 | market - home |
|
| market - home |
|
 |
 |
News & Events:
|
Posted by RP on November 09, 1998 at 22:37:56:
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
Dave,
There is e-mail traffic about these guidelines that doesn't make it onto this forum. I believe the subspecies issue has been adequately addressed by John O. and W. Khan. I am very surprised that you failed to exhibit much vision or common sense about the subspecies issue-what you describe as "one of the most noticeable" (flaws). As for the collection and captive breeding of threatened or protected wildlife, these actions are dicey enough to merit special attention as addendums that states can either adopt, given the appropriate enforcement measures, or reject as separate modules without having any effect on the main body of the rules or guidelines. This might be more "politically" prudent. The main goal is to eliminate the homogeneous managment/treatment of ALL herps when there are clearly different population dynamics and to institute proportional control measures according to a prescribed set of fundamentally sound, common sense criteria.
An equally important goal should be to make these rules/guidelines appealing not only to herpetoculture but to traditional opposition groups as well. This is a process that I imagine will take quite some time. So, be patient.
RP
