Ernie, I hate be the harbinger of bad news, but this point is refuted by your own link provided above- the Justice Depart search of the case management system says the total figure paid out was for all litigation, regardless of weather it went to court or if there was an out-of-court settlement.

As interesting as this civil litigation with CDB is, it's still going down a rabbit hole; what does it have to do with the 3 poaching cases that started this thread??

That's why this got moved to the "Bored line" .
Not meaning to sound derogatory, because there were some good issues discussed and information exchanged. But...
We talked about the foolish behavior of those convicted.
We talked about the animals, and herp poaching.
We talked about Law Enforcement agencies.
We talked about "maniacs and humaniacs".
Then we got more into personal experience and views.
We all see things differently and interpret information through our own personal filter.

I think it's time to move on to a "fresh" topic...

Read what JIMI incorrectly stated above.

The link I provided completely supports what I say. The Justice Department search of the case management system says the total figure paid out was all for litigation, exactly litigation. This has nothing to do with losing in court or because they were shown to be in violation of "the law" - either statute or rule. It means these cases were resolved before trial. Nothing was "shown". When a lawsuit is filed it enters into a process called litigation. During this process is when out of court settlement's are reached. Fish and Wildlife commonly rolls and pays off these environmental extortionist. Its cheaper in the long run and they get some perk's out of it. That's the real game.

Ernie Eison



I think your right.

Craig - I don't think you meant to say it's time to STFU. While it's true we all see things differently and have our own personal filters and blind spots, I'd like to relate a few things from here together, tie it all up with a suggestion, and then I will retire. Or not, if asked.



I understand the desire. But I know that the desire will be frustrated, for some basic, practical reasons that are probably not known to you, but could easily become so. Not knowing, and getting frustrated, and trying to get something but not getting it, then getting even more frustrated until you just "check out", is a distinct possibility. An avoidable one. Others have proven this.


Read that again.


What facilitates (not causes, but passively helps) dumb herp regs get created and to persist is the failure of herpers to show up. It works exactly the same way with traditional game animals. The animal welfare folks would gladly end hunting, but the hunters have learned how to "show up", and they do it. It doesn't take money. It just takes some time, and some attention, and some class or restraint.


Right. And try this on - somebody poaches a deer and LE doesn't say "hey one guy's a poacher, they must ALL be poachers - so let's ban hunting in order that anyone out in the woods is therefore a poacher, and we can catch him!" What they do (with some "helpful motivation" from the hunters) is say "OK OK, we know there's some poachers, but most hunters are ethical, we will keep a season but also keep searching out and busting the real poachers". The ethical hunters can be counted on to call the cops and help bust the poachers, for reasons that include self-interest, but also civic virtue. The ethical hunters have not been demotivated to help with enforcement, because they haven't been tarred with the one-color-suits-all brush of "scumbag poacher".

- Forget about the press, except "don't contribute to bad press". Remember that!
- Don't obsess on the other team (the animal welfare side). They're in the game, they cannot be ejected. They can be weakened but that would be a long slow hard process. You'd need to join a big group to participate in that, I think.
- Think about the game - influencing the agency to get what you need and want. You won't do it with press, or money, or threatening lawsuits - you'll do it by showing up and demanding to be involved to make better regs. Seriously, 4 or 5 guys showing up - for as long as it takes, which is more than once! - with a coherent message, delivered consistently and politely, would do the trick in most states. Seriously.


True enough, to a point. Remember what I said about legislation and rules. You can try to work with politicians but I truly believe you will get further, faster with the agencies. The agencies don't get out of bed and think about passing stupid herp regs either. Or about passing smart herp regs, for that matter. Herpers need to be the ones approaching and pushing them, to pass good regs.

The beef I have with some of you guys is that you seem to recognize no authority, and it appears you'd rather come up with loony, hopeless diagnoses than attempt any factually-informed treatments. All you seem to want to do is just pull the fire alarm. Hey, the thing's already ringing! There's a fire! Quit that already. What I'm saying is, get organized and help put it out. Don't just keep ringing the alarm. Don't jump into the fire. Don't trip up the guys who are already working on the fire. Figure out where you would fit into "the fire crew", if you'd just show up, and get in there and pull your weight.

THAT is why I keep coming back here.

God, is it that hard to understand? Or maybe I'm the idiot, trying to talk to a bunch of hopeless cases. You tell me.

Again you do not know what you are talking about. Traditional game animals = mainstream = more people = more money = a lot more push back. And they have giant organization's with a strong cash flow to fight for them. Then there's the number of business's, some very large involved with hunting and fishing and all the money and livelihood's involved with that. There are huge revenue implications for states that support hunting and fishing, That money drives state and federal wildlife agencies. They are not going to give that up. On the other hand.

You can not make the comparison. The revenue involved with herps equals nothing for them. US Fish and Wildlife and the special interest groups certainly are frenemies if they sue or help one another depends on the money, its clearly in the FWS best interest to defend hunting, herpers not so much.

The case that stated this thread involved the lacy act. On October 29, 2015, the FWS quietly enacted a categorical exclusion (CatX), “streamlining” the rule making process necessary to list species as “injurious” under the Lacey Act. U.S. Fish and Wildlife helped along with a little junk science provided by that familiar source the USGS and help from the Center for Biological Diversity, SAVE THE FROGS, and Defenders of Wildlife. Worked together to quickly and quietly change the lacy act with CAT X so now FWS can bypass all those little inconveniences like Environmental Assessment or the Environmental Impact Statement required by the National Environmental Policy Act or the requirement to consider economic and social impacts as part of the “human environment” . This new Lacey Act Overreach gives the FWS unprecedented power to target who ever when ever and it wont matter who shows up.

Ernie Eison

You're in the animal trade business, from what I understand. As I have stated before, I have no profound conflict with that sector. I think that due to your business your perspective is much more internationally- and federally-focused than mine. I am more state-focused, as that is the principal level of my "business". It also happens to be the level at which field herpers (as opposed to traders) are going to be most affected by any presence or lack of herp regs. Keepers are affected by all levels, but I would hazard to guess that they are more affected by state and local laws, than federal or international ones.



Perhaps - as I outlined above - we are focused on different things; perhaps we are talking past each other. But I assure you, I know some things. And I think your statement is an example of a little knowledge, a lot of assumption, and a big mouth combining in a corrosive stew. (Perhaps you will now accuse me of projecting; the irony is not lost on me, it's quite funny actually. But I really do try to not be a jerk. And I try to be intellectually honest, as well as to not act like a bully. It would be great if you could try that too.) Anyway, let me explain what I mean. You assume myriad things: that "traditional game animals" can be considered monolithically, and that hunters want to interact with them in the same ways, and that internal interests, pressure and dynamics within agencies are all well-aligned, and that all "sportsmen's" business interests are well-aligned.

Let me provide an example illustrating the imperfection (big, big imperfection) of such assumptions. Consider the case of bighorn sheep on the one hand, and mountain lions on the other, in the intermountain western USA. First, understand that both were pretty much wiped out - let's call it extirpated from most of their historic distributions, and depleted in most of the remaining inhabited distributions, as recently as the end of the 1960s. Agencies - almost entirely the state ones - worked with hunter organizations (e.g., the Wild Sheep Foundation) to manage both species back to the point where - by the 1980's - there were some modest opportunities to hunt both species in (I believe) all states in the intermountain western USA. Now the opportunities are much greater. There's still plenty of room for improvement, but also plenty of constraints. We may not actually get much improvement in opportunities, for diverse reasons. Anyway, here are some salient facts about bighorn and cougar hunters, managers, and interactions with business interests:

- Lots of people want to hunt bighorns. There are not enough lambs born, and recruited into adulthood, to support many opportunities for people to remove them from the population. Bighorn tags therefore sell for big dollars in most states (a few states still just have a lottery that's cheap to enter, with terrible odds). In most places - regardless of tag price - these sheep are considered "once in a lifetime" animals. Some normal Joes get to hunt bighorns, but in uncomfortable, lamentable fact, it is pretty much a rich guy's sport. Yes, money plays a significant oand increasing role in wildlife management. IMO our revenue model ("user pays", not "everybody pays") sucks, if you are interested in equality of opportunity.

- Not many people want to hunt mtn lions; trapping, a different beast entirely, is almost extinct due to lack of interest mainly. To hunt them, realistically you either need to own your own pack of hounds, or hire a guide with a pack. The demand for lions is low, relative to the supply. So, lion tags are cheap. Normal Joes are the main guys hunting mtn lions. Well, they aren't "normal" per se - they are more like herpers, really. They love what they are into, man oh man. But they are not, in the main, wealthy and they do not have a powerful foundation or lobbying group like the deer, elk, duck, sheep, etc guys.

- Lions eat sheep. Remember what I said about how many lambs are born, and become adults. Bighorn hunters often would like to see liberalization of lion hunting (more lions killed). Lion hunters want to see more lions when they go hunting them - which means they want fewer lions killed. Get it? Conflicting interests.

- Inside the agencies, I cannot name a single one where it's the same program managing both lions and sheep. Different programs equals different budgets and different staff. And as I mentioned already, different stakeholders clamoring for attention and action from the managers. Get it? Unaligned interests.

- Outside the agencies, livestock operators are a powerful force. They pressure the agencies to keep wildlife numbers low - whether it's wildlife that compete with domestic cattle or sheep for forage or space (bighorn...), or that predate domestic stock (lions...). However, hunters also exert their pressures, counterbalancing the stockmen somewhat.

- The agencies in effect protect the minorities - they (partially) protect the lion hunters from the sheep hunters, and they (partially) protect all the hunters from the livestock guys. Of course it's a balancing act, and in the big picture of internal (executive-branch) state politics the wildlife agencies are pretty small potatoes - nothing like ag.

- The stakeholders protect the wildlife agencies in external (legislative and county commission) state politics. Politicians have to be (partially) responsive to their constituents. There are WAY more people who hunt, than there are people who raise livestock. There's a lot of money in both - as a whole. But look at the lions again - there is no money in that. Nobody does it, and the tags are dirt cheap.[/list]

This is why I keep insisting that field herpers need to understand other hunters, how those people interact with the agencies etc. And they need to stop squabbling enough to get organized and present some semblance of an organization - enough to pursue their shared interests (1 - access to the resource, and 2 - perpetual viability of the resource). Those interests are perfectly aligned with the agencies'.




As for your "injurious rule" item - what you're referring to is this: https://www.fws.gov/injuriouswildlife/salamanders.html. Yeah, sure - that was rushed through at the federal level because of concerns about a European salamander fungal disease either 1) not yet having arrived here, being imported into the US, or 2) already having been imported into the US unbeknownst to us all, and getting spread around the states. I don't manage herps - or any species - directly; I'm a habitat guy. I heard about this rule in a news release. I have since sat in on (observer, not participant) some interagency conversations about it.

- Is the regulation perfect? I believe not - far from it.

- Was it the best tool available at that point in time? I'm not sure, I honestly do not know. My reaction when I first heard was a mix of heartburn and understanding. It still is. The injurious listing was a tool that was available quickly. Fast rarely equals good. Almost never best. Sometimes not even good enough.

- Is there actually a credible threat to American salamanders posed by this disease? Susceptibility and damage varies by family, but yes - there is ABSOLUTELY a credible threat to American salamanders. Let's just call it New World salamanders, actually.

- Does the FWS have a responsibility to avoid, minimize, or mitigate threats to US wildlife posed by such things as interstate (Lacey...) and international (injurious...) commerce? You bet your life. Is doing nothing an option? No way. Perhaps you do not accept this. That is as dumb as the liberals who say Trump is not their president. Sorry brothers and sisters, but he is.

- Is it all over? Not in the least. It's never over. The disease is out there still. But we can improve testing so that "clean" captive colonies can be certified, and legally traded in the future. Its very analogous to livestock trade regulations, certifications, testing etc all built around biosecurity regarding heartwater, screwworm, bovine Tb, etc.

- Will herpers regain their salamander-trade privileges by checking out? Not a chance in hell. Just like field herping for zonata or whatever. Show up or shut up. Showing up is not guaranteed to get you any or all of what you want, but not showing up is guaranteed to get you nothing. Pretty simple concept.

Oh, in digging deeper with more free time, I see I made a mistake in the injurious thing - you were citing the FWS going through rulemaking & Federal Register process to get CatEx authority as a NEPA option they can use, on injurious listing. Not their subsequently using that CatEx which they had just gotten, in order to list the Eurasian sallies as injurious. Which I brought up.

So you weren't talking about what I was talking about; or rather, I wasn't talking about what you were talking about. My mistake. See - honesty? Not so hard is it?

If anybody wants to see the public comment on FWS' pursuit (successful) on getting CatEx as a NEPA option for Lacey-injurious rulemaking, it's here, and is quite interesting: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FWS-HQ-FAC-2013-0118-0512

All that aside, I'll leave my comments about the disease, the US agency response, the need to keep working the issue, etc. As well as my earlier points, about parallels with other forms of hunting - that's my main thrust anyway, I shouldn't have gotten distracted with the injurious thing. The "interstate transport of poached animals" aspect of Lacey is ancient. The guys who got busted would not have gotten busted on the CA zonata, for example, if they had simply followed CA law. But - and this is not trivial - CA could and should make it less burdensome to comply with their law, by having more reasonable, more collaboratively-crafted laws concerning access to a wildlife resource that could easily bear more harvest. And even the guys who "just take pictures" would benefit from this, in that they wouldn't face a violation just from having flipped a z and pulled it out of the hole to set the rock back ("in possession, probable cause for a take"). THAT is the point I have been trying to make. THAT is what is related to field herping - whatever the ultimate disposition of the animal.

cheers

Just in occasionally entering LA-area pet stores and showing an interest in reptiles, I saw dozens of reptiles illegally for sale in short time. Mostly California natives and water snakes.

A well-known reptile store owner offered me "gas money" wink wink to illegally get some Mojave Fringe-toeds for him.

An employee at another store snuck me out of public view to try to sell me horned lizards that he clearly knew were illegal.

Most of the other cases were probably ignorance.

Occasionally people contact me through my Bangkok website and as के me for help with stuff that sounds illegal.

Im a complete nobody who almost never interacted with sellers - I'd bet others encounter that a lot more.

Yeah Jonathan it had been a staggered constant since 1981 until my departure from the genre. The desert southwestern stuff seemed to have a special appeal. Buckets with horned lizards. Desert iguanas in socks. Maybe it was a proxy factor.

Why a person would choose not to "believe" it is their prerogative.

By proxy I just mean not that far but far enough. Im not, and was not a well known owner of a business or anything just the reptile person.