 | market - home |
|
| market - home |
|
 |
 |
News & Events:
|
Posted by RP on November 10, 1998 at 13:42:57:
In Reply to: Re: Very Serious Flaws With Proposed Guidelines posted by Dave Beamer on November 09, 1998 at 23:25:16:
: I am glad to hear that there is much e-mail traffic regarding these issues. I find it encouraging that so many people are spending time working on this matter. I seem to have missed the addressing of the subspecies so if you wouldn't mind repeating it for me I would be thankful. I understand that the endangered section can be modified on a state by state basis but I don't think these proposals will make a very positive impression if even limited collection of endangered species is requested. There will be absolutely no support for this from conservation biologists.
: Dave Beamer
Dave,
The need to account for native wildlife on a subspecies level for purposes of captive breeding, bag limits and possession limits has nothing to do with science. It's based on law.
Does the state have the legal authority to extend it's enforcement of native wildlife laws to nonnative wildlife extraterritorial to the state WHEN the native wildlife is classified by species name only? If the answer is a resounding no-never, then the debate is over (listing by subspecies is not required). If the answer is yes, the debate is over (listing by subspecies is required). If the answer is maybe or could be, the debate should be over (listing by subspecies is required) because it is incumbent on law makers and citizens to remove as much ambiguity from the laws as possible to protect against unanticipated legal quandaries and overreaching/overzealous law enforcement.
Incidently, when state wildlife is listed as threatened or endangered what classiciation system is used, species or subspecies?
RP
