Letter Draft to CDFG

Dedicated exclusively to field herping.

Moderator: Scott Waters

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

Letter Draft to CDFG

Post by Ted »

Here's the letter as has been written so far, with some input from Phil (Phillodactylus). Please help contribute by suggesting any revisions and/or additions as you feel are needed. The more input the better, since this works better if the entire group is represented. Also, if anyone knows or can figure out who, specifically, to send this to it would be greatly appreciated since I was unable to figure that out.






To whom it may concern,

We of the Field Herp Forum, California Chapter, hereafter known as FHF, are concerned with a few of the laws regulating reptiles and amphibians. There are a few issues regarding the creation and application of these laws, and a few issues with regulations of specific species.

To begin with, the current definition of “take” is a large concern of ours. Following the current wording, even photography may be considered an act of “take”. The Herpetological Education and Research Project, hereafter known as H.E.R.P., is a database in which citizen scientists submit data on the reptiles and amphibians they encounter. We of FHF often use this database to record our findings, and photographs are an integral part of the database, since they can not only supply information, but help verify that it was entered as the correct species. Since 'take' also includes pursuit of an animal (e.g. getting closer for a photo), it becomes nearly impossible to collect data on the animals that need it the most; data that can lead to better understanding of how to help species of special concern. The data we collect does not necessarily require handling of the animal; it is mostly notes on age, gender, quantity, location, habitat, and conditions.

Collection of wild animals, we feel, should be allowed to an extent. Recreational collecting does not harm most species or populations in any considerable way. As Richard F. Hoyer, who has published numerous scientific papers on reptiles such as the Southern Rubber Boa, and who wrote a series of essays on this subject a few years ago, stated, “There are some exceptions, 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.” Most species are only taken in small amounts anyways, with the exceptions being feeder animals, such as fence lizards, and animals for breeding. Not only that, many of the protected species do not make good pets anyways, and would be unlikely to be taken.

We cannot ignore the educational, emotional, ecological, and academic potential of captive reptiles and amphibians. People who own them come to love them, and wish to care for them. Many people breed them, and, if done correctly with threatened animals, these bred herps can be released into the wild to help struggling populations. A great example of this is the work that is being done with the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog. Many people use captive reptiles and amphibians in educational talks to the public, in schools, at wildlife parks, and related places. Lastly, captive herps can teach us an amazing amount about behavior, lifespan, and reproduction.

We would greatly appreciate it if you would publish the evidence used to create the laws. Posting the criteria you use to designate a species as a species of special concern is a great start. But when you don't post the data used to answer the criteria per species, it is harder for people to understand why the laws were decided as they were, especially if the people, such as us, feel there is evidence to the contrary.

Going along with this, clarification would also be greatly appreciated regarding how the new laws affect existing pets. Many of us currently have animals acquired legally which have now become illegal for take. Since release is not an option, how will these pets be dealt with? We would like to suggest that since they were initially legal, they still be allowed.

Lastly, rather than regulating the species themselves, we feel there should be heavier regulations on construction within sensitive habitat. Habitat destruction is the true danger, since it can wipe out an amazing number of individuals in a short time. While collecting only takes two or three individuals out of a threatened population, construction can, and often does, destroy the entire population. In fact, there have been many times when our members have found spots bulldozed for construction; spots that had previously contained sensitive species.

We are grateful for your consideration, and look forward to working together toward a future of responsible enjoyment of our herps and other natural resources.

Field Herp Forum California Chapter
User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2447
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 12:13 am
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: Letter Draft to CDFG

Post by chris_mcmartin »

Some semantics/readability points:
Ted wrote:. . . Since take also includes an inability to pursue an animal, it becomes nearly impossible to collect data on the animals that need it the most;
This "reads" strange. 'Take' includes the ability to pursue an animal, plus it may be worth mentioning WHY pursuit is desired. Maybe reword the first phrase to "Since 'take' also includes pursuit of an animal (e.g. getting closer for a photo),..." That way the reader understands WHY pursuit may be desired, even without resulting in capture.

... but we feel like placing a take limit for rattlesnakes would be better management, so there would be a limit on how many could be killed.
Does CA currently recognize the term "take limit" as a separate term? There are already bag and possession limits; introduction of a new term may just muddy the waters.

As Richard F. Hoyer, who wrote a series of essays on this subject a few years ago, stated on the field herp forum,
Very few people receiving this letter would know what Field Herp Forum is. It would be far more meaningful to include his degree/academic background for added credibility. "Richard F. Hoyer, who holds a degree in [x] and has published numerous scientific papers on [rubber boas, sharptail snakes, etc], states..."

This comes in part from common sense: who needs more than one or two of any species as a recreational collector?
I think this paragraph needs to be reworked extensively. The "who needs more than one or two" thought does not fit all hobbyist circumstances. What if I want 1.2 for a breeding program? What if I'm collecting feeders?

we feel that there are other species which should not have a no take limit:
Here, and elsewhere in this paragraph, you should hyphenate "no-take limit" for readability.

If you would like us to do our own surveys in certain counties, looking for certain species on this list, we may be able to work that out.
If I were a lawmaker or wildlife manager reading this, it sounds like you're asking to give the fox the keys to the henhouse! I think it would read better if it said, "NAFHA can bring large numbers of both academic herpetologists and citizen-scientists together to conduct in-depth surveys of locations of interest. We would be happy to work with you to gather additional data." People clue in on the "academic" and "citizen-science" aspects.


Just my thoughts as a non-CA chapter (but a NAFHA) member. Ideally, your finalized letter could be posted on a NAFHA page (i.e. not just in a discussion forum) to serve as a template for other chapters.
User avatar
Ted
Posts: 312
Joined: December 30th, 2010, 10:02 am
Location: SoCal and Cape Cod

Re: Letter Draft to CDFG

Post by Ted »

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the great revisions. I already made most of them to the letter at the top (so I don't have to constantly repost the letter), but I have some questions about how to revise the collecting paragraph, since it's obvious I don't know enough about collecting. Do you think it would be a good idea to have different bag vs. possession limits for certain animals, specifically higher possession limits but lower bag limits, or should all of the limits be raised a little bit? If neither of those, what do you believe would be a good solution? The part on feeders should be pretty easy to plug in, since feeders are usually common species.

Thanks for your help, and when it's done I'll be sure to post it on a NAFHA page.
Ted
User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: Letter Draft to CDFG

Post by Fundad »

NAFHA doesn't take political stances regarding regulations (It would require a vote at the very least by the IB and Membership).

This may change one day down the road.. But since we don't want individual opinions to affect our H.E.R.P. project, we need to be extremely careful on how the project is viewed. In other words we don't EVER want to give the impression that our data is biased in any way shape or form. So as long as we are tied to the H.E.R.P. project we can't get involved in much.

You will find members of NAFHA that don't share a pro collecting point of view, it would turn them off from entering data. It would also turn off anyone that might use the data of HERP that also has a conservative view point.

I for one would agree to support a letter, that talks about the definition of "Take" and how it applies to providing data, IE needing to handle herps for a quick photo. (Catch and release regulations if you will). But that isn't something that should be
done now.

I know this is disappointing to some, but as long as we are married to the HERP project we have to do it this way, IMO.

The H.E.R.P. project is more important, than regulations. It needs to remain an unbiased database. The data and conservation efforts that can be done with the data of the HERP project trump everything else.

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

Re: Letter Draft to CDFG

Post by chris_mcmartin »

Fundad raises good points. A letter written with the authority of NAFHA should probably focus on the unreasonable definition of "take" to include pursuit. Perhaps various California herp societies would be a better "source" for a letter addressing the bag/possession limits?

And yes, bag limits should be different for different species, just like possession limits should be different from bag limits (i.e. I can be limited to 2 lizards in the field where a warden checks my license, but they can join my 6 at home in my breeding colony). I'm of the mind that you shouldn't try to "one-size-fits-all" manage herps by imposing the same limits on all species, and similarly I don't think someone should be restricted from getting 1 snake one year, then getting 2 snakes the next year, and have all 3 in captivity making more snakes.

But that creates more "work" for CADFG both from a management perspective ("we don't have sufficient data on species X") and from an enforcement perspective. It's easier to presume the worst of intents on the part of the citizen ("you're all loathsome commercial collectors, never mind that you've got receipts, all your previous licenses, etc"). :?
RobertH
Posts: 1834
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:38 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Letter Draft to CDFG

Post by RobertH »

While I commend Ted for his initiative and enthusiasm, I too agree with Brian that NAFHA should not take any political stance on legislative issues, but concentrate on its central (albeit not only) mission: data collection.

As Brian said, a letter solely addressing the issue how to interpret the word "take" as it applies to data collection/photography may be OK.

Whatever the nature of the letter, it would require IB and membership approval.

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

Re: Letter Draft to CDFG

Post by hellihooks »

Today's letter is 'R'. Arghhhhhhhhhhhhh. lol jim
User avatar
jdustin
Posts: 454
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:59 am
Location: UTAH
Contact:

Re: Letter Draft to CDFG

Post by jdustin »

from the bylaws:
A highlight of this group is to provide state or provincial 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. The NAFHA and its members recognize that habitat destruction and alteration, poor land management, and non-native species are the greatest threats to North American herpetofauna. The NAFHA and its members will focus on methods of conservation related to the above issues and will assist in the collection of data in an effort to develop a management plan for such issues.
I believe Fundad is correct, in that we cannot take a political side and tell the DFW that it's wrong to restrict collection. BUT based on the bylaws, I think it is within our mission to request to know what science was used to make their decisions. Helping them make more educated decisions is one of the major purposes of NAFHA
Also, perhaps the message would be best coming from the chapter's conservation officer, since it is their responsibility to: "act as liaison between the chapter and outside researchers, conservation organizations, wildlife agencies, lawmakers, and the like." He/She is voted by the group to be that liaison for the group. (incidentally, I'm not a member of your chapter, but have spent most of my life in CA and visit often)
VICtort
Posts: 691
Joined: July 2nd, 2010, 6:48 pm
Location: AZ.

Re: Letter Draft to CDFG

Post by VICtort »

I commend all who would go forward and effect beneficial changes. You will find the Devil in the details. I think that letter may be too encompassing and specific at this opening salvo. I think we should inform the Commission and F&G we exist, offer our services and data records to the Departments wild life managers, and offer to consult with the Commision and offer comment on any and all proposed changes that may affect our user group. Ask that the Commission advise and request our input as stakeholders.

We should direct our concerns to the Commission, who are the body politic that makes the regulations . You may want to diplomatically point out your lack of confidence in the data or lack thereof upon which they have made changes. Tell them you are concerned that insufficient or inaccurate biased data is causing unwarranted prohibitions to your pursuits . Point out that changes should be based upon the best available science.

The concerns of Robert and Brian and others about the integrity and name of NAFHA are valid. We need to be associated and speak for on behalf of some GROUP to be most effective. The commissioners are not likely to remember us as individuals, but may respond to us as a respectful and engaged stakeholder user group. Of course individuals may also petition the Commission if your views differ.

When crafting regulations or even worse, legislation, consider how others will view it . Their perspective, is it enforceable for example. Consider definitions and how it may effect other user groups. Skeptics in the Department , including but not limited to LE may discount proposals, and say "they can get a scientific Collecting permit, we don't need every yahoo "taking" a specimen for photography...After all, folks photograph birds without catching/taking" them ". Many of the people who will be involved in this do not think like "herpers " and things obvious to you may not be to them. Some may be hostile to us, and that is why a working relationship with the Commission is important, politics may trump entrenched Department biases.

You may find changing the established definition of TAKE problematic due to its impact on other species. I get the impression the definition of TAKE is a sacred cow... There is some precedent for modified view in the use of dogs in no kill training . There is also specific verbiage to stop "takes" once the daily bag limit is reached I.e. abalone.
(BTW, hounds men fought hard to maintain their pursuit of game with dogs... They had to organize and came under a lot of scrutiny from other user groups. They lost some ground but still have sporting opportunity despite a hostile climate. They used autonomy as houndsmen and sportsmen to maintain their sport in a changing political climate... They have been recognized a special interest group...)

i don't mean to be a wet blanket, but I think politics has more influence than science at times . Rock solid science can certainly help justify politics however.

Keep it simple, find a group we can represent and get our name known as a serious and educated stakeholder by the Commission. This won't be won in one letter, it should be an introduction into a long term relationship. We also need responsible people to monitor the Commission meetings, and at times represent " our " views. Remember we can unite unlikely groups ( collectors and non-collectors?) at times if the goal is in common. Usually there is influence in uniting groups... Factionalizing leads to that old divide and conquer tactic...

Some of you college students may want to pursue this and get credit in a Political Science class?

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

Re: Letter Draft to CDFG

Post by Ted »

Brian, thanks for the clarification on NAFHA's position. This letter's purpose was an attempt to alleviate some of the concerns voiced in the CDFG regulation thread, so I suppose it didn't necessarily apply to NAFHA as much from the beginning. Could we possibly send it from the FHF community, since this is where the discussions were held? Since many of our members also submit data to the HERP database it would seem that we would then have the authority to cite the files contained, at least those which people here would be willing to release. If even that might threaten the neutrality of the database, I'm sure there is information from other sources that we can cite. Also, I understand that many people here have differing views on collecting, but one of the goals of this letter was actually to generalize, and attempt to cover as many types of herpers as possible. The larger the group, the better we can be represented.

If a letter focusing solely on the definition of "take" and its effects would be more beneficial for NAFHA, I would be willing to draft one of those as well.


Also Vic, you bring up some great points regarding the letter as it is currently, and those are some changes that should be made. I can try to generalize it a little more, as more of an opening for communications. This, however, did stick out to me:
VICtort wrote:"they can get a scientific Collecting permit, we don't need every yahoo "taking" a specimen for photography...After all, folks photograph birds without catching/taking" them ".
Technically, the current definition of take would also outlaw the same kind of photography as used in birdwatching, from what I understand. Also, one of the ideas behind citizen science is allowing normal people to collect data, including incidental observations. I don't think every hiker, biker, walker, etc. is going to go out and get a permit just in case they happen to come across something they want a picture of.

All in all, this seems to wrap it all up really well:
VICtort wrote: Keep it simple, find a group we can represent and get our name known as a serious and educated stakeholder by the Commission. This won't be won in one letter, it should be an introduction into a long term relationship. We also need responsible people to monitor the Commission meetings, and at times represent " our " views. Remember we can unite unlikely groups ( collectors and non-collectors?) at times if the goal is in common. Usually there is influence in uniting groups... Factionalizing leads to that old divide and conquer tactic...
hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 8:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: Letter Draft to CDFG

Post by hellihooks »

Determine which metrics our data can be applied towards... then ask them that, so that they can suggest to us, what we already know.
'Gladhanding' I know... but sometimes it's shmooze or lose. gotta love 'diplomacy' :crazyeyes: :roll: :lol: :lol:

I'm a doctor...I know what I'm... hey look... a twinkie...ummmm :lol: :lol: :lol:
Jimi
Posts: 1955
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Letter Draft to CDFG

Post by Jimi »

All in all, this seems to wrap it all up really well:
VICtort wrote:
Keep it simple, find a group we can represent and get our name known as a serious and educated stakeholder by the Commission. This won't be won in one letter, it should be an introduction into a long term relationship. We also need responsible people to monitor the Commission meetings, and at times represent " our " views. Remember we can unite unlikely groups ( collectors and non-collectors?) at times if the goal is in common. Usually there is influence in uniting groups... Factionalizing leads to that old divide and conquer tactic...
Yes it does wrap it up well.

"Fools rush in." This letter should be seen as the opening gambit of establishing a ~permanent relationship, not the mechanism by which you are going to get anything tangible soon.

I expect the hardest part, now and forever, will not be working with the Commission and staff. It will be working with each other. Technology (Skype, Google docs, etc) will help with the logistics. But there will still be the old bugaboo of working with actual people - each other, to be specific. I suggest you work on deciding on your long-term purpose, and your intermediate-term goal, and a few short-term objectives. In that order.

A purpose might be something like "to maintain an organized, unified body to represent California herpers to CDFW and their Commission".
An intermediate goal might be something like "to secure 3 modest changes to current CDFW herp regs".
Some objectives might be (name the 3 modest changes to what you don't like - vagueness or strictness or laxness in short-term handling language, bag/possession/propagation limits, educational or scientific use permits, etc - whatever you can agree on).

These are just examples, not my suggestions. This is your business.

From experience, I think you need to actively go through some group-formation process before you can even expect to engage the Commission, let alone become effective in working with them. Prepare for this to be much harder and to take much longer than you expect. If it turns out quick and easy, hey! nice surprise. Anyway, this is why I suggest first working on figuring out what your group is being created to do. Then (later) you can hash out something like a charter - roles, procedures, etc. Then even later you can try to actually do whatever it is your group's purpose is. I wouldn't plan on trying that for a while - maybe a year, year and a half. Really. I would also invest some time together looking into and discussing some material on "effective meetings". If you really want to go ahead with this, you will be having meetings. If you don't, you will be neither organized nor unified. Meetings matter. So do them well.

Please, please, please - have a good look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuckman%27 ... evelopment
Here's a great graphic:
http://www.catalystonline.com/wp-conten ... sk_Ref.jpg
It's just a model, but I and many others have found it very useful. Talk about it together, especially when you think you're having problems. Maybe you're still in "storming" mode (see the graphic). Don't try to rush out of it, work through it.

As I mentioned earlier, it seems to me that Rick Staub didn't get what he wanted 20 years ago because he couldn't get anyone onboard so he got frustrated & tried to go it alone. Don't make that mistake - get organized (unified and representative), and go in as a group. Even if just a group of 5, representing just 50 or so people. Work hard on working together, and don't spin out into bitter factions. If there's stuff you just can't agree on, let it go as something you aren't going to be able to work on together. Maybe later when you're running along better you can look at it again. Self-organization is a real skill that needs to be developed and nurtured. It's hard, which is why there's always the temptation to just do it yourself. Don't fall for it.

All this might look like wanker bureaucrat or corporate drone stuff. It is, sort of...but I think if you skip it, you really increase the odds of failure. Just trying to be helpful. My work effectiveness just took off once I got into this stuff. Yeah, I'm a dork. But I want to succeed, and I want you to as well.

Best,
Jimi
User avatar
Nature Nate
Posts: 510
Joined: August 24th, 2010, 10:14 am
Location: San Diego

Re: Letter Draft to CDFG

Post by Nature Nate »

how do we send our cyber signature to be on the letter?
Robert Twombley
Posts: 12
Joined: January 21st, 2013, 2:32 pm
Location: Mojave Desert, Califorina
Contact:

Re: Letter Draft to CDFG

Post by Robert Twombley »

In the leter I do think it is important to address that not restrict, in-sutu capture and hadling of reptiles and ampbians. Some should remain hands off good example is Desert Tortoise Goperus agassizii. Restriction to hands off is detrimental to reptiles and ampbians.

Conservation need a hands on approach, basic data information is lacking, on many of reptiles and amphibians. Where scientist are relaying on citizen science to help with both field observations, getting samples (the society of Southwest herpetology society recently help out by optaining a tissue sample). Do to lack of budget and time it is becoming increasingly important for the role of citizen scientist. Basic information will be loss do to a hands off approach, scale count (sytematics and determing subspecies identification biogeographical location this is especially important do to climate change if species start to migrate), determining sex (parthogenesis information, sex ratio, and other exmaple would be as the observation determining that Uta stansburiana, common side blotch lizard some U. stansburiana males use the color patterns (yellow) the same as in the female, by doing this they can sneak in and breed with the females.). Just a few examples that would not be available to help with effective and targeted conservation plans which requires information about species, their distribution, systematics and ecology.

Then the next generation needs a hands on approach, how many of us would have become involved in the study and conservation of reptiles and ampbians if it was not for being able to handle them? - children and nature network http://www.childrenandnature.org

I am no longer able to safely remove a protected species off the road with out facing jail time, fine, and be exluded from reptiles societys, and forums. But it is legal for me to watch that same snake possible be run over. This is a bigger promblem then thought, where a new study show people deliberately running over "TURTLES". What hope does a snake have crossing the road?

Just my oppion on the effect on making it illegal to handle reptiles and ampbians.
User avatar
Ted
Posts: 312
Joined: December 30th, 2010, 10:02 am
Location: SoCal and Cape Cod

Re: Letter Draft to CDFG

Post by Ted »

Jimi wrote: From experience, I think you need to actively go through some group-formation process before you can even expect to engage the Commission, let alone become effective in working with them. Prepare for this to be much harder and to take much longer than you expect. If it turns out quick and easy, hey! nice surprise. Anyway, this is why I suggest first working on figuring out what your group is being created to do. Then (later) you can hash out something like a charter - roles, procedures, etc. Then even later you can try to actually do whatever it is your group's purpose is. I wouldn't plan on trying that for a while - maybe a year, year and a half. Really. I would also invest some time together looking into and discussing some material on "effective meetings". If you really want to go ahead with this, you will be having meetings. If you don't, you will be neither organized nor unified. Meetings matter. So do them well.
I completely agree, and the largest reason I wrote this letter initially is to get some people here interested in opening communications. While everyone here has a say in what they feel should happen, are there maybe 4-5 people willing to be representatives of our FHF community?

Jimi brings up amazing points, not all of which I can respond to at this time. One, that of creating long-term, mid-term, and short term goals, really stood out to me. I personally would suggest (in general terms) that our goals could be something along the lines of:

Long-term > Our group should act as a mediator between the organization of FHF and other large organizations, in order to make clear the views of FHF and how others' actions affect us.
Mid-term> We hope to clarify some of CDFG's regulations, such as what happens to previously legal captives, and the definition of "take".
Short-term> Begin conversations with CDFG regarding FHF's opinions, and build some sort of positive, helpful relationship with them.


This letter will not just be scrapped, but I think it may be prudent to stow it away until we have a functioning group which can present it.
User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Letter Draft to CDFG

Post by FunkyRes »

Legless Lizards should be protected in some areas, e.g. Contra Costa County. However my understanding is that they already are even before this year, that it was only SoCal pops that could be legally collected.
User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Letter Draft to CDFG

Post by FunkyRes »

I've been thinking about this.
I would suggest something less NAFHA - centric.

How about a DF&G agreement by which field herpers can be permitted to pursue species of special concern in a non-collection non-handling capacity under the condition that the field herper agrees to submit geo-referenced data for the specimen to an approved database, such as the NAFHA database or the CNDDB database (For SSC I do both). If I have to fill out a form to get that status I'll fill out a form but I would prefer it if having entered data in those databases before is enough to demonstrate intent in the event of a LE encounter that results in a fine (and it would save them money to not have to process and keep track of applications)

That allows us to collect the data, allows them access to the data, and keeps the stipulation that it be illegal to handle them or collect them. It prevents us from being fined because we are found to be photographing one.

Also, if at all possible, I would like there to be a provision allowing SSC to be moved out of immediate harms way (such as off of a road)
VICtort
Posts: 691
Joined: July 2nd, 2010, 6:48 pm
Location: AZ.

Re: Letter Draft to CDFG

Post by VICtort »

FunkyRes wrote:I've been thinking about this.
I would suggest something less NAFHA - centric.

How about a DF&G agreement by which field herpers can be permitted to pursue species of special concern in a non-collection non-handling capacity under the condition that the field herper agrees to submit geo-referenced data for the specimen to an approved database, such as the NAFHA database or the CNDDB database (For SSC I do both). If I have to fill out a form to get that status I'll fill out a form but I would prefer it if having entered data in those databases before is enough to demonstrate intent in the event of a LE encounter that results in a fine (and it would save them money to not have to process and keep track of applications)

That allows us to collect the data, allows them access to the data, and keeps the stipulation that it be illegal to handle them or collect them. It prevents us from being fined because we are found to be photographing one.

Also, if at all possible, I would like there to be a provision allowing SSC to be moved out of immediate harms way (such as off of a road)

Those and many other goals are worthy of consideration.

I think the initial introduction letter should be simple and not too demanding. Let us get a seat at the table before we show our hand...

We are up against an entrenched bureaucracy in some aspects, it won't be easy to get major changes from the folks who brought you or approved the regulations many of us find stifling.

Many of the suggestions I hear/see ventured will likely need to overcome the "they can apply for a scientific collectors permit" retort. We can and should examine our requests and likely strategize objections before going to commission meetings... but we may be getting ahead of ourselves, the simple ground work and a seat at the table seem appropriate attainable goals.

We are fortunate to have Ted starting the networking.

I am wondering what group this letter will be signed by
... Suggestions?
User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Letter Draft to CDFG

Post by FunkyRes »

I think scientific collection is more than someone like me needs, who will not and should not actually ever collect any SSC specimens nor is involved in a specific scientific study. A "citizen science data permit" that is lower level would be awesome.
Jimi
Posts: 1955
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Letter Draft to CDFG

Post by Jimi »

I think the comments (Brian's, I believe, supported by several others) about caution mixing advocacy/use & science/data have some merit for further discussion. Depending upon the purpose etc that get hashed out, it might be that the 2 needs/wants should be pursued by 2 different "named" groups (each focusing on just one of the needs/wants). The membership of those groups could have broad overlap, of course. But people would be free to choose 1 or the other if they so wished (e.g., the non-utilization folks in NAFHA wouldn't have to discuss bag limit regs or whatever). Where interests or concerns overlapped or collided, coordination would be important. It's hugely important that herpers not show up as a divided front. Actually, 2 named organizations showing up at the same public meetings, to advocate for the things they BOTH want, would be great. Then they could show up separately, at other meetings or at least during other times on the meeting agenda, for the things only 1 of the groups wants. (Here I go, wandering into "how". It's so seductive...)

Anyway, to contribute some to the "caution" commentary - it isn't unheard of for people who want to interact closely with wildlife to also provide useful, usable, used data to managers. Such people often organize into groups. One good example is some Trout Unlimited chapters doing fin-clips for genetic analysis in imperiled-salmonids restoration work. They do the fishing they enjoy (sometimes even with ESA- or state-listed species), and also do some valuable (there's an actual dollar figure to go with it) hands-on data collection, working in partnership with managers. Substitute "herping" for fishing, and there's a nice model to aspire to.

But it also isn't unheard-of for groups to be successfully tarred with the "conflict-of-interest" brush. So, herper citizen-scientists who want to both a) provide occurrence data (range extensions, verifications of presence/persistence etc) and b) maybe harvest an animal once in a while need to tread cautiously, with deliberation and care.

Anyway, this is why I keep advocating for some more clarification of "why", as in "why do we associate together as a NAFHA, as a FHF, as a local herp association, whatever", before we dive into "how are we going to achieve our purpose".

Citizen science data permits, scientific collection permits, "can I get busted for just taking a picture", etc are "how" details, to me. (Aside - recently clearing out some old file cabinets I ran across a number of early-80's herp journals. In one there was an opinion article decrying how difficult it had become during the 1970's, for serious, qualified researchers to obtain scientific collecting permits from the various state wildlife agencies. The times they aren't a-changin'.)
I think the initial introduction letter should be simple and not too demanding. Let us get a seat at the table before we show our hand...

We are up against an entrenched bureaucracy in some aspects, it won't be easy to get major changes from the folks who brought you or approved the regulations many of us find stifling.
I couldn't agree more. I'd also add that establishing a track record of coming in disorganized & getting beaten handily would not be helpful for future engagement or effectiveness. "Fools rush in." Do the homework, do the legwork, then see if you want to give it a whirl.

Cheers,
Jimi
User avatar
TORIN
Posts: 106
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 6:26 pm
Location: Atascadero, California
Contact:

Re: Letter Draft to CDFG

Post by TORIN »

I like it so far. Maybe it could be a little shorter. Just something to get their attention, and see if they'll even respond.
User avatar
Ted
Posts: 312
Joined: December 30th, 2010, 10:02 am
Location: SoCal and Cape Cod

Re: Letter Draft to CDFG

Post by Ted »

Ok, I've altered the letter a little more in an attempt to make it shorter and less general. See the top post (makes more sense than reposting it every time)

As far as forming a group goes, I've got Dan (dangerdan) on board, and I feel that he will be a great asset in dealing with DFG, since he has experience with them and is both an educator and breeder. Is there anyone else willing to be a go-between for the forum and other organizations? I figure a group of 4-5 people would be best, preferably from different aspects of herping (collecting, breeding, field research, etc.). Once we get this group together, it can be them who puts their names on this letter, as representatives. Without a group to put their names on this letter it shouldn't be sent. We need to make sure we have some go-betweens first, so we can start setting up this relationship idea we've been talking about.

I am still a little fuzzy about how we can/can't use the database. Would it be alright to mention it as users outside of NAFHA? After all, many (most?) of the people on this forum submit to the database. I feel that without it, however, we have nothing to negotiate with.
User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: Letter Draft to CDFG

Post by Fundad »

Just an FYI, Hopefully, I am going to be meeting with the Department on this soon.

So hopefully everyone will hold tight a few months, before starting a crusade..

Fundad
User avatar
torquatoiv
Posts: 24
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 10:53 am
Location: SB Mountains

Re: Letter Draft to CDFG

Post by torquatoiv »

So far all the letter seems great, and the fact that everyone is communicating more on the matter, and brainstorming is amazing.
hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 8:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: Letter Draft to CDFG

Post by hellihooks »

torquatoiv wrote:So far all the letter seems great, and the fact that everyone is communicating more on the matter, and brainstorming is amazing.
the closest I ever come to a brainstorm is a light drizzle... :crazyeyes: :lol: :lol: jim
Post Reply