 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 Available Now at RodentPro.com! |
News & Events:
|
Posted by Les4toads on May 07, 2003 at 22:55:03:
In Reply to: Question for Lester&Jeff posted by chuckelliott on May 07, 2003 at 20:33:13:
:Lester, I admit I had to look up egocentric, my guess on its meaning was right. The problem is you used it in a negative manor as if asserting one's rights is a bad thing. (owning an hl wasn't in the Bill of Rights)I assume his postion is too many restrictive collecting laws. The laws get there for the wrong reason most of the time. Academia get the big target on their backs for alot of the (frequently errant) information the lawmakers use to pass restrictive legislation.
: If I'm not mistaken, the San Diego HL extends to the Clevland Nat'l forrest (wilderness) That area and camp Pendleton will likely never have HL population issues. So why the restrictive laws? Not to mention they extend to Mexico.
:You mad some good points, but I think he has valid frustration!
:Chuck
:
:
:Chuck, do you have any idea when and why the San Diego Coast Horned Lizard, Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei, was listed. The date of original proposal was 1946. The reason was commercial collection and the functional extinction of the species in Los Angeles County, one of 5 counties in its range. Orange County was the second of near extinction and San Diego County the third. It was community and scientific action that promoted and secured a protected status. The SDCHL also received protection under CITES II because of the commercial exploitation and illegal export of the horned lizard. All members of the Coronatum Group (all subspecies) were included in that action in 1949. The Coast Horned Lizard, including the San Diego Coast Horned Lizard, have lost 56% of its historic range. The San Diego Coast Horned Lizard, found in 5 counties in Southern California are at 39% of historic range remaining.
:Camp Pendleton, MCAS Miramar and other military areas will probably never have loss issues because of protection of onsite assets and extremely limited access and good management. Federal and state parks also will probably not have a loss issue because it is illegal to remove wildlife from those areas. It is called wildlife management and law enforcement.
:As for your issue about the Bill of Rights: I have so many stories to tell you about people who are so out of touch with what "rights" are that you would not even believe it. People asserting their rights is not a problem as long as it is just that - rights guarenteed by the Bill of Rights. That term has been butchered by people who devise their own definition to try to protect themselves when the are caught breaking laws. It is not you right to acquire things that are protected, even if your disagree with the laws.
:Lester G.Milroy III
