A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herping

Dedicated exclusively to field herping.

Moderator: Scott Waters

craigb
Posts: 619
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:02 am
Location: Southern Cal.

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by craigb » June 8th, 2016, 1:38 pm

I don't know.....

You guys seem to be using research and facts. I truly believe wildlife laws have never been based on those criteria. :!:

Let's all be warm and fuzzy and protect everything for our great, great grand children.

And it's time to sing "Kumbaya", then a verse of "We are the World"


Sarcasm; It's my life's work... ;)

Jimi
Posts: 1881
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by Jimi » June 8th, 2016, 2:26 pm

Hmm. This conversation demonstrates the limitations of writing as a stand-alone communication device.

Ernie wrote:
...has decided which species are demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure and which species are rare, threatened and endangered.
I would amend that to "has developed a tool which can be used to measure conservation security, using measurement units which are consistent among taxonomic groups". Tools can be used and tools can be misused. A chainsaw can fell and buck trees, and it can cut people into little bits. It's not the saw's fault how it's used. Blame the user if it's misused. It's still a useful and valuable tool.
From what I've experienced with wildlife commissioner's in Florida public testimonies are usually met with a polite almost patronizing skepticism. ... You may get three minutes to say your piece.
OK, this isn't said specifically to or at Ernie, just to anyone reading this:

People who only show up to the final public meeting are showing up too late. Stakeholders need to get involved way earlier than that, and come to lots of working-group meetings. The animal rights folks (who, being residents or citizens, are counted as stakeholders) understand this. Herpers need to understand it too, and get organized. Just because you don't like the game, or aren't good at the game, doesn't mean the game isn't going to get played. It just means you have no chance of winning. So learn the game, get in there, and play.


Richard wrote:
You mention the reliance on distribution. The same limiting factors I mentioned for EO’s applies to the reported distributions of species. That is, such distributions are dependent of reported sighting. Two examples of why the use of information on distribution to assess species’ status is also flawed.
Distribution is simply being used as a proxy or predictor (along with a couple others) of security. Wide-ranging animals are generally more secure, and narrowly-distributed animals are less secure, all else being equal. If we can't agree on that I'm not sure it's worth talking more.
So in the 1930s when first reported by Fitch in Jackson Co, the species would have ranked as S- 1, “Critically imperiled because of extreme rarity---.” Then in the early 1980's, it would have qualified for the S-2 category, “Imperiled because of rarity ----.”

Then after surveys for reptiles in western Oregon by Alan St. John, by the late 1980, he increased the number of locality sighting to about 67 (do not know how many EO’s that would represent) and the counties in which the species occurred from 3 to 7. Under the current criteria by NatureServe/ORBIC, the species likely would have been ranked as S-3 “Rare, uncommon or threatened, but not immediately imperiled, typically with 21-100 occurrences.”

The current NatureServe/ORBIC rank for the Sharptail in Oregon is S-4,. “Not rare and apparently secure, but with cause for long-term concern, usually with more than 100 occurrences.” The change in ranking likely occurred due to the fact they cite the 2010 paper my Dr. Chris Feldman and myself formally describing the new species of Contia that include data on C. tenuis as well.
This is an example of how the tool should be used - iteratively, with periodic updates based on new data (changes in distribution or threat status). It is not an illustration of weakness of the tool. Think about it - when is humanity EVER going to be gifted with complete knowledge at first blush? Knowledge accumulates, and conclusions should evolve accordingly. Knowledge also changes, and a manager needs to incorporate the new info into species status assessments. Sometimes reality - not knowledge, but reality - is also changing, sometimes it is not. Sharp-tailed snakes are not getting more widespread in Oregon, they always were widespread in Oregon. Whereas say mule deer and many other temperate plants and animals are expanding their range northward, right now, rapidly. On the other hand, if we had a series of status assessments for SE Asian tigers or rhinos over the 20th century we would see a series of declines in distribution. Beginning with widespread and secure, and ending with a major range contraction and extreme imperilment. Thankfully both were formerly wide-ranging, so while they no longer occur on e.g., Java or Bali, they do still occur somewhere, e.g. in Bhutan.

Anyway, back to sharptails - the fact that more recent, credible and available data have not been included to update the rank again recently, is simply the fault of the user. Not the tool.
And last, if there is any doubt that the NatureServe/ORBIC process is not a legitimate science-based process, consider the following quote from “Wildlife Explorer” which is a product of the above groups.
“Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided “as is” without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data.”
I think this is just "weasel language" to try and avoid lawsuits by disappointed users (e.g., by the litigating enviro groups who sue USFWS to try & get ESA listings using NatureServe data, but usually lose because states & academics ALWAYS have more and more current data).

Remember, this is a network of many members. A single member - a state or university Natural Heritage program - sends "its" data to NS whenever they feel like it; annually is the best case, less often is not uncommon. I say "its" data because the member might also be in large part an aggregator (just like NS is an aggregator). So for example here in Utah there is no state field-based data collection for most reptiles; we get most of our records from herpers, typically via HERP data requests which I make every 2 years or so. When we input the records into our Heritage database (not instantaneous - we subject the records to a QA/QC process for example verifying species identification, lat/long & date seem to make sense, etc etc). So there's a lag - it's not current. Similarly, there's a lag when we send stuff to NS - they take a while to get our & our neighbors' data into their system. And it's not "complete", in the sense that the data are not meant to represent the totality of, well, anything. We're always getting more data - more observations, and more threat assessments. The picture is always evolving. You have to look at it periodically, the way it changes is actually an important part of the picture.
Another problem with NatureServe, as well meaning as those individuals may be, their livelihood is NOT based on how many species they demonstrate as being healthy and NOT at risk. That is, there is an inherent conflict of interest involved. The greater number of species they determine as being at some level of risk, the more secure is their employment.
So, um, what do you know about the NS revenue model? Based on your last sentence, not enough to be talking like this about it - highly speculatively and pejoratively; and incidentally, completely fictionally. Here's the actual deal. They request a flat fee from members, something on the order of $15K per year. What the members get out of that is a 1-stop shop for species status (distribution, threats, and trends) data rangewide. Do we members love it? No, hell no. Is there anything else? Nope, there's nothing else - nothing worse, nothing as good, and certainly nothing better. There is no federal government or academic database for all species occurrence, threat, and trend information. There's just this one NGO, and if it wasn't for them there wouldn't likely be many state-level databases for such information on most species either. There'd be a few - the rich states might have them, the rest of us would be stuck with nothing. While right now we are dealing with incomplete and imperfect data, without the NS methodology and database to characterize those data consistently and serve them up easily, we'd be in a much bigger world of hurt. And more importantly, so would wildlife.

I just don't see a conflict of interest. It's a service, it costs money. We wish the service were better, we wish the cost were lower. Isn't that always the way it is?
Let's all be warm and fuzzy and protect everything for our great, great grand children.
And it's time to sing "Kumbaya", then a verse of "We are the World"
Sarcasm; It's my life's work... ;)
Huh? I don't get it.

Anyway, sorry Hadar to detract from your message. Hopefully you get some people to the meeting. But I will repeat, it may be too late. It's much, much better to get involved way earlier. Good luck!

stlouisdude
Posts: 412
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:30 pm
Location: St Louis, MO / Hartford, CT

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by stlouisdude » June 8th, 2016, 4:08 pm

In this case, it sounds like they just wanted to push these regs through so I am not convinced any level of reasoning or data would be listened to but in cases where the data would actually be considered I do now see increased value in vouchering what we all know are common species... but for which the general public is unlikely to stumble across. As a result, I will resume documenting my finds again something I've not bothered to do in a couple of years.

User avatar
Hadar
Posts: 251
Joined: October 12th, 2011, 5:39 pm
Location: Corvallis, Oregon
Contact:

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by Hadar » June 8th, 2016, 4:20 pm

Craig, no the sky is not falling but some of the regulations could be better which is why we should be polite and bring evidence to show ODFW what might be better and why. I have been following the ODFW regulations the past year, since I learned what they were and although it can make finding animals more difficult because you can't roll logs, flip tin, or touch the majority of the herpetofauna, we are lucky enough that in the PNW you can still see animals without doing so. I switched to a lot more searching at night during the rain for salamanders on the crawl, looking in crevices since you don't have to touch anything to see a Dicamp sitting on a ledge, etc. Unfortunately, a lot of the activities we are not permitted to do because it is destructive to the habitat (e.g. rolling logs, turning over rocks, dip netting) you can still do as long as you are doing so for intentions other than seeing herpetofauna. For example, if you are out mushroom hunting you can dig through brush, turn over logs, and so forth. I agree that if these methods are used too frequently in the same location or done improperly, they can be destructive but I don't understand why you would ban something based on your intent if it is the same action.

Alan St. John would actually be a great person to speak at the meeting.

Cheers, Heather

User avatar
Hadar
Posts: 251
Joined: October 12th, 2011, 5:39 pm
Location: Corvallis, Oregon
Contact:

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by Hadar » June 8th, 2016, 4:28 pm

Jimi, yes it is always better to get involved earlier which was why I posted that thread back in December 2015 to encourage Oregon herpers to do so. To my knowledge, only Richard got involved but Richard has always been involved. I was hoping that this would be a lesson for all of us, not just in Oregon but in the entire herp community of what can happen if you just sit back and let things work themselves out. It's never too late unless you never try.

Cheers, Heather

User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2427
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by chris_mcmartin » June 8th, 2016, 4:28 pm

Whew! I've been sans Internet since the end of last week, so I'm working to catch up on this great discussion. I do need to revisit one comment:

Kelly Mc wrote:
chris_mcmartin wrote:
What you lament as vulnerability
Just one little note - I wasnt "lamenting" about "vulnerability" wrong floor there, the term was used as mechanical fact - applied in many formats, medical, security enforcement, even construction. Please dont impart drama in my post where none exists.

I apologize for that...you always write so poetically I tend to assume more emotion than you intend. :thumb:

Jimi
Posts: 1881
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by Jimi » June 8th, 2016, 4:30 pm

I will resume documenting my finds again
Awesome, thanks very much.
it sounds like they just wanted to push these regs through
that is a possibility, but it is important to know - to try to discover - who "they" are, and who "they" are not, and to not bang heads with those who are not "they"

it is possible that some pretty junior staff, and/or a pretty small subset of the agency, is pushing this apparently weird change; meeting attendees might find that the true deciders - the Commission or Board - are more friendly or are more conscious than staff of the need to have a credible, inclusive public process (as well as to include all available credible data such as those Richard mentioned publishing in 2006)

note that nongame staff are often very inexperienced in public process - they just don't get to or have to deal with the utilizing public like traditional hook & bullet staff have to (the latter didn't have any experience at first either, and they didn't like having to deal with the public at first either - but in most cases they have learned and changed)

it's very important to come to the meeting sober, composed, and prepared - and to maintain that composition throughout the meeting; remember, this is almost like being in court, and the Board is almost like the judge in such a situation, and the staff might be a little like the cop who gave you a ticket or whatever and caused you to have to come to court - speak to the Board, be polite about the staff but you probably don't want to and won't get to engage them directly

again, good luck, Oregon herpers

cheers

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 486
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by WSTREPS » June 8th, 2016, 5:09 pm

I would amend that to "has developed a tool which can be used to measure conservation security, using measurement units which are consistent among taxonomic groups". Tools can be used and tools can be misused. A chainsaw can fell and buck trees, and it can cut people into little bits. It's not the saw's fault how it's used. Blame the user if it's misused. It's still a useful and valuable tool.
For a tool to be useful to anyone it has to be a good tool to begin with. A chainsaw is a tool that can be use with accuracy to fulfill its purpose if used correctly. Because a chainsaw has the correct component's and design to do the job when used properly.

The method's used to compile the data that in turn is used to create the fictional rankings that lead to legislative action. Are not good tools for the task no matter who uses them. They are filled with inherit flaws and lend themselves very well to misuse. Richard nailed it. The NatureServe process is complex and resembles a legitimate scientific undertaking but its not.

Reptiles are not mammals. Saying that we can successfully use this method or combination of methods to conduct a population survey for estimating a snake species populous with accuracy. Because we have done it with gophers or buffalo is completely without merit. It is impossible to make even an educated guess as to the number of individual's that comprise the total mass for a snake species. Small island populations, species with highly restricted ranges are possible exceptions but none of the species listed here fall into that category. There is no way for anyone to determine that species A is a class 3 and species B is a class 4 when you have NO IDEA how many of ether species exist. One thing for certain is that all of the listed species talked about here are common and widespread and in need of no special protection.

The NatureServe Standards / Methods process is a virtually useless as a tool for creating a reptile species rankings list with any accuracy. It was a tool designed to be misused with impunity. To the people the data is delivered to politician's, commissioner's . It looks like good sound scientific evidence because they have no idea what their looking at. They accept this type of evidence at face value, without question. Wildlife commissioner's will attend legislative meetings about proposed rule changes and not even know the existing rules. They go into these things with the seed planted that there needs to be change i.e. more protection.......From there its up to everyone else to change their minds. That's a much a tougher battle to win . The people who use this yellow science are fully aware of this. Richard was again on the money. " The greater number of species they determine as being at some level of risk, the more secure is their employment." The rebuttal to this statement was far to inclusive to be an accurate appraisal for what takes place in this area.
OK, this isn't said specifically to or at Ernie, just to anyone reading this:

People who only show up to the final public meeting are showing up too late. Stakeholders need to get involved way earlier than that, and come to lots of working-group meetings. The animal rights folks (who, being residents or citizens, are counted as stakeholders) understand this. Herpers need to understand it too, and get organized. Just because you don't like the game, or aren't good at the game, doesn't mean the game isn't going to get played. It just means you have no chance of winning. So learn the game, get in there, and play.
There is truth to that but its not always that cut and dry. Stakeholders often do get involved way earlier than the last minute. With varying results. Sometimes in the form of delaying the inevitable . They come away feeling that they reached a fair agreement only to find out later they were stabbed in the back. Stakeholders don't have the resources to make it an everyday fight and influence favor the way Animal rights / environmental groups and the scientist who lend their support do. They can make their case, often times a very solid case. Try to keep at it the best they can but its hard to win any game when the other side is cheating and can play all the time.

it's very important to come to the meeting sober, composed, and prepared - and to maintain that composition throughout the meeting; remember, this is almost like being in court, and the Board is almost like the judge in such a situation, and the staff might be a little like the cop who gave you a ticket or whatever and caused you to have to come to court - speak to the Board, be polite about the staff but you probably don't want to and won't get to engage them directly

again, good luck, Oregon herpers
I agree with this. An example for me was I attended the Florida bear hunt hearing. I was 100% against the hunt. I had zero reason other then I wouldn't want to kill a bear. That's not an argument that will influence anyone. I understand that there are two sides and like it or not you have to judge them fairly. The pro - hunters were professional, well prepared. If their information was factual or not didn't matter. They looked and sounded the part. The anti hunters looked and sounded overwhelmed. They were passionate but brought nothing else to the table. If they had any chance of stopping the hunt they blew it by being so unprepared to make a logical argument on their behalf. I was on their side but had I been a commissioner, I would have ok'd the hunt.

I cant help but see herpers the same way at times, important times. I understand its hobby for most they don't have the time, money, desire to educate themselves to fight all the crap that gets thrown at them etc.. It doesn't mean they are not in the right. But it does mean they are exceptionally vulnerable to getting screwed.

There are some well prepared people , some organizations and Ive seen the reptile crowd make a sound educated pushback to stand up against nonsense but it keeps coming back to resources. The lack of.

Ernie Eison

stlouisdude
Posts: 412
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:30 pm
Location: St Louis, MO / Hartford, CT

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by stlouisdude » June 8th, 2016, 5:35 pm

Richard has made a heroic effort to inject some sanity and integrity to the regulations in Oregon but in most cases the herp community does little or nothing -- a situation that must change or every state, county, and city will soon have ordinances banning any contact between humans and herps. Look at how far we have fallen already and as people become further removed from hunting and fishing, they will only become more ignorant of managing wildlife populations which will lead to even dumber laws. I really hope this can serve as a wake up call.

stlouisdude
Posts: 412
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:30 pm
Location: St Louis, MO / Hartford, CT

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by stlouisdude » June 8th, 2016, 8:20 pm

Having met Richard, I can verify that he is wholeheartily dedicated to his belief that decisions should be made on the basis of data and facts and that ethics should be first and foremost considered. Richard has been monitoring herps in Oregon for decades and is rightfully offended by clueless people who wish to make regulations based on fantasy, emotions, and uneducated hypothesis and quite frankly what amounts to a show of hands by people not qualified to have an opinion on anything related to reptiles. Richard has more facts in his left pocket than the people pushing for regulations will have gathered in 10 lifetimes. I can honestly say that we are worse off to witness a vanishing generation of people like this.

Having said that, Jimmi also makes some good points that we must not ignore. Who are pushing for these regulations and what do we know about them? What is the motivation here? Ignorance? Purchased seats by animal rights? Right now we really don't know and we need to find out what they hope to gain from this. While this may seem like small potatoes national wide, I firmly believe we need to find out more about what is going on here because it will absolutely not end here. I believe we are witnessing a generation of the most clueless, easily manipulated people that ever existed coming to power. I hope I am paranoid and wrong, but it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 587
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » June 8th, 2016, 9:42 pm

Jimi,
I really do not have that much of a gripe about the NatureServe rankings other than knowing their methodology produces bogus results as applied to the herps in Oregon. Knowing that the use of locality record data (EOs) is of marginal use for assessing relative abundance (rarity) of many herp species, years ago I suggested to Eleanor Gains of that organization in Portland that they phase out the EO process and instead devise a process that involves habitat. Everyone in wildlife science and related fields should automatically understand that species and habitat are inseparable.

The problem that occurred with these revised regs is that the individual or individuals in ODFW who formulated these regulation have used the NatureServe rankings as if they were legitimate, science-base information and factual. So the real culprits are not NatureServe but ODFW personnel.

And what for me is so frustrating is that those ODFW biologists are claiming that species ranked in the S-4 category are in need of protection. Just to remind everyone, the S-4 ranking states “Not rare and apparently secure, but with cause for long-term concern, usually with more than 100 occurrences.”

Jimi, since you work for a wildlife agency and rub elbow with other wildlife biologists, can you explain why any wildlife biologist would propose listing species in a protected status when such species are stated as being not rare and are apparently secure?

And since it appears you understand the NatureServe process far better than I do, can you explain the basis for the part of the S-4 ranking which mentions, “—but with cause for long term concern ---.”?

Do you believe NatureServe possesses evidence in support for such a claim? Knowing something about the Oregon species that are listed in the S-4 category, from my perspective, mentioning there is long term concern for those species is based on someone active imagination. To me, it is just one more piece of evidence that those who produced these ranking are demonstrating a bias.

For instance, an objective and impartial manner for identifying species in the S-4 ranking could just as well read, ‘Not rare, appears secure, no evidence to propose either short or long term concerns, usually with more than 100 occurrences.’

As for the disclaimer, have you ever seen a similar disclaimer following published biological research? Perhaps there is but I have yet to see it.

And you are correct, I have not looked into the how NatureServe/ORBIC acquires revenue. At one time, I thought the organization was an offshoot of Nature Conservancy. At any rate, I apologize for stating such from an uninformed position.

But from my perspective, regardless of how the organization if financed and personnel paid, from my vantage point, I see a very apparent bias incorporated in the manner in which they characterize species. That is, I do not view either their methods nor their outcomes as being an impartial approach which as you are aware, is a hallmark of good research. The example I shared above about their claim of ‘having cause for long term concern’ for S-4 species is but one example.

Richard FH

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 486
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by WSTREPS » June 9th, 2016, 6:42 am

At one time, I thought the organization was an offshoot of the Nature Conservancy. At any rate, I apologize for stating such from an uninformed position.

You were correct. The organization is an offshoot of the Nature Conservancy.

The Nature Conservancy, which since the 1970s had provided scientific and technical support transferred this role to NatureServe, along with professional staff, databases, and responsibility for the scientific standards and procedures .The organization changed its name from the Association for Biodiversity Information to NatureServe when this transfer occurred .

They are a private organization and get their cash like all big special interest groups, donations.

NatureServe is a nonprofit, tax-exempt charitable organization . That is big business,

Today, the public-private partnership that is the NatureServe network comprises more than 80 independent organizations throughout the Western Hemisphere, with over 1,000 (cough) conservation professionals and a collective annual budget of more than $45 million.
The problem that occurred with these revised regs is that the individual or individuals in ODFW who formulated these regulation have used the NatureServe rankings as if they were legitimate, science-base information and factuall. So the real culprits are not NatureServe but ODFW personnel.
I cant agree with this. Fish and Wildlife personnel are generally not very knowledgeable in these areas they rely on the data provided by others and the integrity of people providing that data. You said it yourself The NatureServe process is complex and resembles a legitimate scientific undertaking. Fish and Wildlife personnel trust that it is. They don't know any better. This is how special interest groups put themselves over. Its not the person that gets scammed that's the culprit, its always the scammer. If you want to blame the personal at ODFW for not being better informed. I agree they should be but understand why they are not.

Ernie Eison

just thought Id throw this little tidbit about the Nature Conservancy, NatureServs creator,

The Nature Conservancy is a massive "non-profit" . The environmental group makes major loans to employees and board members, buys and resells land to trustees and supporters at reduced prices, drills for oil on nature preserve land. The tax records of the institution are a joke and the source of constant legal battles. They pull in hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. Using strong-armed tactics at the expense of family farmers and municipal governments across the country.That doesn't even scratch the surface. The institution generates billions of dollar's in assets. More then enough to keep some things tied up in court forever and bury others. Most have no clue About Nature Conservancy's dirty dealings. They love the Nature Conservancy based on shiny press releases and slick the marketing machine.

dthor68
Posts: 291
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 12:26 pm
Location: South Carolina
Contact:

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by dthor68 » June 9th, 2016, 7:27 pm

@ craigb, "Let's all be warm and fuzzy and protect everything for our great, great grand children."

This is what you consider sarcasm? I am confused. you are saying all of the species in question are common but in no way common enough for our great great grand children to enjoy?

dthor68
Posts: 291
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 12:26 pm
Location: South Carolina
Contact:

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by dthor68 » June 10th, 2016, 3:47 am

@WSTREPS, "The Nature Conservancy is a massive "non-profit" . The environmental group makes major loans to employees and board members, buys and resells land to trustees and supporters at reduced prices, drills for oil on nature preserve land. The tax records of the institution are a joke and the source of constant legal battles. They pull in hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. Using strong-armed tactics at the expense of family farmers and municipal governments across the country.That doesn't even scratch the surface. The institution generates billions of dollar's in assets. More then enough to keep some things tied up in court forever and bury others. Most have no clue About Nature Conservancy's dirty dealings. They love the Nature Conservancy based on shiny press releases and slick the marketing machine."

Can you prove any of this? I always thought the Nature Conservancy was a great organization. They have saved hundreds of thousands of acres for us to enjoy. All of your comments sound like far right rhetoric to me.

craigb
Posts: 619
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:02 am
Location: Southern Cal.

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by craigb » June 10th, 2016, 5:31 am

Thor I was sarcastically pointing out that are people that even want to limit all public access to wild lands. That a blade of grass is no less important than an endangered species. I know it sounds crazy, but they are out there.
And some of them have money to throw at causes and politicians to have their concerns heard.

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4327
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by Kelly Mc » June 10th, 2016, 9:11 am

"That a blade of grass is no less important than an endangered species."

luv_the_smellof_musk says things like that. Only smells was even bolder in hyperbole, but it was always kind of a Fail, like the satire comedy stories he wrote in his obsession with "activists". Very carefully manufactured expressions of smells position, his posts were; hallmarked by scrupulous anonymity and a followers mentality. I always had the feeling he was a double account...

craigb
Posts: 619
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:02 am
Location: Southern Cal.

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by craigb » June 10th, 2016, 11:01 am

Well... I am not a double account.
I am Craig Barnes.

I just see humor and sarcasm in almost everything (even my own actions).

I follow no person or group, and never really listen to anyone... You can ask my wife of thirty years. We seldom agree.

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4327
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by Kelly Mc » June 10th, 2016, 11:45 am

That's a relief to know because that would be nuts, like ill - nuts.

But surely now you can consider how annoying it can be, to be crammed into an archetype because of someone not really listening to what theyve actually stated.

My apologies for the awkward implication..

craigb
Posts: 619
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:02 am
Location: Southern Cal.

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by craigb » June 10th, 2016, 12:04 pm

No worries Kelly.....

You saw something and made a assumption/implication... I have yet to see you resort to name calling.

So my respect for you is still intact.

About a lot of things you know your poop...... :thumb:

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4327
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by Kelly Mc » June 10th, 2016, 12:39 pm

:lol: It is likewise. I'd like to not cross paths with you other than pleasantly, ever again.

gcsnelling
Posts: 40
Joined: February 15th, 2016, 6:21 pm
Location: NE Arkansux

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by gcsnelling » June 10th, 2016, 3:29 pm

I have had a rather dim view of the Nature Conservancy ever since they tried a acquire a piece of land in Fort Davis belonging to an old friend of mine by trying to get it condemned when he was not interested in "donating" it to them.

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 587
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » June 11th, 2016, 9:50 pm

The first item of business at the June 9th. Oregon Wildlife Commission meeting was the proposed revision of Div. 44 regulations. First, the ODFW staff veterinarian who was the individual in charge of formulating these regulation spent close to an hour explaining and justifying the regulation. My hearing is shot and despite having high tech V.A. administration hearing aids, I could not make out what the gentleman said for the most part.

Then the Commission allowed just 3 minutes for each member in the audience to provide comments. So even if I had been able to hear what the veterinarian said, there would be no way to rebut his ‘testimony’. Most of the individuals that provided comments were other stakeholders being adversely affected by these regulations such as owners of skunks, and a smattering of wildlife rehab types that exhibit and produce educational programs for the public with captive species, etc. Myself, Jesse Short, and a Chris Rombough seemed to be the only herpers providing comments.

I left after that particular issue was done and the Commission took a break before other issues were before the Commission. I do not know if the Commission took a vote late that afternoon, waited until yesterday’s session was completed or what. But I am not very hopeful sorry to say.

Richard F. Hoyer

stlouisdude
Posts: 412
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:30 pm
Location: St Louis, MO / Hartford, CT

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by stlouisdude » June 13th, 2016, 4:00 pm

Most veterinarians active today were primarily training on domestic and farm animals. I wonder what data he examined to have an opinion on the state of wild reptiles and their abundance and the effects of collection on them? I wonder how many field hours he has logged and over how many years? Vets I have spoken with are all over the map, some have a good understanding of harvesting wild animals and others would make statements like "reptiles are being wiped out by the pet trade"...

User avatar
Brian Hubbs
Posts: 4733
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:41 am
Location: "Buy My Books"-land

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by Brian Hubbs » June 13th, 2016, 9:00 pm

What a wonderful thread...wish I had time to chime in, but i don't. Kelly, rest assured these laws do not spring from data and data analysis. they spring from lawsuits and pressure from environmental groups or researchers who need money (and a protected species is more likely to get funding than a non-protected species). Sometimes these laws are the result of the Dept. wanting to not deal with regulations, education of game wardens, or anything that requires real thought. Reptiles do not make money for the state; ...deer, ducks, fish, etc. do...

Do you think the fishermen would sit back and take this crap? No way...but herpers are a non-entity when it comes to game depts...

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4327
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by Kelly Mc » June 13th, 2016, 9:17 pm

Yes, I understand Mr Hubbs.

When these meetings happen we should post the transcripts, even if they are after the fact.

The one I attended was pretty hilarious, with one of the commissioners displaying what looked to me like a delberate exaggerated shudder at the mention of captive snakes eating rodents.

One of the Supervisor Alioto & family got a corn snake from me before their decision and they loved the snake hahahaha!

Jimi
Posts: 1881
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by Jimi » June 14th, 2016, 10:28 am

Kelly, rest assured these laws do not spring from data and data analysis. they spring from lawsuits and pressure from environmental groups or researchers who need money (and a protected species is more likely to get funding than a non-protected species). Sometimes these laws are the result of the Dept. wanting to not deal with regulations, education of game wardens, or anything that requires real thought.
Where these "laws" (they tend to be executive-branch rules, which legislative-branch laws have given executive agencies the command and the ability to create) spring from is totally case-dependent. State wildlife agencies vary a ton in their posture towards herps and herpers, and in the degree to which they welcome, accept, and incorporate stakeholder input - whether those stakeholders are nonconsumptive or consumptive users or advocates. Due to their revenue models, they tend to be friendlier or more receptive to consumptive users or advocates. This is one of the reasons I suggest herpers - "just-lookers" AND "baggers" - join forces and engage the agencies as consumptive users and advocates. Whether or not you occasionally "bag", or you always "just look". It can be really hard - or impossible - for law enforcement officers to tell the difference, and people can be shameless and even self-deceptive or delusional liars anyway, so I say just get over it and stop letting yourselves be divided and conquered.
Reptiles do not make money for the state...
True enough, but then again neither does almost anything else. Not the actual license revenues, anyway. But just having the license sales on record, delivers federally-collected excise-tax monies to the states, on the basis of distribution formulas. For example, if a state agency sells 500,000 deer tags, 10 bighorn sheep tags, 100 pronghorn tags, and 1,000,000 hunting licenses (and you don't need a tag to shoot rabbits & squirrels) - they're not "making money" on the bighorn or pronghorn tags, they're "making money" directly on the deer tags and both indirectly and directly on the licenses. The indirect money (federal excise taxes on guns & ammo) is often more than the direct money (the face-value of the license). So it sounds funny, but the rabbits and squirrels can actually "make" more money than the pronghorns or even the bighorns, if enough licenses - and few enough tags - are being sold.

So once again - get organized, buy the license, and then go engage the agency to get more of your interests looked after. Look closely at your positions and seriously ask yourselves - do they serve your interests. If they do not, then drop them or change them. Look to your interests and go get a deal done.
Do you think the fishermen would sit back and take this crap? No way...but herpers are a non-entity when it comes to game depts...
No, for the most part fishermen do not. Whether or not they are able to make any headway (or suffer endless frustration) is up to how organized and engaged they are. NOT how numerous they are. A million fishermen who cannot speak as one, are usually far less effective than 5,000 or even 500 who can. The agencies don't for the most part go out and solicit input (there's more work to be done than there is time in the day) - stakeholders need to approach them with a request, a proposal, etc. Then the agency will carve out some time and energy for the stakeholders. Everybody is a non-entity until they make themselves heard and felt. That's just life, at home, at work, at school, anywhere.
I have had a rather dim view of the Nature Conservancy ever since they tried a acquire a piece of land in Fort Davis belonging to an old friend of mine by trying to get it condemned when he was not interested in "donating" it to them.
The fundamental unit of organization for TNC is the state chapter. I have never dealt with TNC-TX. But the behavior you describe would be wildly out of character for the several chapters that I have worked with. Without fail, I have found the various TNC chapters to be staffed by dedicated, passionate, sober, careful, and decent human beings who take the long view of conservation, and who build - don't burn - bridges in the communities they work with. They are true force multipliers in conservation, they punch way above their weight. They facilitate a lot of transactions and agreements that agencies simply do not have the expertise, the political cover, and/or the long attention span required to get done. In all honesty, I cannot name a better partner than TNC. I'm sorry to hear your anecdote, and in respectful candor, I wonder about it.

cheers

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4327
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by Kelly Mc » June 14th, 2016, 11:43 am

I can site many parallels in things that have happened in captive/keeping circles, in relations of enforcement that are really tempting to share, but only because they emphasize what jimi said about enforcement not knowing the difference there is no impetus to learn the difference, its just not a priority.

Thats why i think its important to define what we consider a breach of acceptable conduct and practices, even if that just means critical review of presentations we see often on social media - of interactions that are blatantly gratuitous and wrong. And speaking out as the herping community.

When we look at that stuff, we think : That is not Us. Thats not what we do. But others just see a guy swinging a snake to 'educate his youtube suscribers' or dressed up in leather pants and a zebra hat, doing odd things with crotes. Relatively new is the current phenomenon of Every one able to put on a show - perhaps it should be addressed somehow, mindfully and with discernment.

If herpers became dependably demonstrative in differentiating these types from our own pursuits, it is practical, good exposure to entities, agencies, enforcement officers. imo

User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2427
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by chris_mcmartin » June 14th, 2016, 7:09 pm

Some of this discussion reminds of a similar one from times past. I might need to revisit the graph.

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 486
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by WSTREPS » June 14th, 2016, 8:25 pm

This is one of the reasons I suggest herpers - "just-lookers" AND "baggers" - join forces and engage the agencies as consumptive users and advocates. Whether or not you occasionally "bag", or you always "just look". It can be really hard - or impossible - for law enforcement officers to tell the difference, and people can be shameless and even self-deceptive or delusional liars anyway, so I say just get over it and stop letting yourselves be divided and conquered.

Herpers if that's what they want to call themselves, have been engaging and working with wildlife agencies for a long time. I think the reptile people do the best they can with what they have. The reptile contingent doesn't have the money. Its impossible to build a single let alone multiple multi million dollar organizations to go and lobby legislators , provide funding to researcher's to do studies that falsely "validate" your argument or leverage wildlife agencies. And in the long (sometimes short) run. That's the reality of what it takes. How things get done.

You cant fight millions of dollars with thousand's of dollars . You cant fight junk science when its accepted as fact by the people holding the pens. One check and a piece of paper that says this is dangerous will knock out a hundred complaint's every time in this kind of game.

In these situations. Usually your not talking about a million people lobbying some Wildlife agency. Its a couple people working in private to get their agenda thru. These people represent or have the support of a group or groups with pull. That's how they get their foot in the door and why they get catered to.
True enough, but then again neither does almost anything else. Not the actual license revenues, anyway. But just having the license sales on record, delivers federally-collected excise-tax monies to the states, on the basis of distribution formulas. For example, if a state agency sells 500,000 deer tags, 10 bighorn sheep tags, 100 pronghorn tags, and 1,000,000 hunting licenses (and you don't need a tag to shoot rabbits & squirrels) - they're not "making money" on the bighorn or pronghorn tags, they're "making money" directly on the deer tags and both indirectly and directly on the licenses. The indirect money (federal excise taxes on guns & ammo) is often more than the direct money (the face-value of the license). So it sounds funny, but the rabbits and squirrels can actually "make" more money than the pronghorns or even the bighorns, if enough licenses - and few enough tags - are being sold.
Look at the numbers. There is a huge amount of economic impact involved with hunting and fishing. You can get rid of "herping" and the state wont feel it but hunting and fishing are a whole different ball game with much more economic impact.
The fundamental unit of organization for TNC is the state chapter. I have never dealt with TNC-TX. But the behavior you describe would be wildly out of character for the several chapters that I have worked with.
cheers

The story told by gcsnelling is one that can be told by many others. Its par for the course dealing with this despicable organization. The Nature conservancy has a long and well documented but not well publicized track record of atrocious behavior. People are suckers. You don't amass billions of dollars annually and have aspirations of owning 13% of the earths land mass by doing the right thing. Permitting oil drilling, timbering, mining, and natural gas drilling on land donated to the Conservancy are some of the ways the TNC make bank. This doesn't even scratch the surface of what these crumbs are up to.

Ernie Eison

User avatar
technoendo
Posts: 108
Joined: December 13th, 2014, 5:27 pm

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by technoendo » June 14th, 2016, 9:05 pm

I got some texts from my friend that was present at the June meeting yesterday morning. He said he had pleaded for a number of changes to the restrictions and has put a ton of work into protecting field herping from the revisions to division 044 proposed in January. A big thanks to him and anyone that read this post, tried to understand and assist, and especially to anyone that was present at any meetings or public testimonies. I regret to have done so little this time.

One revision that did pass was a more friendly update to the definition of "Hold".

I believe the old one is here:

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/oars/56.pdf
"Hold" means any form of possession or control of an animal, gamete, or hybrid thereof.
The new:
"Hold" means any form of possession or control of a live animal, gamete, or hybrid therof. The term does not include the observation or casual temporary holding of wildlife for observation and photographic purposes in their natural habitat where the animal is not removed from its immediate location.
We just got a few new restrictions to Oregon wildlife laws, but one bit that wasn't soul crushing is the update to "Hold" which gives protection to some activities like herp photography/reporting. I think we can continue to catch and handle/photograph herps in-situ in Oregon, but other activities (collection?) may have seen more change and need a re-read for me.

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 587
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » June 14th, 2016, 9:32 pm

EE,
Many of the species ODFW proposed placing into a hands-off, no collecting, protected status are ranked by NatureServe as S-4. That ranking reads as follows: “Not rare and apparently secure, but with cause for long-term concern, usually with more than 100 occurrences.”

Can you, or anyone else, explain why species that are considered as not rare and appear to be secured need to be placed in a protected status? From my vantage point, that is plain NUTTY! So this is why I pointed my figure at the ODFW personnel that formulated these regulations.

As for your characterization of Nature Conservancy, you may be correct. But I would be surprised it what you mention pertains to the entire national organization let alone the individual Nature Conservancy state organizations. But I am quick to add, I do not know the details. Do you have some review article or a link that can produce some of the details you mention?

Clearly there are unscrupulous individuals in all organizations. I have been a long term contributor to the national Nature Conservancy organization and to the Oregon Nature Conservancy organization because they have demonstrated they understand the vital connection between species and habitat.

Richard FH

Jimi
Posts: 1881
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by Jimi » June 15th, 2016, 7:37 am

You don't amass billions of dollars annually and have aspirations of owning 13% of the earths land mass by doing the right thing. Permitting oil drilling, timbering, mining, and natural gas drilling on land donated to the Conservancy are some of the ways the TNC make bank.
Huh - so making money and having big dreams is inherently dishonest or otherwise wrong? What an odd position.

Anyway, as I understand the organization, TNC changed their core strategy for mission achievement about 20 years ago, from land acquisition to improving (via science, influence, capacity development or provision, etc etc) the stewardship of lands already in the conservation estate (whoever happens to own them).

One might well ask "Why did they do this?" The reason, as I understand things, is that they discovered - as anyone who owns land quickly does - that when you own property it cannot just sit there. Things go to hell all by their self - fences and buildings decay, pest plants and animals take over, some of your neighbors get inconceivably greedy or abusive - so you need site managers and you need income to pay the managers, the property taxes, and the maintenance and upkeep.

All this is hugely expensive. Any critic - or fan - needs to understand this. Everyone needs to Just Grow Up. Conservation is expensive, and it has to be paid for or it does not happen. Get your wallets out or STFU and get out of the way.

- Some of the activities you decry are forms of income generation - delivering net revenue, and often significant tax benefits too. And they can be done without causing too much environmental harm. In the case of timber harvest, oftentimes that is actually required as part of ecological restoration (for example where off-site tree species have been intentionally established by former owners as tree farms).
- Also, any land donor needs to understand that their property - while personally beloved to them - may have little or no actual wildlife & habitat conservation value. In such cases the best thing to do is make money off it, to support implementing the strategy and achieving the mission elsewhere - where you actually can. To make money the owner can either operate the property, or just sell it off (at either the highest price they can get, or with substantial restricted development rights), depending on the mission-supporting value the property actually has.
Look at the numbers. There is a huge amount of economic impact involved with hunting and fishing. You can get rid of "herping" and the state wont feel it but hunting and fishing are a whole different ball game with much more economic impact.
"The numbers" are more complicated than this.

- You are, in general, making the argument that money influences decisions. "News F*cking Flash!!!" Duh. Of course it does.
- Specific to this excerpt however, you seem to be making the argument that money - specifically, "economic impact" - influences the decisions of state wildlife agencies. On this (if I am understanding you), you could hardly be more wrong. Money influences whoever actually receives it. Gas stations, restaurants, motels, sporting goods retailers, local govt, local schools, etc all benefit - they receive money from - from the "economic impact" of hunting and fishing (this includes herp hunting). State wildlife agencies do not benefit or receive money from "economic impact" (remember their revenue model - they mostly don't get state or local tax dollars, they have to raise their own money and they get federal excise-tax dollars). So to their understandable discredit, many if not most or all of them are not thinking about or influenced directly by "economic impact". The influence comes indirectly, if it comes at all.

Think about the single best example we have - west Texas herping. TPWD put a stake in its heart. Local business and organized herpers squawked loud, largely on the basis that the agency decision hurt local economic activity. TPWD resisted walking back their impactful decision. The squawking got louder, via I think it was the legislature, and the stake was pulled out halfway. Some of the former economic benefit was restored to the local community. Just don't give the agency credit for that - give credit to the herpers, businessmen, and state representatives who worked together for a long time to make some positive change in the world.
Some of this discussion reminds of a similar one from times past. I might need to revisit the graph.
Yeah Chris, that was some good thinking, well represented too. Sorry you didn't get much feedback or traction on it - thanks for trying again. You also know a lot more about what went down (or is probably still going down, in very slow motion) in Texas so please chime in if I messed up the story and/or the lesson learned.
Can you, or anyone else, explain why species that are considered as not rare and appear to be secured need to be placed in a protected status? From my vantage point, that is plain NUTTY!
With the inclusion of "no realistically-conceivable existential threats", I for one cannot (think about the passenger pigeon...). So I'm sitting right about where you are Richard - same vantage point, same observed scene.
We just got a few new restrictions to Oregon wildlife laws, but one bit that wasn't soul crushing is the update to "Hold" which gives protection to some activities like herp photography/reporting.
Major congrats on a partial win. I still have heartburn with the apparently unwarranted and unexplained restrictions on harvest (which has not been convincingly argued as a threat that needs to be managed down) - but I am not an ODFW stakeholder. If you all are satisfied that is your business. I hope the experience leads to continued, increasing, and improving engagement between the stakeholders and the agency.

cheers

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 486
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by WSTREPS » June 15th, 2016, 10:04 am

Specific to this excerpt however, you seem to be making the argument that money - specifically, "economic impact" - influences the decisions of state wildlife agencies. On this (if I am understanding you), you could hardly be more wrong. Money influences whoever actually receives it. Gas stations, restaurants, motels, sporting goods retailers, local govt, local schools, etc all benefit - they receive money from - from the "economic impact" of hunting and fishing (this includes herp hunting). State wildlife agencies do not benefit or receive money from "economic impact" (remember their revenue model - they mostly don't get state or local tax dollars, they have to raise their own money and they get federal excise-tax dollars). So to their understandable discredit, many if not most or all of them are not thinking about or influenced directly by "economic impact". The influence comes indirectly, if it comes at all.
Money influences whoever actually receives it. Right, and in turn it influences others. Common sense .

Gas stations, restaurants, motels, sporting goods retailers, local govt, local schools, etc all benefit - they receive money from - from the "economic impact" of hunting and fishing (this includes herp hunting).

Exactly if you do something to take that money away, negatively impact that many people financially . You will have a firestorm of problems. A huge pushback. This certainly does influence the decisions of state wildlife agencies. Fishing and Hunting have that kind of pull. Its big business that spreads the wealth around to many. Hunting and Fishing play important economic roles and are well supported. If you F'k with them, you are in for a real fight. Saying the decisions of state wildlife agencies are not swayed by this defies common sense.


Herp hunting, in any form personal or commercial has no real fiscal impact in the United States. Its nothing more then a hobby or small business engaged in by very few people. I'm not saying these people shouldn't be allowed to do what they do. But when they come under attack from larger entitles (special interest groups). Its David and Goliath. Unlike fishing and hunting when its more like Goliath against Goliath.

Let me know the first HERP PRO SHOPS opens.
As for your characterization of Nature Conservancy, you may be correct. But I would be surprised it what you mention pertains to the entire national organization let alone the individual Nature Conservancy state organizations. But I am quick to add, I do not know the details. Do you have some review article or a link that can produce some of the details you mention?
Like I said their wrong doings are well documented but not well publicized. The documented stories are out there if you look. About the state chapters and who works there..... its like the store manager and the employee's at Walmart or any big chain. Those people just work there. You cant learn much talking to them about how the corporation's major dealings really work. If you want to know how the business is really run you have to see who really runs. Who they are. Look at who runs the Nature Conservancy.

The Nature Conservancy is led by President and CEO Mark Tercek, a former managing director and investment banker at Goldman Sachs, Goldman Sachs has been called everything from one of “the most hated companies in America” to “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity”. Mark Tercek was a big part of that.

The Nature Conservancy has ties to roughly 1900 corporate sponsors. Its governing board consists of numerous executives and directors of oil companies, chemical producers, auto manufacturers, mining concerns, logging operations, and electric utilities. These are the people that call the shots.
EE,
Many of the species ODFW proposed placing into a hands-off, no collecting, protected status are ranked by NatureServe as S-4. That ranking reads as follows: “Not rare and apparently secure, but with cause for long-term concern, usually with more than 100 occurrences.”

Can you, or anyone else, explain why species that are considered as not rare and appear to be secured need to be placed in a protected status? From my vantage point, that is plain NUTTY! So this is why I pointed my figure at the ODFW personnel that formulated these regulations.
Your right , it is nutty but that's the world we live in. Its the new USA.

I think ODFW formulated these regulations because that is what they were advise to do by the people they feel are experts. And you might be right there could be some culprits among the ODFW personnel. I would be curious to know how it came about that a staff veterinarian was in charge of formulating these regulations. I guarantee you they have no knowledge beyond what you can get reading a few pages out of a cheesy field guild. The bottom line is this has nothing to do with conservation. Its about targeting a specific group and trying to get at them thru the back door. Creating a platform to build on.

"The U.S. government adopts NatureServe’s ecological classification system as the national standard for use by federal agencies."

That's an interesting quote from the NatureServe website. And gives insight to the juice they have.

On a side note. The government scientist didn't consider this system when assessing the status of the Burmese python in Florida. If they had the python's would be one of the rarest reptiles in North America.


Ernie Eison

User avatar
Hadar
Posts: 251
Joined: October 12th, 2011, 5:39 pm
Location: Corvallis, Oregon
Contact:

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by Hadar » June 15th, 2016, 11:57 am

technoendo wrote:I got some texts from my friend that was present at the June meeting yesterday morning. He said he had pleaded for a number of changes to the restrictions and has put a ton of work into protecting field herping from the revisions to division 044 proposed in January. A big thanks to him and anyone that read this post, tried to understand and assist, and especially to anyone that was present at any meetings or public testimonies. I regret to have done so little this time.

One revision that did pass was a more friendly update to the definition of "Hold".

I believe the old one is here:

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/oars/56.pdf
"Hold" means any form of possession or control of an animal, gamete, or hybrid thereof.
The new:
"Hold" means any form of possession or control of a live animal, gamete, or hybrid therof. The term does not include the observation or casual temporary holding of wildlife for observation and photographic purposes in their natural habitat where the animal is not removed from its immediate location.
We just got a few new restrictions to Oregon wildlife laws, but one bit that wasn't soul crushing is the update to "Hold" which gives protection to some activities like herp photography/reporting. I think we can continue to catch and handle/photograph herps in-situ in Oregon, but other activities (collection?) may have seen more change and need a re-read for me.
I contacted Alan St. John to see if he was able to attend the meeting but he was in Utah doing a herp survey. He did say that he had written several e-mails to the ODFW strongly expressing his concerns that their proposed new herp regulations are off-base and even got a reply back. Kevin Blakely, Wildlife Division Deputy Administrator for ODFW, stated the following when Alan asked for clarification as to what "hold" means, regarding studying native amphibians/reptiles in the wild:

"In the scenario you identified regarding field work and photo-documentation, a scientific taking permit is not required now or proposed in the future as long as you are not removing animals from the site or deploying traps. It is not the intent of the rules to have a no-touch policy which would reduce opportunity for citizens to have direct experiences with the natural environment as well as the reasons you outlined for herpetologists to provide presence/absence/locality data for many species."

It sounds like ODFW stood true to that. Alan said that he has printed out the e-mail from Kevin and carries it with him in his field vehicle at all times in case an Oregon wildlife cop hassles him. It is important that we are familiar with these rules and regulations so we know what our rights are.

Cheers, Heather

User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2427
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by chris_mcmartin » June 15th, 2016, 1:30 pm

Hadar wrote:Kevin Blakely, Wildlife Division Deputy Administrator for ODFW, stated the following when Alan asked for clarification as to what "hold" means, regarding studying native amphibians/reptiles in the wild:

"In the scenario you identified regarding field work and photo-documentation, a scientific taking permit is not required now or proposed in the future as long as you are not removing animals from the site or deploying traps. It is not the intent of the rules to have a no-touch policy which would reduce opportunity for citizens to have direct experiences with the natural environment as well as the reasons you outlined for herpetologists to provide presence/absence/locality data for many species."

It sounds like ODFW stood true to that. Alan said that he has printed out the e-mail from Kevin and carries it with him in his field vehicle at all times in case an Oregon wildlife cop hassles him.
Pay close attention to that last sentence...it's what TX herpers did too (keep the emails from TPWD LE that said road cruising for herps is not hunting, and headlights are OK to use to locat the herps on the roads, as that was not the "spirit of the law" banning artificial light from a vehicle, which was intended to target those folks spotlighting and shooting deer)...right up until the road ban became law in 2007. :x Stay on 'em! (keep engaged with POSITIVE dialogue and invitations for "herping ride-alongs" so they know what actually happens when field herping)

stlouisdude
Posts: 412
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:30 pm
Location: St Louis, MO / Hartford, CT

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by stlouisdude » June 16th, 2016, 8:11 pm

Congrats to those who showed up and voiced their opinions, data, and observations whatever the result. To the rest of us that stood by and held our vestigial gonads, hopefully we do better next time.

User avatar
TravisK
Posts: 772
Joined: July 8th, 2010, 10:14 am
Location: Eastern Washington

Re: A few Oregon laws about to change that could impact herp

Post by TravisK » July 7th, 2016, 10:27 am

WOW, I have been AWOL for a while... Very pleased with the 'HOLD' terminology.

Post Reply