It is currently December 12th, 2017, 12:07 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 231 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collectin
PostPosted: August 26th, 2014, 7:41 am 
User avatar

Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Posts: 4034
Location: San Francisco, California
Yeah, I was thinking as I wrote the post that I know of a few people that definately fit into that flexible criteria.

Another thought is that maybe herp involvement is so diverse that being tucked into one lable in the perception that it unites us against opposing politics and social forces, doesnt have the positive effect one would hope. ?

Foes love to grab lables as they keep things neat and tidy. If our conduct in herp keeping and in the field herping is mature and avoids transgression into coarse and exhorbitant behavior, maybe that is the most powerful thing we could do, all of us in all our herp genres and activities. Maybe thats a thing to unite under no matter how different our views and areas of pursuit are. We could all hold that as key.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collectin
PostPosted: August 26th, 2014, 4:05 pm 

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Posts: 8025
Location: Hesperia, California.
You can't change the meaning of a word, by discussing it... that's inane... at the VERY most, if very persuasive, you might change a few individual opinions... but a change in connotation is an organic ongoing shift, that if and when large enough, Websters will add it as a 'new' or 'common vernacular' or even as a newly evolved 'slang' definition for a given word.
Short of that... a word will mean what most people think it means... and only time and evolving opinions will change that. which is also why it's inane and incoherent to have ever have accused anyone of trying to change a word's meaning... it CAN'T be done, by anyone,,, and most people have the common sense to realize that... :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collectin
PostPosted: August 26th, 2014, 4:11 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Posts: 4034
Location: San Francisco, California
hmm i dunno helli.

i kind of changed the meaning of the term Big Poppa.

;)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collectin
PostPosted: August 26th, 2014, 5:47 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Posts: 2399
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
To add to what hellihooks and gbin brought up:

Definitions may not change in the strictest, literal sense. Connotations likely do--especially given certain contexts.

Gerry is correct in his definition of "hunt" in the dictionary sense. There are other "senses" in which the term is used (in the legal sense, as pertains to wildlife, for example) that differ slightly in their definitions.

You hear people say they're "bargain hunters." I think the connotation there is slightly different than if people say they're "deer hunters." Similarly, I think Gerry's etymology of the term "field herping" as an outgrowth of "herp hunting" may be missing a few steps which are critical given the connotation.

I've always considered it as: "field herping" is a more specific term of "herping" (which, as Gerry says, sometimes is used to describe enthusiasts who pursue their interests strictly with captive specimens), which I think is derived from "birding."

Put another way, if I tell someone I enjoy herping, once we get past the STD references and they ask "what is herping?" I usually reply, "it's like birding." I think the analogy is much more apt than to say "I hunt reptiles and amphibians," which in the minds of people who don't understand that I'm technically correct in saying so would interpret as "I'm looking for animals to kill." It's the same as the distinction in the general public's minds between "birder" and "bird hunter"--quite different connotations.

Granted, "birding" as a term could be considered a derivation of "bird hunting," and a necessary distinction to separate the traditional pursuit of birds for the dinner table or museum display, from the pastime of merely looking at the birds.

To sum up:

hunting --> bird hunting (specifically) --> birding;

hunting --> herp hunting (specifically) --> "not what we mean nowadays, let's borrow/adapt the 'birding' term, since its connotation is closer to how we intend the term to be understood" --> herping --> field herping.



That's the way I see it, anyway.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collectin
PostPosted: August 26th, 2014, 7:52 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Posts: 4034
Location: San Francisco, California
Goin out lookin.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collectin
PostPosted: August 26th, 2014, 7:57 pm 

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Posts: 8025
Location: Hesperia, California.
I know a bunch of Bakersfield boys who call good 'spots', good 'holes' (from fishing I'd guess) point is... you ain't gonna get them to change... and I SURE as hell ain't gonna start calling good herping spots 'holes'... :crazyeyes:

But hey,,, maybe herping spots SHOULD be called herping holes... hell.. lets take it to it's logical conclusion and change holes to Herping honey holes.(rolls off the tongue pretty nice with it's aliteration) I'd like a National consensus on this serious and important issue... and arrive at some phrase we will all employ... :thumb:

Stupid... right? No more so than this whole thread... :crazyeyes: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collectin
PostPosted: August 27th, 2014, 5:14 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm
Posts: 2293
For the sake of accuracy:

chris_mcmartin wrote:
Gerry is correct in his definition of "hunt" in the dictionary sense. There are other "senses" in which the term is used (in the legal sense, as pertains to wildlife, for example) that differ slightly in their definitions.

It's not that the legal definition of "hunt" differs from the dictionary definition, but that the legal definition varies somewhat from place to place in terms of how restricted it is (as one would expect of legal definitions, which aim to leave as little wiggle room as possible). As I pointed out in another thread, there are plenty of state wildlife agencies that legally define "hunting" just as the dictionary and I do:

gbin wrote:
From NY's Department of Environmental Conservation:
Quote:
To hunt - means to pursue, shoot, kill or capture (other than trap) wildlife and includes all lesser acts that disturb or worry wildlife whether or not they result in taking.

From VA's Department of Game and Inland Fisheries:
Quote:
Hunting and Trapping

The act of or the attempted act of taking, hunting, trapping, pursuing, chasing, shooting, snaring, or netting birds or animals, and assisting any person who is doing the same, regardless of whether birds or animals are actually taken.

From SC's Department of Natural Resources:
Quote:
Hunting is defined as trying to find, seek, obtain, pursue, or diligently search for game.


We're each entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts when clear, contrary evidence has already been presented concerning them.

chris_mcmartin wrote:
I've always considered it as: "field herping" is a more specific term of "herping" (which, as Gerry says, sometimes is used to describe enthusiasts who pursue their interests strictly with captive specimens), which I think is derived from "birding."

...

hunting --> bird hunting (specifically) --> birding;

hunting --> herp hunting (specifically) --> "not what we mean nowadays, let's borrow/adapt the 'birding' term, since its connotation is closer to how we intend the term to be understood" --> herping --> field herping.

As others have pointed out, it seems pretty clear that "birding" historically stems from "bird watching," which on its face suggests a hands-off pursuit, not "bird hunting," which does not. "Herping" therefore appears to have quite a different history from "birding." I don't know whether there are sources documenting these things so I guess until such sources are unearthed we'll have to consider them facts in dispute. At least some evidence can be derived from personal testimony, though.

With respect to "birding": For my part, I know a number of avid bird hunters, and I've hunted birds at least a bit myself; I've never heard anyone engaged in this pursuit refer to it as "birding." I also know a number of avid bird watchers, my wife among them; I've very often heard people engaged in this pursuit refer to it as "birding." Do any of us actually have any experience that runs counter to this?

With respect to "herping": I already laid out what I personally recall of the etymology of "herping" above, namely that it began as "herp hunting" (really "snake hunting" in my earliest hobby-related awareness, as folks tended to talk as if snakes were the only herps of interest) and was then simply shortened to "herping." That's per my memory of my experiences, anyway, including both personal/local, in publication and on the internet, but I would be the first to admit that my memory is by no means infallible. Among others who have been around our hobby for a long time, what are your recollections on this subject?

And does anyone have any actual source material to cite on any of these matters? If so, it would be most welcome.

Gerry


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collectin
PostPosted: August 27th, 2014, 6:02 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:20 am
Posts: 529
Gerry, i too have experienced "herping" as an outgrowth of snake hunting ( even tho lizards were my earliest pursuit!), & nowadaze 99%+ of it, is just to look & occasionally photograph (i dont even hike w/ my camera much anymore, just the i-fone :p ) but my pts are 2 fold;
1stly no-one but herpers & rangers give a rattsarse about the term or would know what it means other than don't try to kiss them. So Im not sure we need to worry what others think or connote from the term. & i predict it will never go mainstream as "birding" has done.
2) The hunting definitions you provided are actually legally deficient; bundled implicitly w/ the legal term "to hunt" is also to concurrently possess a means w/ which "to take": you cannot be a grouse or deer "hunter" w/o being in possession of a means to take; falcon/shotgun/bow/trap, if i as a C.O. find someone moving stealthly through the woods clucking at turkeys in full camo w/ a face net but they don't possess a means to take besides their leatherman; guess what? Despite what they might say they're doing; hunting turkeys, they actually are not! They're legally just citizens hiking in the woods dressed funny. The interesting legal wrinkle w/ herps is that take by hand is a normal "method of take" & thus having a hook or tongs in your possession is not required.
A trusty old expression comes to mind; the best way to get them into jail/court is just keep em talking.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collectin
PostPosted: August 27th, 2014, 7:46 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm
Posts: 2293
regalringneck wrote:
... The hunting definitions you provided are actually legally deficient; bundled implicitly w/ the legal term "to hunt" is also to concurrently possess a means w/ which "to take"...

John, I can readily believe that's the case for some states, but the evidence backs up my assertion that it's not the case for others. State wildlife agencies differ on whether take is essential to their legal definition of hunting. The evidence I presented (with links, of course, for those who care to check) shows some states for which their legal definition of hunting clearly does NOT require take. I've no doubt there are more such states, too, as I easily turned those up in a very brief Google search. One might personally agree or disagree that these states should be using the definitions they do (for my part I think all states should, but that's a discussion for another thread), but they are in fact using them. Anyone who wants to argue about that should really take it up not with me but with the state wildlife agencies in question, doubtless in court. (I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be willing to bet that any such challengers would lose as I don't believe the US Constitution or that of any state addresses how "hunting" must be defined, leaving it to law/rulemakers to define it as suits them. And as has been pointed out, the dictionary at least backs them up. ;) )

Gerry


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collectin
PostPosted: August 27th, 2014, 12:34 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Posts: 2399
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
gbin wrote:
For the sake of accuracy:

. . .

We're each entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts when clear, contrary evidence has already been presented concerning them.


Except, as you note, the legal definition varies from state to state, so there is no "universally accepted" definition. And, since you are cross-referencing my Texas-specific thread: Texas doesn't include "pursue" in their definition of "hunt," so what I posted is still correct (that the legal definition of "hunt" doesn't always coincide with the literal/dictionary definition).

What you are insinuating is that my reply was factually incorrect, when it isn't. I clearly said there are other "senses" in which the term is used. My only correction would be to say "in some states' legal senses" rather than the blanket "in the legal sense"...I think we're nitpicking now, though.


Quote:
With respect to "birding": For my part, I know a number of avid bird hunters, and I've hunted birds at least a bit myself; I've never heard anyone engaged in this pursuit refer to it as "birding."


Do you refer to "birding" as "bird hunting?" If not, why not?


Quote:
I also know a number of avid bird watchers, my wife among them; I've very often heard people engaged in this pursuit refer to it as "birding." Do any of us actually have any experience that runs counter to this?


You're right. I'll amend my "progression" of the term to:

hunting ---> bird hunting (in the strictest sense of the term "hunt") --> ("not the connotation we're trying to make") --> bird watching (without "hunting" for them?) --> birding


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collectin
PostPosted: August 27th, 2014, 1:33 pm 

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Posts: 8025
Location: Hesperia, California.
an argument over semantics, about semantics... only one more step to make this 'classic'.... please define 'semantics' :beer: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collectin
PostPosted: August 27th, 2014, 1:47 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Posts: 2399
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
hellihooks wrote:
an argument over semantics, about semantics... only one more step to make this 'classic'.... please define 'semantics' :beer: :lol: :lol:



In the spirit of rhyming, I was hoping you would say we're being pedantic!


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collectin
PostPosted: August 27th, 2014, 2:01 pm 

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Posts: 8025
Location: Hesperia, California.
Frantically semantically pedantic? i like it...lol
back in the day when a host of members would swap song parodies about certain members. like "we're so sorry, Uncle Gerry"(actually posted that one once) i wrote this one about a certain fellow... see if you can guess who it is... :crazyeyes:

‘Advance Hindsight’

When you see a behind coming
And don’t get out the way.
A behind will do, what a behind does
If he has his say.

Using Hindsight in Advance
Might just save the day.
Stop the problem before it begins
Or everyone will pay.

I no longer feel this way about the guy... but sure miss the group of writers in our little private group...good times.... :lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collectin
PostPosted: August 27th, 2014, 3:08 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm
Posts: 2293
chris_mcmartin wrote:
What you are insinuating is that my reply was factually incorrect, when it isn't. I clearly said there are other "senses" in which the term is used. My only correction would be to say "in some states' legal senses" rather than the blanket "in the legal sense"...I think we're nitpicking now, though.

I see that as a rather meaningful correction, not nitpicking. It would only have taken one contrary example to demonstrate that your blanket statement was factually incorrect, and at the time you made it you were actually already aware of at least a few. What's more, until somebody looks up the definitions of "hunting" being used at every state wildlife agency, we don't even know just how incorrect your blanket statement was; for all we know, definitions such as I turned up in my brief Google search could be in the majority.

chris_mcmartin wrote:
hunting ---> bird hunting (in the strictest sense of the term "hunt") --> ("not the connotation we're trying to make") --> bird watching (without "hunting" for them?) --> birding

I don't believe this is correct, either, as I don't believe bird watching arose from bird hunting. I have actually read something on this subject, but so long ago that I couldn't recall the source(s). Consider this another area where the facts are in dispute, if you like. In any event, what I recall reading is that bird watching arose from bird artifact (feathers, nests, eggs) collecting, which at a time in the past was quite popular among well-to-do folks (especially in England); they switched to doing no more than watching when laws compelled them to do so. These same folks were often (game) bird hunters, as well, but these forms of recreation were separate, with the one being done to build a collection, and the other being considered a sport.

This is all an aside, of course. The topic of this thread is: Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collecting?

Gerry


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collectin
PostPosted: August 27th, 2014, 5:12 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Posts: 2399
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
gbin wrote:
I don't believe this is correct, either, as I don't believe bird watching arose from bird hunting.


Bird watching IS bird hunting. Hunting is pursuing. The outcome of said hunt doesn't matter (watching or shooting), right?

;)


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collectin
PostPosted: August 27th, 2014, 5:50 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm
Posts: 2293
chris_mcmartin wrote:
Bird watching IS bird hunting. Hunting is pursuing. The outcome of said hunt doesn't matter (watching or shooting), right?

;)

From a management standpoint I largely agree, as you know, and I have advocated that both should require licensing (as a way to obtain more support for this management from the people who use this public resource).

I have never advocated ignoring the historical and current usage of terms, though, even where that usage goes against what would make the most sense. My point was that bird watching and bird hunting have always been (and still are) different activities, one didn't arise from the other as you portrayed it. I think it would be just as foolish to try to force these two terms into synonymy as it would be to try to redefine "field herping" to exclude animal collecting. Language will go where it will, when it will.

Speaking of "field herping" and animal collecting, have you any interest in the actual topic of this thread or are you just here to try to stir up arguments? If it's the latter, would you please stop?

Gerry


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collectin
PostPosted: August 27th, 2014, 6:00 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:20 am
Posts: 529
... Gerry, Dr. B., you may have fathered, but you dont OWN this thread nor topic, its the i-net my friend ... we've all weighed in on the g-damned original ? ... kay : } its a fairly uninteresting ? but we indulged it & most of us have moved on in the discussion, some more randomly than others .... give it a rest, you are not under attack nor debate ... the clock went red ... stop ... please : }
Oh & just cuz agency website & ed folks print something (see martins Tx FAQ elsewhere) doesnt make it a point of law, nor necessarily admissable in a court of record. In fact if you look at the hard copy, they will usually caveat that these are not to be used for legal advice. You should know better or at least be as smart as not to mix this stuff up w/ me :} .... cuz thats one you cant win ... xxoo


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collectin
PostPosted: August 27th, 2014, 6:28 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm
Posts: 2293
I feel responsible for this thread because I initiated it, John, so I'm attempting to keep it more or less on topic. Sorry if that bothers you.

I don't think Chris was attacking me, but I do think he was trying to draw me into debate - after I'd repeatedly asked people to try not to behave that way in this thread, and said that I in particular am not interested in indulging such behavior. You don't see his posts the same way? That's fine with me.

I understand what you're saying about not necessarily trusting a point of law to be accurately represented on a wildlife agency's website - although I think in some cases these things are verbatim on an agency's website and in the agency's hard copy. (Sometimes you'll even see on a website what looks like nothing more or less than a scan of a pamphlet made to be handed out to people when they buy their hunting licenses.) But while acknowledging that sometimes it might possibly lead me down a wrong path, I will nonetheless always go where the available evidence appears to lead me. And the available evidence indicates that different state wildlife agencies use different definitions of "hunting," that a number of these agencies have given those definitions some real effort, and that in at least some states they've made a point of emphasizing that hunting doesn't require take. It doesn't mean that I think less of you, your knowledge, experiences or abilities that I choose - as always - to go with the available evidence. I don't, so please don't mistakenly think otherwise. And as to what would be admissible in/decided by the courts, as I said, I'll leave that to the courts.

Finally, I'm not trying to win anything here. I'm trying to express my views and have them understood, I'm trying to encourage others to express their views and have them understood, and I'm trying to keep erroneous factual information from being presented uncontested in favor of factual information that has evidence supporting it or is at least acknowledged to be disputed. That's it. Again, sorry if that bothers you. :?

Gerry


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collectin
PostPosted: August 28th, 2014, 4:34 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm
Posts: 2293
Message deleted immediately after being posted because put in the wrong place. -Gerry


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collectin
PostPosted: August 28th, 2014, 8:28 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Posts: 2399
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
gbin wrote:
I have never advocated ignoring the historical and current usage of terms, though, even where that usage goes against what would make the most sense. My point was that bird watching and bird hunting have always been (and still are) different activities, one didn't arise from the other as you portrayed it. I think it would be just as foolish to try to force these two terms into synonymy as it would be to try to redefine "field herping" to exclude animal collecting. Language will go where it will, when it will.



But for purposes of this thread, do you subscribe to the literal definition of "hunt" (to include "pursue")? Because that's how I understood your usage in other discussions. You appear to be trying to distinguish activities based on a difference in the definition where you do not acknowledge such distinction in other contexts.

My point is, terms mean different things in different contexts/different populations--whether it's "field herping" or "hunting"). If we're going to use the terms in different "senses" based on discussion, it causes confusion unless we clarify the intended meaning up front.

Literally, "bird watching" is "bird hunting." Contextually, the two are not necessarily the same. Literally, "field herping" is "herp hunting." Contextually, the two are not necessarily the same.

Your information regarding bird hunting and bird (artifact) collecting is interesting. Does your research go back further than Victorian England? As you have depicted it (and I'm not saying it's incorrect!), hunting to just see birds (what most of us would call "bird watching") was not a natural progression of a pastime (see other discussions on "evolution of a herper" or something similar), but a legally-imposed one in response to collection (perceived trend towards over-collection, perhaps). Common usage of the terminology changed somewhat forcefully because of a legal basis--not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that, as it attempts to clarify intent. Going back further, I wonder if the "collecting artifacts" was a natural outgrowth of collecting such things as eggs and feathers for food and clothing; and going further back, were those artifacts byproducts of killing a bird itself for food? I'm asking not to be argumentative; I'm more "thinking out loud" because you've genuinely piqued my interest.

What I do need to emphasize is that, after further reflection, my "progression" model of the etymology is incomplete, in that it gives the appearance of linearity. In other words, it does not account for the continued existence of other forms of the general activities in question but appears to depict them fading away in favor of new forms of the activities and their attendant new terminology or new context of the terminology). There really should be branches and so on, with individual enthusiasts falling along one of those branches (or maybe multiple branches, depending on what aspects of the pastime they're enjoying)--but it's all "hunting" in the literal sense. I'd try to diagram this out but I think the ASCII would be very messy. 8-)

As y'all previously pointed out, even "herping" by itself connotes different mental imagery. Personally, I've always viewed it as implying "field herping." When I first heard of Dav Kauffman's "Herpers" movies, I was excited--then dismayed when it was mostly about herpetoculture (I also enjoy learning about and participating in that aspect of the pastime, but not to the same extent).

I carried a certain, contextual expectation of what "herpers" were and had it challenged. It has led me to think of "herpers" as a more blanket, inclusive term--not that I'm 100% "happy about it"--especially in the spirit of the herp-enthusiast community consolidating, rather than fragmenting, itself.

The title of your thread isn't "DOES the term 'field herping' exclude animal collecting," but rather "SHOULD it." We're all bringing our personal perspectives into the discussion on whether it does to us (or our slice of the community). There is room for disagreement, as evidenced so far. There are literal interpretations of the term as well as contextual ones.

However, to answer "should," it seems there would have to be some authoritative proclamation from an individual (not likely) or an organization (also not likely, but a little less so, because policies/bylaws/rules, dues, activity sanctioning, etc. could be tied into such a proclamation). It may shape external behavior but wouldn't necessarily change what's in people's hearts when they hear the phrase.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collectin
PostPosted: August 28th, 2014, 10:43 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm
Posts: 2293
chris_mcmartin wrote:
... for purposes of this thread, do you subscribe to the literal definition of "hunt" (to include "pursue")?...

Already asked and answered. This thread was not initiated as a place for me to endlessly expound on my views, nor for you or anyone else to endlessly question or misrepresent my views.

chris_mcmartin wrote:
Literally, "bird watching" is "bird hunting." Contextually, the two are not necessarily the same. Literally, "field herping" is "herp hunting." Contextually, the two are not necessarily the same.

I don't believe your parallel sentence structure, cute as it is, makes up for the fact that these pairs of terms arose and are used in very different ways. Bird watching and bird hunting were historically and are currently different activities. Field herping and herp hunting were historically the same activity, and folks' responses to this thread (and posts elsewhere) suggest they still are, too.

chris_mcmartin wrote:
Your information regarding bird hunting and bird (artifact) collecting is interesting. Does your research go back further than Victorian England?...

I never said that I researched the subject. I don't know how far back what I recall reading goes.

chris_mcmartin wrote:
... Going back further, I wonder if the "collecting artifacts" was a natural outgrowth of collecting such things as eggs and feathers for food and clothing; and going further back, were those artifacts byproducts of killing a bird itself for food?..

I don't believe so. Such collections (which weren't limited to just bird artifacts) were a well-heeled gentleman's leisurely pursuit, just as was sport hunting. Not the same thing as hunting out of need for food or clothing. In many (most?) cases the artifacts were purchased for a collection, too, not obtained directly by the collector.

chris_mcmartin wrote:
I'm asking not to be argumentative; I'm more "thinking out loud" because you've genuinely piqued my interest.

I'm still trying to treat at least some of your questions as if this were the case, but you should realize that your endless requests for explanations and especially your bogus "active listening" have long since exhausted my ability to believe it with respect to your questions about my views.

chris_mcmartin wrote:
The title of your thread isn't "DOES the term 'field herping' exclude animal collecting," but rather "SHOULD it."...

This is what I would call nitpicking, and so far as I can tell for nothing but the sake of argument. I made it clear in my opening post and subsequently that what I was asking for was different individuals' perspectives on the question, hopefully as many different individuals as possible and regardless of how different their perspectives might be, not any authoritative proclamation.

Gerry


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collectin
PostPosted: August 28th, 2014, 6:08 pm 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:46 pm
Posts: 287
I think most of the time when the regulations use terms like "persue" it's so a hunter can't claim he's not hunting when he's caught stalking around with hunting gear but hasn't made a kill yet. To a lesser extent such terms may be included so as to prevent harrassment of wildlife. When such terms are included in reptile regulations I think it's mainly for the same reason as with game hunters. Reptiles to have the distinction of being collectible by hand so it is sometimes more difficult for wildlife officers to distinguish between collecters and observers. They have to be able to make a clear determination and I think the line is usually drawn with picking up a herp. If you pick up a herp you are hunting, even if you're only picking it up to photograph it. Officers just need to be able to make a clear determination so they have to draw the line somewhere.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collectin
PostPosted: August 29th, 2014, 4:22 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm
Posts: 2293
Aaron wrote:
... I think the line is usually drawn with picking up a herp. If you pick up a herp you are hunting...

I think the folks who write those regulatory definitions are smart enough - and they clearly put enough effort in - that if having the animal in hand is what they meant, then having the animal in hand is what they would say. I recommend taking them at their word, which in the state wildlife agency examples I mentioned above clearly focuses on pursuit.

But that's really a discussion for another thread (and has actually popped up in several threads).

Gerry


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collectin
PostPosted: August 29th, 2014, 8:06 am 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:46 pm
Posts: 287
My experience with wardens has been limited to mainly west TX, and a little bit in AZ and CA. I know of a few cases in west TX where tickets were issued, and many cases where people were stopped and questioned by a warden but the stop did not result in a ticket. A warden in west TX generally will not issue a ticket unless he actually sees someone pick up a herp, or the person actually states that they are hunting herps.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collectin
PostPosted: September 2nd, 2014, 3:36 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Posts: 2399
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Gerry--

My mistake. In my discussion of the evolution of hunting and collecting was confusing the activities (which is what I meant) with the terminology (which is what the thread is about).


Aaron--

Texas doesn't recognize "pursue" in its definition of hunting, so you are correct--regardless of those "Yankee states" including pursuit--or "worrying" the animal as one of the states does. 8-)


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collectin
PostPosted: September 2nd, 2014, 4:54 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm
Posts: 2293
chris_mcmartin wrote:
Texas doesn't recognize "pursue" in its definition of hunting, so you are correct--regardless of those "Yankee states" including pursuit--or "worrying" the animal as one of the states does. 8-)

Of the examples I found in a quick Google search, NY is obviously a "Yankee state," I suppose some might argue that VA is as well (though others would certainly argue otherwise, and for good reason), but I can't imagine anyone reasonably trying to argue that SC is such a state. Not that labeling someplace a "Yankee state," even where correct, has any bearing whatsoever on how its wildlife laws/regulations should be viewed... :roll: And as I pointed out, no one here has looked at all of the definitions of "hunting" in use at all of the state wildlife agencies, so we don't know how common definitions focusing on pursuit rather than harvest are, nor how they're distributed across the country.

People should really look into their own states' regulations themselves, not trust to what this or that person says about the regulations on the internet, and do their best to live up to them as they are written, not as people might wish they were written.

Gerry


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collectin
PostPosted: September 2nd, 2014, 9:38 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Posts: 2399
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
gbin wrote:
but I can't imagine anyone reasonably trying to argue that SC is such a state.


The 8-) was meant to indicate humor... but I guess if you want to argue over a light-hearted comment, we can do so. I'll readily agree that VA and SC aren't Yankee states.

That being said, I still consider Cabela's to be a Yankee store (despite its encroachment into the southern tier), with Bass Pro Shops being the Southern equivalent. 8-) :lol:


I think we can all agree (or should agree) with this, though:

Quote:
People should really look into their own states' regulations themselves, not trust to what this or that person says about the regulations on the internet,


Even this or that person within the applicable wildlife department, as seen on TPWD's "Herp Stamp FAQ" which was written by a single person and his particular "take" (pardon the pun) on the regulations (and which don't match the actual TPW Code).

Quote:
do their best to live up to them as they are written, not as people might wish they were written.


If how one wishes the regs were written is more conservative, I say feel free to live up to your personal higher standard (i.e. "I don't think people should handle herps, therefore I don't, even if the law allows"). If, however, one doesn't think they need a stamp to pose an animal on the road for a photo, but the law says otherwise, be prepared to get a ticket.


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collectin
PostPosted: September 2nd, 2014, 11:18 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm
Posts: 2293
chris_mcmartin wrote:
... I guess if you want to argue over a light-hearted comment...

"Lighthearted" isn't the same thing as "incorrect" - and something that's incorrect isn't made correct by the addition of an emoticon suggesting lightheartedness.

Pointing out that something is incorrect isn't the same thing as arguing over it, either.

chris_mcmartin wrote:
I think we can all agree (or should agree) with this, though:

Quote:
People should really look into their own states' regulations themselves, not trust to what this or that person says about the regulations on the internet,

Even this or that person within the applicable wildlife department, as seen on TPWD's "Herp Stamp FAQ" which was written by a single person and his particular "take" (pardon the pun) on the regulations (and which don't match the actual TPW Code).

Without commenting one way or another on the example offered, I'll certainly agree that people who speak with wildlife department personnel would be wise to follow up their questions about what is and isn't allowed with something along the lines of "Can you show me exactly where in the code I can find the information you just provided me?" - and to remain at least somewhat skeptical toward the information until they've looked at the code themselves.

Gerry


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collectin
PostPosted: September 4th, 2014, 11:11 pm 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:46 pm
Posts: 287
I agree that SC isn't a "Yankee" state but I think Chris' point was that it's a "Yankee" type thing to do.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collectin
PostPosted: September 5th, 2014, 3:18 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Posts: 2399
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Aaron wrote:
I agree that SC isn't a "Yankee" state but I think Chris' point was that it's a "Yankee" type thing to do.


I guess so, to a certain extent--but all in good humor. :D


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collectin
PostPosted: September 5th, 2014, 4:42 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm
Posts: 2293
Aaron wrote:
I agree that SC isn't a "Yankee" state but I think Chris' point was that it's a "Yankee" type thing to do.

Yeah, I got that. I lived in various parts of the South for many years, and this isn't by any means the first time I've seen someone attempt to dismiss something they don't like by derogatorily labeling it "Yankee." (It's probably the first time I've seen anyone do it about something found in the Deep South, though, and the South doesn't get much deeper than SC. :roll: ) Sometimes they say it with real venom and sometimes they try to pass it off as some kind of joke, but in either case it's clear this is what they're doing.

For my part, I've never found empty-headed insults to be very funny or persuasive. To each his/her own, I guess.

Gerry


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 231 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: