breeders) working towards the common goal of 'better herp management'.
Data, data, and more data is realistically the only tool at our disposal, and logically our only 'foot in the door'. We SHOULD be able to provide some of the data they can't seem to get. But first... we need to convince the hobbiest collector, up through the full-time breeders, that it serves their interests to be contributing Nafha members, for not only field sightings, but (if requested) collection (take) data as well, if even anonymously.
We should approach the CDFG from the 'how can we help?' position, and as we demonstrate that we can in fact, provide them with data they lack, perhaps eventually some allowances will be made for 'citizen scientists' so that we can better collect data for them that will keep further PP excesses from happening in the future, and (given enough good data) reverse some of these 'better safe than sorry' decisions. :| jim
User avatar
jdustin
Posts: 454
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:59 am
Location: UTAH
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by jdustin »

We SHOULD be able to provide some of the data they can't seem to get.
Yes we should. But they should be the ones who bear the responsibility for getting the data to justify their actions, IMO.
If they ask us for data that we do not have, THEY should request that we help them to get it, organize surveys, etc. They should NOT just decide that in the absence of information they're going to impose arbitrary restrictions.

I do think we should post as much data as possible. I think its one of the only things that is actually in our circle of control, things that we can change.
However, I think that blaming our lack of records instead of CDFW's inability to base their regulations on facts, is an erroneous shift of responsibility. I see it a little like the abused spouse saying its all their fault.
hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 8:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by hellihooks »

Cept that... they WON'T come to us, asking for help (at least not yet) because they've been operating the way they have for decades, and have no problem leaving things the way they are.... (bodys at rest tend to stay at rest deal) Erring on the side of caution, given a lack of data. is actually prudent... and protects their ass's... :shock: So they won't change themselves... without REALLY good reasons.
We'll get NOWHERE telling them they suck and don't do their jobs well and/or demanding they change the way they do things...
We need to demonstrate that we are an asset they can use to do their jobs better... and maybe...JUST maybe... they'll go for it... if we don't get too pushy/demanding about it. :roll: :D jim
User avatar
jdustin
Posts: 454
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:59 am
Location: UTAH
Contact:

Re: NEW CDFW REGULATIONS

Post by jdustin »

Erring on the side of caution, given a lack of data. is actually prudent
Well, one thing I'm glad for is that people don't have to agree on everything to be friends. I respect your opinion Jim.
I personally think that given a lack of data, you go get data. You do not err on the side of arbitrary regulations.
Post Reply