Re: Is CHIAC still around?

Posted by RP on November 29, 1998 at 17:44:22:

In Reply to: Re: Is CHIAC still around? posted by Ric Blair on November 29, 1998 at 14:50:03:

Ric,

I will try to contact Gary. I think he must have information that will prove useful to future NRAAC endeavors. After all, CHIAC was successful. As far as the reporting requirements-if you are referring to the reporting requirements in Texas, I recommended they drop that specific requirement for the commercial collection permit. According to R. Roegner, it was the Enforcement Division that wanted this provision to complete the circle of enforcement. They thought they needed this for matching purposes to catch a "dealer" that was not in compliance (not licensed). This goal was not proportional to the collection of field data, so I told her to look at the stakes that were involved. I knew (from e-mail with Buzz and John) that this requirement was causing a Boston Tea Party mentality among Texas herpers. The essential question that Parks and Wildlife needed to ask themselves was which scenario did they place a greater value on? Catching a few "dealers" (who literally had to be morons) that would not be in compliance, or securing the cooperation and voluntary participation of a rather large segment of the Texas herping community. I was then told that this specific reporting requirement for the commercial collection permit along with my comments would be reviewed by upper management. If it is still a requirement of the annual report, it would display a tremendous lack of judgement that can hopefully be brought up some day before the Commission and changed.

RP

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: : Ric, : I will try to contact Gary. I think he must have information that will prove useful to future NRAAC endeavors. After all, CHIAC was successful. As far as the reporting requirements-if you are referring to the reporting requirements in Texas, I recommended they drop that specific requirement for the commercial collection permit. According to R. Roegner, it was the Enforcement Division that wanted this provision to complete the circle of enforcement. They thought they needed this for matching purposes to catch a "dealer" that was not in compliance (not licensed). This goal was not proportional to the collection of field data, so I told her to look at the stakes that were involved. I knew (from e-mail with Buzz and John) that this requirement was causing a Boston Tea Party mentality among Texas herpers. The essential question that Parks and Wildlife needed to ask themselves was which scenario did they place a greater value on? Catching a few "dealers" (who literally had to be morons) that would not be in compliance, or securing the cooperation and voluntary participation of a rather large segment of the Texas herping community. I was then told that this specific reporting requirement for the commercial collection permit along with my comments would be reviewed by upper management. If it is still a requirement of the annual report, it would display a tremendous lack of judgement that can hopefully be brought up some day before the Commission and changed. : RP

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

---

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Herp Law Forum ] [ FAQ ]

KINGSNAKE.COM Enjoy all our content free of charge with a user account that gives you full access to every feature. For added visibility, paid options are available - post in our Classifieds, showcase your business with Banner Ads or a Directory listing, promote reptile events, and more. Quick Links Home Advertise Classifieds Lost Password Your Account Community Journals Events Featured Articles Forums Photo Gallery Legal & Safety Terms of Service Classified TOS Age Verification Business Verification Vendor Complaint Support Banner Ad Help Classified Help Classified Tips Contact Us Forum Help Register for free ✓ Sign up! Kingsnake.com ® is a registered trademark © 1997-