That seems to be the opinion of at least a few frequent posters here, who appear to be using pretty much any thread in which they can find a way to promote the idea to wage an undeclared campaign on its behalf. A couple of people have even been acting as if the meaning of the term has already changed, i.e. it's a done deal, so live with it. When called on this, they then argue that there's some kind of groundswell of support for the idea ("Hey, it's not that I'm necessarily even for the change myself, but so many people have obviously already adopted it! What can anyone do but accept it?") - though it's obvious they're the ones bringing it up again, and again, and again... Rather than any kind of genuine popular movement, it looks to me as if it’s instead simply an idea that one particular faction of field herpers, namely those who disapprove of animal collecting in general enough that they don't want what they do to be associated with it, has grown inordinately fond of and is eager to push hard for no matter what anyone else might think.

Because I don't like hijacking others' threads to discuss/debate this kind of thing, and because I believe we'll get a more open, honest look at the situation by dedicating a thread to it, I thought I'd ask everyone here...

Should the term “field herping” exclude animal collecting?

I say definitely not. What makes sense to me:

Field herping = having to do with herps in the field

Herpetoculture = having to do with herps in captivity

Herping = having do with herps wherever (so combining field herping and herpetoculture)

Besides being nonsensical, pretending that this or that person isn’t a field herper because of what s/he chooses to collect at the end of a given hunt (be it memories, photographs, notes on personal observations or other data, or animals) seems incredibly divisive to me, when all of us should be looking for ways to unite rather than further divide our community.

That’s what I think, anyway. What say you?...

(Mind you, I haven’t opened this thread to discuss/debate the pros and cons of animal collecting. If folks feel it’s time for yet another lengthy exchange on that subject, I’d rather you started your own thread for it. I’d like for this thread to focus simply on whether “field herping” should exclude animal collecting.)

Thanks!

Gerry

As I said in the hijack.

Herping in the field is field herping.

Pursuing herps, in the field.

What you do with them has no bearing on what the activity is.


A commercial collector goes field herping to collect animals to sell.

I go field herping to photograph animals and grow my life list, while occasionally collecting a specimen for myself, a nature center or museum.

Some folks go field herping and just take pics and try not to disturb the animals at all.


All three are field herping.

Dan

Sometimes while I'm out field herping, I stop to defecate. It has as much to do with fieldherping as collecting does.

Can you explain your colorful argument, Justin? I'm afraid I'm not getting you at all.

Gerry

What a neat thread that will definitely bare some interesting fruit.

There are many cases in which words are confused by the lexicographer's definition versus the logicians definition, but only one is logically defensible.

Field herping should be just that: seeking out herps in the field. "In the field" needn't refer to an actual field, or a forest, or off trail, or off road- I interpret the word "field" to refer to a distinction between "lab/institution" and everything else. To a psychiatrist the "field" might be an office or a school where they conduct testing or sampling, to a chemist the field could be anything outside of the lab. I've been field herping in the conrete jungle, and to me it never ceased to be field herping because there wasn't soil under my feet. No?

Herpetoculture is a little bit more dicey and vague imo. I've always thought of it as limited to herp shows, heat tape and captive breeding…but I think there may come a day when herpetoculture refers to anything cultural that surrounds an affinity for herps.

I think some folks like Justin just have a unique philosophy on collection, and they've taken a stance against it. I appreciate that and I appreciate having them in the community, but they are definitely the minority and I hardly think that their position will withstand the scrutiny of this thread.

Chad, I just think that collecting is not truly a part of fieldherping. I'm not trying to make an argument against collecting, it's just not what I consider to be a part of fieldherping. I'm fully aware that others do consider to be a part of the hobby, or their intentions when setting out. For me to collect it has to be legal, and wow factor has to be involved, or conservation.

Gerry, I had a similar idea this morning and asked the moderator if we could open up a poll on the site. Here is what I requested for the poll:

The term field herping means:

A. pursuing herps in the field to photograph, observe, or collect data only.
B. pursuing herps in the field to photograph, observe, collect data, or responsibly collect.
C. pursuing herps in the field for any purpose.
D. just shut up and post some pics of herps in the field


To add my input to your question, I say that field herping means pursuing herps in the field, regardless of the intended or unintended outcome of the pursuit. A simple definition that does not exclude any "use" of herps and also is open enough for future reasons that have not yet emerged to pursue herps in the field.

I think that this is what I was trying to say. It can be different for everyone. There doesn't have to be any hubris about it.

There has been some interesting fruit shown.


Aaaa yeah, great analogy. No reeally, that was great.

-Dell

I don't mean to pick on you, Justin; I just want to understand what you're trying to say...

Do you mean that you think everyone should just define and use the term "field herping" to suit themselves? (I don't think that's what JDM was saying at all.) If so, how would anyone know what anyone else was talking about? And where does hubris factor into any of this?

Gerry

There is iron in JDM's words for all to see. These words are not cheapened by the talk of the double tongues and they remain the simple truth about field herping. No amount of personal politics can challenge the iron of that simple sentence.

I say field herping should neither include or exclude collection.

Dell - there are posters who hijack threads and posters who crap on them.

Anyone here remember the old "Field Collecting Forum" on KS of the 90's? Well, it was pretty much a given there that collecting had a place in the "field herping" world (just look at the old title)...whether one agrees with it or not, to my mind one has to at least acknowledge that it is a facet of what we do.

I personally have no issue with it, provided it is done legally, ethically and responsibly.

That being said, I look at it like religion....believe what you want and there's no problem....try to push your beliefs on to me, and therein lies the problem.

Happy her...coll...whatever.

-Kris

IMO, the umbrella term "herping" is large enough to include field herping, road cruising, collecting, photography, and whatever other means are utilized in or outcomes derived from the search for reptiles and amphibians. I differentiate herping from herpetoculture on the basis that herping primarily involves searching for reptiles and amphibians while herpetoculture primarily involves keeping and breeding them. Collection is a bridge between the two domains and a component of each (e.g., collecting an animal while herping for use in a breeding project).

Brandon

Gerry,

It should NOT exclude collecting. I pretty much echo your sentiments (and Dan's, and Chad's, and...). Any activity which involved the pursuit of reptiles and amphibians "in the field" is Field Herping. There's no other way about it, as far as I can see. There is so much passion behind what we do that people's feelings tend to get in the way of their objectivity (not that it's necessarily a bad thing, though). It really doesn't matter if you're photographing, collecting, plinking turtles, simply observing, or gassing Crotalus out of a tortoise burrow. If it involves the pursuit of herps in the field, it's field herping. Now, obviously the ethics of each of these end results of field herping are highly debatable... but we're not going there in this thread, are we?!

-Cole

IIRC, the reason this forum was called FieldHerpForum (and its predecessors were the fieldherping.com and the field herping and collecting forum) was solely to distinguish field herping from delicup herping.

Maybe those who feel that "fieldherpers" can't collect might want to start a new sport of "herpwatching".

Oh...and BTW,...why do we have to define it?
Anyone who thinks they have the right to define what the term can and can't mean to others needs to spend some time working on their exaggerated feelings of self-importance.

So collecting can be considered part of both field herping (or are you saying "yes" to the question I asked in this thread, and arguing that "herping" should be used instead of "field herping" if something like collecting is involved? I wasn't clear on that) and herpetoculture? Interesting idea, Brandon!

I wanted to comment in my last post on a couple of other things brought up earlier, but I was working on my smartphone at the time and I just find it too hard to do much there. But Brandon's post above is a nice bridge to one of those items, too.


I think that would be taking the term in a very different direction than where its roots lie, Chad. I'm pretty sure that the "culture" part of "herpetoculture" doesn't refer to the human culture surrounding the herps, but rather the rearing of herps, as in bacterial culture, aquaculture, silviculture, etc.


I think your poll could have worked very well for the discussion I was after, JDM, except that I'd have left out D. because I think too many people will avoid giving a straight answer when provided with that option. I don't know if it's laziness, unwillingness to commit or what.

And since he posted it while I was still writing this...


Indeed not, Cole!

Gerry

We have a winner.

I would include legal collecting in the term, but not hunting. To me, field herping is science-based, and the pursuit of knowledge. Hunting them is the opposite.

In terms of an actual application of this term, I could see benefits to separating them. For example, if I am coming to herp Arizona, but not collect, it would be nice to be able to purchase a less expensive license. However, if I am going to collect, then by all means, ding me the full amount.

Collecting is part of both herping and herpetoculture. I tend to think of collection as an end in herping and a means in herpetoculture.

Brandon

Gerry,
I'm sure glad none of this has anything to do with me, as I never said any of those things. You may be able to go back and pick and choose certain segments of what I have said, and try to use them out of context... but I'm not going to play that game.
ALL I HAVE EVER SAID, (besides my personal perspective, which I reserve the right to keep) is given that there is less collecting nowadays, and more and more pure observation, data and photo collecting, it is possible that the meaning of the word 'field herping' is evolving.
It is a good thing, when discussing controversial subjects, to define certain key words, so that everyone's on the same page, but in all fairness, you should also post YOUR query on the Main NAFHA forum, for a less skewed sampling.... But if you do, kindly stop misrepresenting me...
jim

agreed

Even though I collect I like the idea of having a term to describe not collecting. I have no problem with anti-collecting herpers wanting a word they can call their own and I think "field herping" makes sense. I say let 'em have it if that's what makes 'em happy.

A couple things though, many who collect only collect on rare occasions, such as when they find that one example that is just too good to pass up. I would still call that field herping as long as the main reason they are in the field is to observe. Some will only collect certain species and even though they are hoping to find something worthy in their mind of collecting they are still doing all the things a typical non-collecter would do, for example photo documenting, doing their life list, taking field notes, etc. There is no rule that says you can't be doing both field herping and field collecting at the same time. I think the term is always going to be pretty loosely applied due to this overlap.

I posted it here, Jim, because this was the first (and at one time only, I seem to recall) and is still the main forum at this website. (I reckon that's why it's simply called "The Forum" here at fieldherpforum.com. ) But if you feel that folks at the NAFHA forum(s) won't find it here, by all means feel free to bring it to their attention.

Do you think the term "field herping" should exclude animal collecting? If you answered the basic question of this thread, I missed it somehow. (Mind you, I'm not asking what you think might possibly be happening, but rather what you personally think should be the case.)


Uhmmm, ok guys, but I really don't know what you mean. Are you suggesting, as Justin seemed to me to be (I'm still hoping for clarification from him on this), that you think everyone should just define and use the term "field herping" to suit themselves? If so, how would anyone know what anyone else was talking about?


In what way(s) does that make sense to you, Aaron? Your statement of position was pretty clear, but I'd also like to hear the reasoning behind it, if you don't mind.

Gerry

Gerry,

Maybe we should think of FieldHerping like we should Penis'. They're fine when you keep it to yourself, but when you get it out and wave around it pisses everybody off. Then some idiots try to shove them down people's throats, and that's never a good thing. Is this what Chad meant?

Seems to me that you're just trying to determine a definition for the word "herping".

"Field" should mean in it's environment, or in nature.

I don't know who coined the term herping, but to me, it's just the act of participating in Herpetology. Define that word and you've defined Field Herping.

BTW, why include or exclude collecting? I think that's a separate activity that can take place or not take place while in the field with herptiles.

Seems to me that "Field Herping" is self defining and very basic. "Herping" (working with herps) + "Field" (outside) = "working with herps outside".

If individuals or groups want to use it in some more narrow sense, that's up to them. However, their choice to use it as short hand for something more specific does NOT change the root meaning or general use of the term. The more logical way to modify what is meant (if you are so inclined) by "field herping" is to actually use a modifier such as the following:

-Observational Field Herping (or just "herp watching") -None disruptive viewing and photographing with no contact.
-Field Herp Surveying (or just "herp surveying") -Searching for herps in order to record data and photo vouchers.
-Field Herp Photography -Searching for herps in order to photograph them, including posing.
-Field Herp Collecting -Searching for herps in order to collect them.

Attempts to force a change of a term's meaning will just lead to confusion. Consider the term "dancing" for illustration sake (I know nothing about dancing, but bare with me). "Dancing" is defined as "moving rhythmically to music". However, there are many types of dancing. If someone was to invite you to go dancing, you may or may not be able to accurately determine what type of dancing they mean. If you know them or have danced with them before, you could probably safely assume what they mean. If you've just met them, it would be wise to clarify the type of dance. Otherwise, you might be the only one wearing parachute pants at the square dance.

Ok, Justin, this time you made me laugh out loud. But I still don't know what you mean in the context of our discussion. Now I'm wondering, are you suggesting that the term "field herping" (or "fieldherping," if you prefer) shouldn't be used at all? Sorry, but your penis reference was (again) totally lost on me. My scientific specialty is reproductive biology, so I've actually had cause to use that word quite a bit in my life; I've always used the word in the same way, and so far as I've been aware so has everyone who used it in my presence.


Well, in "field herping," "field" is clearly a qualifier of "herping" (just as in "field biologist," another widely used term). People do like to qualify the term "herping" because different aspects of it can attract different people and in many ways involve different specific activities. If someone invited to take you field herping and instead took you to a herp show (or vice versa), for example, I think you'd be surprised and possibly disappointed. I agree(!) that we should take the view that we're all one big, happy family, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't recognize some basic differences between us. I just don't believe that catering to a faction's desire to change the meaning of a basic term to include them and exclude others that it's heretofore also included is a meaningful or productive way to recognize such differences. People have indeed essentially said in some threads here "I'm a field herper, but you're not; you're just a collector!" And people are indeed currently posting to various threads here to try to represent the term "field herping" as excluding collecting. That's what prompted this thread.

Gerry

Back in the early days of the term (the mid-1970s), "herping" meant we were going out to look for herps-and we made no real distinction between collecting and observing/photographing. We referred to ourselves as "Herpers" , and "herping" was just what we did. If we found a nice specimen and had room in our collection (and EVERYONE had a collection, I can assure you ) for it, we kept it. But we by no means kept everything, or even most specimens.

I very rarely keep anything now, and Herpers and herping may have evolved, but the term is still descriptive. I would emphatically vote "no" to the query in this thread's title. If in doubt, we should try to be inclusive, not divisive, eh?

Yup, and "herping" was just a shortened form of "herp hunting" (with a given hunt ending in any of various ways, including nothing more than looking at the specimens found without disturbing them in the slightest), which I'm old enough to have grown up using. (Ok, I actually still say it. I've never been able to bring myself to say to my wife, "Honey, I'm going out herping/field herping for a few hours..." Both just sound too much like an unpleasant disease to my ear, though I don't at all mind seeing them in print.) I'm not exactly sure when "field herping" became more common.

Gerry

Yay! Another Canadian.
Or at least a sympathizer.

When I first heard the term “herping” I assumed it was analogous to “birding”, which is to say “The act of looking for and finding wild herps”. I was surprised to discover that some people used “herping” to include captive care & breeding. Then when I first heard the term “field herping” I assumed it was a clarification of “herping” that explicitly did not include captive care & breeding.

It’s no doubt impossible to define these terms in a way that will match everyone’s uses. I personally think that “field herping” makes sense as “the act of looking for and finding wild herps”, regardless of what happens after you find them.

John

We Minnesotans say our share of "ehs,", also - though I've run into more than one person from elsewhere in the U.S. that thought Minnesota to be part of Canada. But I'm definitely a sympathizer, too.


Yeah, John, I think you're probably right about why "field herping" replaced "herping." Maybe it happened when the herp shows really took off?

Gerry

I agree with the above.

When field herping occurs, collecting sometimes occurs as well, whatever the reason for collecting might be. The question of "what is ethical or responsible collecting is another question?" The question of "What is ethical or responsible field herping is also a seperate matter.

What I'm saying is that everyone is going to have a different concept of just what "field herping" means to them...this is likely at least a partial result of their upbringing, when/why they were "turned on to it", what part of the world they grew up in, etc....consequently, each person is going to have different beliefs re: it. Whether or not people SHOULD define the term on a personal basis, that's exactly what people do...

My point with the whole "religion" bit was to illustrate that each person's definition works for them...and that's fine...where issues arise is when one tries to coerce another into believing as they do or adopting their ideology.....

With reference to your last question, the answer is rather simple...When someone says "I went field herping", we (again as a result of our belief systems, upbringing, culture, etc.) will initially assume that they mean OUR definition of "field herping"...Why? It's because it's what it means to us....it's our point of reference. Clarification comes when they post pictures or otherwise describe what they did....only then can our understanding of what they actually mean (vs. what our interpretation of what they mean when they say "field herping") really come into sharper focus....

For example, someone may say "I went field herping last night", and then post a bunch of pictures of themselves tailing rattlesnakes on the side of the road....This tells me that their idea of what field herping differs from mine....Does that mean they DIDN'T go field herping? No...It means they didn't go field herping according to MY beliefs and understanding of what field herping is. As long as they don't try to push their ideas of what constitutes field herping onto me, then we're good.

-Kris

If you look at the sub-title of 'Field Herp Forum' on the front page, you'll see it say 'proudy hosting NAFHA and Herp Nation Mag.' Nafha and FHF are NOT the same, though many who post here are also Nafha members. I don't NEED to ask NAFHA members how they feel...it's in our bylaws, which I again suggest you (and everyone else) read.

As for my 'personal opinion... From pg 4 of the ethics post:
As a NAFHA officer, these bylaws very closely reflect my personal beliefs, and MANY members of THIS forum (including most who have posted on this topic) are Nafha members as well. In large, most of us support some level of sustainable use (limited collecting) but do not condone over-collecting nor commercial collecting.
pg 6
IF we are to attempt a code of ethics for herping, we must first define what ethical stance should apply, and then clearly define terms like 'fieldherping' vs 'herping', if there is in fact any difference. As I'm a member and officer of NAFHA, I spend most of my time on those forums, as their ethical standards, as detailed in their bylaws, most closely illustrate the standards I've grown to believe are the best.
I believe it's the best way to herp... not that Nafha members (myself included) are any better than everyone else. That said, I respect the right of everyone to have their own opinions, and behave as they see fit.
I believe that Because OF my membership in the NAFHA, 'Fieldherping' has become (or is becoming) synonymous with the NAFHA's stated ideals of collecting data, field reports with great pics, very little collecting, ect. Many other Nafha members may feel the same. 'Field Herpers' is in our name, and that's how we roll... I still go herping... collecting feeder lizards for some of my (rapidly diminishing) collection... hell, I've even helped a few people find their 1st rosys, and respected their right to legally collect one, or have even gifted people a pair for Locality Specific breeding, which I strongly support. So... I stand by my last statement, (in bold).

PG 7:
Gerry... I'm NOT ASKING for anyone to change the definition of 'fieldherping'... JUST pointing out that many new to the hobby may already equate data collection to 'fieldherping. The meaning of the word may be evolving, despite what anybody might think or say. And being a member of Nafha DOESN'T mean you don't collect... we just don't do it at 'sanctioned events'... what member's do on their own time is up to them.

That's just from that post... I've expressed my personal opinions on the Catalina and this post as well... but so you finally get it...
"Do you think the term "field herping" should exclude animal collecting?"
No...We NAFHA Members respect the right to legally collect. Personally... I differentiate between the two terms. There is a difference between what I critically think, and what I personally 'feel'. And as an individual, what I personally 'feel' doesn't really matter to anyone but me. That said, if and when enough people feel the same, the meaning of a word may evolve, despite what anyone wants, or argues. Just ask my friend 'Dick"... jim

Thanks for the clarification, Kris. If I understand correctly, then, your answer to the question forming the basis of this thread would be no? Because as I pointed out, some people have indeed been attempting to assert that the term "field herping" may include such things as photography and data collection, but excludes collecting (or severely limits it, depending on the person/post), and that was the context in which the question was asked. (That is, it was the singling out of collecting as something which a field herper does not do.)

Thanks for your clarification too, Jim. The only part in all of it that I could see that speaks directly to the question of this thread was "Personally... I differentiate between the two terms." Exactly which two terms are those? You used quite a few...

Oh, and I didn't ask you to ask NAFHA members how they feel. I suggested that if you were concerned that members of the NAFHA forums weren't aware of this thread, then you should by all means feel free to point it out to them. Still seems like a good suggestion to me, as they're certainly valued members of the herp community just as are the folks here who don't participate there. Of course, it just might be that with such full participation in this thread it will become that much more obvious than it already is that "The meaning of the word [IS NOT] evolving, despite what anybody might think or say"...

Gerry

D.



...found by Ted Brown


...found by Bill Gorum, et al

I won't bother them with this trifling matter, and I frankly don't care enough to argue further. All I ever said was that it was a possibility that the word could be evolving, but you could not accept that at face value, charging me with an agenda, and mounting a campaign, ect. never said anything bout excluding collection. Your post title should have read "Is the meaning of the word 'Field herping changing?" EVERYTHING else, was on your part, a conformational bias at work. My position should be ( ) clear... I'm done! jim And in case you can't comprehend that... I DON'T WISH TO DISCUSS THIS SUBJECT ANY LONGER, WITH YOU, OR ANYONE ELSE. GOSH!

Yeah, field herping is actually redundant. I almost always just say herping. Keeping a collection is not herping, but collecting for one is....

What's in a name?
Personally, I think of "herping" as similar to "fishing".
"Fishing" refers to the catch and release guys, all the way up to commercial fishing. Same with herping.

It certainly didn't help the confusion when "Herpers: The Movie" came out. There WAS a slight bit of what we're calling "field herping" taking place, but most of the movie was dedicated to what a lot of folks here would call "deli cup herping."

What is driving this recent concern over what certain terminology should be interpreted to mean? Are y'all losing sleep over this? I sure ain't. Since I keep some reptiles, I'm more concerned over the use of the term "captive-bred" being used instead of the more benign "domestically-produced."

I hardly ever use the term "herping" either on its own or with any modifiers, simply because in my social circles nobody would really understand what I'm talking about anyway, and think I needed to see a doctor.

I usually say I'm going out looking for snakes/lizards etc. I guess for some of y'all that will still require hand-wringing, because you don't know what I'm going to do with the animals once I find them.




Thanks for bringing up a painful repressed memory of mine.

Well said Kris.
I can smell the smoke coming from you head from all the heavy thinking you just did.

-Dell

Would birding include collecting birds to keep in cages then?

To me it doesn't.

Chris, I understand how this discussion might seem to be "much ado about nothing," but folks are currently working on various stages of what is hoped will ultimately be guiding documents for our community, and terminology - and the attitudes behind them - is important in that effort. Plus, said terminology/attitude issues have been arising in these threads on these forums with increasing frequency, sometimes even causing rifts or forcing rifts farther apart between people here.


Jim, I believe "birding" is a shortened form of the term that preceded it, "bird watching." The history of a term has a lot to do with what the term means.

Gerry

Yep. That is exactly why "Field Herping" will always include the potential for collecting. Those that want to distinguish themselves from the field herper collector community would have a much easier time coining a new term than trying in vain to change the meaning (and hide from the history) of an old one.

Seems like "herp watching" or "herp surveying" would work well.

I agree that to me the term birding doesn't make me think about collecting birds to keep in cages. There is also a term birdwatching that is almost used interchangeably with birding in todays world. This is probably because collecting birds is known to be illegal. When it was legal, however, I would assume that people did use the term to describe going into the field to pursue and/or collect birds.

I imagine it would be similar to the word smoking. If someone says they are going to take a quick smoke break, MOST people would assume they are going to smoke something legal. If there were no laws defining what were or weren't legal to smoke, people would probably not automatically assume that they meant tobacco.

Field herping = pursuing herps in the field, regardless of their intended "use".

This term is simple as described by others above. The term, however, must be further qualified as Daryl described. One of the qualifiers is the word ethical or responsible. Someone can be an ethical or a responsible field herper, or someone can be an irresponsible field herper. The term is neutral as to what happens at the end of the field herping pursuit. It is a verb and not an adjective. The terms should not specifically include or exclude anyone who pursues herps in the field. The term is all-inclusive to anyone who pursues herps, so inclusion is not necessary.

If someone is against collecting, then a field herper who collects would be an unethical field herper in their eyes, for example. If someone had a belief that taking a photograph steals the spirit from an animal then in their mind they might consider a field herper who takes photos to be an unethical field herper, as another example.

One of the reasons it is necessary to have this thread is because there seems to be misunderstanding or lack of enough consensus in order to progress into what was attempted in an earlier thread to come up with a list of field herping ethics. You can't have a rational discussion about an undefined term.

I have to admit that I only perused this thread so if I repeat someone's sentiments, I apologize.

While working on our Mississippi snake book, we address this in the yet-to-be-edited chapter titled, "Observing Snakes and Collecting Specimens." Two paragraphs are as follows:

"Over much of Mississippi, opportunities to observe snakes are often no further away than the garden or a short walk to the mail box. Many kinds of snakes have adapted well to, and are often common in urban settings. Other species may require actively seeking out specific habitats, observing particular weather conditions, or traveling some distance in order to track down a rare variety. Many hobbyists in the United States take great pleasure in searching for snakes and other reptiles in the wild. Known as “field herping,” people can enjoy spending time out-of-doors, benefiting from exercise and fresh air, and engaging in a wholesome activity that the entire family can enjoy.

Some people enjoy seeking reptiles in their native haunts, observing or photographing them, then leaving them untouched. Others take great joy in catching a specimen or two home to observe. Many famous scientists and noted conservationists began their careers with a small snake or lizard housed in a terrarium in their bedroom. Whether observing in the wild or from behind glass, the welfare of the animal should always be a primary consideration."

Virtually every person who reads this forum got his or her first exposures to reptiles via a pet store, zoo, TV program, at school, or from another individual who showed them a live captive. I think that people who only observe, miss out on an entire realm of experience. Picking up the animal and looking at it closely, feeling it, observing its reactions, communing with it, provides us with emotional ties with the organism. I'm not talking about Steve Irwin hype. Just getting to know the beast a bit better. Many or us got started with our most prized possesion securely housed in a peanut butter jar. Further, every pet reptile in the world came from doner stock collected in the wild.

"Field herping" is a hobby, nothing more. One could guide field herping forays for a fee, but it will never become a full time occupation. It's just field herping that brings in a little cash. Commercial collecting is business.

There is nothing wrong with taking specimens for pets, breeding stock, or even to sell, as long as it's done in moderation, concern for the individual animal's welfare, and within the boundries of the law. What I personally despise is being told by well-meaning but ill-informed "herp-huggers" that I should never, ever touch or catch an animal for fear of stressing it or hurting its feelings.

Cheers,

Terry Vandeventer
resident curmudgeon

While I am against collecting in general, I can see why "field herping" in the most general sense would not exclude collection. It does seem to be less specifically defined than "birding" or "fishing." Birding is generally hands-off observation. Would someone climbing a tree to raid a crow's nest be considered a birder? I think herping is more akin to fishing, in that it can range from a passing interest to a profession, some people catch and release, and some people harvest or "collect." For the most part though, fishing is a more interactive activity... If someone was standing on a shore simply observing the fish, you wouldn't say they were fishing. Seems to me herping lies somewhere in the middle (or encompasses the entire spectrum).

I am fine with defining it as "someone persuing herps in the field, regardless of intent." But does that mean the drunken idiot who goes out with a machete to kill snakes because they are the Devil would be a field herper?

As a side note, I tell my non-reptile friends that I go out snake-hunting (they would look at me oddly if I said "herping") I find it funny that people who know me as a tree-hugging "eco-hippie" often assume that I go out to trap them and keep them as pets. But then, when I tell them I just find them, photograph and release, they look at me oddly anyway...