 | market - home |
|
| market - home |
|
 |
 |
News & Events:
|
Posted by RP on November 10, 1998 at 22:31:29:
In Reply to: Re: The Need for Subspecies posted by Dave Beamer on November 10, 1998 at 20:31:27:
: The fact that subspecies have nothing to do with science is exactly why I will not support their use in regulations supposedly based on sound biological principles. The state clearly has the authority to enforce laws on native animals even when they do not originate in the state. I do not see how this makes it necessary to list by subspecies. Why not just recognize every tiny variation as a taxonomic unit and we could then list banana kings and zipper corns too. When species are listed it generally depends on what the advising committee uses. Since subspecies have largely been abandoned it is becoming less common for subspecies to be listed. In many states many subspecies are listed as a residue from earlier taxonomic conventions.
: Dave Beamer
Wow. Dave, slow down. When you don't take the time to let the post seep in and fire back as quickly as possible, there is a tendency to minimize interpretation. I never wrote that subspecies have nothing to do with science. I did write that the need for listing subspecies in a captive breeding rule has nothing to do with science. There are legal reasons for doing so. Are you suggesting that it is desirable for the state to enforce a bag limit that includes herps taken from the state and from another state as well? Are you suggesting that it is desirable for the state to enforce a possession limit that includes "subspecies" that are not native. And, are you suggesting that it is desirable for the state to enforce a commercial ban at the species level when there are nonnative "subspecies"? Use getulus niger and californiae as examples. Finally, present to me an example of a herp found in a state that has multi-subspecies populations that has been listed as endangered or
protected as a species, where the intention was not to protect the entire species. Thanks.
RP
