I've been thinking for a long while about the expansion of our coveted field herping culture and subsequently I have reflected on what it means to be a field herper, and how our participation on internet forums has effected the trajectory of field herping. In my time on several of the popular forums of the past 15 years, I've seen the general tone of this dynamic community change from one that developed from herpetoculture (= alterna) to one that has grown to encompass strict conservationism as well. It seems as if a contradiction between the ethics of these two groups may indeed be present. As I understand the phrase, field herper refers to a stew of differing identities and belief systems, many of which conflict with one another.
The contrast between the two ends of the potential contradiction previously mentioned is of great interest to me. On one side of this contradiction we have a philosophy that reflects the commercial history of field herping and demands to put the interests of the field herper first, and on the other side we have a philosophy that represents the conservation and wildlife management aspects of field herpetology and seeks to place the animals as a priority. In between is a gray zone that represents varying opinions and I am interested in drawing a few reflective thoughts from folks with varying positions within this gray zone, or perhaps out on the fringe. In the former case, often times folks who have a long history of experience in pursuit of commercially appealing animals have argued that moderate collection should be permitted even in the absence of data. In the latter case there are folks who would argue that collection ought to be completely restricted until there is reliable data to show that it is sustainable, and to what levels it is sustainable. Keep this in mind as you assess where you belong.
I created this post with the hope that FHF users would participate in a conversation that might better describe the conflict between these two sub-groups and perhaps come to understand a less controversial moderate point. I recently saw complaints about FHF becoming a puritanically conservationist community, and I wonder if this is true.
NAFHA has emerged from this community and it is composed and administrated by people who represent some point on the continuum between conservation and herper's rights described above. Originally when the topic of NAFHA first appeared on this forum (in 2005 or so) it seemed to have been an interest group meant to provide data to state agencies; data that would result in legislation that would reflect upon the anecdotal observations of many formerly commercial field herpers who believe(d) that at least some collection was sustainable. Now it appears that NAFHA is primarily a conservationist group intended to provide data for state agencies to use to create legislation that may or may not result in greater restrictions on field herpers. The importance of this distinction in motivation is of value.
Yet another important consideration is the role of internet message boards in marketing for field herping. If we are encouraging newcomers and if they come to know field herping through our posts, then we ought to consider what may be the best way to approach making posts. Many posts have contained too much information and thus we see a mandate against providing localities in posts; this is only a starting point. Yet another standard that ought to be considered is the information that can be drawn from posts regarding time of emergence. If you create a post just a few days after your return from a trip, certain information can be mined for and can result in extra attention and pressure on certain areas. Information on how and when to find cottonmouths in southern Illinois is obviously low hanging fruit, but information on how and when to find zonata has the potential to be damaging. Or does it?
Would you support legislation that protects a species based on insufficient or no data? Would you support legislation that permits collection of a species without sufficient data to suggest that the collection is sustainable (this is the default position as it appears to me)?
Do you believe that posting stories and accounts of field trips is harmful to habitat and to populations because it promotes/advertises a pursuit that has the potential to become very popular (think fishing)? Do you believe that posting stories and accounts of field trips is beneficial to the future of field herping because we as a community promote an ethical standard for herping (= "they're going to do it anyway, we may as well be there to show them how to do it correctly")? If you believe the latter, as I do, then we ought to attempt to develop a comprehensive list of ethical standards and they should be published for any newcomer to read through.
Aside from this topic is the matter of herping etiquette- applicable mostly to conditions in which field herpers are forced to share herping locations and destinations. Ultimately the idea of sharing locations is the top end of my interest-if our community grows in popularity to one day match the ubiquitous hunting and fishing communities, we may see territorial issues arise due to the finite amount of accessible habitat related to many species.
Thanks for reading this long winded
summary of my thoughts and questions. Please comment and participate in a discussion. 
Now, at 28, I've found that for the most part I would rather photograph an animal in the wild than take it home with me. I do keep snakes, and have several that are wild caught, but the animals that I have that are wild caught represent a type that are not commonly bred in captivity, the coachwhips and racers. When it all comes down to it, I wouldn't say I have a problem with collecting for personal use. I put it on the same level as game hunting, you're taking an animal out of the wild for personal use. As long as it's done in moderation, I don't see a problem with it. I just don't personally do it much anymore unless there's something I have a particular reason to keep. The camera is a lot more fun. 
).
