 | market - home |
|
| market - home |
|
 |
 |
News & Events:
|
Posted by W. Khan on November 09, 1998 at 19:08:24:
In Reply to: Very Serious Flaws With Proposed Guidelines posted by Dave Beamer on November 09, 1998 at 16:09:34:
: While I applaude the productive efforts towards reasonable regulations I see some very serious flaws in the guidelines. One of the most noticeable is the call for listing on a subspecies level. What is the reasoning behind this? What is the scientific basis for this? While there have been many shots at academia on this forum there is no question that they are the ones state DNR are going to listen to on these matters. By choosing not to address these issues it will be impossible to establish credibility.
: A second flaw is the call for collecting of all three categories. By asking for collection of endangered species I doubt any conservation biologists will take your proposal seriously. Where is your data that endangered species can support very limited harvest, so that people may keep them in captivity?
: Another problem is immediately apparent in the three categories. Everybody is well aware of the problem of habitat destruction. Non-mobile organisms like herps are especially hard hit. Therefore populations of even very common species like common garter snakes can be threatened by collection when there is little recruitment and no possibility for immigration from surrounding healthy populations.
: Finally I believe it would be much more productive for you to come up with a way these principles can be enforced as a regulation. The enforcement of the regulations is what has riled most of the people on this forum anyway.
: Dave Beamer
--------------------------------------------------
While I applaude the productive efforts towards reasonable regulations I see some very serious flaws in the guidelines. One of the most noticeable is the call for listing on a subspecies level. What is the reasoning behind this? What is the scientific basis for this? While there have been many shots at academia on this forum there is no question that they are the ones state DNR are going to listen to on these matters. By choosing not to address these issues it will be impossible to establish credibility. A second flaw is the call for collecting of all three categories. By asking for collection of endangered species I doubt any conservation biologists will take your proposal seriously. Where is your data that endangered species can support very limited harvest, so that people may keep them in captivity? Another problem is immediately apparent in the three categories. Everybody is well aware of the problem of habitat destruction. Non-mobile organisms like herps are especially hard hit. Therefore populations of even very common species like common garter snakes can be threatened by collection when there is little recruitment and no possibility for immigration from surrounding healthy populations. Finally I believe it would be much more productive for you to come up with a way these principles can be enforced as a regulation. The enforcement of the regulations is what has riled most of the people on this forum anyway.
Dave Beamer
Dave,
I think one of the reasons for including the clause about subspecies is that many species are very broad-ranging. Subsequently, species-based legislation aimed at restricting the collection or captivity of such a species would, as Clinton says, inappropriately restrict many animals, by default. For example, legislation aimed at restricting the collecting or hepetoculture of the eastern chain kingsnake, if written as "Lampropeltis getulus", would necessarily include western subspecies. I don't think state-level Dept.'s NR are concerned with writing legislation applicable to animals not found in their state. Would you agree? A more extreme example is Lampropeltis triangulum. If written only to the species level, legislation written to restrict the captivity/collection of the eastern milksnake in WV would also, by default, apply to the keeping of all subspecies of L. triangulum (some of which don't even occur on the same continent!). Anyway, do you see what I'm getting at? Listing to the subspecies level would better suit the interests of a State DNR.
I think the D.'s NR should include knowledgeable representatives from all concerned areas in any policy-forming actions concerning these issues. Like it or not, the herp industry and herpetoculture have grown to include a considerable number of people, many with decades of experience and a depth of knowledge concerning these animals that rivals or surpasses that of many in the academic community about many facets of the animals' biology. These folks, if allowed, could be instrumental in insuring the survival of these animals in a world that is becoming increasing hostile to their survival in the wild. After all, isn't that one of everyone's major concerns? At any rate, exclusion of hobbyists/herpetoculturists form the policy-making process is to adopt an outdated, paternalistic position that really is not in the best interests of anyone.
I also feel that the lion's share of the responsibility concerning the generation biological data lies with the wildlife biologists, not, as you imply, with the hobbyists. And the truth is, there is virtually no data out there concerning the effect of herpetoculture on wild populations. Believe me, if it was out, I'd have it. I realize the resources for such studies are limited, but I believe the herpetoculturists/hobbyists are an untapped resourced that could help in supplying at least the manpower for some of these studies. Ask, and you may be surprised!
There is a lot of work needed before it can be assumed that anti-hepetoculture laws are needed, or, if needed, will be effective. Can you imagine giving everyone on the planet an untested HIV vaccine? I know, not a very good example, or is it? Hmmmmm...
W. Khan
